Craters of the Moon Administrative History

Chapter 4:
LAND ISSUES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

RECENT PARK MOVEMENT

In 1969, Craters of the Moon Superintendent Paul Fritz rekindled the proposal for the monument's expansion and national park status. [86] Fritz was spurred by the research of volcanologist Dr. Fred Bullard in the mid-1960s, who asserted that the lava flows surrounding the monument contained "the entire story of vulcanism...with only an active volcano missing." Further influencing his vision was the 1969 NASA astronauts' one-day training mission at the monument. Accompanying the astronauts as they familiarized themselves with a lunar landscape, Fritz realized for the first time the importance of "what was out there beyond the monument." [87]

What lay out there was the rest of the Great Rift, and Fritz proposed that the new national park include the three major lava flows along the Rift's sixty mile length: the rest of the Craters of the Moon Lava Field virtually surrounding the monument, and as separate units to the south, the Wapi and Kings Bowl flows. Within this landscape existed features already common to the monument, yet there were some standouts; the Kings Bowl contained, for example, the 155-foot-deep Crystal Ice Cave and the world's deepest accessible rift of eight hundred feet. The superintendent also envisioned drawing boundaries around Cedar Butte and Big Southern Butte, the 7,500-foot dormant volcano southeast of the monument. Besides expanding to include the flows of the Great Rift and associated features, Fritz's proposal contained practical matters. It would have acquired approximately forty acres of the only private land left adjacent to the monument's northwestern boundary for watershed protection, and relocated the headquarters to Arco. The former provision was to solve the nagging issue of northern unit's boundary adjustment, and the latter provision to relieve staff from working in cramped facilities and to assist in public relations. It also would have engaged the Park Service in a joint management venture with the Atomic Energy Commission of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-1 (EBR-1). In all, the plan called for approximately 300,000 acres to be added to form a park of 354,000 acres. [88]

Fritz's plan reflected his broad agenda for the monument. His park proposal, for example, joined issues of expanding the wilderness area and alleviating growing tourist pressures on the monument's existing facilities. But selling parks to Idaho was one of his main missions. An important element of his message was that park designation and expansion would bolster local economies through increased tourism. As with the pursuit of his other goals, Fritz's park plan was not well received by his superiors. Unlike other instances, though, when a new master plan had been denied, the Park Service deduced that now there were legitimate reasons to undertake a new study. Recreation in southcentral Idaho was building, especially in Idaho's national forests, and it would only rise with the newly designated Sawtooth National Recreation Area. It was thought, then, that tourist travel would increase in the region, and Craters of the Moon would feel the impact. Already the shoulder months in the spring and fall were showing signs of heightened use.

In 1973, the Park Service and Denver Service Center embarked on an expansion study that would recommend whether enlargement was warranted, and once completed, if it merited redesignation of the monument as a national park. The study also was to assess the area's current administrative conditions, its visitor use and experience, and its role in future recreational developments in southern Idaho. Planners devised five alternatives for the monument's expansion, most of which resembled Fritz's proposal. The addition of three contiguous areas was considered: the northern unit, the Craters of the Moon Lava Flow southwest of the monument, and the Great Rift south to Blacktail Butte. To this the other alternatives merely added on flows and features until reaching the entire size Fritz had proposed.

But that was as far as the plan went. In 1974 Fritz transferred and the issue was dropped. Regional Director Rutter had not been keen on the idea. And while there were good reasons for preserving the entire Great Rift for scientific purposes, the Park Service worried that creating such a large park might be administratively cumbersome. It could also appear as a land grab, alienating the agency from private land owners--graziers and hunters--and the Bureau of Land Management--which managed most of the land under study. In the bigger picture, what took place at Craters of the Moon might ruin the Park Service's chances of creating new sites in other areas of the state. Whether the monument would be enlarged and classified as a park remained to be answered by another study team and Congress some fifteen years later. [89]

