.gif){kind=small}
Cover Page
MENU
NPS Role
|
The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service, 1933-1942: An Administrative History Chapter Two: The National Park Service Role |
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIPS:
The Forest Service
The Park Service and the Forest Service often cooperated on matters of mutual concern in the ECW advisory council; however, they did have areas of disagreement. The state parks program was one of the main areas of misunderstanding between the two agencies. State parks camps were administered by the Park Service or by the Forest Service, depending on criteria agreed to on May 10, 1933. If 50 percent of the work projects were on state forest lands and not of a resource management nature, the camps would be under the Park Service. Otherwise, the camps would be administered by the Forest Service. The Park Service agreed to consult the state forester before submitting work proposals on certain projects. The agencies agreed to exchange lists of camps to determine whether they should be subject to Park Service or Forest Service administration. In one of these initial exchanges, Conrad Wirth found that 28 of 144 camps being proposed by the Forest Service properly belonged in the state parks program and they were transferred to the Park Service. [37]
The conflict between the two agencies partially came from performing similar work--such as fire and forest protection measures. The approach and execution of the work, however, differed as explained by Wirth in the following memorandum to the Forest Service:
Methods of forest protection work in state parks frequently differ; straight-line fire lanes are to be avoided; fire trails should be laid out with more regard to the landscape and interesting flora than is generally necessary on state forests; fire towers should be designed with more regard to architectural design; clean-up of fire hazard should have more regard for picturesque fallen trees, etc., that are a part of the natural forest picture. These instances could be added to considerably; but they indicate the need of a type of planning and supervision that the National Park Service has provided for such work.
I haven't the least doubt of your own understanding of these differences of method, but some Forest Service men do not understand them, and have the feeling that the Forest Service should supervise all such work, wherever it may be performed. [38]
Such a fine distinction between Park Service and Forest Service work, along with a desire on the part of the Forest Service to do park work, resulted in a series of conflicts between the two agencies during the CCC period.
In 1934 the Forest Service presented the Park Service a rather startling memorandum for its approval. The memorandum, if accepted by the Park Service, would have permitted the Forest Service to undertake the same type of recreational development in national and state forests as was being done under the Park Service in the state parks program. The Park Service refused to sign the memorandum on the grounds that this would sanction the Forest Service's performance of functions that properly belonged within the Department of the Interior. Again in 1934 the Forest Service transferred some camps to NPS jurisdiction, but expressed concern to the secretary of the interior that the Park Service was attempting to lure some of the Forest Service foresters and foremen from these camps into the Park Service. Wirth, following the secretary's instructions, issued a warning that Forest Service employees could be hired by the Park Service only after Park Service officials had secured the consent of the regional or state forester. On the other side, Park Service field officers complained that the liaison officer positions in Army corps headquarters were filled with Forest Service people who favored that agency over the Park Service. [39]
Problems again arose between the Forest Service and Park Service over the question of park work when on February 7, 1935, Director Fechner approved a memorandum authorizing the same work done in state parks to be undertaken in state and national forests. The Park Service, which had earlier refused to sign the same memorandum, expressed concern to Fechner over his approval of the Forest Service's proposal. Fechner sent a letter to the Forest Service and the Park Service on April 8 asking the two agencies to meet and work out any differences on the work question. The two agencies met but did not come to any agreement. [40]
On May 22, acting NPS Director Arthur Demaray outlined the department's position regarding the Forest Service in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Ickes. Demaray made the following points:
In developing local, intensified recreation in national forests, the Forest Service is shifting the responsibility of providing local recreation from the State and local governments to the Federal Government. It has been the policy of this Department to impress upon local governments that they must care for their own recreational needs.
Establishment of intensive recreational developments on Forest lands produces competition with parks and other areas primarily recreational; supplies such developments in excess of demand; and tends seriously to break down the essential distinctions of character and administration between parks and forests.
Haphazard development of intensive recreational facilities on national and State forest lands is a blow at balanced and well-rounded planning for recreation, by contrast with the development of Land Program recreational demonstration areas, which are fitted into comprehensive State plans and which, in every case, the States have agreed to maintain. If there are forest land areas that fit into State plans for intensive recreation, the fact should be recognized by appropriate changes in status.
It is our belief that, in order to handle intensive recreational developments, the Forest Service will have to set up a technical organization similar to that of the State Park Division of the National Park Service. This would vastly increase costs and, owing to the scarcity of trained personnel, would result in two weak organizations, neither one capable of doing satisfactory work.
The Forest Service's practice of setting up large recreational areas, which are seriously competitive with the national parks, strikes at established national policy and results in unjustified maintenance cost against the regular Federal budget.
It is recommended that: (1) Necessary steps be taken to secure cancellation of the authorization granted the Forest Service; (2) The Forest Service be prohibited from developing intensive recreational areas on national and State forests, except where such areas fit into the State plans for recreation, and then only when such national forest lands are turned over to the proper State or local authorities capable of administering and maintaining recreational areas; (3) Any Federal participation in such recreational development be under the supervision of the National Park Service. [41]
The Secretary of the Interior's office slightly rephrased the points made by the National Park Service and sent a letter to Fechner requesting that he rescind the authorization given to the Forest Service. Director Fechner met with representatives of the National Park Service and Forest Service in an effort to reach some accord. Neither agency would agree to any compromise and Fechner refused to rescind his authorization to the Forest Service. For the next several years the Forest Service continued to do "park" work and the National Park Service continued unsuccessfully to object to this practice. [42]
NEXT> Administrative Relationships: The Embezzlement Issue--Internal Corruption
Top
Last Modified: Tues, Apr 4 2000 07:08:48 am PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/paige/ccch.htm
.gif){kind=small}