Big Bend Administrative History

In matters affecting the Rio Grande and lands adjacent in Mexico, Johnson noted that the International Boundary Commission favored construction of several dams in the canyons of the future park. Johnson believed that "the purpose of such dams would be not primarily for power production, but to store flood waters and equalize the flow in the lower river, where the water is wanted for irrigation." These plans had "been discussed favorably in newspaper editorials," said Johnson, and were "believed favored by down-river residents." In addition, "considerable survey work has already been done" on much of the Rio Grande in and near the park's boundaries. This activity did not seem to concern Johnson, as he then spoke to the need to study the areas south of the river that would comprise an international park. He described the drop of more than two miles to the Rio Grande at Boquillas as "a contrast of heights and depths not approached at the Grand Canyon or in any other national park." Johnson believed that "it is practicable to build a road from Boquillas around the south end of the Del Carmen Mountains and up the moderate east slope to within 2,000 feet of the summit." Should the Mexican government agree to this, the "view from this summit should well be the crowning spectacle of the whole international area." The Mexican park area also would benefit from inclusion of the "Jardine, El Pino, and Paloma mountains," as "a few antelope still occur on Paloma mountain; [and] bear are much more abundant in all these mountains than on the United States side of the river." The NPS biologist then called upon the park service to utilize "the road south from Johnson's ranch into interior Mexico." This he described as "an old Indian route [the Comanche war trail]" that "compares favorably with roads on [the] United States side of the river." [48]

Even more important than the physical boundary of the park, Johnson concluded, was acquisition of land to halt the harmful effects of grazing and hunting. "So long as title to the land is in private ownership," wrote the NPS biologist, "deteriorating changes go on affecting both vegetation and animals, and for the most part there is nothing we can do about it until the federal government gets ahold of the land." While the state of Texas owned surface rights to "scattered sections of land distributed in all parts of the proposed park," the state parks board "[did] not own enough anywhere, in a solid block, to set up and control even the nucleus of a park." Further complicating NPS plans was the fact that "the owner (or former owner) [a reference to Ira Hector] has retained grazing rights for a long term of years in the Basin where the CCC camp is located." Johnson believed that "the State has . . . appropriated no money whatever toward buying for park purposes the holdings of the many private owners." He then cautioned his superiors: "The biological material in this report should be read with the thought that the park may be a long time in the making, and that biological conditions are certain to be worse then than now." [49]

Pointing to stock raising as an example of this deterioration, Johnson said that "there is now no grass whatever on Tornillo Flat, though parts of that flat within the memory of residents grew a crop of grass that could be moved." With overgrazing came erosion, and "where appreciable erosion has occurred, even cessation of grazing will not restore the original vegetation." He theorized that "cattle, sheep and goats have a successive effect on this forage; the sheep and goats continue the destructive process, after cattle can no longer make a living." Johnson saw a pattern in the overgrazing process, as "grazing affects animals as truly as plants, by modifying their food and habitat, but the relation is more difficult to work out." He then recommended "that fenced sample plots (from which grazing is excluded) be established at once on State-owned sections of land in representative locations in various parts of the proposed park area." From this the NPS could learn, "in a few years, what the park will look like with domestic stock removed." Removal of stock also would eliminate panthers and eagles, a circumstance exacerbated in recent years with the addition of sheep and goats to the range, "as the latter animals are more vulnerable to predators." In addition, this strategy would halt "the chopping of sotol (to provide more food for stock) and the burning of maguey." Hindering such plans was the fact that most of the owners within the limits of the proposed park did not use their land. Instead, said Johnson, "a few stockowners control all the water, and use all the usable land -- their own and that of the many non-resident owners." Ranchers also claimed that their grazing practices aided the ecology of the area, in that "if cattle did not keep grass and other forage closely eaten it would be a serious fire hazard." Ira Hector in particular had "burned persistently for years," and Johnson believed that "he has considerably reduced the number of [dead maguey] plants which he regards as a hazard to cattle." Johnson recognized the political realities of the ranchers' land-use patterns when he suggested: "The hazard, if there shall prove to be one, will have to be met in other ways than 'fireproofing' through grazing." [50]