In the economically stable period of the early 1970s, the proposal did not gain strong public support. Agricultural communities surrounding the lava monument were doing well financially, and added tourist dollars from a national park did not seem to strike any chords. By the mid-1980s, times had changed. Some rural towns were slumping, and tourism and the idea of a park in the lavas resurfaced with fervor. From 1985 to the early 1990s, expansion and national park status gained its most powerful thrust in the monument's history, culminating in another NPS study and legislation introduced into Congress. The 1980s' movement reflected the earlier creation period. It spawned the formation of a committee dedicated to the cause, maintained an economic interest in tourist income, and enlisted state congressional support.

The movement for the current park status and expansion germinated in 1985 with the proposed Minidoka-Arco Highway. The plan, developed by a group of local businessmen from southern Idaho, pushed for paving a sixty-mile dirt road cutting through the lavas between Arco and Rupert. Boosters saw it as a way to expand local markets, particularly for farm products, within the region--especially those communities associated with the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Two years later, some of the same individuals involved in the Minidoka-Arco Highway Committee, including former governor John Evans, revived the Craters of the Moon park proposal, and formed the Craters of the Moon Development Inc. Paul Fritz, now a consultant, assisted, and because he included the proposed road as the park's major thoroughfare in his resurrected plan, the two ideas merged. Once more the perceived benefits of an enriched economy influenced supporters of the park idea. The road would not only connect small intraregional towns, but also infuse the depressed region with park tourist dollars. [90]

Endorsed by local chambers of commerce, the park movement reached the state level in March 1987 when the Idaho State Legislature memorialized the "U.S. Congress to redesignate Craters of the Moon National Monument as Craters of the Moon National Park." [91] As the 1987 resolution shows, the state as well recognized the economic benefits a park would generate through increased tourism. The economic downturn of the period and the welling of state pride with the approaching 1990 centennial altered past aversions to creating a park in Idaho. Redesignation would not only give the state its first national park, but also would create "more publicity for Idaho and thereby attract more tourists to the State." As a result, all communities would benefit.

The state also believed that such a change was essential because the area better fit the definition of a park than a monument. Curiously, the state's argument rang with the ambiguities surrounding monument and park status aired in the early 20th century. Other parks such as the Grand Canyon, it stated, started off as monuments and were given park classification. Therefore, since the monument was established during this period when little distinction was afforded between the two categories, "the time is due now for Craters of the Moon to receive National Park status." Administratively nothing would change; the state stressed only a switch in status not size. Thus it seemed clear that the upgrade would help fill the state's coffers and bolster its stature.

The movement, however, involved both additional acreage and reclassification. It received congressional support from Idaho Democratic Representative Richard Stallings. In the fall of 1987, Stallings requested that the Park Service conduct a formal study for park status. The Park Service did not respond to his request immediately, and the state's Republican delegation seemed uninterested. Nevertheless, the movement sustained its momentum. In April 1988, Governor Cecil Andrus, expressing his "enthusiastic support" for park designation and expansion, appealed to NPS Director William Penn Mott for assistance. [92]

Public interest and political pressure paid off. Mott promised Andrus that as part of the monument's general management planning process the Pacific Northwest Regional Office would "explore the suitability/feasibility of designation of the area as a national park." Planning teams would also consider adjacent sites for possible expansion. [93] In March 1989, a Park Service team followed through on the director's pledge, completing a reconnaissance survey of lands to the southwest and southeast of the monument.

