The George Wright Society

Board of Directors (2003)

Dennis B. Fenn • President • Flagstaff, Arizona
Abigail B. Miller • Vice President • Alexandria, Virginia
Dwight T. Pitcaithley • Treasurer • Reston, Virginia
Gillian Bowser • Secretary • Bryan, Texas
Jerry Emory • Mill Valley, California
Bruce M. Kilgore • Pocatello, Idaho
David J. Parsons • Florence, Montana
John J. Reynolds • Castro Valley, California
Richard B. Smith • Placitas, New Mexico
Stephen Woodley • Chelsea, Quebec

GWS/CR2003 Joint Conference Committee

David J. Parsons and Dwight T. Pitcaithley (co-chairs), Gillian Bowser, Kirk A. Cordell, Dennis B. Fenn, Bonnie
Halda, Bob Krumenaker, Abigail B. Miller, Sharon Park, Stephanie Toothman

Executive Office
David Harmon, Executive Director
Robert M. Linn, Membership Coordinator
Emily Dekker-Fiala, Conference Coordinator

© 2004 The George Wright Society, Inc. All rights reserved

Text paper 30% post-consumer recycled stock.
Printing by Book Concern Printers, Hancock, Michigan

This book is also available for purchase on CD-ROM in PDF format. Pricing and ordering information from:

The George Wright Society

P.O. Box 65 • Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA
www.georgewright.org • info@georgewright.org
1-906-487-9722; fax 1-906-487-9405

Cover photos (top to bottom): girls planting trees in a park in the Bronx, New York (National Park Service photo);
kayaker at Selby Lake, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve (National Park Service photo); Calumet & Hecla
Public Library (now the Keweenaw History Center), Keweenaw National Historical Park (National Park Service
photo). Thanks to Gillian Bowser, Steve Ulvi, and Tom Baker for providing the photos.

Citation:
Harmon, David, Bruce M. Kilgore, and Gay E. Vietzke, eds. 2004. Protecting Our Diverse Heritage: The Role of Parks,
Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites. (Proceedings of the George Wright Society/National Park Service Joint
Conference, April 14–18, 2003, San Diego, California.) Hancock, Michigan: The George Wright Society.

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as rep-
resenting the opinions and policies of the U.S. government, the state of California, other organizations sponsoring or
supporting the conference, or the George Wright Society. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute their endorsement by the U.S. government, the state of California, other organizations sponsoring or sup-
porting the conference, or the George Wright Society.
 Contents
Introduction
David Harmon, Bruce M. Kilgore, and Gay E. Vietzke xi

Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

Using State Laws and Regulations to Protect Parks from Adjacent Development Impacts: A Case Study
from Hawaii
Stanley C. Bond, Jr., Sallie C. Beavers, Nicole Walthall, and Roy Irwin 1

Preparing for Conservation—Strategies for the Next Century (Session Summary)

Steve Elkinton 5

The Role of the U.S. Geological Survey in Science Delivery to the National Park Service
Dennis B. Fenn 7

Recreation Management Decisions: What Does Science Have to Offer?

Troy E. Hall 10

Fun with and Profit from a Non-profit Library Friends Group: Twenty Years of the Library Friends
Group at San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park
David Hull 16

On Becoming Relevant: Environmental History and National Park Management

David Louter 19

Administrative Histories in the National Park Service’s Alaska Region

Frank Norris 24

Sustainable Design for an Evolving Landscape

Paul Schrooten 27

Integration of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) into Southeast National
Park Service Planning and Operations
J. Keith Watson 30
Barriers to Science-based Management: What Are They and What Can We Do About Them? (Session
Summary)
Vita Wright 34

An Investigation of Agency Perceptions of Transboundary Protected Area Cooperation: A Case Study of

Wrangell–St. Elias and Kluane Protected Area Complex
Sandra Zupan 38

Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

Carrying Capacity and Visitor Management: Facts, Values, and the Role of Science
David N. Cole 43
The Place, Cost, and Value of Vision in Preservation: The Ranger Steam Engine
David Hull 47

Carrying Capacity as “Informed Judgment”: The Values of Science and the Science of Values
Robert E. Manning 51
Russian Zapovedniks (Strict Nature Preserves) and Importing Ecotourism: Destruction of an Ideal or
Learning from the U.S. National Park System?
David Ostergren 59

Parks as Battlegrounds: Managing Conflicting Values

Michael J. Tranel and Adrienne Hall 64

Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

Conserving Our Collective Heritage—The Paradox of Integrated, Yet Distinctly Different Management
of Cultural and Natural Resources
Denis Davis 71

v
The Challenge of Managing and Interpreting Avifauna on Cultural Sites within the Timucuan
Preserve
Daniel R. Tardona, Roger Clark, Paul W. Sykes, and Jill Howard-Wilson 75

It’s All in the Family: Recommendations for Cultural and Natural Resources Reconciliation
Terri Thomas, Ric Borjes, and Anna Fenton-Hathaway 80
Zzyzx Mineral Springs – Cultural Treasure and Endangered Species Aquarium
Danette Woo and Debra Hughson 84

Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Creating a Sustainable Invasives Program in the East: Controlling Invasive Vegetation at Eight
National Parks in Virginia, 2000–2002
James Åkerson and Charles Rafkind 89

Preventing Zebra Mussel Infestation of Lake Powell

Mark Anderson and John Ritenour 92

Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in Great Basin National Park

Gretchen Schenk and Tod Williams 96

Estimating Project-Specific Restoration Costs

Terri Thomas, Garrett Lee, and Anna Fenton-Hathaway 98

Restoration of Oak Island Sandscape, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Julie Van Stappen, Tony Bush, and David Burgdorf 103

Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Tools of the Trade: How Protected Area Managers Can Protect Our Night Sky
Elizabeth M. Alvarez del Castillo, David L. Crawford, and Keith J. Krueger 107

How Much Do Visitors Value Scenic Quality? Results from the Blue Ridge Parkway Scenic Experience
Project
Leah Greden Mathews, Susan Kask, Laura Rotegard, Gary Johnson, and Steve Stewart 111

Integration of Social Science into Protected Area Stewardship: Challenges and Opportunities
Stephen F. McCool 116

Advancing the Dialogue of Visitor Management: Expanding Beyond the Culture of Technical Control
Stephen F. McCool and George H. Stankey 122

Transportation Noise and the Value of Natural Quiet

Nicholas P. Miller 128

Visitor Impact Monitoring in the Coastal and Barrier Island Network

Christopher Monz, Yu-Fai Leung, Christine Ingle, and Heather Bauman 135

Facts, Values, and Decision-Making in Recreation Resource Management

Thomas A. More 140
Evaluating Carrying Capacities for Protected Areas
Tony Prato 145

Who Will Keep the Night?

Angela M. Richman 152
Yellowstone Wildlife Watching: A Survey of Visitor Attitudes and Desires
Alice Wondrak Biel 157

The Resource Challenges of America’s National Trails System (Session Summary)

Steve Elkinton 162

vi
Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage
Ruins Preservation: More than Stuffing Mud
Janet R. Balsom and Amy Horn 165

NPS’s Cultural Resource Inventories: Understanding Resources, Improving Stewardship

Nancy J. Brown, Allen H. Cooper, Jacilee Wray, Amanda Zeman, and Phil Bedel 169

Innovative Concepts of Cultural Resource Management

Sarah Craighead 173

Reading the Cultural Landscape at Dyea, Alaska

Tonia Horton 177

The Vanishing Treasures Program of the Tres Piedras Group

James W. Kendrick, Patricia Thompson, Karen Beppler-Dorn, Scott Williams, and Hallie Larsen 182

Using Historic Structures to Serve Park Needs: The McGraw Ranch, Rocky Mountain National Park
Jim Lindberg 188

When Disaster Strikes at Your Historic Site During Construction

David W. Look 192

Expanding the Meaning of Heritage: The New Mexico Heritage Preservation Alliance
Jerry L. Rogers 196

California’s Cultural Heritage Resources Summit: A Call for Action

Denzil Verardo 200

Fort Stephen A. Douglas: Adaptive Re-use for a Community of Scholars

Robert A. Young 205

Preserving the Painted Desert Inn in Petrified Forest National Park

Amanda Zeman and Karen Beppler-Dorn 210

Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

California’s New Marine Managed Areas System
W. James Barry and Gena R. Lasko 215
Building a Coral Nursery at Biscayne National Park
Richard Curry, Shay Viehman, and Daniel DiResta 223

Monitoring Visitor Impacts in Coastal National Parks: A Review of Techniques

Christine Ingle, Yu-Fai Leung, Christopher Monz, Heather Bauman 228

Restoration of Coral Reef Habitats within the National Park System

Jim Tilmant, Linda Canzanelli, Rick Clark, Richard Curry, Bruce Graham, Monika Mayr, Alison 234
Moulding, Robert Mulcahy, Shay Viehman, and Tamara Whittington

Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
Permanently Protected Parks for a Dynamic Society: An Examination of Race and Ethnicity in
National Park Visitation and Participation
Megan Brokaw 241

Nervous Landscapes: The Heritage of Racial Segregation in New South Wales, Australia
Denis Byrne 246

Impact through Action, Influence, and Involvement—Ethnic Minority Recreation: Where to from
Here? (Session Summary)
Edwin Gómez, Nina S. Roberts, and Deborah J. Chavez 251

Teaching Cultural Heritage Preservation: Developing Curriculum Materials for Minority Colleges and
Universities
Antoinette J. Lee 255

vii
Protecting a Diverse Heritage: Engaging Communities in Preserving and Interpreting that which They
Value
Ernest W. Ortega 259

Promise and Challenge: Interpreting Race and Slavery at Civil War Sites (Session Summary)
Dwight Pitcaithley, John Hennessy, Michèle Gates Moresi, and John Tucker 263

Wilderness and Wildness

Perpetuating Natural Wildness
William E. Brown 269

Wasteland, Wilderness, or Workplace: Perceiving and Preserving the Apostle Islands

James Feldman and Robert W. Mackreth 271

The Wilderness Experience as Purported by Planning Compared with that of Visitors to Zion National
Park
Wayne Freimund, Steve Peel, Jeff Bradybaugh, and Robert E. Manning 276

National Park Service Contribution to Increasing a Virtual Visitor’s Appreciation of Wilderness

C. B. Griffin 281

Extending the Wilderness Concept as a Cultural Resource

Andrew Kliskey, Lilian Alessa, and Martin Robards 287

The Essence of Indecision: The Hayduke Principle and Wilderness Policy Paralysis on National Park
Service Lands
David Ostergren and Peter Jacques 294

Inholdings within Wilderness: Legal Foundations, Problems, and Solutions

Randy Tanner 299

Natural Resource Management

Fire Management and Resource Management at Big Cypress National Preserve
James N. Burch 305
Water Quality Data Collection and Analysis in Support of Anti-Degradation Standards: A Case Study
with General Lessons
Richard Evans 310

Lakewater Chemistry at Acadia National Park, Maine, in Response to Declining Acidic Deposition
J. S. Kahl, S. J. Nelson, J. L. Stoddard, S. A. Norton, and T. A. Haines 314

California Condors of the Colorado Plateau

Elaine Leslie 322

A Historical Overview of Consumptive Use Patterns in National Park Service Areas

Frank Norris 326

Mexican Spotted Owl Distribution and Habitat within Grand Canyon National Park
David W. Willey and R. V. Ward 328

Museums and Collections

Museum Affinity Group Meeting (Session Summary)
Joan Bacharach 335
Determining Use Patterns for Museum, Archives, and Library Collections
Kent Bush 337

Professionalism and Training

Kent Bush 345

A Note on Performance Standards and Conservation Specifications for Exhibit Cases

Toby Raphael 349

viii
On the Road to Democracy: The Gulag Museum at Perm-36
Gay E. Vietzke 350

Technology for Resource Management

Synthesis as a Law Enforcement Tool at Shenandoah National Park: A Synthesis Regional Support
Center Case Study
Andrew Diego, Andrew Welti, Éadaoin O’Drudy, Ken Johnson, Carollyn Oglesby, Bruce Nash, and 353
Steven Frysinger

Using GIS to Focus Field Inventories of Rare and Endemic Plants at Badlands National Park, South
Dakota
Sandee Dingman 357

GIS, GPS, CR Database Information, and the FMSS Program at Kalaupapa National Historical
Park
Tom Fake 362
Non-invasive Mountain Lion Sampling in Seven Southwestern National Parks
Emily Garding 364
A Comparison of Grid Sampling Designs with Stratified/Nonuniform Probability Sampling Designs
for National Park Monitoring (Summary)
Paul H. Geissler and Trent L. McDonald 367

An Interactive Educational Tool for Understanding Cultural and Natural Resource Preservation at
Petersburg National Battlefield
Mary K. Handley, Elisabeth Ranger, and Robin Snyder 368

Soil Compaction as Indicated by Penetration Resistance: A Comparison of Two Types of Penetrometers

Yu-Fai Leung and Kristin Meyer 370

Using Global Positioning Systems to Monitor Elkhorn Coral, Acropora palmata, at Buck Island Reef
National Monument, U.S. Virgin Islands
Philippe A. Mayor, Zandy M. Hillis-Starr, Caroline Rogers, Kimberly K. Woody, and Barry Devine 376

Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections
Ann Hitchcock and John G. Dennis 379

Options for Managing Park Natural History Collecting and Collections: Overview
Ann Hitchcock 381

Options for Managing Park Natural History Collecting and Collections: Case Study—Acadia National
Park
Brooke Childrey 386

Options for Managing Park Natural History Collecting and Collections: Case Study—Death Valley
National Park, Collecting and Permits
Richard Anderson 389

Options for Managing Park Natural History Collecting and Collections: Case Study—Death Valley
National Park, Collections Management
Blair Davenport 392

Options for Managing Park Natural History Collecting and Collections: Case Study—Channel Islands
National Park, Plant Collections
Dieter Wilken 395
Natural History Collections: Overview
John G. Dennis 398

ix
Retrieval, Compilation, and Organization of Vertebrate and Vascular Plant Voucher Specimens
Originating from National Parks
Andrew Gilbert and Allan O’Connell 400

Ownership of Natural Resource Specimens as a Pitfall in Effective Research

Jonathan Bayless 406

Leadership of NPS Dealing with Contaminated Natural History and Cultural Collections
Judith J. Bischoff 413

Development of an Improved Data Management System at Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Craig Palmer and Mark Sappington 418

Workshop Report: Discussion Among NPS Research Coordinators and Curators of Ways to Improve
Cooperation in Specimen Collecting and Curation
John G. Dennis and Ann Hitchcock 424

What’s in the Pipeline for Natural History Collecting and Collections?

Ann Hitchcock and John G. Dennis 427

x
 Introduction
David Harmon, The George Wright Society, P.O. Box 65, Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065;
dharmon@georgewright.org
Bruce M. Kilgore, 1502 South Mink Creek Road, Pocatello, Idaho 83204; bekilgore@aol.com
Gay E. Vietzke, Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, 20 Sagamore Hill Road, Oyster Bay, New
York 11771-1899; gay_vietzke@nps.gov

The lineage of the George Wright Society (GWS) biennial conferences on research and
resource management in parks stretches back almost to the beginnings of the organization itself.
In 1982, just two years into its existence, the GWS took over sponsorship and organization of a
national-level science conference focused on U.S. national parks. There had been two of these
meetings, in 1976 and 1979, both sponsored by the National Park Service (NPS). When the
GWS took over the event in 1982, it expanded its scope to include cultural resources as well as
parks outside the National Park System. Nonetheless, the GWS conferences have always been
done in close coordination with NPS.
The 2003 conference was no exception. “Protecting Our Diverse Heritage: The Role of
Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites” was billed as a joint conference between GWS and
NPS because it merged the GWS biennial conference with NPS’s national-level cultural
resources conference (which had been revived, after a long hiatus, in 2000). The result was that
the GWS/CR2003 conference had the highest amount of cultural resources content ever for a
GWS event. Thanks to an expanded number of sessions, the natural resource content was not
thereby diminished, and in addition there were numerous sessions that could not be easily
pigeonholed as one or the other. All of this is well in keeping with the GWS’s interdisciplinary
mission.
Despite the war in Iraq and its attendant budgetary consequences for the federal government,
over 850 people attended GWS/CR2003, which was held in San Diego in mid-April. This was
the highest attendance since the GWS began its involvement. The next meeting, the 13th in the
series, will be March 2005 in Philadelphia.
By prior arrangement, several wilderness-related papers from the conference have been pub-
lished in the GWS’s quarterly journal, THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM, and are therefore not
included here. The papers, guest-edited by David J. Parsons and David N. Cole, were published
under the title “The Challenge of Wilderness Stewardship” (volume 20, number 3, September
2003). They are:

• The Challenge of Wilderness Stewardship / David J. Parsons and David N. Cole

• Agency Policy and the Resolution of Wilderness Stewardship Dilemmas / David N. Cole
• Ecological Restoration in Wilderness: Natural versus Wild in National Park Service
Wilderness / David M. Graber
• The Challenge of Doing Science in Wilderness: Historical, Legal, and Policy Context / Peter
Landres, Judy Alderson, and David J. Parsons
• Wolf Handling at Isle Royale: Can We Find Another Approach? / Jack Oelfke, Rolf Peterson,
John Vucetich, and Leah Vucetich
• Selecting Indicators and Understanding Their Role in Wilderness Experience Stewardship
at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve / Brian Glaspell, Alan Watson, Katie
Kneeshaw, and Don Pendergrast
• Computer Simulation as a Tool for Developing Alternatives for Managing Crowding at
Wilderness Campsites on Isle Royale / Steven R. Lawson, Ann Mayo Kiely, and Robert E.
Manning

xi
• Cultural Resource Management in National Park Service Wilderness Areas: Conflict or
Cooperation? / Gary F. Somers
• Securing an Enduring Wilderness in the National Park System: The Role of the National
Wilderness Steering Committee / Wes Henry and Steve Ulvi

As with all back issues of THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM, this one can be downloaded from
the GWS website (www.georgewright.org) as a series of PDF files. Hard copies of that issue can
be purchased from the GWS, as can this proceedings volume (paperback or CD). Contact details
are on the copyright page.
Many people worked hard behind the scenes to make the conference a reality. In an event of
this size, there are too many to name individually, but the GWS and the conference committee
extends its sincere thanks to all who helped. We are especially grateful to our co-sponsors (the
National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and California Department of Parks and
Recreation) and our supporting organizations (Eastern National and the Environmental Careers
Organization). Their financial and logistical support are vital to the success of these conferences.

xii
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

Using State Laws and Regulations to Protect Parks from

Adjacent Development Impacts: A Case Study from Hawaii
Stanley C. Bond, Jr., Kaloko–Honokohau National Historical Park, 73-4786 Kanalani Street,
Suite 14, Kailua–Kona, Hawaii 96740; stanley_c_bond@nps.gov
Sallie C. Beavers, Kaloko–Honokohau National Historical Park, 73-4786 Kanalani Street, Suite
14, Kailua–Kona, Hawaii 96740; sallie_beavers@nps.gov
Nicole Walthall, San Francisco Field Office, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1111 Jackson Street, Suite 735, Oakland, California 94607
Roy Irwin, Water Resources Division, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 250,
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525; roy_irwin@nps.gov

Introduction
Although federal laws, regulations, and management policies govern the management of
national parks, parks have little control over surrounding lands. The parks most often affected by
surrounding development are small parks and those in urbanizing areas. This paper provides an
example of how development outside of a park might affect park resources and how a park can
use state and local land use processes to help protect those resources. Kaloko–Honokohau
National Historical Park, located on the island of Hawaii, formally intervened in an administra-
tive hearing before the Hawaii Land Use Commission (LUC) regarding a proposed industrial
development upslope of the park. In this specific case, the park entered into a contested-case
hearing with TSA Corporation, which sought to have the classification of 102 acres of land
changed from “Conservation” to “Urban” for the expansion of Kaloko Industrial Park.
Setting produce up to 5,000 pounds of fish per year.
Kaloko–Honokohau National Historical The park waters are a central element in many
Park was established to “provide a center for Native Hawaiian practices and rituals per-
the preservation, interpretation and culture, formed within the park boundaries. These
and to demonstrate historic land use patterns traditional practices rely heavily on the quality
as well as provide needed resources for the of the water, including groundwater, in the
education, enjoyment, and appreciation of ... national park.
traditional native Hawaiian activities and cul- The park is located on the leeward, or dry,
ture by local residents and visitors....” The side of the island in the rain shadow of
park encompasses an area rich in native Hualalai Volcano and receives 15 to 20 inches
Hawaiian sacred places and traditional prac- of rainfall a year. However, orographic convec-
tices. Located on the west coast of Hawaii tion produces between 40 and 60 inches of
Island, the park consists of 564 acres of terres- rain upslope at elevations ranging from 1,000
trial and 596 acres of marine ecosystems. It to 6,000 ft. The porous nature of the lava
contains 11 endangered, threatened, and can- allows rainfall to seep quickly underground;
didate species and over 230 archeological consequently there are no permanent streams
sites. Three lava flows from Hualalai Volcano on the west side of the island. Groundwater
dominate the landscape, as do invasive plant eventually emerges as slightly brackish anchia-
communities. line pools along the coast as the lighter fresh-
The park’s cultural resources include water lens rides over the heavier seawater.
Kaloko Fishpond, Aimakapa Fishpond, and Freshwater springs are also found offshore. As
Aiopio Fishtrap, all of which historically pro- this water flows downslope to the park it pass-
vided fish for Hawaiian families. Kaloko es beneath development and can carry nutri-
Fishpond is one of the most significant cultur- ents and contaminants produced or dis-
al features in the Park. The fishpond could charged there. The purpose of the park’s
intervening in the land use change process
1
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
was to have this and future developers mini- tion to the LUC to change the property’s land
mize or eliminate potential contamination of use designation from Conservation to Urban.
the groundwater, thus reducing potential The park responded to the notice, voicing our
effects on park natural and cultural resources. concern for water quality and concern with
the current development. Specifically, con-
Hawaii Land Use Commission taminants had been found in park wells, fish-
State law created the LUC in 1961 and pond sediments, and fish tissue, and some
Hawaii was the first to have a land use law. waters were showing evidence of nutrification.
Significant revisions to the law were made in We felt that these impacts could be attributed
1974. There are nine governor-appointed to the use of cesspools for wastewater dispos-
commissioners, one from each of the four al and dry wells for stormwater runoff in the
counties and five from the public at large. first phases of Kaloko Industrial Park. TSA
Commissioners are generally a mix of lawyers, Corporation published its draft EIS for com-
developers, and union leaders. The original ment in August 2000. The park again com-
organizing principles of the LUC were effi- mented, noting the inadequacy of scientific
cient urbanization and the preservation of study to show that there would be no impact
agricultural and conservation lands. By law, to the park from upslope development. TSA
the decision-making process of the LUC is stated that they would upgrade wastewater
quasi-judicial in nature to ensure that those disposal to a standard septic tank. The park
who are affected by the decision are accorded argued that standard septic tanks and dry
due process before an action is taken. The wells were inadequate methods of water treat-
park’s case was strengthened by two recent ment. The LUC held a hearing in November
Hawaii Supreme Court decisions that reaf- on the TSA EIS. The National Park Service
firmed the state’s constitutional requirement (NPS) attended and, asserting that the EIS
to protect native Hawaiian traditional and cus- was inadequate, requested that the commis-
tomary rights exercised for subsistence, cul- sion reject it. However the commission voted
tural, and religious purposes. In one of those to accept the EIS.
cases, the Supreme Court specifically found Once the commission accepted the EIS,
that the LUC had run afoul of its obligation to the park’s only recourse was to become an
uphold such rights. intervening party in the LUC hearing process.
The park was also encouraged to intervene by
Land Use Classification the State Office of Planning, which was con-
The LUC recognizes four categories of cerned that the proposed development would
land classification: Urban (4.7% of the state) adversely affect the environment but did not
Conservation (48%), Agriculture (47%), and have access to the high level of expertise as did
Rural (2.3%). In Hawaii, counties have exclu- NPS. The park’s desire was not to stop devel-
sive administration over land uses within the opment but rather to ensure that it would not
Urban district. Once classified by the state as adversely affect park resources, primarily
Urban, county zoning laws and regulations those dependent on good water quality. We
apply. One reason the park intervened at the requested four broad conditions be placed on
state level is that we believed the state was the developer: (1) enhanced wastewater treat-
more likely to impose additional and stricter ment to reduce nutrients; (2) stormwater
conditions on the developer than Hawaii runoff containment and treatment; (3) moni-
County. toring of water quality; and (4) a pollution
prevention plan specific to the types of busi-
Procedures and Proceedings nesses that could be located within the devel-
In April 2000, the park received an envi- opment.
ronmental impact statement (EIS) preparation As an intervener, the park enjoyed the
notice from TSA Corporation for the expan- same standing as the other parties in this hear-
sion of Kaloko Industrial Park as part of a peti- ing: the petitioner (TSA Corporation), State
2
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
Office of Planning, and Hawaii County. We no impact to the park was the focus of NPS’
could enter and present evidence, and cross- case. Testimony from state and county wit-
examine and call witnesses. Legal representa- nesses showed that county, state, and federal
tion is not required before the LUC. The park laws did not protect groundwater, except in
started the first hearing without an attorney the case of drinking water. Even the LUC
but after having a commissioner point a finger members were incredulous over some of the
and shout, “Park Service, get a lawyer!” we developer’s testimony, and the high point was
knew we needed one. when one commissioner, after hearing that a
From March 2001 to February 2002 the 10,000-gallon gasoline spill would not reach
LUC held eight hearings on the TSA petition. the park, stated (in Hawaiian Pidgin): “So far
Perhaps the most significant event for the park today I never hear anybody say it’s not going
came early in the hearing process when the to happen. All I been hearing ‘it could not
LUC conducted a site visit to happen.’ So you no need to be a rocket scien-
Kaloko–Honokohau. All nine commissioners tist to figure this out. Your spill in the area,
and parties were present. None of the com- especially on the Kona side with all the lava
missioners had visited the park and prior to tubes and the cracks, you going to contain a
their visit viewed the area as an unproductive spill in that area? I get only 12 grades of edu-
lava field. Once commissioners saw and cation, but I not dumb.”
understood the significance of park’s cultural
and natural resources, they were much more Outcome
sympathetic to the our position. Following the public hearings, each party
Beginning with the petitioner, each party prepared a draft Findings of Fact,
called its expert witnesses. The petitioner had Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order.
experts in groundwater, marine resources, Ultimately, the LUC “supported [the precau-
pollution prevention, botany, wildlife biology, tionary principle] as applied to National Parks
cultural resources, and wastewater engineer- and determined that, for all proposed devel-
ing and stormwater management. State and opment adjacent to or near a National Park
county experts were engineers with comments that raises threats of harm to the environment,
on wastewater and stormwater management. cultural resources, or human health, precau-
The core NPS team consisted of Nicole tionary measures should be taken to protect
Walthall, an assistant field solicitor from the the National Park cultural and natural
San Francisco Field Office; Stanley Bond, resources, even if some cause and effect rela-
integrated resource manager; Sallie Beavers, tionships are not fully established scientifical-
marine ecologist; and Roy Irwin from the NPS ly” (Finding no. 165). The LUC adopted
Water Resources Division. The team pulled much of the language that was in the NPS ver-
together information that questioned the sion. As to the adequacy of the Findings on
developer’s findings of no effect on the park impacts to the park, the LUC stated: “For this
and contacted individuals who could provide petition, there was a lack of scientific study
relevant information and serve as expert wit- and research as to the potential adverse
nesses. The park assembled an impressive list impacts from the proposed development. No
of expert witnesses from throughout the NPS, risk assessments as prescribed by the NPS
Department of the Interior, and other public have been done to determine that no harm will
and private organizations. come to the resources of the National Park,
Needless to say there were significant dis- including anchialine ponds, the coral reef, and
agreements between the developer’s experts, endangered and threatened species that rely
who claimed that the development would on the health of those systems for habitat, and
have no impact, and NPS experts, who are considered sacred to native Hawaiians.
demonstrated that the developer’s studies Contrary to petitioner’s position, a lack of sci-
were flawed. The weakness of the petitioner’s entific inquiry is cause for caution” (Finding
studies and its inability to support a claim of no. 171). “There is an absence in the evidence
3
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

of competent and reliable studies showing that Impact on Future Development

the proposed industrial development would The LUC made it clear that these condi-
not adversely impact the National Park’s tions would apply to other developers in the
resources” (Finding no. 294). “Contami- area of the park. A second commercial/light
nation of groundwater, increased nutrient load industrial development is planned for
in the groundwater, changes in salinity of Conservation land directly south of this peti-
groundwater, and changes in groundwater vol- tion area and the park has successfully negoti-
ume alter the natural ecosystems in the ated conditions with this developer. There are
National Park. The myriad of potential also broader implications to this ruling than
impacts from such changes—ranging from simple effects on park resources. It appears
massive bird die-offs from avian botulism to that this Decision and Order has set an impor-
increased population of toxic algae growth in tant precedent and that all future development
the ponds—remains inadequately assessed adjacent to Class AA waters, not just in the
and lack sufficient scientific study” (Finding vicinity of the park, will also likely be required
no. 339). to conform to these conditions.
The LUC concluded that, by law, it was
required to develop and impose conditions Lessons Learned
that protected national park resources. In its • Comment at every opportunity so there is
Decision and Order, the LUC imposed 28 a record of your concerns.
conditions on the development. For waste- • Get legal help from the Solicitor’s Office
water treatment, the lot owners are required to early in the process. Legal processes are
hook up to the central wastewater treatment never simple or easy and are generally
system when it becomes available. Prior to complex and extremely time consuming.
availability, lot owners can use an enhanced • Know what you want from the decision-
septic system that removes 92% of the nitro- making body.
gen and has added phosphorus removal. Only • Use experts to analyze scientific docu-
45% of the lots (38) can be built upon prior to ments and for testimony. Where possible,
connection to the central wastewater treat- use qualified local experts who are familiar
ment plant. For stormwater runoff, lot owners with the resource.
have to at least use oil/water separators or fil- • Make sure your paperwork is in on time.
ters prior to runoff entering the ground. If a • Get the decision-makers to the site. Make
business uses nonpetroleum-based toxic sub- your park and its resources concrete, not
stances, then the catchment basin must be an abstraction.
designed to trap and remove them prior to the • Reach out to the local community for pub-
water entering the ground. The developer has lic testimony. In the rush to pull evidence,
to pay a pro-rated share of water-quality mon- information, and witnesses together, this is
itoring costs over the next ten years and pro- perhaps the area where we failed. It likely
duce a new Pollution Prevention Plan that is did not affect the final outcome, but could
acceptable to the park and other parties. in future hearings.

4
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

Preparing for Conservation—Strategies for the

Next Century (Session Summary)
Steve Elkinton, National Park Service, Washington Office, 1849 C Street NW (MS-2220),
Washington, D.C. 20240; steve_elkinton@nps.gov

Although the attendance was small, the scope and potential of this discussion was significant.
The session was organized and speakers were introduced by Judy Alderson, national natural
landmarks program coordinator and wilderness coordinator for Alaska, National Park Service
(NPS), Alaska Support Office. Steve Elkinton, program leader for the National Trails System in
the Washington office of NPS, started the presentations by outlining the director’s concept of the
“Seamless System of Parks, Special Places, and Open Spaces.” This concept is still evolving, has
been the subject of intense interest by the NPS National Leadership Council, and will be a prime
theme of the Joint Venture 2003 Conference (November) in Los Angeles.
Elkinton then went on to describe the to learn much more about their own proper-
National Trails System, created by law in 1968 ty’s natural values. One valuable aspect of the
“to spread the success of the Appalachian program for landowners is technical assis-
Trail across America.” Today, it includes eight tance offered in areas of design, education,
national scenic trails (NSTs) and 15 national and research.
historic trails (NHTs), totaling over 42,000 John Sprinkle, National Register historian
miles. Of these, NPS has a perpetual adminis- in the Washington Office, described National
trative responsibility for 17 trails. Successful Historic Landmarks, which require secretarial
partnership projects include the 14-state action for designation. Today, there are 2,342
inventory of natural resources along the historic landmarks, of which about 50% are
Appalachian NST, the Mapping Emigrant publicly owned. He also described the
Trails trail types developed by the National Register of Historic Places, now list-
Oregon–California Trails Association, innova- ing over 76,000 properties at all levels of sig-
tive use of the Land and Water Conservation nificance. Most of these nominations come
Fund to help states protect part of these trails, through state historic preservation offices.
community involvement along the Potomac Save America’s Treasures funding is available
Heritage NST, and intercultural links along for nationally significant cultural resources.
the Ala Kahakai and Lewis and Clark NHTs. National Register programs have grown to
Partner commitment is strong (in FY01, include travel itineraries and the educational
620,000 volunteer hours and $6.2 million in program “Teaching with Historic Places,”
contributions were donated to support these which are both now found on the worldwide
trails). web.
Margi Brooks, national program leader for Harry Williamson works for the National
the NPS National Natural Landmarks Park Service in Sacramento and coordinates
Program, based in Tucson, Arizona, described the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program for
the 40-year-old program. It is definitely a California. He described the program, and the
working example of the secretary of the interi- associated compliance, regulations, and sec-
or’s “4 Cs,” as a voluntary program that tion 404 permit reviews. Wild and scenic
encourages local resource conservation. rivers managed by the NPS are considered
Today, there are 587 National Natural units of the National Park System. Many of the
Landmarks, of which 50% are on public wild and scenic rivers are state-managed,
lands. Brooks presented examples of how requiring close cooperation and coordination
working with landowners had preserved the with state agencies. Some of the recent river
nationally significant resources within land- projects are partnership rivers with strong
marks. Often, designation enables landowners involvement by local communities. Within
5
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
NPS there is no hierarchy of responsibility for In the closing discussion, five points were
wild and scenic rivers, although many compli- raised that may have value for the broader
ance documents are circulated for review. NPS resource management community:
State management of rivers is often difficult • All of these programs should be better
when state economies are struggling. Work known and used by NPS and its conserva-
with landowners along the river banks is a crit- tion partners. A self-tutorial CD describ-
ical part of the program, and there is a need for ing the programs and their benefits could
expanded communications with these owners be assembled and called “The NPS Family
to enlist their support for the protection of the of Services.”
river corridors. • These programs are subtly different, one
Angie Tornes from the NPS office in from the other, based on differences in law
Milwaukee rounded out the presentations, and practice. For example, some are more
representing the Rivers, Trails, and regulatory in nature.
Conservation Assistance Program. This tech- • There is a difference between programs
nical assistance program operates in all NPS that highlight superlatives (such as nation-
regions with 80 staff, and provides assistance al landmarks) and those assisting wherever
to local communities, state agencies, local asked.
nonprofits, and others to develop trails, green- • There is plenty of room to encourage sup-
ways, river projects, and other conservation- porters and constituents to promote the
related projects. Projects can range in scope programs and bring in greater funding.
from entire states and watersheds down to • When NPS develops new websites, it
urban projects vital to local communities and would be helpful to the public to feature
neighborhoods. The program’s key roles are these programs too, state by state, thereby
helping groups develop visions and set goals, giving information on the full array of NPS
identifying barriers, educating partners about services that augment the more well-
project benefits, sharing current literature and known park operations.
best practices, and steering groups towards
funding sources.

6
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

The Role of the U.S. Geological Survey

in Science Delivery to the National Park Service
Dennis B. Fenn, Southwest Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 2255 North
Gemini Drive, MS-9394, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001; denny_fenn@usgs.gov

The U.S Geological Survey (USGS) was created on March 3, 1879, and signed into law by
President Rutherford B. Hayes as a part the appropriations bill for the fiscal year starting on July
1, 1879. The National Park Service (NPS) was created by organic act on August 25, 1916, and
signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. Thus, both agencies are venerable members of
the Department of the Interior (DOI) family, with USGS preparing to celebrate its 125th
anniversary next March.
These historical facts show that USGS has quantity determination function (i.e., stream
been around as a sister DOI agency during the gauging), and a topographic mapping func-
entire history of NPS, and we know that the tion, both of which responsibilities also
USGS has had an intimate relationship with ranged well beyond DOI land holdings, one
NPS for much of that time. Many NPS units can understand how an agency culture devel-
were added to the National Park System oped within USGS over the years that seemed
because of the unique and wonderful geology somewhat indifferent to NPS or other DOI
of the area, and NPS has often invited or wel- agency needs.
comed USGS geologists to conduct research Second, for a variety of reasons, including
to help the agency better understand and agency culture, General Accounting Office
interpret the physical features of the parks. In (GAO) audit rulings, federal procurement
addition, numerous parks have stream gauges laws, and a reluctance on the part of Congress
in place that are maintained by USGS, some of to appropriate administrative funds, a USGS
them now approaching almost 100 years of business model developed that had a guiding
continuous record. Furthermore, topographic principle that can be summarized in three sim-
maps produced by USGS have long been a ple but significant words, “blind to source,”
staple for both park management as well as when it came to deciding how much overhead
park visitors desiring to hike into the back- to assess on outside money flowing into the
country. agency. In other words, DOI agencies were
All of these facts are true and accurate. charged the same overhead rate as non-DOI
However, it is also true that there has long agencies. Many NPS managers simply found it
been a certain tension between the two agen- too expensive to work with USGS, and resent-
cies and a certain frustration with USGS on ed the fact that the agency would not routine-
the part of some NPS employees. I believe that ly grant a special, reduced overhead rate to a
three main factors have contributed to this sister DOI bureau.
somewhat rocky relationship between the two Lastly, the USGS generally utilized space
bureaus. rented from the General Services
First, Congress did not expressly give Administration (GSA) to house its employees
USGS the mission to provide science support rather than occupy buildings on DOI-owned
to other DOI agencies. Instead, USGS was lands. This tended to isolate USGS scientists
charged with “classification of the public from other DOI employees and make difficult
lands, and examination of the geologic struc- the kind of frequent interactions that land
ture, mineral resources, and products of the management agencies prefer. Even the USGS
public domain.” When one considers that headquarters offices were moved out of Main
USGS worked for 37 years under this mission Interior, and later out of Washington, D.C.,
before NPS was even formed, and experi- altogether, to a beautiful wooded campus in
enced the subsequent addition of a water Reston, Virginia, more than 23 miles from
7
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
downtown D.C. This move, as nice as it was icy for DOI funding. From this time forward,
for many employees, who could now live close USGS will charge only 15% overhead on any
to work and avoid a lengthy commute, further sister DOI agency funding provided to the
isolated the agency from its sister bureaus and survey. In other words, the entire survey is no
added to the perception of USGS aloofness. longer “blind to source,” and will charge this
Even given that past, however, several special, reduced rate to all DOI agencies. The
recent events have considerably reshaped the only downside to this new policy is that BRD
future possibilities. These events have given will no longer charge the special 0% rate, but
renewed hope that USGS will now start to will be required to use the common business
play a much greater role in providing science practice rate of 15%. However, since NPS and
support to her sister DOI agencies, including other DOI bureaus readily pay the same 15%
NPS. We now have every reason to believe that rate to Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit
the past will not be a prologue to the future. (CESU) research partners around the country,
Let us now review four of these events. this new BRD overhead rate should not be a
First, on October 1, 1996, Congress major problem for those bureaus. Since the
merged the former National Biological Service rate formerly charged by Water, Geology, and
(NBS) into the USGS and created the Mapping was considerably higher than 15%,
Biological Resources Division, or BRD. The this new rate will save DOI agencies a lot of
BRD joined with the Water Resources, money each year, thus offsetting part or all of
Geology, and National Mapping divisions to the increased cost of working with BRD. This
form a nearly full-service research bureau new policy was approved by the secretary, as
unmatched anywhere else in the federal sec- well as by both the Office of Management and
tor. Since BRD traces its lineage to several par- Budget (OMB) and Congress, before it was
ent DOI bureaus, it has a strong DOI service adopted by USGS. On the whole, I believe
ethic already entrenched in its subculture. that this new USGS overhead policy will
BRD immediately set about trying to inculcate prove to be a good thing for NPS.
that DOI service ethic into the culture of the Today USGS is more willing and more
larger USGS. Over the past six and a half able to meet NPS science needs than ever
years we have made slow but steady progress before. The entire survey is available to meet
in this. NPS needs on a reimbursable basis at an
Second, with the merger of NBS into assessment rate equal to what NPS would pay
USGS, the secretary of the interior formally to use a CESU. This allows NPS to carefully
charged the agency with the responsibility to consider, with a level playing field, what
serve the scientific needs of all DOI bureaus. research tool might best serve its needs in a
Finally, after 124 years, the USGS now has a given instance. Furthermore, BRD still main-
clear and unambiguous mission to serve DOI tains most of the former NPS scientists sta-
bureaus as well as the public domain in toto. tioned in the parks or universities where they
Third, when the NBS was merged into the were when NBS was formed almost 10 years
USGS, the secretary agreed that the former ago. In addition, the many other biologists at
NBS policy of 0% assessment on DOI funds our science centers stand ready to help on
coming into BRD would remain in force. In NPS issues when asked to do so. Scientists in
other words, USGS now contained a major the other USGS disciplines also stand ready
sector that was no longer “blind to source” to assist NPS when needed, and now at a more
when it came to reimbursable income. This competitive rate than ever before. Finally, the
set a precedent that would prove to have a FY04 president’s budget, now before
major impact on the long-term relationship Congress, has a line item in it for increased
between USGS and other DOI bureaus, as we USGS funding to support DOI bureaus. This
will see in event number four. is a modest beginning, at a total of approxi-
Fourth, on February 10, 2003, USGS for- mately $3 million, but it demonstrates USGS
mally adopted a new standard assessment pol- commitment to developing funding sources to
8
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

use to cost-share with DOI bureaus on science come may have been. In any case, we do not
needs in the future. want the past to once again become a prologue
In summary, I urge NPS to remain aggres- to the future. USGS stands ready to do its
sive and insistent in encouraging USGS sci- part, and I encourage NPS to likewise keep the
ence support for parks. In 1940, most of the partnership strong. Keep in mind that NPS
small cadre of nine NPS wildlife researchers made a $20 million investment in
were transferred to the Biological Survey, the USGS–BRD that is too valuable to walk away
precursor to today’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife from or to be allowed to drift away. All in all, I
Service, which was then assigned the respon- believe that this is a very positive time in the
sibility to meet NPS science needs in the history of interactions between USGS and her
wildlife management area. We all know that sister bureaus within DOI, including NPS.
this plan did not work out very well in the end.
I have often wondered whose fault that out-

9
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

Recreation Management Decisions:

What Does Science Have to Offer?
Troy E. Hall, Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism, P.O. Box 441139, University of
Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1139; troyh@uidaho.edu

Introduction:
Science and Resource Policy
The appropriate role for scientists and scientific knowledge in natural resource management
decisions is hotly debated today (Tauber 1999). Some are calling for more science-based man-
agement, with a central and powerful role for scientists (Havens and Aumen 2000; Mann and
Plummer 1999; Paul 2000). Scientists are often skeptical or critical of the public’s knowledge of
resource problems and processes and feel a need to educate and lead in problem resolution
(Mackey 1999).
On the other hand, many scholars and For example, Behan (1997:414) asserts that
managers have voiced concern about turning “science is necessary but not sufficient” for
toward science for answers, arguing that priv- making effective decisions. Adams and
ileging scientists (and/or a scientific process) Hairston (1996:27) echo this, arguing that
in policy decisions denies the valid knowledge “scientific information can be an essential part
of other stakeholders or, what is worse, is of the decision process, but alone it is insuffi-
undemocratic or deceitful (Sclove 1998; Dietz cient to deal with complex and dynamic pub-
and Stern 1998). Despite their seemingly lic issues.” Unfortunately, many of these arti-
technical nature, resource problems are cles do little in terms of providing concrete
“social and political constructs” advice about what specifically science is good
(Hisschemoeller and Hoppe 1995:43) that for. In this paper I describe the characteristics
invariably involve judgments about what is of problems for which I think science is well-
desirable or appropriate. They involve ques- suited.
tions of values, not only in selecting among Before discussing the role of science, it
alternative management regimes but also in may be useful to define what we mean by sci-
the very process of deciding what to study and ence. In this paper, I use “science” in its most
how to study it. According to Behan traditional usage: as an endeavor to discover
(1997:414), “management is as much a politi- or articulate knowledge that is based in
cal enterprise as it is scientific.” In recent empiricism (and therefore strives for objectiv-
years, many analyses have clearly exposed the ity), rationality and logic, quantification,
myriad value judgments that underlie even the reductionism, and specialization (Behan
most seemingly “objective” scientific enter- 1997; Ozawa 1996). Whether (or how well)
prises (e.g., Martin and Richards 1995; this description fits the reality of scientific
Tauber 1999; Wynne 1996, 1999). enterprise is a matter of debate and disagree-
Given the debates over “science policy” ment (Tauber 1999), but nevertheless it is a
(as it is commonly termed) in natural definition with which we are quite familiar
resources generally, it is no surprise to see the and with which most scientists still identify.
same questions being debated in the context
of carrying capacity or other recreation man- What is Science Good For?
agement decisions. It is important that we give Like others, I am convinced that science is
careful attention to the question of how sci- critical to making management decisions that
ence should be used in reaching decisions have some chance of succeeding in achieving
about whether and how to manage recreation their desired ends. Despite some notable fail-
use. Many scholars offer advice about the ures, science has a proven track record in gen-
place of science in resource decision-making. erating tangible outcomes and products that
10
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
are unlikely to have been achieved through and often decisive in such cases. (It is impor-
any other form of inquiry. In the pages below, tant to point out, however, that deciding what
I argue that the most appropriate and effective levels of impact are acceptable remains a value
roles for science involve description, predic- judgment outside the sole purview of science.)
tion, explanation, and assessment. I am cer- Many mundane, but important, questions
tainly not alone in articulating a distinction conform to this type—managers need infor-
between description and evaluation and argu- mation about recreational visitors and their
ing that the former, but not the latter, is the impacts (How many are there? Who are they?
proper domain for science. For example, What are they interested in? What do they
Freyfogle and Newton (2002:864) argue that know? Where do they go? What do they do?),
the fundamental “aim of science is to describe which are questions science is well-suited to
nature and how it functions, rather than to answer. Understanding baseline conditions
pass normative judgment upon it.” through reliable, clearly articulated methods,
Description. One important role for sci- along with estimates of natural variability, per-
ence is the discovery of knowledge that gener- mits science to track changes over time in ways
ates a new perspective on a phenomenon that are more accurate than reliance on human
(Ozawa 1996). Because of their inquisitive memory or intuition.
nature, analytic skills, and access to technolog- Science can describe the strength and
ical equipment, scientists can develop under- nature of relationships among variables,
standings of phenomena that occur at spatial assuming those relationships are amenable to
and/or temporal scales that exceed human quantification. A good example comes from
sensory and perceptual abilities. A classic work on recreational trampling effects on veg-
example is the discovery of the ozone hole etation. Science has shown that the relation-
(Ozawa 1996). In recreation, examples might ship is curvilinear and has identified the mor-
include identification of noxious weeds car- phological and phenological characteristics of
ried by recreational visitors into remote species that are susceptible or resistant to
wilderness areas or the description of degradation. Such insights have been used by
improved human cognitive functioning after managers to justify recommendations about
exposure to natural environments. In such campsite management strategies. In another
cases, scientists may discover knowledge dur- example, research in environmental psycholo-
ing the course of their basic research and not gy has shown that there are strong and consis-
in response to any identified need on the part tent relationships between environmental
of managers. Of course, this knowledge may characteristics (such as vegetation, terrain, or
later be brought to bear on specific manage- the presence of water) and visitors’ aesthetic
ment issues. preferences or responses. Such findings have
Scientific research is particularly good at helped recreation managers design recreation
describing baseline conditions and the natural sites and predict where visitors are likely to
variability in phenomena that are of interest to congregate.
managers and the public (Mackey 1999). Physical phenomena and processes are not
Often, recreation decisions involve disagree- the only things science can describe. Science
ments about the extent of some phenomenon. can also be helpful in giving clarity and struc-
If all stakeholders agree about the nature of the ture to identified problems and identifying
data that would answer the question, science areas of uncertainty and disagreement (Adams
can help reach an acceptable resolution. For and Hairston 1996; Dietz and Stern 1998).
example, questions often arise about the effect Science can identify elements of a problem
of recreational use on water quality. Managers that has already been defined as problematic
and scientists generally agree about the types by stakeholders. In the example of vegetation
of data that can be used to describe the extent impacts, if managers have targeted vegetation
of effects (fecal coliform, streptococci, nutri- loss as an issue in need of attention, science
ents), and scientific research is appropriate can help identify aspects or dimensions of the
11
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
problem, such as changes in species composi- crowding. Scientific research is perfectly
tion, alterations in soil chemistry that might poised to answer this question through visitor
perpetuate changes in vegetation, and so on. studies. Turning to a biological example, sci-
Prediction. If we understand how vari- ence can describe and predict what types of
ables interact, then we may gain insight into vegetation are impacted by trampling, but it
how systems will respond if variables are can go further to explain the mechanisms by
manipulated or change. Thus, scientific which such effects occur.
research can aid in the prediction of future Causation. Typically, explanations of phe-
events. Dietz and Stern (1998:441) point out nomena involve explicating causal relation-
that “good science can suggest what will hap- ships. Often, these are suggested on the basis
pen under alternative scenarios.” That is, it of correlational designs, and therefore must be
can define “paths and outcomes” (Adams and accepted with caution. However, if research is
Hairston 1996:28). For example, recommen- conducted through experiments, with con-
dations for the appropriate management of trols and randomization, science can make
human waste and sanitation on rivers and in definitive statements about how variation in
wilderness areas have been based on predic- certain factors leads to changes in other fac-
tion of the outcomes of different management tors. This is an extremely powerful contribu-
alternatives given understandings about use tion to management. However, it is typically
density. Another case in point relates to pre- rare that we can create the circumstances nec-
dicting how visitors will react under different essary to establish causation in recreation
management regimes. Simulation modeling of research.
recreational use patterns, based on an under- Implementation and monitoring.
standing of the variables that enter into a visi- Because of its power to predict and/or
tor’s decision-making process, permits man- explain, one of the most important roles for
agers to model aggregate behaviors under dif- science pertains to the implementation of
ferent management scenarios. Many scientists decisions (Freyfogle and Newton 2002).
feel this is an important role and are more Science is appropriate for evaluating the
comfortable evaluating the likely outcomes of implementation and effectiveness of manage-
management alternatives than in proposing or ment actions (Adams and Hairston 1996). If
defending the alternatives themselves. there is agreement about desired end states,
Explanation. One can predict without science can often determine (or at least deter-
being able to explain why events occur. mine with more certainty than other ways of
Science is, at least potentially, capable of both knowing) which actions will lead to which end
prediction and explanation. It can be used to states (Mackey 1999). An increasingly impor-
design critical tests of competing explanations tant role for science in resource management
for observations, as long as parties agree on relates to monitoring. Science is particularly
the criteria to be used, the design of the tests, well suited for this because it generates useful
and the interpretation of data (e.g., Havens information (i.e., is quickly responsive to man-
and Aumen 2000). For example, in recreation agers’ concerns); is credible if carried out in
management, there is argument about why vis- systematic, transparent ways; and is efficient,
itors in crowded wilderness areas feel satisfied in that it can identify the most cost-effective
with their experience. Managers know that evaluation techniques. In recreation manage-
wilderness visitors seek solitude, and crowded ment, perhaps the most well-known examples
conditions should be antithetical to achieving are programs designed to monitor the condi-
solitude. One possible explanation holds that tion of trails and campsites, or the National
people who are sensitive to crowding have Park Service’s long-term project to monitor-
been displaced, so that those who remain are ing the satisfaction of park visitors across the
simply those who are satisfied. However, an United States.
equally plausible explanation argues that peo-
ple are satisfied because they don’t care about
12
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

What are Scientists Good For? When Does Science

Apart from bringing scientific knowledge Offer the Most?
to bear on resource management questions, To summarize the above points, science
scientists as trained professionals also bring appears to be most useful when (1) problems
certain qualities that may facilitate resource have limited numbers of dimensions; (2) the
management decisions. Scientists are trained questions lend themselves to quantification
to maintain a skeptical, questioning perspec- and reduction; (3) when the value questions
tive and to employ logical analysis to scruti- have been resolved—either stakeholders have
nize propositions. They can point out the lim- shared values or their values conflict, but at
itations of existing knowledge (Freyfogle and least are certain; (4) when there is adequate
Newton 2002). These are important qualities time, as science requires time for study; and
in policy debates. Humans have a natural pro- (5) when the entities under study behave in
clivity to be uncritical of things with which uniform ways under similar conditions.
they agree and to accept arguments from
sources to whom they are attracted. To the A Graphic Model of
extent that scientists can overcome such ten- Problem “Types”
Hisschemoeller and Hoppe (1995) offer a
dencies, they may help in decision-making. Of
conceptual model to help understand the role
course, there is no guarantee that that they
of science in decision-making. They identify
maintain such perspectives, or that their views
two axes that shape the nature of the problem
will be treated any differently from those of
and therefore the role of science: (1) consen-
other vested stakeholders (Mattson 1996).
sus on relevant norms and values; and (2) cer-
Furthermore, this skeptical attitude may be
tainty about relevant knowledge (Table 1).
contrary to managers’ need to make decisions
Structured problems are those in which all
in the face of limited and uncertain data.
players agree about the desired end state (val-
Scientists lend credibility to many pro-
ues) and about the types of knowledge that
ceedings and deliberations (Ozawa 1996).
will help attain that end state (relevant knowl-
Science is a powerful, authoritative institution
edge). Science is of most utility in these struc-
in the modern world. Following the accepted
tured problems. For instance, stakeholders
strictures of science, especially done while
often agree that restoration of natural vegeta-
maintaining some independence, lends pow-
tion is a desirable end state (values), and it is
erful credibility to an endeavor. Scientists are
clear that information on species-specific
not always convincing to everyone, but sci-
responses, soil amendments, and similar
ence as an institution does enjoy widespread
things is needed to help achieve these ends.
social support. This authority of course
Scientific research is the dominant force in
brings responsibility—it is rather easy to fall
guiding such efforts.
into using science as a shield, to “create the
Some problems are structured to the
illusion that science is arbitrating between
extent that stakeholders share views on desir-
multiple policy viewpoints,” when in fact it is
able end states, but not on what types of infor-
not scientific knowledge, but value commit-
mation are needed to achieve them.
ments, that do the arbitration (Ozawa
Hisschemoeller and Hoppe (1995) describe
1996:224).
these as problems that are “moderately struc-
tured (ends).” Science is helpful in such prob-
Table 1. Types of resource management problems (based on Hisschemoeller and Hoppe
1995)
Consensus on relevant norms and values
No Yes
Certainty about relevant No Unstructured (messy, wicked) Moderately
knowledge structured (ends)
Yes Moderately structured (means) Structured
13
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
lems, but not so much as in fully structured ple, in wilderness management there is debate
problems, because of disagreement about how over which value (access or preservation)
to obtain needed knowledge and/or what to should be privileged and over how we would
obtain. An example may be found in the erad- know when we got there. There is also dis-
ication of noxious weeds from wilderness agreement about whether wilderness should
areas. Many (though not all) share such a goal, be managed for wildness or naturalness, and
but there is disagreement about the proper what criteria to use to identify one or the
means to attain it. Another example might per- other. Many scholars strongly advocate alter-
tain to ensuring solitude in wilderness; all native decision processes for such messy
agree about need to provide it (the ends), but problems.
there is considerable disagreement about what
data should be brought to bear to determine Conclusions
whether solitude is being ensured. This review may seem to draw a narrowly
Some problems are moderately structured circumscribed line around the territory of sci-
in terms of having agreement about the types ence. I have contended that science is a pow-
of data that are relevant, but disagreement erful tool to describe, predict, and explain, but
about the desired end states. For example, not to arbitrate values. Thus, I want to con-
wilderness managers appear to agree that data clude by emphasizing that, within the bound-
on vegetation loss at campsites are needed to aries I have described, science has done a
manage recreational impacts. But how much tremendous amount to improve resource
vegetation loss is too much? Science can management. Science is indeed an essential
quantify the vegetation loss with relatively lit- component to resource and recreation man-
tle controversy and can help managers under- agement; it is just not the only one.
stand implications of different value choices.
However, science itself does not specify what References
the threshold level of impact should be. Adams, P.W., and A.B. Hairston. 1996.
Similarly, many recreation managers believe Calling all experts: using science to direct
that they need survey data to describe the policy. Journal of Forestry 94:4, 27–30.
characteristics, values, attitudes, and prefer- Behan, R.W. 1997. Scarcity, simplicity, sepa-
ences of their visitors. However, there is often ratism, science—and systems. In Creating
disagreement about which visitor segment a Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science
should be privileged in making decisions, i.e., of Ecosystem Management. K.A. Kohm and
the relevant values. J.F. Franklin, eds. Washington, D.C.:
Finally, there are unstructured problems Island Press, 411–417.
(sometimes called “messy” or “wicked” prob- Dietz, T., and P.C. Stern. 1998. Science, val-
lems), which are characterized by strife over ues, and biodiversity. BioScience 48:6,
both means and ends. Dietz and Stern (1998) 441–444.
describe such problems as multidimensional Freyfogle, E.T., and J.L. Newton. 2002.
(outcomes may have many, unequally distrib- Putting science in its place. Conservation
uted effects), uncertain at a meta-level (we are Biology 16:4, 863–873.
uncertain about our level of uncertainty), Havens, K.E., and N.G. Aumen. 2000.
fraught with mistrust, and urgent (failure to Hypothesis-driven experimental research
act has significant consequences). In such is necessary for natural resource manage-
conflicts, placing faith in science or scientists ment. Environmental Management 25:1,
will not lead to an accepted resolution. 1–7.
Unfortunately, many important resource man- Hisschemoeller, M., and R. Hoppe. 1996.
agement issues, including many in recreation Coping with intractable controversies: the
management, fall into this category, and even case for problem structuring in policy
the descriptive data themselves paint an design and analysis. Knowledge and Policy
uncertain picture (Mattson 1996). For exam- 8:4, 50–60.
14
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
Mackey, B.G. 1999. Environmental scientists, in new forest management plans.
advocacy, and the future of Earth. BioScience 50:2, 108.
Environmental Conservation 26, Sclove, R.E. 1998. Editorial: Better approach-
245–249. es to science policy. Science 279:4355,
Mann, C.C., and M.L. Plummer. 1999. Call 1283.
for ‘sustainability’ in forests sparks a fire. Tauber, A.I. 1999. Is biology a political sci-
Science 283, 1996–1998. ence? BioScience 49:6, 479–486.
Martin, B., and E. Richards. 1995. Scientific Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze?
knowledge, controversy, and public deci- A reflexive view on the expert–lay knowl-
sion making. In Handbook of Science and edge divide. In Risk, Environment and
Technology Studies. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. S.
Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, eds. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, eds.
London: Sage, 506–525. London: Sage, 44–83.
Mattson, D.J. 1996. Ethics and science in nat- ———. 1999. Knowledges in context. In
ural resource agencies. BioScience 46:10, Communicating Science: Contexts and
767–771. Channels. E. Scanlon, E. Whitelegg, and
Ozawa, C.P. 1996. Science in environmental S. Yates, eds. London: The Open
conflicts. Sociological Perspectives 39, University, 4–13.
219–230.
Paul, E. 2000. Science could play starring role