When Johnson analyzed local ranchers' perceptions of federal predator control, he noted that "the opinion is widely held in the Big Bend region that when a park is established the government should undertake a program of killing predators . . . in order to have an abundance of game in the park." Johnson and McDougall even had "met one man who said he had hope of getting a government job trapping panthers in the park." Addressing an issue that would haunt NPS wildlife management practices nationwide, Johnson noted: "It is not widely enough understood that in a national park a game animal has no preferred status over any other interesting animal." The NPS biologist contended that "in the Big Bend park area the large predators are much more in need of protection than deer and other game, since both locally and on a country-wide basis they are in greater danger of extermination." The irony for Johnson was that predators also provided "the best insurance against unmanageable surpluses of deer, which local people confidently expect will soon force park authorities to permit deer hunting within the park." Should "predators and their prey . . . [be] protected from human interference, a natural equilibrium will be established insuring the perpetuation of all native species." Then such animals as javelinas and rattlesnakes, neither of which were threats to livestock, could thrive in their native habitat. Of the latter, Johnson noted that "ranchers in the Big Bend region kill considerable numbers . . . , and lose no opportunity to do so." "When the area comes under National Park Service control," said Johnson, "I recommend that the attitude toward rattlesnakes be reversed." While "not the most numerous, rattlesnakes are among the most characteristic of the animals" in the area. CCC camp employees mentioned seeing them on occasion, "but no enrollees have been bitten in the history of the camp." Everett Townsend told Johnson that in "a long and extensive acquaintance in West Texas, he has not known of more than ten people being bitten by rattlesnakes, and all of these people recovered." The NPS, Johnson urged, should "transfer individual snakes happening into the area of most intensive public use, and for the rest merely to let the snakes alone and encourage visitors to do likewise." [51]

Johnson's analysis of wildlife, domestic animals, and ranchers' land-use patterns paralleled the work conducted by his partner, wildlife technician Walter B. McDougall. Where Johnson saw fauna affecting flora, McDougall viewed the future park from the ground up. Plant life supported both wild and domestic creatures, and in addition generated the aesthetic qualities that enhanced Big Bend's appeal to the traveling public. "Plant life is so obvious in most parks," said McDougall, "that park naturalists everywhere find that a large percentage of the questions that they are called upon to answer are concerned with plants and their names." The problem for McDougall at Big Bend was that "at the present time there is no suitable means of identifying plants . . . in the field." Botanists had surveyed the area, "but none have given us more than a mere list of plants identified." More than any other study, said McDougall, Big Bend needed "an illustrated, descriptive key for use in field identifications of plants." Given such an instrument for research, "one could proceed to the real task of making an ecological, wildlife survey for the region." For the NPS biologist, "one can often tell what kinds of animals are likely to be found in an area by observing the associations of the plants." Then, too, "the whole surface of the earth is made beautiful everywhere by the plants that grow upon it." [52]

McDougall studied the Big Bend region with these thoughts in mind, and substantiated Johnson's findings with his own ideas. One example of his use of botanical evidence to reconcile local stories involved Emory Peak. "The highest peak of the mountains," McDougall wrote, "is labeled on the maps as being 7835 feet high." Local residents, however, "said that army officers have gone over it in airplanes with altimeters and found it to be nearly 10,000 feet high." Although not a surveyor, McDougall argued that "the probability of this higher altitude being correct is borne out by the fact that there is a cluster of aspen trees (Populus tremuloides) at some little distance from the summit on the south slope and one would not expect to find this species in such a position at less than 9000 feet or higher." More scientific was McDougall's technique of driving around the park area, "stopping at stations one mile apart and [recording] the conspicuous plants to be seen within a few rods of the car." He noted some 123 measuring stations on his route, with creosote bush observed in over 90 percent of them (113 stations). Nearly half had mesquite, and ocotillo, prickly pear, yucca, lechuguilla, pincushion, acacia carpet, and lignum vitae abounded. McDougall agreed with Johnson that "grasses and other herbaceous plants are almost entirely lacking over a great deal of the area of the flats." He too believed that some native plants and grasses could return with the cessation of grazing, but warned that re-vegetation "should be done through planting of native plants rather than by man-made structures that would look artificial and would mar the natural beauty of the region." [53]