The survey covered essentially the same landscape of the 1970s' investigation. Forming an oval shape, it began with Shoshone as the westernmost point, and arced south through Minidoka, northeast to Blackfoot, northwest to Arco, and southeast through Carey. The land studied fell under various forms of public ownership, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the state of Idaho; other lands were withdrawn for military use, administered by INEL, and a small percentage were privately owned. The major volcanic features evaluated in the study were similar to the earlier study as well. The entire Great Rift system and its four rift sets were considered, adding Open Crack to the previous three that were considered. [94] The study team concluded that the Great Rift was nationally significant, yet sites outside the system, such as Big Southern Butte and Cedar Butte, while interesting in and of themselves, were not nationally significant. Hence the Great Rift system was a viable "addition to the national park system," but it did not possess the "diversity of features generally associated with a national park and would best fit in the monument category." [95]

Congressman Stallings, presumably convinced that park status was in fact feasible, introduced a bill to Congress on November 20, 1989 "To designate certain public lands in the State of Idaho as Craters of the Moon National Park and the Great Rift National Preserve." [96] Under H.R. 3782, the Park Service would manage four units. Craters of the Moon National Park would expand the former monument by 320,240 acres for a total of 373,785 acres. It would be composed of three units: a large section of the Great Rift system (Craters of the Moon Lava Flow and the Crystal Ice Caves and Wapi Flow areas), and lands east of the Rift surrounding Big Southern Butte and Cedar Butte. The fourth unit, the Great Rift National Preserve, 123,040 acres, would contain the Open Crack and a section of the King's Bowl rift sets and connect the northern and southern units of the park. Both the park and preserve would amount to approximately 500,000 acres, most of which was formerly administered by the BLM. [97]

While the National Park Service remained neutral on Stallings' legislation, it expressed reservations over the bill's provisions. The continuation of grazing in certain allotments and allowance of hunting in the proposed Great Rift National Preserve were incompatible with standard NPS policies. It seemed that these conditions would cause management conflicts between the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management with their different management philosophies, especially if they shared similar tracts of land such as existing grazing allotments. The Park Service also voiced concerns over the high costs of developing the south park unit for visitor safety and enjoyment, tending to mining claims and state and private lands, and acquiring lands possibly contaminated with hazardous waste. In addition, there were an array of management and public use problems with hunting and grazing spilling over into the park from the proposed preserve since there were no clearly definable boundaries in the new areas. Unnatural boundaries also posed the need for more wilderness surveys, and begged rethinking to simplify agency management and avoid potential friction of different users. And finally, the Park Service did not share the optimism of park supporters that a park would be a tourist boon. [98]

Overall, the Park Service stood by its 1989 recommendation. The Great Rift system was nationally significant but did not deserve designation as a national park. Furthermore, increased protection did not need NPS management; modifications in BLM management could ensure protection for the majority of the expansion area because most of it fell within the BLM's proposed wilderness area. But due to public interest and resource significance, Idaho's congressional delegation requested that the Park Service draft a study of alternatives.

Recognizing that the main points of contention for both proponents and opponents was a lack of "consensus on the boundaries and management concepts," the study team presented six alternatives to the public at hearings in Arco, Burley, and Pocatello, Idaho in May 1990. Without funding for field investigations, the team's proposals represented conceptual rather than exact alternatives, but it was clear that the agency wanted to eliminate the costs and management complexities associated with Stallings' bill.

Except for taking "no action" and implementing H.R. 3782, all of the proposals eliminated the Big Southern and Big Cedar Buttes additions and did not ensure highway construction. One alternative suggested renaming the monument as a park, while another suggested creating a Great Rift National Science Reserve. The reserve would incorporate those lands along the Rift contemplated for expansion and leave them under BLM management in cooperation with various educational and federal agencies devoted to research and preservation. The final two alternatives proposed cooperative management between the Park Service and the BLM to continue traditional yet compatible uses while at the same time maintaining resource protection and public enjoyment. One plan would create the Great Rift National Park and Preserve, the park under NPS management and the preserve under BLM management. The other plan would establish a Craters of the Moon National Monument and Great Rift National Conservation Area, the monument under NPS jurisdiction and the conservation area under the BLM. In both cases similar sections of the Great Rift system would be included. [99]