15
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

Fun with and Profit from a Non-profit Library Friends Group:

Twenty Years of the Library Friends Group at San Francisco
Maritime National Historical Park
David Hull, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, Building E, Fort Mason, 3rd
Floor, San Francisco, California 94115; david_hull@nps.gov
What is fun? And what is profit?
I have a couple of definitions that appear to be outside general bureaucratic usage—at least as
I experience it.
Fun: What wealthy people do all the time … because wealthy people don’t have to do any-
thing that’s not fun.
There are wealthy people who have a genuine interest in the subject of my park, and there
probably are for your park as well. I feed that interest. I tell them about my hopes and desires for
my park, as well as those of others, as well as the official plans for the park. I give them the full

menu, it’s interesting to them. spontaneously declared that he would fund a

But all I do is give information; I do not scholarship for a youngster.
ask for funding. Why? Because it’s fun to hear I like to think of the whole process as fun-
of hopes and dreams; it’s not fun to be asked raising.
for money … nor is it fun to ask for money, Our library friends group concluded its
nor is it acceptable to National Park Service twentieth year last year with over 200 current
policy. paid-up members, and with assets over
I have fun with them; I talk ships with $350,000, of which over $300,000 were in
them. Or shipyards. Or sail lofts. Or cash, of which fully $220,000 are in perma-
scrimshaw. Whatever their interest is. nent funds, or endowments.
I have fun with them; when they invite me All of the permanent funds have come in
to lunch, I go. I take an interest in them as peo- the past eight years, and much of the rest as
ple; I tell them about who I am, beyond my well.
job. I am open to a relationship with them Fun-raising.
beyond their being simply another visitor, The history of this friends group falls neat-
another acquaintance. ly into two ten-year periods. In the first ten
Here’s another definition: years, the most important thing they achieved
Profit: Funds that flow to my park or was to lobby successfully for the establish-
friends group as a result of my having ment in the park of a library acquisition fund
“fun” with wealthy people. of $5,000. To this day, regrettably, no other
department in the park—which is a museum—
I feed their interest in my park and its has an acquisition fund.
development, I give them the full menu and at More important, then and now, than what
some point it does strike some of them as fun they achieved is what they were: they were
to fund some element of it. Some 90–95% of and are friends—people interested in the chal-
philanthropic giving is by individuals rather lenges and successes of the library … a morale
than foundations. They are worth paying this boost for a department that often feels that it is
kind of attention to. at the bottom of the feeding chain in budget
And they do volunteer money. Just before and staffing: behind ships, and rightly so;
writing this, I was talking to a donor about a behind health and safety, and rightly so;
class in maritime history that our park—and behind artifacts because they are unique, and
our library friends group—are sponsoring rightly so; ineligible for backlog cataloguing
along with two academic institutions; he funds.
16
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
Artifacts, archives, books. Now think with acquisition by donation of two additional
me a moment, parenthetically. major private libraries, valued together at an
Artifacts are essential; they provide a estimated $500,000–750,000.
bone-deep reality that nothing else can. They published seven monographs on
Archives are crucial; use of them advances the maritime history. They established an endow-
body of knowledge, they feed the books. ment which fosters research in maritime histo-
But let me tell you, it is the printed word— ry with a $1,000 biennial award. They estab-
in books, reports, on the screen—it is the lished an endowment for library acquisitions,
printed word and concomitant images, it is the an endowment for library collection manage-
printed word with value added—the values of ment, an endowment for maritime education,
consolidation, summary, reflection, conclu- and a revolving fund for publications. They
sion.... established on-line sales of books rejected by
It is the printed word, which is the ground the library, producing $20,000 in the first
of our understanding of our park’s subjects, year. They established and provide on-going
the seedbed of the knowledge we are charged funding for a work–study program; currently
to preserve and the education we are charged there are seven students in the library doing
to impart … the printed word, whose home is the work of approximately 1.6 full-time
the library. employees.
What I am saying is “The library is impor- Clearly this library friends group has
tant.” become a significant factor in the well-being
The library is important. and advancement of the library program at
The library is important. San Francisco Maritime National Historical
The National Park Service does not Park.
understand this, as witness the staffing and But how did this come to pass? Was it all
funding and policy support it provides to its peaches and cream? Were there obstacles?
libraries. The NPS Library Steering There were obstacles and dangers. But there
Committee is working to repair the damage were also solutions. To recount only the major
that NPS has suffered, resulting from its de- items:
emphasis over the decades upon libraries.
Item: Immediately after establishment of
But before, during and after whatever suc-
the library friends group, my supervisor
cess that committee may have, consider this: a
opposed it on grounds that a museum
library friends group, incorporated as a non-
group already existed. She sent a GAO
profit, is much more than a friendly morale
auditor to grill me. I produced a copy of a
boost, because a non-profit library friends
memo serving notice to my supervisor of
group is a legal citizen of the world. They can
my intention to establish the group. “Well,
act in the real world, as it were, that is, outside
she had notice,” said the auditor, “and
the bureaucracy, and their entire legal purpose
took no action.” End of threat, for the
is limited to one thing—advancing the library.
moment.
It was in the second ten years that our local
library friends group took off. The first thing Item: After about 18 months, my supervi-
they did was contract for a whaling library that sor became more creative. She subverted a
cost 33 times more than anything they had board member; he made a motion that
ever bought. They pulled it off too, with loans since the park was not taking action on a
to pay off the contract within 60 days, then co-operative agreement (which action she
within three years they paid off the loans. in fact was preventing), the library friends
With that success they became a tangible should become part of the other, larger
factor in the well-being and the advancement group.
of the library—and the Park Service presented The library group was saved by a proce-
them with a Partnership Leadership Award. dural move. The motion was tabled in favor of
They went on to be instrumental in the the president’s inquiry of the superintendent
17
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
whether he wanted this public–private part- and it is this: that the moment one def-
nership or not. The superintendent instructed initely commits oneself, then
my supervisor to release the co-operative Providence moves too. All sorts of
agreement for finalization. things occur to help one that would
Item: After about 12 years, a president of never otherwise have occurred. A
the library friends, seeking better funding whole stream of events issues from
for the library, negotiated with the larger the decision, raising in one’s favor all
museum non-profit an agreement wherein manner of unforeseen incidents and
it would gradually absorb the library meetings and material assistance,
friends. I did not endorse this move, but which no man could have dreamed
the board voted for it anyway. would have come his way. Whatever
The larger group, however, rushed the you can do, or dream you can do,
process, nor did the hoped-for improvement begin it. Boldness has genius, power,
in library funding materialize, so the subse- and magic in it. Begin it now.
quent library associates president continued There is not time to even summarize a sug-
to act independently for the library, and fortu- gested governance and startup methodology
nately the agreement fell apart. for the projected Friends of the NPS
Item: Serious and possibly litigious prob- Libraries, but it is based on a model originally
lems developed with the library friends’ written for a Hawaiian group, which is avail-
first consultant in administrative support able on-line at www.nps.gov/safr/local/
and subsequently with a third-party lib/hawaiifriends.html, and I will make one
administration contract. After four years of basic, pivotal point regarding the startup
cautious work by two presidents, the methodology.
group was able to overcome those difficult It is this: the crucial first member of the
situations. public to be identified is someone to handle
the nuts and bolts, the administrative sup-
So the library friends group rolled into
port—the membership records, the bookkeep-
and through its twentieth year last year. When
ing, etc. A retired executive secretary or office
we realized that we had not celebrated that
manager. It doesn’t start with a high-flying
anniversary, we set down on paper the various
executive type; it starts with a worker who is
aims and desires that had been expressed for
willing to make a three-year commitment.
the library and the group over the past several
A few years ago I looked for other friends
years. It was a five-year plan, designed to posi-
groups of federal libraries.
tion the group so it has even better reasons to
Across the entire country I found only one
celebrate its 25th anniversary. We called it the
other, and it was at the Library of Congress.
quarter-century plan. The board cogitated it,
So I don’t expect that you will establish a
the executive committee worked it over, and
library friends group for your library, or a
finally the board approved it. Its most startling
friends group for your program area.
element is that, all together, it calls for raising
What I wanted to do is describe what our
$1 million dollars—three times its total cur-
library friends group has done for our library,
rent assets—for the permanent funds.
so that you may have some vision of what can
The ground of this chutzpah is found in a
be done for your program area by your active
quote attributed to the famous German
participation in conjunction with whatever
philosopher Goethe:
friends group may address your park, or your
Until one is committed, there is hesi- region or the National Park Service at large, or
tancy, always the chance to draw merely a category of interest into which your
back. Concerning all acts of initiative park falls, such as conservation.
(and creation), there is one elemen- If I may paraphrase Goethe, “Do it now!
tary truth—the ignorance of which kills For the fun and profit!”
countless ideas and splendid plans—

18
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

On Becoming Relevant:
Environmental History and National Park Management
David Louter, National Park Service, 909 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104;
david_louter@nps.gov

About four years ago, I was driving around Point Reyes National Seashore with Gordon
White, the park’s new cultural resource manager. We were both relatively new to the seashore,
and were fresh with the awe, hope, and optimism common to any new relationship with nation-
al parks. We believed we would make a difference. As we toured the park, Gordon related the
story of the seashore, renowned for its natural environment, open space, and history of dairy
ranching in the shadow of San Francisco. This was no typical park in which the distinction
between wild nature and modified nature was starkly clear (in either a physical or intellectual
sense). Here, no matter your professional interests, you could not argue for managing the area as
if it were pristine nature. Ranching had left an indelible imprint on the Point Reyes landscape
since the mid-19th century. It would be difficult for anyone to suggest that if we just pulled back
the agricultural curtain we would find primordial nature intact.
To the contrary, the natural world we so virtues of environmental history was not
enjoyed on that day—the smell of eucalyptus enough, and I found myself unprepared for
(exotic), the undulating open terrain (grazed the enthusiasm and questions that followed.
lands), and the tranquil pastoral scene (market They were the questions that a manager, not
economy)—was the result of a long relation- an academic, would ask, for they centered on
ship between humans and nature on the Point. practical (and important) matters, such as:
More importantly, it seemed that park man-
• How do you use this kind of study?
agers were not trying to untangle people from
• What is a good definition of environmental
natural systems but to understand how they
history for national parks?
affected those systems and why. We need to
• How do you do environmental history?
know how we got here, Gordon noted, so we
• What kind of topics do you address?
can understand and manage nature that, in a
• What would we learn from them?
sense, runs through this ranching country,
• How long does it take to do them?
while continuing to protect ranching as a
• How much do they cost?
viable way of life.
• How are they different than other histories
His observation, I thought, took the classic
and other reports the Park Service pre-
preservation paradox of national park man-
pares? Not everything is a landscape.
agement to another level, and I told Gordon
• Last and most importantly: How would
that this would be a perfect place for an envi-
we apply this history to management ques-
ronmental history. He had described almost
tions about preserving ranch lands and
exactly what environmental history does: it
restoring or maintaining biological
studies the changing relationship between
processes?
people and the natural world through time. It
pays special attention to the intended and Although I now have answers for these
unintended consequences of human activities questions, I did not at the time. And while I
in nature, as well as the ways people have worked to answer them and craft a definition
shaped and in turn been shaped by the natural of environmental history for national parks
world. that did not sound bureaucratically bland, the
I felt confident in my declaration. I was, environmental history program took off on its
after all, an environmental historian and I own.
wanted to see more environmental histories of Gordon contacted Richard White, who
national parks. But simply pronouncing the had been one of my advisors at the University
19
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

of Washington, and had recently left the histo- this kind of study to management issues with-
ry department there for Stanford. Along with in parks. One was a study of San Juan Island
historians such as Donald Worster and National Historical Park, a place where the
William Cronon, Richard was considered one tension between natural and historic scenes
of the founders of the field of environmental made it a good case study. For funding rea-
history and a leading American historian. sons, the other two projects were environmen-
Gordon invited him to come to the park and tal history overviews, or prospectuses, that
discuss the topic of environmental history and provided well-developed summaries of the
the prospects of developing an environmental relevant themes and topics for Point Reyes
history program with park staff. Among those and for the fur trade in the Pacific Northwest
at the initial and subsequent meetings were and its effect on parks there. This summer
many from natural science backgrounds— we’ll be starting our fourth, and first fully
biology, botany, range management, marine funded, environmental history, the subject of
ecology, and geology. which will be Tomales Bay at Point Reyes
The main theme of the sessions was that National Seashore. We’re carrying out all of
ecologists and historians had common inter- these studies, I should add, through the
ests and similar historical questions but differ- University of Washington, using the
ent approaches to answering those questions. Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit agree-
They were good discussions, and park man- ment.
agers were interested in incorporating envi- What I’d like to do now is discuss how the
ronmental history into the research and edu- program has progressed over the last three
cation program associated with its new years, present what I think is a statement of
research station, the Pacific Coast Learning purpose for environmental history in national
Center. Environmental history, along with parks and talk about how this kind of work is
other research in the natural sciences, found a becoming relevant, pointing when appropri-
place in the learning center’s program. As part ate to some of the projects I just mentioned.
of his contribution, Richard White started a First, I don’t want to give anyone the
course at Stanford, an annual seminar on the impression that environmental history is
history of the West and the environment at “new” and has never been done before in
Point Reyes. The idea was to have students national parks. The field traces its roots to the
conduct research at the park, using it as their 1930s, its professional debut to the 1970s and
case study and working on topics relevant to the formation of the professional organization,
park management. In doing so, they would the American Society for Environmental
produce an archive of research. Students in History. Moreover, national parks are natural
the course, now in its third year, have places for this kind of study, for their creation
researched and written about a variety of top- and management present the important and
ics, providing a kind of organic research col- often problematic relationship Americans
lection that continues to grow and build off of have with the natural world. During the last
previous years. thirty years, national parks have been the sub-
So it turns out that this was the beginning ject of some of the best environmental histo-
of the environmental history program, ries for this reason.
whether I had intended it or not. I decided at Yet environmental history has rarely been
this point to show rather than tell what applied to questions of park management.
“applied” environmental history was. I pre- Thus, the purpose of the environmental histo-
pared posters and powerpoint presentations ry program is to promote the study of the
for academic and National Park Service con- changing relationship between people and
ferences. But of greater importance, I was able nature through time in national parks. It oper-
to develop and quite serendipitously fund ates under the notion that nature has a role in
three environmental histories and further the human past, and that nature has a history.
“show” or “demonstrate” how we can apply It asks some fundamental questions: What
20
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
were the ecological consequences—both vant for national parks? Perhaps the most
intended and unintended—of human activi- obvious way is that it can provide park man-
ties? How have people affected and in turn agers with a deeper understanding of the
been affected by the natural world? What were ecosystems under their care. I think as a gen-
the forces and motives for environmental eral statement and in my own experience,
change? Moreover, because this kind of study most ecologists and land managers tend to
explores the on-going dialectic between acknowledge that there are no distinct bound-
humans and nature and attempts to help us aries between the human and nonhuman,
understand, in the words of Cronon, “envi- between the natural and unnatural worlds. At
ronmental change in relation to the actions of the very least, most would agree that it would
human beings, blending ... the insights of be profoundly problematic to make such a dis-
ecology and economics,” the goal of environ- tinction. For example, as Mark Fiege’s work
mental history is to enrich our understanding about the history of irrigation in southern
of past events in a national park, reinterpret Idaho suggests, one cannot imagine nature—
the history of that park (by adding complexi- the world we have not created—tamed, for it
ty), or revise that history altogether. continues to influence the canals and dams
For many, the story might seem familiar that water that desert country in a variety of
but the focus will be different. The general expected and unexpected ways. In this
approach or analytical framework builds off of respect, we should consider that “landscapes
the questions noted above and is fairly are historical creations” influenced by natural
straightforward. What were the forces of and often human activities, and that knowl-
change? What attitudes or ideas (culture) edge of a landscape’s history should inform
influenced people’s perception of nature? management.
How did capitalism (market economy) affect In my discussions with park ecologists,
their decisions about and relationship with botanists, marine ecologists, and geologists,
nature? And how can ecology help us under- we’ve concluded that scientific studies and
stand nature and the changes we have caused? environmental histories can proceed together
We also might consider material versus cultur- profitably because many of our questions are
al notions of nature as part of the analytical historical; only our approach to answering
approach. It’s important to keep in mind that them differs. Ecologists tend to look at two
these are at bottom land use histories and points in time and assume that what took
therefore rely on a more traditional kind of place between them was the reason for
environmental history approach. But they change, but often it’s what occurred well
should remain open to the kind of perspective before and even after that had a role. And that
that comes from more recent approaches such is a perspective historians can bring.
as those that consider the role of gender, race, Conducted in tandem with scientific studies,
class, environmental justice, and human then, environmental history can reveal a
health. Finally, the narrative, I believe, is an broader picture of a landscape’s past in both a
essential tool in crafting environmental histo- theoretical as well as a practical context. In
ries of national parks. Understanding human this respect, thinking of ecosystems historical-
connections to the natural world and their ly and abstractly—as products of their own
ecological consequences within the frame- past as well as products of nature’s timeless
work of a story—with a beginning, middle, processes—resource managers will be better
and end—is as powerful as it is understated. prepared to evaluate and respond to unex-
People respond to this. It doesn’t mean the pected change, such as the 1997 floods in
narrative has to be reductive or simplistic, but Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park.
the gift of historians lies in their ability to pro- They will also be better prepared to develop
vide perspective and context, to show change long-term strategies for landscape manage-
over time, to tell a story. ment; for example, the removal of exotic
What makes environmental history rele- species, the restoration of park ecosystems, or
21
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
perhaps the finding of ways to reconcile also yield new insights into subjects such as
human-modified landscapes with biological colonial New England, slavery, the Civil War,
processes. industrialization, and westward expansion,
Environmental history is also relevant for among others. At Civil War battlefields such as
parks because it promotes a more interdisci- Gettysburg, for example, park interpreters
plinary approach to resource stewardship. It could enhance more conventional histories of
helps bring perspective to changes in ecosys- the conflict (if they don’t already) with discus-
tems that were the result of “natural” as well as sions about the way military planners viewed
“cultural” actions. It reveals the difficulty in the terrain; the role of resources—food, fuel,
separating the two. As Cronon asserts, envi- and the like; the effect of weather, climate, and
ronmental history in this regard encourages disease; the use of animals and animal power;
“resource managers and ecologists to work and vegetation, especially forests. Already,
more closely with historians and other stu- Gettysburg managers are employing a kind of
dents of human culture” to find more creative environmental history to inform a plan for a
approaches to the management of natural large-scale restoration of the historic battle
resources. Environmental history, I think, then “scene” or landscape through, among other
supports a more holistic approach to resource things, the removal of forest cover and other
management—one that considers cultural and vegetation.
natural resources as closely related. The current environmental history proj-
Environmental history is relevant for more ects cannot claim, as yet, such a role in park
than illustrating the intimate connections management, but the potential is there. The
between, rather than the separation of, environmental history of San Juan Island
humanity and nature. It also allows us to re- National Historical Park, a National Historic
interpret—or to read nature back into—the Landmark, brings an important perspective to
history and stories we tell about national a park that commemorates the international
parks. What should we interpret to the pub- boundary dispute between the United States
lic? One obvious subject would be the chang- and Great Britain during the mid-19th centu-
ing ideals Americans have about nature as ry. Like other historical parks, there is a tight
symbolized by the parks themselves. Perhaps bond between the park’s natural and historic
a less-obvious topic would be the history of scenes as well as a great deal of tension sur-
exotic and native plant species; this would rounding what preservation of the natural and
support current management projects such as historic landscape entails. The study has been
weed eradication and native plant restoration. well received by park staff for enhancing their
But we could also interpret the subject within understanding of this subject. But what was
a larger context to inform the public about the surprising and rewarding to me was that the
history of weeds in America. As Fiege notes, research has helped inform discussions sur-
“[T]he movement of exotics into and across rounding issues raised by prairie restoration
the continent, [was] one of the great ecological and forest thinning projects. Moreover, the
shifts ... so crucial to hemispheric and world study (and the historian working on it) has
history.” Describing weeds as part of the become part of an interdisciplinary project
nation’s historic legacy of European colonial- with the park’s vegetation monitoring pro-
ism, U.S. manifest destiny, westward expan- gram. Using the environmental history, we’re
sion, and so on would provide Americans developing a series of historic maps in GIS to
with an opportunity to learn not only about illustrate changes in land cover and use.
native species found within parks. It would Finally, research in the park’s environmental
also call attention to issues of biodiversity at a history has helped inform another interdisci-
much larger scale, inspiring visitors to see the plinary project that is focusing on the cultiva-
link between history and ecology and to pon- tion and use of camas by native peoples in this
der their own roles in shaping and changing and other Northwest parks.
America’s ecology. Environmental history can I selected the fur trade because it was rele-
22
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
vant to so many parks in the Pacific Northwest incorporate this overview with the work
(and even Hawaii), and though obviously a Stanford students have prepared as a road
subject for environmental history, the fur trade map for a more focused history of an impor-
seemed under-represented from this perspec- tant body of water in the park, Tomales Bay.
tive. It seemed we knew more about the tangi- This will not only be a history of environmen-
ble evidence of the fur trade enterprise—forts tal change, but also a project that will support
and other properties—than we did about the current scientific investigations of the bay
environmental effects of the trade. The being conducted by the National Park Service
overview we’re writing should also intrigue as part of its inventory and monitoring pro-
academic historians because it’s a subject ripe gram. Having historians and ecologists at
for re-interpretation. Through the lens of work on similar topics, indeed having them in
environmental history, we will perhaps place the field together, should generate a greater
greater emphasis on the global network of awareness of the changes to and condition of
trade and the movement and transformation of natural systems.
animals, fish, timber and other materials har- Environmental history, whether as a spe-
vested and produced in the Northwest as part cial study or as part of a larger research proj-
of this larger market. We could, according to ect, can serve as a tool for park management.
Cronon, “reconstruct the linkages between By placing nature at the center of the story, it
the commodities of our economy and the can bring a fresh view to traditional interpre-
resources of our ecosystem.” Such an tations of the past, especially those that focus
approach could alter how we conceptualize on the built environments and on the human
the way fur trade enterprises such as the and administrative histories of parks. It can
Hudson’s Bay Company managed nature in also yield insights into and the context for the
the Pacific Northwest. condition of park resources, ecological
At Point Reyes, an environmental history restoration projects, and inventory and moni-
might expand upon this notion. Ranching has toring programs. (Like these programs, it is
been the primary focus of popular interest and baseline documentation.) Likewise, it can
historical inquiry, but the prospectus we’re provide insights for park planning and envi-
preparing should offer a framework that con- ronmental impact statements. Perhaps its
siders ranching within a larger model of greatest use will be in how the National Park
“nature’s metropolis.” It’s a framework that Service interprets environmental change to
considers Point Reyes within its proximity to the public.
the larger urban center of San Francisco. We’ll

23
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

Administrative Histories
in the National Park Service’s Alaska Region
Frank Norris, Alaska Support Office, National Park Service, 240 West Fifth Avenue, Room 114,
Anchorage, Alaska 99501; frank_norris@nps.gov

As some of you may know, much of my work revolves around administrative histories. I read
them, write them, edit them, and care deeply about how well they work, and I think that a well-
done administrative history can be highly effective as a planning and management tool.
Recognizing that a primary goal of all The Most Striking of Objects: The Totem Poles
administrative histories is that they be used as of Sitka National Historical Park are exam-
a primary planning and management tool, I ples of special theme studies.)
feel that the best way to ensure their effective- Second, once the decision has been made
ness is for administrators or authors of these to fund an administrative history, it’s impor-
studies to employ a four-part strategy: tant to involve park staff in the research and
1. Convince park management sufficiently of writing as much as possible. For instance, it’s
their worth that they will want such histo- important to choose an author who writes
ries to be written; clearly and well—not elegantly, but directly
2. Incorporate the goals and concerns of park and with a minimum of embroidery. In addi-
staff during the writing process; tion, whoever is chosen for the project should
3. Make the final product both worthwhile to be able to visit the park in question with some
look at and worthwhile to read; and regularity—enough to get to know a park’s
4. After its completion, work with existing staff and its resources. Once the project has
and new staff to make information avail- begun, it’s important for the author to let the
able that was discovered during the park staff know, in advance, when he or she
research process. will be visiting. After arriving at the park, it’s
important for the author to talk to both the
I’d like to spend the next few minutes elab- superintendent and the various division chiefs
orating on each of these four points. about the project, either individually or at a
First, it is recognized that an administra- staff meeting. He or she should ask them what
tive history is just one of many products that specific problems they would like to have
cultural resource personnel can use—and addressed in the study, and the author should
fund—with a limited amount of funds. also ask if there are any specific datasets that
Therefore, it’s important to convince both should be perused during the research phase.
superintendents and resource management During the writing phase, the author should
personnel of the value of a historical perspec- follow up with park staff from time to time,
tive in addressing management problems, either in person or by telephone or e-mail.
especially when examining knotty or critical During these follow-up contacts, the author
situations. In Alaska, a Cultural Resources should let staff know what progress has been
Advisory Committee (CRAC) often votes on made, what answers have been found to par-
whether certain administrative histories will ticularly vexing questions, and if any particu-
be funded, so it’s important to persuade all of larly rewarding materials pertaining to their
the region’s CRAC members of the value of an subject area have been unearthed. Finally, it’s
administrative history. It’s also important to important to ask both the superintendent and
recognize that, in specific situations, that the the various division chiefs to read over the
best solution to a management problem may draft chapters; this will both ensure accuracy
be a special, thematic administrative study and increase the degree to which park staff
rather than a general park history. (Alaska will use the final document.
Subsistence: An NPS Management History and Third, it’s also important to make the final
24
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

product look good and read well. First, make cost far more per copy than in the “old” days,
the length appropriate to the complexity of a while relatively large print runs result in less
park. A colleague of mine once said that an expensive per-copy print runs than in the
administrative history of Grand Canyon “old” days. These changes in the economics
National Park could be written in 100 pages, of printing have encouraged us in Alaska to
and I have seen an administrative history of a increase the number of copies in our typical
small, uncomplicated park that was more than print run; print runs in the early 1990s typi-
700 pages long. Both lengths, in my opinion, cally averaged between 150 and 300 copies,
are unacceptable; the history of a small, but recent print runs have often topped 1,000
uncomplicated park should be no more than copies.
150 pages long, while a history of many of the Given the expense of producing the final
larger parks should be completed in no more document, it matters to all who will receive the
than 350 or 400 pages. In the case of the document that it look good. Be sure to add an
largest and oldest “crown jewel” parks, park appropriate number of photographs, tables,
management should consider the production maps, headers and footers, text boxes, and
of a single-volume general history; once com- other elements to make the document appear
pleted, additional histories on specific themes attactive. Employ a graphics consultant if nec-
(interpretation, the road system, bear manage- essary. Superintendents often like to present
ment, etc.) may be considered later. these histories to park friends and neighbors,
Be sure to produce enough copies of the and the small time and expense of producing
final product to allow availability well beyond a visually attractive document is time well
the immediate distribution process. With staff spent.
turnover, there’s a constant need for new Make sure that the document works well
copies, and given the choice, no one wants to and is accurate. To ensure accuracy, have the
read—or have to produce—a photocopied author ask several people to review the entire
report. (It’s important, by the way, to have a draft. If he or she is unsure about a chapter’s
copy of the final report on the world wide completeness, or if a chapter is particularly
web, but this is no substitute for a paper copy; sensitive or controversial, have the author
besides, a report’s availability on the web is present the chapter to one or more experts in
bound to create new demand for a paper copy, that field. Here in Alaska, there is a writer–edi-
not a substitute for it.) If the park being writ- tor employed on the regional staff.
ten about has a high degree of public interest, Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that a
it may be economically advantageous to work study such as this demands a good index.
out distribution matters with a university Because virtually no one will ever read an
press, commercial press, or cooperative asso- administrative history from front to back, a
ciation. Using an outside press, however, may good index is needed in order to ensure that
delay the receipt of a final product for a year or resource managers can quickly look up a spe-
more, and complicating the situation is that cific topic when needed. Adding an index is
park managers (your primary audience) may often the very last item an author wants to do
demand a different product than representa- when completing a project, but it is worth its
tives of outside presses. In Alaska, where visi- weight in gold. If an author cannot or will not
tation has traditionally been low and where index a document, word-processing programs
there is little demand for these studies outside often have indexing features (which, in my
of NPS visitor centers, we have had little opinion, do not work as well as hand index-
reliance on outside presses. In the “old” days, ing), and professional indexers can also be
prior to the computerization of the printing hired.
process, there was a fairly close, mathematical Fourth, when the administrative history
relationship between the number of copies has been completed, the author (if an National
desired and the total printing cost. But since Park Service employee) or the administrator
the mid-1990s, the cost of small print runs has (if the author worked on contract) will need to
25
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
keep “selling” the administrative history after munication lines open. Depending on who is
copies have been distributed. For example, the in charge of distribution, someone may need
author may wish to give a talk highlighting the to accommodate future requests for copies.
park’s history to park staff (perhaps as part of Finally, it’s important for the author to box up
seasonal training), or perhaps to a community the research materials that were used in creat-
gathering in a town neighboring a park. There ing the document. Those materials should
will often be one or more park staff—perhaps then be categorized, and finding aids should
the superintendent, perhaps a resource man- be prepared. Once this process has been com-
agement specialist—who will show a special pleted, the materials should be available for
interest in the details of a park’s history, and future researchers, either at a park office, a
it’s important to provide a perspective on what regional office, or in the nearest National
was written and to otherwise keep the com- Archives repository.

✥
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

Sustainable Design for an Evolving Landscape

Paul Schrooten, Alaska Support Office, National Park Service, 240 West Fifth Avenue, Room
114, Anchorage, Alaska 99501; paul_schrooten@nps.gov

The ability to preserve the Dyea historic townsite in Klondike Gold Rush National Historical
Park in some meaningful form requires resource specialists and designers to work together in
rather innovative ways. Because of the particular dynamic of the natural processes at this loca-
tion, there is a need to re-define the traditional National Park Service (NPS) paradigms that gen-
erate park facilities. Primarily concerned with varied aspects of recreational tourism, the Park
Service’s leadership culture has been extremely reluctant to abandon traditional assumptions.1
Therefore, the methods and techniques used to construct infrastructure need to be based upon
the premise that emergence of structure from the landscape is preferred over that of imposition.
This means more than a cursory recognition of organic architecture. It is important to begin the
design process during the formative period of resource inventory, analysis, and appraisal. A high-
er level of responsible treatment and use of the landscape can then be attained. The ultimate goal
is to demonstrate to the public and to our own professionals that constructed infrastructure can
exemplify sustainable design for an evolving landscape. The sustainable approach to site plan-
ning and design goes beyond combining and comparing site inventories. A sustainable process
attempts to determine the relationships between site factors and how those factors will adapt to
change.2
First and foremost, basic preservation and scenery called upon planners to study the
management is predicated upon a decision landscape by going alone to experience all
that was made in the enabling legislation of the kinds of weather, at all times of day, and in all
park, encouraging the public to enjoy and seasons.”5 Going one step further, the goal is
experience the very resources intended to be to develop planning strategies early in the
protected. Successful implementation of this design process that will identify research
requires a holistic approach to designed needs and provide logical methodologies for
improvements that can assist managers in management decisions. Linda Flint
making difficult decisions about competing McClelland credits author Frank Waugh with
and sometimes conflicting resources. This the notion that “the principle of conservation
approach to design requires a comprehensive [upholds] the preservation of native flora and
interdisciplinary strategy. Through research fauna as a fundamental but complex require-
and careful planning, ecological preservation ment, calling for long and serious study.” She
and recreational tourism do not have to be goes on to note that “[w]here native species
mutually exclusive.3 were already depleted or lost, Waugh called
Focusing on recreational tourism, NPS for their restoration....”6
neglected to push science to the forefront and Created infrastructure evolves from many
make it a non-negotiable element of park man- design criteria, but the criteria that respond
agement.4 To alter that thinking, a compre- particularly to the natural and cultural
hensive interdisciplinary strategy ideally resources of a site or environment give
places a designer of visitor facilities in the enhanced meaning to form, function, and
landscape at the time of resource assessment longevity. Embodied energy that exists in
to gain an appreciation for the environment in these resources must be viewed for sustain-
which facility development will eventually able qualities before any disturbance, alter-
occur. The designer can also interact with ation, or elimination is contemplated. Once
resource scientists so that they might begin to the resources are well understood and can
participate in the development of design crite- support the criteria that determine design
ria. Traditionally, “the principle of beauty of form and function, it is imperative that tech-
27
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

niques be used to emphasize their importance the removal of vegetation for fire control
throughout the planning, design, and con- and beautification. As construction took
struction of facilities. In the past, concern for place in the parks, trees and shrubs were
the harmonization of construction and nature removed from the construction sites of
led park designers to adapt principles of natu- buildings, roads, overlooks, and parking
ral landscape design for restoring building areas and transplanted in temporary nurs-
sites to a natural condition after construction. eries or on the sites of completed con-
In 1930, the recognition of landscape natural- struction. By 1930 this process of trans-
ization as an ordinary and advantageous con- planting and replanting had become
sequence of park development coincided with known as “landscape naturalization.”9
a policy prohibiting the introduction of exotic • Involvement of resource staff in design
plants in national parks.7 submittal reviews and value analyses.
Today, planning, design, and construction • Construction specifications that thor-
techniques must support cultural and natural oughly manage site access, ground distur-
resource preservation, including, but not lim- bance monitoring, vegetative root pruning,
ited to: temporary erosion controls, equipment
• Adequate coordination of planning and material storage, and appropriate stag-
requirements between the park, relevant ing activities.
stakeholders and all owners of land • Construction administration and inspec-
inholdings to save duplicative processes tions that provide the potential for an
and unnecessary invasive testing. empathic contractor relationship, periodic
• Promotion of research studies by cultural, review of progress by resource staff, and
natural, and interpretive resource staff confirmation of interpretive content.
with a clear intent to provide the compli- Waugh cautioned his readers that “a gen-
ance clearances necessary for the creation uinely naturalistic planting was excessively
of visitor facilities, but also to contribute difficult to achieve” and that training and a
findings to the proposed interpretive pro- close observation of natural conditions
grams and design development of new were necessary.10
facilities. Architect Alvar Aalto conceived The protection of resources in areas desig-
of a design process that was more a collab- nated for intensive public use first begins with
oration of creative individuals than a dis- recognition, then understanding, and finally
parate collection of isolated specialists and empathy. It is commonly understood that per-
disconnected client representatives.8 tinent cultural and natural resources must be
• Preparation of detailed specifications for easily identifiable and separate from undesig-
land surveying to prevent unnecessary nated areas or interpretive facilities. No matter
resource damage. how intelligent or familiar a new visitor might
• Completion of visitor-use analyses as a key be, there is often not a full appreciation or
to making sound decisions about the size, awareness of the differences between signifi-
location, and function of infrastructural cant resource preservation areas, designated
facilities. interpretive opportunities, and undesignated
• Consideration of sustainable design areas with less or no significant resources. Nor
philosophies to not only minimize impacts should a new visitor be expected to be aware
on the resources during construction, but of these differences. Even when ecological
also for the post-construction period of degradation is pointed out to park visitors, the
maintenance and operations. For example, new conditions may be thought of as merely
the naturalistic landscape gardening prac- “another change in the scenery.”11 Good
tices that had evolved in the 1920s called design and effective interpretation should
for the planning of groupings of native attempt to solve this problem. Once a visitor is
trees, shrubs, and grasses along roadways, able to identify the resource(s), it is up to the
construction sites, and eroded areas, and resource specialists, researchers, and design-
28
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

ers to enlighten through effective means of ly to produce the most significant results or
interpretation so that knowledge is shared or the most important consequences for the
enhanced. Ultimately, resource protection is design as a whole.15 Therefore, it may be
successful if there is a physical, emotional, or advocated that the ethical reasons for land
psychological experience the visitor gains development decisions are not of critical
from the presentation of unbiased interpretive importance. The ethical relevance lies in the
content. Environmental interpretation interpretive message that is presented to the
becomes even more important as natural land- visitors so that the conflicting issues and the
scapes and cultural treasures disappear. solutions chosen can be weighed and judged
Today, the public has an expanding role in by the public that we are all dedicated to serv-
land management decisions.12 Have the ing.
resources been presented in such a manner
that the visitor eventually forms an opinion Endnotes
and/or takes an action? If so, the effort to sub- 1. Richard West Sellars, Preserving Nature
stantiate sustainable design has been worth it. in the National Parks: A History (New
So we ask ourselves, how are we to protect Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
resources from human threats (impacts), 1997), 284.
whether intended as such or not? The answer 2. National Park Service, Guiding Principles
lies partly in the conscious decision to guide of Sustainable Design (Denver: National
or manage the basic sequential human tenden- Park Service, Denver Service Center,
cies of discovery, exploration, domination, 1993), 43.
alteration, domestication, cultivation, and, in 3. Sellars, 284.
some cases, destruction. The resolve to blend 4. Sellars, 286.
new construction with natural surroundings— 5. Linda Flint McClelland, Building the
to develop the parks without destroying their National Parks: Historic Landscape
beauty—formed the basis of landscape archi- Design and Construction (Baltimore:
tecture’s central role in national park develop- Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998),
ment.13 As a modern designer, one must now 444–445.
confront these tendencies in three ways. All 6. McClelland, 445.
threats have the potential for impacts. Design 7. McClelland, 5.
or education can address most threats. Few 8. Stephen J. Kirk and Kent F.
threats should require an enforced response. Spreckelmeyer, Enhancing Value in
Ethical design decisions must have a basis Design Decisions (Detroit: Smith,
in the legislation of the park. When conflicts Hinchman, and Grylls, 1993), 8.
occur between natural and cultural resource 9. McClelland, 255.
values, choices will be made. Landscape archi- 10. McClelland, 447.
tect John O. Simonds called for a “means of 11. Sellars, 287.
coordination and bringing to concerted focus 12. Kathleen Regnier, Michael Gross, and
on our planning problems the experience and Ron Zimmerman, The Interpreter’s
accreting knowledge in all areas of inquiry.”14 Guidebook: Techniques for Programs and
Even when a “no action” alternative is select- Presentations (Stevens Point: University of
ed, it requires a conscious decision, and so Wisconsin–Stevens Point Foundation
varying degrees of ethical choices will result. Press, 1992), 5.
This interdisciplinary approach to visitor 13 Sellars, 51.
facility planning and design may not solve all 14. John Ormsbee Simonds, Landscape
potential conflicts, but it may help to rational- Architecture: A Manual of Site Planning
ize the decisions made for the visiting public. and Design (New York: McGraw-Hill,
As a rule, the focus on decision-making is on 1983), 307.
those areas of the design problem that are like- 15. Kirk and Spreckelmeyer, 27.
✥
29
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

Integration of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative

(NABCI) into Southeast National Park Service
Planning and Operations

J. Keith Watson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina
28801; keith_watson@fws.gov

Introduction
Since the creation of the U.S. Geological Survey–Biological Resources Division
(USGS–BRD), the National Park Service (NPS) has had limited participation in regional, nation-
al, and international bird conservation planning efforts. The NPS personnel responsible for
coordinating bird conservation before creation of the USGS-BRD were all essentially removed
from this duty when transferred to USGS-BRD, reducing NPS participation in regional, nation-
al, and international bird conservation planning. However, individual efforts to promote bird
conservation did continue and today, existing bird conservation efforts are largely attributed to
individual park units and individuals in park units who have had support of the park superin-
tendent or supervisor. A significant recent NPS contribution to bird conservation has been the
development of the Park Flight Program (NPS 2002), a partnership between NPS, the National
Park Foundation, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, American Airlines, and the U.S.
Agency for International Development to facilitate bird conservation between U.S. national
parks and Mesoamerican national parks. Park Flight is a great step forward in promotion of bird
conservation in NPS.
Another significant NPS bird conservation for a wide range of federally- and state-listed
initiative has been the effort to coordinate and threatened and endangered species. There is
integrate the strategies and goals of the North further potential for contributions to bird con-
American Bird Conservation Initiative servation, through bird or habitat conserva-
(NABCI 2000) into the Southeast Region of tion, research, education, or a combination of
NPS. these. Additionally, the National Park System
NPS is the fourth-largest landowner in the attracts over 280 million visitors to the parks
United States, managing over 380 national each year, 120 million of these in the
park units covering 3.36 million ha of land Southeast Region, a region which affords
and water. The 64 units in the Southeast excellent recreational bird watching and
Region of the NPS represent 16% of the total opportunities for bird conservation interpre-
number of park units in the National Park tation, outreach, and education programs.
System and cover approximately 5% of its
land base. Park Service units in the Southeast Methods
Region include national seashores (Canaveral, In 1999, the Southeast Region recognized
Cape Hatteras), national parks (Great Smoky the importance of coordinating existing bird
Mountains, Everglades), national recreation conservation goals and integrating them into
areas (Big South Fork National River and the planning and operation of national park
Recreation Area), national preserves (Big units. To support this, the Southeast Regional
Cypress), national battlefields (Cowpens, Fort Office approved funding for a two-year project
Donelson), national monuments (Congaree to coordinate and implement NABCI strate-
Swamp, Ocmulgee), and other parks such as gies. NPS allocated $88,000 over the period
the Blue Ridge Parkway, Obed Wild and to support the project, cost-sharing with the
Scenic River, and Timucuan Ecological and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Historic Preserve. The Southeast NPS units Region 4 (Southeast Region) to hire a bird
provide habitat for over 400 species of migrat- biologist to conduct the project.
ing, breeding, and wintering birds, as well as Additionally, NPS wrote the interagency
30
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
agreement that provides for technological into NABCI goals and strategies);
assistance when needed. This project is • Integration of NABCI objectives, stepped
unique in NPS and represents a model for down from the existing bird conservation
regional bird conservation programs and plans (Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird
activities in the agency. Conservation Plan, North American
What does “implementation of NABCI Waterfowl Management Plan, North
strategies” mean in NPS? As envisioned, the American Waterbird Conservation Plan);
coordination and implementation of NABCI • Implementation; and
strategies in the Southeast Region involves: • Appendixes.
• Developing and delivering Avian NPS Inventory and Monitoring
Conservation Implementation Plans Program. In the early 1990s, NPS embarked
(ACIPs); on a nationwide project to develop and imple-
• Coordinating with the NPS Inventory and ment an inventory and monitoring program in
Monitoring Program; all parks with significant natural resources.
• Developing a web-based project tracking The program was initiated in developmental
site; phases using pilot parks. The program has
• Establishing bird conservation partner- been expanded to over 250 national park units
ships; and organized into networks of parks with
• Identifying and exploring potential fund- similar resources and resource management
ing opportunities; and issues. For instance, because South Florida
• Providing technical expertise to parks as and the Caribbean have similar natural
needed or requested. resources, the national park units in these
Avian Conservation Implementation areas have been selected to comprise the
Plans. The ACIPs will be concise documents South Florida/Caribbean Inventory and
that describe the park’s avian resources, on- Monitoring Network. A single plan will be
going bird conservation efforts, and identified developed to identify the basic inventory and
bird conservation projects and priorities (if monitoring needs of these parks.
any). They will also describe how the land- The Southeast Region of NPS comprises
scape of the park unit fits into greater-land- five inventory and monitoring networks: the
scape bird conservation efforts—regionally, Appalachian Highlands, Southeast Coast,
nationally, and, perhaps, internationally. South Florida/Caribbean, Cumberland/
These documents will guide the park for Piedmont, and Gulf Coast. To develop plans,
almost any desired bird conservation effort. the networks have established scoping meet-
The preparation of these documents will ings where resources indicators of park or
require site visits to each of the southeastern ecosystem health are identified and consid-
national park units and information will be ered for monitoring purposes. The project
gathered following a standard format and in coordinator attends each network’s scoping
consultation with park staff. The plans will be meetings to present relevant information on
delivered to the park units based on the NPS bird and habitat conservation priorities for the
Inventory and Monitoring Network (see fol- park, region, or bird conservation planning
lowing section). The general content of each area of interest.
ACIP will include: Website development. A website will be
• Introduction; developed and administered through the
• Background; USFWS field office in Manteo, North
• Status of southeastern avian resources; Carolina. The website will describe the proj-
• Purpose; ect and provide links to:
• Objectives;
• Park description; • Existing bird conservation initiatives and
• Coordination with regional conservation plans;
initiatives (how and where the park fits • NPS home pages (including inventory and
31
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
monitoring pages); oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) in three
• USFWS bird conservation websites; national seashores on the Atlantic Coast has
• ACIPs; and been obtained through this coordination.
• Agency contact information. Technical expertise. The project coordi-
Access to agency contact information nator will provide technical assistance upon
assists with the development and maintenance request and help park personnel in making the
of partnerships between NPS, other agencies, appropriate contacts with bird conservation-
and bird conservationists. This link will pro- ists, partners, or other personnel to obtain the
vide a database of nationwide NPS personnel technical advice sought.
contact information as well as that for key bird
conservation specialists, biologists, and bird Results
conservation coordinators. Agency contact Avian Conservation Implementation
information will be provided at five planning Plans. To date, 36 NPS units in the Southeast
levels; NABCI bird conservation regions, Region have been visited. Interviews have
Partners in Flight (PIF) physiographic areas, been conducted with staff at each of these
NPS regions, NPS inventory and monitoring units and information necessary to develop
networks, and states. Each of these planning each ACIP has been obtained.
levels will have a map, and each map designa- Three plans have been completed and 33
tion will link to a database that provides per- others are in progress. Draft ACIPs for the
sonnel contact information. For instance, the parks will be reviewed by park staff and their
PIF-level map will show a map of the contigu- bird conservation associates to provide for an
ous United States and Canada, Alaska, and integrated implementation plan. Final copies
Hawaii, and show all designated PIF physio- of each ACIP will be available on the website
graphic areas. Each physiographic area will and usually on the particular parks internet
have a link to the contact database. For exam- home page.
ple, if the Southern Blue Ridge physiographic NPS Inventory and Monitoring
area is selected, the viewer is directed to the Program. The project coordinator has partic-
database table of associated NPS units in that ipated in scoping meetings for the South
area, individual unit information (including Florida/Caribbean and Cumberland/Pied-
personnel information), and other primary mont networks in the NPS Southeast Region.
bird conservation contact information. The Bird and habitat conservation priorities for
website will also have links to potential fund- the park, region, and inventory and monitor-
ing sources, the Park Flight Program, NPS ing network landscape were presented to the
bird checklists, and other relevant bird con- network teams for consideration in their mon-
servation websites. itoring plan development. This presentation
Established partnerships. The project also provides the opportunity for the network,
coordinator will work with NPS and other or parks within the network, to consider and
bird conservation partners to develop and potentially integrate NABCI bird conserva-
encourage partnerships that will facilitate tion into their plans.
cooperative bird conservation efforts and For example, in the NPS Cumberland/
projects. NPS participation in the Piedmont Inventory and Monitoring
Appalachian Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Network, three PIF physiographic areas
Working Group is one example. occur: the East Gulf Coastal Plain, the
Funding opportunities. The project Southern Ridge and Valley, and the Northern
coordinator will work with NPS and bird con- Cumberland Plateau. Bird and habitat conser-
servation partners within the existing frame- vation measures identified in a draft PIF bird
work of funding mechanisms to obtain fund- conservation plan were presented to the scop-
ing for high priority bird conservation proj- ing meeting participants, including staff at
ects in the southeastern United States. these parks. A similar presentation was made
Funding to conduct research on American to the South Florida/Caribbean Inventory and
32
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
Monitoring Network meeting participants. Discussion
Website development. Development of The integration and coordination of
the website (southeast.fws.gov/birds/nps- NABCI goals into the Southeast Region of
birds.htm) was contracted out to a local indi- NPS represents a unique approach to incor-
vidual and was launched in mid-July 2002. poration of bird conservation goals into an
Established partnerships. Partnerships agency’s planning and operations. Reviewing
were established between: the situation approximately midway through
• NPS, USFWS, USGS–BRD, and North this project, significant and enthusiastic coop-
Carolina State University—to conduct eration has been given by NPS. From the
research on American oystercatchers at regional directorship down to the park
Cape Hatteras, Cape Lookout, and resource manager and volunteer, NPS has wel-
Cumberland Island national seashores; comed and encouraged this project and is
• NPS, USFWS, U.S. Forest Service, excited to become a more active participant in
Eastern Band of the Cherokee, and several southeastern bird conservation. Following
academic institutions—to conduct surveys completion and delivery of the ACIPs to
for Appalachian yellow-bellied sapsuckers southeastern parks, the next phase will be
(Sphyrapicus varius) in the southern transferring the conceptual and tactical strate-
Appalachians; gies described in the plans into partnerships,
• NPS and the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture funding opportunities, and projects that will
(NPS became an official member); translate into bird and habitat conservation.
• Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout national Once fully embraced and incorporated into
seashores—as participants in the agency operations and planning, the ACIPs
International Shorebird Survey and web- for parks in the Southeast Region will enable
site entry into the South Atlantic NPS to “deliver the full spectrum of bird con-
Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI); servation through regionally based, biological-
• Great Smoky Mountains National Park ly driven, landscape-oriented partnerships
and USFWS—to manage landscape at under the North American Bird Conservation
“The Purchase” to improve habitat for the Initiative.”
golden-winged warbler (Vermivora
chrysoptera); and Acknowledgments
• Canaveral National Seashore and Merritt Special thanks is given to the Southeast
Island National Wildlife Refuge—to share Region of the National Park Service, especial-
resources to accomplish management and ly Sheila Colwell and Jerry Belson. In the U.S.
protection of two federally listed species. Fish and Wildlife Service, thanks to Chuck
Funding opportunities. USFWS submit- Hunter and Frank Bowers for promoting this
ted a proposal and received funding for concept of shared bird conservation visions
research on the American oystercatcher at between Department of Interior agencies and
Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout national seeing that the opportunity became a reality.
seashores. A summary of funding opportuni- References
ties outside the normal annual funding call of NPS [National Park Service]. 2002. Park
NPS has been prepared and will be available Flight and migratory bird conservation.
on the website. North American Wetlands Washington, D.C.: National Park Service,
Conservation Act (NAWCA) grant program Natural Resource Program Center.
information was submitted to the NPS NABCI [U.S. NABCI Committee]. 2000. The
Southeast Region’s associate regional director North American Bird Conservation
for resource stewardship and science for Initiative in the United States: A Vision of
transmission to park units. American Bird Conservation. Arlington,
Technical expertise. Technical support Va.: U.S. NABCI Committee.
and guidance is an on-going activity.
✥
33
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

Barriers to Science-based Management: What Are They

and What Can We Do About Them? (Session Summary)
Vita Wright, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, Montana
59807; vwright@fs.fed.us

Introduction
The George Wright Society (GWS) was founded in part to promote the application of knowl-
edge to the protection, preservation, and management of parks and reserves. Recognizing that
much of the knowledge needed for sound resource stewardship comes from science, the 1998
National Parks Omnibus Management Act (P.L. 105-391) directed the secretary of the interior
“to assure that management of units of the National Park System is enhanced by the availability
and utilization of the highest quality science and information” (quoted in Harmon 1999).
Attendees at the GWS/CR2003 conference expressed interest in a variety of talks and sessions
that addressed the role of science in management. In fact, the high level of interest in a workshop
focused on barriers to the use of science was unanticipated. Approximately 50 workshop partic-
ipants crowded into a small room so that many were standing, and those near the doors com-
mented that a number of people were turned away because they could not physically fit into the
room. This paper summarizes the workshop presentations and discussions.
Acknowledging that science is a process standing, ownership, and then fitting the inno-
used to develop knowledge, the workshop was vative idea or technique into an individual’s
focused on scientifically derived knowledge current understanding (Muth and Hendee
and systematically collected data. Vita Wright, 1980, as cited in Bunnell 1988).
research application program leader at the Understanding barriers as perceived by mem-
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, bers of the management community can help
began the workshop with an overview of bar- managers and researchers prioritize technolo-
riers identified during recent discussions with gy transfer and research application efforts.
U.S. Forest Service recreation, fire, and inva- This will be most effective when coupled with
sive plant resource specialists and local deci- an understanding of social science theories,
sion-makers with wilderness responsibility. especially those addressing how people learn,
Personal barriers to the access and use of sci- make decisions, and adopt innovations.
ence include time management skills and Following the introduction, representa-
habits, personal pressures, preferences, and tives from the National Park Service (NPS)
attitudes toward science. Organizational barri- and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) dis-
ers, those beyond the control of individuals, cussed efforts in which they have been
include funding, delegated workloads, train- involved that highlight the value of science
ing, and agency practices. Finally, barriers that and/or reduce barriers to using science.
are beyond the control of both the manage-
ment agency and individuals include the avail- National Park Service
ability and quality of information produced by In fall 1999, NPS began implementing the
the research community (Kearns and Wright Natural Resource Challenge (NRC). Under a
2002). multi-year plan, the Challenge provides new
During the introduction, Wright also base funding targeted at promoting scientifi-
reviewed the “diffusion of innovation” theory cally sound management of parks, increasing
as it applies to research application. the scientific community’s involvement in
Dependent on a “condition of receptivity” to providing information and in using the parks
new ideas, this theory describes the stages as laboratories, and facilitating education to
people go through when adopting innova- engage the public as partners in resource
tions. These stages are: awareness, under- preservation. Don Neubacher, superintendent
34
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
of Point Reyes National Seashore and co-chair examples that coupled scientific data collec-
of the NRC council, suggested that a success- tion with raising public consciousness: the
ful science-based management program Tomales Bay Biodiversity Inventory (TBBI)
answers the following questions: and the Pacific Coast Learning Center at Point
• What are we protecting and preserving? Reyes. Learning centers, which are park-
• What is the condition of our resources? based field stations, are being developed
• How does the condition of our resources throughout NPS to facilitate both research
change over time? and education about natural and cultural
• What is the condition of resources out- resources within national parks. The TBBI,
side park boundaries? supported by private foundation and individ-
• What are the implications of these find- ual funding, couples a comprehensive marine
ings for parks and the larger systems in biodiversity survey with educational opportu-
which they reside? nities for the public to experience the scientif-
• What actions need to be taken for pre- ic process first-hand while learning about the
serving species? stewardship and conservation of marine sys-
• How can this information be best com- tems.
municated to the broader society?
Bureau of Land Management
Neubacher described several examples In June 2000, BLM created the National
where systematically collected data and an Landscape Conservation System. The NLCS
understanding of science have supported includes national conservation areas, national
management decisions at Point Reyes monuments, wilderness and wilderness study
National Seashore in California. For instance, areas, and wild and scenic rivers; these areas
multi-year data showed a strong correlation were designated to protect important scientif-
between numbers of harbor seal (Phoca vitu- ic and ecological characteristics. Lee Barkow,
laina) pups and kayak use. Pup numbers were director of BLM’s National Science and
lower after kayak use increased and higher fol- Technology Center (NSTC) and advisor to
lowing kayak use restrictions. This relation- the agency’s Science Coordination
ship was evident at one of three locations, Committee, discussed efforts within BLM to
allowing managers to determine where kayak improve the use of science in management.
use had the greatest effect on seal pupping. In Barkow began with a brief overview of
a second example, observers documented that the history and mission of BLM. The fact that
fewer snowy plover (Charadrius alexandri- BLM has never employed scientists poses sig-
nus) chicks died the year the park began edu- nificant challenges to creating a link between
cating weekend and holiday visitors. While science and management. Although the
further study was needed to be conclusive, it agency does not have a science mandate like
initially appeared that education efforts the Omnibus Management Act, many of the
reduced disturbance by humans and dogs. laws it operates under require scientific infor-
Without these types of data, managers would mation (e.g., Federal Land Policy and
have less information on which to base deci- Management Act, National Environmental
sions and no documentation on the effective- Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean
ness of these decisions. Water Act, and Clean Air Act). BLM has
Neubacher cited a “lack of long-term recently developed a science strategy, signed
credible data” and public opposition to pro- in 2000, which addresses the role of science in
posed management actions as common barri- decision-making, provides a process to identi-
ers to science-based management. He suggest- fy and prioritize science needs, and addresses
ed that managers need long-term research on the need to communicate those needs to sci-
which they can base good decisions. ence providers.
However, this needs to be coupled with exten- BLM has two formal groups that address
sive public discussion, outreach, and educa- science issues. The Director’s Science
tion. Neubacher concluded with two local Advisory Board, an external committee com-
35
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
posed of academic and non-academic mem- developing knowledge and distributing it
bers, and the Science Coordination within the scientific arena than for extending
Committee, an internal committee composed the information to land managers. This is par-
of resource specialists representing various ticularly true in the Department of the
administrative levels. These committees pro- Interior, where experience on research-grade
vide the strategic and tactical views of science evaluation panels that evaluate the productivi-
within the agency, respectively. In addition, ty levels of individual scientists shows that
the NSTC provides free science- and technol- USGS offers less credit for research applica-
ogy-related services to BLM employees. The tion efforts than does USFS. For research
NSTC provides free library services, synthe- application to be effective, scientists in both
sizes scientific information, identifies current agencies must take it upon themselves to
technologies, and develops partnerships with extend information about the results and
science providers. implications of their research. The outcome is
Barkow described several barriers to sci- that some scientists devote more time to
ence-based management in BLM. Science research application, at the expense of devel-
does not have an identity in the budget oping and publishing new knowledge, than
process; therefore, efforts to improve science others.
depend entirely on broad program support. Parsons noted that scientists are also
Additionally, members of the internal Science challenged by the legal system (e.g., the 2000
Coordination Committee address science Data Quality Act, P.L. 106-554, Section 515,
only as a collateral duty. Barkow noted that and subsequent appeals), making literature
science is used by those within the agency syntheses and extrapolation of scientific find-
who seek it, but its use is not always explicit or ings to management issues risky. Van
well documented. Finally, he cited technology Wagtendonk concluded by saying that
transfer as often being the first target for research application is a two-way street. He
reduction or elimination during tight budget emphasized the point that if researchers take
years. Barkow suggested that science should the time to summarize results for management
be a part of the organizational culture, and that audiences, then managers must take responsi-
it should be valued and desired during the bility for reading those summaries. There’s
decision-making process. The agency needs only so much distilling that a scientist can do
full-time staff dedicated to science coordina- without losing the meaning and appropriate
tion and to technology transfer. To ensure that application of research. Both scientists
sound science is considered in the decision- acknowledged that it is easier for researchers
making process, funding technology transfer and managers to develop relationships and
should be a priority, and scientific information communicate about relevant research when
sources should be readily accessible to man- the two groups are co-located, as is the case
agers and resource specialists. for some previous NPS scientists who now
Scientists’ Perspectives work in park-based USGS field stations.
Two scientists, Jan van Wagtendonk, Workshop Discussion
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and David The spirited discussion that followed the
Parsons, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), provid- presentations focused largely on the need to
ed their perspectives on barriers as well as extend scientific information, not only to the
potential solutions. Van Wagtendonk began by management community, but also to agency
reminding the audience that management is partners and the public. Ironically, a strong
not “science-based,” but rather it is “science- advocate of Point Reyes National Seashore
informed.” Van Wagtendonk and Parsons complained about restrictions that keep her
commented that the scientific community from traveling where snowy plovers, a species
does not offer much support for scientists near extinction, nest. Concern was also
conducting research application activities. expressed about the “myth” that managers can
Individual scientists are rewarded more for “let nature take its course” in parks, while
36
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

humans continue to develop and pave the ural and cultural resource stewardship. In
landscapes outside parks and protected areas. addition to the workshop described here,
The sentiment was that if the public better there was similar interest in a panel on
understood the science behind management “Science in the NPS: Where have we been?
decisions, they might be more supportive of Where are we going?” With an emphasis on
those decisions. improving the use of science within NPS, that
Discussion also addressed the need to panel focused on cooperative ecosystem stud-
better fund research and research application ies units, inventory and monitoring networks,
efforts. Government agencies often are not eli- and the role of the USGS in NPS science
gible to compete for external grants. However, delivery.
government employees interested in research Other science emphases at the confer-
application might investigate sources such as ence addressed the role of parks as places to
the new educational grants offered by the develop scientific knowledge, the evaluation
National Science Foundation. A member of of proposals for conducting scientific activi-
the audience from the Northeast expressed ties in wilderness, and efforts to integrate sci-
concern that he often sees the same names on entific knowledge and research with public
proposals submitted for special natural education. It is my hope that, in addition to
resource project funding under the NPS and providing a forum for sharing information
USGS Natural Resource Preservation about the contribution of specific research
Program (NRPP). Unfortunately, while the efforts to resource stewardship, future GWS
NPS’s NRC has increased the amount of conference committees will continue to pur-
NRPP funding, many managers and sue—and recognize member interest in—dia-
researchers still cannot, or do not, take advan- logue on how to reduce barriers to science-
tage of it. based management.
In addition to the aforementioned discus-
sions, the audience offered a variety of other
References
Bunnell, P. 1988. Guidelines for Forestry
ideas to reduce barriers to science-based, or
Extension. Victoria, B.C.: Government of
science-informed, management. Whereas
Canada, British Columbia Ministry of
Parsons and van Wagtendonk had mentioned
Forests, Research Branch.
the need to improve the reward system for sci-
Harmon, D. 1999. The new research man-
entists who emphasize research application,
date for America’s National Park System:
others suggested managers could be better
Where it came from and what it could
rewarded for explicitly including science in
mean. The George Wright Forum 16:1,
management decisions. However, some audi-
8–23.
ence members expressed skepticism that the
Kearns, S.A., and V. Wright. 2002. Barriers to
latter could be effectively accomplished. On a
the use of science: USFS case study on
different topic, the discussion ended with the
fire, weed, and recreation management in
comment that it would be easier for both man-
wilderness. Unpublished Report.
agers and the public to use science if they had
Missoula, Mont.: U.S. Department of
clarification on how specific research results
Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky
fit within the context of entire ecosystems.
Mountain Research Station, Aldo
Conclusion Leopold Wilderness Research Institute.
In keeping with the GWS mission and Muth, R.M., and J.C. Hendee. 1980.
conference objectives, the GWS/CR2003 Technology transfer and human behav-
conference included numerous presentations iour. Journal of Forestry 78:3, 141–144.
on the role and contribution of science to nat-