Because of the significance of plant species to the future of the park, McDougall asked his superiors to permit him in 1936 to undertake a thorough study of the region. He had identified some 464 species within the future park boundaries, and suggested that the park service approve the "collection of as many species as possible for permanent herbarium specimens." In addition, McDougall wanted to take extensive photographs during the blooming season, and to record "ecological relationships" in the Big Bend area. A descriptive handbook of plants also would be of value, as McDougall had coauthored a similar volume "of the Plants of Yellowstone National Park [with] Mrs. George Baggley." He then concluded his report of November 1935 with suggestions for facilities, roads and trails, and studies parallel to those of Maynard Johnson. Among these was his recommendation that any international park include the El Pino, Del Carmen, and Jardine Mountains. "The El Pino Mountains," he wrote, "are beautifully covered with a heavy stand of pine timber and it is said that one can drive practically to the top of these mountains." The Jardine Mountains, though less wooded, "produce an abundance of acorns [which] . . . support many bears . . . [and] many deer, peccaries, and panthers." As for the two-mile-plus decline from the summit of the Sierra del Carmen to the Rio Grande, "Pike's Peak would be put to shame by such a view." McDougall called for roads through the Mexican park area from Boquillas, Johnson's Ranch, and "Castalan," with a "loop road from the American entrance at Persimmon Gap to headquarters in the Chisos Mountains, to Castalan, to the Mexican entrance, to Boquillas, to Persimmon Gap." [54]

As with other preliminary studies of Big Bend, the NPS in the waning months of 1935 initiated those projects that it deemed most critical, and most easily funded. An example of the need to expedite these scientific surveys, and to convince the Texas legislature to purchase land for the park, came in September when NPS geologist Carroll Wegemann learned of claims made by L.T. Barrow, chief geologist for Humble Oil and Refining Company, of potential oil deposits in the Big Bend area. "There are numerous faults, anticlines and faulted anticlines in that section of Texas," said Barrow, but "it is simply a matter of opinion of whether the oil possibilities are 'good' or not." Humble Oil had "purchased a few scattered leases in that section, but dropped them," he told Wegemann. He then learned that "the Texas Company purchased mineral rights on some of the anticlines." While this did not "look as favorable to us as most of Texas, it certainly is 'possible' oil country, not 'probable' oil territory." Barrow concluded that "it would be unfortunate if this promise of the Big Bend country should prevent a National Park from being established." The Humble Oil geologist, aware of the starkness of the Big Bend landscape, nonetheless believed that "while it may not be attractive to some people, it has always held a fascination to me, and would make a striking contrast to other National Parks." [55]

Upon learning of Humble Oil's thinking on Big Bend, Wegemann wrote to Earl A. Trager, chief of the NPS's naturalist division in Washington, about the need for closer study of oil production in south Brewster County. Wegemann's own survey of the area detected a line of folding "from the South Rim of the Chisos, at a point one and one half miles due south of Emory Peak toward an anticline which lies immediately west of the fold of Mariscal." There he believed one could find "possibilities of oil accumulation if there were any reversal of dip to the south of it." He had not found such a formation, nor had the Humble and Gulf Oil Companies. His professional training led Wegemann to warn Trager: "In any area in which oil bearing strata are folded and faulted as they are in the Big Bend it is unsafe to assume that no oil accumulation has taken place." He concurred in Barrow's conclusion that oil was possible, but not probable. Then Wegemann called upon Herbert Maier to undertake a serious study of the issue, and to consider adding oil derricks to the landscape of the Big Bend. "'After all,'" Wegemann told the ECW official in Oklahoma City, "'what is the difference, a few derricks out on the plains would add interest to the scene and in three or four years they would be pulled down and you would never know the pumps were there.'" Maier found this suggestion, along with the hint of oil deposits in the park area, to be misplaced. "I do not believe," said Maier to Conrad Wirth, "that oil derricks would improve the scenic element in any wilderness area." He also dismissed Wegemann's claim that "'oil development is a very transitory matter any way.'" "I wonder," said Maier, "if there is a single major oil activity in the country which has not left its scars for at least twenty-five years." [56]

