Craters of the Moon Administrative History

Chapter 6:
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Resource Management At Craters Of The Moon:
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Cultural resource management pales compared to natural resource programs at Craters of the Moon. This condition stems primarily from the monument's informal designation as a natural area. Its enabling legislation specifically cites the volcanic landscape as the central importance of its existence; human resources receive no mention. Without a specific legislative mandate, Craters of the Moon's staff tended to overlook cultural resources in favor of natural resources. Presenting the monument's small staff with a difficult task in managing cultural resources was the fact that little was known of the area's human history. Moreover, monument managers whose professional training and convictions did not align with cultural resource management goals curtailed development of a program, as did low budget priorities at both the monument and national levels for cultural resource management in natural areas. [295] Although Craters of the Moon's natural area classification overshadowed its cultural resources, it should be noted that from the monument's inception cultural resources have occupied a place in the management programs. Archaeology and history are the two main subjects, and over the decades have evolved into a developing cultural resource management program. And future investigations in these fields should enable the monument to "discover" another layer to life in the volcanic landscape.

Until recently, one of the major assumptions about human history at the monument was that there was little of it and therefore little to manage. The environment was simply too extreme to attract or support people of any cultural period for any expanse of time. But explorers and scientists such as Robert Limbert and Harold Stearns reported finding scattered Indian artifacts in or near the present monument in the early 1920s; custodian reports also mention the discovery of Indian artifacts, ranching equipment, and moonshiners' operations all within the decade following the area's creation. [296]

While these were somewhat random samplings, the Park Service recognized the monument's cultural aspects in the late 1930s. Following the passage of the 1935 Historic Sites Act, the agency paid more attention to the known cultural resources at Craters of the Moon and their potential management. The Branch of Historic Sites, for instance, noted in its August 23, 1939 comments on the monument's master plan that the area contained "Indian caves, Indian mounds, remains of Indian dwellings, and the feature called `Indian Tunnel.'" These, as well as other Indian sites, were significant enough to warrant the investigation by an archaeologist, and the inclusion of these "prehistoric remains" in the monument's educational and interpretive program. In what would be an understatement fifty years later when a comprehensive study had yet to occur, the commentary concluded that "an archaeologist may not be available for this work for some time, but it is felt important enough to put on record the need for such a study." [297]

History formed the next stage of the developing program. At the behest of Custodian Guy McCarty, Regional Historian Olaf T. Hagen visited the monument to assess its ethnographic, archaeological, and historical background in June 1940 for part of the area's interpretive program. Hagen, while he did witness some archaeological sites, could not comment conclusively as to their importance. He did state, however, that in historical terms the monument's significance was regional, not national, since the monument had been established for reasons other than its historic features. Moreover, he identified the Oregon Trail branch, Goodale's Cutoff, as an important attribute, although "subordinate to the natural features of the Monument." The route provided historical background for the monument. At the time, preservation of an Oregon Trail section was unique in the System, and the historian planned further research. Hagen also met with and interviewed some old area residents, whom McCarty had knowledge of, regarding the early history and establishment of the monument. He advised McCarty to continue interviewing these individuals as part of the monument's history program. [298]

As with many other areas of management, the war years reduced cultural resource management activities. More than a decade later, another initiative for archaeological and historical research got underway with McCarty's successor, Aubrey F. Houston. Houston actively pursued having an archaeological survey conducted at the monument in 1952, based on similar projects slated for Yosemite National Park and Lava Beds National Monument. Funding never appeared. The superintendent also expressed an interest in investigating the monument's history. He had begun to collect materials and planned to compose a short history himself in response to Director Arthur Demaray's 1951 administrative history initiative. Yet the time frame for completing the studies was open ended; there were few guidelines, none at the time for monuments, and so the project was delayed. [299]

In 1954 both the Washington and regional offices infused the history program with new life with a "short history" initiative. [300] Two years later, Ranger Robert Zink completed the first and most comprehensive history of the site to date. A "Short History: Craters of the Moon National Monument" compiled the natural, human, and administrative histories of the area in a series of small chapters. The study was broad, general, and, from an academic point of view, informal. Zink's detailed information represented his own investigations of the monument and Park Service records. Its greatest value lies not so much in its definitive research as much as it record of events, for which documentation in some cases no longer exists. Zink's chronologies of the monument's development, photographs of the area's physical layout prior to Mission 66 and key monument personnel, and series of staff biographies provide an invaluable resource for initiating any research on the monument. [301] Overall, the study represented a great stride in the evolution of the management of the monument's cultural resources.