✥
37
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

An Investigation of Agency Perceptions of Transboundary

Protected Area Cooperation: A Case Study of
Wrangell–St. Elias and Kluane Protected Area Complex
Sandra Zupan, Trnjanska 9B, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; sandra_zupan@hotmail.com

Introduction
The purpose of this research was to explore, understand, and describe the transboundary
cooperation between Wrangell–St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska, USA, and Kluane
National Park and Reserve, Yukon Territory, Canada, from the perspective of agency managers.
The strengths and weaknesses of the existing transboundary management activities were identi-
fied and the reasons behind them explored. Based on the research findings, suggestions for the
improvement of management practices in this situation are discussed.
Channels of ware package. The research findings clearly
Transboundary Cooperation indicate that the occurring transboundary
Various authors have argued that trans- interaction between Kluane and Wrangell–St.
boundary cooperation between international- Elias is largely limited to Zbicz’s Level 1—
ly adjoining protected areas is desirable Communication, and some elements of Level
because the benefits more than compensate 2—Consultation. The protected areas’ staff do
for the problems encountered in establishing work together to exchange information, but it
such collaboration (Sandwith et al. 2001; is mostly an informal and unstructured rela-
McNeil 1990). These benefits may include a tionship. Neither has responsibility to, or for
wide array of outcomes, ranging from safe- the other, nor are there reporting require-
guarding biodiversity, promoting ecosystem ments to either regional or national agency
or bioregional management, and controlling offices. The current relationship is based on
species, to reducing political tensions stimu- mutual respect and understanding, personal
lating the regional economy, safeguarding cul- good will, a shared boundary and shared
tural values, and promoting bilateral under- interests, and a desire to be of assistance and
standing. However, strong political and mana- be a good neighbor. It is also based on a desire
gerial commitment is necessary if transbound- to communicate and collaborate, and is truly
ary protected areas are to accomplish these voluntary. The relationship exists primarily
multiple benefits on a long-term basis “on the ground,” with field-level park employ-
(Brunner 1999). ees responsible for maintaining it. Both pro-
Zbicz (1999) identified six levels of inter- tected areas may initiate contact, and both
action between internationally adjoining pro- occasionally do. Employees communicate at
tected areas, ranging from Level 0—No cooper- all levels either by telephone, e-mails, or face-
ation to Level 5—Full cooperation. Full coop- to-face interactions. The park superintend-
eration requires the full integration of the ents meet once per year and have phone con-
planning and management of the two protect- versations twice a year. Communication
ed areas, including joint decision-making, between lower-level employees occurs on an
identification of common goals, and the exis- “as needed” basis and as frequently as every
tence of a joint committee for advising on few months.
transboundary cooperation. The relationship began at the ranger–war-
This study was conducted as a case study den level out of a desire to cooperate. Since
(Stake 1995). Data collection methods includ- the designation over twenty years ago of both
ed interviews, archives, and phone/e-mail con- areas as a single World Heritage site, the rela-
tacts, primarily with agency managers. tionship has moved forward to a limited
Qualitative data analysis used the NVivo soft- degree. Currently, transboundary cooperation
38
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

includes both formal and informal elements, time staff and the arrival of new staff. As a
both at the upper management level and the result, a notion exists that to a certain extent a
field or operational level between rangers and loss of continuity in transboundary coopera-
wardens, as well as between scientists. tion occurs, which according to several staff
An annual meeting of the management members should be re-established.
teams of the two protected areas is held. At the agency level there is a 1998 memo-
Although perceived as formal, this meeting randum of understanding (MOU) dealing
barely exceeds information exchange. with “cooperation in management, research,
Moreover, neither protected area retains any protection, conservation and presentation of
minutes of these meetings in their central files, National Parks and National Historic Sites”
nor distributes them to staff who did not signed between Parks Canada and the U.S.
attend the meetings. Similarly, both protected National Park Service (NPS) that allows and
areas possess little information relating to facilitate transboundary activities. The agree-
transboundary activities. In general, what ment does not require cooperation or precise-
scarce relevant information exists is stored in ly indicate what, how, and when cooperation
personal notes and files. With most informa- should occur. Moreover, Wrangell–St. Elias
tion communicated by word of mouth and and Kluane have been identified as and remain
most transboundary knowledge limited to the a top priority for collaboration between the
memories of staff members, information flow two agencies. However, it is clear from this
can be interrupted and the record of activity research that the scarce transboundary activi-
lost as staff members retire or move. ties between the two protected areas fail to
Every two years there is the Borderlands achieve the extent of joint cooperation and
Conference, a joint meeting between regional objectives that were outlined in the 1998
natural resource management agencies, MOU.
including the two protected areas and other
agencies from Alaska, Yukon Territory, and Activities, Programs,
British Columbia. The conference focuses on Processes, and Behaviors
discussing regional natural resource issues Managers from both agencies indicated
and exchanging information, research, and that they recognize opportunities exist to
other concerns. Both the Borderlands work with their professional counterparts
Conference and the annual management team across the border, and that this interaction is
meetings represent forms of formal communi- both helpful and enriching professionally as
cation in that they are prescheduled and well as personally. Interviews indicated that
announced well in advance of the event. friendships make it easier to work together
Cooperation has been strongest at the and to be very direct and frank when dealing
operational level, driven by a specific need or with an individual. They perceive the benefits
issue ranging from search and rescue activities of such interaction to be better understanding
to law enforcement. However, staffs from both of the other’s place, culture, people, ways of
agencies perceive that interaction at this level operating, and approaching problems;
has been significantly reduced and replaced encouragement to think “outside the box” by
by that at the managerial level. There are con- being exposed to different perspective; and
cerns by operational-level staff related to that exposure to alternative models for managing
shift, but these are somewhat mitigated by the protected areas. Talking to staff across the
recognition that the change was generated by boundary and identifying their needs is per-
a general lack of staff time and capacity. It is ceived as valuable and useful for management
further recognized that the transboundary approaches in both protected areas, as well as
relationship is highly dependent on the indi- for sharing areas of joint concern and being
viduals involved. A strong friendship and fel- aware of the other side’s long-term plans. In
lowship that was developed over the years can case these are similar or the same, there is no
be notably weakened with the loss of long- “reinventing the wheel” situation, which leads
39
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
to the reduction of duplicating actions. example, there is no substantial interpretative
Several interviewees also stated that by information available on the World Heritage
looking at the other management regime there site designation, nor do visitors to either
is an opportunity to discover their own agency’s two visitor centers have an opportu-
agency’s pitfalls and learn from that experi- nity to hear or learn about the other protected
ence by having new ideas of how to question area. The two protected areas have not effec-
or change the existing approach to manage- tively utilized the World Heritage designation:
ment issues. This process of “pollination” they are not engaged in any significant formal
brings ideas and perspectives that differ from activity regarding the designation even though
the same old patterns. In addition, managers managers consider the designation helpful in
perceive cost efficiencies related to collabora- demonstrating to both governments the inter-
tive rescues and training initiatives. Knowing national and intergenerational significance of
people, building relationships, and under- the area.
standing the differences make both staffs more
confident and comfortable while greatly Facilitators of and Barriers to
improving their morale. It is also concluded Transboundary Cooperation
that while all of these opportunities are Research shows that the most important
extremely beneficial, they are also very hard to facilitator to transboundary cooperation
quantify. between Kluane and Wrangell–St. Elias is per-
Currently, regular direct contact exists sonal interest and commitment to such coop-
between the two agencies concerning search eration. However, having a personal relation-
and rescue; law enforcement, predominantly ship of trust and sharing, as well as a collegial
aimed at controlling poaching; information professional relationship, are additional fac-
exchange; and joint training programs in tors that are recognized as enablers to success-
search and rescue techniques, mountain ful cooperation. Modern communication
climbing, and rafting. There is a general belief technologies, shared interests that establish
that it is not the quality but the quantity of connections, the existing pathway to build on,
cooperation that should be improved. While personal initiative, and favorable opinions
the official position of both agencies regarding toward an individual are additional recog-
transboundary cooperation is to do so when nized facilitators.
there is such opportunity, there is a perceived The study identifies factors that most sig-
need for improvement in exploring and using nificantly inhibit the current transboundary
potential transboundary cooperation oppor- cooperation, such as lack of staff, time, and, to
tunities. For instance, there is no joint control a lesser degree, money. In addition, the
or research program conducted between the boundary between the two protected areas is
two protected areas. Staff exchange does not fairly inaccessible and located far from the
occur even though there is awareness that it headquarters of either unit, inhibiting the
would certainly increase individual skills, extent and frequency of transboundary coop-
improve relationships between the two pro- eration. In both areas management focus is not
tected areas, and enhance understanding. placed on the border region, but rather on
There is also a recognized need for additional either side, toward Alaska or the Yukon, where
specialist meetings that currently do not take the infrastructure and majority of visitors are
place (e.g., between wildlife biologists, vegeta- located. Furthermore, as a part of agency phi-
tion specialists, cultural specialists, historians, losophy, staff in Wrangell–St. Elias change
archeologists). every several years, making it difficult to main-
Respondents also indicated that numer- tain the continuity of the transboundary rela-
ous opportunities could be explored, but in tionship, whether at a professional or a per-
reality none have been seriously considered or sonal level. Some agency employees indicated
pursued. Enhanced tourism and education that the insufficient transboundary activity
opportunities are completely neglected. For was the result of inertia and the fact that trans-
40
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management
border collaboration was a low priority both resource stewardship goals. The sheer
at the protected area and the agency levels. vastness of the protected areas already
Furthermore, it is perceived that this informal facilitates the protection of migratory
level of cooperation is very comfortable, and species, but additional joint monitoring,
therefore preferable to keep, because no scientific research, and collaboration
reporting is required, nor is there any sense of might increase the long-term health and
obligation. maintenance of the regional ecosystem.
The resistance of local and state politics in • Develop an annual work plan. An annual
Alaska to both the United Nations (U.N.) and plan should be implemented with clear
international engagement in general (Bleakley stipulation of goals, activities, programs,
2002) is perceived as an additional burden to and expectations.
both practicing and improving transboundary • Report and evaluate the protected areas’
cooperation. More recently, the aftermath of transboundary activities and accomplish-
the attacks of September 11, 2001, has signif- ments at regional/national agency offices.
icantly restricted cross-border interactions Annual reports should be prepared and
between the two protected areas. In addition, serve as a basis for performance evalua-
there are no national policies in either country tions.
that foster transboundary relationships • Develop collaborative professional develop-
between protected areas. Decision-making is ment of staff members through staff
entirely left to personnel at the local level and exchange. The need for seminars, training
the vision they have—or do not have. In short, programs, meetings, and exchanging infor-
there is no administrative obligation. mation more often at all levels is recog-
Moreover, it is widely accepted by both agen- nized, and therefore should be implement-
cies’ managers that Canadians appear more ed.
comfortable with international relationships • Keep documentation on the transboundary
than many Americans. Few, for example, activities and make it available to the pro-
object to either the national government or the tected areas’ staff. For example, a park
U.N. in Canada, while there is significant ani- botanist who is not invited to attend a
mosity to both in the U.S. generally, and meeting between the two protected areas
among Alaskans in particular. should be informed of the possibilities or
achievements of the transboundary coop-
Suggestions for Improving eration.
Transboundary Cooperation • Explore the potential for developing shared
Based on the research findings and the tourism information, interpretation, cul-
reviewed literature, the following suggestions tural and education activities, programs,
are proposed: and materials. There is a need for com-
municating continuous messages across
• Establish a formal transboundary protect- the boundary through development and
ed area agreement and joint transborder production of jointly designed maps,
committee. Working within the framework brochures, videos, or display materials.
outlined in the agreement, the committee Given the similarities in visitor profiles
should develop short- and long-term and markets, there are further benefits to
strategic plans, coordinate the develop- be gained by integrating thematic mes-
ment and implementation of cooperative sages, visitor programs, and marketing
work programs, undertake a regular review approaches, as well as designing a com-
of progress, and report annually to agency mon logo. In particular, much more could
heads. and should be done to raise the profile of
• Develop joint management plans. Such the World Heritage designation.
plans would help to further safeguard bio- Attractiveness to visitors could be
diversity conservation as well as other enhanced by a joint effort to publicize and
41
 Administrative and Intellectual Tools for Park Management

increase awareness of the significance of References

this World Heritage site. Bleakley, G.T. 2002. Contested Ground: An
• Identify and implement opportunities for Administrative History of Wrangell–St.
supporting and strengthening socioeconom- Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska,
ic development of local communities and 1978–2001. Anchorage: National Park
indigenous people. Such opportunities Service, Alaska System Support Office.
could be explored through tourism, local Brunner, R. 1999. Parks for Life:
cultural heritage, and appropriate infra- Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe.
structure. Ljubljana, Slovenia: IUCN/WCPA “Parks
Conclusion for Life” Coordination Office.
While transboundary communication Fay, M. 1992. Kluane and Wrangell–St. Elias
between Wrangell–St. Elias and Kluane does National Parks: Joint management of
presently occur, more contact and coopera- North America’s largest wilderness. In
tion could substantially increase benefits to World Heritage Twenty Years Later. J.
the two areas, visitors, and local communities. Thorsell, comp. Gland, Switzerland:
Ultimately, enhanced cooperation will require IUCN, 59–64.
a formal agreement that would enable agency McNeil, R.J. 1990. International parks for
managers to move upward from the current peace. In Parks on the Borderline:
communication level to full cooperation. Experience in Transfrontier Conservation.
Such an agreement should include specifics, J.W. Thorsell, ed. Gland, Switzerland, and
imperatives, goals, timelines, and measures of Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN.
success. As a result, an agreement would Sandwith, T., C. Shine, L. Hamilton, and D.
reduce the present dependence of trans- Sheppard. 2001. Transboundary Protected
boundary interaction on individual initiative Areas for Peace and Co-operation. Best
through implementation of regular monitor- Practice Protected Areas Guidelines
ing of progress and reporting to regional and Series no. 7. Gland, Switzerland, and
national agency heads. Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN.
Indeed, without integrated management Stake, R.E. 1995. The Art of Case Study
mechanisms and agreements, cross-border Research. Thousands Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
ecosystem integrity cannot be guaranteed (Fay Zbicz, D.C. 1999. Transboundary coopera-
1992). Unfortunately, neither park- nor tion in conservation: A global survey of
national-level staff believe that this is likely to factors influencing cooperation between
happen in the near future. NPS is hesitant to internationally adjoining protected areas.
establish formal procedures, and prefers to Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University,
remain non-directive-oriented and vest Durham, N.C.
authority in superintendents to either engage
in transboundary activities, or not, at their dis-
cretion.

42
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

Carrying Capacity and Visitor Management:

Facts, Values, and the Role of Science
David N. Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula Montana
59807; dcole@fs.fed.us

For close to a century, concerns have been voiced about both the biophysical and experien-
tial impacts of recreational use on parks and protected areas. In response, managers have grap-
pled with the task of deciding where and how to manage visitor use and scientists have sought to
help them. This effort has often been referred to as defining and managing “recreational carry-
ing capacity.” The carrying capacity literature is voluminous. However, there are widely diver-
gent opinions on the value of this research and on the utility of the carrying capacity concept
(Cole 2001). Some champion its use as an organizing concept (e.g., Manning 1999), while oth-
ers argue that the concept is misleading and counterproductive (McCool and Lime 2001). This
paper attempts to assess progress in grappling with the carrying capacity issue, barriers to and
opportunities for further progress, the distinction between facts and values, and the role of sci-
ence.
Wagar (1964) developed the first formal centrality of human values within the carrying
exploration of the recreational carrying capac- capacity concept. Shelby and Heberlein
ity concept. Among the important ideas he (1986) subsequently elaborated on the impor-
presented were the following: (1) in contrast tance of human values, suggesting that there
to earlier characterizations of carrying capaci- are both descriptive and evaluative compo-
ty as an inherent property of a place that can nents to the establishment of carrying capaci-
be determined, carrying capacity is not an ty. The descriptive component is concerned
absolute value; (2) carrying capacity depends with how the recreational system operates
on the needs and values of people and can (with what is), while the evaluative component
only be defined in relation to some manage- is concerned with how the system should
ment objective; and (3) the need to limit use operate (with what ought to be). It is in this
can be reduced through other management latter component that human values operate.
actions such as zoning, engineering, persua- Shelby and Heberlein (1986) go on to pro-
sion, and the management of biotic communi- pose “a scientific process” (p. 17) for arriving
ties. This latter point led to a substantial at decisions about evaluative standards (state-
expansion of the meaning of carrying capaci- ments of what ought to be). With evaluative
ty—from a focus on numbers of visitors to the standards in place, and descriptive informa-
entire topic of “how to plan and manage a par- tion on relationships between use, manage-
ticular recreation resource” (Lime 1976). In ment, and impacts, it is a relatively simple mat-
this paper, I equate carrying capacity with the ter to prescribe a visitor management program
prescriptive aspects of visitor management (i.e., establish a recreational carrying capaci-
generally. Defining carrying capacity means ty).
making prescriptive decisions about what Shelby and Heberlein’s division of the car-
ought to be done in our parks and protected rying capacity process into descriptive and
areas—what recreational opportunities should evaluative components has been highly influ-
be provided, what conditions should be main- ential and has never been challenged,
tained, and how recreation use should be although Manning (2001) has recently
managed. referred to the evaluative component as the
“prescriptive component.” The research
Description and Evaluation, process they propose (usually referred to as
Facts and Values the “normative approach”) has been the dom-
Wagar’s first two conclusions point out the inant paradigm for empirically deriving evalu-
43
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

ative standards (e.g., Vaske et al. 1993; acteristics and both ecological and experien-
Manning et al. 1999). Within the past decade, tial conditions and about the efficacy of
however, critiques of this approach have diverse management techniques. This is
emerged. Some are of a technical nature. For Shelby and Heberlein’s descriptive compo-
example, empirical studies have shown that nent—factual information about how the
within-subject and within-population vari- recreation system works. Science is well suited
ability in norms (evaluative standards) can to developing descriptive information and
exceed between-area variability (Williams et facts.
al. 1992; Cole and Stewart 2002). Others This descriptive information can only be
question whether normative research actually developed into management prescriptions
gets at people’s values (Roggenbuck et al. (carrying capacity) in the context of a series of
1991). Questions have been raised about the value-laden decisions. Explicit decisions need
population that is sampled, usually current to be made about park purposes, clienteles to
on-site visitors. When subpopulations are be served, and experiences and conditions to
mixed, management may inappropriately be be provided. These decisions about values
directed at the needs and desires of an average constitute Shelby and Heberlein’s evaluative
visitor who does not exist (McCool and Cole component and this is the step that seems to
2001). Equity issues are raised when studies give managers the most trouble. The contro-
only give voice to certain populations (Stewart versy that has developed around the norma-
and Cole, in press). tive approach is largely a debate about the
More fundamental are concerns about the ability of that research approach to provide a
scientific objectivity of normative research and scientific basis for decisions about park pur-
its claim to provide a scientific basis for the poses, clienteles to be served, and experiences
evaluative decisions inherent to defining car- and conditions to be provided, decisions that
rying capacity. Several decades ago, Burch are ultimately codified in specific evaluative
(1981, 1984) and Becker et al. (1984) judged standards of acceptable decisions. Moreover,
many carrying capacity studies to be irrespon- this debate can be expanded to an assessment
sible and dishonest, having “more to do with of the role of science generally in making
coinciding lines of ideology held by the man- value-laden decisions.
ager and the researcher than by the empirical The limitations of a science-based
data” (Burch 1981:227). More recently, Tom approach to making evaluative decisions are
More (2002) reminded us that, since the 18th more obvious when considering carrying
century when David Hume drew the distinc- capacity as it relates to limits on the ecological
tion between facts and values, it has been a impacts of recreation use. There have been no
general established point of logic that “you significant attempts to generate evaluative
cannot derive ‘ought’ statements (values) from standards regarding ecological impacts based
‘is’ statements (facts)” (p. 115). Perhaps diver- on the normative approach and surveys of cur-
gent opinions about both the value and the rent visitors. It is clear in this case that (1) cur-
ethics of carrying capacity research come from rent visitors are only one of many relevant
divergent beliefs about the relationship stakeholders; and (2) they seldom have the
between science, facts, and values. knowledge and perspective to make wise deci-
sions about how much ecological impact is
The Role of Science too much.
Clearly, science has been tremendously
helpful to park management, both in develop- Conclusions
ing decision-making frameworks (e.g., Limits Protected area managers have been grap-
of Acceptable Change and Visitor Experience pling with the issue of carrying capacity (how
and Resource Protection) and in building a to manage visitor use) for decades. Science
factual basis for visitor management. We know has been tremendously helpful to manage-
a lot about the relationships between use char- ment, both in developing decision-making
44
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

frameworks and in building a factual basis for rying capacity issue will be determined more
management. We know a lot about the rela- by the willingness of managers to make value
tionships between use characteristics and judgments than by the ability of science to
both ecological and experiential conditions build an empirical foundation for those deci-
and about the efficacy of diverse management sions.
techniques. However, at the core of the carry-
ing capacity issue are value-based decisions References
about what ought to be, and managers still Becker, R.H., A. Jubenville, and G.W.
struggle with these decisions. The ability to Burnett, 1984. Fact and judgment in the
make these decisions appears to be the limit- search for social carrying capacity. Leisure
ing factor in progress related to carrying Sciences 6, 475–486.
capacity. Burch, W.R., Jr. 1981. The ecology of
Science is less equipped to contribute to metaphor—spacing irregularities for
decisions about values. The scientific method humans and other primates in urban and
can be employed to describe the values of wildland habitats. Leisure Sciences 4,
individuals or social groups. However, science 213–231.
is about describing what “is” and, as Hume ———. 1984. Much ado about nothing—some
noted, it is impossible to derive “ought” state- reflections on the wider and wilder impli-
ments from “is” statements. Describing values cations of social carrying capacity. Leisure
and making decisions about values are not Sciences 6, 487–496.
equivalent. Shelby and Heberlein’s (1986:17) Cole, D.N. 2001. Visitor use density and
statement that the normative approach pro- wilderness experiences: a historical
vides “a scientific process for carrying capaci- review. In Visitor Use Density and
ty” is misleading at best. Value-laden deci- Wilderness Experience. W.A. Freimund
sions can be informed by science, but science and D.N. Cole, comps. Proceedings
cannot make those decisions, nor can science RMRS-P-20. Ogden, Ut.: U.S.
make those decisions easier. Moreover, unless Department of Agriculture–Forest Service,
the values implicit in most normative research Rocky Mountain Research Station, 11–20.
are made explicit, science may not even make Cole, D.N., and W.P. Stewart. 2002.
those decisions better. Descriptions of values Variability of user-based evaluative stan-
will vary greatly depending on which popula- dards for backcountry encounters. Leisure
tion is sampled, how results are displayed in Sciences 24, 313–324.
means and distributions, the context of specif- Lime, D.W. 976. Principles of recreational
ic questions, and the amount and type of carrying capacity. In Proceedings of
information given to respondents. Southern States Recreation Research
Park managers will continue to grapple Applications Workshop. General Technical
with issues of carrying capacity, prescribing Report SE-9. Asheville, N.C.: U.S.
management actions intended to meet man- Department of Agriculture–Forest Service,
agement objectives. Science will continue to Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,
inform those decisions. Further insight into 122–134.
relationships between visitors, management, Manning, R.E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor
park conditions, and experiences will add to Recreation. 2nd ed. Corvallis: Oregon
the descriptive foundation for management. State University Press.
Normative research will continue to build the ———. 2001. Carrying capacity as “informed
knowledge base regarding park visitors, an judgement”: the values of science and the
understanding that is valuable when making science of values. In Visitor Use Density
prescriptive decisions. Hopefully, new types and Wilderness Experience. W.A.
of research into societal needs and values will Freimund and D.N. Cole, comps.
also inform value decisions. In my opinion, Proceedings RMRS-P-20. Ogden, Ut.:
however, the rate of future progress on the car- U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest
45
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Leisure Research 23, 133–153.
Station, 21–28. Shelby, B., and T.A. Heberlein. 1986.
Manning, R.E., W.A. Valliere, B. Wang, and C. Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings.
Jacobi. 1999. Crowding norms: alternative Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences Stewart, W.P., and D.N. Cole. In press. On the
21, 219–229. prescriptive utility of visitor survey
McCool, S.F., and D.N. Cole. 2001. Thinking research: a rejoinder to Manning.
and acting regionally: toward better deci- Forthcoming in Journal of Leisure
sions about appropriate conditions, stan- Research.
dards, and restrictions on recreation use. Vaske, J.J., M.P. Donnelly, and B. Shelby.
The George Wright Forum 18:3, 85–98. 1993. Establishing management stan-
McCool, S.F., and D.W. Lime. 2001. Tourism dards: selected examples of the normative
carrying capacity: tempting fantasy or use- approach. Environmental Management
ful reality. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17, 629–643.
9, 372–388. Wagar, J.A. 1964. The carrying capacity of
More, T.A. 2002. The marginal user as the wild lands for recreation. Forest Science
justification for public recreation: A Monograph no. 7. Washington, D.C.:
rejoinder to Crompton, Driver, and Society of American Foresters.
Dustin. Journal of Leisure Research 34, Williams, D.R., J.W. Roggenbuck, M.E.
103–118. Patterson and A.E. Watson. 1992. The
Roggenbuck, J.W., D.R. Williams, S.P. Bange, variability of user-based social impact
and D.J. Dean. 1991. River float trip standards for wilderness management.
encounter norms: questioning the use of Forest Science 38, 738–756.
the social norms concept. Journal of

46
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

The Place, Cost, and Value of Vision in Preservation:

The Ranger Steam Engine
David Hull, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, Building E, Fort Mason, 3rd
Floor, San Francisco, California 94115; david_hull@nps.gov

In 1876, a three-masted, square-rigged sloop-of-war named Ranger, with an auxiliary steam

engine, was launched for the Navy in Wilmington, Delaware. The story of the preservation of
her engine has interesting twists, and understanding the costs and values involved may suggest
something regarding the place of—and a caveat associated with—vision in preservation.
But first, the background. A substantial scrapyard for $13,000, yet her engine alone to
part of her Navy time was spent sailing in sur- date has commanded fundraising and dona-
vey duty off the west coasts of Central and tions in-kind which are conservatively estimat-
North America. Most of the U.S. charts of the ed at well over $1 million.
west coasts of Mexico and Central America Scrapping of the ship in 1958 is where
even today bear the legend, “Based on surveys Karl Kortum, director of the San Francisco
of the U.S.S. Ranger.” Maritime Museum, enters the picture. To pre-
By 1905, she had crossed the equator pare for a caveat at the conclusion regarding
more times than any other ship afloat, because the place of vision in preservation, I must tell
of her numerous magnetic equator surveys. you something about Kortum.
The navigator on her last Navy assignment—a Before 1958, Kortum had sailed as able-
voyage in 1908 from China to Boston—was bodied seaman in the last American square-
Chester A. Nimitz, which means something to rigger to round Cape Horn with lumber to
someone who every day drives the Nimitz South Africa, and then around the Cape of
Freeway. Good Hope to Australia, by which time he
From 1909 to 1946, the Ranger served had been promoted to first mate, and America
under four different names as a training ship had declared war on Japan. In Australia, he
for maritime academies. Her greatest fame assembled crews for the Army’s small ships
came in service to the Massachusetts Nautical division, which supplied the war effort in the
School as the Nantucket, in honor of the far Pacific. And of course, before 1958, he had
island where in 1816 the first nautical school also established the San Francisco Maritime
in the country was established. Her four- Museum, and saved the square-rigger, the
month summer cruises covered as much as Balclutha.
10,000 miles, visiting ports from South After 1958, Kortum was instrumental in
America to the Mediterranean, mostly under the rescue of a dozen historic ships around the
sail. world, including the seven in San Francisco.
In 1942, the ship was transferred to the He conceived and developed the Hyde Street
United States Merchant Marine Academy at Pier and the Victorian Park in San Francisco.
Kings Point, New York, and renamed Emery He helped found the World Ship Trust and
Rice in honor of an 1897 graduate who sailed the National Maritime Historical Society. He
out of San Francisco for fifteen years, and who was praised by a spread of notables, of whom
scored the first American hit on an enemy I quote only one, Walter Cronkite, who said,
submarine. “By sheer determination, backed by ... intel-
This background demonstrates the myri- lectual brilliance, he has made the case for his-
ad of connections of this ship—and this toric ships clear to us, and he has made it
engine—to signal events and illustrious indi- stick.”
viduals in our national (particularly West Kortum also publicly called his National
Coast) maritime history. Park Service (NPS) superiors “stumblebums
In 1958, the Emery Rice was sold to a and vulgarians,” and he was suspended for a
47
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
week without pay for “insubordination and Using admittedly subjective quantifiers, at
bad behavior” when he decried as “extra-ter- the inception of the project, I rate its value to
restrials” a group of museum consultants maritime history as “a whole lot,” based on
whom NPS had gathered to advise the San this engine’s connection to events and indi-
Francisco museum. viduals in maritime history, and its place in the
What Kortum did first in 1958 was fail. He development of marine engineering. And
sought to persuade Kings Point, as well as because the engine complemented the muse-
other East Coast maritime museums, to pre- um’s existing collection of steam engines, I
serve the engine, and failed. Or perhaps, in rate its value to the museum as a whole lot. Its
retrospect, it was those institutions that failed. value to Kings Point now is zero.
In any case, if Kortum wanted to see the So how did Kortum rescue this engine?
engine preserved, he would have to do it him- He had no funds to transport or store the
self. So he began on the twin grounds that the engine, no staff to preserve it, no place to store
ship was a familiar presence on the West or display it. What he did have was vision. He
Coast, and that the museum collected impor- also understood the importance of the engine.
tant marine steam engines. The back-acting He had courage, determination, will. He was
horizontal steam engine of the U.S. sloop-of- persuasive. As Cronkite said, “He made the
war Ranger would be in good company, mak- case clear, and he made it stick.”
ing the museum’s fine collection even better, He persuaded the scrapyard to donate the
even arguably the finest collection of marine engine. A museum trustee arranged for a
steam engines in the world. steamship company to carry it gratis from the
Why exactly is the Ranger engine impor- East Coast to San Francisco. Another trustee
tant? This engine represents the halfway mark persuaded Senator William Knowland to
from earliest paddle engines to sophisticated influence the 12th Naval Division to off-load
steam turbines. There are no comparable the sixty-ton engine and store it at the Naval
marine engineering landmarks preserved from Supply Center in Oakland.
this era. This engine is in original condition, At this point, not because of dollars spent,
virtually complete, and now 130 years old. but because of time and energy spent—and
Made to lie low in the ship to avoid hazards goodwill called in—I rate the cost to museum
from shot in warfare, this engine is totally as “quite a bit.” And because the engine is now
unlike anything seen today. It can arouse won- headed, not for scrapping, but for display, I
der, impart basic information, and stimulate rate the value to public as “some.”
appreciation of marine engineering art. The Naval Supply Center in Oakland cel-
The secretary of the Stationary Engine ebrated in their newspaper: “Museum-bound
Society reported: Historic Ranger Engine Due Here.” They
I have reflected several times on my own agreed to store it for “four or five months.” It
reaction, upon seeing (the Ranger engine) sat there for nearly 25 years. Here are some
for the first time. I had seen a sketch of it, snapshots from those years.
but somehow wasn’t fully prepared for this April 1964, from Assistant Director David
huge, rectangular block of metal which Nelson to Kortum: “July 1 will be critical....
looks nothing at all like our usual concep- [T]he Oakland Naval Supply Depot will
tion of an engine.... [T]here (was no) become a joint operation under a single com-
crankshaft, connecting rods, crossheads, mander ... not a sympathetic Navy man, but
or even cylinders; none of the most basic one General Conroy of the US Army. (It is)
elements one looks for in viewing a steam prime operating space. (The Navy is) afraid
engine! It wasn’t until I had walked slowly the engine will cause a tidal wave when the
around the engine ... identifying each com- General tosses it into the Bay. Whada we do
ponent, that I appreciated what a mar- now, Coach?”
velously ingenious design it is, and what a Coach did nothing, Navy did nothing,
wonderful engine to be preserved! Army did nothing. A year later, from the Navy:
48
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
“Contacts with David Nelson on various occa- ice in storing the engine. Scrawled on the let-
sions during 1961, 1963, and 1964 indicated ters were the questions: “What’s this about?
the difficulty you were experiencing in negoti- What’s the purpose of these letters?”
ating ... the conversion of the Haslett What the letters were about was Kortum—
Warehouse to house the USS Ranger fighting off the scrapyard again, building sup-
engine....” port in high places, hanging onto that engine
In response, Kortum activated an advisory with whatever it took.
committee member, Bob Blake, who was also The record ends there, but the oral tradi-
a museum supervisor. Blake threatened to call tion is that every four years a new comman-
San Francisco newspapers and say, “The dant arrived and threatened to call the scrap-
Navy refuses to store a valuable Navy artifact.” yard. Kortum called Phil Burton, Burton
If I know Kortum, that threat was not entirely called the commandant, and another four
Blake’s idea. years rolled by, then the cycle repeated.
Result, from Navy files: “Admiral Metzger On the day after Christmas of 1977,
concurred in our storing for a reasonable Kortum had a conversation with Chester
time.” Locklin, a marine consultant from Florida,
In mid-1967, the museum curator, Harlan who had been “shipmates with the Ranger
Soeten, in a memo to Kortum: engine (in the training barkentine Nantucket),
I stopped in to look at the engine
1926, ’27, ’28,” as Kortum titled his account.
which I had not seen for about a year.
Kortum had him identify the various elements
The covering tarpaulin has been blown
of this strange engine. Locklin noted, “Suicide
off and the engine is completely
Alley was that tunnel through the condens-
exposed to the elements. A lot of rust-
er.... You had to inch your way through.... The
ing has taken place—nothing serious
crossheads (are) in action on either side of you
to date, but it will get progressively
and not much clearance. A dangerous opera-
worse. Additionally, the Army is still
tion.”
making inquiries as to when they can
Kortum took every opportunity to capture
use this dock-side area. They did not
the words of the grassroots folk in the mar-
react kindly to my suggestion that we
itime history he always sought to advance. For
arrange to have the engine sprayed
Kortum’s ability to capture the human side of
with preservative oil and then recov-
the engine’s story, I raise the value to maritime
ered with a new tarp.
history to a whole lot—plus.
This era of the preservation ended in 1983
Harlan closed the memo, saying: “Do not when Kings Point awoke and realized that the
get Blake or higher-ups involved. Please.” Ranger’s marine steam engine was an authen-
Cost to the museum is going up as tic part of its heritage. Thereupon began the
Kortum’s own staff gets resistant. And the second era in the preservation of this engine,
engine’s value to maritime history is deterio- which is another story.
rating as the artifact is deteriorating. The Museum Association, with other San
In February 1970, the newspaper came Francisco sectors, sent $63,000 to Kings
out with a story on the dumplike conditions of Point to get the project underway. Cost to the
storage of rusty artifacts at the San Francisco museum now: a whole lot—plus.
Maritime Museum. The reporter obviously Regardless of the engine’s exalted place in
knew nothing of the Ranger engine. But the museum’s collection of steam engines,
should its condition become a scandal in the Kortum ultimately recognized that Kings
newspapers, its cost to the museum could hit Point had a higher claim because the engine
bell-ringer. About six months later, therefore, was a direct connection to their history. But
the Navy received letters from two congress- the engine was gone. Value to museum now
men, Phillip Burton and William Mailliard, down to zero.
thanking the Navy for their community serv- Kings Point, to their great credit, raised
49
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

$345,000 and built a glass structure to display museum raised to bell-ringer.

the engine 24 hours a day. Value to public In summary, what about the place of vision
now rates as a bell-ringer. And value to Kings in preservation? Certainly with the Ranger
Point, because of positive media coverage, steam engine, vision was crucial; without
including in The New York Times, is perhaps Kortum’s vision, that engine today would be
also a bell-ringer. part of your toaster. But in general, what about
At this point in the project, there are high assuming a large preservation task of an
values to maritime history, the public, and important artifact with only vision—no staff,
Kings Point—a laudable result as service to the no funds, no place to store or display?
world at large. But with regard to the museum There are two ways to look at it. One is the
itself, it was a poor result; the cost was high caveat: unless you are an unusual individual,
and the value to museum was zero. uncommonly confident, courageous, and
There are two notes to bear in mind. One: determined; willing to make use of the media
This case study is not necessarily typical of and politicians; willing to commit your insti-
preservation projects begun with vision alone. tution to unknown costs; willing to absorb
In his preservation of the Balclutha, Kortum blows to your reputation; willing to proceed
also began with nothing more than vision; its with no facility, no staff, no funds; willing to
concluding cost to the museum was low and act “outside the box”; willing to risk probable
its values to the public and to maritime histo- failure—unless you are all these things, then
ry, as well as to the museum, were high. perhaps it would be prudent to think twice
Two: This case is not finished. Kortum about any visions you may have.
acquired the pledge of Kings Point to assist in The other way is best summarized by a
acquisition of a replacement engine, but there quotation attributed to the great German
is none available, so the Kings Point pledge philosopher Goethe:
remains unfulfilled.
There is, however, an exploration under- Concerning all acts of initiative (and cre-
way with Kings Point that would return to San ation), there is one elementary truth: that
Francisco a significant part of our heritage—a the moment one definitely commits one-
direct connection to our history—just as the self, then Providence moves too.... A
Ranger engine was to theirs. It is the master- whole stream of events issues from the
piece of San Francisco’s premier maritime decision, raising in one’s favor all manner
painter, which hangs in the superintendent’s of unforeseen incidents and meetings and
building at Kings Point. The Blue Light material assistance, which no man could
Burning shows a ship battered by storm, have dreamed would have come his way.
about to sink, but with hope still alive in the Whatever you can do, or dream you can
signaling blue light burning. This painting, do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power,
curiously, is a good symbol of the situation in and magic in it. Begin it now.
1958—the Ranger engine about to be
scrapped, but hope alive in the person of Karl So, which of the two ways: prudence or bold-
Kortum—the blue light burning. If that mas- ness? Each of us, on a case-by-case basis,
terpiece ultimately returns to San Francisco, chooses.
the pledge would be fulfilled, and the value to

50
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

Carrying Capacity as “Informed Judgment”:

The Values of Science and the Science of Values
Robert E. Manning, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
05405; Robert.Manning@uvm.edu

Carrying Capacity of Parks and Wilderness

In its most generic form, carrying capacity refers to the amount and type of visitor use that
can be accommodated within a park or wilderness without unacceptable resource and social
impacts. Recent experience with carrying capacity suggests that it can be applied most effective-
ly through formulation of indicators and standards of quality for biophysical conditions
(resource carrying capacity) and for the visitor experience (social carrying capacity) (Stankey et
al. 1985; Stankey and Manning 1986; Graefe et al. 1990; National Park Service 1997; Manning
1999; Manning 2001). Indicators of quality are measurable, manageable variables that define the
quality of park and wilderness resources and the visitor experience. Standards of quality define
the minimum acceptable condition of indicator variables.
By formulating indicators and standards of carrying capacity might address the question
quality, parks and wilderness can be managed of what level of perceived crowding should be
within a defined carrying capacity. Indicator allowed.
variables are monitored over time, and if stan- From this discussion, it is apparent that
dards of quality are violated (or are in danger carrying capacity analysis and management
of being violated), management action is require a strong element of “informed judg-
required. This approach to carrying capacity ment.” Park and wilderness managers must
is central to contemporary park and wilder- ultimately render judgments about acceptable
ness management frameworks, including levels of biophysical and social impacts, and
Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey et al. associated use levels, but such judgments
1985), and Visitor Experience and Resource should be as “informed” as possible. Findings
Protection (National Park Service 1997; from scientific studies represent an important
Manning 2001). approach to informing such judgments.

“Informed Judgment” The Values of Science

Some studies have suggested distinguish- Science can inform management judg-
ing descriptive from evaluative and/or pre- ments about carrying capacity in at least two
scriptive components of carrying capacity ways. First, research findings should serve as
(Shelby and Heberlein 1984, 1986). The the basis of the descriptive component of car-
descriptive component of carrying capacity rying capacity. A substantial body of scientific
focuses on factual, objective data. For exam- literature has been developed on both the
ple, what is the relationship between the resource and social components of carrying
amount of visitor use and perceived crowd- capacity, and recent meta-analyses have begun
ing? The evaluative/prescriptive components to integrate and synthesize this growing body
of carrying capacity determination concern of knowledge (e.g., Hammitt and Cole 1998;
the seemingly more subjective issues of how Manning 1999).
changes in the recreation environment are Second, research findings can also help
judged and, ultimately, how much impact or inform the evaluative/prescriptive compo-
change in the recreation environment is nents of carrying capacity. Again, a substantial
acceptable. For example, the evaluative com- body of scientific literature has been devel-
ponent of carrying capacity might address the oped on the degree to which park and wilder-
question of how visitors judge increasing lev- ness visitors are perceptive of recreation-relat-
els of use, while the prescriptive component of ed impacts and their subjective evaluations of
51
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
these impacts. This research explores the park tence of social norms or the degree to which
and wilderness-related values of visitors, and norms are shared across groups. Normative
can be used with other types of information to research in outdoor recreation has focused
help inform management judgments about largely on the issue of crowding (e.g., Shelby
standards of quality and, ultimately, carrying 1981; Heberlein et al. 1986; Whittaker and
capacity. Shelby 1988; Patterson and Hammitt 1990;
Williams et al. 1991; Manning et al. 1996a,
The Science of Values 1996b; Vaske et al. 1996; Manning et al.
Within the context of carrying capacity, 1999d; Manning et al. 2000; Manning et al.
scientific approaches to park and wilderness- 2002a, 2002b), but also has been expanded to
related values have been applied primarily to include other potential indicators of quality.
formulation of standards of quality. Research findings from published studies of
Standards of quality ultimately reflect the val- recreation-related norms have recently been
ues that visitors place on parks and wilder- compiled in Manning (1999).
ness. Research on visitor-based standards of A hypothetical social norm curve is shown
quality has conventionally focused on norma- in Figure 1 to illustrate normative theory and
tive theory and techniques. For example, what methods. The norm curve traces the average
is the maximum acceptable number of groups acceptability ratings of a sample of recreation-
that visitors feel can be encountered per day ists for encountering a range of groups of
along a wilderness trail? More recent research other visitors per day along a trail.
has begun to extend the normative approach Extending the normative approach. As
by emphasizing the potential consequences or research on normative standards has proceed-
trade-offs that may be inherent in normative ed, several approaches to measuring norms
research. For example, park and wilderness have evolved. Traditionally, outdoor recre-
visitors may value both solitude and access, ation-related norms have been measured
but these values may ultimately conflict. How using a “numerical” or “narrative” approach.
do concerns about maintaining reasonable For example, respondents might be asked to
public access to wilderness areas affect norma- evaluate a range of encounters (0, 5, 10, 15,
tive judgments about the maximum accept- etc.) with other groups per day along trails.
able number of groups that can be encoun- The personal normative data derived are
tered per day along wilderness trails? The fol- aggregated and graphed (as illustrated in
lowing subsections briefly describe and illus- Figure 1) to construct a “norm curve” from
trate this evolving research on alternative park which social norms might be identified.
and wilderness values and their relationship to More recently, visual approaches to meas-
formulating standards of quality. uring crowding and other outdoor recreation-
The normative approach. Developed in related norms have been developed.
the discipline of sociology, the concept of Computer software has been used to edit and
norms has attracted considerable attention as produce photographs depicting a range of use
a theoretical and empirical framework in park levels and environmental impacts (Hof et al.
and wilderness research and management 1994; Manning et al. 1995; Manning et al.
(Jackson 1965; Shelby and Heberlein 1986; 1996a, 1996b).
Vaske et al. 1986; Shelby and Vaske 1991; An issue implicit in all of these measure-
Donnelly et al. 1992; Shelby et al. 1996; ment approaches concerns the evaluative
Manning 1999). If visitors have normative dimension used in these questions. When
standards concerning relevant aspects of respondents have been asked to evaluate a
recreation experiences, then such norms can range of use levels and related impacts, the
be measured and used as a basis for formulat- response scale has included terminology spec-
ing standards of quality. Using normative the- ifying a variety of evaluative dimensions,
ory and methods, the personal norms of indi- including “acceptability,” “preference,”
viduals can be aggregated to test for the exis- “pleasantness,” “desirability,” “satisfaction,”
52
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

Optimal or Preferred Condition

4

1 Minimum Acceptable Condition

Range of Acceptable Conditions

-1

-2
Crystallization (Dispersion
-3 around points defining the
norm curve)
-4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Number of Groups Encountered Along Trail Per Day
Figure 1. Hypothetical social norm curve.

and “tolerance.” These alternative evaluative parisons of findings among the norm meas-
dimensions may have substantially different urement approaches described above
meanings to respondents, and may result in (Manning et al. 1997a, 1997b; Manning et al.
significantly different personal and social 1998; Manning et al. 1999b, 1999c; Manning
norms. et al. 2000). These comparisons suggest that
A related issue concerns the normative alternative measurement approaches can
nature of evaluative dimensions. Application affect resulting norms in a statistically signifi-
of normative theory and techniques to out- cant and substantive way (Manning et al.
door recreation has noted several important 1999a). The most powerful effects concern
elements of norms as they traditionally are the evaluative dimension used and more
defined (Roggenbuck et al. 1991; Shelby and explicit introduction of the normative notion
Vaske 1991; Williams et al. 1991; Noe 1992; of the recreation conditions that managers
Heywood 1993a, 1993b, 1996a, 1996b; should maintain.
McDonald 1996; Shelby et al. 1996). One of These findings suggest three important
these elements suggests that norms have a points. First, a range of personal and social
strong obligatory nature; that is, norms define norms can be estimated using a spectrum of
what “should” be. This suggests that norms evaluative dimensions that range from “prefer-
might be measured by asking respondents ence” to “displacement” or “absolute toler-
about what recreation conditions or level of ance.” Second, the “management action” eval-
impacts they feel managers “should” main- uative dimension may be of special interest to
tain. park and wilderness managers because it more
Recent studies of crowding-related norms explicitly addresses trade-offs inherent in
for several national parks have allowed com- crowding-related issues (i.e., a desire to avoid
53
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
crowding while also maintaining reasonable Manning 2002a). A representative sample of
public access), and therefore may more close- visitors was asked a series of questions regard-
ly approximate the traditional prescriptive ing alternative combinations of solitude (num-
nature of norms. It is important to note that ber of people at Delicate Arch) and access
“management action”-related norms are con- (percentage chance of receiving a permit to
sistently and often substantially higher than hike to the arch). Study findings provide
“preference”- and “acceptability”-based potentially important insights into the appro-
norms. Finally, the range of crowding-related priate balance between these two desirable
norms developed in the literature based on attributes of the park experience, and can help
alternative evaluative dimensions may be use- inform management judgments about the car-
ful to researchers and managers, as it facilitates rying capacity of this site.
a more comprehensive understanding of the Stated choice analysis. Stated choice
evaluative and prescriptive components of analysis represents another research approach
carrying capacity. to quantifying carrying capacity-related values
Beyond the normative approach. Data and trade-offs inherent in park and wilderness
derived from the normative approach can be management. Stated choice analysis models
useful in helping researchers and managers have been developed in the fields of psycho-
quantify the values of park and wilderness vis- metrics, econometrics, and consumer market-
itors and formulate crowding-related and ing to evaluate public preferences and related
other standards of quality. However, such attitudes (Green and Srinivasan 1978). In stat-
studies have also illustrated the complex ed choice analysis, respondents are asked to
nature of this research, as well as the strengths make choices among alternative configura-
and weaknesses of normative theory and tions of a multi-attribute good (Louviere and
empirical techniques. In particular, conven- Timmermans 1990).
tional studies designed to estimate crowding- Recently, stated choice modeling has been
related and other norms may substantially adapted to carrying capacity analysis and
underestimate such norms because these applied at Denali National Park and Preserve
studies fail to explicitly (or even implicitly) (Lawson and Manning 2001a; Lawson and
introduce trade-offs between the desire to Manning 2002b) and Yosemite National Park
avoid crowding and other impacts of recre- (Newman et al. 2001; Newman et al. 2002).
ation and the desire to maintain reasonable For example, wilderness visitors to Yosemite
public access to parks and wilderness. were asked their preferences between alterna-
Indifference curve analysis. Research on tive wilderness scenarios that were described
park- and wilderness-related values might be by a range of six attributes: campsite impacts,
strengthened through adaptation of alterna- signs of stock use, trail encounters, campsite
tive theoretical and empirical approaches, encounters, likelihood of receiving a wilder-
especially those that more explicitly address ness permit, and regulation of campsite
inherent trade-offs in park and wilderness choice. Study findings suggest that campsite
management. For example, indifference curve impacts are the most important attribute (or
analysis, developed in the discipline of eco- indicator of quality), and that most visitors
nomics, provides a model representing the would prefer to accept more management reg-
tradeoff decisions an individual makes in allo- ulation to assure a minimum standard of qual-
cating a fixed level of income between two ity for campsite conditions. Data also suggest
consumer goods (Nicholson 1995). This that campsite condition three (on the park’s
approach has recently been adapted to exam- five-level “condition class” campsite monitor-
ine the trade-offs that visitors would prefer to ing system) may be an appropriate standard of
make between solitude and access to Delicate quality.
Arch, a popular visitor attraction in Arches Stated choice analysis provides a potential
National Park (Lawson and Manning 2000; improvement over conventional normative
Lawson and Manning 2001b; Lawson and research approaches to park and wilderness
54
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

