ORRRC at 40! The bureau of outdoor recreation: an inside perspective.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation--a small agency of a few hundred people--made a significant and indelible mark on America's recreation landscape during its 19-year existence. On April 2, 1962, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall established the bureau, which had been recommended by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in its report of that year. (Some of you may remember the bureau as the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. The name was changed in the late 1970s during the Carter administration.) The bureau primarily provided overall leadership for the nationwide recreation effort by coordinating 20 federal agencies whose activities affect recreation, assist state and local governments with technical planning and administer a grants-in-aid program.

In 1965, I was the first recreation resource specialist with a master's degree in outdoor recreation hired by the bureau's Denver office. Most of the bureau's initial personnel were from other agencies, such as the National Park Service, Forest Service, Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Some state wildlife and parks personnel were also hired. As the new kid on the block, I had the unique opportunity to work in all the divisions established to carry out the bureau's mandate. The regional office had four branches: nationwide planning, federal coordination, grants-in-aid and water resources. Special studies of wild and scenic rivers, proposed wilderness areas, recreation use of islands and environmental issues were also conducted.

Divisional Duties

The Division of Nationwide Planning gathered recreation inventory information with a detailed form completed by federal, state and local recreation entities. The data were compiled by states and included in the state comprehensive outdoor recreation plans, and used to prepare a nationwide recreation plan. The plans consisted of statistical analyses of recreation demands generated by various activities and the amount of resource supplies available to meet those demands. The net results were usually needs to meet the demands.

Workers in this division occasionally received special assignments. For example, Secretary Udall had a special fund set aside for establishing 10 demonstration urban trails. I inventoried cities in the 10-state Rocky Mountain region for candidate cities to receive funds to establish a trail in the city. I recommended Sloan's Lake in central Denver to be a demonstration trail because of the population size, the lake's proximity to businesses, residences and hospitals, and the trail being adjacent to water (which 44 percent of Americans at the time preferred for recreation). An asphalt trail was built around Sloan's Lake in 1965 and triggered the establishment of an extensive metropolitan trail system along canals, rivers and reservoirs, and within many of the new subdivisions. Denver now has an interconnecting trail system used by millions of walkers, joggers, bikers, hikers, skateboarders, inline skaters and horses. This same phenomenon occurred in other cities. I also researched and inventoried the immigrant, cattle, explorer and stage coach trails in our 10-state region that could be used for a nationwide trail system. The stories associated with the trails provided excellent material for interpretive programs and signs. Today, many of our highways identify those trails and some of the stories.

The Federal Coordination Division looked at surplus federal lands and made recommendations whether those lands had recreation use potential and about who should receive those lands. Many military bases were being closed and disposed of by the General Services Administration. I went to Gene Autry, Okla., to evaluate the recreation potential of a two-acre tract the federal government had condemned. The tract was never developed, and the former owner wasn't happy about not being able to use his land. After I visited the site, a neighbor informed me the former owner ran off a General Services Administration appraiser with a shotgun the day before. (Fortunately, he didn't see me.) I concluded the land had no value for recreation.

The division also evaluated the potential of federal lands for inclusion in the national wilderness system. For example, I went to Bosque del Apache Wildlife Area along the Rio Grande River in central New Mexico to look at three segments of refuge land proposed to be included in the system. The refuge was noted as a staging area for sandhill cranes and the endangered whooping cranes during their migrations. The day I arrived in a government vehicle, one of New Mexico's famed sandstorms hit, and I could barely see beyond the car's hood ornament. I did get a glimpse of the land between dust clouds, and recommended that only the 5,000-acre segment be included in the wilderness system. The other segments were too close to the highway.

Other bureau colleagues ran hundreds of miles of rivers in canoes and rafts in our 10-state region to assess the recreation potential of certain segments being designated as wild or scenic for inclusion in the wild and scenic river system. The designated river segments would be protected from future water development.

The Grants-in-Aid Division administered the Land and Water Conservation Program that Congress passed in September 1964. The program set up a fee schedule for recreation entry and use of federal lands, and divided the money among the states, territories and federal agencies. The revenue was generated from collecting entry and user fees on federal lands, the sale of surplus federal lands and, later, from off-shore oil drilling revenues. The states had designated liaison agencies to work with the bureau to prepare grant applications for receiving 50-50 cost-sharing funds to plan, acquire and develop lands for recreation. Numerous areas throughout the U.S. still bear the Land and Water Conservation Fund logo signs, which had to be posted on areas receiving LWCF funds. Periodic visits were made to the recreation areas to ensure that the funds were used according to the grant application and that the LWCF signs were posted.

At times, the grant applications were rejected because other grant programs provided cost-share funding. For example, an application for rebuilding an historic narrow-gauge railroad in Georgetown, Colo., was rejected because it was more historic than recreational, and more commercial than public. The National Historic Act provided funding for such undertakings, and LWCF funding couldn't supplement other programs. I didn't make many people happy with my recommendation not to use LWCF cost-sharing for rebuilding the bridge for a narrow gauge railroad. Today, the Georgetown Loop Railroad is a popular tourist attraction in Colorado.