In 1956, Superintendent Everett Bright's prospectus for Mission 66 did not include cultural resources as significant to the monument's mission; however, it did state that historical research was important because so little was known, save what Zink had accomplished, and necessary to boost the nascent interpretive program. The document mentioned investigating Robert Limbert's material--held then by his family--as a likely avenue of research. Yet while it recognized that other periods of history were important to examine, it gave them a low priority because of the "barrier theme"--the fact that most people avoided the area. [302]

The interpretation that the natural environment deflected human contact with Craters of the Moon held firm in the monument's administration. Subsequent management plans, for instance, demonstrated a slow but changing perspective of cultural resources. Because management and research were needed in all areas, natural resources, such as geology, received primary emphasis (funding). Superintendent Floyd Henderson's Mission 66 development plan, for instance, considered geology and biology as the central facets of the monument's management, for it was an area untouched by humans, and therefore cultural aspects were all but absent from management goals. A decided change occurred, though, during the early 1960s when the Park Service began planning for the monument's first archaeological survey.

As with other aspects of management, the survey was slowed by delays. Although Western Region had received a proposal from Idaho State University to conduct the survey in April 1960, six years elapsed before a study was launched. Regional Archaeologist Paul J. F. Schumacher delayed the research because the Park Service considered a member of the university's archaeology staff, Robert Butler, a "persona non grata." "We in this office will have nothing to do with Butler on any of our projects," Schumacher stated. The department head, Earl Swanson, was well respected by the agency but was expected to retire soon and be replaced by Butler, a controversial move within the university itself. Superintendent Daniel Davis, trained in archaeology and eager to initiate archaeological research at the monument, agreed with Schumacher. In a May 22, 1964 memorandum to the Regional Director Edward A. Hummell, Davis strongly recommended the postponement of the project for several years until "the turmoil and uncertainty" in the archaeology department was over, or the monument received a proposal from another university. [303]

The situation had apparently been resolved two years later when Idaho State conducted the first and, at present, only archaeological reconnaissance of the monument. [304] Swanson still headed the university's archaeology department, while Butler was absent from the scene but not from the department's faculty. Thus part of the resolution seems to have been an agreement that Swanson would direct the study and that Butler would have no part in it. The importance of conducting a study seems to have also contributed to the resolution. As expressed in Superintendent Roger Contor's 1966 resource management plan, the theme of "original conditions" valued human history for itself and, more so perhaps, for what it could reveal of the condition of the monument's natural resources prior to establishment. [305]

Paid for with a thousand dollar grant from the monument's natural history association, the study was conducted from June 7-June 30, 1966 by Paul G. Sneed; it attempted a broad survey of archaeological sites within and near the monument's borders. Sneed restricted his investigation to terrain most likely to support humans: water courses and climax vegetation. In both his preliminary report of 1966 and his published report of 1967, he identified twenty-eight archaeological sites in the monument's vicinity. Sneed concluded that occupation and utilization of Craters of the Moon by early humans was minimal, given the amount and type of cultural material found and the extreme environmental conditions. He also determined that the principal occupants of the monument were Northern Shoshoni. These findings confirmed past assumptions, which Sneed expected. What was unexpected, in a sense, was that he cracked the "barrier" myth. By employing an ecological perspective, he revealed that humans traveled across the northern section of the monument and along the Great Rift in a north-south direction; the very presence of sites and other evidence such as trails supported this assertion. While the study was an important step, from an administrative standpoint it was only a preliminary investigation. Without excavation, no clear understanding of cultural development within the monument could be achieved, and therefore, no adequate management. [306]

Over the next several decades, management programs documented the presence of archaeological and historical sites and the necessity of conducting more cultural resource research, yet little advances were made. [307] The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act caused no action at Craters of the Moon; Mission 66 razed most structures which could have been eligible as historic sites in the 1970s. [308] Nevertheless, protection of historic features was executed as a part of resource management. One good example can be seen in Roger Contor's prevention of powerline construction along Goodale's Cutoff in the spring of 1966. In this respect, the Oregon Trail spur owned the status as the only "historic" site within the monument, a site without proper documentation or management guidelines. This status was altered when Goodale's Cutoff was nominated for the National Register of Historic Places on May 1, 1974. [309]