carrying capacity because resulting data are including indifference curve and stated choice
derived from a more holistic or contextual analysis, are being adapted to address trade-
perspective. That is, visitors’ normative judg- offs inherent in carrying capacity manage-
ments and the resulting multivariate statistical ment. In these ways, the science of values is
analysis explicitly consider the inherent trade- progressing to meet the opportunities and
offs among the conditions of social, resource, challenges of the values of science to park and
and managerial attributes. Further, this wilderness management.
expanded approach to normative research While progress has been made in develop-
yields information to help formulate standards ing a more conceptually and empirically
of quality for multiple and related park and informed approach to the carrying capacity of
wilderness attributes simultaneously. parks and wilderness, this research should be
interpreted and applied carefully, and more
Conclusions research is clearly warranted. For example,
Carrying capacity is an important issue in normative theory and techniques borrowed
park and wilderness management, and is like- from the discipline of sociology have proven
ly to increase in importance as the popularity useful in carrying capacity analysis, but such
of parks and wilderness continues to grow. It data derived in the context of park and wilder-
is clear from the literature that management of ness management may lack the full prescrip-
carrying capacity involves matters of both sci- tive power of norms as they have traditionally
ence and values, and that both of these ele- been defined. Moreover, the normative data
ments must be integrated into “informed described in this paper are often analyzed and
judgments” on the part of park and wilderness presented using measures of central tendency,
managers. That is, managers must ultimately such as means and medians. Researchers and
make value-based judgments about the maxi- managers should be careful not to mask
mum acceptable levels of visitor-caused important variation that might exist among
impacts to the resource base and the quality of different types of park and wilderness visitors.
the visitor experience. However, such judg- A related issue concerns the inherent com-
ments should be informed to the extent possi- plexity and diversity of carrying capacity and
ble by scientific data on the relationships its application to parks and wilderness.
between visitor use and resulting impacts, and Current visitors have been the subject of most
the degree to which park and wilderness visi- carrying capacity research, but other interest
tors and other interest groups judge such groups may be considered legitimate stake-
impacts to be acceptable. Such information holders as well, including local residents, dis-
represents the “values of science” to managing placed visitors, and the general public.
carrying capacity in parks and wilderness. Research should be expanded to include a
A growing body of literature has begun to wider spectrum of interest groups. Carrying
address the corresponding “science of val- capacity research has also traditionally been
ues,” and how this type of information might conducted on a site-by-site basis. However,
be integrated into park and wilderness man- viewing individual parks and wilderness areas
agement. Visitor-based research has employed as parts of larger, regional or even national sys-
normative theory and techniques to explore tems of outdoor recreation areas—and con-
the acceptability of a range of biophysical and ducting research and management according-
social impacts related to visitor use, and find- ly—may result in a more diverse system of
ings from these studies are being integrated park and wilderness opportunities that more
into a body of knowledge and applied in man- fully serves the spectrum of public prefer-
agement decision-making. Conceptual and ences. Such a “systems approach” may also
methodological extensions of the normative help relieve some of the tension and con-
approach are currently being explored in a frontation often associated with the applica-
variety of park and wilderness contexts, and tion of carrying capacity, as the preferences of
new theoretical and empirical approaches, multiple groups might be incorporated into
55
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
larger-scale research and management. It 37–48.
should also be noted that the types of data ———. 1996a. Conventions, emerging norms,
described in this paper are only one source of and norms in outdoor recreation. Leisure
information on public values that might be Sciences 18, 355–363.
incorporated into analyzing and applying car- ———. 1996b. Social regularities in outdoor
rying capacity to parks and wilderness areas. recreation. Leisure Sciences 18, 23–37.
Other sources of information include legal Hof, M., J. Hammitt, M. Rees, J. Belnap, N.
and administrative mandates, agency policy, Poe, D. Lime, and R. Manning. 1994.
historic precedent, interest group politics, Getting a handle on visitor carrying capac-
personnel and financial resources and— ity—a pilot project at Arches National
inescapably—management judgment, but Park. Park Science 14, 11–13.
judgment that is scientifically “informed” to Jackson, J. 1965. Structural characteristics of
the extent possible. norms. In Current Studies of Social
Psychology. I.D. Steiner and M.F.
References Fishbein, eds. New York: Holt, Rinehart
Donnelly, M., J. Vaske, and B. Shelby. 1992. & Winston, 301–309.
Measuring backcountry standards in visi- Lawson, S., and R. Manning. 2000.
tor surveys. In Defining Wilderness Crowding versus access at Delicate Arch,
Quality: The Role of Standards in Arches National Park: an indifference
Wilderness Management—A Workshop curve analysis. In Proceedings of the Third
Proceedings. General Technical Report Symposium on Social Aspects and
PNW-305. Portland, Ore.: U.S. Recreation Research, Tempe, Arizona,
Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, February 16–19. I.E. Schneider, D.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Chavez, W. Borrie, and K. James, eds.
Experiment Station, 38–52. Tempe: Arizona State University,
Graefe, A., F. Kuss, and J. Vaske. 1990. Visitor 135–143.
Impact Management: The Planning ———. 2001a. Crossing experiential bound-
Framework. Washington, D. C.: National aries: visitor preferences regarding trade-
Parks and Conservation Association. offs among social, resource, and manageri-
Green, P., and V. Srinivasan. 1978. Conjoint al attributes of the Denali wilderness expe-
analysis in consumer research: Issues and rience. The George Wright Forum 18:3,
outlook. Journal of Consumer Research 5, 10–27.
103–123. ———. 2001b. Evaluating multiple dimen-
Hammitt, W., and D. Cole. 1998. Wildland sions of visitors’ tradeoffs between access
Recreation: Ecology and Management. and crowding at Arches National Park
New York: John Wiley & Sons. using indifference curve analysis. In
Heberlein, T., G. Alfano, and L. Ervin. 1986. Proceedings of the 2000 Northeastern
Using a social carrying capacity model to Recreation Research Symposium, April
estimate the effects of marina development 2–4, 2000, Bolton Landing, New York. G.
at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Kyle, ed. General Technical Report NE-
Leisure Sciences 8, 257–274. 276. Newtown Square, Pa.: U.S.
Heywood, J. 1993a. Behavioral conventions in Department of Agriculture–Forest Service,
higher density, day use wildland/urban Northeastern Research Station, 167–175.
recreation settings: a preliminary case ———. 2002a. Solitude versus access: a study
study. Journal of Leisure Research 25, of tradeoffs in outdoor recreation using
39–52. indifference curve analysis. Leisure
———. 1993b. Game theory: a basis for ana- Sciences 23, 179–191.
lyzing emerging norms and conventions in ———. 2002b. Tradeoffs among social,
outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences 15, resource, and management attributes of
the Denali wilderness experience: A con-
56
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
textual approach to normative research. Technical Report NPS/NESO-
Leisure Sciences. RNR/NRTR/98-3. Boston: National Park
Louviere, J., and H. Timmermans. 1990. Service.
Using hierarchical information integration Manning, R., D. Cole, W. Stewart, J. Taylor,
to model consumer responses to possible and M. Lee. 1998. Day Use Hiking in
planning actions: recreation destination Grand Canyon National Park. University
choice illustration. Environment and of Vermont Technical Report. Burlington:
Planning 22, 291–308. University of Vermont.
Louviere, J., and G. Woodworth. 1985. Models Manning, R., S. Lawson, B. Wang, and W.
of Park Choice Derived from Experimental Valliere. 1999a. Research to Support
and Observational Data: A Case Study in Visitor Management at Alcatraz Island.
Johnston County, Iowa. University of Iowa University of Vermont Technical Report.
Technical Report. Iowa City: University of Burlington: University of Vermont.
Iowa. Manning, R., W. Valliere, B. Wang, S. Lawson,
Manning, R. 1999. Studies in Outdoor and J. Treadwell. 1999b. Research to
Recreation: Search and Research for Support Visitor Management at Statue of
Satisfaction. Corvallis: Oregon State Liberty/Ellis Island National Monuments.
University Press. University of Vermont Technical Report.
———. 2001. Visitor Experience and Burlington: University of Vermont.
Resource Protection: A framework for Manning, R., B. Wang, W. Valliere, S. Lawson.
managing the carrying capacity of national 1999c. Carrying Capacity Research for
parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Yosemite Valley: Phase I Study. University
Administration 19, 93–108. of Vermont Technical Report. Burlington:
Manning, R., D. Lime, M. Hof, and W. University of Vermont.
Freimund. 1995. The visitor experience Manning, R., W. Valliere, B. Wang, C. Jacobi.
and resource protection process: the 1999d. Crowding norms: alternative
application of carrying capacity to Arches measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences
National Park. The George Wright Forum 21, 97–115.
12:3, 41–55. Manning, R., W. Valliere, S. Lawson, B. Wang,
Manning, R., D. Lime, W. Freimund, and D. and P. Newman. 2000. Carrying Capacity
Pitt. 1996a. Crowding norms at frontcoun- Research for Yosemite Valley: Phase II
try sites: a visual approach to setting stan- Study. University of Vermont Technical
dards of quality. Leisure Sciences 18, Report. Burlington: University of
39–59. Vermont.
Manning, R., D. Lime, and M. Hof. 1996b. Manning, R., W. Valliere, B. Minteer, B. Wang,
Social carrying capacity of natural areas: and C. Jacobi. 2000. Crowding in parks
theory and application in the U. S. nation- and outdoor recreation: a theoretical,
al parks. Natural Areas Journal 16, empirical and managerial analysis. Journal
118–127. of Park and Recreation Administration 18,
Manning, R., N. Ballinger, W. Valliere, B. 57–72.
Wang, and C. Jacobi. 1997a. Acadia Manning, R., B. Wang, W. Valliere, S. Lawson,
National Park Carriage Road Study: Phase and P. Newman. 2002a. Research to
III Research. U. S. National Park Service Estimate and Manage Carrying Capacity
Technical Report NPS/NESO- of a Tourist Attraction: A Study of
RNR/NRTR/98-1. Boston: National Park Alcatraz Island. Journal of Sustainable
Service. Tourism 10, 388–464.
Manning, R., W. Valliere, B. Wang, N. Manning, R., S. Lawson, P. Newman, D.
Ballinger, and C. Jacobi. 1997b. Acadia Laven, and W. Valliere. 2002b.
National Park Carriage Road Study: Phase Methodological issues in measuring
II Research. U. S. National Park Service crowding-related norms. Leisure Sciences
57
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
24, 339–348. mination. Leisure Sciences 6, 433–451.
McDonald, C. 1996. Normative perspectives ———. 1986. Carrying Capacity in
on outdoor recreation behavior: introduc- Recreation Settings. Corvallis: Oregon
tory comments. Leisure Sciences 18, 1–6. State University Press.
National Park Service. 1997. VERP: The Shelby, B., and J. Vaske. 1991. Using norma-
Visitor Experience and Resource Protection tive data to develop evaluative standards
(VERP) Framework—A Handbook for for resource management: a comment on
Planners and Managers. National Park three recent papers. Journal of Leisure
Service Technical Report. Denver: Research 23, 173–187.
National Park Service. Shelby, B., J. Vaske, and R. Harris. 1996.
Newman, P., J. Marion, and K. Cahill. 2001. Norms, standards and natural resources.
Integrating resource, social, and manageri- Leisure Sciences 18, 103–123.
al indicators of quality into carrying capac- Stankey, G., and R. Manning. 1986. Carrying
ity decision-making. The George Wright Capacity of Recreation Settings: A
Forum 18:3, 28–40. Literature Review. The President’s
Newman, P., R. Manning, and W. Valliere. Commission on Americans Outdoors.
2002. Integrating resource, social, and Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
managerial indicators of quality into carry- Printing Office, M-47–M-57.
ing capacity decision making. In Stankey, G., D. Cole, R. Lucas, M. Peterson, S.
Proceedings of the 2001 Northeastern Frissel, and R. Washbourne. 1985. The
Recreation Research Symposium. General Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System
Technical Report NE-289. Newtown for Wilderness Planning. General
Square, Pa.: U.S. Department of Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, Ut.:
Agriculture–Forest Service, Northeastern U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest
Research Station, 233–238. Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Nicholson, W. 1995. Microeconomic Theory: Experiment Station.
Basic Principles and Extensions. 6th ed. Vaske, J., A. Graefe, B. Shelby, and T.
Fort Worth, Tex.: The Dryden Press. Heberlein. 1986. Backcountry encounter
Noe, F. 1992. Further questions about the norms: theory, method, and empirical evi-
management and conceptualization of dence. Journal of Leisure Research 18,
backcountry encounter norms. Journal of 137–153.
Leisure Research 24, 86–92. Vaske, J., M. Donnelly, and J. Petruzzi. 1996.
Patterson, M., and W. Hammitt. 1990. Country of origin, encounter norms and
Backcountry encounter norms, actual crowding in a frontcountry setting. Leisure
reported encounters, and their relation- Sciences 18, 161–165.
ship to wilderness solitude. Journal of Whittaker, D., and B. Shelby. 1988. Types of
Leisure Research 22, 259–275. norms for recreation impact: Extending
Roggenbuck, J., D. Williams, S. Bange, and D. the social norms concept. Journal of
Dean. 1991. River float trip encounter Leisure Research 20, 261–273.
norms: questioning the use of the social Williams, D., J. Roggenbuck, and S. Bange.
norms concept. Journal of Leisure 1991. The effect of norm-encounter com-
Research 23, 133–153. patibility on crowding perceptions, expe-
Shelby, B. 1981. Encounter norms in back- rience, and behavior in river recreation set-
country settings: Studies of three rivers. tings. Journal of Leisure Research 23,
Journal of Leisure Research, 13:129-38. 154–172.
Shelby, B., and T. Heberlein. 1984. A concep-
tual framework for carrying capacity deter-

✥
58
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

Russian Zapovedniks (Strict Nature Preserves) and

Importing Ecotourism: Destruction of an Ideal or Learning
from the U.S. National Park System?
David Ostergren, Department of Political Science, Center for Environmental Sciences and
Education, Box 5694, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001; david.oster-
gren@nau.edu
Introduction
In 1991 the Soviet Union’s experiment in a planned economy and centralized political sys-
tem collapsed. Boris Yeltsin declared the official beginning of the Russian liberal project in
October 1991 when he said, “We must ... provide economic freedom, lift all barriers to the free-
dom of enterprises and of entrepreneurship and give people the opportunity to work and to
receive as much as they can earn....”(quoted in White 2000:123). This paper addresses how the
emerging political and economic realities are influencing policy and practice on one category of
Russian protected natural area—zapovedniks (strict nature preserves).
The Soviet Union contained one of the usually protected areas that strives to be low
most extensive protected natural area systems impact and (usually) small scale. It helps edu-
in the world (Grigoriew and Lopoukhine cate the traveler; provides funds for conserva-
1993). Millions of hectares were protected tion; directly benefits the economic develop-
under a network of strict nature preserves, ment and political empowerment of local
national parks, and wildlife refuges. But the communities; and fosters respect for different
emerging sociopolitical conditions have had cultures and for human rights.” The World
profound effects on the management strate- Tourism Organization reports that annually,
gies. While embracing the Western model of ecotourism is capturing a larger and larger
ecotourism, perhaps the system may be able to market share. Ecotourism is “tourism with a
learn from the U.S. National Park System. normative element” (Ceballos-Lascurain
This analysis focuses on the Altai region in 1996:20). Although all reported ecotourism
Siberia. I demonstrate that the Western liberal may not fit this definition, it serves as a bench-
model of ecotourism is being adopted and that mark for assessment.
the protected natural areas have strategies to Tourism in the Soviet era was a state-run
mitigate potential negative effects. However, in operation (Hall 1991). The constraints on
the entrepreneurial rush to capture Western travel, limited options, and general xenopho-
tourist dollars, more cautious strategies to pre- bia directed international visitors to the main
serve ecosystems and cultures may be lost by cities, or, in the case of scientific exchanges,
the wayside. This case study (Yin 2003) restricted experiences to field research. As
includes data from 1994, 1995, 1999, and, people adjust to a new economic paradigm,
most recently, a 26-day ecoscientific tour with the international tourism industry is an attrac-
12 students in 2002. The field work was built tive potential source of income. Despite
around three questions: (1) What is ecologi- bureaucratic and institutional lethargy and a
cally unique to the region? (2) Does the Altai lack of any history of community-level plan-
have the social and political infrastructure to ning (Hall 2000), both national parks and
support ecotourism? (3) What can Altai’s pro- zapovedniks have emerged as tourist destina-
tected area managers learn from the National tions (Burns 1998).
Park Service? The risks of ecotourism include decline of
habitat, overdevelopment of border towns,
Ecotourism and Change in Russia underdevelopment leading to illegal activity,
As defined by Honey (1999:25), and redirection of park resources to accom-
“Ecotourism is travel to fragile, pristine and modate visitors (Vaske et al. 2000; Dearden
59
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
2000). Management guidelines have emerged ha “Golden Mountains of the Altai” World
to mitigate the negative effects of tourism and Heritage Site.
ecotourism (e.g., Butler and Boyd 2000; In 1995, the Federal Law on Specially
Eagles et al. 2002), but as cash-strapped pro- Protected Natural Areas delineated the rights
tected areas struggle to pay salaries and pur- and responsibilities of protected areas
chase necessities, ecotourism is becoming an (Ostergren 2001). The express inclusion of
attractive alternative (Ostergren 1998). environmental education (and, by extension,
Nonetheless, ecotourism is not a long-term ecotourism) for zapovedniks is highly contro-
solution if there is a substantial departure from versial. Traditional researchers are concerned
traditional practices, if the industry merely about anthropogenic disturbance to flora and
turns a profit for politicians and bureaucrats, if fauna (Volkov and de Korte 1994; Rhodes
the experience only works as a “feel-good” 1998). At the turn of the 20th century, plan-
green cover for self-centered tourists, or if the ners could hardly imagine the demand for, and
visitors degrade the resource they purported- role of, environmental education in society.
ly wish to protect. Nonetheless, some preserves (< 1% of the total
territory) have always had museums for public
The Altai Region and Zapovedniks education, and several preserves have long
Located in south-central Siberia, the Altai allowed limited access for recreation or educa-
Mountains contain dry steppe, mountain tion. However, the 1990s witnessed a dramat-
meadows, alpine, taiga, and desert biomes. ic increase in ecotourism and environmental
Representative of the central Eurasian conti- education. If (the theory goes) more people
nent, the area contains Mount Belukha, the know about their mission, then protected
highest peak in Russia (4,506 m), and the areas gain political saliency and budgetary
headwaters of the Ob and the Irtysh rivers support.
(Badenkov 2002). The area is identified by the The nongovernmental organization
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) as one (NGO) community has also supported and
of the most endangered ecoregions on the promoted ecotourism. In several WWF plan-
Eurasian continent. In part, the Altai is a per- ning documents, tourism and ecotourism play
fect candidate for ecotourism because large an important role in sustainable, noncon-
swaths remain in relatively good condition sumptive development. In December 1999,
with a wide range of protected areas. the World Conservation Union (IUCN),
Nonetheless, the ecoregion is far from being World Commission on Protected Areas
“protected” in a practical sense. (WPCA), and EcoCenter Zapovedniks (a
The region includes a backbone of nine Moscow-based NGO) convened a meeting to
zapovedniks, or strict nature preserves. create strategies for actions, including the use
Initiated in the late 1800s in the steppes of of ecotourism, to protect nature. Local NGOs
Ukraine, zapovedniks were intended as invio- in the Altai region, such as KATUN, also sup-
lable regions of nature. These areas have tra- port ecotourism (Shishin 1999). There is a
ditionally been dedicated to scientific research strong belief that if the local economy can real-
on natural ecosystems (Weiner 1999). Two ize the benefits of “intact nature,” more
national parks in the area protect nature and exploitive and resource-intense activities may
offer opportunities for outdoor recreation. be averted.
The Russian national park system was estab- Katunski Zapovednik was established in
lished in 1983 and now includes 35 parks 1991, and rather then attempt to hire enough
protecting more than 6 million ha. Park border guards to keep people out, they adopt-
boundaries in European Russia often include ed a strategy of environmental education for
agricultural enterprises or villages, but in school children to create a generation of care-
Siberia, the focus is on natural phenomena takers. This preserve had regular experience
(Chebakova 1997; Ostergren 2001). with adventure tourists. The Katun River
Overlaying the entire region is the 1.6-million- offers challenging kayaking and rafting (Class
60
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
4–5) and requires that people camp for three goods, and burning refuse. The allure of pris-
nights on zapovednik territory. Mount tine conditions in Katunski Zapovednik may
Belukha has hosted backpackers and moun- prompt foreigners to seek it out, and the
taineers for decades. In 1991, Katunski initiat- increased revenue may prove too tempting to
ed a two-tiered fee system that differentiates maintain a limit of 500 travelers per year.
between foreigners and Russians. For groups Established in 1932, Altaiski Zapovednik
such as ours, the preserve charges an extra fee protects over 880,000 ha of taiga, subalpine,
and the two biologists accompanying us sig- and alpine ecosystems and the spectacular 78-
nificantly supplemented their annual salary km-long Lake Teletskoye. The eastern shore
($50 per month is an average salary). serves as a portal into the northern half of the
The director of Katunski, Aleksandr V. preserve, while more remote, alpine regions lie
Zateev, estimates that about 100 ecotourists to the south. In 1994–95, logging was the
(including foreigners, Russian high-school- principal activity for the small community of
age groups, and rafters) visited the zapovednik 3,000–4,000 inhabitants. Lake traffic includ-
each year during 2001 and 2002. Tourists will ed fishing boats, with a few tourists visiting
never number more than 500 per year and be Korbu Waterfall. A half-dozen guard stations
limited to a few trails with constant supervi- dot the shore and several remote guard sta-
sion by biologists. For our group, an addition- tions are located on the periphery of the pre-
al precaution was that we never entered the serve. In 1995, the opportunity for ecotourism
zapovednik proper: we walked (with horse- was immediately apparent, but as Altaiski
pack support) for two and one-half days one- Zapovednik Director Sergei Erofeev stated,
way, and were still just in the buffer zone (an “If we let the tourists on the zapovednik they
area subject to all sorts of activity, including would carry it off in the tread of their boots.”
grazing). In contrast, our study group arrived in
In 1995, the local town, Ust–Koksa, was in Altaiski in 2002, and in 2001 fifteen eco-
the throes of economic depression. Gasoline science tourists visited from Germany. Both
was scarce, public transportation had come to times a full-time research scientist was
a standstill, and even diesel fuel for farm assigned to teach and monitor the group. We
machinery was at a premium. Inflation was paid a daily entrance fee ($3.00 per person per
high, the cattle industry subsidies had evapo- day), a stipend for the biologist, a boat fee
rated, the potato crop was failing, and locals ($300), and made a contribution to the pre-
were stockpiling pumpkins for the winter. In serve ($300). The most remarkable contrast
stark contrast, by 2002 the village center was from 1994–95 was that zapovednik managers
boasting a dozen new shops, a restaurant met me at the front office (with a bill) and sent
served tourists, and a couple of guest houses us into the preserve with an agenda.
had started up. Although statistics are non- Clear precautions included that “none of
existent, the tourism contribution to the econ- our activities could produce a long-term
omy appeared to be significant. With meals, impact on the ecosystem.” The contrast to a
four inspectors (i.e., horse wranglers), a dona- western wilderness area is profound because
tion, four nights under a roof, seven nights in our travel was often on vague or nonexistent
the wilderness, trail food, bus rental, two biol- tracks, and even close to the lake, bear and
ogists, and a flurry of souvenir buying, the 14 wildlife sign was common. In 2002, 160
people in our group spent about US$3,000 Russian schoolboys camped on the shores of
locally. If the zapovednik continues to careful- Teletskoye to learn about ecosystem processes
ly manage ecotourism (i.e., fewer than 500 vis- (in 2001, 180 had). Combined with the few
itors per year), there are implications for the travelers per year (50–80 researchers) travel-
surrounding wildlands. A U.S. group leader ing through the 880,000-ha preserve, our gen-
on another trek observed that the real worry eral impact may be considered insignificant.
for natural conditions was not U.S. tourists, The more substantial impact is outside of
but the Russian traditions of cookfires, canned the preserve in (1) an unofficial mass camp-
61
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
ground (100–200 campers per night) on the impact of ecotourism on the preserves
shoreline; and (2) at the three vacation lodges remains slight. Zapovedniks are realizing the
on the non-zapovednik shores. Between financial benefits of ecotourism and the added
15,000 and 18,000 visitors per year now trav- notoriety among Russian students will sow
el by boat from Arti–Bash to Korbu Waterfall, the seeds of good will. Existence value among
where a small tourist industry has sprung up. Russians seems high, and working on large
Three small kiosks sell trinkets, souvenirs, intact ecosystems is an incredible opportunity
snacks, and vodka. In 2002, each visitor paid for international researchers.
$0.63 to the zapovednik to stop at the falls. In essence, zapovedniks are “corners of
The kiosks do not pay a concessionaire fee, freedom” (Weiner 1999)—free to be wild.
nor do the dozens of tourist boats (ranging They are prepared to handle ecotourism by
from 15-ft speed boats to 90-ft passenger tugs) restricting small numbers of visitors to “sacri-
pay a docking fee. The good news is that there fice zones.” But these islands of nature are
are outhouses and an educational display. The icons, and wild, beautiful nature is the draw to
bad news is that the sacred nature of the spot the Altai. There is pressure from the regional
has been compromised and the sheer volume government to expand business despite
of visitors will eventually takes its toll. There is potential problems. It is no stretch of the
a limit to water quality even in the huge Lake imagination to picture a time when the sur-
Teletskoye, but staff note that there is little rounding economic activity impedes biodiver-
they can do to limit use. The bigger concern is sity goals. Altaiski Zapovednik is approxi-
poaching by indigenous Altains who suffer mately the same size as Yellowstone National
from a high unemployment rate (approximate- Park—a park that by some estimates should be
ly 60%). Unfortunately for many Altains, there twice as large to adequately preserve the
is no “trickle-down effect” from tourism, and ecosystem. Major obstacles to expanding
they only know that they are excluded from Yellowstone include logging, mining, grazing,
the larder. and tourism—all products of a market econo-
my and individual entrepreneurship.
Concluding Remarks What is the future role of zapovedniks in
To paraphrase Honey (1999), the debate regional development? Perhaps guiding man-
is: “Who does own paradise?” That is, how agement strategies outside of the preserve may
can a region benefit economically from a natu- be the salvation. The long-term goal could be
ral resource? Throughout the entire Altai to influence agencies to make certain commu-
Republic, campgrounds, restaurants, health nities realize benefits. Simultaneously, the area
spas, souvenir stands, and adventure services needs to maintain high-quality outdoor expe-
are capitalizing on the steady flow of tourists. riences so that the zapovedniks do not become
Ecotourists are a part of the tourism stream the last refuge of wild nature, the last place left
and are only ecotourists for that small period to both protect biodiversity and try to offer
of time they are in a small guest house or on recreational opportunities in a wild Siberian
the trail, river, or mountain top. landscape—a balancing act all too familiar in
Criticisms include the following: (1) any the liberal West.
recreational activity will lead to ecosystem
degradation; (2) if zapovedniks become a References
wilderness refuge for wealthy foreigners, local Badenkov, Y.P. 2002. Newsletter of the
resentment may prompt an increase in poach- International Human Dimensions
ing; and (3) resources once dedicated to Programme on Global Environmental
research or protection are now redirected to Change, UNESCO/MAB-6 Project
hosting visitors. In fact, inspectors are being (Mountains) in Russia/CIS. On-line at
drawn into private tourist organizations www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/.
because the pay is twice to three times as Burns, P. 1998. Tourism in Russia: back-
great. Nonetheless, at the current scale the ground and structure. Tourism
62
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

Management 19:6, 555–565. The International Journal of Wilderness

Butler, R.W., and S.W. Boyd, eds. 2000. 4:3, 12–17.
Tourism and National Parks: Issues and ———. 2001. An organic act after a century of
Implications. New York: John Wiley and protection: the context, content and impli-
Sons. cations of the 1995 Russian Federation
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1996. Tourism, law on specially protected natural areas.
Ecotourism and Protected Areas: The State Natural Resources Journal 41:1, 125–152.
of Nature Based Tourism Around the World Rhodes, O.E. 1998. Ecotourism: direct road
and Guidelines for its Development. to ruin. Russian Conservation News 17,
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 20.
Dearden, P. 2000. Tourism, national parks Shishin M. 1999. The problem of a sustain-
and resource conflicts. In Tourism and able development model for Mountain
National Parks: Issues and Implications. Altai. In Theory and Practice of
R.W. Butler and S.W. Boyd, eds. New Organization of an International
York: John Wiley and Sons, 187–201. Biosphere Territory. V.V. Rudskoi, ed.
Eagles, P.F.J., S. McCool, and C.D. Haynes. Barnaul, Russia: Fund Altai 21st Century.
2002. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Vaske, J., M. Donnelly, and D. Whittaker.
Areas: Guidelines for Planning and 2000. Tourism, national parks and impact
Management. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. management. In Tourism and National
Grigoriew, P., and N. Lopoukhine. 1993. Parks: Issues and Implications. R.W.
Report Prepared for the World Bank: Butler and S.W. Boyd, eds. New York:
Russian Protected Areas Assistance Project. John Wiley and Sons, 202–222.
Ottawa: Department of External Affairs, Volkov, A.E., and J. de Korte. 1994. Protected
Parks Canada. areas in the Russian Arctic. Polar Record
Hall, D. 1991. Tourism and Economic 30:175, 299–310.
Development in Eastern Europe and the Weiner, D.R. 1999. A Little Corner of
Soviet Union. London: Belhaven. Freedom. Berkeley: University of
———. 2000. Sustainable tourism develop- California Press.
ment and transformation in Central and White, S. 2000. Russia’s New Politics: The
Eastern Europe. Journal of Sustainable Management of a Postcommunist Society.
Tourism 8:6, 441–457. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Honey, M. 1999. Ecotourism and Sustainable Press.
Development: Who Owns Paradise? Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design
Washington D.C.: Island Press. and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
Ostergren, D.M. 1998. System in peril: a case Calif.: Sage.
study of five Central Siberian zapovedniki.

63
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

Parks as Battlegrounds: Managing Conflicting Values

Michael J. Tranel, Denali National Park and Preserve, 240 West Fifth Avenue, Room 114,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503; mike_tranel@nps.gov
Adrienne Hall, Denali National Park and Preserve, 240 West Fifth Avenue, Room 114,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503; adrienne_hall@nps.gov

Management decisions in protected areas are often choices among very different, and often
conflicting, values. The role of the protected area manager is to advocate the full range of values
for which the area was established and to make the critical decisions in favor of those values.
Discussion of impairment and intangible Understanding why values-based conflicts
values has been central to management deci- occur is essential to making decisions about
sions such as protecting air quality in which values take precedence (Manning
Shenandoah National Park, preserving dark 1999). According to Lewis (1993), “Conflict
night skies in Arches National Park, and clos- erupts mainly when people with competing
ing one-third of Denali National Park and interests and different values interact.”
Preserve to all snowmobile use. Preservation Management decisions in protected areas
of opportunities for solitude, natural sound- become controversial because people care a
scapes, and the dark night sky are now com- great deal about different values of protected
mon discussions in general management plan- places. In particular, intangible values of an
ning for U.S. national parks (Manning, area trigger an emotional response to manage-
Valliere, and Minteer 1996; Power 1998; ment decisions. People care about tangible
Sovick 2001). Values such as solitude, natural values like wildlife and scenery, but also about
quiet, challenge, a sense of freedom, opportu- knowing a place is protected for future visits,
nities for introspection and self-discovery, their children, or simply because it seems like
restoration, and personal growth are now crit- the right thing to do (Manning, Valliere, and
ical components in the decision-making Minteer 1996).
process. In waiving entrance fees for Veteran’s Connection to place is an essential part of
Day 2001, Secretary of the Interior Gale an emotional response to management deci-
Norton highlighted the value of parks and sions and motivates individuals to get involved
public lands in the U.S. as places that “are an in planning and management issues affecting
inspiration to the freedoms all Americans parks and protected areas. Connection to
cherish” and stated that families have visited place often involves intangible values and can
natural and historic areas “to gain hope and evolve through experiences during a visit to
strength” (Salt Lake Tribune 2001). the place or even from just knowing about it,
believing it is special, and feeling it is impor-
Conflicts Over the Values tant to have it protected. Connection to place
of Parks and Protected Areas can often result in a much stronger response
In the U.S. National Park System, the from individuals than can be accomplished
importance of protecting a wide range of val- through scientific information or legal or
ues has emerged during the past century of political arguments (Bushell 2001).
park management and is supported by judicial Environmental ethicists find aesthetic,
decisions, legislation, and public opinion. artistic, educational, recreational, humanitari-
However, this does not reduce the potential an, intellectual, mystical, scientific, and spiri-
for conflict over different values, and in fact tual value in wilderness (Rolston 1988;
may result in more intense and more polarized Minteer and Manning 1999; Fausold and
debates. The potential for conflict has also Lilieholm 1996; Morton 1999; Parker and
increased along with the growing numbers Avant 2000). These intangible values defy
and types of uses of protected areas. measurement but are equally, and in some

64
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

cases, more important than tangible values. number of incursions into the designated
But because they are difficult to define and wilderness or “old park” area, the Park
quantify, there has been a tendency toward Service permanently closed this part of the
ignoring them or weighting them less than val- park to all snowmobile use effective in 2000.
ues that are more easily quantified. In recog- This action was very controversial, especially
nizing this reality, protected area managers within Alaska, since it called for removing a
should not underestimate the importance of current use and restricting it in the future, at
intangible values surrounding how connec- least to the 1980 park additions. Prevailing
tions to place develop, such as how it feels to against potential litigation and legislation to
be there, spiritual significance, and symbol- reverse the closure, the Park Service success-
ism. fully argued that managing the “old park” area
While intangible values are seldom in con- for non-motorized recreation was critical to
flict with one another (Rolston 1988), they protecting resource and other values such as
often compete with economic and “use” val- opportunities for solitude, natural sounds,
ues in park management. Conflicts are quick and the integrity of the winter landscape (NPS
to arise when uses in a park or protected area 1999a). Public opinion strongly supported
are not compatible with the purposes for this position, with about 96% of over 6,000
which the area was established. comments in favor of the closure.
In this example, the values of access to
Making Decisions public lands versus protection of natural
Among Competing Values sounds and opportunities for solitude were in
In resolving conflicts among competing direct conflict. Snowmobile users questioned
values, it is the land manager’s responsibility the value of setting aside a large protected area
to prioritize values and decide which values if access was to be very difficult. Supporters of
take precedence in which areas. These deci- the closure argued that snowmobile use was
sions are often made within a highly charged still allowed in the park additions and on adja-
political arena and under close public scruti- cent lands, and that the former Mount
ny. The following examples illustrate how McKinley National Park had been managed
some recent conflicts among competing values for non-motorized recreation since 1917.
in very different national park units have been Protecting the historic scene of Civil
resolved. War battlefields in the United States.
Snowmobile use in Denali National Controversy over competing values has been
Park and Preserve. Mount McKinley recently resolved in two historical parks in the
National Park was the first national park unit eastern United States, Gettysburg National
established (1917) after passage of the Military Park and Manassas National
National Park Service Act in 1916. It was Battlefield Park. By contrast with Denali
intended as a “game refuge” and included National Park, these areas were established
North America’s highest peak. The Alaska primarily to protect cultural resources, and
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of specifically to commemorate battles fought
1980 expanded it from approximately two during the American Civil War, 1861–1865.
million to over six million acres and renamed During the early 1970s, a 300-foot-tall obser-
it Denali National Park and Preserve. This vation tower was constructed on a site just
raised some ambiguity over whether motor- outside the Gettysburg park boundary,
ized use, permitted under certain conditions despite substantial opposition. The tower
by the new law, would be allowed in the for- became a popular destination for visitors to
mer Mount McKinley portion of the park, Gettysburg, and since it was outside the park
most of which was now designated wilder- boundary, the Park Service could not take any
ness. action. A 1982 general management plan for
Because of rapidly increasing snowmobile the park did not address the issue. However, a
use in the park additions and the growing new boundary study in 1988 and a land pro-
65
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

tection plan in 1993 addressed the potential some hard lessons at times about how to avoid
for land acquisition, including the tower site. past mistakes, the agency has successfully rec-
Once the Park Service had successfully ognized the importance of working with a cit-
acquired the site, the tower was slated for izenry that demands involvement at a more
demolition, which was carried out with con- sophisticated level than ever before. The les-
siderable ceremony and public support on 3 sons learned lead to some common principles
July 2000 (Latschar 2001). The Park Service for making legally and publicly supportable
had succeeded in protecting the historic scene decisions in parks and protected areas where
as a value above the economic interest in the very different values are in competition.
tower as a tourist attraction.
Protecting the historic scene at Manassas Principles for Supportable
National Battlefield Park in Virginia has been Decisions Involving
equally challenging because of expanding Competing Values
urban growth in northern Virginia. In the late Based on our review of the literature and
1980s, there were 542 acres of historic land analysis of cases such as those presented here-
adjacent to the battlefield subject to immedi- above, we have identified seven principles that
ate development. The developer had local should help in making decisions about which
political support, while advocates of battle- values should take precedence when conflicts
field preservation had generated public sup- arise.
port on a national level. The U.S. Congress Managers must acquire accurate and thor-
eventually authorized federal condemnation ough resource information, but must also rec-
of the land with compensation to the ognize the limits of scientific information.
landowners, adding the acreage to the nation- There are recurring reminders in the liter-
al battlefield. While the national public sup- ature about the importance of accurate and
port for protecting the site was a pleasant sur- current scientific information to decision—
prise to preservationists, an ultimate concern making in protected areas. However, manage-
is that future reactive federal efforts to protect ment goals are ultimately based on societal val-
land are much too costly to be viable in the ues, and managers cannot avoid making choic-
future (Gossett 1998). es between competing values. Rolston (1988)
Air tours in Grand Canyon National statesd that “[e]nvironmental decisions are
Park. Air tours over Grand Canyon National not a data-driven process; rather, the data are
Park have expanded significantly over the past caged by a value-driven theory. The data sel-
two decades. Beginning in 1988, the Park dom change anyone’s mind, but they are gath-
Service began to work actively work to reduce ered and selected to justify positions already
the frequency of flights over the canyon. A held....”
protracted conflict culminated in a U.S. Court Application of scientific knowledge to
of Appeals (District of Columbia Circuit) management decisions becomes even more
decision in 1998, determining that aesthetic complex when intangible values are involved
resources such as natural quiet are an essential since such values often defy measurement. For
part of overall resource values (Grand Canyon example, existence value is hard to measure or
Air Tour Coalition v. FAA 1998). Air tours are evaluate, as is a protected area’s intrinsic
now restricted to above the canyon rim, pro- worth. With respect to wilderness areas in
tecting natural sounds in the inner canyon. particular, Kaye (2000) concludesd:, “[W]e
These above examples illustrate how cul- have a few objective criteria, and no standard
tural practices and values can directly conflict metric with which to quantify or evaluate
with established purposes of protected areas. actions that enhance or detract from the char-
A common factor in each case was widespread acter of our nation’s natural sacred places.
public support for the Park Service position, This is the unique challenge of wilderness
based on the fundamental purposes of the management, preserving what is unseen and
respective protected area. While learning unmeasurable.”
66
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

It is critical that park and protected area ized access, one type of value, developed in
managers involve the public at all levels of conflict with other values such as natural
planning and decision-making. sounds and opportunities for solitude.
In reviewing why conflicts arise in parks While conflicts develop when people with
and protected areas, Lewis (1993) concludes competing interests and different values inter-
that in many cases conflicts relate to (1) people act (Lewis 1993), these competing interests
in nearby communities having substantive are often rooted in very different understand-
needs that have come into direct opposition to ings of the purposes of the park or protected
the needs of the park, and (2) not enough area. Managers can do a great deal to shape
attention being paid to the process of involv- these expectations through information about
ing local people in decision-making and park the site. These educational efforts may take
management. However, managers must recog- several years to accomplish, but are no less
nize the full constituency for a protected area. critical than the management action itself.
This includes not only local residents who are Plan proactively and consider how deci-
directly affected, but also those who may be sions today will affect the area well into the
distant but still have an affinity for the place. A future.
common factor in all cases is connection to the Proactive planning can prevent greater
place, which can happen on many different problems in the future, and taking a long-term
levels. view of protected areas is critical. Proactive
Intangible values such as natural sounds, management actions by the Park Service not
opportunities for solitude, and even existence only appear to have been the best actions
value are more appreciated and better under- among the options available; they have also
stood than ever before. Advocates of these val- been upheld in court. Based on U.S. Circuit
ues and of others that directly conflict, such as Court decisions, the Park Service, in meeting
motorized access and motorized recreation, its responsibilities under its organic act, need
are becoming more organized and involved in not wait for actual damage to occur before tak-
park planning and management decision- ing protective action to prevent degradation to
making. These interest groups and the public wildlife and other natural resources (Wilkins
will expect this trend to continue. v. Department of the Interior, 995 F.2d 850,
Clarify the purposes of the park or protect- 853 [(8th Cir. 1993)]; New Mexico State Game
ed area to the public and manage to provide for Commission v. Udall, 410 F.2d 1197 [(10th
and protect these purposes. Cir. 1969]).
Managing according to the fundamental Recognize that all parks cannot provide for
purposes for which a protected area was all opportunities; look at park planning and
established may be self-explanatory, but there management in a regional context.
is a continuing need to find new ways to com- Often, managers make decisions that are
municate with the public about these purpos- good for the local area for which they are
es. In the Denali example above, snowmobile responsible but may be poor decisions for
use expanded in area and numbers until there protected areas on a larger scale. Failure to
was an expectation, at least on the part of this plan and make decisions looking at protected
user group, to continue the activity. areas in a regional context creates problems in
Preventing this issue from becoming a man- adjacent areas, leads to a homogenization of
agement problem in the 1990s would have experiences, and decreases recreation values
required immediate action after passage of the (McCool and Cole 2001).
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Management planning often presents a
Act in 1980 to clarify the conditions under good opportunity to clarify how a park or pro-
which snowmobile use was allowed. Because tected area fits into its regional context. A
the Park Service did not have either the legal question that should be addressed is whether
or political ability to take such action at the the area will be managed similarly to sur-
time, the expectation for continuing motor- rounding lands or adjacent sites, or whether it
67
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks
provides unique opportunities. The answer unlikely. If there are no immediate threats,
should relate directly to the fundamental pur- deferring a decision may result in increased
poses of the site; this is an appropriate context values being placed on a protected area, espe-
for articulating why the place has protected cially if those values are uncommon else-
status, what its most important values are, and where.
why it is different from other places. Rolston (1988) recommends against mak-
Effective use of standardized decision-mak- ing “decisions by default. Sometimes doing
ing processes can lead to a more defensible deci- nothing is the cheapest thing to do and also
sion. protects values already in place.” Some basic
Much has been written on tools for deci- rules that apply are that it is far more costly to
sion—making (e.g., Bader 1990). In looking undo development than to do it right the first
specifically at conflict among values, carrying timee, and that when we have deferred deci-
capacity or visitor capacity analysis can be an sions in the past, we have almost always been
effective methodology for articulating which grateful to have the opportunity to take anoth-
values are to be protected in which areas. er look at the values of a protected area in a
Management zoning that is generally done new context.
as part of capacity analyses is essentially deci-
sion-making about which values to provide for Conclusion
in which places or in what context. For exam- Decision-making in parks and protected
ple, some places may be managed to allow for areas is becoming increasingly more complex
convenient motorized access, while others are and politicized. The role of park planners and
managed to maximize opportunities for soli- managers as “arbiters of value” is to make sure
tude. This allocation concept makes it possi- all values are included in the discussion, defin-
ble to include a variety of uses and manage an ing park values broadly to reach more than
area for groups with different values while pre- one interest group. All protected areas,
venting conflict, which will become increas- regardless of size and fundamental purposes,
ingly important in parks and protected areas tend to have intangible values, the protection
(Rothman 2001). of which is essential to the long-term viability
Allocation among conflicting uses has of the area.
been effectively used by land management
agencies for many years, and the Park Service References
has been upheld in court in this type of deci- Bader, H.R. 1990. Resource managers and the
sion-making, such as in Bicycle Trails Council courts: a decision-making process
of Marin v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445 at 1452 designed to achieve public confidence.
(9th Cir. 1996; Bader 1999). Management Park Science 10:3, 8–9.
zoning or allocation of uses makes it possible ———. 1999. A review of judicial decisions
to accommodate a range of values in a protect- affecting management planning in the
ed area—but not all in the same place at the national parks of the United States.
same time. Unpublished report for Denali National
Sometimes decisions can be delayed in the Park and Preserve. Fairbanks: Department
interest of conservation. One could simply of Forest Sciences, University of
state that the best course of management Alaska–Fairbanks.
action is to always make the right decision. Bushell, R. 2001. Personal communication
Outside of this ideal world, managers are pre- with Allen Putney, leader, Non-Material
sented with any number of options, and only Values of Protected Areas Task Force,
in hindsight can be certain of which course of IUCN World Commission on Protected
action is best. There are times when deferring Areas.
a decision may be the best decision, especially Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Babbitt, 82
in cases where additional impacts to resources F.3d 1445 at 1452 (9th Cir. 1996).
and other values of the protected area are Cammerer, A.B. 1936. Standards and policies
68
 Basic Values and Purposes of Parks

in national parks. American Planning and University Law Review 76:2, 465–518.
Civic Annual. Nash, R. Wilderness and the American Mind.
Fausold, C.J., and R.J. Lilieholm. 1996. The 3rd ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
Economic Value of Open Space: A Review University Press.
and Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln NPS [National Park Service]. 1999a. Listen
Institute of Land Policy. Up! National Park Service Newsletter 1:1.
Gossett, T.M. 1998. The American Battlefield ———. 1999b. Environmental Assessment:
Protection Program—forging preservation Proposed Permanent Closure of the Former
partnerships at historic battlefields. The Mount McKinley National Park to
George Wright Forum 15:2, 61–69. Snowmobile Use, Denali National Park
Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA, 154 and Preserve, Alaska. Denali National Park
F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1998). and Preserve: NPS.
Kaye, R.W. 2000. Wilderness character. ———. 2000. Management Policies 2001.
Unpublished report. Fairbanks, Alaska: Washington, D.C.: NPS.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. NRC [National Research Council, National
Latschar, J. 2001. The taking of the Academy of Sciences]. 1963. A Report:
Gettysburg Tower. The George Wright Advisory Committee to the National Park
Forum 18:1, 24–33. Service. Washington, D.C.: National
Lewis, C. 1993. Nature in the crossfire. In Academy Press.
The Law of the Mother: Protecting Parker, J.D., and B. Avant. 2000. In their own
Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas. E. words: wilderness values of
Kemf, ed. San Francisco: Sierra Club outfitter/guides. In Wilderness Science in a
Books, 123–130. Time of Change—Volume 3: Wilderness as
Leopold, A.S., S.A. Cain, C.M. Cottam, I.N. a Place for Scientific Inquiry. S.F.
Gabrielson, and T.L. Kimball. 1963. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J.
Wildlife management in the national O’Laughlin, comps. Proceedings RMRS-
parks. Transactions of the Twenty-eighth P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, Ut.: U.S.
North American Wildlife and Natural Department of Agriculture–Forest
Resources Conference 28, 28–45. Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Manning, R.E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Station, 196–201.
Recreation: Search and Research for Power, T.M. 1998. The economic role of
Satisfaction. 2nd ed. Corvallis: Oregon America’s national parks: moving beyond
State University Press. a tourist perspective. The George Wright
Manning, R.E., W.A. Valliere, and B.A. Forum 15:1, 33–41.
Minteer. 1996. Environmental values and Rolston, H., III. 1988. Environmental Ethics:
ethics: an empirical study of the philo- Duties to and Values in the Natural World.
sophical foundations for park policy. The Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
George Wright Forum 13:2, 20–31. Rothman, H.K. 2001. The war for the future:
McCool, S.F., and D.N. Cole. 2001. Thinking mountain bikes and Golden Gate National
and acting regionally: toward better deci- Recreation Area. The George Wright
sions about appropriate conditions, stan- Forum 18:1, 34–47.
dards, and restrictions on recreation use. Salt Lake Tribune. 2001. Outdoor therapy.
The George Wright Forum 18:3, 85–98. Editorial. 7 November. Salt Lake City, Ut.
Minteer, B.A. and R.E. Manning. 1999. Sellars, R.W. 1997. Preserving Nature in the
Pragmatism in environmental ethics: National Parks: A History. New Haven,
democracy, pluralism, and the manage- Conn.: Yale University Press.
ment of nature. Environmental Ethics Sovick, J. 2001. Toward an appreciation of the
21:2, 191–207. dark night sky. The George Wright Forum
Morton, P. 1999. The economic benefits of 18:4, 15–19.
wilderness: theory and practice. Denver Tranel, M.J. 2000. Incorporating non-materi-
69
 al values in wilderness planning for Denali Winks, R.W. 1997. The National Park
National Park and Preserve, Alaska, USA. Service Act of 1916: “a contradictory
Parks 10:2, 35–48. mandate”? Denver University Law Review
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. 74:3, 575–623.
Fulfilling the Promise. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

70
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

Conserving Our Collective Heritage—The Paradox of

Integrated, Yet Distinctly Different Management
of Cultural and Natural Resources
Denis Davis, National Park Service, Intermountain Region, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado
80225; denis_davis@nps.gov
Introduction
Most parks are a mixture of natural and cultural resources. Envision the historic site that
requires the adjacent farmland or forest and cliffs to maintain the historic landscape setting. Or
the large natural area laced with historic patrol cabins, concession lodging, fire lookouts, or
archeological ruins. The mixture creates a greater whole than either one alone. Together they
forge the connection between people and places. Together they reflect how the land and its peo-
ple and culture are intertwined in an intimate union. Our goals for both are the same: the con-
servation of our collective heritage. Because our goals are the same for cultural and natural
resources, the mantra of recent years has been integrated or holistic management, but is this even
possible? How do we most effectively plan, interpret, and manage mixed cultural and natural
resources?
Integrated Planning and alone, but the richest story is the interplay of
Interpretation for Mixed Natural people and places. Why was this fort or light-
and Cultural Heritage Resources house built at this location? What was used to
First, let’s examine planning. Good plan- heat this home? What did the Indians eat here
ning requires that we bring diverse interests and from what did they make their lodges?
and disciplines together to solve problems and Did it matter what time of year the pioneers
set agreed-upon goals. This is imperative with crossed this trail? Does this architecture use
mixed cultural and natural heritage resources. the local climate to help heat and cool the
Each has different needs that must be consid- building? Are human activities affecting visi-
ered in planning. Where do we manicure the bility, acid precipitation, water quality, and
formal grounds of the cultural landscape and wildlife migrations? How global is air pollu-
where do we allow natural ecological process- tion and is global warming real? Are the gla-
es to unfold? Where do we control the rain ciers retreating naturally or faster due to
and runoff to prevent damage to ruins or his- human activities? What can we do to help pre-
toric buildings, and where do we stand back to serve our park and planet? As John Muir said,
allow the rain and runoff to flow naturally? “When we try to pick out anything by itself,
Where are “wild” animals problems to be con- we find it hitched to everything else in the
trolled so they don’t damage the cultural land- Universe.” Accordingly, the most intriguing
scape or historic structures, and where are stories of our collective heritage require our
they cherished elements of natural diversity? full attention to both cultural and natural his-
Good planning has to answer these questions. tory, and their interplay.
Good interpretation requires that we
examine and explain complex subjects to Mixed Heritage Resources in the
diverse audiences so they understand relation- Light of Ecological Succession
ships and meanings of mixed heritage If we must plan and interpret the resources
resources. Understanding the interconnected- of our collective heritage together, can we
ness and depth of a subject requires that it be manage their day-to-day operations together?
interpreted from various perspectives. Before directly answering this question there
Natural resources may be interpreted alone are three concepts that need to be examined.
and the cultural story may be interpreted The first concept is ecological succes-

71
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

sion. Prior to human civilization, the natural naturally occurring un-diverse community,
world was a mosaic of plant and animal com- such as some deserts, where humans make it
munities in various stages of ecological suc- more diverse by bringing in water. But here
cession. Some regions with few disturbing again, it takes a great deal of human energy
forces had areas that stayed near their mature, and work to keep that landscape in a different
latter stage of ecological succession. These level of succession than would occur without
areas would have been at climax, a fairly stable human intervention.
state that persists as long as the climate The third concept is the interplay of
remains consistent. But most regions were a these first two concepts where cultural and
mosaic of natural communities in various natural resources are mixed or adjacent to
stages of ecological succession resulting from each other. Where our goal is the preservation
fires, floods, storms/hurricanes, avalanches, of natural systems, we must strive to allow eco-
changes in predator–prey or herbivore–vege- logical processes to work unimpaired. Where
tation relationships; or changes in diseases, our goal is the preservation of cultural
parasites, or insects that affected other plants resources, we must strive to maintain that
or animals. In essence, the natural forces that landscape by fighting or modifying natural
dramatically changed an ecological communi- processes.
ty would send it back to an earlier stage of suc- In other words, to preserve natural land-
cession with less diversity and less stability. scapes we strive to allow natural processes and
Powerful forces drive natural communities ecological succession to proceed unimpaired.
and keep ecological succession moving The natural communities will be diverse and
toward greater diversity and stability, toward relatively stable, trending toward the mature
climax. or climax stages of ecological succession.
The second concept is the human influ- Natural resource management is often focused
ence on ecological succession. Stone Age on combating the impacts from human activi-
humans burned large areas to improve hunt- ties that destabilize the natural community,
ing success and forage, and to clear travel reduce its diversity, and send it back to earlier
routes. Then humans with agricultural and stages of ecological succession. By contrast, to
engineering skills totally altered the natural preserve cultural landscapes we are fighting
ecological patterns. As humans mold the envi- ecological succession to keep the area in an
ronment to suit their needs, they usually move early stage of succession. We are fighting the
ecological communities to early stages of suc- forces of nature that would otherwise reclaim
cession and/or retain them there. Clearing a that cultural landscape and move that area
forest to make a meadow for cows moves the along on its path of ecological succession.
ecological community from a state of com- It is for this reason that we often manufac-
plexity and diversity to a much simpler and ture the distinction between “natural” and
less diverse ecological community in an earli- “cultural” resources, despite the fact that our
er stage of succession with higher productivi- collective natural and cultural heritage are
ty. Converting that meadow to a wheat field or parts of a greater whole. Additionally, the dis-
a village makes it even less complex and moves tinction occurs because the effects of human-
it to an even earlier stage of succession. Mined altered landscapes on ecological succession
lands and densely developed cities are in the are so visually dramatic and require so much
earliest stages of ecological succession, with effort to maintain in their early stage of succes-
natural communities that are very low in diver- sion. Most “cultural” and “natural” land-
sity and stability. Generally, human-altered scapes stand in such clear contrast to one
landscapes are in early stages of ecological another that anyone can distinguish them
succession, and it takes a great deal of energy apart. Accordingly, we humans have catego-
and work to keep those landscapes there. rized cultural landscapes as something differ-
There are exceptions to this generaliza- ent from nature, even though they are clearly
tion, such as a botanical garden in a city, or a integral with nature. Although the distinction
72
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

is contrived and the goal of preserving our col- acreage with their rooting at Great Smoky
lective heritage resources unimpaired is the Mountains, Cumberland Island National
same for both, it is relevant and useful termi- Seashore, and in our Hawaiian parks.
nology because the distinctions and needs Threatened and endangered species often
between natural and cultural resources are so require management actions or human inter-
dramatic when considered in the light of eco- vention to preserve them from extinction.
logical succession. Runoff from mining spoils, sedimentation
When we refer to a cultural landscape that from logging, or polluted runoff from develop-
we intend to preserve, we inherently under- ment can alter or destroy aquatic ecosystems.
stand that we will have to put energy and These disturbances from human activities are
resources into maintaining it unimpaired as a destabilizing the ecological communities and
farm, house, formal garden, field, road, or setting them back to earlier stages of ecologi-
whatever it is. To most of us this is just pre- cal succession. So, we have professional staff
serving our cultural heritage. When we refer to ready to do their duty, ready to preserve or
a natural landscape that we intend to preserve, intervene in natural processes, often by com-
we inherently understand that we will have to bating the impacts from human activities.
put energy and resources into ensuring that its At the same time we have found powerful
natural processes proceed unimpaired. To meaning and great value in many human activ-
most of us this is just preserving our natural ities, including historic structures, landscapes,
heritage. What is so dramatically different in and events. To preserve our cultural heritage
park management is how we actually go about we have trained employees to protect those
preserving those two types of resources. cultural resources from the natural processes
that would otherwise destroy them or alter
Managing Our Collective their historic context. Our cultural resource
Heritage Resources and maintenance staffs must be diligent in
We have found powerful meaning and combating the persistent natural processes
great value in natural areas. To preserve our that inherently produce change or destruction
natural heritage we have trained employees to of cultural resources. Roofs must be main-
protect the natural processes by minimizing or tained to keep rain out of buildings, and runoff
eliminating the influences of human activities must be kept away from building foundations.
that impair them. This active management is Buildings must be maintained and actions
an intervention into natural processes. Our taken to keep rats, mice, woodpeckers, skunks,
natural resource staff must be diligent in squirrels, snakes, and other animals out of
understanding the obvious and subtle influ- buildings. Historic grounds and landscapes
ences that human activities have. Acid rain must be maintained or they are taken over by
and other airborne pollutants can devastate an “wild” shrubs and forest. A number of historic
ecosystem. Human introduced or exotic structures at Cumberland Island, including
species can dramatically alter natural systems. the Plum Orchard Carriage House and
Blister rust fungus introduced from Europe Dungeness Recreation Building/Bachelors
has decimated the white pines or five-needled Quarters, are rotting away in ruins covered by
pines throughout North America, notably in vegetation and inhabited by wildlife because
Mount Rainier, Glacier, and Yellowstone their exterior envelopes were not maintained.
national parks. The balsam woolly adelgid White Grass Ranch at Grand Teton National
from Europe destroys true fir forests in North Park has been saved from the brink of destruc-
America, for example at Great Smoky tion by clearing the site and stabilizing the
Mountains National Park. Eurasian knap- structures. Pueblo Indian ruins throughout
weeds in many of our western national parks the Southwest have to be stabilized to keep
and Asian kudzu in many of our southeastern them from being lost to the forces of nature.
national parks invade and dominate land- There are professional staffers ready to do
scapes. Introduced wild pigs destroy vast their duty, ready to preserve cultural resources
73
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

by combating the destructive effects of natural early stage of ecological succession. Likewise,
processes. the maintenance worker knows where to stop
When there are cultural and natural his or her maintenance activities and let those
resources mixed together, as collective her- naturally generating tree seedlings grow unfet-
itage resources, the overarching objective is to tered. This allows the process of ecological
steward them all in perpetuity. Both cultural succession to proceed naturally. However, the
and natural heritage resources merit preserva- boundary is an imperfect device. For example,
tion and require equal consideration. One when wild animals from the natural area
does not top the other. Yet when it comes to degrade the cultural landscape; the cultural,
how their preservation is accomplished, dia- natural, and maintenance staffs must rely upon
metrically opposed management objectives their effective communications to solve the
and activities exist side by side, diametrically problems. All need to work together effective-
opposed management strategies and tactics ly. But generally, distinct management zones
are advanced side by side. This paradox can with clearly defined boundaries solve many
lead to great stress for those who have to man- problems about which management strategies
age the resources. and tactics should be applied where.
The fundamental and essential ingredients
for successful management of mixed resources Conclusion
are effective staff communications, and inte- All of our park resources inherited and
grated planning that produces distinct man- stewarded in perpetuity are heritage
agement objectives for cultural and natural resources. Where there are intermixed cultur-
resources and clearly defined boundaries to al and natural heritage resources, they need to
distinguish where those objectives should be be planned in full cooperation of all parties,
applied. An integrated planning process must and interpreted in an intimate, integrated fash-
involve all of the interested and affected pub- ion. However, they must be managed with dis-
lic, government representatives, organizations, tinctly different strategies and tactics. Natural
and especially park staff. Effective communi- resources will generally be managed to allow
cations in conjunction with integrated plan- their natural processes to function as unim-
ning involving all affected parties are needed paired from human impacts as possible. Their
to build a common understanding of the stage of ecological succession will ebb and
opposing interests, goals, and needed manage- flow over time as the forces of nature alter an
ment between the adjacent natural and cultur- area, but the plant and animal communities
al heritage resources. Clearly defined manage- will be trending toward diversity, complexity,
ment objectives or desired future conditions and stability of the middle to latter stages of
for given areas will benefit both the cultural succession. And cultural resources will be
and natural heritage resources. Those will be managed to preserve them from the forces of
quite different for cultural and natural nature that would otherwise destroy them or
resources, which beg for clear geographic alter their historic context. The cultural land-
delineation. Clearly defined zones or areas scape’s stage of ecological succession must be
distinguishing the cultural and natural maintained to preserve it, and it will usually be
resources will dramatically improve the man- in the early stages of succession. For mixed
agement of the resources. natural and cultural resources, integrated
With that boundary on a map it becomes planning and interpretation are essential, but
relatively easy for the maintenance employee their divergent preservation needs will require
to know where to mow the lawn, tend the distinctly different management approaches
ornamental shrubs, and cut down unwanted and activities. The conservation of our collec-
tree seedlings that grew from seed blown in tive heritage resources demands this complex
from the adjacent natural area. All these main- and paradoxical management.
tenance activities keep the landscape in an
✥
74
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

The Challenge of Managing and Interpreting Avifauna on

Cultural Sites within the Timucuan Preserve
Daniel R. Tardona, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 13165 Mount Pleasant Road,
Jacksonville, Florida 32225-1227; daniel_tardona@nps.gov
Roger Clark, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 13165 Mount Pleasant Road,
Jacksonville, Florida 32225-1227
Paul W. Sykes, U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest
Road, Suite 4039, Laurel, Maryland 20708-4039
Jill Howard-Wilson, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 13165 Mount Pleasant Road,
Jacksonville, Florida 32225-1227