Water Works

The Water Resources Division implemented the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, which recognized recreation as a purpose--not a benefit--of developing water for irrigation, municipal and industrial use, hydroelectric power, flood control, and fish and wildlife. Recreation would be included into the economic cost-benefit analysis of a proposed water development by assessing the potential recreation use and the dollar values associated with the projected visitation. Recreation was often the pivotal factor in economically justifying building Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers dams and reservoirs.

The analyses involved recreation standards of resource requirements for the various activities on water and land, and used the concept of recreation carrying capacity. Carrying capacity was an artificially developed concept that badly needed definition from research. The analysis included the recreation opportunities lost by water development, the estimated annual and daily recreation visitation if the water project was developed, and what facilities and costs were needed to accommodate the estimated daily visitation. The President's Water Resources Council provided economic values to be assigned to the visitation for the recreation analysis. The states added more water developments, because recreation made a difference in the economic justification to develop the water.

The division also participated with numerous other agencies in the comprehensive river basin studies to develop plans for meeting all water uses in the future. I participated in the Lower Missouri River Basin study. I looked at the recreation supply side of the analysis, and identified the problems and issues of existing development, and the condition of the recreation facilities. Issues involving development versus non-development of water were also recognized. The river basin studies were used to guide future developments that would provide the greatest overall beneficial returns.

On Assignment

Before leaving the bureau in 1967 for graduate work, I received a special assignment concerning the Colorado Highway Department. The department planned to build Interstate Highway 70 through Buffalo Mountain and the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Wilderness to reduce travel mileage over Vail Pass by 15 miles. Working with the Colorado Open Space Council, the bureau battled the Highway Department to preserve the wilderness. My assignment was to come up with greater recreation benefits for preserving the wilderness than the Highway Department benefits identified by a reduction in time traversing Colorado, the mileage saved by trucks and cars, fuel consumption savings and reduced maintenance of vehicles.

I spent a few days in the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Wilderness and experienced the satisfaction that only peace and solitude could bring. Putting a highway through this pristine area would be a crime. Although I couldn't quantify the low-density use of the wilderness and economically exceed the Highway Department benefits, I recommended keeping the I-70 highway out of the wilderness so that people could experience the healing of solitude. Many other organizations and individuals also encouraged preserving the wilderness and upgrading the existing highway over Vail Pass.

In 1971, I returned to Colorado and visited the Gore Range-Eagles Nest area. The Highway Department had upgraded the highway over Vail Pass to interstate standards, and did a beautiful landscape job blending the highway into the environment. Bike trails between Dillon and Vail were added to the corridor.

My short career with the bureau was educational and rewarding. It was a pleasure to work with professional, dedicated people who truly believed in the mission and were proud of what the bureau accomplished. The bureau was never intended to be a land management agency, but the recreation developments, new parks, trails, water development access, wilderness areas, preserved wild and scenic areas, swimming pools and numerous other recreation opportunities have touched all of us. Alas, on Feb. 19, 1981, Secretary of the Interior James Watt abolished the bureau.

Recreation Rebirth

Should the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation be re-established? Yes. America needs an agency to provide recreation professionals a beacon for trends and standards, holistically address problems and issues, assist and provide recreation expertise to agencies lacking parks and recreation personnel but having recreation responsibilities and impartially administer the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program. A nationwide outdoor recreation plan is essential to efficiently and effectively allocate resources, and to compete with other resource uses.

There are opportunities to use existing portions of our infrastructure more efficiently. For example, a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation can orchestrate the trail use of nearly 16,000 miles of Bureau of Reclamation canal rights-of-way in the 17 Western states. This would require a study of those canals, and the cooperation of irrigation districts, state agencies, federal agencies and professional recreation organizations. Such an addition would significantly enhance our nation's trail system.

Research is needed to establish recreation economic methodologies and values to effectively compete with other resource allocations and commitments. A Bureau of Outdoor Recreation can work with universities and recreation and park agencies to establish such values that would hold up in a court of law.

Valuable properties are being confiscated under the war-on-drugs laws. These properties are usually auctioned off by the General Services Administration. Some of these properties may have recreation and park potential for local governments, but are unaffordable. As with assessing the recreation potential of closed military bases, a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation could salvage federally confiscated properties for recreation and parks usage.

My career with the bureau made me more aware of the vastness and complexity of our profession in recreation and parks, and land management issues. The experience made my career one of challenge, enjoyment and appreciation of how richly endowed our country is with natural and cultural resources, and how finite those resources are for recreation. A Bureau of Outdoor Recreation would assure Americans of the greatest recreational returns for a growing population and tourism industry.

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: Throughout the year, Parks & Recreation is highlighting sections of Outdoor Recreation For America in an effort to bring a valuable spotlight to the history of our profession and our community. We hope you will take to heart what our history provides and use its offerings to better yourself, your community and our parks.

Dick Crysdale, CPRP, is a member of the National Society for Park Resources. His career included being a park ranger in Tellowstone, a recreation resource specialist for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, an assistant director of the Recreation Management Institute at Texas A&M University and a research faculty member at North Carolina State University.