Post by Treasuredude on May 2, 2008 20:47:15 GMT -6
This article appeared in today's Billings Gazette...
Visitor center's plans opposed
History buffs fear remodel would hurt Custer battle site
By LORNA THACKERAY
Of the Gazette Staff
An effort to halt expansion of the existing visitor center at Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is gaining momentum, gathering some of the big guns in Western history circles.
Opponents of the expansion, who believe that the National Park Service should instead concentrate on building a long-planned new visitor center off the historic battleground, say they will try to freeze implementation of the expansion, which is set to begin this fall or early in 2009.
"The proposal, if carried out, will enlarge the existing adverse effect on the historic landscape," said Robert Utley, who retired from the National Park Service in 1980 as assistant director for historic preservation.
The Park Service has proposed removing a glassed-in view room and a patio on the east side of the building and replacing them with a multipurpose room. The changes are designed to relieve congestion near Last Stand Hill and provide a protected indoor setting for ranger talks and the park's introductory film.
But many battlefield advocates contend that the Department of Interior should follow the battlefield's 1986 General Management Plan, which would remove the visitor center from the heart of the historic battleground and build a new one in the valley below. Putting money into the existing center would mean that a real solution could be delayed for decades, they argue.
"They would be putting a Band-Aid on the problem so nothing would be done for the next 30 to 40 years," said historian and author Jerome Greene in a telephone interview from his home in Colorado. "It would be a grave mistake to prolong it rather than meet it head on."
Utley and Greene, two giants in the field of Western history, both adamantly oppose the expansion. Both are former National Park Service historians, and both have written award-winning histories of the Indian Wars period. Each worked at the battlefield early in his career and has visited it and written about it often since.
Greene recently completed a new book, "Stricken Field: The Little Bighorn Since 1876," a history of management of the battlefield since June 25, 1876 - the day five companies of the 7th Cavalry were wiped out there by a combined force of Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho.
• • •
Current Battlefield Superintendent Darrell Cook, who is retiring in June, defends the Park Service decision as the most practical way to accommodate 21st-century tourism numbers in a facility built for much smaller crowds of the 1950s. Building a new visitor center, plus buying 11,000 acres of historic land, which is the goal in the park's management plan, would cost millions of dollars that are unlikely to be available anytime soon, he argues.
"I don't think in any way, shape or form Little Bighorn is going to get that amount of money and acquire that amount of land in any reasonable amount of time," he said this week. "This is a reasonable solution to balance the health and safety concerns and handicap access issues and interpretation of the battlefield."
Jim Court, former battlefield superintendent and later executive director and chief fundraiser for the Custer Battlefield Historic and Museum Association, disputes Cook's view.
The association during the past 20 years has raised millions and purchased almost all the land included in the 1986 management plan, he said. The nonprofit organization bought the land with the intention of giving it to the National Park Service. At one point in the 1990s, before Cook was named superintendent, the association had proposed also taking on the task of finding funds for a new visitor center in the Little Bighorn Valley.
"We offered to donate the land and raise the money for the visitor center," Court said. "We never even got an acknowledgement."
He said that at the time the offer was made, the association had commitments for about $15 million for the project. Court said he believes that even with today's increased construction costs, raising money privately for a new visitor center is doable.
"Funding is always hard, but we always seem to get the job done," he said.
Accepting the association land would require congressional approval, and the congressional delegation has been reluctant to act. Most of the historic land outside the Park Service boundaries is on the Crow Reservation, and the tribe previously has objected to putting more reservation land under Park Service ownership.
• • •
Court said moving the visitor center closer to Interstate 90 and nearer to where the battle began would be beneficial for all involved, including the tribe. But the Park Service has failed to work consistently with the tribe and the congressional delegation to negotiate an agreement, he said.
The current visitor center, a small, one-story structure with a basement, was built in 1952 on top of one of the areas of most intense fighting and just below Last Stand Hill, where Lt. Col. George Custer and the last of his men fell.
The battle began with an attack on the Indian village in the Little Bighorn Valley below, several miles away from where it ended. Greene says putting the visitor center closer to where the battle started would make it easier to understand the progression of events.
Cook likes the present location and thinks it would be a shame to move the visitor center.
"We give the public the opportunity to sit on the site right where it happened," he said. "Locate it five miles away where you can't even see Last Stand Hill, that story isn't as meaningful. When you're right there, what a story it is. You're part of that story."
But it has been Park Service policy since the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to place facilities off historic landscapes, Utley said.
"Unfortunately, the superintendent of the most prominent battlefield in the West, the Little Bighorn of Custer's Last Stand, has taken exactly the opposite course," he said. "The superintendent opted for an enlargement that can only magnify the adverse effect on the landscape and, because of the financial investment, foreclose for a long time the implementation of the general management plan."
Getting the go-ahead for the visitor center project involved a lengthy process that studied potential effects on the historic landscapes. The result, released late in April, is called in government parlance a "finding of no significant impact."
The expansion would not enlarge the footprint of the existing structure, but merely enlarge a viewing room and enclose it together with the existing patio. The north wall would be built out to the existing sidewalk. The study concluded that the historic area involved had already been disturbed during original construction, and that archaeological surveys around it had been conducted several times.
Utley called the study and its findings "fatally flawed" and said that he and others will challenge it on that basis - first by voicing their complaints with Park Service Director Mary Bomar and, if that fails, by legal action.
Cook said the project study was thorough and followed all necessary steps.
