Chapter 4
The Rise and Decline of Ecological
Attitudes, 19291940 (continued)
Expanding Park Service
Programs
During the New Deal the Service sought (as stated in a 1936 internal
report) to "enlarge its field of usefulness" through increasing the
viability and the social utility of the national park system by
expanding the system and making it more accessible to and popular with
the public. [131] Extending from
Roosevelt's inaugural to the beginning of World War II, the New Deal
fostered vast expansion and diversification of Park Service activity and
brought dramatic changes in the composition of the national park system.
It placed new responsibilities on the Service (especially in the fields
of recreation and assistance to state parks), brought different kinds of
parks into the system (such as historic sites, reservoirs, national
parkways), and accelerated physical development of the parks to provide
for public use and enjoyment. Its leadership always possessed of a keen
entrepreneurial bent, the Park Service had suddenly entered flush times.
The New Deal would fund many programs that bolstered the Service's
expertise in recreational tourism, such that it could lay strong claim
to national leadership in that field.
Park Service leaders got virtually everything they could have hoped
for from the New Deal. Even before Congress passed the act establishing
the CCC, Director Albright recognized the legislation's potential. In
early March 1933, approximately two weeks prior to the act's passage,
Albright wrote to Assistant Director Arthur Demaray that the share of
funds allotted to the national parks would depend on the Park Service's
preparedness how much it could demonstrate that it was ready to
spend. As recalled by Conrad Wirth, the landscape architect who would
ultimately take charge of the Service's many CCC programs, Albright was
seeking "to justify a good, sound park program should the funds suddenly
become available." The director quickly prepared estimates of $10
million for construction, including roads, trails, and other
developments. He asked the park superintendents to assess immediately
their ability to take advantage of the new funds, and called for an
updating of national park master plans to prepare for the infusion of
New Deal money. With Roosevelt's emergency relief programs the Service
was, as later recalled by Arno Cammerer, poised to "absorb . . . a large
segment of such work and to benefit greatly therefrom." [132]
Albright also contacted state park authorities around the country,
advising them that the CCC would become involved with state as well as
national parks. Of all CCC activities, assistance to the states in
recreational planning and development most expanded the Park Service's
operations. Funded by the CCC and given solid encouragement from the
very first by the Service's directorate, the state parks assistance
program began in 1933 and gained momentum rapidly under the leadership
of Conrad Wirth. Wirth was named assistant director for recreational
land planningbureaucratic status that indicated the importance
placed on these programs. His principal aide was Herbert Evison, former
secretary of the National Conference on State Parks, the organization
that Mather and Albright had helped found in the early 1920s in their
efforts to encourage a stronger nationwide park system. [133] Wirth quickly built an impressive,
far-reaching program, developing proposals for creating new state parks
and overseeing the planning, design, and construction of the facilities
necessary for state parks to accommodate public use.
Soon employing thousands of CCC workers in state park projects, the
Service constructed roads, trails, cabins, museums, campgrounds, picnic
grounds, administrative offices, and other state park
facilitieswork that replicated the CCC projects Wirth was
overseeing in national parks. [134] Through
assistance to the states, the Service's expertise in intensive physical
development of parks extended far beyond national park boundaries. Also,
in both state and national park construction, the Service's architects
and landscape architects of the 1930s directed CCC craftsmen toward a
harmonious blending of new construction with the surrounding park
landscapes. Following the traditions of rustic architecture established
earlier in the national parks, CCC laborers created many structures that
later generations would praise for their beauty and craftsmanship.
Altogether, the focus of CCC development was overwhelmingly in support
of public recreational use of parks, thus reinforcing within the Service
this aspect of park management.