As Maier contended with Wegemann's ideas for oil production where none had occurred before, he also responded to George Nason's suggestions about the "Big Bend General Plan." Nason had reviewed the thoughts of ECW regional inspector J.T. Roberts for facilities in the Chisos Basin, rejecting his call for structures in the Pine Canyon area. "The view of Pine Canyon is so fine," wrote Nason to Roberts, "that I hesitate to place anything within it which will be in the immediate foreground," in that it was "a very fine objective point." Nason also was "not very enthusiastic about putting a museum on the South Rim." This area was "so definitely and wonderfully magnificent that I do not see that we can add anything to it." He believed that "an attempt to look at minor museum pieces when one of the finest views in America is in front of you is somewhat like going to the Alps to play bridge." Nason preferred "to locate the museum somewhere in the Basin area if we are to have one." Roberts' ideas for a "hacienda" resort left Nason ambivalent, yet the idea that one large structure would be less damaging to the environment appealed to Nason. Herbert Maier agreed with Nason to avoid a museum on the South Rim, and on accommodations in the Basin that would keep the visitor for more than one day. "Of course," said Maier, "the sunset and sunrise is everything at the South Rim." He believed that "a simple overnight lodge, with an enclosed veranda on the very edge of the Rim, from which the tourist may view the splash of color at sundown and again the mystery of sunrise, is something that is bound to come, sooner or later, at this point." [57]

Another idea surfacing from the Wirth surveying party was the ECW director's call for a longhorn ranch on park property. The endorsements of Maynard Johnson and Walter McDougall led Herbert Maier to send Paul Russell, another NPS wildlife technician, to the area to examine the merits of the ranch. Maier also engaged William Hogan, a regional historian with the NPS and a former student of Walter Prescott Webb's at the University of Texas, to contribute historical knowledge to the project. Hogan in turn corresponded with J. Evetts Haley at the UT History Department about the concept. "Herb Maier's idea for the development of a typical ranch in the Chisos," wrote the former cowhand and native of west Texas, "has my hearty approval along with his further idea of stocking it with a herd of Texas longhorns." Haley, whose path-breaking study of the vast XIT ranch north of Amarillo led to his appointment at UT, and whose biography of Charles Goodnight was considered the definitive work on the subject, warned Hogan that "we might have to go across into Mexico to get the stock we want." In addition, "all of you should realize that a herd of longhorns does not have quite the spectacular appearance that a greenhorn is apt to suppose." By this Haley meant that "some of them have horns of a rather modest length, while the greatest length of horn is usually developed in the older steers." He encouraged Hogan to visit the Wichita National Forest to observe a similar experiment with the heritage of cattle ranching, as "the idea is not altogether impractical, and I should like to see it followed out." [58]

Within days of Haley's correspondence with William Hogan, Paul Russell filed his "Preliminary Range Survey of Big Bend Area Texas With Relation to a Proposed Longhorn Ranch." "The Big Bend country," said the NPS wildlife technician, "surrounding the Chisos Mountains has long been known as a stock country." In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, "before ranches were fenced, excellent range was always available for large herds of cattle." Russell found that "in those days tobosa grass covered many of the lower regions along the main drainage courses." Also, "the semi-desert lowlands supplied many quick growing summer grasses and winter weeds in addition to several species of grama grass and a wide variety of forage shrubs." Along the lower mountain slopes could be found "chino grass, . . . many shrubs, sotol, [lechuguilla] and other plants, while the higher slopes "supplied oak, mountain mahogany, and other browse." Russell also surmised that "the higher elevations were practically never used by cattle in the early days." Disease was uncommon, with the exception of "Texas fever carried by the tick," while "calves born during the summer months were often lost as a result of screw-worm infections." But, said Russell, "with the advent of fences and the division of the Big Bend into pastures a big change has been made in range conditions." "Excessive amounts of cattle, sheep and goats," he reported, "have been confined continuously on practically all areas of the Big Bend." This pattern of land use, "with the resulting erosion, has reduced many good ranges to almost a valueless condition with only a small chance for slow recovery." [59]