Introduction
Many National Park Service (NPS) units face the challenge of balancing the management of
natural and cultural resources. The present paper explores the challenges faced when managing
birds on significant cultural sites within the Timucuan Preserve, located on the northeastern
coast of Florida near Jacksonville. Resource education is a key aspect of preserve management
and protection. Effective management of resources must include the diverse expectations and
values of the visiting public.
Timucuan Preserve was authorized as an It is readily apparent that birds comprise a
NPS unit in 1988. Other land owners include major segment of the vertebrate fauna of the
state and city parks, as well as over 300 private 46,000-acre preserve, and as such, the birds
land and home owners. The multi-ownership likely interact at many levels with the estuarine
nature of the preserve requires a management ecosystem and the on-going management
approach that relies greatly on outreach and activities within the preserve. The preserve is
partnerships. within the lower breeding limit of many north-
The preserve contains diverse biological ern bird species and offers habitats for winter-
systems consisting primarily of estuarine ing and migrating birds. The preserve pro-
ecosystems, including salt marshes, coastal vides refuge for many birds that are increas-
dunes, and upland hardwood hammocks, as ingly threatened by land development and
well as salt, fresh, and brackish waters that recreation along coastal areas. It is a challenge
provide habitat to a variety of life, including to communicate this and other important nat-
resident and migratory birds. Within the ural resource issues to visitors at the Kingsley
boundaries are over 200 recorded archeologi- Plantation and Fort Caroline, two important
cal sites providing evidence of over 6,000 cultural sites with the preserve.
years of human habitation. There are numer-
ous historic structures and sites, including The Role of Education
those at Kingsley Plantation and Fort Caroline The resource education division of the
National Memorial. These are important cul- preserve provides opportunities for visitors to
tural sites that focus on issues such as slavery, form their own intellectual and emotional con-
indigenous culture, land use, early American nections with the cultural and natural
history, and cultural conflict. The prehistoric resources that include birds and their habitat.
and historic events and associated issues are Visitors to Kingsley Plantation and Fort
intimately linked with the natural environ- Caroline come with diverse expectations.
ment. There are many natural resource man- Often, expectations are immediately modified
agement challenges within this context, but by the cultural landscape or by the striking
this paper will specifically focus on the man- natural beauty before there is any contact with
agement of birds and their habitats. any literature, waysides, rangers, or any other
75
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

interpretive media. This creates both chal- efforts provides enjoyment, understanding,
lenges and opportunities for integrating many and appreciation of bird natural history. As a
interpretive stories, including historical ele- result, however, visitors assist park manage-
ments and natural history. One important goal ment in communicating both natural and cul-
of interpretation is resource protection. The tural resource protection needs. An important
apparent conflict between the cultural and bird species that is being monitored in the
natural resource meanings becomes an oppor- preserve is the painted bunting. The preserve
tunity to provide relevance and multiple per- contains habitats for breeding and migratory
spectives on important resource issues and painted buntings.
protection. This bird is a species at special risk in the
A goal of interpretation is to provide southeastern United States and has been
opportunities for visitors to form their own declining at approximately 4% annually since
connections with meanings inherent in the 1966 based upon Breeding Bird Survey data
resources of a site. It is hoped that if visitors (Hunter, Pashley et. al. 1993; Sauer et al.
make connections, they will be more likely to 1997). The cause or causes of this decline are
find value and develop a caring attitude about not known but may be associated with frag-
the resources, resulting in active participation mentation of eastern forest habitat into isolat-
in resource protection. It follows that integrat- ed patches (Robbins et. al. 1989), loss or sig-
ed and meaningful interpretation serves the nificant alteration of optimum breeding habi-
visitor and the resource. tat (Askins et. al. 1990; Askins 1993), or
During their contacts with the public, brood parasitism by the brown-headed cow-
rangers are able to share information and bird (Molothurus ater) (Brittingham and
interpretation about bird resources and Temple 1983; Trail and Baptista 1993). Other
answer questions from visitors concerning the possibilities include increased predation by
preserve’s large bird population. Resource domestic cats, problems on wintering grounds
education staff obtain information from pre- (related to the cage bird trade in Cuba and
liminary inventory and monitoring projects possibly in southern Florida), or other unde-
being conducted in the preserve (Eakes 1996; termined causes. Survival rate of the south-
Tardona et. al. 1997; Tardona et. al. 1999). In eastern coastal population of the painted
addition to the benefit gained from the data bunting is unknown.
gathered during the surveys, involvement of A six-year study of annual survival of the
people from the local community strengthens southeastern population of the painted
and expands support for park goals. A pre- bunting is currently in its fourth year, covering
serve bird list (presently over 325 species) is an area from near Wilmington, North
provided to visitors along with other bird Carolina, and extending along the immediate
information guides. Information about birds is coast to the St. Johns River in northern
integrated into formal public programs. The Florida. The object of this study is to deter-
preserve has been participating in a research mine annual survival by age and sex using
project that has not only provided data about trapping/retrapping and sightings of banded
an important bird species, but also is provid- painted buntings throughout the Atlantic
ing opportunities to facilitate connections Coast breeding range. Study sites are located
between the natural environment and cultural along the coast from North Carolina to
resources. Florida. Timucuan Preserve participates by
providing four study sites with two temporary
The Painted Bunting Project baiting stations at each site (a total of eight
Monitoring of bird species has implica- baiting stations). Two baiting stations are
tions not only for the preserve, but also broad- located south of the St. Johns River at Fort
ly aids in data collection on migratory species Caroline National Memorial (one near the
for other agencies and bird observatories. Fort Caroline fort exhibit and the other
Involving visitors through resource education approximately 0.6 miles away at the Ribault
76
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

Monument). Six other baiting stations are only one-half of the site to its “historic” land-
located north of the St. Johns (two at Cedar scape condition, while leaving the other half to
Point, two on Fort George Island near the demonstrate the reclaimed area by nature and
grounds of the Kingsley Plantation, and two thereby minimizing potential habitat loss for
on the grounds of Little Talbot Island, part of painted buntings. Perhaps such a decision
the Little Talbot Islands State Parks). This would offer greater opportunities for inter-
study is providing information for resource preting the challenges of managing natural
managers and is an essential vehicle for inter- and cultural resources. It would clearly
preting many critical cultural and natural demonstrate that history, including land-
resource management issues in the preserve. scapes, is not static, and thereby would pres-
ent multiple perspectives about the resources
Resource Integration in of the site. At the same time, opportunities
Management and Interpretation may arise for interpreting natural resource
Among the many factors to be considered conditions. Deciding how best to manage this
in decisions regarding natural and cultural area is not easy, and many other factors will
resources are interpretive opportunities. If need to be considered.
interpretation is viewed as a valuable tool of While the painted bunting study is being
resource management, then interpretive carried out, a temporary demonstration bait
opportunities created or lost by management station has been set up on the grounds of the
decisions must be considered. For example, Kingsley Plantation, next to the interpretive
one challenge the preserve faces is at Kingsley garden. During the times when data are being
Plantation. During the plantation period, collected at the research bait stations, visitors
much of the island was cleared for the planting have the opportunity to observe the collection
of cash crops such as Sea Island cotton, sugar process at many of these stations. During data
cane, and indigo. One of the significant cul- collection, mist nets are erected in succession
tural resources at the site are the Kingsley fam- surrounding the bait stations and monitored
ily structures, tabby slave cabins, and the his- at each site in the early morning hours for half
toric landscape. Much of the Kingsley family a day at each station. The study areas are sys-
structures have been modified since the tematically sampled to try to prevent any effect
Kingsley era and the landscape has changed of time of year. Buntings captured in the mist
dramatically. One unresolved management nets are quickly leg-banded with uniquely col-
question has been to what degree and at what ored bands. Birds are released at the net sites
time period should the landscape be “recreat- after data on banding, age, and sex are record-
ed.” Much of the landscape has been ed. (For more details on project methodology
reclaimed by nature since the Kingsley era. see Sykes, Kendall, and Meyers 2002). Annual
Clearing of the landscape to a closer approxi- survival rates are calculated based on recap-
mation of that era’s landscape will require sac- tures the following year and on re-sightings.
rificing some important natural habitat of the Visitors are afforded the opportunity to
painted bunting and other bird species. observe from a distance and are provided with
Considering the declining population of a short interpretive program at the site.
buntings and the still unclear reasons for their Preliminary results of this study show a
decline, how much of an impact would the decreasing trend in captures of buntings in the
landscape restoration have upon bunting preserve for the past four years.
habitat and overall population? Data collected from the research project,
One possible scenario that may have inter- though preliminary, are easily and clearly com-
pretive value, but would compromise some of municated where and when appropriate to
the “historic scene,” is clearing a small piece of visitors to Kingsley Plantation and Fort
land between the slave cabins and the main Caroline. This information is integrated into
house. One alternative for discussion is the resource education programs. For example,
interpretive value of clearing and maintaining birds were important for the native people
77
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

occupying the region before European con- mation about the daily life of enslaved people
tact. Birds were a resource for food and mate- and how they may have interacted with birds.
rials such as feathers, and perhaps even assist- Interpretive themes include concepts of
ed native people in fishing, hunting, and other freedom reflected in some of the folktales cre-
activities as they observed their natural behav- ated by enslaved African people. Interpretive
ior. Birds have served in native spiritual and programs explore how enslaved people com-
social endeavors. The bait station located near bined memories and tales of their homeland in
the Fort Caroline fort exhibit is interpreted to Africa with their experiences in the environ-
interested visitors by a roving ranger. The ment of their new world, including those asso-
resource education staff is considering an ciated with birds. Discussions revolve around
unobtrusive temporary interpretive sign at the not only plantation life, but if, or how, birds
location. Birds are integrated into historical were viewed by planter and slaves. Some visi-
resource education programs. For example, tors even speculate whether the owners or
one of the items presented to the French slaves ever maintained any kind of bird feeder
explorers at first contact with the Timucua to attract birds (there is no historical record of
(the native people who occupied the area at this). The research project becomes a topic of
the time of European contact) were bird feath- discussion, as it relates to the natural resource
ers. A brief discussion about birds and elements of the historic site. In discussions
Timucua life is introduced and contrasted as about land use on the island, birds are inter-
part of a clash of cultures. This provides woven into the stories about how the land-
opportunities for interpretation of birds in the scape changed from the native Timucua
preserve today, including the painted bunting through the plantation era, when much of the
project. In addition, birds have been effective island was cleared for planting crops. These
as a vehicle for interpreting many critical examples provide opportunities to integrate
resource issues during orientation and infor- meanings inherent in specific cultural and nat-
mational programs. ural resources at the site. For example, during
At Kingsley Plantation on Fort George the country club era on the island, a 1930s
Island, birds are integrated into interpretive brochure for the Fort George Club advertised
programs, as several species are readily appar- “a bowling green, putting green, canoeing ...
ent and sometimes “distracting” from the cul- and walks through the bird sanctuary, where
tural theme of a program (e.g., the call of a over eighty species have been seen, some of
pileated woodpecker or wood stork sailing them rare.” During the 1940s, students and
overhead). These “distractions” are not faculty from Rollins College used 150 acres
ignored, but incorporated into the particular on the south end of the island for scientific
program theme. For example, birds and their studies (Florida Times-Union 1950). Today,
habitat are employed as a tool in creating an that same area is still known as the Rollins
image of everyday life of both owner and Bird and Plant Sanctuary. These are just a few
enslaved people during the plantation era. examples of how an important natural
Ideas about birds and the slaves are presented resource can be integrated into the cultural
as speculation and not as historical fact (there themes within the preserve.
are few, if any, written records from the slaves
themselves who lived at the Kingsley Conclusion
Plantation). For example, rhetorical questions When two resources come into direct con-
are posed to visitors such as “Might the birds flict, it is often difficult to make resource man-
observed by slaves remind them of their agement and interpretive decisions about
homeland in Africa?” “Might the painted which takes priority. There are many exam-
bunting have reminded them of a similar bird ples beyond the scope of this paper that could
in parts of Africa and the folklore associated be cited. Despite many guidelines, such as a
with it?” In many plantation sites, zooarcheo- park’s enabling legislation, the National
logical remains include birds and yield infor- Environmental Policy Act, the National
78
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Species Act, and others, there still exists no Station, 109–119.
definitive equation to help resource managers Hunter, W.C., D.N. Pashley, R.E.F. Escano,
decide what or what part of a specific resource and E.F. Ronald. 1993. Neotropical
takes priority. Many factors have to be migratory landbird species and their habi-
weighed, including cumulative effects on a tat of special concern within the Southeast
resource, impact of adjacent land manage- region. In Status and Management of
ment, local and national significance, sociopo- Neotropical Migratory Birds. D.M. Finch
litical factors, public sentiment, and interpre- and P.W. Stangel, eds. General Technical
tive value. This paper has been an attempt to Report RM-229. Fort Collins, Colo.: U.S.
present important resource management and Department of Agriculture–Forest Service,
interpretive issues facing an NPS site when a Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
manager needs to balance cultural and natural Experiment Station, 159–169.
resource values. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas,
and B. G. Peterjohn. 1997. The North
References American Breeding Bird Survey Results
Askins, R.A. 1993. Population trends in grass- and Analysis. (Version 96.4). Laurel, Md.:
land, shrubland and forest birds in eastern U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife
North America. In Current Ornithology Research Center.
(vol. II). D.M. Power, ed. New York: Sykes, P.W., W.L. Kendall, and J.M. Meyers.
Plenum Press, 1–34. 2002. Annual survival in the southeastern
Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. Atlantic coastal breeding population of the
1990. Population declines in migratory painted bunting. Annual Report 2002,
birds in eastern North America. Current Project Number 3438.01, Preliminary
Ornithology 7, 1–57. findings. Laurel, Md.: U.S. Geological
Brittingham, M.C., and S.A. Temple. 1983. Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to Center.
decline? Biological Science 33, 31–35. Tardona, D.R., J. Tinsman, and R. Clark.
Eakes, C. 1996. Timucuan Ecological and 1999. Avian monitoring project of the
Historic Preserve: rare species survey. Timucuan Ecological & Historic
Final report to National Park Service from Preserve: A progress report. Jacksonville,
Southeast Conservation Science Fla.: National Park Service, Timucuan
Department, The Nature Conservancy. Ecological & Historic Preserve.
Florida Times-Union. 1950. Bird refuge Tardona, D.R., R.H. Clark, A.E. Hanigan,
accepted by Gov. Warren. 8 May, 15, 21. and I. Hanigan. 1997. Survey and moni-
Hunter, W.C., M.F. Carter, D.N. Pashley, and toring of birds on the Timucuan Preserve.
K. Barker. 1993. The Partners in Flight Park Science 17:2, 16–17.
species prioritization scheme. In Status Trail, P.W., and L.F. Baptista. 1993. The
and Management of Neotropical Migratory impact of brown-headed cowbird para-
Birds. D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel, eds. sitism on populations of Nuttall’s white-
General Technical Report RM-229. Fort crowned sparrow. Conservation Biology 7,
Collins, Colo.: U.S. Department of 309–315.
Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky

79
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

It’s All in the Family: Recommendations for

Cultural and Natural Resources Reconciliation
Terri Thomas, Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129; tthomas@pre-
sidiotrust.gov
Ric Borjes, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Building 201, Fort Mason, San Francisco,
California 94123; ric_borjes@nps.gov
Anna Fenton-Hathaway, Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129;
afenton-hathaway@presidiotrust.gov

Introduction
While diverse values attract passionate support, their combination in one park represents a
considerable management challenge. Finding a balance among so many vital but tenuous links to
cultural and natural history is complicated and often contentious. This paper will discuss meth-
ods for reconciling these interests and going forward with the critical work of preservation for all
the cultural, social, and/or natural values associated with national park resources. The paper uses
experiences from the Presidio of San Francisco and Golden Gate National Recreation Area to
frame its recommendations.
The Presidio of San Francisco is a 1,490- significant forest stands, the last free-flowing
acre unit within a national park located at San creek in San Francisco, and a majestic sand-
Francisco’s Golden Gate. The area boasts a and-bluff shoreline overlooking the Pacific
unique mix of cultural, natural, and recre- Ocean. The Presidio is also home to
ational resources. First inhabited by the Mountain Lake, one of two remaining natural
Ohlone, the Presidio was a seasonal village site lakes in San Francisco. Wildlife in the Presidio
until the Spanish came and claimed it for is plentiful and various, although becoming
Spain in 1776. From this point until 1994, the more rare due to loss of precious habitat.
Presidio was an important bellwether for the
West’s military history. First established to Recommendations
protect the San Francisco Bay under the These seven recommendations are meant
Spanish Army, the Presidio was transferred to to initiate natural and cultural resources rec-
Mexico after it won its independence from onciliation by promoting frank discussion and
Spain in 1822. In 1846, the Presidio was encouraging understanding and compromise
turned over to the United States Army, which between the disciplines.
developed and managed it as a military base 1. Acknowledge the fundamental differ-
until it was decommissioned in 1994 and ences—and common ground —between nat-
incorporated into Golden Gate National ural and cultural resources. The fundamen-
Recreation Area. Due to its colorful and tal difference between natural and cultural
lengthy military history—it was the longest resource values is fairly straightforward: cul-
constantly running military base in the nation tural resource values generally refer to the
when it closed in 1994—and its remaining human influences that have changed natural
structural and landscaped resources, the systems, while natural resource values instead
Presidio is one of the United States’s National privilege the pre-European environment.
Historic Landmark Districts. Although pre-European ecology can some-
Today, five federally listed plant species times satisfy both camps, the period of signifi-
exist within Presidio boundaries, making their cance at the Presidio is the post-European
home among rare dune, serpentine, and wet- contact period, which often conflicts with nat-
land habitats that are quickly disappearing ural resource values.
from coastal areas and are entirely gone from Between the natural and cultural disci-
San Francisco. The park boasts historically plines, subtle differences in understanding
80
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

can have a tremendous impact on the planning eral standards on cultural landscape treatment
process. The most prevalent cause for misun- and the State Historic Preservation Office
derstanding is a difference in language. For review process. Guiding documents for natu-
example, historic resource treatment stan- ral resources professionals include the
dards have distinct definitions for rehabilita- Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act,
tion, restoration, and preservation, while natu- the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean
ral resources policies define these terms with Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.
much more flexibility. For example, when nat- 3. Acknowledge that there is a history to
ural resources professionals entertain the idea natural history, and a natural history to his-
of “restoring” an area, the cultural profession- tory. Finding where resources overlap can be
als assume that this goal is strictly defined, helpful for identifying common ground. One
when in fact it is quite elastic. Cultural and example of this beneficial overlap is what nat-
natural resource professionals must realize ural resource professionals call “type locali-
that these terms are not clearly shared across ties.” In natural history, a type locality refers to
discipline lines, and openly clarify their terms the very first place a species of plant or animal
before entering discussion. The first step in was discovered and described. Since the first
addressing a project conflict is to ask that the ships into the San Francisco Bay stopped and
language be defined and interpreted. collected plants, the Presidio holds many sites
While the differences are important to of type localities for plants and animals. Even
acknowledge, equally meaningful are the simi- California’s state flower, the California poppy,
larities that bind the two camps. The most has its type locality at the Presidio. The cul-
obvious similarity is both natural and cultural tural resource term “prototype” corresponds
resource professionals’ common goal to pre- with the natural resource “type locality.” On
serve the national heritage for future genera- the Presidio, an example of a prototype is an
tions. The goal of any resource manager is to Endicott-era concrete battery, which served as
ensure that people can experience their coun- the model for such batteries constructed
try’s history and ecology for centuries to throughout the country.
come. As type localities represent the “history of
2. Begin all projects with a mutual natural history,” the Presidio’s riparian oak
understanding of the basic cultural and nat- woodland illustrates the “natural history of
ural resources laws and policies. Any history.” This natural habitat was esteemed a
resource management discussion should contributing factor to the National Historic
begin with an open recognition of the laws Landmark District designation, a symbol of
and guidelines that apply to the project. Laws great cultural import. The majority of the
and policies provide the backbone for Presidio’s historic forest was planted by the
resource work and the framework for associat- Army, but natural forests existing at that time
ed decision-making. The effort taken to were retained by the Army and thus included
review and respect the other discipline’s guid- in the historic designation. Using transferable
ing policies will greatly benefit joint projects. examples such as type localities and the his-
While it may be difficult to learn all the appro- toric oak woodland may help bridge the gap of
priate legislative acts and policy documents, understanding between the disciplines.
requesting that a professional counterpart 4. Allow the resource experts to work
explain the basic elements of the law can help through the balancing without mediation. It
both groups understand the other’s knowl- is beneficial for cultural and natural resource
edge, and respect their basis for negotiations. specialists to get together early in the planning
Examples of essential cultural resource laws process before lines are drawn in the sand.
and guidelines include the National Historic Holding an initial collaborative meeting
Preservation Act, Archeology Resources among resource staff allows these profession-
Protection Act, and the Historic Sites, als to focus on cross-resource education and
Buildings, and Antiquities Act, as well as fed- value identification, without becoming adver-
81
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

sarial. The goal at this stage is for each ence underlying early decision-making. The
resource professional to balance advocacy Crissy Field project included restoring a tidal
with inquiry. marsh, sand dunes, and a historic airfield.
Early discussion among the resource staff Both archeological and hydrological informa-
can build common ground for future coordi- tion were eventually found to be inadequate.
nation, but inviting non-resource staff to this Having learned from this experience, detailed
initial collaboration can curtail necessary open research, including aquifer studies, compre-
debate. Decision-makers and planning staff hensive archeological testing, and historic
have the important role of balancing not only property identification is being planned for
resource needs, but also issues such as park two adjacent resource projects.
neighbors, operational needs, and additional 6. Adopt an unwritten understanding to
values such as recreation. These additional help each other. Whenever possible, resource
considerations tend to make resource profes- staff should express the good-faith under-
sionals territorial. Further, planners can misin- standing that both cultural and natural
terpret the intensity of resource negotiations resource values are important to preserve and
and start holding separate discussions with protect. During the Crissy marsh restoration,
each camp, believing that this is the best way a Native American midden was found in the
to mediate. In fact, it is crucial that both cul- area where the marsh was planned.
tural and natural resource staff remain Recognizing the discovery’s blow to the natu-
engaged in each step of the planning process ral resource objective, the cultural resource
in order to ensure the preservation of the staff contributed additional space for the
resource. marsh to mitigate the loss. Similarly, when a
5. Use a scientific approach to decision- new type of plant community (dune swale)
making. Discussion of any individual natural was proposed in the Crissy dunes, the natural
and cultural resource overlap issue must occur resource staff worked to finalize a cultural
in a framework of professional integrity built plant palette that would please the Native
on a foundation of science, research, and poli- American community and satisfy a tribal
cy. Passion about the involved values can be agreement that basket materials would be
tempered with a more technical and integrat- planted for their collection and use.
ed eye for park values. A design for guiding 7. Realize that a solution may not be
the process of integration could include con- available at that moment in time. The issues
ducting survey and identification work, con- are often complicated and may need to be
sulting appropriate literature prior to plan- worked out over time. Projects that include
ning, and exploring scientific validation. cultural and natural resources tend to take a
In general, resource professionals should while to mature, and often undergo adaptive
come to planning meetings prepared to quote management during the planning, implemen-
the source or experience from which the pro- tation, and monitoring phases. Often, a values
fessional opinion was drawn. This will trade-off may not be ideal for either resource,
strengthen the credibility of the information, but may still be the best accommodation at the
and is especially helpful when new players are time. All projects are processes; they include
at the table. Ideally, the researchers themselves successes and failures as well as outcomes
would be available to describe their findings. requiring continuing study. The success of the
Independent researchers especially can help existing vegetation and habitat value at the
alleviate doubt regarding data interpretation. Crissy marsh may guide future decisions
Resource management agencies should always about expansion, and the success of the Crissy
document the researchers and the science that airfield restoration may depend on future
has helped inform the decision-making decisions about possible “air museums.”
process. Creating a vision for resource preservation
The post-mortem review of the Presidio and keeping that vision in mind throughout
Crissy Field project revealed a lack of hard sci- the project process is the key to a successful
82
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

resource project. By continually articulating a room tables to understanding how to work

vision, it will be translated into action, even if comfortably together. The hope is that these
it becomes modified in the translation. recommendations will help new professionals
in resources management get to common
Conclusion ground even faster.
Through years of experience, the authors
have gone from dueling across conference

83
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

Zzyzx Mineral Springs—

Cultural Treasure and Endangered Species Aquarium

Danette Woo, Mojave National Preserve, 222 East Main Street, Suite 202, Barstow, California
92311; danette_woo@nps.gov
Debra Hughson, Mojave National Preserve, 222 East Main Street, Suite 202, Barstow,
California 92311; debra_hughson@nps.gov

A Brief History of Zzyzx

Human use has been documented at Soda Dry Lake back to the early predecessors of the
Mohave and Chemehuevi native peoples, who occupied the land when the Spanish explorers
first explored the area early in the 19th century. Soda Springs lies in the traditional range of the
Chemehuevi, who likely used and modified the area in pursuit of their hunter–gatherer econo-
my. Trade routes existed between the coast and inland to the Colorado River and beyond for
almost as long as humans have occupied this continent. These routes depended on reliable
springs, spaced no more than a few days’ walk apart, and Soda Springs has long been a reliable
oasis in a dehydrated expanse.
The first written record of Soda Springs Soda Springs, dubbed “Hancock’s Redoubt”
comes from the journals of Jedediah Strong for Winfield Scott Hancock, the Army
Smith, written in 1827 when he crossed Soda Quartermaster in Los Angeles at the time. The
Lake on his way to Mission San Gabriel. Army’s presence provided a buffer between
Smith was the first American citizen to enter the emigrants from the East and dispossessed
California by land. He crisscrossed the west- natives. California miners also traveled the
ern half of the North American continent by Mojave Road on their way to the Colorado
foot and pack animal from 1822 until he was River in 1861. During 1867 and 1868, the
killed by Comanches in 1831. In his journal, army established “Soda Station,” or “Fort
Smith wrote of his Soda Lake sojourn: “I Soda,” an army outpost at Soda Springs sub-
came to border of a salt plain and at this place ordinate to Camp Cady. From Soda Station,
found some holes of brackish water. The the army provided escorts to the stages and
water was in holes dug about two feet deep U.S. mail carriers along the Mojave Road
and quite brackish. Making some new holes I (Casebier 1999). After the army withdrew in
found the water some better.” 1871, Soda Station and other similar posts
The U.S. Army followed on Jedediah were sporadically manned by civilian station
Smith’s heels. Various government and, in keepers.
particular, Army surveys were conducted in The early 20th century brought mining,
the 1850s. Lieutenant Robert S. Williamson railroads, and religious colonization to Soda
provided one of the earliest written descrip- Springs. The Pacific Salt and Soda Company
tions of Soda Lake in 1853. Lieutenant Amiel ran a sporadic mining operation there
Weeks Whipple gave Soda Lake its name in between 1907 and 1911. Evidence of the
1854, and in 1857 Edward F. Beale laid out a Pacific Salt and Soda evaporation ponds is
wagon route through the Mojave Desert for still apparent. In 1906, Francis Marion
emigrants bound for southern California. “Borax” Smith had built the Tonopah and
This route would eventually become known Tidewater Railroad through Soda “Dry” Lake
as the Mojave Road. Numerous massacres of to serve his borax mines near Death Valley.
these emigrant parties by the Mohaves led the From 1907 to 1940 the T&T averaged one
Army to establish a permanent post in 1859 at train per day between Ludlow, California, and
Fort Mohave near present-day Needles. Goldfield, Nevada. The rails were for removed
Shortly thereafter, they established a camp at for raw material during World War II and the
84
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

graded bed now marks the boundary of somewhere in the middle. The fish population
Mojave National Preserve south to Crucero on in West Pond was killed in 1984 when water
the Union Pacific line. conditions became too bad, even for the
Pastor Charles T. Russell founded the incredibly tough Mohave tui chub. Hypoxia
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society at Soda associated with algae blooms was blamed; this
Springs in 1914. Only two written records of may have been triggered or exacerbated by
this religious colony, the “Russellite” sect of sewage.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, exist. Russell died The present-day Desert Studies Center,
October 30, 1916, and David G. Thompson, operated by a consortium of California state
a geologist working for the U.S. Geological universities, was conceived by Dalton
Survey, reported the site abandoned in 1917. Harrington at California State University–San
Curtis Howe Springer and his wife moved Bernardino when it became apparent that the
onto the site in 1944, filing mining claims with Bureau of Land Management was finally going
the Bureau of Land Management and San to evict Springer. The Desert Studies Center
Bernardino County for over 12,000 acres hosts classes, field trips, and conferences in
around Soda Springs. Springer built and Springer’s buildings, restored by the consor-
operated the Zzyzx Mineral Springs and tium.
Health Resort at Soda Springs for 30 years
until the Bureau of Land Management evicted A Brief History of the
him in 1974. His daily radio broadcast touted Mohave Tui Chub
the miraculous healing powers of Jesus, min- The Mohave tui chub (Gila bicolor
eral baths, and elixirs such as Hollywood Pep mohavensis) is the only fish native to the
Tonic and Antediluvian Desert Herb Tea. Mojave River basin in California. It preferred
Although the charges against him—invalid quiet pools in the intermittently flowing
mining claims, tax evasion, and exaggerated Mojave River and tended to be swept down-
advertising—are certainly true, his main activ- stream during floods. Sport fishermen intro-
ities may have been providing sermons and duced the arroyo chub (Gila orcutti) in the
health food to lost souls and unintentionally 1930s as live bait, and it interbred with the
supporting the Mohave tui chub. Springer Mohave tui chub. A isolated relic population
claimed to have coined “Zzyzx” in order to of genetically pure Mohave tui chub survived
have the last word in the English language. in MC Spring. How the fish got into MC
Springer excavated an artificial pond in Spring remains a mystery. The Soda Lake
about 1955 and called it “Lake Tuendae.” He playa is a closed basin at the end of the Mojave
stocked it with a minnow-sized fish that lived River watershed and, during wet seasons,
in a small limnocrene spring nearby, now becomes a real lake with water. The fish could
called MC (for Mojave Chub) Spring. This have been washed into the ephemeral lake
spring is natural, but needs occasional clear- during floods, with a few becoming trapped in
ing of cattails (Typha domengensis) and sedges MC Spring as the waters receded. An alterna-
(Scirpus olneyi) to maintain open water. tive explanation is that the fish somehow move
Springer also enlarged a water-filled mine underground through fractures in the lime-
shaft near Lake Tuendae that became known stone. The Bureau of Land Management exca-
as “Three Bats Pond” and, later, “West Pond.” vated a pit adjacent to MC Spring to test this
One version of the story is that Springer latter hypothesis. The pit filled with water but
enlarged West Pond with dynamite to mine fish never appeared.
gold. Another version holds that he was con- The Mojave River originates on the
structing a swimming pool. Given that northerly slopes of the San Bernardino
Springer needed to pretend to be mining in Mountains and flows northeasterly into the
order to hold onto his claims, and that the closed basin of Soda Lake about 100 miles
gold he was mining actually came from the away. Twenty-thousand-year-old fossilized
purses of his “guests,” the truth is probably fish remains in Lake Manix recall a time when
85
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

Mohave tui chub lived in its favored habitat feet long in an east–west direction. Water is
(USFWS 1984). Lake Manix is now a flat supplied to the lake from a well through a
stretch of desert along Interstate Highway15 fountain in the lake center. Lake Tuendae is
north of Barstow. The Soda Springs area lies connected to the Soda Lake aquifer by seep-
on the western shore of Soda Dry Lake at an age, which has probably prevented a long-
elevation of 930 feet. Most of the buildings of term buildup of salinity. Lake Tuendae gradu-
the proposed Zzyzx/Soda Springs historic ally fills in with sediments and cattails and
district lie on a shoreline outcropping of must be dredged about every 10 years.
Permian metamorphic limestone. The Soda The tui chub was listed as endangered by
Mountains are Mesozoic granitic and metavol- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in
canic rocks flanked by short, low-angle, allu- 1970 and by the state of California in 1971. In
vial fans and debris flows characteristic of addition to the original population in MC
extreme aridity. Mean annual precipitation at Spring and the population introduced into
Soda Lake since 1980 is 3.5 inches, occurring Lake Tuendae, populations of Mohave tui
mostly from July through September during chub have been established in artificial
the summer thunderstorm season (Mojave impoundments at China Lake Naval Air
National Preserve 2002). Weapons Station and Camp Cady. Attempts
There are two distinct aquifer systems to establish other populations at San Felipe
influencing Soda Springs. Groundwater Creek (San Diego, California), Rio Santo
below Soda Lake is part of the Mojave River Tomas (Baja California, Mexico), Paradise
Sink and is recharged from percolation Spa (Las Vegas, Nevada), Piute Creek (San
through Afton Canyon and Kelso Wash. Bernardino, California), South Coast
Another aquifer appears to be related to car- Botanical Garden (Palos Verde, California),
bonate rocks in the Soda Mountains. Two Hole Spring (San Bernardino,
Thompson, the U.S. Geological Survey geolo- California), Dos Palmas Spring (Riverside,
gist who surveyed the region in 1917 and California), Lion Country Safari (Laguna
1919, observed two or more springs flowing Hills, California), Eaton Canyon Nature
from the east side of the limestone formation. Center (Altadena, California), Busch Gardens
He wrote of these as “appearing to seep (Van Nuys, California), and Lake Norconian
directly from the rock about five feet above the (Norco, California) have all failed.
surface of the playa. The largest spring flows
into a concrete reservoir about 15 to 30 feet in Where Do We Go from Here?
area and 5 feet deep. A small ram pumped In the fall of 2001, the National Park
water from this reservoir to a domestic use Service dredged Lake Tuendae, which was
tank in 1917 but, by 1919 had been removed” becoming filled with silt and cattails. Some
(quoted in Duffield-Stoll 1994). Water chem- fish were killed when an inflatable dam, which
istry suggests that a fracture system through was holding water in one half of the lake while
limestone provides a conduit for water flow to the other half was being dredged, slipped. Ten
MC Spring. The spring tends to have a pH of dead fish were sent to the University of San
around 8.5, as compared with 9.5–10 in Lake Diego for necropsy and all were found to be
Tuendae, and low dissolved oxygen. The fact infected with the Asian tapeworm. The Asian
that cattails and sedges in MC Spring must be tapeworm is a parasite believed to have
cut back about every 18 months or so suggests entered the U.S. in shipments of grass carp
that the existence of this open pool of water, and spread to California by live baitfish. It is
with a surface area of 250 square feet and a known to have deleterious effects on fish of the
volume of 1,000 cubic feet, is anthropogenic. Cyprinid, or minnow, family of which the tui
Springer or his associates most likely chub is a member. The Mohave tui chub
introduced the tui chub into Lake Tuendae shares Lake Tuendae with the Saratoga
and West Pond. The oblong impoundment of Springs pupfish (Cyprinodon nevadensis
Lake Tuendae is about 125 feet wide by 500 nevadensis) and the exotic mosquito fish
86
 Cultural and Natural Resources: Conflicts and Opportunities for Cooperation

(Gambusia affinis), native to southeastern sustain and potentially recover the chub must
U.S. Gambusia has traditionally been intro- consider the rich and varied history of human
duced to control mosquitoes but also may occupation that substantiates the National
consume eggs and larvae of endemic fish. Register nomination and the calculated visitor
Spring 2003 saw an anomalous plankton attraction of Lake Tuendae. Here can be
bloom in Lake Tuendae, perhaps related to found a collection of structures comprising
the dredging. Predation on zooplankton by Zzyzx Mineral Springs and Health Resort, a
Gambusia also could allow ecological release beleaguered population of fish in Lake
of phytoplankton in the lake and exacerbate an Tuendae, and the sole remaining source pop-
ecological imbalance. Tests of the water ulation of Mohave tui chub in the wild at MC
showed alkaline pH (9.5), total dissolved Spring.
solids of 2130 mg/L, and salinity of 2.2%, still The National Park Service faces multiple
within the range tolerated by the chub. challenges as steward of the endangered
Small, isolated populations are susceptible Mohave tui chub living on historic lands.
to extinction, commonly resulting from multi- There are presently no plans to reintroduce
ple stressors. Isolation, small population size the chub into the Mojave River drainage or to
(estimated at about 5,000 in Lake Tuendae increase artificial habitat at Zzyzx or else-
and 500 in MC Spring), poor water quality, where. The preserve is seeking funds for
maintenance requirements reflecting an assessment of the Asian tapeworm impact and
aquarium-like environment, and invasion of is working towards revisiting the recovery
exotic species all stack the odds against the plan with USFWS and the California
Mohave tui chub. Objectives in the recovery Department of Fish and Game. In the mean-
plan for delisting the species depend greatly time, a die-off in any one of the existing
on hope. The plan, which was approved on impoundments would severely reduce both
September 12, 1984, calls for establishing the remnant population and its potential for
populations in Afton Canyon and Mohave recovery.
Narrows where perennial ponds persist.
Exotic species found in these habitats include References
black bullhead (Ictaluras melas), green sun- Casebier, Dennis G. 1999. Mojave Road
fish (Lepomis cyanellus), fathead minnows Guide: An Adventure Through Time.
(Pimephales promeloas), and the Mohave tui Essex, Calif.: Tales of the Mojave Road
chub’s old fecund nemesis, the arroyo chub. Publishing Company.
These species would have to be eradicated Duffield-Stoll, Anne Q. 1994. Zzyzx: History
before Mohave tui chub could be reintro- of an Oasis, San Bernardino County,
duced and expected to survive. Actions California. Northridge, Calif.: California
intended to destroy exotic species could spill Desert Studies Consortium, The
over and impact other species such as the pro- California State University; Santa Susana
tected western pond turtle (Clemmys mar- Press, University Library, California State
morata) in Afton Canyon. Assuming compli- University–Northridge.
cations could be overcome, the reintroduced Mojave National Preserve. 2002. Cultural
chub would still need to contend with floods. Landscape Inventory Level II: Zzyzx
The recovery plan recognizes this and makes Mineral Springs Historic District, Mojave
delisting contingent on the re-established National Preserve. Oakland, Calif.:
populations surviving at least one flood. National Park Service.
In reality, Mohave tui chub populations U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Recovery
will likely be maintained in aquarium-like Plan for the Mohave Tui Chub, Gila bicol-
environments for the foreseeable future, com- or mohavensis. Portland Ore.: U.S. Fish
plicated, yet enhanced, by their presence with- and Wildlife Service.
in the fabric of the historic footprint. Efforts to
✥
87
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Creating a Sustainable Invasives Program in the East:

Controlling Invasive Vegetation at Eight National Parks
in Virginia, 2000–2002
James Åkerson, Shenandoah National Park, 3655 U.S. Highway 211 East, Luray,
Virginia 22835; james_akerson@nps.gov
Charles Rafkind, Colonial National Historical Park, P.O. Box 210, Yorktown, Virginia
23690-0210; charles_rafkind@nps.gov

The National Park Service’s (NPS’s) Virginia invasive vegetation management team (the
Virginia cooperative) was created in 2000 using grant funding to protect natural and cultural
resources at eight parks threatened by invasive exotic plants. Participating parks are noted in
Figure 1.

Figure 1. Virginia cooperative and Mid-Atlantic Network exotic pest management team sites.
Note: Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, though not shown on the map, is
part of the Virginia cooperative.

89
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

The Virginia cooperative assessed the • Management plans were completed for
extent of invasive vegetation at all eight parks, seven of the eight parks. The plans set a
created management plans, fulfilled environ- management framework, identified current
mental compliance requirements, conducted and potential high-priority invasive plants,
invasive plant treatments, and accomplished and prescribed control methods and long-
follow-up monitoring of treatment effective- term monitoring techniques. Environ-
ness. It augmented park capacities to manage mental clearance was completed for all
exotics by training local staffs and purchasing eight parks to begin active management.
equipment and supplies for implementing • The Virginia cooperative worked with the
independent and cooperative invasive plant National Capital exotic plant management
management. team to increase the overall effectiveness of
Finally, the Virginia cooperative developed both teams. Larger projects were tackled at
a public outreach program of media articles, three parks in each region.
posters, brochures and attendance at profes- • Training was provided to team and park
sional meetings. With the establishment of staff in species identification, integrated
NPS base funding in 2003, the effort has pest management, control techniques,
broadened in scope to the Mid-Atlantic safety issues, and monitoring techniques.
Network exotic pest management team that • Monitoring plots were established at seven
now includes two additional parks in parks to aid evaluation of treatment effec-
Pennsylvania and one in Maryland (see Figure tiveness.
1). Programmatic and on-the-ground cooper- • Public awareness of the threat of invasive
ation has created increased effectiveness and exotic vegetation was increased through a
an atmosphere for success. series of newspaper and magazine articles,
posters, speeches, and handout materials.
Accomplishments • Organizational capacity was expanded
• Field reconnaissance and initial assess-
with the purchase of tools, supplies, and
ments were completed at all eight parks.
material for the Virginia cooperative and
• The Virginia cooperative treated 1,047
individual parks.
acres over three years, exclusive of park
• The organization is well prepared to assist
efforts; individual parks treated an addi-
parks in Pennsylvania and Maryland,
tional 1,516 acres (Figures 2 and 3).
expanding its role to cover the NPS Mid-
• Site restoration was initiated at three
Atlantic Network for the NPS Natural
parks, totaling 12.1 acres. This included
Resources Challenge.
planting native grasses and shrubs and fol-
low-up effectiveness monitoring.

Figure 2. Cumulative management area and annual treatments accomplished by the Virginia
invasive vegetation management team, FY2000–2002 (by fiscal year).
90
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Figure 3. Managed area and treatments in the Virginia cooperative, FY2000–2002 (by park).
APCO = Appomattox Court House National Historical Park; BOWA = Booker T. Washington
National Monument; COLO = Colonial National Historical Park; FRSP = Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park; GEWA = George
Washington Birthplace National Monument; PETE = Petersburg National Battlefield; RICH
= Richmond National Battlefield Park; SHEN = Shenandoah National Park.

91
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Preventing Zebra Mussel Infestation of Lake Powell

Mark Anderson, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1507, Page, Arizona 86040;
mark_anderson@nps.gov
John Ritenour, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1507, Page, Arizona 86040;
john_ritenour@nps.gov

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and quagga mussels (D. bugensis) constitute one of
the greatest threats to water resources in the western United States. These small invasive mussels
with varying stripes have already spread throughout much of the eastern United States. The
genus Dreissena is unique among freshwater mussels in that they can attach to surfaces using
byssal threads. The use of byssal threads allows zebra mussels to build up mats that can reach
over 30 cm thick. Zebra mussel mats can form within pipes, reducing or clogging their flow.
These mussels will encrust docks, launch ramps, rocks, and any hard surfaces in the water.
Industries in infested areas spend billions of dollars every year to remove zebra mussels from raw
water-related structures (O’Neill 1996).
Zebra mussels have a great impact on States because they are rather non-specific. It
recreation. Boats left in infested waters will has been suggested that since zebra mussels
develop a layer of zebra mussels on their hulls are so prolific, humans could use them as a
and engines. Microscopic life stages can enter, food source, but zebra mussels are very effi-
attach, and clog the cooling systems of cient at accumulating toxins because of the
engines. Beaches can become covered with large amount of water that they filter. Even
piles of shells washed up by wave action. The other animals that eat zebra mussels can be
shells have sharp edges that can cut bare feet. unfit for human consumption due to the bio-
The shells also carry bits of zebra mussel flesh magnification of the toxins in zebra mussels.
that fill the air with a stench as they decom- The zebra mussel life cycle progresses
pose. from a tiny egg stage to a veliger and post-
In addition to the costs to industry and veliger stage, which are all planktonic. After
recreation, zebra mussels cause ecological the post-veliger stage, they enter a settling
damage. Any strategy to kill zebra mussels in stage when the production of a shell makes
the environment will also destroy other forms them too dense to float. The forming mussels
of aquatic life. Zebra mussels will encrust begin to sink and seek a substrate upon which
crayfish, turtles, and native clams. They show to attach. The passage from the egg to settling
a preference for attaching to other mussel stage requires two to three weeks. After set-
shells, inhibiting their shells from opening or tling, zebra mussels can detach, move around,
closing, and thus killing them. Zebra mussels and reattach as they grow up to 3 cm long and
filter an enormous amount of water, removing live four or five years. Some zebra mussels
large quantities of algae, thus disrupting the have been reported to live up to nine years in
food chain. Undigested food is packed into a Europe (Marsden 1992). They become sexu-
ball of mucous and ejected as a pseudo-fecal ally mature after the first year and each female
pellet. These pellets can form thick layers can reportedly produce up to a million eggs
beneath infestations, creating a large oxygen annually.
demand that can cause fish kills. There are no Native to the Caspian and Black seas of
predators of consequence in the United Eastern Europe, zebra mussels had spread
States. Within their home range, zebra mussel throughout Europe by 1920 with the creation
populations are probably kept in check by of canals and increased capacity of humans to
parasites, such as trematodes. The parasites in spread the mussel. It was recognized at that
the native range of zebra mussels do not prom- point that their havoc could be spread to the
ise much utility for control in the United United States in the ballast water of commer-
92
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

cial ships. They were first discovered in the national recreation area operates a Zebra
America in 1988, amongst the Great Lakes in Mussel Infestation Prevention Program
Lake Saint Clair. Since then, they have spread (ZMIPP). ZMIPP works in cooperation with
throughout the Great Lakes and into eight the Utah aquatic nuisance species action team
major river systems. and the 100th Meridian Initiative. The Utah
Zebra mussels are of great concern to Division of Wildlife Resources started the
resource managers at Glen Canyon National Utah aquatic nuisance species action team. It
Recreation Area. Lake Powell is considered has produced pamphlets and signs to aid in
the most likely point of introduction of zebra the education of boaters and promoted the
mussels to the Colorado River system. Nearly inspection of boats at 23 Utah state parks. The
three million people visit Lake Powell each National Invasive Species Act of 1996 found-
year. People spread zebra mussels attached to ed the 100th Meridian Initiative, which is a
the surfaces of boats, and in their microscopic forum for multi-agency cooperation with the
forms even a drop of water may transport goal of stopping the spread of invasive aquatic
them in the bilge, engine, live well, or trailer of nuisance species across the 100th meridian
a boat. The conditions in Lake Powell are from east to west. This goal is achieved by
good for zebra mussel colonization. Table 1 promoting information and education, volun-
presents the life requirements of zebra mussels tary boat inspections and boater surveys,
and the how those parameters compare with monitoring, rapid response, and identification
ranges found in Lake Powell. and risk assessment of pathways (Mangin
2001).
Glen Canyon Zebra Mussel ZMIPP consists of monitoring Lake
Prevention Program Powell for infestation, screening visitors to
To stop the spread of zebra mussels to identify boats that may carry zebra mussels,
Lake Powell and the Colorado River system, and providing for potentially infested boats to

Table 1. Zebra mussel colonization potential based on limnological parameters (O’Neill

1996). Typical values for Lake Powell are in bold.

Colonization Potential
Variable High Moderate Low Very Low
Salinity (ppt) 0–1 1–4 4–10 10–35
Calcium (mg/l) 25–>125 20–25 9–20 <9
Hardness(mg CaCO3/l) 90–>125 45–90 25–46 <26
PH 7.5–8.7 7.2–7.5 6.5–7.2 <6.5
8.7–9.0 9 >9
Water Temperature (C) 18–25 16–18 9–15 <8
25–28 28–30 >30
Turbidity (cm Secchi) 40–200 20–40 10–20 <10
200–250 >250
Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 8–10 6–8 4–6 <4
Water Velocity (m/sec) 0.1–1.0 0.09–0.1 0.075–0.09 <0.075
1.0–1.25 1.25–1.5 >1.5
Conductivity (uS) 83–>109 37–81 22–35 <21

93
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

be washed. The monitoring portion of ZMIPP of water, all standing water must be drained
uses artificial substrate samplers to detect the from areas such as the bilge, live wells, bait
settling-stage zebra mussels. Buoys and docks buckets, and engine cooling systems. The
are also informally checked for the presence of drained areas are then flushed with water at
adult zebra mussels. No zebra mussels have over 60ºC to kill zebra mussels. Any organic
been found in Lake Powell. matter visible on the boat or trailer must be
Visitor screening is conducted at entrance removed, and the entire boat is washed with a
stations. Lake Powell has relatively few access high-pressure, hot-water spray. Special atten-
points. Many of the access points have staffed tion must be paid to all areas that will contact
entrance stations where visitors are contacted the water, including the hull, lines, fenders,
directly. At each of these entrance stations, motor, trim tabs, anchor, trailer, and especially
including Wahweap, Antelope Point, Bullfrog, any confined or tight spaces that can create
and Hall’s Crossing, visitors entering the moist microhabitats. Adult zebra mussel sur-
national recreation area with boats are asked vival when exposed to air is limited by desic-
questions that assess the risk their boats pose cation. Care should be taken not to spread
to Lake Powell. The questions are kept to a zebra mussels with removed organic matter,
minimum to avoid lines. Each visitor with a water drained from the boat, and any rinse
boat is asked, “Has your vessel been used east water not hot enough to kill the mussels.
of the Rocky Mountains in the past 30 days?” The threat to western states from zebra
If the visitor answers “No,” the questioning is mussel infestation is very real. Agricultural
over. If the visitor answers “Yes,” they are check stations in California, Oregon, and
asked, “In which states or provinces east of Washington inspect boats for zebra mussels;
the Rocky Mountains was your vessel used?” at least four boats have been found carrying
If the answer includes states or Canadian zebra mussels. In the spring of 2002, the
provinces where zebra mussels are known to national recreation area’s aquatic ecologist
have infested, the visitor is given a “prevention was at the Bullfrog Marina on Lake Powell to
packet.” educate concessionaire employees about
The prevention packet includes a pam- zebra mussels and the proper procedures to
phlet, a coupon for a free boat washing, and a follow when washing boats. The concession-
map with directions to the washing facilities. aire employees stated that a boat from
The pamphlet, produced by the Utah aquatic Wisconsin had been launched several weeks
nuisance species action team, gives informa- earlier. Upon inspection, zebra mussels were
tion on zebra mussels and other aquatic nui- found on the trim tabs. It took several tense
sance species. The maps give some informa- hours to contact the owner of the boat for per-
tion specific to Lake Powell and directions mission to pull the boat out of the lake.
from the entrance station that the visitors have The owner said that the boat had been out
entered to the washing facilities. The conces- of the water for nine months prior to being
sionaire conducts boat washings at no cost to launched and had experienced freezing tem-
the National Park Service (NPS) or the visi- peratures during that time; the zebra mussels
tors. were assuredly dead. The owner had moved
Resource management staff at Glen from Wisconsin to Grand Junction, Colorado.
Canyon National Recreation Area work with He wanted to moor his boat on Lake Powell.
the concessionaire to ensure that washings are He knew that his boat had become infested
conducted in a manner to minimize the poten- with zebra mussels. Specifically to remove the
tial of zebra mussels being spread to Lake zebra mussels, he had the boat sandblasted
Powell. Boat washers must assume that the and painted before bringing it to Lake Powell.
boat is infested. Infestations can be hard to Despite the owner’s warning about zebra mus-
detect, and boats sent for washing have been sels, the trim tabs were not cleaned. The most
identified as a high risk. Because the micro- frightening part of the story is that this visitor
scopic veligers can exist in very small amounts had tried to do everything right, but still Lake
94
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Powell was not safe. The only reason the boat from infesting Lake Powell and the Colorado
had been out of the water for so long is River System. Zebra mussel awareness in
because weather conditions had not been western states is slowly increasing. Other NPS
good for painting. units that are taking action to prevent zebra
During the 2001 season, 13 potentially mussels, primarily through education efforts,
infested vessels entered the national recreation include Lake Mead National Recreation Area
area. Nine of the 13 went to the concessionaire and Curecanti National Recreation Area. In
for the free washing. In 2002, 31 boats were the spirit of the NPS mission, Glen Canyon
identified as “high risk” and 22 were washed. National Recreation Area is protecting
Washings in 2001 and 2002 were entirely vol- resources and providing for recreation by tak-
untary. The dramatic increase in the number ing action to stop the spread of zebra mussels
of boats identified as a risk probably does not and promoting education that could save all
indicate a rise in risk level, but instead, better waters of the West.
participation from the fee collectors. During
2001, fee collectors were not consistently ask- References
ing the questions described earlier. By 2002, Mangin, S. 2001. The 100th Meridian
many of them had been better educated and Initiative: A strategic approach to prevent
understood the risk involved. Consensus- the westward spread of zebra mussels and
building among park staff and concessionaires other aquatic nuisance species.
is a very important step in preventing zebra Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
mussels and other aquatic nuisance species. Service.
Another benefit of a greater consensus in the Marsden, J.E. 1992. Standard protocols for
park is that for the 2003 season, regulations monitoring and sampling zebra mussels.
have been put in place that make washings Illinois Natural History Survey Biological
mandatory for any boat identified as a risk by Notes 138.
the program. O’Neill, C.R., Jr. 1996. The zebra mussel,
Zebra mussel infestation is one of the most impacts and control. Cooperative
significant and potentially devastating threats Extension Information Bulletin 238.
to western water resources. ZMIPP is a proac- Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University.
tive and unique effort to stop zebra mussels

95
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout

in Great Basin National Park
Gretchen Schenk, Great Basin National Park, 100 Great Basin National Park, Baker, Nevada
89311; gretchen_schenk@nps.gov
Tod Williams, Great Basin National Park, 100 Great Basin National Park, Baker, Nevada 89311;
tod_williams@nps.gov

Background
Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhyncus clarki utah; BCT) are the only trout native to
the east-central Great Basin and to Great Basin National Park. These trout lived in the
extensive Lake Bonneville during the Pleistocene, but as water levels dropped, they
moved into mountain streams to survive. During European settlement, intensive stocking
of non-native salmonids, coupled with habitat degradation due to livestock overgrazing
and water diversions, created harsh conditions for the native trout. Approximately 94% of
the western populations were extirpated.
In 1999, a Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Reintroduction Management Plan was written
to restore this native fish back into 18 of the 25 miles of historic habitat in Great Basin
National Park streams, leaving the other miles as non-native recreational fishing areas.

Reintroduction Steps had entered into a memorandum of under-

1. Survey streams. Each potential stream standing with several agencies to prevent
is surveyed for macroinvertebrates, mollusks, Endangered Species Act listing of this species.
amphibians, fish, physical habitat, and water Also, the presence of amphibians would
quality to determine if any sensitive species or necessitate careful scheduling of treatment to
habitats are present that might need special minimize any disturbance.
attention. Highlights of the surveys include:
2. Treatment. If the stream is deemed to • A high diversity of macroinvertebrates
be good habitat for BCT, the non-native fish from stream to stream and seasonally with-
are removed either using electrofishing or a in streams.
piscicide (antimycin or rotenone). • No amphibians found in the park.
3. Monitor. The effects of the treatment • No sensitive mollusk species in the
are monitored, in particular the recovery of streams, including Great Basin
macroinvertebrates. springsnails. To date, four populations of
4. Reintroduce BCT. Once macroinverte- Great Basin springsnails have been found
brate populations have recovered to 75% of in springs near the park boundary.
pre-treatment numbers and diversity, BCT are • Spawning period of BCT documented for
reintroduced. the first time in the South Snake Range in
5. Monitor. The new BCT populations 2002, with spawning occurring about 26
are monitored to determine if subsequent June–3 July when the average daily stream
reintroductions are needed and when the temperature reached nearly 12°C, with
populations are sustainable. maximums near 14°C and minimums near
8°C. Spawning information was used in
Survey Streams an attempt to boost BCT populations
Before treatments could be completed, using streamside incubators. However,
stream surveys were essential to document due to low streamflow, high sedimenta-
what species were present. Of particular inter- tion, and fungus growth, the streamside
est was the Great Basin springsnail; the park incubators were unsuccessful in 2002.