Added to the Park Service's state programs was a national survey of
potential recreational lands that could help meet public needs. The
survey came about as a result of Park Service lobbying while it was
participating on the National Resources Board, established by Roosevelt
in 1934 to study the nation's natural resources and land uses. As
recalled in an internal document, the Park Service submitted an "urgent"
recommendation to the board that there be a study to determine
recreational needs. [135] Late in 1934 the
Service completed such a survey, but one that it viewed as only
preliminary. It quickly began campaigning to expand the survey and to
institutionalize existing cooperation with the states by gaining full
congressional sanction for activities that theretofore had been only
administratively authorized. The lobbying paid off. The resulting Park,
Parkway, and Recreational Area Study Act of 1936 permitted the Service
to make a comprehensive national survey of park and recreational
programs and to assist states in the planning and design of parks. [136]
This act constituted a decisive political and bureaucratic commitment
to the recreational aspects of park management and to all levels of
parks, from state and local to national. Using mostly CCC funds, Wirth
promptly implemented the act, building on the 1934 preliminary survey to
detail the nation's park and recreational needs in a report entitled
A Study of the Park and Recreation Problem of the United States,
published in 1941. A comprehensive document, the study argued for the
expansion of recreational facilities throughout the country.
Furthermore, in cooperation with the Park Service, forty-six states
worked on statewide surveys, with thirtyseven of the reports ultimately
completed, and twenty-one published. In addition to these studies, the
Service undertook a survey of seashores and major lakeshores in the
United States, identifying numerous areas eventually to be included in
the national or state park systems and in many cases to be put to
intensive recreational use. [137]
The Service's development of parkways for "recreational motoring"
furthered its leadership role in national recreational programs. Even
before the New Deal began, the George Washington Memorial Parkway,
Colonial Parkway (connecting Yorktown and Jamestown, Virginia), and
Shenandoah National Park's Skyline Drive were under construction as part
of the national park system. Major additions to the parkway program came
later in the decade with authorization of the Blue Ridge and Natchez
Trace parkways. All of these new scenic highways received massive
amounts of New Deal emergency relief funds. They also received staunch
support from Park Service leadership, which regarded them as perhaps the
most "spectacular new phase of national park planning and development
during recent years." [138]
As part of its nationwide recreational work, the Park Service urged
authorization of the "recreational demonstration area" program, another
type of park planning and development to accommodate intensive use. The
Service recognized the potential for acquiring marginal agricultural
lands located near urban centers, with the lands to be converted into
recreational areasa concept promoted in 1934 by Wirth while
serving as Director Cammerer's representative on a presidential land
planning committee. Intended to become state or local parks, the
demonstration areas were to be developed for picnicking, hiking,
camping, boating, and other similar uses. Having, as Wirth saw it,
"unanimous approval and support" from within the Park Service, the
program began in 1934, with the Federal Surplus Relief Administration
purchasing the lands and the Park Service supervising their conversion
into park and recreation areas. Most of the areas, as Cammerer noted in
1936, were meant to serve "organized camp needs of major metropolitan
areas." In time, forty-six demonstration areas were established,
requiring a substantial Park Service commitment in planning, design, and
construction to develop the areas for public use. [139]
Almost all of the recreational demonstration areas were eventually
turned over to state or local governments, although some became
extensions of existing units of the national park systemfor
instance at Badlands, Acadia, and Shenandoah. In addition, several
demonstration areas were authorized as new units of the park system,
including Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park in North Dakota and
portions of Catoctin Mountain Park in Maryland. [140]
Most of the development that the Park Service supervised in
recreational demonstration areas and state parks was undertaken with CCC
funds. These monies financed not only the labor (including the
enrollees' housing and meals, provided in camps) but also the National
Park Service's own professional staff involved in these programs. In
addition, major developmental funds came from the Public Works
Administration for projects such as electrical and sanitation systems,
and road and building construction. Beyond the New Deal's crucial
support to state park development, the Park Service recognized the
relief programs as "invaluable" to the national parks themselves, making
possible the completion of "a wide variety of long-needed construction
and improvements." [141]
The Park Service expanded into additional fields during the New Deal
era, most notably the management of historic and archeological sites,
which theretofore had had no coordinated federal oversight. During the
administration of President Herbert Hoover, Director Albright had
unsuccessfully sought, by authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906 and
other acts, to gain control of historic and prehistoric sites managed by
the departments of war and agriculture. Among these sites were
Gettysburg, Antietam, and Vicksburg battlefields (managed by the War
Department) and archeological areas such as Tonto and Gila Cliff
Dwellings national monuments (managed by the U.S. Forest Service of the
Department of Agriculture). Immediately on Franklin Roosevelt's taking
office, Albright proposed to the new secretary of the interior, Harold
Ickes, that the President transfer the numerous historic and prehistoric
sites from other departments to National Park Service jurisdiction.