Aware of the general interest of ECW director Conrad Wirth in Big Bend National Park, and in the longhorn ranch in particular, Russell recommended a variety of options to Maier for implementation of the plan. "Practically all of the Chisos Mountains area proper from 4000 feet up will support a large number of cattle," said Russell. Yet he encouraged the NPS not to introduce cattle in the area, as it was "more valuable for native species of animals and for the preservation of unusual plants." Below 4,000 feet in altitude, Russell found few areas between the Rio Grande and the Chisos suitable in their present condition for such a project. "Large portions of this area," he noted, "have never produced a good forage supply and the entire area has been severely over-grazed by cattle, sheep, and goats." During Russell's visit, he saw "only a few herds of goats and very poor cattle . . . existing in this area." Exacerbating the poor quality of the range was the fact that "practically all of this area is included in a quarantine zone." All cattle had to be dipped every nine days to prevent the spread of Texas Fever from tick-infested areas along the river. Similar hardships prevailed in the Dead Horse Mountains and foothills east of Tornillo Creek and the Marathon road. The water supply was "very limited and poorly distributed," while "many very steep canyons and abrupt rock slopes make it practically inaccessible for cattle." Overgrazing eliminated use of the land for longhorn production, "but [it] would serve satisfactorily as range for a few old steers." [60]

Determined to find a place in south Brewster County for Wirth's idea, Russell reported to his superiors that the best potential longhorn range outside of the Chisos Mountains was an area from Dugout Wells and the Marathon road on the east, north of the quarantine line and west around the mountain to include the north portion of Burro Mesa, the entire east slopes of the Christmas Mountains on the west and the entire Rosillos Mountains water shed on the east. Sounding much like the recommendations of Johnson and McDougall, Russell called it "the best watered section of the Big Bend area." There the NPS would find "a wide variety of grass, browse shrubs, and other foods so that cattle ranging in the area now are in good condition." The presence of three mountain ranges enhanced the potential for rainfall, and "there are still tobosa meadows represented in the area." Russell believed that "over a long period of years with proper management and seasonal distribution of cattle, this large area will carry a yearly average of ten head of cattle per section and at the same time allow the range to support game species present." The extent of the range would be 128,000 acres, or one-sixth of the land base under consideration by the NPS. Russell contended that "the type of land, rainfall, and plant distribution is such in the Big Bend that very large areas must be included to make a complete range unit." He did not, however, offer any suggestions about the cost of creating and maintaining such a herd; nor did Russell indicate how the longhorn ranch would affect the overall park experience for visitors. [61]

As the year 1935 drew to a close, the most critical feature of park creation - the purchase of lands - drew the attention of Herbert Maier. He called upon Raymond Higgins of the Austin office of the park service to visit the Big Bend area in November in the company of state park board officials. After meeting in Alpine with park promoters Everett Townsend, former state senator Benjamin F. Berkeley, James Casner, and F.L. McCollum, president of the Alpine chamber of commerce, Higgins traveled through south Brewster County with Townsend. In Alpine, Higgins learned that the chamber planned an aggressive statewide campaign to solicit donations, lobby the state legislature, and secure the most critical tracts of land as soon as possible. "All of the members of the committee," Higgins reported to Maier, "are enthusiastic in their praise and support of the National Park, but are divided in their opinions as to the [state] Legislature's reaction to their request for a sizeable appropriation to purchase privately owned lands in the park area." Berkeley, sponsor of the 1925 petition to study a national park in the Davis Mountains, "was the most pessimistic member of the committee," said Higgins. He was "so convinced that the Legislature will appropriate only a small fraction of the part of the sum needed that he argued that only a part of the necessary sum be requested." Instead, the Alpine boosters should content themselves instead with "piece meal appropriations." [62]