96
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

understood, but could indicate that the small-

Treatment est reintroduced fish did not survive, or that
Staff treated Strawberry Creek in 2002 they grew very quickly and are part of the larg-
with rotenone and Snake Creek in 2002 with er size classes. Young-of-the-year (YOY) had
antimycin. The park plans to treat the South not yet emerged from spawning gravels, so
Fork of Baker Creek in 2002–2004 by elec- were not identified. A flood in late September
trofishing. with excessive sedimentation may have elimi-
nated the year’s YOY. A spring population
Reintroduction survey will be conducted to determine how
BCT have now been reintroduced into the YOY fared.
two streams: in 2000, the South Fork of Big
Wash (three miles of habitat), and in 2002, Future Work
Strawberry Creek (five miles of habitat in Future work includes continued monitor-
park, plus two miles outside park). BCT are ing of BCT populations to determine if sup-
expected to be reintroduced into four miles of plemental reintroductions are needed and
Snake Creek in 2003. Anglers may fish for comparison of macroinvertebrate recovery
BCT, but are strongly encouraged to use rates after rotenone and antimycin treatments.
catch-and-release techniques until the BCT
populations become sustainable. Acknowledgments
Neal Darby, biologist at Great Basin
Monitoring National Park, has provided on-going support
BCT monitoring first started in 2002 on for this project. A special thanks goes to our
the South Fork of Big Wash, where 56 BCT partners: Nevada Division of Wildlife, Bureau
had been reintroduced in July 2000. This of Land Management–Ely Office, Hum-
location was chosen because it had been fish- boldt–Toiyabe National Forest, Southern
less for at least 50 years, and aquatic surveys Nevada Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and
indicated plentiful nutrients and macroinver- many independent volunteers who have con-
tebrates to support BCT. tributed hundreds of hours to the park’s fish-
A population survey found 31 BCT in an eries program.
85-m two-pass depletion survey. Two groups
of fish were found: those longer than 160 mm,
and those between 60–110 mm. The lack of
fish in the 110–160 mm range is not fully

97
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Estimating Project-Specific Restoration Costs

Terri Thomas, Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129; tthomas@pre-
sidiotrust.gov
Garrett Lee, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Building 201 Fort Mason, San Francisco,
California 94123; garrett_lee@nps.gov
Anna Fenton-Hathaway, Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129;
afenton-hathaway@presidiotrust.gov

Introduction
Golden Gate National Recreation Area has planned and implemented restoration projects for
the past 25 years, accumulating a greater understanding about restoration tasks and costs over
this time. One lesson learned is that restoration costs are typically underestimated because they
fail to address necessary maintenance costs. Often, hidden costs such as plant propagation or
transportation are not fully realized until project implementation.
Accurate cost estimation is important for teers by documenting restoration and propa-
several reasons, including determining neces- gation techniques and methods.
sary replacement costs when mitigation is The initial section of the restoration data-
required, making accurate funding requests base, called “work performed,” took three
for projects, and drawing cost comparisons months to develop and two years in practice
between the National Park Service (NPS) and before becoming fully functional and widely
commercial vendors. This final reason is used by field staff. It was originally developed
becoming more pressing due to the current in Microsoft Access Version 2 and was con-
NPS trend toward outsourcing and contract verted to Microsoft Access 97 in 2000.
support, which are often seen as cost-saving Sections on best management practices, mon-
measures. itoring, and nursery activities have since been
added. This paper will focus on the database’s
Background work performed section.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area has The work performed section captures
the good fortune of a large and active volun- three types of data: hours spent working;
teer base to support restoration activities. activity type (e.g., mapping, planting, remov-
Volunteer programs in habitat restoration ing exotic plants, seeding, installing irrigation,
began in 1983 and have grown to levels of installing erosion control, or monitoring); and
200,000 volunteer-hours per year in natural work group type (e.g., school groups, volun-
resources management alone. As volunteers teers, Americorps members, contractors, or
have become integral to the park’s restoration staff). All restoration field activities are docu-
efforts, it has become increasingly important mented by project site and date on standard-
to quantify the total effort required for restora- ized parkwide field forms. Due to the initial
tion projects—and to estimate the cost savings inconsistencies in documenting, the first few
volunteers provide. years of data are not as reliable as those from
The park’s restoration database was the last several years. Now that staff and vol-
designed in 1996. It had five main goals: to unteers understand the importance of the
better track the status of over 80 restoration database and are better practiced at data entry,
sites, to document the different types of work approximately 95% of the field work is docu-
conducted at each site, to document the habi- mented through the database.
tat restoration and monitoring work conduct-
ed by volunteers, to demonstrate tangible evi-
dence of the importance of volunteer support
Cost Estimating Using the
within the natural resources program, and to Restoration Database
NPS has used the database to get a better
enable communication among staff and volun-
98
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

grasp on the amount of field work required for conducted restoration projects and pro-
successful restoration. Data were analyzed and posed projects. With the recent revision of
compared for three restoration projects in the NPS funding call requirements, the data-
Presidio: the Feral Dunes restoration, the base serves a vital new role: to conduct
Crissy Marsh restoration, and the Inspiration cost comparisons between proposed proj-
Point viewshed enhancement project. Field ects and completed projects of similar
implementation costs were estimated using scope and scale. For the fiscal year
average unit costs for staff time based on cur- 2004–2006 servicewide funding call, the
rent (fiscal year 2003) salary scales and an database’s cost tracking analyses were
approximated constant to determine the value used to estimate the cost of a proposed
of volunteer time (1/2x = y, where x is the project in a similar habitat type. By adding
amount of work a typical staff completes, y is current fee schedules from outside con-
the amount of work a typical volunteer com- tractors to the equation, in-house restora-
pletes, and 1/2 is the approximated constant). tion costs can be compared fairly with out-
This cost tracking has realized several data- sourcing costs. Conducting this type of
base goals, including: cost-effectiveness analysis will become
increasingly important as the NPS begins
• Ascertaining the differences in cost outsourcing the work that is currently con-
between habitat types. From restoration ducted in-house.
database analysis, we were able to docu- • Estimating the value of volunteers to the
ment an approximate 2:7 cost ratio park. The estimated value of the work con-
between restoration in dune scrub habitat ducted by volunteers in is now being offi-
(the Feral Dunes and Crissy Field proj- cially quantified and recorded. The sav-
ects) and restoration in serpentine grass- ings in field work from volunteers is sub-
land habitat (the Inspiration Point proj- stantial, ranging from 20% to 70% in the
ect). This is attributable to the differences three analyzed projects.
in soil substrates: dune sand soils are gen-
erally uncompacted and easy to work in, Restoration Tasks
while serpentine soils are more consolidat- Not in the Database
ed, making the work more difficult. The restoration database only documents
(Serpentine soils often include bedrock and estimates costs for work performed in the
conditions, further complicating the plant- field. Identifying all other project tasks and
ing.) costs is an important next step. These addi-
• Documenting follow-up maintenance tional activities might include planning, site
needs after restoration. The data reflect analysis, compliance, contracts, public out-
both how intensive maintenance is reach, project management, seed collection
required in the initial years after restora- and propagation, data entry, reporting, sup-
tion, and the decreasing yet essential need plies, and equipment. A restoration costs work-
for maintenance over time. Analysis of the sheet is being developed to capture all the
Feral Dunes project suggests that mainte- potential elements of a restoration project,
nance costs peak in the first two to three from inception through implementation and
years after initial restoration, but persist maintenance (Table 1).
over time in decreasing amounts. The ana- The comprehensive restoration worksheet
lyzed projects were all implemented with- comprises over 70 tasks, and is designed to
in the last seven years, and continue to address hidden costs up front. It is divided
show maintenance needs to differing into eight main sections: general planning,
extents. One project in the park at Milagra site-specific planning, project compliance,
Ridge was only considered stable after pre-implementation, project outreach and
about 15 years. education strategy, implementation, mainte-
• Making comparisons between previously nance, and monitoring and analysis. Subtasks
99
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Table 1. Comprehensive restoration worksheet

100
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Table 1 (Continued)

can easily be left in broader categories or ment access difficulties, or limited access
described in more detail. The worksheet will to infrastructure such as roads or water.
be continually refined in order to capture all • The size of a project, which is subject to
the elements of restoration. Additional economies of scale. The average cost per
research is necessary to develop accurate unit acre is lower for larger areas.
costs for many of the elements presented in • The complexity of a restoration, which
Table 1. affects costs depending on whether the
Although it demonstrates an attempt to project is one of habitat creation or
estimate costs objectively, the restoration costs enhancement.
worksheet still requires the subjective input of • Site quality and adjacent conditions,
an experienced individual who can assess staff which affect costs associated with invasive
competency and approximate hours worked. exotic plant control, trespassing, grazing,
The following factors can significantly influ- etc.
ence restoration costs, and are best addressed • Compliance issues, which can affect costs
by experienced staff: depending on the sensitivity of the natural
and cultural resources involved.
• The location of a project, which affects • Prior experience and knowledge in the
costs depending on travel involved, equip- type of plant community being restored,
101
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

which influences the efficiency of the proj- restoration work. Volunteer work may gain
ect. more prominence as a cost-saving measure in
• Multiple-use factors such as bisecting these future analyses, and the database will
trails, which can increase project costs. prove invaluable in these comparisons, as it
has helped quantify the monetary value of vol-
Conclusion unteer work conducted in the park.
Using the database to track restoration Although it supplies vital information in
projects in Golden Gate National Recreation terms of simple cost comparisons, the scope of
Area has yielded valuable insights into under- the restoration database remains limited. It
standing project cost variations and accurate only covers some pieces of the restoration
cost estimating, including habitat type factors, puzzle, and requires intense effort to develop
post-restoration needs, and maintenance. It and maintain. A more complete picture of
has also been a useful tool in making cost com- restoration costs is still needed. Developing
parisons for proposed projects. Using the detailed, park-specific restoration cost work-
database to analyze and compare cost effec- sheets may be a more realistic solution for
tiveness will become even more important as parks across the country.
NPS faces new decisions about outsourcing

102
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

Restoration of Oak Island Sandscape,

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
Julie Van Stappen, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Route 1, Box 4, Bayfield, Wisconsin
54814; julie_van_stappen@nps.gov
Tony Bush, Natural Resource Conservation Service, P.O. Box 365, Oneida, Wisconsin 54155;
tony.bush@wi.usda.gov
David Burgdorf, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Rose Lake Plant Materials Center,
7472 Stoll Road, East Lansing, Michigan 48823; dave.burgdorf@mi.usda.gov

Introduction
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, located in far northwestern Wisconsin, includes 21
islands and a mainland strip set in a matrix of Lake Superior. The islands range in size from 3 to
10,000 acres. The lakeshore is 42,000 acres in land area. Oak Island is 5,000 acres in size and
has the highest elevation of the Apostle Islands.
Apostle Island sandscapes include a wide impact, and long-term trends in sandscape
diversity of coastal features and are among the geomorphology.
highest quality in the Great Lakes. The Oak Island sandscape is a cuspate
Sandscapes within the lakeshore include foreland 1.6 acres in size. It has had a long his-
sandspits, cuspate forelands, tombolos, a bar- tory of human use, dating back to the 1850s. It
rier spit, and numerous beaches. Four of the was the location of the earliest settlement in
lakeshore’s sandscapes comprise Wisconsin’s the Apostle Islands and one of the earliest
Sandscape State Natural Area. These areas episodes of logging. Oak Island’s sandscape is
include the Outer Island sandspit, Stockton currently a very popular visitor-use area for
Island tombolo, and Rocky and Raspberry both camping and day-use and is on a popular
islands’ cuspate forelands. The sandscapes kayak route. There is both an individual and
within the national lakeshore are very popular group campsite adjacent to the sandscape.
visitor-use areas for both day and overnight Monitoring results over a ten-year period
use and are among the few places available for (1988–1998) indicated that Oak Island’s
boats to access the islands. Sandscape vegeta- sandscape was the most threatened of the
tion is, however, very sensitive to trampling. park’s sandscapes and in need of restoration.
Sandscape monitoring, part of the park’s Over the ten-year period, there was a steady
long-term monitoring program, began in decrease in vegetative cover, an increase in
1988. All seventeen of the park’s significant vegetative litter, and an increase in exotic
sandscapes are regularly monitored. species abundance. The abundance of exotic
Monitoring of each sandscape is done every species, already very high compared with
three to five years, depending on visitor-use other park sandscapes, increased from 15% to
levels at each site. Monitoring includes vegeta- over 30%. Exotic species composition on
tion monitoring using the point step method most of the sandscapes is less than 5%, and
and mapping of the sandscape and trails using some of the sandscapes have less than 1%.
a GPS (global positioning system). Vegetation The Oak Island sandscape also offered an
monitoring enables the park to determine excellent opportunity as a pilot location to test
trends in basal cover and species composition methods and restoration techniques due to its
of individual species, as well as percent bare level of historic and current disturbances and
ground, percent vegetative litter, percent total small size.
vegetation, and percentage of exotic species. Objectives of the restoration effort includ-
Mapping of the sandscape and trails enables ed: (1) determining the best techniques for
the park to determine trends in informal trail restoring native species, including determin-
length and width, a measure of direct visitor ing the feasibility of gathering, propagating,
103
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

and establishing site-specific plant materials; many as eighteen people at any one time
(2) restoring vegetative species composition, assisted with the planting, enabling a large
diversity, and cover; (3) reducing the total per- number of plants to be planted quickly.
centage and cover of exotic species; and (4) Although restoration occurred throughout the
developing protocols to guide future restora- sandscape, most of the planting focused on
tion efforts. bare areas. Distance between plants in these
areas ranged from one to two feet. In ten of the
Methods heavily planted areas, 20 randomly placed
In 2000, funding was obtained from both 1x1-m monitoring plots were established.
the National Park Service’s (NPS’s) dis- Data collected for each plot included the num-
turbed-lands restoration program and the ber of plants, aerial cover by species, and per-
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) cent of bare ground and vegetative litter.
Great Lakes Coastal Program. An interagency In addition to planting native species, the
agreement was developed with the Natural most abundant exotic species on the sand-
Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS’s) scape, orange hawkweed (Hieracium auranti-
Rose Lake Plant Materials Center in Rose acum), was treated using both manual and
Lake, Michigan, to utilize NRCS’s technical chemical control. Plots (20x20 ft) were estab-
expertise in restoration. NRCS gathered lished to determine the effectiveness of both
native plant materials and began to propagate techniques. The sandscape and all monitoring
fifteen species. were also mapped utilizing a global position-
During 2001, additional floating board- ing system (GPS).
walk was installed. Floating boardwalks are Some of the challenges included harsh
made of wooden boards drilled through their planting conditions and inaccessibility. The
ends and connected with a stringer of cable. impacted areas were nearly pure sand, having
The boardwalk lies directly on the sand, fol- lost the thin layer of vegetative litter that pro-
lowing natural contours, and can be laid vides some protection to plants in non-
straight or curved. These boardwalks have impacted areas of the sandscape. Although the
been very effective in directing visitor traffic plants were well watered during planting, it
on sandscapes. Restoration signs were also was not feasible to water after planting.
installed to minimize visitor traffic on the Logistics are always a challenge in the Apostle
sandscape and to inform visitors of the Islands. Weather conditions on Lake Superior
restoration effort. are the determining factor as to whether or not
Eighteen plots were established to deter- work can be accomplished. Oak Island is 5.5
mine how well propagated plants could be miles from the mainland. The number of
established and the effect of various lighting plants and people involved required numer-
conditions. A set number of plants of nine dif- ous trips, and the sandscape is only accessible
ferent species were planted. Seven of the plots during fairly calm conditions and favorable
were in sun, seven in partial sun, and four in wind directions.
shady conditions. The plots were monitored
during the fall of 2001 and in spring, summer, Results
and fall of 2002. Data collected for each plot The plots established in 2001 were used
included survival, colonization, and vigor. to determine how well propagated plants had
During 2002, on-site restoration become established on the sandscape and the
occurred, with the primary effort coming in effect of various lighting conditions on sur-
late May. More than 3,200 propagated plants vival. Under ideal conditions, planting would
of fifteen species were planted. The restora- have been done in late May or early June to
tion was very much a cooperative effort take advantage of cooler, moister conditions.
between park staff, NRCS (which provided Because of schedule conflicts, the 2001 plots
plants and technical guidance), and a were not established until early July. Even
Northland College field ecology class. As under these harsher conditions, plant survival
104
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

rate during the first season was 85% under under various light conditions was also ana-
shady conditions and 50% under conditions lyzed. Results based on both plant count and
of partial or full sun. During 2002, the survival percent aerial cover indicate that the planted
rate remained similar in plots exposed to par- native species had the best competitive advan-
tial or fall sun. However, plants under shady tage under partially sunny conditions, non-
conditions dramatically increased, especially planted natives under sunny conditions, and
common horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Of non-natives under sunny conditions. Overall,
the nine species planted, six increased during planted native species did better than non-
the second (2002) season; these were native species under all lighting conditions.
Equisetum arvense, Vaccinium angustifolium, This information will be useful in planning
Rosa blanda, Carex pensylvanica, Anaphalis restoration projects on sites with a similar
margaritacea, and Elymus canadensis. Both species composition by helping to determine
Equisetum arvense and Vaccinium angustifoli- which areas may have a greater problem with
um began spreading. Two species, Juniperus non-native species. The species which most
communis and Fragaria virginiana, influenced these results were non-native Poa
decreased. The only species that did not compressa and Agropyron repens, non-planted
become established was Aristida dichotoma. native Ammophila breviligulata and Carex
Some species that were somewhat difficult pensylvanica, and planted native Ammophila
to grow in the greenhouse, such as Vaccinium breviligulata and Anaphalis margaritacea.
angustifolium and Rosa blanda, did well on-
site. Other species, such as Fragaria virgini- Discussion
ana and Anaphalis margaritacea, were easy to Preliminary results from both sets of mon-
growth in the greenhouse, but had a lower itoring plots were encouraging and indicate
success rate after transplanting. that plants propagated from local plant mate-
The 2002 plots were established to deter- rial could be established successfully and were
mine the effectiveness of the restoration effort. effective in increasing the native plant popula-
Current results are preliminary, since they can tion. Results also showed a greater increase in
only provide information on how well plants both number of plants and aerial coverage of
had become established by the end of the first native species as compared with non-native
growing season. To enable the park to deter- species. On plots established to determine the
mine how well this restoration effort worked effectiveness of hand-pulling hawkweed com-
over the longer term, future monitoring will be pared with chemical treatment, preliminary
critical. results indicate that hand-pulling is more
The 2002 plot data were analyzed by effective. In an area as small as the Oak Island
grouping results using the following compo- sandscape (1.6 acres), hand-pulling may be
nents: planted natives (greenhouse-propagat- feasible; however, that may not be the case in
ed material), non-planted natives, and non- larger areas due to the amount of labor
native. By the end of the first growing season, involved. As discussed above, future monitor-
results were encouraging and indicated that ing will be important to determine the overall
native species, especially planted natives, were success of restoration.
filling in at a higher rate than non-natives. Lessons learned were: (1) late May or early
When analyzing changes in plant count, non- June are better planting times, because of
native species increased 43%, as compared cooler, moister conditions; (2) watering plants
with an increase of 108% for non-planted at the time of planting is important; (3) plants
natives, and 241% for planted natives. in peat pots tended to pop up when planted in
Changes in percent aerial cover showed a sand; and (4) deer seemed to be attracted to
decrease in non-natives, as well as bare perlite, pulling out the plants, but not eating
ground, compared with increases in both them. This project was an excellent example
planted and non-planted native species. of one that greatly benefited from having a
The response of each plant component large number of people working together over
105
 Countering Invasives, Restoring Natives

a short period of time, enabling plants to be propagating native plants. Dr. Douglas Smith
put in the ground quickly. and his field ecology class from Northland
College, Ashland, Wisconsin, provided
Acknowledgments invaluable assistance during on-site restora-
This project was funded by both tion. We would also like to thank Ted Koehler
USFWS’s Great Lakes Coastal Program and of USFWS; John Rissler and Tom Cogger of
the NPS Geology Division’s disturbed-lands NRCS; and John Pavkovich, Eric Peterson,
program. NRCS’s Rose Lake Plant Materials Mike Ramirez, Sarah Johnson, Julie Kroll, and
Center in East Lansing, Michigan, provided Heather Quint of Apostle Islands National
technical expertise, as well as collecting and Lakeshore.

106
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Tools of the Trade:

How Protected Area Managers Can Protect Our Night Sky
Elizabeth M. Alvarez del Castillo, International Dark-Sky Association, 3225 North First
Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85719; ida@darksky.org
David L. Crawford, International Dark-Sky Association, 3225 North First Avenue, Tucson,
Arizona 85719; ida@darksky.org
Keith J. Krueger, International Dark-Sky Association, 3225 North First Avenue, Tucson,
Arizona 85719; ida@darksky.org

Introduction
Night is a vital part of our environment, worthy of preservation just as any other natural or
cultural resource. It involves both the night around us and the view we have of the stars and the
universe in which we live.
Today, two-thirds of the USA’s population nal threats to these resources, managers must
live where they no longer have naked-eye visi- work collaboratively with nearby communi-
bility of the Milky Way (Cinzano 2001). The ties.
current generations are the first in history to The benefits of better lighting practices
grow up without the awe-inspiring view of a offer communities practical reasons to sup-
canopy of stars above their heads. Over the port improved lighting. Resultant economic
millennia, this view inspired art, music, poet- savings and improved property values, for
ry, folklore, science, technology, and so much example, augment the motivation for and sup-
of our culture. The grandeur of the stars chal- port the goal of resource protection.
lenges us to explore and invites us to ponder Communities care about this issue and
our place in the universe. It is an essential part addressing it means identifying community
of our very nature as well as our culture. As values, priorities, and shared interests, thus
important in our history as it is integral to our laying essential groundwork for building rela-
future, it is our heritage. tionships.
Sky glow from low-quality outdoor light- Educating a community and developing a
ing robs us of that heritage. Fortunately, there consensus on outdoor lighting builds many
are straightforward, workable solutions. educated allies. Ordinances promote good
Improved practices will allow a functional, lighting and good business, limit obtrusive or
comfortable, and beautiful night-time environ- trespass lighting and sky glow, address com-
ment, one friendly to humans, wildlife, plants, munity issues, and help everyone see better.
and the night sky. To preserve and protect our Hundreds of communities and ten states
night-time environment, we must educate (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
people about the value of high-quality out- Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Texas,
door lighting. Virginia, and Wyoming) have adopted light-
ing regulations, and many more are consider-
Building Relationships with ing them. (Three countries, Australia, Chile,
Nearby Communities and the Czech Republic, have national-level
As leaders on environmental issues, pro- lighting regulations.)
tected area managers must help raise aware- • Better-quality lighting provides a better
ness and protect endangered resources. night-time ambiance that improves prop-
Similar to watersheds or air quality, our night erty values and quality of life and encour-
sky is affected by practices both inside and ages night-time activity, business, and a
outside of protected areas. To address exter- sense of community.
107
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
• Correcting low-quality lighting leads to Direct the light only where it is needed.
energy and economic savings for business- Light directed upward may light birds and
es and the community. clouds, but is that a useful purpose? It creates
• The improved visibility of better lighting much of our urban sky glow, the bane of
design promotes safety, security, and the astronomers and anyone wishing to enjoy the
utility of night-time activities. beauty of the night sky. Shield lights to pre-
Correcting low-quality lighting is clearly a vent direct uplight (wasted energy) and mini-
win–win proposition and a non-partisan mize glare. We should see the effect of the
issue. When protected area managers work light, not the source.
with communities on these issues it helps Unshielded luminaires create glare and
build the relationships so critical to long-last- highlight the source rather than the area to be
ing resource protection. illuminated. Glare is the sensation produced
by luminance within the visual field that is suf-
Good Lighting has Great Value ficiently greater than the luminance to which
Before lighting, one must ask: Why is the the eyes are adapted to cause annoyance, dis-
light needed? Is it needed? What is the task? comfort, or loss of visual performance and vis-
Driving a vehicle, walking up to a building, ibility—or simply, “blinding light.” The elder-
playing basketball, pumping gas, recognizing ly are particularly susceptible to glare. Glare
faces, and enjoying an evening stroll are very hinders visibility in the illuminated zone so it
different tasks with different lighting needs. is difficult to see obstacles or recognize faces,
Once one understands the task, use the right for example. Glare prevents our eyes from
amount of light, in the right place, at the right adapting to see into nearby areas, thus creat-
time, with energy-efficient sources. ing insecure situations. Criminals use glare to
Use levels of lighting that are rational for their advantage, hiding in shadows before
the task, not too much or too little. The using the bright light to act quickly. Shielded
Illuminating Engineering Society of North luminaires with rational lighting levels allow
America publishes recommended practices us to see better by reducing glare, thus
for lighting design, including appropriate improving visibility and promoting safety and
lighting levels for specific tasks. Problems security. Good outdoor lighting design should
arise when installations use 5, 10, and even minimize glare.
100 times the recommended levels. That not Good lighting design guides us by helping
only creates waste, but poor visibility and us identify where to go and what to avoid. Too
insecure situations. much low-quality lighting creates clutter and
Appropriate lighting levels take into confusion, ruining the night-time ambience
account lighting levels in the surrounding rather than adding to its value.
environment. While our eyes can see over a Light that shines where it is not wanted or
wide range of lighting levels, they need time to needed is “obtrusive” or “trespass” light.
adapt to changing levels. The adaptation time Street lighting, for example, should light the
is longer when going from bright to dark (than streets, not the interior of houses or neighbor-
vice versa) and increases as the eye ages ing ecosystems. Light trespass occurs when-
(International Dark-Sky Association {IDA} ever the light shines beyond the intended tar-
information sheet nos. 136 and 156). Good get and onto adjacent properties. It can be
lighting design provides reasonable transi- annoying; it wastes energy; it can adversely
tions between the brightest and darkest areas, affect neighboring ecosystems.
allowing our eyes to adapt so we see better in Use light only when it is needed. Turn
all areas. The solution is not to raise lighting lights off when activity ceases, or change light-
levels in all darker areas but to use rational lev- ing levels if the activity changes after a certain
els in brighter areas. Rational lighting levels time. Effective technologies include motion
improve visibility. Too much light wastes sensors, dimmers, and multi-level lighting.
energy and can hinder visibility. When the light is not being used, it is being
108
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

wasted. comfortable ambience from the historical fix-

Wasted light wastes energy and money. tures plus good visibility from the shielded
The operating cost of a light fixture over its fixtures.
lifetime is significant, especially when com- Low-quality lighting has crept up on us,
pared with the initial cost of the lighting fix- but there are straightforward technological
ture or lamp. In the USA, the waste adds up to and social solutions that offer significant cost
more than $1 billion a year, or an annual waste savings. Shielded luminaires can improve effi-
of at least 6 million tons of coal or 23 million ciency and offer better visibility. Lighting
barrels of oil (IDA information sheet no. 26). practices are improving. Good design requires
Wasted energy uses limited, precious asking, “Do we need the light, and why?”
resources and produces unnecessary environ- Then we must use rational lighting levels,
mental pollution. direct the light only where needed, use the
Light pollution is a form of pollution that light only when needed, and use energy-effi-
costs us more to continue than to stop. cient sources. With better lighting we improve
Premcor oil refinery in Texas found that visibility, promote safety and security, con-
shielding and lowering wattages in 20,000 serve energy, and preserve our night-time
unshielded fixtures saves more than $350,000 environment.
annually (at the low, bulk energy rates of 3.3
cents per kilowatt hour that they receive) and Photobiology: Health and Wildlife
improves the visibility in the facility while Life on our planet evolved with a daily,
meeting Occupational Safety and Health monthly, and seasonal cycle. We need periods
Administration (OSHA) standards (Taylor of both light and dark. These cycles strongly
2003). Shielding the lights improved visibility affect patterns of behavior and changing them
by minimizing glare. Shields redirect more of can affect wildlife behavior and survival in
the lamp source’s light in the direction need- numerous ways. The alteration or extension of
ed; they put more light where it is needed so the length of the day can diminish habitat
one can reduce the lamp wattage and save function, such as providing shelter or food.
energy while maintaining the illumination lev- Light alters predation habits and effectiveness.
els that existed before the shielding. It affects reproductive patterns and natural
In the last few years, the diversity of well- diurnal rhythms. Natural, predictable light
shielded lighting fixtures and energy-efficient regulates natural processes (Falzon and
technologies has improved dramatically. A Bonnici 2001).
helpful sampling is illustrated in the IDA’s Circadian rhythm is a powerful one for all
“Good lighting fixtures and where to get wildlife and for humans. For example, during
them” web-based tables. In May 2003, 70 dark hours, many organisms produce the hor-
manufacturers and well over 150 fixtures were mone melatonin. Melatonin has been linked to
represented in 21 categories. Many architec- the immune response. Exposure to small
tural styles are available, including period amounts of light suppresses melatonin pro-
lighting now available in better-shielded ver- duction. Light at the wrong time can stimulate
sions that mimic historical styles but offer bet- jet lag and sleep disorders. Our day/night
ter light control and less glare. cycle is ingrained, and changing it stresses our
Unshielded, historical fixtures (e.g. systems (Pauley 2001).
globes, post-tops) are beautiful in the daytime, As with noise pollution, obtrusive light
but usually become “glare bombs” at night. also can cause stress. Our systems need a
The new, shielded versions are one alterna- break. To maintain health, balance, and the
tive. Another is to use lower lighting levels in ecological integrity of systems, we need both
these historical fixtures while providing the adequate, natural light during the day and
majority of illumination from supplemental, darkness at night.
energy-efficient, shielded luminaires in unob-
trusive locations. The pedestrian enjoys a soft,
109
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Raising Awareness Forum 18:4, 20–24.

Incorporated in 1988, the IDA is a non- Alvarez del Castillo, E.M., D.L. Crawford,
profit educational and research organization and D.R. Davis. 2003. Preserving our
that addresses an environmental issue: the night-time environment: a global
preservation and protection of the night-time approach. In Astrophysics and Space
environment and our heritage of dark skies. Science Library 284, Hugo E. Schwarz,
Spanning 70 countries and every state in the ed. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
USA, its diverse membership includes organi- Academic Publishers, 49–68.
zations, city officials, lighting professionals, Cinzano, P., F. Falchi, and C.D. Elvidge. 2001.
architects, professional and amateur The first world atlas of the artificial night
astronomers, environmentalists, educators, sky brightness. Monthly Notices of the
and concerned members of the public. Their Royal Astronomical Society 328, 689–707.
combined expertise has created reliable infor- Falzon, A., and J.J. Bonnici. 2001. The nega-
mation on the diverse topics related to light tive effects of light pollution on the natural
pollution. The IDA offers educational activi- environment. Report to the Nature Trust
ties and outreach tools designed to raise (Malta).
awareness and promote solutions. As leaders Illuminating Engineering Society of North
in environmental awareness, protected area America. Handbook 2000, recommended
managers can help educate everyone about the practices, technical memoranda, design
value of our night-time environment and the guides, etc.. On-line at www.iesna.org.
benefits of improving our outdoor lighting. International Commission on Illumination.
Everyone benefits. technical reports, guides, standards, and
With growing awareness, many people are proceedings. On-line at
contributing to solutions. Lighting profes- www.cie.co.at/cie/.
sionals are rewriting recommended practices International Dark-Sky Association. Useful
to address related items such as glare, maxi- resources including good lighting fixtures
mum recommended illumination levels, and and where to get them, videos, presenta-
the effects of obtrusive light and sky glow. tions, outdoor lighting code handbook,
Manufacturers have responded to the demand and information sheets on many topics
for better-quality shielded fixtures. including energy, vision, environment,
Communities around the world are imple- security, education activities, etc. On-line
menting ordinances requiring environmental- at www.darksky.org.
ly responsible and economically sensible Pauley, S.M. 2001. Summary of IDA panel on
lighting practices. After all, good lighting has the physiological and pathological effects
great value. of exposure to light at night on humans.
IDA Conference in March 2001. Video
References and CD-ROM.
Alvarez del Castillo, E.M., and D.L. Taylor, K. 2003. Energy savings at Premcor.
Crawford. 2001. The value of dark skies IDA Conference Presentation, 21 March
and of high-quality night lighting—build- 2003. Video and CD-ROM.
ing public awareness. The George Wright

110
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

How Much Do Visitors Value Scenic Quality? Results from

the Blue Ridge Parkway Scenic Experience Project
Leah Greden Mathews, Department of Economics, C.P.O. 2110, University of North Carolina
at Asheville, 1 University Heights, Asheville, North Carolina 28804;
lmathews@bulldog.unca.edu
Susan Kask, Department of Business and Economics, Warren Wilson College, Asheville, North
Carolina 28815-9000; skask@warren-wilson.edu
Laura Rotegard, Blue Ridge Parkway, 199 Hemphill Knob Road, Asheville, North Carolina
28803; laura_rotegard@nps.gov
Gary Johnson, Blue Ridge Parkway, 199 Hemphill Knob Road, Asheville, North Carolina
28803; gary_w_johnson@nps.gov
Steven Stewart, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, P.O.
Box 210011, Harshbarger 118C, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0011; sstewart@hwr.arizona.edu

Introduction
National parks face difficult budget decisions. The reality of scarce budget resources implies
that parks need to maximize the benefits of their expenditures. Contributing to this difficulty is
the fact that the value of many national park resources and amenities are not priced in markets,
yet their maintenance has costs that managers, policy makers, and taxpayers must incur.
Nonmarket valuation is an economic tool that is used to estimate the value of goods and servic-
es that are not exchanged in the market, such as improved visibility, endangered species, scenic
quality, or ecosystem services (Mathews et al. 2001). The Blue Ridge Parkway Scenic
Experience Project uses nonmarket valuation to inform management decisions by helping park-
way managers learn the value of their most important resource: the scenic quality views along the
parkway.
visitors see from the parkway is changing.
The Blue Ridge They also know that scarce resources are
Parkway’s Challenge required for view preservation (using tech-
The Blue Ridge Parkway is a 469-mile niques such as purchase of conservation ease-
scenic motor road, a linear park connecting ments and land) or for vista clearing. What the
Shenandoah National Park in Virginia and parkway did not know before this study was
Great Smoky Mountains National Park in the benefit of view preservation, which views
Tennessee. In fiscal year 2002, the Blue Ridge visitors might be willing to lose, or if visitors
Parkway reported 21 million visitors. Previous would be willing to give up trails and camp-
research indicates that the primary reason sites in order to maintain or improve the sce-
people visit the parkway is to “see the views” nic quality along the parkway. In addition,
(Brothers and Chen 1997). On average, the managers need to know how changes in scenic
park is 800 ft wide, which implies that most of quality along the parkway will impact visita-
what visitors see from the Parkway isn’t under tion to the park. The Blue Ridge Parkway
the park’s control. The scenic views along the Scenic Experience Project was designed to
parkway are changing. Since 1948, 75% of answer these questions for park managers.
farmlands along the parkway have changed to
alternative uses (USDA 1997); for example, Results from the Scenic
some rural valleys have filled in with manufac- Experience Project
turing, and private campgrounds now occupy There are two phases to the project. Phase
what were formerly farm fields. I was implemented in the southwest Virginia
Blue Ridge Parkway managers know that section of the parkway in 2000. This section
visitors come to see the views, and that what of the parkway, in an agricultural plateau, is
111
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
particularly at risk for scenic quality change all overlook views degrade to low quality, they
and thus was selected for research priority. will lose $359 in satisfaction from their visit.
Phase II was implemented in the northern Similarly, if all roadside views degrade to low
North Carolina section during 2002; those quality, $240 is the value of the lost satisfac-
results are pending. tion that the average visitor will incur. If all
The remainder of the paper outlines the amenities (including roadside and overlook
results from Phase I of the study. A complete views, number of overlooks, miles of hiking
discussion of the specific methods used and trails, and the number and condition of activi-
the full set of results are available in the final ty areas) degrade to the lowest feasible condi-
report (Kask et al. 2002), which is available tion, the average visitor will incur a satisfaction
from a link to the parkway’s website. The sur- loss of $1,014. In other words, the value that
vey was implemented at Mabry Mill, the most the average visitor puts on this deterioration is
visited activity area on the southwest Virginia $1,014. Knowing that there are approximately
section of the parkway, over several days dur- 7.6 million visitors to this section of the
ing summer and fall 2000. To avoid overbur- Parkway each year, the total loss in satisfaction
dening each respondent, we used a split-sam- from a decrease in all amenities from current
ple design that accommodated three slightly to low quality is $7.7 billion. In particular, the
different versions of the survey, which were lost satisfaction that would accrue to visitors
randomly assigned to respondents. The sur- in this section of the Parkway if overlook view
vey was implemented using laptop computers quality degraded from current to low quality is
with a paper version offered as a backup. Over approximately a third of this, or $2.7 billion.
860 observations were collected. The aggregate value of lost satisfaction when
Scenic Experience Project results general- roadside view quality declines is $1.8 billion.
ly correspond to two management questions; How will satisfaction be improved if
each provides a distinct opportunity for visi- Parkway amenities improve? Our results indi-
tors to express the value of their experience. cate that the gain in satisfaction to the average
The first of these is, if the Blue Ridge Parkway visitor is equal to $53 if overlook scenic quali-
changes, what is the value that visitors put on ty increases from current to high quality, and
this change? We use the nonmarket valuation $116 if roadside scenic quality is increased. If
method of choice modeling to provide a vehi- the number and condition of activity areas
cle for respondents to indicate the value of the increases to the highest feasible quality level,
satisfaction of their visit (Mathews et al. then respondents indicated their satisfaction
2001). In other words, respondents directly increase will be valued at $396. For an
indicate the value that they put on the deterio- increase in all amenities, the average visitor
ration (or improvement) of the Blue Ridge incurs a satisfaction gain of $584. Aggregating
Parkway. The second management question these numbers to reflect the total number of
that the study answers is, how will visits visitors implies that $402 million is the gain in
change if scenic quality changes? This allows satisfaction that will occur from improving
visitors to indicate how they will behave if the overlook scenic quality; and $881 million is
views change (something economists call con- the gain in satisfaction that will occur if road-
tingent behavior analysis); this allows us to side scenic quality occurs. Overall, if all park-
estimate the potential economic impact of way amenities improve, visitors to this section
changing views, which is of interest to com- would experience a $4.4 billion increase in
munities along the Parkway. satisfaction.
With respect to the first question—if the These numbers have policy implications
Blue Ridge Parkway changes, what is the value for the parkway. For example, let’s say that we
that visitors put on this change?—respondents know the cost of preserving roadside view
indicated that a decrease in parkway amenities quality is $1 billion. We can compare this with
will imply significant losses in satisfaction. For the benefits that visitors stated they would
example, on average visitors indicated that if lose if this preservation does not occur, which
112
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

is $1.8 billion. This yields a net benefit of $0.8 itors are very satisfied with the Parkway, and
billion, which from an economic perspective that a decline in Parkway amenities will lead to
implies that this is a wise investment. On the significant loss in visitor satisfaction. Visitors
other hand, if we know that the cost of increas- value improvements in Parkway amenities
ing overlook view quality is $1 billion, com- such as views and activity areas, but greater
paring this with the benefits that visitors are return on investments will occur if the
willing to pay to experience improvements in Parkway spends its money on maintaining
overlook scenic quality, $402 million, yields a current quality rather than improving ameni-
net cost of $598 million. This would not be a ties. This makes sense given that respondents
wise investment of parkway funds. indicated they are currently very satisfied with
The second general question addressed in the scenic quality along the Parkway. Visitors
this research is, how will visits change if scenic are very loyal to the Parkway, and they do not
quality changes? On average, visitors report want to see scenic quality decline. However,
making 2.5 trips to this section of the Parkway they will continue to visit even if some scenic
per year, and indicated they would visit more quality declines occur. Visitor expenditures in
in the following year (2001)—on average 4.7 local communities may not actually decrease
trips per year—if there were no changes in sce- with small changes in view quality, but the
nic quality. A majority of respondents to this growth in future expenditures will slow if view
question (87%) indicated they would change quality along the Parkway declines.
the number of visits they make if scenic quali-
ty changes; however, less than half of all How Are These Results
respondents will reduce their visits with sce- Being Used by the Parkway?
nic quality decline. With a small decline in The Blue Ridge Parkway is incorporating
scenic quality, 31% will visit less; with a larger the results of the Scenic Experience Project
decline in scenic quality, 41% will take fewer into their management activities in several
visits. If scenic quality increases, 34% of ways. In the first-ever parkway general man-
respondents stated they will visit more fre- agement plan, results are used to calculate
quently. Interestingly, with some scenic quali- impacts of adding or deleting overlooks and to
ty decline, visitors stated they would still document public support for preservation of
increase their visits next year compared with views identified in the scoping phase. In the
this year—3.1 trips up from 2.5—but this rep- park’s business plan, results justify position
resents a decline from their stated increase in management and operational funding system
visits to 4.7 trips. In other words, the growth requests, and help to describe strategies and
in visitation slows as a result of scenic quality priorities for future protection. To report on
decline. If more scenic quality decline occurs, the Government Performance and Results Act
there is a stated reduction in visits, from 2.5 goal 1A (“natural and cultural resources and
trips to 1.3 trips. This implies that the decline associated values are protected, restored, and
in visitation is not directly proportional to a maintained in good condition and managed
decline in scenic quality. With scenic quality within the broader ecosystem or cultural con-
increases, there is very little increase in visita- text”), economic values are used to describe
tion over the stated increase in visits expected the success of vista clearing contracts and park
for next year: 5.5 trips with significant scenic protection efforts to preserve views. To
quality improvement compared with 4.7 stat- encourage the use of park monies to clear vis-
ed trips in 2001. Of course, these trips yield tas and maintain overlooks in competition
spending in the communities adjacent to the with maintenance and ranger division
Parkway, and expenditures will change as visi- requests, Scenic Experience Project results
tation changes (see Kask et al. 2002 for are used to leverage support. The results have
detailed estimates of these changes under var- also led to project management information
ious scenarios). system statements for vista clearing.
The overall study conclusions are that vis- Comparing the Scenic Experience results on
113
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
visitor satisfaction with the 2000, 2001 and promote greater understanding of the need for
2002 Visitor Satisfaction Survey Card results, increased funding for conservation easements
concurrence suggests where to make improve- along the parkway, both through private dona-
ments relative to other park assets. Within the tions and federal appropriations. In addition,
park’s land protection program, these results will be shared with 8 affiliated part-
research results add value to priority parcels, ners, in National Park Service seasonal train-
and strengthen justification for an increased ing, with 5 park concessionaires, and with 15
budget for conservation easements and land state and federal partners in various forums
acquisition. In addition, the parkway is evalu- during spring 2003.
ating an Adopt-an-Overlook Program to con-
nect local residents who appreciate individual Conclusions and Implications
views and overlooks to join the park in their Economic studies using nonmarket valua-
stewardship. The Scenic Experience Project tion can be used to improve park management
results can help the parkway to identify which decisions (Turner 2000). In the case of the
overlooks are particularly important to visi- Blue Ridge Parkway Scenic Experience
tors. In sum, these research results add statis- Project, this means the parkway should con-
tical weight to management plans—justifica- centrate on maintaining scenic quality rather
tion which was previously undocumented or than improving conditions in the southwest
absent. Virginia section. Results for the northern
North Carolina section, which is visually dis-
How Are These Results Being tinct from southwest Virginia, may have differ-
Communicated to the Communities ent implications; those results are anticipated
Adjacent to the Parkway? by the end of 2003.
The parkway is creating a series of 44 one- Each park faces different issues and thus it
page profile sheets on each county and munic- is likely that custom-designed nonmarket val-
ipal jurisdiction and will add information uation studies will be most helpful to park
about the Scenic Experience Project. These managers. The nonmarket valuation method-
profile sheets are posted to the park’s elec- ology is flexible and can be modified to cap-
tronic directory for the planners in adjacent ture information about values and trade-offs
communities to review. At regularly scheduled that are relevant to each park. For example, if
meetings of six of seventeen regional planning wilderness character is particularly important
organizations along the parkway, park officials to visitors in your park, a nonmarket valuation
are presenting the results to elected officials study could be designed to estimate the value
and staff. These organizations include of wilderness character. However, since non-
Planning District Councils 3, 4, 5, and 12 in market valuation studies are expensive—in
Virginia and Councils of Government B and terms of both dollars and time it takes to
D in North Carolina. design, conduct, and incorporate a study into
A parkway press release was sent to 25 a park’s management plan—it may be that the
newspaper and media contacts, and 8 con- most significant constraint to using nonmarket
gressional offices. Follow-up articles were valuation studies to improve park manage-
published in several newspapers, including ment is finding the resources required to con-
those in Roanoke Virginia, and in Brevard, duct the study in the first place. Recent work
Blowing Rock, and North Wilkesboro, North on the transfer of benefits conducted in one
Carolina. Park officials will present the results study to another study area may help (Smith et
of the Scenic Experience Project at the 2003 al. 2002), though for parks with unique
American Planning Association Summer resources there may not be sufficient substi-
Institute in western North Carolina, a confer- tutability for effective use of this transfer tech-
ence for elected officials, planners, and munic- nique.
ipal and county staff. Results will be also
shared with three associated land trusts to
114
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

References Boundaries in Park Management:

Brothers, G., and R.J.C. Chen. 1997. 1995–6 Proceedings of the 11th Conference on
Economic Impact of Travel to the Blue Research and Resource Management in
Ridge Parkway: Virginia and North Parks and on Public Lands. David
Carolina. Asheville, N.C., and Roanoke, Harmon, ed. Hancock, Mich.: The
Va.: The Coalition for the Blue Ridge George Wright Society, 326–331.
Parkway and the National Park Service. Turner, R.W. 2000. Managing multiple activi-
Kask, Susan, Leah Greden Mathews, Steven ties in a national park. Land Economics
Stewart, and Laura Rotegard. 2002. Blue 76:3, 474–485.
Ridge Parkway Scenic Experience Project Smith, V. Kerry, George Van Houtven, and
final report. On-line at www.nps.gov/blri Subhrendu K. Pattanayak. 2002. Benefit
> Facts/Docs > Experience Project transfer via preference calibration: “pru-
Results. dential algebra” for policy. Land
Mathews, Leah Greden, Susan Kask, Laura Economics 78:1, 132–152.
Rotegard, and Steven Stewart. 2001. USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Using economics to inform national park National Agricultural Statistics Service].
management decisions: a case study on 1997. Census of Agriculture. Washington,
the Blue Ridge Parkway. In Crossing D.C.: USDA.

115
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Integration of Social Science into Protected Area

Stewardship: Challenges and Opportunities
Stephen F. McCool, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812;
smcool@forestry.umt.edu

Introduction
That the stewardship of protected areas remains a contentious and challenging task is not
news to any manager, scientist, or citizen confronting the complex, contentious, and often con-
fusing realities of stewardship today. Protected areas exist within a social and political dynamic
that is as difficult to understand and predict as any situation. A variety of threats and relation-
ships that are complex, often obscure, and involve a wide variety of forces at different scales, lead-
ing to consequences at later times and other places, challenge even the most competent park
steward. Increasing calls for science-based decision-making are centered at least partly on the
argument that science can provide meaningful information upon which policy is formulated and
decisions are made. Indeed, a number of commissions and reports over at least the last 40 years
have recommended increased attention to the sciences by the National Park Service (NPS) in
order to better understand the values and processes protected within the National Park System
(e.g., the Advisory Board on Wildlife Management chaired by A. Starker Leopold).
The social sciences are one of the scientif- From the early focus on recreation, the
ic legs upon which successful protected area social sciences have expanded to assist in a
stewardship relies. This stewardship involves broader arena of stewardship issues. And yet,
decisions that protect, enhance, or restore not despite the potential for improving the quality
only the values for which parks, wilderness, of stewardship, substantial barriers to the
and other types of protected areas are estab- social sciences remain. In this paper, I wish to
lished, but also the degree of care and concern discuss the major challenges facing use of
for the people and communities that are social science research. In doing so, I will
inevitably linked to and affected by steward- specifically discuss the criticism that the social
ship decisions. The social sciences help stew- sciences are “subjective” and therefore not
ardship by creating knowledge concerning the credible sources of knowledge. I then suggest
values protected, the decision processes used the potential of the social sciences to address
in stewardship, the beliefs people hold by six fundamental areas of protected area stew-
these values, and recreation opportunities and ardship.
the connections people and communities hold
with parks and other protected areas. The Research Applications System
Originally, much of the social science Social science research, like other forms of
involving protected areas was focused on cre- science, exists within a complex, interactive
ating a scientific base for management of visi- and vibrant social and institutional system that
tors. This was critically important, for in the involves scientists, managers, and technology
very early 1960s there were cries that the transfer specialists working for agencies that
national parks were increasingly crowded and have both responsibilities and agendas. This
not meeting the expectations held by visitors. system, represented as shown in Figure 1 and
Despite NPS attempts to increase the physical defined in Table 1, provides us with a frame-
capability of the parks to handle more visitors work to portray and understand the chal-
through Mission 66, issues of use density, lenges confronting use of the social sciences in
quality of experiences, and impacts to the nat- protected area stewardship (Havelock 1972;
ural and cultural heritage from such use McCool and Schreyer 1977). The fundamen-
demanded considerable and continuing tal assumption of this model is that research
research attention.
116
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Figure 1. The research applications system (source: Havelock 1972)

exists to improve the human condition—in conceptualized, and how it might be used.
this case to raise the quality of protected area Several of the more significant and salient
stewardship so that the values for which they changes are depicted in Table 2. Our notions
are designated are indeed shielded from vari- of protected area stewardship derive primarily
ous threats and inappropriate uses. from 20th-century Progressive Era percep-
tions of the role of government and experts in
Current Challenges Facing the policy development and decision-making:
Social Sciences in Protected planners employed by public agencies were
Area Stewardship presumed to represent the public interest
Figure 1 provides an overall framework (McGarity 1990), which at one time appeared
for understanding where challenges occur in to be unified and of one voice. The
research and applications; it certainly shows Progressives sought to instill a political system
that there are countless potential challenges that utilized scientific management guided by
in every aspect of protected area stewardship “neutral and objective” experts to serve the
involving the use of science. For the purposes public interest; in a sense, the application of
of this paper, however, I would like to focus science would reveal this interest. Agency
on three particularly thorny challenges that decision-making would be both professional
are pervasive, influential, and affect how and objective to avoid the appearance of bias
social sciences are viewed and used. These while relying “upon professionals to set policy
challenges help frame the criticism that social based upon a congressional goal and an exam-
sciences are subjective and thus there is an ination of the facts” (Poisner 1996:76).
issue of their legitimacy in science-based Moreover, Progressive Era approaches still
processes. dominate natural resource planning today, as
Institutional and systemic barriers to demonstrated by natural resource agencies’
change. Major macrosystem changes influ- faith in scientific expertise (e.g., the Forest
ence what research is conducted, how it is Service planning rule proposed in fall 2000 to

117
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Table 1. Definitions of terms used in Figure 1 (source: Havelock 1972)

Macrosystem building provides the context for social science and its application. Macrosystems
involve the institutional context that provides incentives for social scientists to conduct research
and solution processing, and for managers to apply social science information. In addition, the
beliefs held by both managers and scientists structure how problems are framed; how problems
are framed determines what “answers” are provided.

User self-servicing represents the ability of the manager to address problems and develop
solutions to them. While this initially appears to be a totally managerial function, social
scientists play at least three significant roles here. First, social scientists help managers identify,
define, and frame these issues. Second, through two-way interaction, the scientist helps
managers translate a problem into a testable hypothesis and thus provide the framework for
adaptive management approaches. Third, scientists help managers become more familiar with
existing literature and problem-solving approaches used elsewhere.

Need processing involves communicating the “felt pain” of a problem or issue to the scientist.
This inherently means that managers must acknowledge that there are social science dimensions
to the problem (most protected area stewardship issues have these dimensions), have an
awareness that social science is an appropriate tool, and recognize that there are scientists
available that can be utilized. Such need processing requires a substantial investment in
translating challenges into testable hypotheses; these investments are needed by both managers
and scientists.

Solution building entails scientific activity to develop responses to the problem, usually in the
form of data and information and sometimes in the form of knowledge. Solution building is the
knowledge acquisition component of the research applications process, and it is here where the
charge that social science is subjective is leveled.

Solution processing means that the data collected and analyzed by the scientist must be
transformed into information and knowledge useful for the resolution of the problem
confronting the protected area manager. In many natural resource situations, such solution
processing is done in conjunction with extension agents, who work closely with both scientists
and users. However, the protected area management system generally lacks the structural
equivalent of extension agents and thus social scientists must often assume that role.

Microsystems building includes small-scale, small-group interactions, generally with researchers

and managers collaborating on projects and problems. It is here where the relationships
necessary to knowledge utilization are built. The extent to which the participants in such
interactions develop common languages, overlapping perspectives, and shared paradigms
encourages not only the transfer and application of knowledge but also increases the probability
of science developing information useful to managers and managers using such information to
resolve problems.

Table 2. Changes influencing the use of science in protected areas

• Era of change in our notions of protected area stewardship—larger spatial, temporal, and
social–organizational scales
• Recognition that we cannot continue to treat protected areas as isolated entities in a sea of
development
• Broadening expectations of protected area functions, particularly natural ones
• Changes in systems of planning governance, involving primarily increased demand for intimate public
engagement in decision-making

increase the role of science in national forest stewardship decisions. Advocates of synoptic
planning) and the reluctance of agency plan- planning continue to encourage divorcing
ners to relinquish control and involve the pub- decision-making from politics and to only
lic in a substantive and meaningful way in allow public participation in a manner that
118
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

conforms to an expert-based model (i.e., pub- formative.

lic participation serves primarily as a method But, as Thomas Kuhn (1970) has noted,
of information collection and education). paradigms of science change. In the social sci-
These foundations remain immensely ences, there has been an accelerating interest
influential, not only in designing planning in qualitative approaches to stewardship
processes but also in the realm of science, the issues. Qualitative social science has been
views managers hold on science and how sci- around for a long time (as has qualitative
ence is used. Progressive Era science is viewed methodology in biology), but the recent rise in
as an “objective” endeavor: problems only interest results from some dissatisfaction of
require the application of more science to be the quantitative model and an interest in
solved, and through science the public interest approaches that provide scientists opportuni-
can be exposed. These fundamental assump- ties to explore deeper understandings.
tions conflict with the reality of protected area Qualitative approaches help map out the
stewardship today: what science is done and dimensions of research questions (e.g., what
how it is conducted often is a result of political makes public participation successful, what
pressures; many problems of stewardship are meanings people attach to landscapes, what
those of conflicting values, problems which were critical events in a stewardship issue) and
science is ill-suited to solve; and the public provide both scientists and managers with
interest can only be constructed through seri- important information about how people per-
ous, deliberative consideration rather by being ceive various issues and challenges.
revealed by science. Discipline-based decision-making. As
Management of parks is a socially prob- our knowledge of stewardship has advanced,
lematic challenge; as such its basis is in how we have also come to understand that the cur-
values may conflict, collide, and reinforce each rent dominance of disciplinary-oriented
other. Struggles about park management are research and management is no longer ade-
essentially political and value-laden. The quate in resolving the contentious issues con-
extent to which synoptic views of planning fronting park stewards. Rarely is a problem
and science are held in an increasingly messy the sole domain of a particular discipline.
and tumultuous world suggests the extent to Managing bison in Yellowstone National Park
which we will have failures in identifying and is an example. Bison populations interact with
framing problems, conducting relevant snowmobiling and other visitor activities, but
research, and resolving the problems and how is neither clear nor definitively under-
challenges of protected area stewardship. stood. Creating knowledge that will assist park
Methods and approaches to stewardship managers requires not only biology, but land-
that marginalize non-quantitative knowl- scape ecology, sociology, psychology, and
edge. Twentieth-century park science could management science as well.
be described as one in which empiricist Discipline-based decision-making and
approaches emphasizing quantitative meas- research results in a reductionistic, fragment-
urements and analysis dominated. ed view of protected area issues. Such per-
Quantitative methodologies have benefited spectives, when generated by research, leave
stewardship greatly, contributing to significant managers unable to fully access the conse-
understanding of the processes and places quences of their decisions and result in pro-
land management agencies have been mandat- tected areas continuing to be vulnerable to
ed to protect. And while our understanding various threats. Integrated research—across
has greatly advanced, there has been a tenden- scales, disciplines, and forms of knowledge—
cy to marginalize other approaches to science, shaped by common problem framing, pro-
specifically approaches in the social sciences vides decision-makers with a more holistic
that are based on qualitative research. understanding.
Qualitative approaches are often criticized as
being not representative, subjective, and unin-
119
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

The Issue of on observations but that cannot be observed

Subjectivity in Social Sciences directly or indirectly” (Babbie 2001:121). An
Social science research is often criticized example might be attitudes toward use densi-
as being “subjective” and thus does not have ty. These variables are known as constructs
the validity of the biophysical sciences. If sci- (Kaplan 1964). And while constructs cannot
ence is viewed as the acquisition of knowl- be measured directly and there may be some
edge, subjectivity must mean that there are questions about them being real in the sense
distortions in the “reality” portrayed by that of a rock or tree, they can be useful. Babbie
knowledge. To be subjective, those distortions argues that these types of variables “can work
would be a function of the individual perspec- this way because while not real or observable
tives and value systems of the scientist. Each of in themselves, they have a definite relationship
us observes the world, either as a regular guy to things that are real and observable”
or as a scientist through the lens of a particu- (2001:122).
lar paradigm. Those paradigms definitively I note here that the biophysical sciences
determine what we see, what variables are also rely on constructs that are not real in the
chosen to be observed, and how the resulting sense of being directly observable and are con-
data are used to describe the so-called real structed from measurements of other vari-
world. ables. These include such concepts as biolog-
The distortion of reality would occur in ical diversity, forest health, succession, and
three ways. First, the scientist has used per- spatial scale. Thus, in this sense, the charge of
sonal judgment in the process of acquiring subjectivity applies to social and biophysical
knowledge rather than relying on some “exter- sciences as well.
nal” criterion. Yet the personal judgments of Third, subjectivity may connote that the
any scientist enters into the research process meaning of a concept or variable is highly per-
in terms of problem definition, choice of sonal, depending on the perspective of an
methodologies, selection of variables and how individual scientist. A concept—crowding, for
they will be measured, data analysis and inter- example—may evoke different images in dif-
pretation of results. This view of subjectivity ferent scientists. The only way in which we
in science would apply to the biophysical sci- can effectively communicate what we mean
ences as well, but in a way that is somewhat when we say the term “crowding” is by expli-
different. Thompson (2001:65) notes that cating the characteristics of this term: large
“the positivist model simply obscures the val- numbers of people, small area, inappropriate
ues inherent in all science.” Thus, measure- behavior, goals and objectives explicit, and so
ment of things such as animal populations, on. By making our conceptions explicit and
tree diameters, coliform colonies, reproduc- deliberating on them, we as scientists and
tive rates, and soil types gives the appearance managers come to agreement on their mean-
of objectivity, when in reality the choices made ing, and thus, while the concept may be
in the research process are as subjective as in termed a subjective one, it may enjoy wide
the social sciences. As scientists in any field agreement on its meaning. So, the concept
we tend to use shared paradigms to determine “crowding” may come to mean a “negative
what variables are measured and how. And, normative evaluation of use density.”
indeed, when there are conflicts in paradigms, In summary then, the criticism of subjec-
there is much debate over which variables are tivity may indeed by valid, but it is by no
measured. The scientific method requires that means limited to the social sciences. The bio-
the choices made by scientists be made pub- physical sciences are also equally subject to
lic; and it is this very explicitness that is one of this charge. More importantly, the challenge
the foundations of any scientific enterprise. for scientists is developing mechanisms to
Second, subjectivity may occur when the explicate and provide rationales for decisions
variables being measured are intangible. and apply the test of usefulness to their con-
Intangible variables are those that “are based structs.
120
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Table 3. Opportunities for social sciences in stewardship of protected areas

• Understanding the values protected

• Developing decision and planning mechanisms
• Framing the question of protected area stewardship
• Providing the knowledge base to ensure that stewardship decisions can be implemented
• Understanding the consequences
• Challenging paradigms of stewardship

Expanding Domains of can attack this criticism by both pointing out

Social Science Research its weaknesses, by making research assump-
At the same time that the social sciences tions more explicit, and showing the utility of
are faced with changes in research paradigms major constructs in predicting and under-
at the macrosystem level, the roles of these sci- standing other variables of interest.
ences are enlarging. The reasons for this
expansion are complex, but probably most References
influenced by changing expectations of the Babbie, E. 2001. The Practice of Social
goods and services parks provide, deepening Research. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth/
understanding of the purposes of protected Thompson.
areas, realization that protected areas and Havelock, R.G. 1972. Research utilization in
communities are inevitably and strongly four federal agencies. Symposium on the
linked, an interest in ensuring that plans that Utilization of Research in Planning for
protect these special places can be implement- Community Services: Current Patterns
ed, and an expanding definition of the stew- and Alternative Approaches, Honolulu,
ardship needs of protected areas. These Hawaii, American Psychological
encompass three primary goals: (1) protecting Association.
the values for which an area was designated; Kaplan, A. 1964. The Conduct of Inquiry:
(2) providing for the quality-of-life needs of Methodology for Behavioral Sciences. San
citizens; and (3) enhancing economic oppor- Francisco: Chandler.
tunity. Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific
The potential contributions of the social Revolutions. Chicago: University of
sciences to accomplishing these three goals Chicago Press.
involve six areas as shown in Table 3. McCool, S.F., and R. Schreyer. 1977.
Research utilization in wildland recreation
Conclusions management: a preliminary analysis.
Protected area stewardship is at a critical Journal of Leisure Research 9:2, 98–109.
junction. The issues confronting these areas McGarity, T.O. 1990. Public participation in
have grown not only increasingly complex but risk regulation. RISK: Health, Safety and
have accelerated in contentiousness. The Environment 1, 103–130.
social sciences can make significant contribu- Poisner, J. 1996. A civic republican perspec-
tions to their resolution, but only if large-scale tive on the National Environmental Policy
social and institutional systems encourage Act’s process for citizen participation.
deeper manager–researcher interaction, rec- Environmental Law 26, 53–94.
ognize the validity of research, and reward Thompson, W.B. 2001. Policy making
effective use of integrated approaches. through thick and thin: thick description
All research is subjective at some point, so as a methodology for communications and
this criticism, frequently pointed toward the democracy. Policy Sciences 34, 63–77.
social sciences, is not limited to them but
encompasses other sciences as well. Scientists
✥
121
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Advancing the Dialogue of Visitor Management:

