Assateague Island Administrative History

The One—Sheet Master Plan

Despite this intended and actual foot—dragging, the Service nevertheless had to come forth with a master plan for administration, development, and use of Assateague encompassing all the requirements of Public Law 89—195. A planning team headed by Ben Howland began field studies in the spring of 1966; it ultimately included Phil Smith, Gene Smith, and Jesse Grove from BSFW and William Smith and Bertrum C. Roberts from the Park Service.

In response to the concerns of BSFW and others opposing the connecting road through Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, early planning consideration was given to running the road across a causeway to the north end of Chincoteague Island. At the insistence of Senator A. Willis Robertson of Virginia, the Senate committee report on the seashore legislation had explicitly opposed such a bypass of the refuge, and Senator Robertson now forcefully reminded Secretary Udall of his position: "In order that I may not be put to the rather unpleasant task of making an issue of this matter with colleagues in both the House and Senate, I would appreciate a letter from you saying that you intend to carry out the Senate plan to give Virginia a direct access to the new Park and not waste several million dollars for the construction of a road and bridge that would give Virginia access in name only, merely to humor a few Biologists who are opposed to a public highway through a waterfowl refuge." Robertson and Representative Thomas N. Downing had wanted the road to follow an oceanfront alignment behind the dune line. On June 28 Udall approved a compromise alignment down the bay side of the refuge that appeared to satisfy the Virginians. [3]

It did not take long for the two Interior bureaus to disagree about administrative responsibilities for maintenance of barrier dunes, management of recreation on the refuge beach, and development of support, information, and interpretation facilities in Virginia. Shortly after the Assateague bill was signed, John Gottschalk made clear his intention that BSFW should acquire and manage the recreational holdings of the Chincoteague—Assateague Bridge and Beach Authority with funds transferred to his bureau from the Park Service. Superintendent Bert Roberts, representing Park Service interests at the seashore, felt otherwise. "As I try here to visualize the possibilities of a separate operation of recreation facilities and activities by each Bureau, the inconvenience to the visitor, the duplication, the expense, and the lack of flexibility, the need to work out a division of responsibilities agreement similar to that at Cape Hatteras—Pea Island Refuge seems imperative," he wrote George Hartzog in March 1966. "I believe we should make every effort to convince the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of this. . . ." [4]

Because BSFW was unequipped to take over the functions of the Authority, the Service acquired them that October. Meanwhile Assistant Secretary of the Interior Stanley A. Cain, who had jurisdiction over BSFW and the Park Service, attempted to resolve the differences between them on the planning issues. In a memorandum of September 2, 1966, he recommended that the proposed seashore visitor center in Maryland be operated by the Park Service and give 75 percent of its focus to the seashore as a whole and 25 percent to Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge; that the proposed visitor center in Virginia be operated by BSFW with reversed percentages of focus; and that the Service undertake all road patrol and supervision of intensive recreation areas. [5]

This compromise did not appeal to George Hartzog, who shared his Assateague superintendent's aversion to a joint recreational and interpretive role with BSFW. Responding to Cain's memorandum, he reminded the assistant secretary of a prior policy of assigning recreation responsibilities to the Service where two or more bureaus were involved, as at Cape Hatteras. He enclosed an advance copy of a task force report revealing wasteful duplication with the U.S. Forest Service at Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area. "This duplication did not result from conflicts between our agencies," he wrote. "On the contrary, we have enjoyed the closest and most cordial of relationships with the Forest Service at Flaming Gorge, just as we have with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife at Cape Hatteras, and as I am sure we will at Assateague. The point is simply that bureaucracy has a tendency to duplicate no matter how well intentioned the people involved." He closed by suggesting that Cain might want to reconsider the sharing of recreational responsibilities at Assateague. [6]

As the two bureaus squabbled, the master planning effort bogged down. "We have found that the lack of a master plan is becoming increasingly cumbersome and embarrassing," Superintendent Roberts complained to the chief of the planning office in November. "Can this work be resumed soon?" The planning office chief relayed the plea to the Division of New Area Studies and Master Planning in the Washington Office:

The park is badly in need of an approved plan not only to guide the overall management and development, but also for public relations with the local communities. We understand that local pressures are building for answers to questions of vital importance to these people and until the plan is approved Mr. Roberts can do nothing but fight an evasive delaying action. . . . Anything you can do to get the plan off dead center and moving toward approval would be greatly appreciated all around.