For Berkeley, the persistence of the Great Depression contributed materially to the reluctance of his former colleagues to create Texas's first national park. "The status of Texas State finances is no better than that of other neighboring states today," wrote Higgins, while "the Legislature is hard-pressed to find and raise money for an old age pension law recently passed." During a recent special session, the Lone Star lawmakers "refused to enact a sales act requested by the Governor for the payment of the old age pension." Governor James Allred believed that "the legislature would be brought back into other special sessions until they have passed his tax bill to pay the pensions and that he would not permit the passage of any other matters until this has been done." Local park sponsors, aware of the implications of this debate in Austin, asked Higgins: "Would the National Park Service consider starting actual development . . . when and if the state acquired and turned over to the Government an area considerably smaller than that embraced within the boundaries as approved by the [Interior] Secretary, which area should include the Chisos Mountains and one or more of the Rio Grande Canyons." The chamber believed that "it would take ten or more years to acquire the entire area within the present boundaries." Starting with a smaller land base might make it "much easier to obtain legislative appropriations to purchase the balance of the entire recommended area," and "such early commencement would not increase the price of the other lands or prevent their subsequent acquisition." [63]

While Higgins understood the sponsors' anxiety, he informed them that the NPS "would not now agree to start development on any area less than that embraced within the present recommended and approved boundary." Should the Alpine chamber approach federal officials with their request, "[they] would display their pessimism and be an admission that they had been hopelessly defeated before they had even commenced their work." Higgins provided Townsend, Berkeley, et al., with examples "of recent experiences in state park development work in this region, trying to convince them that the start of developments before the entire tract was acquired would raise the price on the balance of the land entirely out of reach." This also would "totally destroy the sponsor's ambition to continue their campaign to acquire the balance of the area." One reason for the tone of resignation in the committee's discussion with Higgins was the temporary absence of Dr. Horace Morelock, president of Sul Ross State College, whom Townsend described as "an aggressive and optimistic committeeman." Upon Morelock's return to Alpine, in the words of Higgins, "true to expectations, [he] overrode Mr. Berkeley and converted Mr. McCollum to his optimistic state of mind." The group "decided not to publicly admit defeat until they had been refused by every session of the Legislature from now on." Morelock also convinced the chamber that "when they did ask for an appropriation, they would ask for enough at one time to buy the entire area." [64]

Higgins also had been motivated by the conversations he had in the Chisos CCC camp with superintendent Robert Morgan. The latter informed Higgins that "several of the large land owners in the Chisos Mountains area had heard different and conflicting rumors regarding the committee's activities and intentions." Morgan feared "that these owners were becoming dissatisfied and unfriendly toward the whole move [to create a park]." Higgins encouraged Morelock, Berkeley, and their peers to host a meeting with the seven or eight ranchers in question to "enlist the land owners in the move, gain their confidence by the open and above board explanations and, in the future, obtain reasonable and fair prices on the various ranches." Higgins further noted that Governor Allred had planned a visit to Alpine that weekend "to attend certain ceremonies at the Teacher's College." Allred would include a visit to "Big Bend State Park," and Higgins suggested that the chamber solicit the governor's advice "as to when the appropriation should be asked and the size of the request." The following week after Allred's visit, Sul Ross would host "a group of about 40 educators and teachers of northern Mexico and particularly Chihuahua." Coming so soon after the governor's appearance, the Mexican educators' arrival "offers a wonderful opportunity to further the 'International Peace Park' aspects and angles of the proposed park." [65]