Expanding Beyond the Culture of Technical Control
Stephen F. McCool, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812;
smcool@forestry.umt.edu
George H. Stankey, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, Oregon 97331; ghstankey@fs.fed.us

Introduction
In its simplest sense, visitor management involves the application of both art and science in
producing opportunities for people to experience the benefits of a park or protected area.
However, in the case of national parks, monuments, and similar areas, management objectives
also involve the protection of biophysical and cultural values; often, these values were the origi-
nal basis of the protected area’s designation. The inevitable tension between these objectives—
“use vs. preservation”—has fostered much debate among park professionals and interested citi-
zens, yet it remains unresolved and seemingly intractable.
At one level, it would seem that resolving area management will emerge. However, the
this conflict simply requires identifying and problems don’t stop there. The search for
clarifying the public interest in the manage- appropriate policies and strategies is further
ment of protected areas. Although the lan- confounded by scientific disagreements con-
guage contained in the organic legislation cerning cause-and-effect relationships.
establishing the protected area clearly pro- Despite the common image of science as the
vides clues to this interest, its suitability for source of clarification and truth, in reality,
providing guidance for both operational and conflicting interpretations always exist about
strategic decisions is limited by two factors. system interactions and effects, making imple-
First, such language typically is vague and mentation of “sound, scientifically rigorous”
abstract, lacking detail and explicit definition policies problematic at best.
about the conditions deemed appropriate to In this paper, we discuss how this turbu-
the area. Second, the idea that such language lent context—social ambiguity regarding the
provides insight into the public interest is goals of protected area management and high
flawed because there is no single, unitary voice levels of scientific complexity—combine to
to which management is responsible plague efforts to frame and implement appro-
(Schubert 1960; Rothman 1979; Pierce et al. priate management policies. Despite a tradi-
1992). Indeed, such legislative language often tion of reliance upon expert- and science-
represents the results of accommodation and based planning, such approaches are ill-
compromise among competing interests. In equipped to deal with the value-driven con-
reality, the “public interest” is a transitory flicts confronting protected area management
phenomenon, shifting in response to changes today. We critique how technically based
in the power and importance of contending models of visitor management constrain
interests (Schubert 1960). In other words, efforts to advance the art and science of the
there is no single public interest, resulting in a field. We offer an argument and a framework
search for a basis for policy action driven by for a more inclusive decision-making process
the need to frame a working approximation of and conclude with suggestions for building an
consensus not only among plural interests, but improved capacity to frame policy and man-
among multiple, often dissenting scientific agement questions.
perspectives as well.
An obvious implication of attempting to Visitor Management:
serve multiple interests is that sharp disagree- A Wicked Problem
ments regarding the specific goals of protected Protected area managers face many com-

122
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

plex problems; e.g., developing strategies to still significant reliance upon such models.
protect endangered species, managing Whether this is because of the perceived lack
increasing use levels, understanding the distri- of alternatives, institutional inertia, or simply
butional consequences of restricting use, an unwillingness to admit the limits of such
accommodating differing interpretations of technical–scientific models is not clear;
preservation, working with indigenous popu- nonetheless, the search for technically rigor-
lations in land claims agreements. Despite ous, objective approaches to visitor manage-
their complexity, however, many of these ment in protected areas continues.
problems are solvable, given sufficient time, However, close examination of the under-
money, and technical assistance. What makes lying assumptions of rational–comprehensive
the task of protected area management partic- planning reveal important limits. For example,
ularly challenging are a class of problems that it assumes a single objective about which there
are not only complex, but also resistant to is a consensus. Further, it assumes a compre-
effective resolution. Such problems have been hensive search for alternatives, requiring huge
described as “wicked” (Rittel and Webber amounts of information for evaluation, despite
1973; Allen and Gould 1986) and are charac- the reality that rarely the budget, time, or
terized by both scientific uncertainty about political willingness to permit this exist.
cause–effect relationships and social conflicts Perhaps most importantly, it implicitly treats
over goals. As Thompson and Tuden (1959) problems as technical and value-free—and
have noted, traditional technical–rational thus subject to technical–rational analysis and
decision-making processes are not well-suited resolution—when increasingly the value-
to resolving such problems, yet they nonethe- based, political nature of such problems is
less dominate efforts to address them. acknowledged as the primary driver. For
Wicked problems are common in protect- instance, in developing management strategies
ed area management. First, disagreement over to deal with excessive use, the tendency is to
management goals is common (e.g., should focus on techniques such as use limitation
Yellowstone National Park provide opportu- policies, but such policies, in turn, inevitably
nities for motorized winter recreation?). lead to distributive impacts on visitors (some
Second, cause–effect relationships often are win, others lose), revealing the intrinsic value-
poorly understood, meaning that both the effi- based nature of the issue.
cacy and consequences of actions taken to Such characteristics make it doubtful that
resolve problems are never clear. Third, both even the most open debate and discussion
the causes of problems as well as attempts to among managers, scientists, and other techni-
remedy them are regulated by complex, often cal specialists is an adequate means of foster-
non-linear, dynamics (Roe 1998), confound- ing an awareness and understanding of the
ing both prediction and effective management. multiple interests that compete for definition
Fourth, although the issues associated with as the public interest. Nonetheless, the “cul-
visitor management in protected areas clearly ture of technical control” tends to dominate
have technical aspects, at their core, they are this discourse.
dominated by conflicts over values. Such con- The culture of technical control,
flicts are seldom amenable to resolution Yankelovich (1990) explains, is grounded in
through technical–rational analyses, but several assumptions: (1) policies depend on
instead require, judicious application of col- specialized knowledge; (2) only experts pos-
laboration and negotiation oriented toward sess this knowledge; (3) citizens not only lack
accommodation of competing interests. this knowledge, but are generally apathetic to
Such characteristics limit the ability of tra- the policy process; (4) where the public does
ditional scientific-based, expert-driven man- have a view, it is accurately reflected in opinion
agement paradigms to facilitate construction polls; (5) elected officials know these views
of the public interest and fashion useful solu- and represent them well; (6) when public
tions. Yet, despite these limitations, there is understanding and support are critical, public
123
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
education experts can share knowledge with of scientific expertise” (1995:39).
citizens; and (7) the media can impart the nec- We suggest that more open, inclusive plan-
essary information to citizens. The dominance ning processes built upon the notion of a
of this model, Yankelovich goes on to argue, series of “transactions” among the various
has contributed to serious consequences, as it interested parties (Friedmann 1973) be
has resulted in the miscasting of many socially brought to bear on the wicked character of vis-
problematic challenges. The socio-biophysi- itor management. Broader inclusiveness in
cal systems that comprise protected areas are protected area management has been advocat-
sufficiently complex, diverse, and dynamic ed for a long time. For example, the growing
that relying upon technical–rational-based interest in sustainable natural resource-based
decision systems simply is inadequate for con- forms of tourism development includes calls
structing the public interest. As noted above, for participatory and collaborative forms of
the public interest is simply not a matter of sci- decision-making (Lindberg and Hawkins
entific discovery or developing the technically 1993). In Australia, efforts to promulgate a co-
optimal solution to a problem, but rather of management regime between commonwealth
constructing it from the dialogue among those agencies and the Aboriginal community have
interested in, and affected by, protected areas. attracted attention (Weaver 1991). In the
Wicked problems and messy situations— United States, there is a growing body of expe-
imbued with high levels of scientific uncer- rience related to the resolution of a variety of
tainty and conflict over goals—require new recreation management issues within desig-
ways of thinking and acting. They highlight nated wildernesses utilizing various collabora-
the need for decision-making grounded in tive processes.
learning, as a means to enhance understand- However, it is important that we not lose
ing of both biophysical and social relation- sight of the fact that wicked problems are so
ships; in accommodation, to address the mul- defined because of both their goal-conflicted
tiple interests invested in the decision; and in nature and the uncertainty surrounding scien-
consensus-building, to develop the necessary tific understanding of cause-and-effect. In
political understanding and support to facili- other words, we must be careful that in our
tate effective implementation. These three ele- haste to find a constructive alternative to the
ments are central to many of the issues facing technical–rational model and its limitations,
protected area managers, but reliance upon we turn to a model that simply replaces one
technical, scientific, and expert-driven modes limitation with another. Discourse and plural-
of inquiry limits our ability to fashion effective ism are important qualities of any needed revi-
responses. What alternatives exist? sion in our models of land use planning and
management, but so too is competent scientif-
Expanding the Dialogue ic inquiry. For example, Rayner (1996) com-
We argue that a basic responsibility of pro- pared the relative efficacy of planning under-
tected area managers is to facilitate construc- taken by the Forest Ecosystem Management
tion of the public interest as well as to protect Assessment Team (FEMAT) in the Pacific
the interests and values identified in the Northwest with the Commission on
enabling legislation creating the area. Resources and Environment (CORE) in
However, as discussed above, many problems British Columbia. He noted that while
constrain meeting this duty. Williams and FEMAT overemphasized science and neglect-
Matheny note that within the culture of tech- ed the social dimensions involved in imple-
nical control, the “search for correct public menting ecosystem management, the CORE
policies is seen as similar to the search for sci- effort failed to match innovative approaches to
entific knowledge.... [T]his search assumes shared decision-making with a sufficiently rig-
there is a single answer to public policy prob- orous scientific basis for its recommendations.
lems, that this answer can be found within a In short, he concluded, integration of science
single language, and that this language is one and human values remains the key challenge
124
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

for innovative institutions for environmental from solely the technical issue of computing
management. “how much is too much” to a more inclusive
The key, it seems to us, is integration, but question embracing not only technical
this a challenge on which demonstrated aspects, but also a variety of social and pre-
progress is limited (Clark et al. 1999). scriptive issues that require dialogue in order
Nonetheless, the bases upon which an to reveal the values and concerns that com-
improved ability to bring disparate perspec- pose the public interests. Use of the terms
tives to bear on wicked problems are ground- “appropriate and acceptable” imply that the
ed have become more clear. For example, Roe public interest needs to be derived rather than
(1998) argues that such problems require an discovered, that social values are involved, and
approach grounded in the notion of “triangu- that venues that facilitate interaction among
lation.” That is, in a world of ambiguity and scientists, managers, and the public are
uncertainty, we require perspectives that offer required. Shifting the question also moves it
sharply distinctive (orthogonal) perspectives from the domain where the culture of techni-
as a means of restating the underlying problem cal control is all that is necessary to one where
(i.e., require a fresh way of thinking about the technology, science, values, and preferences
problem). are joined and where dialogue among the var-
Williams and Matheny (1995) also argue ious participants becomes the vehicle through
for a planning framework within which multi- which mutual learning takes place and where
ple and distinctive perspectives—scientific, resolutions are effected (Friedmann 1987).
communitarian, pluralism—are explicitly Second, we suggest initiation of longer-
acknowledged and contrasted with one anoth- term and broader-spatial-scale public engage-
er. They suggest that such a model would have ment processes to help reveal and develop the
four distinctive characteristics: (1) equal contextual learning that underlies understand-
access to usable information; (2) decisions ing of the complex issues of visitor manage-
being part of a broader pattern of engaging the ment. These are characteristics similar to
public in policy development and implemen- those specified by ecologists as necessary to
tation; (3) venues that encourage deliberation more informed understanding and manage-
and a recognition that “answers” are always ment of ecosystems. Currently, public engage-
provisional (scientific knowledge is always ment concerning visitor management tends to
tentative and because contexts change, prob- focus on specific issues, such as a park man-
lems never stay solved); and (4) federal leader- agement plan, and become embedded in pro-
ship that ensures interaction among affected cedural-bound processes such as environ-
parties regarding distributional consequences mental impact statements. Such public
at the local level. engagement is not directed toward learning
How can we translate these characteristics and is inherently reactionary and adversarial.
into relevant, productive dialogue focusing on As a part of this process, we suggest future-ori-
visitor management in protected areas? First, ented thinking, such as scenario planning that
we believe that it is important that we take care is directed toward creating a public interest in
to frame questions in a thoughtful manner defining desired futures as well as the means
reflecting the underlying character of the through which such futures might be attained.
issues. For example, in debates about appro- Third, we encourage the use of innovative
priate levels of recreation use in protected processes of citizen engagement, such as citi-
areas, the traditional question guiding inquiry zen juries, to assimilate, process, and deliber-
has been some variant of “How many is too ate on protected area issues and science.
many?” This question, we contend, invites a These more formalized types of engagement
technical–rational form of inquiry, as opposed can be effective in building additional learn-
to one such as, “What are the appropriate or ing, creating innovative resolutions, and stim-
acceptable conditions that we seek to pro- ulating higher-quality, more relevant science.
vide?” This latter question shifts attention Fourth, we suggest that federal park agen-
125
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
cies engage in planning processes that are III. N.C. Johnson, A.J. Malk, W.T. Sexton,
more cooperative and collaborative, engaging and R. Szaro, eds. Oxford: Elsevier,
the public in such a way that fundamental 297–318.
objectives of public participation, such as rep- Friedmann, J. 1973. Retracking America.
resentativeness, learning, responsibility, and Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/
relationship-building are achieved. Doubleday.
Finally, we suggest using the strengths of Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the Public
formalized planning processes, such as VERP Domain: From Knowledge to Action.
(visitor experience and resource protection), Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
LAC (limits of acceptable change), etc., to Press.
structure public engagement. Such processes Haas, G.E. 2003. Visitor capacity: a dilemma
force consideration of major elements and val- of perspective. Parks and Recreation
ues in visitor management, such as goals, zon- (March), 67–74.
ing, etc. By following these planning process- Klyza, C. M. 1996. Who Controls Public
es in an open, inclusive environment, the pub- Lands? Mining, Forestry and Grazing
lic provides information in a timely and con- Policies, 1870–1990. Chapel Hill:
structive manner in the planning process. University of North Carolina Press.
Krumpe, E., and S.F. McCool. 1997. Role of
Conclusion public involvement in the Limits of
Science and technology retain important Acceptable Change wilderness planning
roles in integrating visitor management goals system. In Limits of Acceptable Change
with those related to biophysical goals in pro- and Related Planning Processes: Progress
tected areas. That role shifts, however, from and Future Directions. Missoula, Mont.:
one of fashioning mechanistic, rule-bound U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest
“answers” to one of informing the dialogue Service Intermountain Research Station,
regarding alternatives, consequences, and 16–20.
implications associated with various construc- Lindberg, K., and D.E. Hawkins, eds. 1993.
tions of the public interest. Public engagement Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and
becomes more than simply a way of collecting Managers. North Bennington, Vt.: The
additional data or of satisfying procedural Ecotourism Society.
requirements: it is the principal pathway to McCool, S.F., and D.W. Lime. 2001. Tourism
learning, consensus-building, and the appro- carrying capacity: tempting fantasy or use-
priate accommodation of varying interests. ful reality. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
This means that the discourse surrounding 9:5, 372–388.
visitor management must not be limited to the Pierce, J.D. M.A.E. Steger, B.S. Steel, and
technical concerns demanded by a carrying N.P. Lovrich. 1992. Citizens, Political
capacity approach, but inclusive of the inher- Communication, and Interest Groups:
ent pluralistic character of contemporary soci- Environmental Organizations in Canada
ety as well. and the United States. Westport, Conn.:
Praeger.
References Rayner, J. 1996. Implementing sustainability
Allen, G.M., and E.M. Gould, Jr. 1986. in West Coast forests: CORE and FEMAT
Complexity, wickedness and public as experiments in process. Journal of
forests. Journal of Forestry 84:4, 20–24. Canadian Studies 31:1, 82–101.
Clark, R.N., G.H. Stankey, P.J. Brown, et al. Rittell, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973.
1999. Toward an ecological approach: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.
integrating social, economic, cultural, bio- Policy Sciences 4, 155–169.
logical, and physical considerations. In Rothman, J. 1979. Three models of communi-
Ecological Stewardship: A Common ty organization, practice, their mixing and
Reference for Ecosystem Management. Vol. phasing. In Strategies of Community
126
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Organization. F.M. Cox, J.L. Erlich, J. capacity reconsidered. Journal of Forestry

Rothman, and J.E. Tropman, eds. Itasca, 72:5, 274–278.
Ill.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, 25–45. Washburne, R.F. 1982. Wilderness recreation
Roe, E. 1998. Taking Complexity Seriously: carrying capacity: are numbers necessary?
Policy Analysis, Triangulation and Journal of Forestry 80, 726–728.
Sustainable Development. Boston: Kluwer Weaver, S.M. 1991. The role of Aboriginals in
Academic. the management of Australia’s Coburg
Schubert, G. 1960. The Public Interest: A (Gurig) and Kakadu National Parks. In:
Critique of the Theory of a Political Resident Peoples and National Parks:
Concept. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press. Social Dilemmas and Strategies in
Stankey, G.H., and S.F. McCool. 1984. International Conservation. P.C. West and
Carrying capacity in recreational settings: S.R. Brechin, eds. Tucson: University of
evolution, appraisal and application. Arizona Press, 311–333.
Leisure Sciences 6:4, 453–473. Williams, B.A., and A.R. Matheny. 1995.
Thompson, J.D., and A. Tuden. 1987. Democracy, Dialogue, and Environmental
Strategies, structures and processes of Disputes: The Contested Languages of
organizational decision. In Comparative Social Regulation. New Haven, Conn.:
Studies in Administration. J.D. Yale University Press.
Thompson, P. B. Hammond, R.W. Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to Public
Hawkes, B.H. Junker, and A. Tuden, eds. Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a
New York: Garland, 197–216. Complex World. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse
Wagar, J.A. 1974. Recreational carrying University Press.

127
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Transportation Noise and the Value of Natural Quiet

Nicholas P. Miller, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., 15 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; nmiller@hmmh.com

Introduction
The transportation system in the U.S. creates noise, and since the 1970s analysis and miti-
gation of this noise where people live has become a routine part of the transportation planning
process. This analysis generally focuses on specific projects for specific transportation modes.
It is, in the author’s experience, rare that a systems approach has been applied to examine multi-
modal trade-offs in transportation performance and environmental effects. The focused analy-
ses aid in limiting the most significant effects of noise in the immediate vicinity of the source, and
feasibility considerations always play a role in determining the area over which noise effects are
examined and mitigated. The result is that there has been little or no real attention given by
either government agencies or the acoustics community in the U.S. to the summed effects of all
sources of noise over wide areas of the country.
This is not to say that there are not many tion of the value of managing and preserving
professional individuals and organizations natural soundscapes might be altered.
worldwide that are concerned with a broader The goals of this paper are to: (1) estimate
perspective of the “soundscape.” This broad- the geographic extent of transportation noise
er perspective may address the quantifiable in the U.S.; and (2) raise the question: What is
effects of all noise sources on people living in the value to society of seeking to manage natu-
built environments (see, for example, ral soundscapes for restoration and preserva-
Berglund and Lindvall 1995; Berglund et al. tion?
1999; Miedema 2001), on developing a coor-
dinated approach to use of noise indicators Geographic Extent of
and assessment methods for examining envi- Transportation Noise in U.S.
The method used here for estimating the
ronmental noise (CEC 2000), on the qualita-
geographic extent of transportation noise is
tive values and effects of the soundscape
based on separately examining the layout and
(Schafer 1977), or on soundscapes in national
noise “influence” of each of the three major
parks (NPS 2000). These types of profes-
sional efforts are significant and necessary if transportation networks. These networks
we are to develop an understanding of the may be defined as: (1) highways, including
relationship of the sound environment to primary limited-access highways, primary
human health and well-being, and if the roads, and secondary roads; (2) freight railway
soundscapes are to be managed to preserve or lines; and (3) commercial air carrier jet routes.
In order to generalize the noise “influ-
improve the quality of life.
ence” of these three transportation systems for
This paper suggests yet another perspec-
the U.S. (for simplicity, this examination
tive on soundscapes. The complexity and
focuses on only the contiguous forty-eight
extent of the modern transportation system,
states), a simplified calculation method is
and the ways in which that system is planned,
used. The method used here is based on sev-
modified, and expanded, mean that, in the
eral assumptions:
U.S., there is little attention given to the coun-
trywide extent of its influence on the acoustic 1. All calculations are done county-by-coun-
environment or soundscapes across the coun- ty.
try. Further, if the extent of acoustic influence 2. All calculations are for a typical daytime
of the transportation system were better hour.
understood, there might be, on the one hand, 3. Population density is used to derive a
more emphasis on total system acoustic “baseline” sound level.
design and, on the other, the public percep- 4. This baseline level, produced primarily by
128
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

the local vehicular transportation network, ple relationship between community sound
serves to determine the area in which the level and population density. The relationship
noise of the three major networks will be of day–night sound level, Ldn (a measure of
“noticed.” A transportation source is the sound in an average 24-hour day) to pop-
assumed to be noticed when its sound ulation density was investigated by the U.S.
level equals the background or baseline Environmental Protection Agency in 1974
level (in A-weighted decibels; for back- (EPA 1974), and recently reconfirmed
ground, see Green and Swets 1988; Miller (Stewart et al. 1999). This relationship is:
2000; Potter et al. 1976).
5. The higher the baseline sound level, the
smaller the area over which the transporta-
(1)
tion networks will be noticed, and con-
versely, the quieter the baseline, the greater
the area over which the noise of the three where
networks is noticed. is population density in people per square
6. “Influence” by the noise of each of the
three networks is determined by: (a) deter- mile, and
mining the maximum distance from the is 1 person per square mile. It is intended to
transportation corridor at which the trans- estimate the day-night sound level due to gen-
portation noise source can be noticed; (b) eral community activity, and assumes that no
multiplying this distance by the length of major highways or airports are affecting the
the corridor in the county, giving an area sound environment.
within which the noise of the particular The relationship of equation (1) was
transportation corridor can be noticed; (c) applied to the population densities of U.S.
comparing the area in each county over counties to produce Figure 1. As might be
which each of the three transportation net- expected, higher sound levels are in the coun-
works can be noticed with the total area of ties with significant urban/suburban popula-
the counties to compute the percentage of tions. Because of the map size, some areas of
each county in which each network can be high baseline sound levels, notably San
noticed. Francisco and metropolitan New York, cannot
7. Nationwide, the degree of influence is be distinguished.
depicted by categorizing the counties by For determination of areas of noticeability,
the percentage of land in which each trans- the comparison made is between the sound
portation noise can be noticed. level of the specific transportation source
(highway, rail, aircraft) and the “baseline”
In the U.S., there are federally approved sound level derived from the levels given in
mathematical models for computing the Figure 1. The best representation of such a
sound levels produced by any of these types of baseline level is assumed to be the daytime
transportation (Anderson et al. 1998, for median sound level, or L50. Equation (1)
highway traffic noise; DOT 1995, for rail yields Ldn, so this value must be transformed
noise; FAA 1999, for aircraft noise). For pres- to L50. Using information collected in 18
ent purposes, however, the approach is to use communities (Wyle Laboratories 1971), the
only the source sound levels and propagation following approximate relationship was
algorithms of these models to produce esti- derived:
mates of the maximum distance at which the
source can be noticed. (2)
Baseline sound levels. The baseline levels
used to determine the maximum distances at Hence, for each of the transportation
which the various transportation types can be sources, the comparison is between the maxi-
noticed are derived from a long-standing sim- mum sound level of the source and the base-

129
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Figure 1. DNL by county, developed from population density, equation (1)

line of Ldn – 5 dB. The distance from the fic noise. The specific divisions that depict
transportation track to the point where the the percentage of county area where the noise
maximum level equals Ldn – 5 dB is the dis- is noticeable were chosen assuming that the
tance of noticeability. greater the estimate of noticeable area, the
Highways. Figure 2 shows the results of higher the likelihood that the estimates are
the noticeability calculations for highway traf- inaccurate. As the area of noticeability

Figure 2. Percentages of county areas in which highway traffic noise is noticeable during the
day
130
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

increases, the greater the probability that indi- Figure 4 are all jet departures that occurred
vidual noticeability areas from different trans- between 3:00 PM and 4:00 PM on October 17,
portation segments will overlap. Hence, the 2000, using the full track to the first destina-
divisions increase in size, as the percentage tion. The period 3:00–4:00 PM was chosen as
increases. typical of the numbers of flights during the
The percentage of a county in which noise day, and should include most common routes.
is noticeable depends upon two variables: (1) There are a few areas of the country
the number of transportation corridor seg- where the estimation method is probably inac-
ments in the county, and (2) the baseline curate. For some locations, the method likely
sound level in the county. Thus, a county may overstates the extent of the audibility of jet
have a low percentage of noticeable highway traffic. Those areas that have several flights
noise either because the baseline level is high following a relatively narrow corridor are like-
or because there are few highways in the coun- ly to have overestimates of areas. In areas that
ty. have both high baseline levels and airports,
such as Los Angeles, Dallas–Fort Worth, and
Railways. Figure 3 shows the results of Atlanta, the method is likely to underestimate
the noise influence calculations for railway the noticeability. For simplicity, all tracks are
noise. assumed to be at 30,000 feet, and hence there

Figure 3. Percentages of county areas in which rail traffic noise is noticeable during the day

Commercial jet routes. Figure 4 shows are no climb and descent portions so that
the results for high-altitude jet routes. Unlike these segments around airports have predict-
traffic on highways and railways, each jet fol- ed sound levels that are lower than the actual
lows a unique path. Though in some cases levels. This combination of high baseline
there are fairly distinct corridors, for much of sound levels and aircraft sound levels, which
the country the paths are quite dispersed. are too low, probably results in underestima-
The tracks used for the calculations of tion of the area affected.
131
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Figure 4. Percentages of county areas in which jet traffic noise is noticeable during the day

Interest in Preservation of ing park visitor needs and make these recre-
Natural Soundscapes ational activities unavailable to those who
Can knowledge of the extent of transporta- want them.
tion noise alter our perceptions of the value of U.S. public lands are designated through
preserving, restoring, and managing selected acts of Congress. These acts identify the pur-
natural soundscapes? As we continue to poses to be served by the specific land or type
strengthen our transportation systems, mak- of land, and several types of public lands carry
ing them more effective in geographic reach, the mandate of preserving, restoring, and pro-
will recognition of the nationwide spread of viding for an experience of the natural sound-
the associated noise alter how the public (and scape. National parks can be established for
our government) views the value of managing many different purposes, but overall, the
to preserve areas where natural soundscapes National Park Service (NPS) was created pri-
can be experienced? Will it matter if there are marily to preserve the resources of national
no locations in the U.S. where one can sit for parks (cf. National Park Service Act of 1916
an hour and hear only the sounds produced and Redwoods Act of 1978). Although NPS
by the natural environment? management policy has identified the impor-
It can be said that there is currently no tance of preserving natural sounds, the direc-
national consensus on the value of natural tor of NPS recently issued Director’s Order
soundscapes. On one hand, the U.S. 47, which states that:
Congress (supported by various interest
groups) and various federal agencies have tra- The purpose of this Director’s Order is
to articulate the National Park Service
ditionally demonstrated a commitment to pre- operational policies that will require, to
serving natural settings, including the natural the fullest extent practicable, the pro-
soundscapes. On the other hand, some busi- tection, maintenance, or restoration of
nesses that provide motorized park activities, the natural soundscape resource in a
such as snowmobile rides or air tours, and condition unimpaired by inappropriate
or excessive noise sources (NPS
their associated user/interest groups are con- 2000).
cerned that preservation of natural sound-
scapes will prevent the businesses from meet- The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a
132
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

process to identify specific areas as “wilder- nature on its own terms. Visitors should be
ness,” each of which would be an “area of able to temporarily leave behind their to-do
undeveloped Federal land retaining its lists, their pursuit of objectives, even if recre-
primeval character and influence ... which (1) ational, to discover what they themselves are
generally appears to have been affected prima- like when surrounded by the natural environ-
rily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of ment. Clearly, to provide opportunities for
man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has both this type of experience and for the more
outstanding opportunities for solitude or a active motorized recreational experiences
primitive and unconfined type of recre- (bus, air and car tours, power boats, snowmo-
ation....” biles, etc.), management of park soundscapes
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 is required.
also established a study process to identify
and protect free-flowing rivers. Two relevant Can Natural
management objectives for the system are: (1) Soundscapes be Preserved?
provide recreationists with the opportunity to It has long been recognized that portions
experience a river setting similar to that seen of the nation’s natural heritage should be pre-
by the first explorers, and (2) ensure that the served, and the extent of transportation noise
rivers retain an essentially wild and pristine throughout the U.S. emphasizes the impor-
nature (BLM 1980). tance and difficulty of this preservation as
Federal areas of the continental U.S. that applied to natural soundscapes. Yet several
might be the subject of soundscape manage- current attempts to preserve/restore natural
ment account for about 3% of the 48 states; soundscapes in national parks are being
these are national parks, national seashores, strongly resisted through both political and
wild and scenic rivers, designated wilderness legal means. From an acoustical perspective,
areas, and areas considered to have the poten- the technical complexities of characterizing
tial to be designated as wilderness. and assessing natural soundscapes are signifi-
These different public lands have been cant and open many opportunities for dis-
established for various reasons, most of which pute. This combination of significant resist-
are preservation-oriented, and NPS has ance and significant complexity suggests that
specifically identified natural soundscape development of a uniform, feasible, and effec-
preservation as a management objective for tive soundscape management approach will at
national parks. Users of these public lands best be extremely difficult and time-consum-
and associated interest groups, however, can ing.
have a wide range of expectations that may or
may not include experiencing the outdoors in References
a natural state. The popularity of snowmobile Anderson, G.S., C.S.Y. Lee, G.G. Fleming,
use in Yellowstone, the use of personal water- and C.W. Menge. 1998. FHWA Traffic
craft in parks or recreation areas such as Glen Noise Model, Version 1.0 User’s Guide.
Canyon National Recreation Area, and the Federal Highway Administration Report
many passengers on air tours over Grand no. FHWA-PD-96-009 (January).
Canyon National Park and over the Hawaiian Washington, D.C.: FHWA.
parks suggest that many visitors seek experi- Berglund, B., and T. Lindvall. 1995.
ences other than witnessing natural settings Community noise. Archives of the Center
free of the effects of “man’s work.” for Sensory Research 2:1.
The validity of such park experiences is Berglund, B., T. Lindvall, and D.H. Schwela.
not in question here, but these experiences 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise.
conflict with another view of the purpose of Geneva: World Health Organization.
parks, as expressed by Joseph Sax (1980). In BLM [U.S. Bureau of Land Management].
this view, parks are to provide the opportunity 1980. Upper Missouri National Wild &
for members of the public to experience Scenic River, Maps 1 & 2, Floater’s Guide.
133
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Miller, N.P. 2000. A-weighted level differences
Office. compared with detectability. Report
CEC [Commission of the European included in April 25, 1997 memorandum
Communities]. 2000. Proposal for a to W. Henry, National Park Service; pub-
Directive of the European Parliament and lished in Review of Scientific Basis for
of the Council Relating to the Assessment Change in Noise Impact Assessment Method
and Management of Environmental Noise. Used at Grand Canyon National Park.
COM (2000) 468 final, 26.07.2000. Washington, D.C.: NPS.
DOT [U.S. Department of Transportation]. NPS [National Park Service]. 2000. Director’s
1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Order no. 47: Soundscape Preservation
Assessment. DOT-T-95-16, Federal Transit and Noise Management. Washington,
Administration (April). Washington, D.C.: D.C.: NPS.
USDOT. Potter R.C., et al. 1976. Detectability of audi-
EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection ble warning devices on emergency vehi-
Agency]. 1974. Population Distribution of cles. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.,
the United States as a Function of Outdoor Report no. 3333, July.
Noise Level. Report 550/9-74-009 (June). Sax, J.L. 1980. Mountains without Handrails:
Washington, D.C.: EPA. Reflections on the National Parks. Ann
FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]. 1999. Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Integrated Noise Model, INM. Described Schafer, R.M. 1977. The Tuning of the World.
in INM User’s Guide, FAA-AEE-99-03 Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
(September). Washington, D.C.: FAA. Stewart, C.M., W.A. Russell, and G.A. Luz.
Green, D.M., and J.A. Swets. 1988. Signal 1999. Can population density be used to
Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Los determine ambient noise levels? Paper
Altos, Calif.: Peninsula Publishing. presented at the 137th Meeting of the
Miedema, H.M.E. 2001. Noise & health: how Acoustical Society of America, Berlin,
does noise affect us? In Proceedings, Germany, March.
INTER-NOISE 2001, August 27-30. The Wyle Laboratories. 1971. Community Noise.
Hague: N.p. EPA Report NTID300.3, 31 December.

134
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Visitor Impact Monitoring in

the Coastal and Barrier Island Network
Christopher Monz, Department of Environmental Studies, St. Lawrence University, Canton,
New York 13617
Yu-Fai Leung and Christine Ingle, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8004
Heather Bauman, Sterling College, Craftsbury Common, Vermont 05827

Introduction
The preservation of the eastern coastal and barrier island protected areas continues to be an
important priority for the National Park Service (NPS). These sandy beach coastal areas have a
long history of visitor use, as they provide outstanding opportunities for recreation and nature
appreciation. Combined with their proximity to the major population centers of the eastern
United States, it is no surprise that visitation levels are high, representing an on-going manage-
ment challenge. Moreover, these areas are unique and dynamic ecosystems, providing habitat to
rare species.
This paper reports the findings of the first Specifically, this paper reports on the
phase of a three-phase study to test candidate results of the initial phase of the study, con-
variables for future visitor impact monitoring sisting of site visits to each of the coastal areas
programs at seven important coastal areas and in-depth manager interviews. We had sev-
managed by the NPS (Table 1). This project is eral objectives for this phase of the study. First
under the auspices of the larger biophysical was to determine which visitor-caused
monitoring effort of the Coastal and Barrier impacts were of concern to managers, and the
Island Network. general magnitude and location of these
We initiated this project with the overall impacts. Second was to determine a suite of
objectives of (1) determining which of the possible indicators to monitor visitor impacts
coastal NPS units require visitor impact mon- in these environments. And last, we investigat-
itoring programs; (2) developing a clear con- ed the commonalities of the impact concerns
ceptual model of visitor threats to resources, so future protocols could be applied consis-
related vital signs, and relevant indicators of tently across all network areas. Future phases
resource condition; and (3) developing and of this study will develop and field-test specif-
testing accurate monitoring and sampling pro- ic monitoring protocols.
tocols of the indicators of the visitor-affected
resources.

Table 1. Coastal and Barrier Island Network areas

NPS Unit State

Assateague Island National Seashore Maryland
Thomas Stone National Historic Site Maryland
Cape Cod National Seashore Massachusetts
Fire Island National Seashore New York
Gateway National Recreation Area New York
Sagamore Hill National Historic Site New York
George Washington Birthplace National Virginia
Monument
Colonial National Historical Park Virginia

135
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Project Context area, determine the approximate magnitude of

Considerable research has been conduct- these impacts, and begin the process of select-
ed over the last 40 years on the consequences ing field sites for the testing of field method-
of recreational activities on natural resource ologies during subsequent phases of the proj-
conditions (Leung and Marion 2000) but, ect.
interestingly, relatively few studies have been
conducted in sandy coastal areas (for a com- Impact Commonalities
plete review, see the paper by Ingle et al. in Visitor impacts on coastal resources are a
these proceedings). Two recent monitoring significant concern to managers in all areas
efforts, one at Cape Cod National Seashore visited, although the degree of concern and
(Marion and Cahill 2003) and another at the potential for significant impact is highly
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation area-dependent. For example, Gateway
Area (Leung 2002) have developed extensive National Recreation Area, located within the
visitor impact monitoring protocols, and these limits of New York City, sees over 8 million
projects provide a basis for this effort. visits per year, with many of these visitors
Visitors to coastal parks are engaged in a engaged in activities that can potentially affect
wide array of recreation activities, most of coastal resources. Conversely, at Sagamore
which generate some level of impact. While Hill National Historic Site, the majority of vis-
visitor activity impacts may occur in many its occur in the museum facilities, with very lit-
areas, impacts occurring within sensitive, nat- tle current activity on the trails and the small
ural/pristine, or protected zones are of most beach area. Given these differences in visitor
concern because of the ecological and social activities, the nature and extent of monitoring
value of these areas. Monitoring visitor activities will be highly area-specific, but all
impacts in these areas is consistent with the areas could benefit from some level of visitor
objectives of the NPS Vital Signs Program impact monitoring.
(Fancy 2002) and would provide valuable For the purpose of this study, we have
input to the program, as the impacts may con- identified two categories of visitor impact con-
stitute a significant threat to ecological health. cerns: (1) those applicable to the development
In contrast, visitor activity impacts in of monitoring indicators in the context of this
developed or high-use areas are expected and study (Study Impact Concerns), and (2) those
can be controlled through intensive facility beyond the scope of this study but raised by
development and site hardening. In this case, managers (Additional Impact Concerns).
monitoring visitor impacts is less beneficial.
We also restricted our focus to impacts that Study Impact Concerns
occur in the terrestrial zone, within which Visitor impacts to vegetation and soils.
indicators can be more effectively defined and All areas reported and we observed both cur-
measured. Some visitor-caused impacts, such rent and potential impacts to beach and
as water pollution, were not included because upland vegetation communities as a conse-
they are more effectively monitored under quence of day and overnight use. Vegetation
other programs. Our approach parallels the and soil disturbance is primarily caused by
efforts at Cape Cod National Seashore foot traffic, and, in Colonial National
(Marion and Cahill 2003) and is supported by Historical Park, by mountain biking.
the findings of the visitor use management Managers report that little if any information
working group of the Coastal Monitoring exists on the location and extent of these
Network (Marion et al. 2001). impacts and whether impacts are changing
For this initial phase of the study, we con- over time. In some cases these impacts are
ducted extensive manager and field staff inter- site-specific, in areas where use is concentrat-
views and site visits to each of the NPS areas. ed (e.g., campsites, coastal access points for
Our objective was to become familiar with the fishing), and off hardened or resistant sub-
visitor impact issues and concerns at each strates (i.e., boardwalks and sand, respective-
136
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

ly). In other cases these concerns are more sport utility vehicles, more visitors are coming
widespread, such as the impacts of beach visi- just to drive the beach, picnic, have campfires,
tors to coastal sea beach amaranth, a federally swim, or to day-hike into the nearby dune and
listed plant species. forest communities. Given the scope and
Wildlife impacts. Although some area- extent of this project, we will not be develop-
specific impacts on wildlife are occurring in ing monitoring indicators to address specific
the network, two impact concerns were com- issues within the designated ORV zones,
mon across the network. First was the impact trails, or corridors. Monitoring protocols will
of visitors on piping plovers (Charandrius address any impacts in natural areas adjacent
melodus) and their habitat. Piping plovers to ORV zones where visitors may be traveling
occupy sand beaches and tidal flats and their on foot or (illegally) by vehicle.
numbers have been declining in recent years
due to the extensive beach disturbance. Proposed Indicators and
Although significant management efforts are Future Project Goals
in place to limit visitor disturbance and pre- “Vital signs” are key elements, processes,
serve habitat during nesting season, it is not or features of the environment that can be
clear in all cases how much visitors are measured and that indicate the condition of an
responding to interpretive information and ecosystem (Fancy 2002; Marion and Cahill
complying with exclosures. 2003). In the forthcoming phases of this proj-
The second overall concern raised was the ect, we will seek to address the study impact
illegal harvesting of and interaction with concerns as highlighted by managers and as
wildlife. Assateague Island National Seashore outlined in the overall project plan by devel-
and Gateway have concerns about the harvest- oping specific monitoring protocols for the
ing of fish, crabs, clams, and horseshoe crabs. measurement indicators identified below.
Gateway experiences the illegal poaching of Vital signs, approaches, and measurement
these animals and managers do not know the indicators appropriate to address the above
extent of the impacts or exactly how to prevent concerns from a monitoring perspective fall
such activities. Managers at Assateague are into three categories: visitor use (Table 2),
concerned with the feeding and contact that vegetation and soil degradation (Table 3), and
visitors have with the wild horses. disturbance of wildlife (Table 4). In order to
appropriately address visitor impact con-
Additional Impact Concerns cerns, initial information on the types,
Off-road vehicle (ORV) use. Managers at amounts, and distribution of impacts is essen-
Assateague, Gateway, and Fire Island National tial. Technically, these elements are the actual
Seashore have raised concerns about the agents of change, each with associated indica-
impacts of ORVs on coastal dune flora and tors (Table 2). The soil and vegetation and
fauna. At each of these areas, ORVs are limit- wildlife elements are vital signs of resource
ed to designated zones, specific trails, and/or condition, again with associated indicators
travel corridors. In most cases total numbers (Tables 3 and 4).
of ORVs are limited by permit systems. In the forthcoming phases of this project,
Managers’ observations would suggest that we will examine the effectiveness and feasibil-
the nature and extent of ORV use has changed ity of the proposed indicators. More specifi-
substantially at these areas over the last 10–20 cally, our immediate efforts are focused on the
years, with increases in numbers of visitors development of a conceptual visitor impact
and shifts in visitor activity preferences. At monitoring model for coastal ecosystems,
Assateague, for example, previous ORV use additional monitoring methods development,
was limited to a large extent to visitors follow-up site visits, gathering of GIS (geo-
engaged in sport fishing activities. As such, graphic information systems) and visitor-use
visitors would drive to an area above the tide data from specific areas, and some preliminary
line and park. Recently with the popularity of field assessment. More long-term efforts will
137
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Table 2. Agents of change, approaches, and indicators for changes in visitor use in natural
zones
Agents of Change Approach Measurement Indicators
Types of recreation Managers’ survey Use type
use Direct field observation
Entry point visitor survey

Amount of Managers’ survey Scale ratings of use frequency

recreation use Direct observation Observed number of visitors by
Trail/vehicle counters activity type
Number of hikers along selected
trail segments
Distribution of Managers’ survey Location and extent of recreational
recreation use Direct observation use
Trail/vehicle counters

Table 3. Vital signs, approaches, and indicators for extent of vegetation and soil degradation
in natural zones

Vital Sign Approach Measurement Indicators

Vegetation loss Direct on-site measurement Relative cover loss (%)
at recreation sites and along Changes in bare ground (%)
trails

Vegetation Direct on-site measurement Individual species cover (%)

compositional change at recreation sites and along Presence/absence of invasive plant
trails species

Unintended trail Direct on-site assessment Location, extent, and mapping of

formation and mapping visitor-created trails

Unintended site Direct on-site assessment Location, extent, and mapping of

formation and mapping visitor-created sites

Shoreline disturbance Direct on-site assessment Location, extent, and mapping of

and mapping in sensitive shoreline disturbance sites
areas

Table 4. Vital signs, approaches, and indicators for disturbance of wildlife in natural zones
Vital Sign Approach Measurement Indicators
Disturbance type Direct behavior observation Type of visitor activities affecting
wildlife (e.g., shorebirds)

Disturbance time Direct behavior observation Length of time of disturbance events

Attraction behavior Direct behavior observation Number of occurrences of wildlife

feeding
Number of occurrences of attraction
behavior
138
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

lead to the completion of specific visitor in coastal national parks: a review of tech-
impact monitoring protocols for all applicable niques. (This volume.)
areas in the Coastal Monitoring Network. Fancy, S. 2002. Monitoring natural resources
in our national parks. On-line at
Conclusions www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/textin-
Managers throughout the eastern coastal dex.htm.
and barrier island areas managed by NPS have Leung, Y., and J.L. Marion. 2000. Recreation
raised concerns about visitor impacts on natu- impacts and management in wilderness: a
ral resources. These concerns can be catego- state-of-knowledge review. In Wilderness
rized broadly as impacts on vegetation and Science in a Time of Change Conference—
soils, on wildlife, and of ORV use. Monitoring Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats
suggestions for these impacts consist of nar- and Management. D.N. Cole, S.F.
rowing the scope of assessment to areas of the McCool, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin,
highest resource protection, where free-rang- comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-5.
ing, unregulated visitor use is occurring. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of
Recreation ecology research indicates that this Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky
is of the most concern, as initial use can result Mountain Research Station, 23–48.
in the majority of the impact. In this case, Leung, Y. 2002. Boston Harbor Islands carry-
monitoring the agents of change, the visitor ing capacity management study progress
use and distribution, and specific indicators of report. (NPS project report.)
soil, vegetation, and wildlife disturbance will Marion, J.L., and K. Cahill. 2003. Design and
address the majority of managers’ concerns testing of protocols for monitoring visitor
and will be applicable at the majority of NPS use and resource impacts at Cape Cod
areas in the Coastal Network. Forthcoming National Seashore. (NPS project report.)
field testing of specific protocols for the indi- Marion, J.L., C. Roman, B. Johnson, and B.
cators will determine their appropriateness at Lane. 2001. Summary of visitor use man-
and applicability to individual areas. agement working group, Vital Signs
Workshop for the North Atlantic Coastal
References Park Network, Gateway National
Ingle, C., Y. Leung, C. Monz, C., and H. Recreation Area, N.Y. (Unpublished
Bauman. 2003. Monitoring visitor impacts report.)

139
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Facts, Values, and Decision-Making in

Recreation Resource Management
Thomas A. More, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Northeastern Research
Station, P.O. Box 968, Burlington, Vermont 05402-0968; tmore@fs.fed.us

Scientific management was a foundation of the resource management professions through the
20th century and remains our guidepost for the 21st. The concept served us well, halting the
rapacious resource use of the late 19th century and ushering in a new era of more rational man-
agement. Yet the phrase is problematic—science deals with objective scientific facts, while man-
agement concerns values, and values are traditionally excluded from science. Phrased different-
ly, management is done to achieve some goal, to accomplish some end that can, and will, be
judged in value terms: as good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, etc. At some level, sci-
entific management conflates facts and values, often trying to transform difficult value issues into
technical matters. Yet such transformations can leave us in murky waters that increase, rather
than decrease, public criticism.
To illustrate, consider the case of Komar cheeks. However, they have indeed performed
and Melamid, two dissident Russian artists a signal service by pointing out the danger of
who emigrated to the United States. treating our research too literally. After all, all
Reasoning that, in a democracy, ordinary peo- they did was to take the equivalent of one of
ple’s opinions about art mattered, Komar and our visitor surveys and treat the results verba-
Melamid conducted a scientific telephone tim. What they failed to do (intentionally, no
marketing survey of 1,001 adults in 1993 doubt) was to interpret their survey-based
(Komar and Melamid 1997). They asked their “facts” within a broader, value-based context.
respondents to assume that they were going to I believe that recreation research and manage-
buy a painting to hang in their living room. ment suffers from a similar, but unintentional,
What should its dominant color be? Should it failure. In the remainder of this paper, I dis-
be modern or traditional? A landscape or a cuss the uneasy relationships between facts
portrait? Indoor or outdoor? A seascape or a and values, the various categories of value
forest? What should be in it: Other people, judgments, and the need to systematically
animals? Which animals? What season? How enhance our ability to reason about value con-
should it be painted? The artists examined the clusions.
preferences of both women and men, as well
as people in various geographic, ethnic, and Facts, Values, and Fallacies
income groups. They used their results to Facts and values have a complex, uneasy
identify the painting most preferred by relationship with a long history. People have
Americans, and then they painted it! written about values—the good, the just, the
The results, of course, are ridiculous, just beautiful—for over three millennia, but in
as the art world had predicted. As described modern (i.e., post-Renaissance) times, the
by Dissanayake (1998:487): “This painting person who cast the issue most clearly was
was a 44% blue landscape showing water, David Hume, the great 18th-century Scottish
clouds, distant hills, a highly treed fore- philosopher. Hume noticed that his contem-
ground, casually dressed human figures, porary scientists described their world factu-
George Washington, a yawning hippopota- ally with statements about the nature of what
mus, some children, and a male and female is. However, as their discussion progressed,
deer—all painted in a conventional, all-pur- they gradually, almost imperceptibly, shifted
pose nineteenth century realist style.” from statements about what is (facts) to claims
I have little doubt that Komar’s and about what ought to be (values). What Hume
Melamid’s tongues were well lodged in their demonstrated was that, under standard sys-

140
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

tems of logic, “ought” statements (values) can- to judge goods and services. Throughout their
not be derived from “is” statements (facts). lives, people have to judge many different
Put differently, facts alone never tell us what goods and services. Economic values are the
we ought to do because the “ought” derives standards we use to make such judgments,
from a different source—from human goals and economists have developed an elaborate
and objectives. system based on utility that quite literally
Hume’s writings set off two centuries of enables us to compare the values of apples and
intense argument about the relationship oranges. Goods and services acquire utility
between facts and values (which probably simply because they help us fulfill goals. And,
would have pleased him immensely). since not all goals are equal, goods and servic-
Although many philosophers have proposed es differ in their value.
solutions, Hume’s logical analysis has held Parks, too, have utility since they help us
and, within the empirical tradition, there is an to fulfill individual and societal goals.
unbridgeable gulf between facts and values. It However, it is difficult to estimate this value in
is this gulf which makes concepts such as “sci- economic terms since parks are not trades in
entific management” dicey. markets. Over the past quarter-century econo-
To understand the fact/value relationship, mists have devoted great effort to develop
we need to examine both concepts more proxy measures of economic value for these
closely. Facts are objective—they inhere in the resources. For example, it is possible to make
object and are considered to be independent a decision based on cost/benefit analysis, but
of any particular observer. For example, the people still may wonder if it is kind or just.
desk at which you work can be described fac- Actually, moral values often trump economic
tually. If we agree on measurement, it will be values, so it is to these values that we turn
described as having a specific length, width, next.
surface area, number of drawers, color, and so Moral values are standards for judging
on. These attributes will remain unchanged conduct. Honesty, fairness, altruism, kind-
no matter who is sitting at it. But often, what ness, justice, and so on form the general sub-
we really want to know is if it’s a good desk, stance of this value category. Ordinarily, these
and that depends upon the needs of a specific values—which constitute the core of ethics—
person. A good desk for you may be a poor fit are applied to interpersonal relationships;
for me. Value relationships are thus subjec- they are lubricants for the social world.
tive—specific to the individual—and involve Many park problems can be considered in
evaluation. There are many ways to evaluate moral terms. For example, is it fair to price
real-world objects and situations, and so we parks when we know that such pricing
have multiple values. A traditional psycholog- excludes low-income people? Are park
ical classification includes economic values, employees treated justly in their relationships
moral values, aesthetic values, spiritual values, with the agency? Do public involvement
and rational values. Put simply, economic val- efforts incorporate a fair attempt at listening to
ues are standards for judging goods and serv- all sides in a dispute? These and similar issues
ices; moral values provide standards for judg- are frequently discussed from a moral per-
ing conduct; aesthetic values are standards for spective. Also important are the meta-ethical,
beauty; spiritual values are standards for decision-making criteria: Should a decision
meaning; and rational values are standards for be made on the basis of the greatest good for
judging truth. The next section briefly consid- the greatest number (utilitarianism), or is it
ers each of these values in relation to park more appropriate to consider individual rights
management (for a more thorough discussion, (Kantianism). These latter questions are gen-
see More et al. 1996). erally discussed under the heading of meta-
ethics.
Five Value Categories While traditional ethics concerns interper-
Economic values are the standards we use sonal relationships, environmental ethics has
141
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
been concerned with evaluating our conduct Spiritual values are standards for judging
toward the Earth and its various species. meaning. As biological creatures, people are
Many highly charged park issues concern the born with an enormous, but unstructured,
management of infrahuman elements of cognitive capacity. Consequently, we are all
nature. But, while rights and duties are the motivated by an intense need to search for
very essence of human ethics, their extension meaning—by the desire to interpret the events
to the infrahuman world is controversial. and circumstances of our lives within a con-
A full treatment of moral issues in recre- text. Spiritual values provide the standards by
ation resource management would require a which we judge such meaning. As such, they
textbook rather than a brief article. What is are the overarching set of values within which
important is to recognize just how many park the other values operate.
issues have powerful moral components. We Work in this area is just beginning and it is
need to increase our sophistication dealing unclear how it will develop. Can we design
with such issues. opportunities for spiritual experiences or
Aesthetic values—the concern of Komar manage for them in some way? Or, given the
and Melamid’s critique—are standards for First Amendment, should public agencies
appreciation. Natural environments can pro- even be concerned with them? What is clear is
duce awe-inspiring beauty. But whether some- that spiritual values are powerful determinants
thing is considered beautiful or not requires a of attitudes and behavior. While we may not
judgment. By what standards do we judge be able to manage for them, neither can we
something to be beautiful or ugly or simply neglect them.
commonplace? Actually, aesthetic judgments Rational values provide the standards we
nicely illustrate the distinction between facts use to judge truth. While it may seem odd to
and values. We all know the phrase “Beauty is consider rationality a value, there is a generic
in the eye of the beholder,” but few of us real- quality of “oughtness” to it—rational deci-
ize that that view is only 300 years old, a prod- sions are good decisions, and irrational deci-
uct of the intellectual revolution of the 17th sions are bad. However, the standards by
and 18th centuries. Prior to that, in the period which we judge rationality are normative. For
generally termed classical, beauty was very example, have we been logical (i.e., objective
much an attribute of the object, a factual mat- and impartial, internally consistent, and in
ter of form, line, and proportion. However, the conformity with the rules of inductive and
Enlightenment produced a new emphasis on deductive influence)? Have we been willing to
internal experience, so factors such as internal consider alternative explanations and subject
absorption, fascination, and intrinsic appreci- our ideas to tests of falsification? And are our
ation became important (see Averill et al. goals realistic, and our methods appropriate?
1998). Aesthetics became a broad category These are the normative criteria that represent
that included the fascinating and grotesque as rational values; when decisions meet these cri-
well as the beautiful, and distinguished teria, they are considered rational and no fur-
between the aesthetic object (what is “out ther work is needed.
there”) and our internal aesthetic experience. Each value category is represented by spe-
Research on natural aesthetics has focused on cialists with their own intellectual approaches.
the object, asking what qualities make a scene For example, rational values are the domain of
or vista beautiful. Unfortunately, we have scientists, while economists specialize in eco-
failed to understand the category’s breadth— nomic values. Moral values, including envi-
nature contains many fascinating things (pred- ronmental ethics, are the concern of ethicists.
ator–prey relationships, fungi, etc.) that may In the future, we may see the development of a
not be traditionally beautiful but that are “recreational ethics” to deal with applied
important to people nonetheless. We misun- problems in recreation management, just as
derstand the power of aesthetic values at our medical ethics helps physicians think through
peril. difficult problems. Landscape architects are
142
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

concerned with aesthetic theory, while spiritu- Census Bureau 2003). If this occurs, it is like-
al values are the province of theologians. To ly that it will alter the entire way we construe
date, I know of no specialists in “natural the- parks and their social functions in society.
ology,” but who knows how this area may I also am concerned that our emphasis on
develop? capacity may lead to an undue emphasis on
protection and visitor regulation and control,
From Facts and Values to Decisions especially when coupled with programs such
How, then, should we integrate science as the fee demonstration program. Unless we
and values in decision-making? Komar and consider their broader ramifications in a value
Melamid’s (1997) results suggest the folly of context, such programs have the potential to
failing to place the scientific facts into the return us to the elitism that characterized the
broader context of aesthetic theory. It is inter- start of the American park and recreation
esting that their “art of the commons” reflects movement. To love natural areas, people must
a mid-19th-century aesthetic. Historically, be encouraged to participate. More than 20
great art has tended to be produced by avant- years ago, Joseph Sax (1980) argued that the
garde artists who stretched the boundaries of focus of national park policy ought to be to get
contemporary style to create something new. people to take the first few steps away from
A similar argument exists in the landscape lit- their cars and toward the wild. Sax’s argument
erature. Carlson (1977, 1984) argues that is even more pertinent today and we ignore it
great landscapes are created by individuals at our long-term risk.
like Capability Brown or Frederick Law In sum, rote, rule-based decision-making
Olmsted, and that all the public research on of any sort is likely to prove overly simplistic.
aesthetic preferences has only led us to the The facts in a situation are both important and
conclusion that the public likes the kinds of illuminating, but they must be interpreted
scenes that are printed on postcards—some- within the broader goals of recreation manage-
thing we already knew. Ribe (1982), by con- ment, which are value-based and will likely
trast, argues in favor of an egalitarian aesthet- shift with the times. Ultimately, science is still
ic. no substitute for simple dithering, trying to
So, should aesthetics be elitist or egalitari- think as broadly as possible about the context
an? Disputes of this kind usually have some and consequences of a decision and wonder-
truth on each side. The opinions and aesthet- ing if it is good or bad, right or wrong, beauti-
ics of ordinary people matter, but preferences ful or ugly.
change with the times so that our management
can only be improved by interpreting the References
results of public opinion polls within the Averill, J., P. Stanat, and T. More. 1998.
broader context of aesthetic values theory. Aesthetics and the environment. Review of
A similar situation arises with carrying General Psychology 2:2, 153–174.
capacity. It is commonplace to advocate use Averill J., and T. More. 2000. Happiness. In
restrictions to preserve quality. But such Handbook of Emotions. 2nd ed. M. Lewis
restrictions raise other questions: How they and J. Haviland-Jones, eds. New York:
can be implemented fairly is a moral issue, at Guilford Press, 663–676.
least in the public sector. Higher fees are one Carlson, A. 1977. On the possibility of quan-
rationing mechanism, but fees have a substan- tifying scenic beauty. Landscape Planning
tially greater impact on low-income people 4, 131–172.
than on upper-income people (More and ———. 1984. On the possibility of quantifying
Stevens 2000; Reiling et al. 1994). Lotteries scenic beauty—a response to Ribe.
or other complex rationing schemes raise sim- Landscape Planning 11, 49–65.
ilar questions. Perhaps more importantly, cur- Dissanayake, E. 1998. Komar and Melamid
rent projections suggest that the U.S. popula- discover Pleistocene taste. Philosophy and
tion will nearly double by the year 2050 (U.S. Literature 22:2, 486–498.
143
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
Komar, V., and A Melamid. 1997. Painting by Measuring the discriminatory impact asso-
Number: Komar and Melamid’s Scientific ciated with higher recreational fees.
Guide to Art. J. Wypijewski, ed. New York: Leisure Sciences 14:2, 121–138.
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Ribe, R. 1982. On the possibility of quantify-
More, T., J. Averill, and R. Glass. 1996. Non- ing scenic beauty: a response. Landscape
economic values in multiple objective Planning 9, 61–75.
decisionmaking. In Multiple Objective Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of Human
Decision Making for Land, Water, and Values. New York: Free Press.
Environmental Management. S. El-Swaify Sax, J. 1981. Mountains without Handrails:
and D. Yakowitz, eds. Boca Raton, Fla.: Reflections on the National Parks. Ann
Lewis, 503–512. Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
More, T., and T. Stevens. 2000. Do user fees U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. National popula-
exclude low-income people from tion projections—I: Summary tables. On-
resource-based recreation? Journal of line at www.census.gov/population/www/-
Leisure Research 37:3, 341–357. projections/natsum-T1.html.
Reiling, S., H. Cheng, and C. Trott. 1994.