Convinced that the Organic Act provided authority for involvement in
historic preservation, Albright also believed the Service could provide
the best management of these sites. It already managed Mesa Verde
National Park and a number of other prehistoric areas in the Southwest,
plus three historic areas in the east: Morristown National Historical
Park, and Colonial and George Washington Birthplace national monuments.
But Albright also hoped to strengthen the Park Service against its
veteran rival, the U.S. Forest Service, by establishing authority in
programs alien to the rival bureau. And he wanted to build the Service's
political strength in the eastern United States, where most of the
sought-after historic areas (mainly Civil War and Revolutionary War
sites) were located, and where very few national park units existed. [142]
This time Albright succeeded. In June 1933 Roosevelt signed two
executive orders effecting transfer on August 10 of numerous sites to
the national park system, thereby substantially reorganizing the federal
government's historic preservation activities. The Service had
campaigned for and gained a huge new program, with forty-four historic
and prehistoric sites coming into the system along with twelve natural
areas. Among the new natural areas were Saguaro and Chiricahua national
monuments. The new historic areas included many battlefields, plus
public parks and monuments in Washington, D.C., such as the National
Mall and the Washington and Lincoln monumentsthe Park Service's
first major venture into urban park management. [143] Two years later, with the Service's
encouragement, Congress passed the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which
authorized cooperation with state and local governments in identifying,
preserving, and interpreting historic sites. [144] With this act the Park Service increased
both its historic preservation responsibilities and its already
substantial involvement in state and local surveys and planning.
The reorganizations made early in the Roosevelt era entailed two
changes the National Park Service did not want, however. In 1933 it was
given responsibility for managing federal buildings in Washington
(except for judicial and legislative buildings); along with this, the
Park Service suffered a name change: it became the Office of National
Parks, Buildings, and Reservations. Management of buildings in
Washington added significantly to the demands on the Park Service.
Initially, it entailed about fifteen hundred additional employees, a
figure that escalated rapidly in the ensuing years. By the mid-1930s the
Park Service was in charge of approximately 20.5 million square feet of
space in fifty-eight government-owned buildings and ninety rented
buildings in and around the District of Columbia and elsewherefor
example, the United States courthouses in Aiken, South Carolina, and New
York City. [145] In 1934 the Park Service
managed to get its new name (a "much-hated" designation, as Albright
recalled it) abolished and the original name restored. Later, in 1939,
management of federal buildings was transferred to the Public Buildings
Administration. [146]
Finally, additional involvement in recreational programs came when
Congress in the early 1930s authorized a National Park Service study of
the recreational potential of Lake Mead, the huge new reservoir behind
recently completed Boulder Dam on the Arizona-Nevada border. Even before
the study was finished, the Service had established CCC camps and begun
development along the reservoir's shoreline. Not surprisingly, given the
direction the Service was taking in other recreational matters, its
study found the potential to be very high, and in October 1936 the Park
Service signed an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to manage
public recreational use on and around Lake Mead. [147]
Ironically, only twenty-three years after a bitter nationwide
controversy over the destruction of Yosemite National Park's Hetch
Hetchy Valley by construction of a dam and reservoir, the Park Service
became a willing participant in the mangement of Boulder Dam (later Lake
Mead) National Recreation Area, encompassing what was then the largest
reservoir in the world. Philosophical contradictions inherent in the
Service's managing a reservoir where the main feature was itself a
gigantic impairment to natural conditions were apparent from the
start.
In 1932, at the request of Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman
Wilbur, former U.S. Congressman Louis C. Cramton, a longtime supporter
of national parks, headed a reconnaissance of the reservoir area, with
the study team including national park superintendents from Grand
Canyon, Yellowstone, Zion, and Bryce Canyon. Their lengthy report noted
the contradictions, observing that conservationists had long fought to
protect national parks from "becoming incidental to or subordinate to
irrigation and water supply uses." The report warned that heretofore all
national parks had involved the "preservation of wonders of nature."