Once Higgins had dispensed with the good news, he informed Maier of the obstacles awaiting any campaign to acquire the 700,000-plus acres for Big Bend National Park. "It is my opinion," he wrote, "that the local sponsors will have a long, hard struggle to obtain the necessary legislative appropriation for the purchase of the private lands in the National Park area." He also believed that "the present Alpine committee should be only the starting point or nucleus of a state wide association to sponsor and solicit public spirited members from the entire state." Higgins suggested that "such an association would be sufficiently large to raise adequate funds for a proper lobbying campaign among the Legislators." The committee would be wise, felt the NPS inspector, to hire "a full time secretary, one having a wide acquaintanceship and considerable influence among the present Legislators." That individual would face the persistent question of public school lands and their mineral rights. Everett Townsend's idea for a 99-year "lease" of such lands to the NPS met with immediate opposition from H. Grady Chandler, the attorney general's land-title expert. "The school or teacher's lobby and bloc in the Texas legislature," said Higgins, "is notoriously strong and resists with vigor any attempt to divert or detract from any of the school fund." Further, "the tax forfeited lands and other State lands south of the latitude 29 [degrees] 25 [minutes] has never been actually deeded to the State Parks Board." Because of the impending creation of a national park, "Mr. Townsend expressed his opinion that now . . . speculators would enter the bidding with the idea and hope of later selling their title to the Government or State for higher prices." In light of this situation, Townsend encouraged the NPS not to press for any tax-forfeiture suits. [66]

As Higgins left Alpine, he heard from chamber officials of yet another crisis in land-purchase matters. They had raised the sum of $2,000 to pay rancher Waddy Burnam for the section of land comprising the Big Bend State Park and CCC camp. "Thereafter," wrote Higgins, "Mr. Burnam made known the fact that he had obtained a written agreement with the Texas State Parks Board to pay him the additional sum of $1800.00 for this section." Ira Hector also received from the state parks board "a consideration to rent saddle horses and to graze cattle in the present state park," a circumstance that generated much criticism from NPS wildlife officials studying the park (Johnson, McDougall, Stevenson, and Russell). Higgins further realized that "part of the site of the proposed lodge development is outside of the land now owned by the State Parks Board and is on land privately owned." The Alpine boosters feared that this might "cause a shutdown in the present park development plans and a withdrawal of the present CCC camp." They had read newspaper accounts of "the contraction of the CCC movement from 600,000 to 500,000 enrollees and the planned future contraction to 300,000 enrollees." Should the NPS abolish the Chisos camp "before the Legislature made the necessary appropriations for the purchase of private lands," said Higgins, "such withdrawal would inevitably create the belief in the minds of the Legislators that the Federal Government had lost interest in the Big Bend State Park and the proposed Big Bend National Park." [67]

Higgins explained to the Alpine chamber that "it was planned to reduce the CCC movement sometime in the middle part of 1936 to 300,000 enrollees, a reduction of approximately 40%, and that consequently about 40% of all present camps would be lost." The NPS had based previous reductions "almost entirely upon the need and merit of the proposed development program, the status of past developments, the status of the publicly-owned lands with regards [to] the future developments, and the reaction and cooperation of the localities in which the various camps were located as to the work already done and the work proposed to be done in the future." He also noted that "our [NPS] recommendations were not followed in all cases," and that "a certain amount of congressional influence was exerted by others in reaching the final decision as to the continuance or withdrawal of such camps." The committee responded that "with the first money raised in their drive for contributions, they intended to purchase the lands needed at the site of the proposed lodge development." Higgins decided not to inform them of NPS policy restricting plans for any facility planning "until after the area actually became a National Park." He then concluded with a discussion of the chamber's relationship with the "seven or eight large land owners who practically control the entire Chisos Mountain area." Of these, Homer Wilson, Sam Nail, Waddy Burnam, W.A. Stroman, R.A. Serna, and Boye Babb all resided on their properties, and "the local Committee anticipates little or no difficulty in making reasonable deals with these owners." The same could not be said for the lone absentee owner, William Herring of Amarillo, whom Higgins reported "is said to have shown little inclination to be reasonable in the matter." [68]