At the hearings, no consensus was achieved. Ostensibly, Stallings' bill seemed to satisfy many of the park proponents and traditional resource users. It expanded the monument and created the state's first national park. At the same time, it remained sensitive to grazing and hunting interests, allowing both to continue in the preserve and grazing in the additions to the park. Groups interested in expanding the monument into a national park welcomed Stallings' legislation (and NPS alternatives) citing a variety of reasons: the economic benefits from tourism and highway expansion, the state recognition associated with a national park, the protection afforded by park status (since some thought that the Park Service had worked harder to keep these uses out of parks than monuments) and the natural treasures deserving that protection. Generally, park supporters believed that the monument was worthy of the park title simply because it was a remarkable area, and it was time the Park Service recognized this fact and time that Idaho, with all its natural wonders, had a national park. [100]

Yet groups on both sides expressed apprehension over hunting and grazing. To conservation interests, grazing and hunting on lands administered by the National Park Service seemed antithetical to the agency's mission and a compromise of its management values and the meaning of national parks. To groups such as the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and Idaho Cattle Association, Park Service management--no matter the guarantee of hunting and grazing--posed restrictions to traditional land uses. The Park Service's management of the newly acquired City of Rocks National Reserve, with its restrictions on grazing and prohibition of hunting, soured many Idaho residents toward the agency. Many thought the Service had misled local residents about its policies, and it seemed as though it was happening again.

As one opposition spokesman told the Park Service, his group preferred no expansion or changes in administration of Craters of the Moon. Ranchers and hunters, represented by Idaho Sportsmen and Ranchers United and the Coalition Against Expansion of Craters of the Moon National Monument, feared more federal government infringing on the rights of individuals, controlling access to the desert, and imposing restrictions on hunting, grazing, and water. Similarly, a small number of recreationists worried that any reclassification might end traditional activities such as four-wheel driving and biking. Basically, opponents wanted management of the Great Rift area left "like it is." [101]

Although vocal, the number of park supporters and opponents was small. Just over fifty people attended the 1990 public meetings, and thirty-five submitted written comments, none of which resulted in a preferred alternative. Nevertheless, it was clear that the pending legislation would not satisfy all interests. In late July, Stallings withdrew his legislation. He wanted the bill to win wide public support but instead faced a lack of consensus and opposition from the state's influential livestock and hunting interests. And in an election year, the issue became politicized. As a Democrat, Stallings confronted challenges from his Republican opponent, who labeled the park proposal a "land grab" when it was merely a change of federal agencies managing federal lands. Moreover, the Park Service did not recommend the monument for park status, and due to a backlog of pending bills, the House Interior Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands was unable to consider the bill in the 101st Congress. [102]

Stallings used the delay to hammer out a compromise for the park proposal among all special interest groups. In January 1991, he renewed his quest to expand Craters of the Moon into a national park. Seeking agreement for the park proposal meant eliminating controversial areas by redrawing the boundaries to conform to the edge of the lava flows. [103] It also meant convincing Congressman Bruce Vento, chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, that his bill was worthwhile. Stallings secured Vento's approval after taking him on an air and ground tour of the monument and additions on August 14, 1991. They were accompanied by Park Service, BLM, Forest Service and state officials, and also met with members of the Craters of the Moon Development Inc., and Governor Cecil Andrus, among other preservationists, at Sun Valley. [104]

After months of public comment, Stallings realized that his first park proposal's boundaries were "unrealistic," and he planned to introduce legislation in 1992 to create a smaller area, one that would be satisfactory to all interests. Moreover, he would not seek park conversion; neither the Park Service nor Vento favored this ranking. Instead he would leave Craters of the Moon as a national monument, protecting, along with the BLM wilderness areas, the Great Rift system. [105] Whether the bill to expand the monument passes or not, Idaho's aversion to a national park held firm. Equally important, the distinction between monument and park cycled through to the present. In this respect, the Park Service was forced to confront its past and the sometimes ambiguous question of standards. At this juncture, at least, the agency resolved the issue.

The 1989 NPS park expansion proposal and study area.