Craters of the Moon Administrative History

Chapter 9:
DEVELOPMENTS

THE COMPACT MONUMENT: A DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW

Craters of the Moon's development history conforms to the basic phases of Park Service's, detailing the agency's thrust to accommodate the public and to assist in the monument's management. The monument also possessed its own set of circumstances that influenced its development. A combination of environmental and administrative factors restricted the location of facilities to the northwestern section of the monument in a small and confined precinct. This design scheme reflected in one sense the agency's desire to showcase the volcanic landscape's most exemplary features and at the same time protect other natural phenomena. In another sense, though, it was the landscape that determined this approach, for the volcanic features, compressed into a small area, meant that no extensive developments were necessary to present them to the public. Moreover, the lava flows influenced a "confined" administrative development, offering only a few places in which to build administrative structures and visitor accommodations without disturbing valuable resources. These physical restrictions also corresponded with the Park Service's belief that the monument's management and protection required only the "bare minimum" of staff and facilities.

The Early Years

The Park Service did not inherit any structures, only common-use roads and trails, when it began managing Craters of the Moon in 1924. In planning the formation of the monument's physical plant, the Service envisioned the area as a "wayside" for Yellowstone National Park travelers, providing "sanitary conveniences" for tourists and increasing the isolated monument's popularity. Only a small staff and minor improvements were needed to protect the resources and service the public, and in 1925 Assistant Director Horace Albright estimated that a five-year, $35,000 to $50,000 comprehensive development program could accomplish this task. This level of funding never appeared, but the need for improvements remained. Although convinced that the volcanic terrain formed a barrier to resource destruction, Albright and other bureau officials believed that this environment performed the same magic on tourists.

The main emphasis in planning at this early stage, then, was softening the monument's image as a hostile place. In the monument's "first" development plan in 1927, Yellowstone National Park Civil Engineer Bert H. Burrell stressed the importance of accommodating visitors in the monument's beautiful yet harsh landscape.

It must be considered that the entire area of the monument is to a large extent forbidding to the average tourist in the present state of development. To hold the interest of the average tourist we must not alone present natural phenomena or beauty, but must cater to his comfort; none but those of purely scientific mind will endure the discomfort of the present campgrounds without conveniences usually furnished the motoring public such as suitable camping places, toilet facilities and adequate water. [3]

The engineer proposed four major construction projects to address these concerns. First and foremost was the need to acquire a permanent and adequate water supply; second was to provide the requisite "sanitary" facilities for camping; third was to assure proper administrative control through development of a single entrance, funneling visitors through a central area, complete with a checking station and residence for a custodian; and fourth was to improve roads and trails through widening and grading, and thereby improve visitor access and increase safety. [4]

While appropriation bills in the late 1920s went unapproved for construction purposes, Burrell's report established the main tenet of the monument's future development pattern--centralization, that all development should be confined to a central area. In 1931 the most important development, the water system, was completed, ensuring that tourists could visit the volcanic region in some modicum of comfort and that managers could live on-site without any great degree of hardship. More importantly, the water system influenced the concentration of administrative developments in the monument's northwestern corner, in the same zone they exist today, for here it was more convenient, economical, and practical to cluster administrative facilities and visitor services in one location than to spread them throughout the monument.

The New Deal

The New Deal emergency work relief programs in the 1930s granted the monument its first significant funding to carry out important development programs in the form of road and trail construction. These improvements allowed visitors to tour the volcanic terrain with greater ease. The additions of a comfort station, warehouse, and custodian's residence further contributed to the basic comforts and administrative operations of the monument. Although development was confined to the monument's northern reaches, the Park Service also addressed the idea of southern extension along the Great Rift during the 1930s. A somewhat controversial topic, alive since the late 1920s, expansion into the southern section of the monument was never fully acted upon, but was an option considered for several decades.

This 1939 mster plan map displays the majority of projects proposed or undertaken during the 1930s
as a result of New Deal programs and funding. Note in particular the improvements slated for the loop drive
and projected southern extension of the road system.

The War Years And After

One of the main reasons the Park Service did not depart from the confined development pattern was that it worked well in presenting and protecting the monument's volcanic formations. Regional Director O. A. Tomlinson favored self-contained development for this reason in the early 1940s, influenced as well by the World War II conditions of low visitation, funding, and staffing. Subsequent planning strategies reflected this opinion.