By the end of 1935, the NPS had a good idea of the challenges and opportunities awaiting any park unit in south Brewster County. Land acquisition would be difficult but not impossible, and would solve a variety of problems related to wildlife habitat restoration. Plans for the former activity advanced with completion in November of the "Big Bend Base Map." A.W. Burney, assistant chief engineer of the park service, wrote to Maier that "we have deliberately shown a little additional area to the north and west in case the boundary as tentatively decided upon should be shifted." NPS cartographers also had "included a Vicinity Map, which takes in such portions of the States of Coahuila and Chihuahua in Mexico as would be embraced in an international park." CCC Superintendent Morgan reviewed Burney's map, and noted that "the area east of the present Marathon Road is far more un-interesting than the western area as shown included." The eastern portion of the future park "is inaccessible except on horses," Morgan continued, and "to penetrate this area, if for only service, it would be necessary to construct many miles of roads and trails." Morgan preferred the lands to the west of the Marathon road, "both from a scenic viewpoint as well as plant and animal life." The CCC superintendent reminded Burney that "this area to the west is now reached by the present Alpine-Terlingua road," and "this coupled with the idea of taking our new entrance road thru [sic] the Christmas mountains and intersecting this road would make this entire area available for use." Yet Morgan saw some value in keeping the eastern portion of the park, as the "Banta Shut-In . . . is an ideal site for a Dam that would provide a very desirable body of water." Morgan described "this shut-in [as] only about ten feet wide where Tornillo Creek cuts [through] a solid black dyke." Because the creek generated substantial runoff, "it would be possible, with very little expense to construct and create a nice body of water there." [69]

This anticipation about the future of the park suffused the correspondence of all NPS officials at the close of 1935. Deputy chief architect W.G. Carnes, the erstwhile critic of CCC work at Big Bend, had decided by November that "since Big Bend is quite a gem," and because of "the strong likelihood of its being a park within the next few years," he wanted to be involved in the master planning. He wrote to Thomas Vint, NPS chief architect, that "the area is quite large so that the man who goes should be familiar with the operation and development of several good-sized National Parks." Carnes believed that "it would be a good break for somebody" working in a northern park, "as it has a very fine winter climate." He thus did not "anticipate any difficulty in persuading somebody to accept the assignment." Everett Townsend reported similar enthusiasm from Texas governor Allred, who had accompanied Townsend in November on his tour of the Big Bend area. The "senior foreman" of the CCC camp told Maier that he had escorted Allred and his party to "the Chinese Wall, the head of Pine Canyon, and the crest of one of the peaks of the Lost Mine Mountain." At dinner, the governor received "interesting lectures on wild animal and plant life" from Maynard Johnson and Walter McDougall. "It was a happy thought of Supt. Morgan," said Townsend, "to have this done and the Governor was greatly impressed by the remarks of the two gentlemen." Townsend reported to Maier that Allred "frankly expressed his approval of the project and said he would do everything he could for it." He further advised the NPS party that "everything possible be done to sell the idea to the members of the legislature and to bring out as many members as can be [persuaded] to come and see the area." As proof of the impact of Big Bend upon the Texas chief executive, Townsend closed his note by remarking: "I have contacted a friend who spent two days with [Allred] after his departure and he said the Governor was all enthused and could talk about little else than the park and the Chisos." [70]

Park service officials expressed pleasure at the close of 1935 with the level of energy and commitment surrounding all phases of planning for Texas' first national park. Funding from programs like the CCC and the ECW made possible a host of studies of the flora and fauna of south Brewster County, while a survey of land ownership gave an indication of the extent and cost of property acquisition. NPS officials also discovered the intensely local features of land use in the future park area, as a small group of ranchers utilized the natural resources for the benefit of their herds. This meant overuse of soil, plants, and water sources, as well as eradication of any flora and fauna that threatened stock grazing. By year's end, all of the features of park planning seemed in motion, and the NPS thus turned its attention at the start of the new year towards convincing the Texas legislature to fund the land purchase program necessary to bring Big Bend National Park to life.

Figure 7: Chisos Basin Store (late 1940s)