"They just don't like it," Cook said of the plan's opponents. "I think the project is the right thing to do. It's on track, and it should continue."
Visitor center's plans opposed
History buffs fear remodel would hurt Custer battle site
By LORNA THACKERAY
Of the Gazette Staff
An effort to halt expansion of the existing visitor center at Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is gaining momentum, gathering some of the big guns in Western history circles.
Opponents of the expansion, who believe that the National Park Service should instead concentrate on building a long-planned new visitor center off the historic battleground, say they will try to freeze implementation of the expansion, which is set to begin this fall or early in 2009.
"The proposal, if carried out, will enlarge the existing adverse effect on the historic landscape," said Robert Utley, who retired from the National Park Service in 1980 as assistant director for historic preservation.
The Park Service has proposed removing a glassed-in view room and a patio on the east side of the building and replacing them with a multipurpose room. The changes are designed to relieve congestion near Last Stand Hill and provide a protected indoor setting for ranger talks and the park's introductory film.
But many battlefield advocates contend that the Department of Interior should follow the battlefield's 1986 General Management Plan, which would remove the visitor center from the heart of the historic battleground and build a new one in the valley below. Putting money into the existing center would mean that a real solution could be delayed for decades, they argue.
"They would be putting a Band-Aid on the problem so nothing would be done for the next 30 to 40 years," said historian and author Jerome Greene in a telephone interview from his home in Colorado. "It would be a grave mistake to prolong it rather than meet it head on."
Utley and Greene, two giants in the field of Western history, both adamantly oppose the expansion. Both are former National Park Service historians, and both have written award-winning histories of the Indian Wars period. Each worked at the battlefield early in his career and has visited it and written about it often since.
Greene recently completed a new book, "Stricken Field: The Little Bighorn Since 1876," a history of management of the battlefield since June 25, 1876 - the day five companies of the 7th Cavalry were wiped out there by a combined force of Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho.
• • •
Current Battlefield Superintendent Darrell Cook, who is retiring in June, defends the Park Service decision as the most practical way to accommodate 21st-century tourism numbers in a facility built for much smaller crowds of the 1950s. Building a new visitor center, plus buying 11,000 acres of historic land, which is the goal in the park's management plan, would cost millions of dollars that are unlikely to be available anytime soon, he argues.
"I don't think in any way, shape or form Little Bighorn is going to get that amount of money and acquire that amount of land in any reasonable amount of time," he said this week. "This is a reasonable solution to balance the health and safety concerns and handicap access issues and interpretation of the battlefield."
Jim Court, former battlefield superintendent and later executive director and chief fundraiser for the Custer Battlefield Historic and Museum Association, disputes Cook's view.
The association during the past 20 years has raised millions and purchased almost all the land included in the 1986 management plan, he said. The nonprofit organization bought the land with the intention of giving it to the National Park Service. At one point in the 1990s, before Cook was named superintendent, the association had proposed also taking on the task of finding funds for a new visitor center in the Little Bighorn Valley.
"We offered to donate the land and raise the money for the visitor center," Court said. "We never even got an acknowledgement."
He said that at the time the offer was made, the association had commitments for about $15 million for the project. Court said he believes that even with today's increased construction costs, raising money privately for a new visitor center is doable.
"Funding is always hard, but we always seem to get the job done," he said.
Accepting the association land would require congressional approval, and the congressional delegation has been reluctant to act. Most of the historic land outside the Park Service boundaries is on the Crow Reservation, and the tribe previously has objected to putting more reservation land under Park Service ownership.
• • •
Court said moving the visitor center closer to Interstate 90 and nearer to where the battle began would be beneficial for all involved, including the tribe. But the Park Service has failed to work consistently with the tribe and the congressional delegation to negotiate an agreement, he said.
The current visitor center, a small, one-story structure with a basement, was built in 1952 on top of one of the areas of most intense fighting and just below Last Stand Hill, where Lt. Col. George Custer and the last of his men fell.
The battle began with an attack on the Indian village in the Little Bighorn Valley below, several miles away from where it ended. Greene says putting the visitor center closer to where the battle started would make it easier to understand the progression of events.
Cook likes the present location and thinks it would be a shame to move the visitor center.
"We give the public the opportunity to sit on the site right where it happened," he said. "Locate it five miles away where you can't even see Last Stand Hill, that story isn't as meaningful. When you're right there, what a story it is. You're part of that story."
But it has been Park Service policy since the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to place facilities off historic landscapes, Utley said.
"Unfortunately, the superintendent of the most prominent battlefield in the West, the Little Bighorn of Custer's Last Stand, has taken exactly the opposite course," he said. "The superintendent opted for an enlargement that can only magnify the adverse effect on the landscape and, because of the financial investment, foreclose for a long time the implementation of the general management plan."
Getting the go-ahead for the visitor center project involved a lengthy process that studied potential effects on the historic landscapes. The result, released late in April, is called in government parlance a "finding of no significant impact."
The expansion would not enlarge the footprint of the existing structure, but merely enlarge a viewing room and enclose it together with the existing patio. The north wall would be built out to the existing sidewalk. The study concluded that the historic area involved had already been disturbed during original construction, and that archaeological surveys around it had been conducted several times.
Utley called the study and its findings "fatally flawed" and said that he and others will challenge it on that basis - first by voicing their complaints with Park Service Director Mary Bomar and, if that fails, by legal action.
Cook said the project study was thorough and followed all necessary steps.
"They just don't like it," Cook said of the plan's opponents. "I think the project is the right thing to do. It's on track, and it should continue."