Thus, "to deliberately bring into the national park chain and give
national park status to such a dam and reservoir would greatly
strengthen the hands of those who seek to establish more or less similar
reservoirs in existing national parks." The team also warned that
designating a reservoir a national park might encourage mining, cattle
grazing, and other utilitarian uses of the existing national parks. [148]
However, even these substantial contradictions were readily resolved,
to the enhancement of Park Service interests. As with many other park
programs initiated during the New Deal era, recreation provided the
Service with its principal rationale for entry into the field of
reservoir management. Cramton's 1932 report on Lake Mead recommended
that the area not be designated a "national park"; rather, the
reservoir's national importance as a recreation area
should be declared and that aspect of its management turned over to the
National Park Service. The reconnaissance team believed that the Park
Service's reservoir recreation work would be "entirely consistent with
history and with principle." As justification the report cited the 1916
Organic Act's statement that the Service would manage "such other
national parks and reservations of like character as may be hereafter
created by Congress." [149]
Thus, by little more than devising the designation of "national
recreation area," the Park Service sidestepped the contradictions with
its traditionally held purpose of preserving lands unimpaired. It
launched a new recreational program centered on huge reservoirs created
by inundating western canyons and river valleys. Eventually this program
would mushroom for the Park Service, bringing large sums of money and
closer ties to the Bureau of Reclamation, particularly during and after
World War II. Although within the Service there seems to have been some
hesitation about the involvement at Lake Meadperhaps on the part
of Director Cammerer himselfit was nevertheless urged on by Conrad
Wirth, spearhead of the Park Service's growth in recreational programs.
Wirth, in turn, found support for recreational programs from such
individuals as Associate Director Arthur Demaray, and even biologists
Wright and Thompson. [150]
The Park Service's recreational programs did in fact draw on the
talents of George Wright, who as head of the Wildlife Division
represented the strongest potential resistance in the Service to its
development-oriented park management. In 1934, recognizing Wright's
considerable administrative skills, Director Cammerer appointed him to
head the preliminary survey of the nation's recreational needs, which
the Service had urged the National Resources Board to authorize. The
survey team also included Conrad Wirth and the Park Service's chief
forester, John Coffman. Wright wrote to Joseph Grinnell, his mentor at
the University of California, that he found the recreational field to be
"quite alien." Nevertheless, he supported the Service's rapidly
expanding recreational programs. Shortly before his death in early 1936,
Wright stated in a paper entitled "Wildlife in National Parks" that it
was logical to place "responsibility for recreational resources" under
the Service. Moreover, he had earlier given his blessing to the Park
Service's involvement with reservoirs. [151]
The chief proponent of preserving natural conditions in the parks,
Wright apparently saw the Service's varied recreational efforts as a
means of relieving harmful pressure on the traditional national parks.
Consistent with the major focus of his career, he wrote to Sequoia
superintendent John White in 1935 about his concern that the national
parks themselves not "supply mass outdoor recreation"a prospect
that would place a "destructive burden" on the parks. To Wright,
adopting the policy of "giving all of the people everything they want
within the parks . . . would involve sacrificing the Service's highest
ideals." [152]
Overall, the National Park Service responded eagerly to the variety
of New Deal opportunities in national recreational planning and
development, as well as in the expansion of historical programs.
Regardless of the taint of bureaucratic aggrandizement, the Service
pursued very seriously and very idealisticallythe
development of national, state, and local parks. Its assistance to the
nation's park systems and its nationwide surveys and planning laid the
foundation for expanding recreational opportunities throughout the
countrya contribution that later generations would find easy to
forget or take for granted.
It is important to point out that although Conrad Wirth showed little
interest in scientific resource management and allowed the biology
programs to decline during the last half of the 1930s while he was in
charge of CCC funding and staffing, he was nevertheless the Park
Service's chief advocate for the creation and development of
recreational open spaces, whether as national, state, or local parks.
His extensive surveys and planning for new parks during the New Deal
(and later during his "Mission 66" program) would ultimately bear fruit
with the establishment of dozens of new parks for the public's enjoyment
and for the preservation of fragments of the American landscapea
legacy of inestimable value.
|