Yet this focus only met the smallest amount of administrative needs. By the 1950s managers had consistently complained of the decrepid conditions of the headquarters' buildings and the absence of other essential structures and facilities. Superintendent Aubrey F. Houston, for example, proclaimed that the monument's "installations are substandard and obsolete," highlighting the consistent neglect of administrative facilities in the development program. Visitation also skyrocketed during this period catching the monument unprepared; physical improvements, Houston noted, were needed in all areas at once, since none of any consequence had occurred for decades. [5]

Mission 66

These shortcomings were finally addressed with the Mission 66 program, which formally established Craters of the Moon's physical plant--in one comprehensive approach. Indeed the greatest single development achievement, the program was estimated to cost around $1 million dollars, and Craters of the Moon was one of the first park units in Region Four to receive the benefits of the rehabilitation program. Most of the construction occurred between 1956 and 1961, but the major work was accomplished between 1956 and 1958. The program affirmed both the compact development design, by concentrating improvements in the northern portion of the monument, and the area's day-use visitation pattern, by removing the concession services. A new administrative site was constructed just below the highway, complete with a multipurpose visitor center, containing museum and administrative offices, as well as separate employee housing and maintenance buildings. The monument's roads, trails, and campground were also redeveloped and improved. Other improvements and new construction consisted of a new comfort station, utilities, and water and sewage systems. [6]

Post-Mission 66 Era

Mission 66 planners believed that the developments implemented in the late 1950s and early 1960s were the most needed for the short and long term. Rising visitation, however, forced managers to address new development programs in the ensuing years. Monument officials anticipated nearly half a million visitors by the mid-1960s, double the number of the previous decade. Even though the Mission 66 program had apparently upgraded the monument's facilities to accommodate this number of visitors, Superintendent Roger Contor recognized that more growth was inevitable and development options to relieve congestion were requisite. Thus in his 1966 master plan, he proposed expanding the road system to the south, and relocating the administrative offices and campground to the northern unit. [7]

These plans were never acted upon, in part because Contor's successor, Superintendent Paul Fritz, objected to any new developments within the monument in order to maintain the proper balance of preservation and use. Yet Fritz entertained more far-reaching development plans in his 1973 draft master plan. Although the bulk of the document was given over to his proposal to enlarge the monument southward along the Great Rift, it also recognized that the monument's administrative and visitor service facilities would eventually reach the saturation point, and ideally new facilities would have to exist beyond the monument's boundaries. [8]

Fritz's plans were rejected by the regional director, but the superintendent's scheme indicated that changes of some kind would have to be made. Mission 66 developments eventually needed to be reassessed. Monument managers almost since the completion of construction in the late 1950s and early 1960s expended a great deal of time and funding maintaining the physical plant in the extreme climate. Roger Contor had noted in 1965, for instance, that the entire "package development is getting older..." requiring extensive maintenance and in some instances reconstruction. [9] Park Service engineers failed to understand the monument's harsh environmental conditions of extreme heat and cold; poorly insulated buildings and bad road surface marked two of the flaws. In the 1970s and 1980s, Superintendents Robert Hentges and Robert Scott initiated extensive maintenance programs for monument facilities. Moreover, as the area's staff grew, office and building space were expanded until by the late 1980s it was apparent that no more remodeling was possible.

By this time, the monument's personnel had increased beyond the capacity of the headquarters complex. Visitation, similarly, has increased and visitation patterns have changed, extending the traditional season. These trends gave rise to the 1991 draft general management plan, initiated by Superintendent Robert Scott. It reported basically that the Mission 66 headquarters design had outlived its usefulness. The headquarters complex with combined visitor center, maintenance buildings, park housing, and campground--all located in a centralized area--caused traffic congestion and parking problems; it also caused monument operations and visitor services to conflict. The close proximity of the campground to staff housing afforded little privacy to employees; likewise for the visitors, the location of employee housing diminished the quality of their camping experience. Furthermore, the monument's campground and road system were not compatible with the growing number of recreational vehicles driven by tourists. To correct these problems, some of which were Mission 66 flaws, the plan proposed a new design--one that separated existing administrative facilities from a new visitor center and monument entrance. Thus, the plan would improve the quality of the visitors' experience by reducing congestion and visual intrusions and by providing better facilities and roads. It would also improve the quality of the work environment for monument staff, expanding office space, reducing visitor interruptions, and adding privacy to employee residences. [10] The general management plan, in the context of previous design themes, stated essentially that the idea of the compact design was effective as long as staffing and visitation remained low enough to maintain a centralized development. These conditions were out of balance.