The Washington Office response attributed the delay to Assistant Secretary Cain's September 2 memorandum and the Director's efforts toward reconsideration. [7]

Cain made a second attempt to assign administrative functions in a memorandum of March 28, 1967, to the two bureau directors. The Park Service would manage all lands in the national seashore except Assateague State Park and Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge above Toms Cove Hook, which would remain under BSFW. The Service would thus have sole responsibility for recreation at the hook. The bureaus would jointly operate the temporary visitor contact facility erected by the Service in the traffic circle on Chincoteague Island (where the access road acquired from the Chincoteague—Assateague Authority began), the entrance checking station at the Chincoteague end of the bridge to Assateague, and the visitor center in the wildlife refuge when built. The Service would construct, maintain, and patrol all roads and would be responsible for all dune construction and stabilization on Assateague; construction within the refuge would accord with specifications approved by BSFW. A plan for hunting in the Pope Bay area in Maryland comprising both NPS and BSFW lands would be jointly developed and managed. The bureaus would collaborate on brochures and other publicity. [8]

Virginia entrance station and former Chincoteague-Assateague Bridge and Beach Authority bridge, c. 1970.

These instructions did not give the Service all it had hoped for, but they served to revive the planning effort. On June 1 Roberts forwarded to his regional director a large map of Assateague on which the development proposals had been drawn and an explanatory narrative "laboriously ground out by the...master plan team" over a week in May. "We believe that the plan generally follows the guidelines established by Assistant Secretary Cain's memorandum of March 28, 1967," he wrote. "A great deal of time was spent in knit picking words and ironing out interpretations of Secretary Cain's memo. The Bureau people obviously had instructions to take the tightest possible view; and even as the document is, they felt like they would receive criticism from their Regional Office for some of the items therein.... Our deliberations went to the detail of what letterhead to use." [9]

The "one—sheet master plan," as it came to be called, centered development (outside Assateague State Park) at North Beach, Fox Level, and Pope Bay in Maryland and Toms Cove in Virginia. The connecting road was shown in the alignment approved by Secretary Udall the preceding year. Motels, restaurants, trailer spaces, fishing piers, related recreational facilities, and parking for a total of 6,000 cars were indicated for North Beach and Toms Cove. Another 7,500 cars could be accommodated at Fox Level and Pope Bay, where snack bars and other concessions were planned. There would be 500 campsites at Fox Level and a boaters' campground on the side near North Beach. Two public waterfowl hunting areas were shown on the bay side of the Fox Level and Pope Bay areas. Beach buggy use zones were designated on the beach. The planners estimated the total development to cost $48,651,000, including about $4 million in private investment for concessions.

Two proposals for unconventional access to Assateague were rejected during the plan's formulation. The Fox Level area of the island had long been used for light aircraft landings, and the planning team, upon Bert Roberts' encouragement, originally included this use. A designated landing strip was deleted from the plan at the request of NPS Associate Director Howard W. Baker, who doubted the need for it. (Despite the issuance of warning citations to pilots, unauthorized landings continued, and Roberts continued to believe the practice "compatible with the intent of this recreation area.") [10] Also discarded was the idea of a public transportation system in lieu of private automobile access to Assateague. "We reduced such a plan to feasibility and costs and found it to be out of the possible, not only because of congressional limitations, but because it was contrary to several of the explicit sections of the legislation," Roberts later explained. "These factors, combined with a very strong indication that visitors seeking barrier island recreation would not use a mass transportation system, led us to abandon this plan." [11]

The one—sheet master plan, bearing the date September 5, 1967, was approved by representatives of both Interior bureau directors in Washington September 19. It could not be circulated generally until its review by the interested committees and members of Congress. Roberts chafed at the further delay in bringing this about: "We have been making excuses to the press, to interested groups, to the public, and to the various governmental bodies as to why our master plan cannot be made public." In January 1968 Secretary Udall signed off on a memorandum from the two bureau directors approving submission of the plan to Congress "within the next month." The submission eventually occurred on June 4 at an open meeting of the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, at which members of the Maryland and Virginia delegations were present or represented. There was no dissenting discussion, enabling Service officials to refer subsequently to the plan as having received congressional approval. [12]