Protection of the trail, as with those known archaeological sites, was more a matter of circumstance than active management. Goodale's Cutoff transected the northern unit, which was classified as a restricted area, and archaeological sites lay in remote sections of the monument, seeing minimal or no public activity. Superintendent Robert Hentges stated in an October 31, 1978 memorandum that monument policy was adequate and in need of no change; no future impacts were anticipated, and any development would comply with environmental assessments and statements. Hentges, it seems, was basing his opinion on recent archaeological inspections in the northern unit, one for a private study and the other for a construction project, which concluded that most archaeological remains were scattered and on the surface and that further investigation would most likely reveal nothing new. [310]

The 1980 amendment of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 110, added new impetus to cultural resource management in natural areas such as Craters of the Moon. The legislation specifically required federal agencies "to inventory, evaluate, nominate to the National Register, and protect cultural resources under their jurisdiction...." [311] Reacting to other NPS directives and the creation of the Cultural Resource Management Division at the Pacific Northwest Regional Office in 1982, Superintendent Hentges and monument staff initiated proposals and projects for a historic resource study, an archaeological study, an administrative history, and collections management. [312]

Yet the monument's defacto classification as a natural area continued to place it at a disadvantage in terms of funding for cultural resource studies. As had occurred before, though, monument personnel took the initiative. Park Interpreter David Clark, for instance, started collecting historic materials and conducted oral interviews with older, neighboring residents in an attempt to build on the foundation begun in the mid-1950s. Through funding from the monument's natural history association, Craters of the Moon contracted to have a brief historical overview written by Michael Ostrogorsky in 1983.

Ostrogorsky's research renewed interest in Robert Limbert. Ostrogorsky discovered a large collection of Limbert's papers, photographs, and memorabilia in the possession of his daughter, Margaret Lawrence. Limbert was the most exceptional of the few individuals associated with the monument and its establishment; his collection provided not only a key to unlocking the history of the area but also of Idaho in the early 1900s. Beginning in the summer of 1983, the monument embarked on a project to have the Idaho State Historical Society acquire and catalogue the Limbert materials. A year later, unable to come to terms with the historical society, Margaret Lawrence donated the portion of the collection relating to Craters of the Moon to the monument. The monument inventoried and catalogued this part of the collection the following year. Lawrence, through the assistance of the monument, eventually donated the rest of the collection to Boise State University. In the interest of preserving the sensitive objects of its collection and in contributing to research, Craters of the Moon then loaned its Limbert materials to Boise State University in 1986, completing the collection and assuring its preservation. The work surrounding the Limbert collection formed a benchmark in the monument's emerging cultural resource program, and attested to the historic value associated with Craters of the Moon, Idaho, the West, and the nation. To honor Limbert, the visitor center was renamed for him in 1990. [313]

Works by Zink and Ostrogorsky, the Limbert materials, and the 1966 archaeological survey were the only sources informing cultural resource management as of the mid-1980s. [314] Other matters bolstering cultural management included oral histories, the donation of Harold Stearns' field notes from the early 1920s, and recent historical research on Goodale's Cutoff and the Snake River Plain. The appearance of a cultural resource management plan in 1982 established another benchmark. Although the plan underlined the fact that archaeological and historic data were scarce, it was a plan nonetheless, establishing priorities for a complete cultural resources inventory, the development of museum management guidelines, and the improvement of the museum collection. Only once the cultural record had been documented could those resources be adequately protected and interpreted.

By the late 1980s, the most significant accomplishment in this direction was the completion of a five-year museum collections project in 1987. Other progress was achieved with the completion of an archival project in 1988, undertaken by the cultural resources division in the regional office. The project collected materials pertinent to the monument's administrative history. [315]

Meanwhile, as revealed in the most recent resource management plan, cultural resource projects were still largely unmet, but this area of management had established its place. Half of the eight programs proposed to focus on managing the monument's collections--one of the most significant problems being the lack of proper storage facilities and space. The other half proposed to complete a cultural resource overview of the monument, to finally assess through historical research how to manage sites such as Goodale's Cutoff and to complete a thorough study of the area's archaeological resources. In addition, the monument's few remaining structures more than fifty years of age have yet have to be evaluated for their historical significance. At least one superintendent considered the log restroom and warehouse, built in the 1930s, "antiquated" and in need of replacement. [316] The future appears bright for these projects with funding scheduled for them beginning in fiscal year 1992.