144
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Evaluating Carrying Capacities for Protected Areas

Tony Prato, 212 Mumford Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211; pra-
toa@missouri.edu

This paper discusses the concept of carrying capacity and proposes a new carrying capacity
method for protected areas. What is considered the first documented concern about carrying
capacity in national parks occurred in the mid-1930s when the National Park Service (NPS)
posed the question: “How large a crowd can be turned loose in a wilderness area without
destroying its essential qualities?” and the retort that recreation use be kept “within the carrying
capacity” (Sumner 1936). The 1978 National Parks and Recreation Act (P.L. 95-625) requires
carrying capacities to be determined for each park as part of the process of developing a general
management plan. Specifically, amendments to Public Law 91-383 (84 Stat. 824, 1970) require
general management plans developed for national park units to include “identification of and
implementation commitments for visitor carrying capacities for all areas of the unit” and deter-
mination of whether park visitation patterns are consistent with social and ecological carrying
capacities. Amendments to the National Trails System Act (Public Law 90-543, 1968) mandate
“an identified carrying capacity of the trail and a plan for its implementation” be developed in
comprehensive trail planning. Regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act of
1976 dictate that, in wilderness management planning, provision be made “for limiting and dis-
tributing visitor use of specific areas in accord with periodic estimates of the maximum levels of
use that allow natural processes to operate freely and that do not impair the values for which
wilderness areas were created.” Similarly, the National Outdoor Recreation Plan requires “each
federal recreation land managing agency [to] determine the carrying capacity of its recreation
lands” (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 1973).
Two forms of carrying capacity are rele- bance (Manning 1998; Leung and Marion
vant to protected areas: human, or social, and 2000). However, these definitions oversimpli-
biological, or ecological (Seidl et al. 1999). fy the dynamic interactions between animal
Thomas Malthus gave, perhaps, the earliest populations and landscapes, which are char-
analysis of human carrying capacity. He pos- acterized by nonlinear dynamics and popula-
tulated that human population growth would tion thresholds (Seidl and Tisdell 1999).
outstrip the land’s capacity to produce food In the mid-1960s the carrying capacity
resulting in food shortages (Malthus 1986 concept for protected areas was expanded
[1798]). In range and wildlife management, beyond ecological effects to include human or
biological or ecological carrying capacity is experiential effects of visitation (Wagar 1964).
defined as the maximum population of a par- Examples of such effects include crowding,
ticular species a habitat area can support in a use conflicts and excess resource degradation
given period of time without reducing the (Manning 1998; Leung and Marion 2000).
future ability of the area to support the species Visitor carrying capacity for protected areas is
or damaging the area (Miller 1990; Hawden defined as the maximum number and type of
and Palmer 1994; Hanley et al. 1999). visitors an area can sustain without causing
Leopold defined it as the maximum density a irreversible deterioration of the physical envi-
range is capable of supporting (Dhondt ronment and appreciable loss of visitor satis-
1988). Exceeding a protected area’s ecological faction (Shelby and Heberlein 1986; Seidl
carrying capacity increases the risk of irre- and Tisdell 1999). Since the human, ecologi-
versible ecosystem change, such as declines in cal, and economic components of visitor car-
plant community structure or species diversi- rying capacity differ, carrying capacity is diffi-
ty (Caughley 1979; Wallace 1999). Other eco- cult to define. Biophysical characteristics of an
logical effects include loss of soil and vegeta- area (e.g., vegetation type, topography and cli-
tion and damage to trees and wildlife distur- mate), human factors (e.g., location and mode
145
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
of travel, season of use, group size, and behav- LAC method. It evaluates visitor impacts by
ior of other visitors), and management policies comparing standards for key indicators of nat-
(use limitations) are more important determi- ural resources, cultural resources, and visitor
nants of ecological and social (visitor) carrying experiences with values of those indicators
capacities than simply the size of the popula- measured under existing field conditions, and
tion or number of visitors. Accordingly, con- identifies and implements appropriate man-
temporary definitions of carrying capacity agement action when standards are violated
consider the acceptability of human, ecologi- (Graefe et al. 1990). LAC and VIM have been
cal, and economic impacts of visitation. In applied to backcountry management planning
addition to these impacts, increased use of a in Shenandoah National Park (Marion et al.
protected area can alter management actions. 1985).
Specifically, increased use is likely to result in In 1992, NPS established the VERP
more intensive management practices, such as method to evaluate carrying capacity in devel-
periodic rest and rotation of degraded areas, oping general management plans for park
construction of new roads and trails, and oth- units (U.S. Department of the Interior 1997).
ers (Manning et al. 1996b). In general, carry- The VERP method was first implemented in
ing capacity depends on value judgments, Arches National Park (Hof et al. 1994;
institutional arrangements, technologies, con- Manning 2001) and a number of other nation-
sumption patterns and human goals (Seidl al parks in the United States (Vande Camp et
and Tisdell 1999). al. 2001). Like the LAC and VIM methods,
the VERP method determines the amounts
Carrying Capacity Methods and kinds of visitor use a management zone
Several quantitative measures of carrying can sustain without causing unacceptable
capacity have been developed and applied. resource and social impacts (Shelby and
The three most common ones are Limits of Heberlein 1986, Manning et al. 1996a).
Acceptable Change (LAC), Visitor Impact Resource impacts include loss in vegetation,
Management (VIM), and Visitor Experience tree damage, soil erosion and compaction and
and Resource Protection (VERP). Rather wildlife disturbance, and social impacts
than defining carrying capacity as the maxi- encompass crowding, use conflicts (e.g.,
mum number of visitors allowed in an area, snowmobiling vs. cross-country skiing),
the LAC method evaluates the acceptability of reduced quality of visitor experiences due to
visitor impacts on key biophysical and social excessive resource degradation and other fac-
processes (Stankey et al. 1985; McCool and tors that diminish visitor satisfaction (Leung
Cole 1997). Impact acceptability is judged by et al. 2002). Other carrying capacity methods
comparing a set of indicators of biophysical include Visitor Activity Management
and social processes to standards of quality Planning (Nilsen and Grant 1998) and the
that “define the minimum acceptable condi- Tourism Optimization Management Model
tion of indicator variables” or limits of accept- (Manidis Roberts Consultants 1997).
able change (Newman et al. 2001). The latter Implementation of the VERP method
define the desired future conditions for requires managers to (1) select appropriate
resource, social, and managerial settings management objectives for different zones
(Merigliano 1990; Manning 1999; Newman et within a protected area; (2) translate the
al. 2001). In essence, limits of acceptable objectives for each zone into indicators and
change articulate the management objectives standards of quality for resource and social
for an area (Frissell and Stankey 1972; impacts; (3) implement a monitoring program
Manning et al. 1996a; Manning 1999). If indi- to measure indicators; (4) design and imple-
cators exceed established standards, then a ment a new management action when the
management action is taken to bring indica- standards are violated; and (5) monitor the
tors into conformance. new management action for compliance with
The VIM method is very similar to the the standards (Manning 2001; Leung et al.
146
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

2002). The LAC, VIM, and VERP methods measured ecosystem conditions as follows. R1
have several elements in common, namely (1) represents significant losses in native species,
determining the types of recreation opportu- highly degraded habitat for endangered
nities to be provided in different zones; (2) species, high congestion on trails, and very
defining opportunities in terms of specific long waiting times. R2 represents moderate
indicators and standards of quality; (3) moni- losses in native species, moderately degraded
toring indicators for compliance with stan- habitat for endangered species, moderate con-
dards; and (4) implementing appropriate gestion on trails, and long waiting times. R3
management actions when standards are vio- represents most native species present, good
lated (Manning 1999). habitat for endangered species, low conges-
tion on trails, and short waiting times. R4 rep-
Proposed Method resents widespread abundance of native
The proposed method for evaluating car- species, excellent habitat for endangered
rying capacity is called the Multiple Attribute species, no trail congestion, and very short
Scoring Test for Capacity, or MASTEC (Prato waiting times. Ecosystem conditions improve
2001). MASTEC integrates elements of the from R1 to R4. Bayes’ theorem, which comes
LAC, VIM, and VERP methods. It allows from Bayesian statistics (Peterman and Peters
managers to quantitatively determine whether 1988), is used to minimize the occurrence of
the current state of a protected area ecosystem two kinds of decision errors that the park
is in compliance with established standards manager can make in determining the current
for ecological and social carrying capacities state of the ecosystem. The first error is that
when there is uncertainty regarding the state manager decides the ecosystem is M3 or M4
of the ecosystem (phase 1) and, if the stan- (compliant states) when it is really M1 or M2
dards are violated, uses a multiple-attribute (non-compliant states). When this error is
evaluation method to identify the best man- committed, the manager takes no corrective
agement action for achieving compliance with action when such action is warranted. The
the standards (phase 2). Consider a unit of the second error is that manager decides the
National Park System that encompasses an ecosystem is M1 or M2 (non-compliant states)
ecosystem that can be in one of four mutually when it is really M3 or M4 (compliant states).
exclusive states of compliance with biophysi- When this error is committed, the manager
cal and social carrying capacities: M1 (highly takes corrective action when no such action is
non-compliant), M2 (moderately non-compli- warranted, which implies unnecessary expen-
ant), M3 (moderately compliant), and M4 ditures.
(highly compliant). Prior probabilities of An outcome is defined as a combination of
states are p(M1), p(M2), p(M3) and p(M4), an ecosystem state and condition. For exam-
which sum to 1 and represent expert judg- ple, the outcome (M1R2) represents ecosys-
ment about the current probabilities of differ- tem state M1 and ecosystem condition R2.
ent states of compliance. Suppose the park Since outcomes are mutually exclusive, the
manager believes states M1 and M2 indicate prior probability of an ecosystem condition,
non-compliance and states M3 and M4 indi- say R2, is the sum of the joint probabilities:
cate compliance with carrying capacities. p(R2) = p(M1R2) +…+ p(M4R2) =
Let the ecosystem’s current state of com-
∑ip(Mi)p(R2|Mi),
pliance be evaluated in terms of two ecological
attributes (percent of native species present where p(Mi) is the prior probability of Mi and
and habitat suitability for an endangered p(R2|Mi) is the likelihood function or the like-
species), and two social attributes (level of lihood of observing R2 given the ecosystem
congestion on backcountry hiking trails and state is Mi. The posterior probability is the
the length of time visitors have to wait for in- probability that the ecosystem is in state M1
park transportation). In addition, let the state given the condition is R2. It is determined
of the ecosystem be assessed in terms of four from Bayes’ theorem as follows:

147
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
p(M1|R2) = p(M1R2)/p(R2) = determine the best management action for
[p(M1) p(R2|M1)]/[∑ip(Mi)p(R2|Mi)]. achieving compliance with carrying capaci-
ties.
The posterior probability combines the The second-stage decision is modeled as
prior probabilities and the likelihood func- the following mathematical programming
tions. The importance of the prior probability problem, which for simplicity contains only
relative to the likelihood function in determin- one ecological and one social attribute:
ing the posterior probability decreases
(increases) as the amount of new data provid- Max U(A) = wj ej* + wk sk*
ed by management actions increases (decreas- subject to:
es). p(ej*≥ ej**) ≥1 – αj and p(sk*≥ sk**) ≥ 1
An example of how Bayes’ theorem is used
to calculate posterior probabilities is given in – βk0 ≤ wj ≤ 1, 0 ≤ wk ≤ 1 and wj + wk = 1
Table 1. The example shows posterior proba- 0≤ αj≤ 1 and 0 ≤ βk ≤ 1.
bilities for four hypothetical ecosystem states
with ecosystem conditions R1 and R3. The where A stands for management action for
fourth column of the table shows that ecosys- complying with carrying capacities, U(A) is
tem state M1 has the highest posterior proba- the utility provided by A, ej*, and sk* are nor-
bility (0.63) when the ecosystem condition is malized mean values of the ecological and
R1. Since M1 is not compliant with carrying social attributes of management actions,
capacities, then the second stage is needed to respectively, wj is the weight for the jth eco-

Table 1. Posterior probabilities for four hypothetical ecosystem states with ecosystem condi-
tions R1 and R3
_________________________________________________________
R1 R3
_______________ _______________
Ecosystem
state p(Mi)a p(R1|Mi)b p(Mj|R1)c p(R3|Mi) p(Mi|R3)d

M1e 0.4 0.5 0.63g 0.1 0.19

M2e 0.3 0.3 0.28 0.2 0.29

M3f 0.2 0.1 0.13 0.4 0.38h

M4f 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.3 0.14

__________________________________________________________
a. Prior probabilities of ecosystem states
b. Likelihood functions
c. [p(R1 | Mi) p(Mi)]/[∑ ip(R1 | Mi) p(Mi)]

d. [p(R3 | Mi) p(Mi)]/[∑ ip(R3 | Mi) p(Mi)]

e. States not in compliance with carrying capacities

f. States in compliance with carrying capacities
g. Maximum posterior probability for condition R1
h. Maximum posterior probability for condition R3
148
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

logical attribute, wk is the weight for the kth mation. This feature alone is likely to discour-
social attribute, and ej** and sk** are the nor- age its use by park managers. Implementing
malized standards for ecological and social MASTEC using a spatial decision-support
attributes, respectively. Chance (probabilistic) tool would significantly increase user accessi-
constraints require the best management bility. In addition, the tool would facilitate
action to provide biophysical attributes that public understanding and hopefully accept-
are at least as great as the biophysical stan- ance of the procedures used by protected
dards for carrying capacity with reliability 1 – areas to comply with carrying capacities.
aj and social attributes that are at least as great
as the social standards for carrying capacity References
with a reliability 1 – bk. Suppose the manage- Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1973. Outdoor
ment action determined by solving the above Recreation: A Legacy for America.
mathematical programming problem is imple- Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
mented and leads to ecosystem condition R3. Printing Office,
As Table 1 illustrates, the highest posterior Caughley, G., and J.H. Lawton. 1981.
probability given R3 is for ecosystem state Plant–herbivore systems. In Theoretical
M3. Since M3 complies with carrying capaci- Ecology: Principles and Applications. M.S.
ties, there is no need to alter the management Boyce and L.D. Hayden-Wing, eds.
action until ecosystem conditions change. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 132–166.
Mathematical optimization models, like Dhondt, A.A. 1988. Carrying capacity: a con-
the one given above, have been used to fusing concept. Acta Oecologica 9,
address a variety of natural management prob- 337–346.
lems. Prato and Wu (1995) used a chance- Frissell, S., and G. Stankey. 1972. Wilderness
constrained linear programming problem to environmental quality: search for social
determine the economically efficient farming and economic harmony. Proceedings of the
systems for improving water quality in an agri- Society of American Foresters Annual
cultural watershed in north-central Missouri. Conference. Hot Springs, Ark.: Society of
Peterson et al. (1994) used mixed-integer pro- American Foresters, 170–183.
gramming to implement a multiple-objective Graefe, A.R., F.R. Druss, and J. Vaske. 1990.
planning process for inventory and monitor- Visitor Impact Management: The
ing programs in Olympic National Park in the Planning Framework. Washington, D.C.:
state of Washington. National Parks and Conservation
Association.
Conclusion Hanley, N., I. Moffatt, R. Faichney, and M.
Units of the National Park System are Wilson. Measuring sustainability: a time
managed to conserve their natural and cultur- series of alternative indicators for
al resources for the benefit of future genera- Scotland. Ecological Economics 28, 55–73.
tions, and allow public enjoyment by the cur- Hawden, S., and L.J. Palmer. 1994. Reindeer
rent and future generations. This dual man- in Alaska. U.S. Department of Agriculture
date and the legal requirement to identify and Bulletin 1089, 1–70.
implement visitor carrying capacities for park Hof, M., J. Hammett, M. Rees, J. Belnap, N.
units pose a major challenge for park man- Poe, D.W. Lime and R.E. Manning. 1994.
agers. Meeting this challenge requires defensi- Getting a handle on visitor carrying capac-
ble, quantitative procedures for assessing and ity: a pilot project at Arches National Park.
complying with ecological and social carrying Park Science 14, 11–13.
capacities. The carrying capacity method pro- Leung, Y., and J.L. Marion. 2000. Recreation
posed here (MASTEC) incorporates Bayesian impacts and management in wilderness: a
statistics, multiple-attribute decision-making, state-of-knowledge review. In Wilderness
and mathematical programming. Implementa- Science in a Time of Change Conference—
tion of MASTEC requires considerable infor- Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats,
149
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
and Management. D.N. Cole, S.F. Proceedings—Limits of Acceptable Change
McCool, W.T. Borrie and J. O’Loughlin, and Related Planning Processes: Progress
comps. RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, Ut.: and Future Directions. General Technical
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Report INT-GTR-371. Washington,
Service, Intermountain Research Station, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–
23–48. Forest Service.
Leung, Y., N. Shaw, K. Johnson and R. Merigliano, L. 1990. Indicators to Monitor the
Duhaime. 2002. More than a database: Wilderness Recreation Experience. St.
integrating GIS data with the Boston Paul: University of Minnesota.
Harbor Islands visitor carrying capacity Miller, G.T., Jr., 1990. Resource Conservation
study. The George Wright Forum 19:1, and Management. Belmont, Calif.:
69–78. Wadsworth.
Malthus, T.R. 1986. An Essay on the Principle Newman, P., J.L. Marion, and K. Cahill. 2001.
of Population. [First ed. 1798.] London: Integrating resource, social, and manage-
Pickering. ment indicators of quality into carrying
Manidis Roberts Consultants. 1997. capacity decision-making. The George
Developing a Tourism Optimization Wright Forum 18:3, 28–40.
Management Model (TOMM), A Model to Nilsen, P., and T. Grant. 1998. A comparative
Monitor and Manage Tourism on analysis of protected area planning and
Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Surry management frameworks. In Proceed-
Hills, New South Wales: Manidis Roberts ings—Limits of Acceptable Change and
Consultants. Related Planning Processes: Progress and
Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime and M. Hof. Further Directions. S.F. McCool and D.N.
1996a. Social carrying capacity of natural Cole, eds. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of
areas: theory and application in the U.S. Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky
National Parks. Natural Areas Journal 16, Mountain Research Station, 49–57.
118–127. Peterman, R.M., and C.N. Peters. 1998.
Manning, R., N. Ballinger, J. Marion, and J. Decision analysis: taking uncertainties into
Roggenbuck. 1996b. Recreation manage- account in forest resource management. In
ment in natural areas: problems and prac- Statistical Methods for Adaptive
tices, status and trends. Natural Areas Management Studies. V. Sit and B. Taylor,
Journal 16, 142–146. eds. Land Management Handbook no. 42.
Manning, R.E. 1998. To provide for signifi- Victoria, B.C.: Research Branch, Ministry
cant enjoyment: recreation management in of Forestry, 105–127.
national parks. The George Wright Forum Peterson, D.L., D.G. Silsbee, and D.L.
15:1, 6–20. Schmoldt. 1994. A case study of resources
———. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: management planning with multiple
Search and Research for Satisfaction. 2nd objectives and projects. Environmental
ed. Corvallis: Oregon State University Management 18, 729–742.
Press. Prato, T. 2001. Modeling carrying capacity for
———. 2001. Visitor experience and resource national parks. Ecological Economics 39,
protection: a framework for managing the 321–331.
carrying capacity of national parks. Prato, T., and S. Wu. 1995. A stochastic pro-
Journal of Park and Recreation gramming analysis of economic impacts of
Administration 19, 93–108. improving water quality at the watershed
Marion, J., D. Cole, and D. Reynolds. 1985. scale. CARES Research Report no. 13,
Limits of acceptable change: a framework University of Missouri–Columbia.
for assessing carrying capacity. Park Seidl, J., and C.A. Tisdell. 1999. Carrying
Science 6, 9–11. capacity reconsidered: from Malthus’ pop-
McCool, S.F., and D.W. Cole. 1997. ulation theory to cultural carrying capaci-
150
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

ty. Ecological Economics 31, 395–408. Protection (VERP) Framework: A

Shelby, B., and T.A. Heberlein. 1986. Handbook for Planners and Managers.
Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Denver: Denver Service Center, National
Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Park Service.
Stankey, G., D. Cole, R. Lucas, M. Peterson, S. Vande Camp, M., D. Johnson, and R.
Frissell, and R. Washburne. 1985. The Manning. 2001. Application of visitor
Limits of Acceptable Change LAC System experience and resource protection
for Wilderness Planning. General (VERP) to Alaskan national park wilder-
Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, Ut.: ness. Technical report NPS/CCSOUW/
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest NRTR-2001-01. Seattle: Cascadia Field
Service. Station, University of Washington.
Sumner, E. 1936. Special report on a wildlife Wagar, J.A. 1964. The carrying capacity of
study in the High Sierra in Sequoia and wild lands for recreation. Forest Science
Yosemite national parks and adjacent terri- Monograph 7. Washington, D.C.: Society
tory. U.S. National Park Service Records, of American Foresters.
National Archives, Washington, D.C. Wallace, L.L. 1999. Evaluation and wildlife
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1997. VERP. management. The George Wright Forum
The Visitor Experience and Resource 16:3, 27–39.

151
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Who Will Keep the Night?

Angela M. Richman, Pecos National Historical Park, P.O. Box 418, Pecos, New Mexico 87552;
angie_richman@nps.gov

No sight that human eyes can look upon

is more provocative of awe than is the night sky scattered thick with stars.
— Llewelyn Powys, philosophical poet

Parks across the country have been set aside to preserve a diversity of natural and cultural
resources, from the impressive thermal features in Yellowstone to the historic Liberty Bell in
Philadelphia. However, one resource historically has been overlooked; it is both natural and cul-
tural and can be found in every park. It can even be found in your own back yard: it is the night
sky. For millennia the night sky has remained unchanged, but within the past hundred years it
has become filled with airplanes, satellites, and the glow of city lights. When we go out and look
at the stars, planets, and moon, we are seeing essentially the same sky that ancient peoples once
saw. The night sky is our best link to all human cultures that have gone before us, providing a way
for us to better understand them. Although it has been affected by the technology of humans, of
all the resources on Earth it is the one we have the most power to restore.
All over the world human beings have ronment.
been sky watchers for thousands of years. The Chaco Culture National Historical Park is
sky and objects within it have appeared as a unique place located in the northwest corner
magical and faithful companions integrated of New Mexico. By about 900 AD, this canyon
into daily life. In many canyons and valleys, on was bustling with people. Archaeologists
buttes and mesas, and in many of the cultural believe that up to 6,000 people lived here at
remains across the southwestern United one time, and thousands more would travel
States, we find evidence of astronomical activ- through. In many ways, life would have been
ities. Sun, moon, and star images are carved very similar to our lives now. These people
into or painted onto rock faces. Some of these had the same mental abilities and hence the
images interact with celestial objects through- same power of imagination we have. They
out the year, revealing light and shadow events spent a lot of time and effort building vast
that display and mark the passage of time. roadways extending hundreds of miles. They
Some buildings are aligned to the solstice or constructed homes and buildings, both public
equinox and entire communities may have set- and religious, some containing hundreds of
tled in certain locations based on a distinct rooms. They were farmers who worried about
horizon in order to obtain an accurate calen- what they were going to eat and when. They
drical cycle. Based on deductions from arche- were also astronomers who would sit under
ological sites and by understanding present- the immense sky at night and ponder over all
day American Indians, we know this calendri- they saw there. They left behind for us many
cal cycle was important for determining many clues demonstrating how they tried to give
events, such as when to plant and harvest order to what might have seemed like chaos in
crops, perform certain ceremonies, and hunt. the sky.
These are basic societal activities that need to Fajada Butte is a very distinctive landmark
be done at certain critical times in order to at Chaco and can be seen from up to 40 miles
sustain human life. It is also apparent that outside the canyon, serving as a beacon for
observation of celestial objects and phenome- travelers then and now. Atop this butte is one
na was fundamental in the ancients’ mytholo- of the most complete solar markers in the
gy, possibly giving them a way to identify their world. It has become known as the “Sun
role and place within the universe and to con- Dagger” (Figure 1). This site consists of three
nect them with their entire surrounding envi- sandstone slabs that lean on their side against
152
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

the cliff face. Beneath these slabs two spirals sure the order and magic of this event was
have been carved and strategically placed to greatly anticipated year after year.
physically interact with the sun at special The Sun Dagger is a beautiful example of
times throughout the year. The summer sol- how sites interact with the sun. However, the
stice is the longest day of the year, when the stars were also an inspiration in developing
sun will rise at its northernmost position along these markers. Many of the walls of the build-
the horizon. On this day, when the sun reach- ings in Chaco Canyon align directly
es its highest point in the sky (around noon), north–south or east–west. It has been suggest-
light at the Sun Dagger will shine through the ed that not only was the North Star used to
gaps between the three slabs and project a give direction, but was also used in the plan-
dagger of light that completely bisects the larg- ning of individual buildings and to precisely
er of the two spirals. On the winter solstice, lay out the civilization as a whole. At least four
when the sun is at its southernmost position, buildings lay on the north–south line, one of
two daggers of light will bracket the large spi- which is Casa Rinconada, a ceremonial kiva.
ral. Then, on the vernal and autumnal equi- All great kivas have a doorway either on the
nox, the sun’s position is directly between the north or south side. The northern doorway in
two solstices. It rises due east and sets due Casa Rinconada was built of extra-large pro-
west, when there is equal amount of daylight portions allowing those inside to see the
and darkness. On this day the two daggers of North Star at night.
light bisect both spirals. From the first sliver of In Canyon de Chelly National Monument,
light to the last, the daggers move quickly and Arizona, you may find hidden in many rock
very accurately mark these special times, giv- shelters what archeologists first called
ing all those who are privileged to witness it a “ancient planetariums”; a more appropriate
feeling of living on a moving planet. We can be term today would be “star ceilings” (Figure 2).

Figure 1. This dagger bisects a carved spiral to mark the beginning of the summer solstice;
the Sun Dagger, Chaco Culture National Historical Park.
153
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Figure 2. The ceilings of many of the alcoves scattered around Canyon de Chelly National
Monument are adorned with stars.

The ceilings of such rock shelters have four- plant before Dilyéhé can be seen rising in the
pointed stars painted on them. Some of these morning sky or it will be too late for the plants
images were shot up with an arrow dipped in to mature before winter. When the tail end of
paint. Some believe they functioned some- Scorpios, which is known as the Rabbit
what like a planetarium of today, displaying Tracks, reaches a certain position in the sky, it
the stars during the day in order to tell stories signals the beginning of hunting season. Even
and mythologies under them. We can never be with all our modern comforts we can still see
completely sure of the intended purpose of how these star patterns serve as a guide to
such places, but we do know the Navajo creat- plant gardens or to hunt.
ed these star ceilings, and most Navajo rituals Not only for the Navajo, but also for many
were performed for protection. In addition to of the Pueblo Indians, astronomical activities
looking to the stars for protection, the Navajo flourished for decades in their communities.
used certain star patterns to symbolize many Modern-day Puebloans believe the night sky
of their moral codes. The Fire Star (North is an important resource to preserve and pro-
Star), Revolving Male (Big Dipper), and the tect, not only for the connection to past gener-
Revolving Female (Cassiopeia) serve as a ations, but also for the teaching of future gen-
reminder of how life should be inside a hogan erations. Some still teach their children about
as each of these constellations revolve around the sky in the home environment. Many tribes
one another and revolve around the center across the country are aware of their cultural
fire. Dilyéhé (the Pleiades star cluster) are past and take pride in connecting their youth
carefully observed to know the proper time to and themselves to their ancestors through
plant crops. A farmer must wait until this star observations and oral histories.
pattern can no longer be seen in the evening Although the sky is usually dependable, if
sky in the spring or a late frost will likely you watch it long enough, it can still throw in
destroy the crops. They also must be sure to an element of surprise, such as the random
154
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

shooting star, to more uncommon things like at its brightest, a crescent moon could be seen
comets or supernova. In Chaco Canyon just next to it. The handprint might be the artist
seven miles west of the Sun Dagger, there is a and historian’s signature. Others who have
pictograph placed in a thoughtful location to visited this rock art panel suggest it represents
shelter it from weathering. It consists of a Venus and the moon, which frequently align
handprint, crescent moon and star burst in the sky. Still others believe it to be the sun
(Figure 3). Some believe this to be a recording and moon, which would mark a sun-watching
of a supernova. In 1054, at the height of the station. No matter how one chooses to see
Chacoan civilization, a supernova occurred these symbols, they are still of astronomical
that could be seen for 23 days during the day- significance.
time before slowly fading out. Those living in There is another symbol located at this
Chaco at this time could have read by it at site, which I believe makes it even more pow-
night. We can be sure that they noticed it. erful. It is placed on the vertical wall just
What a mysterious event to occur in an other- below the others. There are three concentric

Figure 3. The upper three images are painted on an overhang about 25 feet high. Some
believe that they may represent a supernova that appeared in 1054. The concentric circles
painted below may represent Halley’s Comet, which appeared in 1066.

wise constant sky. They probably understood rings with a large tail of red paint protruding
it differently than we do today, and perhaps it away from them. It has been suggested that it
scared them a little. It could have been inter- looks like a comet. In 1066, Halley’s Comet
preted as a sign from their gods or as an omen could be seen in the sky over New Mexico,
that a change was about to happen. The first only 12 years after the appearance of the
day the supernova appeared and when it was supernova, making it possible for the same
155
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
person to have recorded both events. How sad ity sky. They travel high atop mountain peaks,
it would be if such a rare event were to happen they have sent telescopes into space, and they
today and most of the people living on this have discovered the dark skies in our national
planet would not be able to see it. parks. Some will drive hundreds of miles to
To help connect visitors to the astronomi- escape a city to observe the sky in a national
cal past, some of the staff in Chaco Culture park. The Anasazi merely had to step outside
National Historical Park and volunteers from their doors.
the Albuquerque Astronomical Society have After becoming aware of the importance of
developed an on-going astronomy program. the night sky to national park visitors, the
The geologic formations found there make a National Park Service (NPS) started a small
scenic backdrop for the observatory located project dedicated to preserving the night sky.
just behind the visitor center. Telescopes, The NPS Night Sky Team is using CCD
research-quality computers, and cameras are (charged couple device) cameras to take base-
available to visitors to extend their experience line measurements of light pollution affecting
of the night sky beyond unaided vision. Park certain parks nationwide. Some parks, such as
staff and volunteers are experts in sharing the Petroglyph National Monument, which bor-
sky with today’s sky watchers. Those who ders the large metropolis of Albuquerque, has
participate in the program have the opportu- already lost a large portion of their night sky.
nity to look through a telescope, or to sit in the Other parks throughout the American
darkness and be overwhelmed by the pristine Southwest are under serious threat of losing
sky. Many who visit Chaco can have new expe- their night sky in the near future if urban
riences with the sky, like seeing the Milky Way expansion continues at its current rate.
or the moons of Jupiter for the first time. They Satellite images of the Earth at night taken
will also learn of the ancient astronomy once over the past 40 years show the steady
practiced there. Connecting to the past cul- increase of light pollution. Scientists have esti-
ture at Chaco can help visitors understand mated what the night sky will look like in the
their own culture and how they fit into the next 20 years if we continue to ignore it; the
universe today. What else could be a more amount of sky that will be lost is disastrous.
appropriate national park experience? We have a great opportunity now to educate
It is a feeble light that comes to us from the people and save the night sky from disappear-
stars, but without it what would be the present ance.
condition of Man’s mind? For years now we have recognized the
— Jean Perrin, physicist importance of preserving sites such as the Sun
Dagger at Chaco, or the star ceilings at
The sky hasn’t changed much with time, Canyon de Chelly. By preserving these sites,
and our reason for viewing the sky hasn’t we are preserving a piece of the people who
changed: we still want to pontificate how we fit made them. However, we have forgotten to
into the universe. The Ancestral Puebloans preserve the thing that inspired them. If the
were astronomers too, just using different Ancestral Puebloans, or even our own ances-
tools of science to gain this universal under- tors, faced the same problem of losing the
standing. With modern technology, profes- night sky as we do today, how dramatically dif-
sional and amateur astronomers alike have ferent their lives would have been and hence
been able to look deeper into space, and there- how different our lives would be. We have
fore further back in time, than ever before. already lost the pristine sky where most of the
With powerful telescopes and cameras, world’s people reside. We have a responsibili-
astronomers can conduct research and obtain ty to preserve this resource for our children,
beautiful images of deep-space objects. and it is imperative we keep at least a few
However, with the encroaching light pollu- places where people can go to be inspired by
tion, now astronomers of all kinds have only a the sky. There is hope; we haven’t completely
few places they can go to observe a high-qual- lost the sky yet. ✥
156
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

Yellowstone Wildlife Watching:

A Survey of Visitor Attitudes and Desires
Alice Wondrak Biel, Yellowstone Center for Resources, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National
Park, Wyoming 82190; alice_wondrak_biel@nps.gov

Background
For 60 years or so, Yellowstone was the place where visitors came to feed the bears. People
got hurt, bears got killed, and the National Park Service (NPS) got sued, but still the park’s man-
agers failed to see how it would ever be possible, or even desirable, to end the roadside feeding
that was at once so desired and so detrimental. In 1968, Yellowstone’s rangers finally started
enforcing the no-feeding regulations that had existed in the park since 1902, and roadside feed-
ing was ended within a couple of years. By 1971 or so it was uncommon to see a roadside bear,
and unhappy visitors were demanding to know where they had all gone. The park generally pro-
vided a prescriptive response to these queries, informing visitors that seeing fewer bears leading
natural lives was a preferable experience to seeing many bears being denigrated by begging. Did
visitors believe it? Some did, some didn’t; the process of convincing visitors to “think like an
ecosystem” in the wake of the vast policy changes of the past 35 years has been a long one, and
the goal of this work was to gauge how far we’ve come, and catch a glimpse of how far we might
have to go.
The Survey Expectations
Over the course of 13 days during the Question: What do you most hope to see
period May–August 2001, I administered a while in Yellowstone? If you could name three
15-question survey to a random sample of 150 things.
visitors in the Old Faithful viewing area. The There were a fairly wide range of desired
survey assessed attitudes and desires in regard sights, but most could be categorized in terms
to a number of issues related to wildlife watch- of either wildlife, thermal features, or natural
ing in Yellowstone. Responses were coded scenic features. Figure 1 shows responses that
and recorded using qualitative analysis soft- occurred at least 10% of the time, demonstrat-
ware. ing that among those interviewed for this proj-

77 76
65
59

30
26 25
21
17 17 15
(general)
(general)

bison

moose
Faithful

bears

elk

grizzly

waterfalls

wolves
scenery
features
thermal

bear
wildlife
Old

Figure 1. Yellowstone sights that at least 10% of visitors interviewed said they hoped to see.

157
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
ect, Yellowstone’s most desired sights were amount and quality of knowledge that can be
Old Faithful, bears, wildlife, thermal features, obtained from monitoring certain members of
bison, moose, scenery, elk, grizzly bears, an animal population far outweighs the nega-
waterfalls, and wolves, respectively. Old tive visual effects. Among other things,
Faithful and bears appear to remain the park’s researchers can now learn the extent of an ani-
most popular sights by far, with a little more mal’s range, measure its length of life, discover
than half of all respondents naming them as what sorts of food sources might hold it in a
one of the three things they most wanted to certain place for extended periods of time,
see while in the park. track its reproductive history, and find out
Question: On a scale of 1–5, with 1 being how it uses land throughout the day and
“not very important” and 5 being “very impor- night—all of which is valuable information for
tant,” how important is it to you to see a bear managers charged with making land use deci-
during your visit? sions within the Greater Yellowstone
In spite of the fact that an impressive one- Ecosystem.
half of the visitors interviewed had stated, Question: (a) Have you seen any park ani-
unprompted, that a bear was one of the three mals wearing radio collars or ear tags?
sights they most wanted to see, it was not cru- Roughly 23% of the visitors interviewed
cial to most people that they see one. The believed that they had seen an animal wearing
overall average answer to this question was a radio collar or an ear tag (Figure 2).
3.29—somewhere in the middle. Overall, it
appears that visitors come to Yellowstone yes
today to see the things they have always come 23%
to see: extraordinary thermal features,
wildlife—bears in particular—and beautiful
scenery. The only average importance of see-
ing a bear to the overall quality of one’s trip
would seem to indicate that although visitors
still commonly associate bears with
Yellowstone, seeing a bear is no longer a driv- no
ing reason for making the trip, in spite of the 77%
fact that they still appear to be one of the
park’s main attractions in the visitor mind. Figure 2. Percentage of visitors interviewed
who said they had seen a park animal
wearing a radio collar or ear tag.
Collared Wildlife
The debate over whether wild animals liv- Question: (b) If yes (or “if you did see
ing in national parks and wilderness areas that”), did that affect (or “do you think that it
should be collared for scientific monitoring would affect”) your experience of viewing that
purposes has raged almost since the animal, one way or the other? Make it better or
Craighead brothers pioneered the technique worse?
in Yellowstone during the 1960s. Collars and Of the 23% who believed that they had
other markers have gotten smaller and less seen an animal wearing a radio collar or an ear
conspicuous over the years, but some people tag, 77% said that seeing the marking had had
maintain that any visible marking is deleteri- no adverse impact on their experience of view-
ous to the viewing experience and makes the ing that animal. Visitors who had not seen any
marked animal seem “less than wild” because animals wearing radio collars or ear tags were
it is an indication of interaction with humani- asked to imagine their reaction to seeing such
ty. In this way, collaring shakes the façade of an animal. Of those, 86% believed that seeing
untouched nature that many people attribute an animal wearing a collar or a tag would have
to national parks and wilderness areas. no impact on their experience of viewing that
Proponents of collaring maintain that the animal (Figure 3). Although those who said
158
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

saw collar, was either had had or would have had no impact on
bothered their experience of viewing that animal. In
would be 5% some instances, the long-held contention by
bothered some scientists that far from being a bad thing,
12% would not be visitors’ seeing marked animals was a positive
bothered byproduct of research because it generated
65%
public interest in science and wildlife conser-
saw collar, not vation, proved to be true.
bothered
18% Awareness of Bear Feeding
Question: Are you aware that several
Figure 3. Percentage of people who had decades ago, it was common for people to see
been, or imagined that they would be, many bears along Yellowstone’s roadsides, beg-
bothered by seeing a park animal wear- ging for food?
ing a radio collar or ear tag.
About three-quarters of visitors surveyed
that seeing a collared animal would not depre- (76%) answered that yes, they were aware that
ciate their experience were not generally people used to feed bears at the roadsides.
prompted to explain why not, 17% volun- Overall, 37% of those who were not aware of
teered that they wouldn’t be bothered because roadside feeding were aged 18–29 (this age
they knew why collaring was done and group comprised 28% of the total sample),
believed it to be a positive thing. One man 28% were 30–45 (27% of the total sample),
went so far as to say that seeing a collar would 19% were 46–55 (22% of the total sample),
actually enhance his viewing experience for 5% were 56–65, and none were over 65 (com-
that reason. bined, 23% of the total sample). Awareness
Twenty-three percent of visitors who had was low among those from outside the U.S.,
seen a marked animal said that seeing the especially among the younger age groups.
marking had adversely impacted their experi-
ence of viewing that animal. Of those visitors Would You Want to Feed a
who had not seen a marked animal but were Yellowstone Bear?
asked to imagine their reaction, 14% said they Because enforcement appears to have been
thought that their viewing experience would the driving force behind ending bear feeding
be adversely impacted by the marking. Half of in Yellowstone, and I was interested in finding
the people who said that they had been or out whether visitors still had any desire to feed
would be bothered by seeing collared wildlife the bears, I asked them whether they would
said that it was because it seemed “unnatural,” want to feed a Yellowstone bear if they did not
with one adding that collared wildlife were have to fear being caught or punished for
unsuitable for wildlife photography for this doing so.
reason. Three people said that they thought Question: Today, the rules against feeding
the collar would be uncomfortable for the ani- bears are strictly enforced. But during the years
mal to wear, and two each said that “wildlife of the roadside bears that I just mentioned, they
should be left alone” and that “animals should weren’t. If we existed in a kind of vacuum here
be free.” Two people said that they would be today, and you could feed bears in Yellowstone
bothered by seeing traces that the animal had today without being afraid of getting caught or
interacted with humans, and two people said punished, do you think that’s something you
that they would be bothered because they would want to do?
wouldn’t know why the animal was wearing a Although there are, of course, gaps
collar. between what people will say they might do
Overall, this research shows that more than when queried out of context and what they
four out of five visitors surveyed said that see- might actually do when placed in the midst of
ing an animal marked for scientific purposes a situation, the results were overwhelming;
159
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences
95% of visitors surveyed said that no, they category included, accurately, the popular
would not want to feed Yellowstone’s bears, adage that “a fed bear is a dead bear;” ten peo-
even if they would suffer no legal conse- ple explained that bears that gain access to
quences for doing so. Eight people (5%) stat- human foods have to be either relocated or
ed that yes, if they could do it without fear of killed, because they will invariably return in
reprisal, they would want to feed a bear in search for more and then become hazardous
Yellowstone. nuisances. Others knew that bears that were
Question: Why not? fed would become dependent upon human
“That’s unsafe.” Asking these people “why foods, and some worried that they would be
not” frequently earned me incredulous looks. unable to survive in the winter, “when there’s
In sum, 43% of all those who answered “no” no one there to feed them.” Eleven percent
cited safety reasons (see Figure 4). Notable mentioned the possibility that they might even
responses falling into this category included, lose their natural instincts and skills for forag-
“A bear can attack me,” “It might kill me or ing altogether. A third supposition was that
scratch my car,” “You don’t mess with bears,” human foods would be unhealthy for bears;
“I’m chicken,” and “You can’t have people that they are “not the right food.” In all, 32%
going around getting themselves killed.” It of the people who said they would not want to
seems clear that 21st-century visitors to feed bears alluded to the fact that to do so
Yellowstone are fairly well aware of the risks would be to the detriment of the bears.
associated with bear feeding. Ten percent of “That’s unnatural.” Sixteen percent of
all people interviewed said that they would those who would not feed said they were
not want to feed the bears for safety reasons opposed to the idea because it was “unnatu-
alone. Eighty-nine percent of people who said ral” in some way. Thirteen percent said they
they would not want to feed a bear provided would not feed the bears because they were
more than one reason why not. “wild,” and eight percent said that they
“That’s bad for the bears.” The second- wouldn’t feed because the bears would cease
most popular explanation for not wanting to to be wild if they were fed.
feed the bears related to the idea that bear- “That’s bad for people.” Fifteen percent
feeding is bad for bears. Concerns cited in this indicated that feeding had negative effects on

43%

32%
25% 23%
15%
safety

unnatural
bad for

bad for
dependence

people
habituation-
bears

Figure 4. Most frequent answers to the question, Why would you not want to feed a bear in
Yellowstone?
160
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

people. The most common responses here At least 95% of those interviewed agreed
had to do with the idea that people feeding the that there are legitimate reasons why people
bears today will cause trouble for those who should not feed bears in Yellowstone, and
visit tomorrow, in that they will leave behind a were aware of what some of those reasons are.
habituated bear who may cause property dam- This conclusion, however, should be taken
age or bodily injury in its search for human with the earlier caveat telling us to mind the
foodstuffs. gap between decontextualized statements and
Other reasons for not feeding included contextualized action, and keeping in mind a
“We just want to look, not to touch;” “Wildlife 1953 visitor survey by researcher Donald
should not be fed;” a desire to follow the rules; Bock, in which almost everyone claimed to
“That’s stupid” (once accompanied by, “If I have seen someone else feeding a bear but
saw someone doing that, I would hit them”); almost no one would admit to having done it
“That would make it like a zoo;” a concern themselves.
that human feeding would disrupt the cycle of It also does not bespeak any need to
nature; an overall feeling that feeding is “just reduce either the numbers of staff available to
not right;” and a simple lack of desire to feed. patrol bear jams, nor the wildlife warnings that
As with the question of collaring, there are conveyed via interpretive materials, as this
was some ambivalence among those who said question did not address whether people
that they would not feed. In a clear case either would approach a bear without the intent to
of conflicting internal philosophies or of say- feed. In fact, two people, in the course of
ing what one thinks one should say and then emphatically stating that they would want to
what one really feels, one woman commented, stay far away from bears, named “50 feet” as
“I know human food is not appropriate for being the proper distance—a full 250 feet clos-
wildlife—wildlife needs to be with the ecosys- er than the 100-yard distance required by law.
tem as it is ... have they ever thought about The continuing need for both education and
selling food that could be used for that?” vigilance is shown by the fact that half of those
Question: Why? who wanted to feed the bears were in the low-
Of the eight people who said they would est age group and by the decrease in aware-
want to feed a bear in Yellowstone, five said ness of past feeding as age increases. In other
that they would do it in order to be able to get words, the practical management implications
close to a bear. The remaining three said that of my results for this question are minimal,
they would feed because “They’re hungry,” except for the fact that we have learned that
“It seems like the humane thing to do,” and people are generally aware, at this point, of at
“I’ve just always fed animals. Like squirrels.” least some of the reasons why they shouldn’t
Four were men and four were women, and half feed bears. What is more important here are
were in the 18–29 age group. Two were the indications for changing visitor expecta-
30–45, and one each was 45–55 and 56–65. tions, experience, and attitudes that these
Three of these visitors lived in Idaho, with the results show, as well as the fact that residual
others hailing from Colorado, South Dakota, desire for bear feeding still exists.
Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Georgia.

161
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

The Resource Challenges of America’s

National Trails System (Session Summary)
Steve Elkinton, National Park Service, Washington Office, 1849 C Street NW (MS-2220),
Washington, D.C., 20240; steve_elkinton@nps.gov

Participants included staff from Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Nez Perce National
Historical Park, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, and Yosemite National Park. Even
with this small sample of eight people, we covered a lot of ground.
The 23 national scenic and national historic trails, created under authority of the National
Trails System Act (16 U.S. Code 1241–51), total almost 42,000 miles in combined length—at
least three times the total trail mileage in all National Park Service (NPS) units. They link togeth-
er hundreds of significant natural and cultural resources, at least 90 national forests, and 62
national park areas. Several examples of standard or innovative resource management were dis-
cussed.
For each trail, when first established, a Oregon–California Trails Association, has a
comprehensive management plan (CMP) is developed a five-class typology of historic trail
written, similar to a park’s general manage- condition (unaltered, used, verified, altered,
ment plan (GMP). Many of these trail plans and approximate) that is now being accepted
are over 20 years old, but have not been on an interagency basis. This classification
updated or revised. CMPs should include a system is called MET (Mapping Emigrant
comprehensive list of resources—especially Trails).
those of high value that contribute to the trail’s Group discussion was organized to
purpose. Often these inventories are incom- address three fundamental questions:
plete, sketchy, and hard to update. For the
national historic trails, these resources (often What is Working Best for
containing historic structures, trail ruts, etc.) Protecting Significant Trail
are called “high potential sites and segments.” Resources?
Only one trail so far has benefited from a • Comprehensive resource inventories are
full inventory of natural resources (completed critical if significant trail resources are to
20 years after the CMP). Kent Schwarzkopf be protected. (This can be a problem for a
described how, over the past 10 years, at a cost newly established trail where planning
of $260,000, the Appalachian National Scenic budgets can only afford cursory invento-
Trail has been inventoried across 14 states. ries. If CMPs can be seen as a compact
Although the trail crosses several NPS areas among partners, commitment among
and national forests, the survey also included those partners for top-quality resource
the 260,000 acres acquired for the trail since inventories may help address this prob-
1978. Details of this inventory are outlined in lem.)
the 1999 George Wright Society conference • The recent cultural landscape report for
proceedings (Schwarzkopf and Buchanan the Nez Perce National Historical Park
1999). Long-term success of this inventory (perhaps the only one conducted so far for
process relies on volunteer monitors—gener- resources associated with a national trail)
ally from trail clubs along the route. This has been very helpful in setting priorities
requires an on-going training program for protection and management.
because monitor turnover is averaging 3–4 • Natural and cultural resources should be
years. A parallel inventory of the Appalachian inventoried separately because of the dif-
Trail’s cultural resources is proving more dif- ferent approaches of each set of profes-
ficult and costly. sional disciplines, yet merged into synthe-
One historic trail organization, the sized maps and management products to
162
 Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Opportunities for Visitor Experiences

show crosscutting interactions. clueless about resource monitoring and

• Full-time trail staff are needed for an ade- the value of on-going training.
quate commitment to resource manage- • Few yet recognize the trails themselves as
ment. “historic fabric,” so they are vulnerable to
• A crisis or two to make people realize how re-enactments and other inappropriate
vulnerable many of these trail resources uses.
are could prove helpful.
How Can Success in Sister
What are the Obstacles to More Programs in Natural and Cultural
Effective Resource Protection? Resource Management be
• National trails may be “administered” by Extended to National Trails?
NPS, but on the ground “management” is • GIS (geographic information systems)
often carried out by others. Resource man- offers tremendous promise to synthesize
agement may be difficult in this two-level resource information for each trail and the
system. National Trails System as a whole.
• These trails often cover great distances, • Use the cultural landscape report for the
touching many states, and may not even be Lolo Trail as a model for other national
known or recognized by local communi- historic trails. (It was used as background
ties along them. They are thin, without information in setting up a permit system
boundaries, and therefore, extremely vul- for this important overland stretch of the
nerable. overlapping Lewis & Clark and Nez Perce
• Sometimes, just after a trail is established national historic trails.
by Congress, threats appear, putting trail • Skill building through the interagency
administrators in a crisis mode, rather than National Trails Training Partnership
allowing them to accomplish long-term, (NTTP) is important, as is recognition of
proactive works, such a comprehensive state stewardship and other programs that
resource monitoring. assist the national trails.
• There is great variability from trail to trail • Foster the educational value of these
in practical experience, support, resource trails—see them as a “nursery log” of
conditions, resource threats, and partner future conservationists.
capabilities.
• Partners, such as tribal groups, are nerv- Reference
ous if increased visibility and promotion Schwarzkopf, Kent, and Holly Buchanan.
bring increased visitation, in turn raising 1999. Inventory and monitoring program
threats to sacred sites. along the Appalachian Trail. In On the
• Trail budgets are small, so little research Frontiers of Conservation: Proceedings of
and few inventories are conducted. the 10th Conference on Research and
• The identity of these trails is unclear with- Resource Management in Parks and on
in NPS (three are officially “units,” the rest Public Lands. David Harmon, ed.
are not). Therefore many do not qualify Hancock, Mich.: The George Wright
for agency programs and funding sources. Society, 95–101.
• Partnerships are critical to the well-being
of these trails, yet many of our partners are

163
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Ruins Preservation: More than Stuffing Mud

Janet R. Balsom, Grand Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023;
jan_balsom@nps.gov
Amy Horn, Grand Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023;
amy_horn@nps.gov

Ruins preservation efforts in the American Southwest have mainly focused on the treatment
of historic fabric (i.e., walls). The practice of preservation was left to the masons, with some
direction from archeologists. Early on, archeologists thought they were masons, doing much of
the work themselves. Sidewalk cement and creative reconstruction best describe their early
efforts at stabilization. In the last 10 years, National Park Service (NPS) specialists have
embarked on an ambitious program of ruins preservation under the title “Vanishing Treasures.”
Although this program has provided much-needed preservation treatment for masonry ruins,
more could be done to better understand and interpret prehistoric culture through the study of
architecture as artifact. The underlying value in ruins preservation is the interpretation of cul-
ture—that the details revealed through architectural documentation may hold a window to the
past that has yet to be opened.
The Past described by Haury. The features are more
Over the past 70 years, NPS has embarked likely reconstructions based upon the notions
on a ruins preservation program that was of the workers in 1930 rather than interpreta-
more stabilization than preservation, and tion of the features based upon archeological
more creative reconstruction than accurate evidence. Common past interpretation of the
portrayals of historic properties. This practice site also suggested a second story, something
can be found throughout the Southwest; unlikely given the lack of substantial founda-
examples primarily from Grand Canyon tion rocks.
National Park will be used here to illustrate The early classification of structures likely
that point. The first archaeological excava- provided an inherent bias toward a particular
tions and stabilization at Grand Canyon way of thinking about the architecture, poten-
occurred in 1930 at Tusayan Ruins. This site, tially limiting the possibilities based upon the
located 23 miles east of the South Rim Village, system in use. While early archeologists
was one of the first sites excavated and treated focused on architectural style as one element
by an archeological research group called Gila of attempting to classify archeological sites,
Pueblo. Emil Haury, then a graduate student, they recognized the differences in puebloan
was instrumental in the excavation and stabi- architecture and its inferences toward clan
lization of the site. Harold Gladwin, later asso- societies. In A Study of Pueblo Architecture in
ciated with the Museum of Northern Arizona, Tusayan and Cibola (first published in 1891),
also played a prominent role in the project. As Victor Mindeleff attempted to describe the
we look at the site today, we can see a small various architectural styles he observed at the
pueblo, constructed of unshaped Kaibab lime- Hopi and Zuni villages, looking specifically at
stone boulders, with considerable portland construction style in his analysis. In his dis-
cement visible at the mortar joints. The kivas, cussion of the site of “Tebigkihu (Fire
identified as “A” and ”B,” bear little resem- House),” he says:
blance today to those described during the As the plan clearly shows, this pueblo
archeological excavations (Haury 1931). As a is very different from the typical
matter of fact, Tusayan Ruins is the proud Tusayan villages that have been previ-
owner of a cement sipapu in the reconstructed ously described. The apparent unity of
kiva, along with a central fire hearth complete- the plan, and the skillful workmanship
ly out of scale with the size and construction somewhat resembling the pueblo of
the Chaco are in marked contrast to
165
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

the irregularity and careless construc- Marble Canyon to the pueblos at Unkar, the
tion of most of the Tusayan ruins. Its only common thread in the architecture seems
distance from the center of the to be that they are made of stone. Material
province too, suggests outside rela- types differ, mortar styles differ, masonry tech-
tionship; but still the Tusayan tradi- niques differ, yet all are looked at as represent-
tions undoubtedly connect the place ing ancestral puebloan occupations sometime
with some of the ancestral gentes... between AD 1050 and 1200. Surely, there is
(1989:57). more to the architecture than just expedient
construction. And more to the Kayenta
In describing Shumopavi, Mindeleff Branch of the Ancestral Puebloans than the
states: 60% stone and 40% mud described by Dean
(1969).
[T]he stonework of this village also
possesses a somewhat distinctive Vanishing Treasures
character. Exposed masonry, though The Vanishing Treasures program has
comparatively rare in this well plas- allowed NPS to focus much more heavily on
tered pueblo, show that stones of suit- the specifics of architecture than ever before.
able fracture were selected and that But has the emphasis been on the people who
they were more carefully laid than in made the structures or is there too much focus
the other villages. In places, the on the rocks and mortar joints? Can the level
masonry bears a close resemblance to of documentation done for Vanishing
some of the ancient work, where the Treasures provide a window on greater under-
spaces between the longer tablets of standing of the prehistoric inhabitants of these
stone were carefully chinked with places, possibly allowing us to discretely iden-
small bits of stone, bringing the whole tify subgroups within the Kayenta family?
wall to a uniform face, and is much in Vanishing Treasures is an NPS ruins
advance of the ordinary slovenly meth- preservation initiative focused on forty-one
ods of construction followed in national parks, monuments, historic sites, and
Tusayan (1989:75). recreation areas in the arid West. The initiative
aims to address the backlog of maintenance
From all accounts, in Mindeleff ’s opinion, the work needed on the resources, and at the same
masonry work in Zuni far exceeded the work time develop a permanent, professional work
in Hopi, although both groups represented force to manage and maintain the sites. In gen-
puebloan communities. eral, Vanishing Treasures resources are in a
ruined state, have intact architectural fabric,
The Present are not occupied or utilized for their original
Let’s look at the range of masonry ruins at function, and are part of a park’s enabling leg-
Grand Canyon identified archeologically as islation or are listed or eligible for listing on
puebloan, primarily late PII–early PIII. If one the National Register of Historic Places (NPS
looks at the architecture (similar to how one 2002). Typical Vanishing Treasures resources
looks at projectile points or ceramics) as arti- include pueblos, cliff dwellings, churches, and
fact, how would one be able to classify all of forts. The long-term goal of the initiative is to
the sites being examined as ancestral develop a sustainable infrastructure capable of
puebloan? Some masonry ruins, tens of miles maintaining the Park Service’s ruins.
apart, show remarkable similarities, suggest- Between its inception in fiscal year 1998
ing the same cultural traditions, if not the same and the end of fiscal year 2001, the initiative
people, were responsible. Other masonry added 48 new permanent archeologists,
structures, some in close proximity, show no masons, craftspeople, architectural conserva-
similarities at all. From the ruins at Tusayan to tors, engineers, and architects in 22 parks. In
the granaries at Nankoweap, the granaries in the same five years, 65 projects, with a total
166
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

value of $3,958,500, were implemented in 27 sites. In general, these questions seek to

parks. understand construction techniques and orig-
Understandably, the Vanishing Treasures inal sociocultural organization by recording
initiative (and Grand Canyon National Park) the elements of architecture, engineering, and
has focused on backlog maintenance and put- construction found in the sites and structures.
ting personnel in place to complete work. This concept has guided the Vanishing
Prior to any stabilization, detailed architectur- Treasures program and the research questions
al documentation is completed to document in this document have been adopted by many
the current condition of the resource, previ- parks.
ous treatments, and original construction But in general, preservation guidelines and
techniques. Many ground-breaking tech- practice stress treatment and documentation
niques in architectural documentation have standards with minimal attention to the
been developed within the Vanishing research questions guiding them. Little men-
Treasures initiative. For example, photo- tion of research questions can be found in the
graphs are scaled and rectified in CAD (com- draft NPS ruins preservation guidelines
puter-aided design) software, allowing arche- (Nordby and Metzger 1998). The present
ologists to produce wall profile drawings more authors believe the development of research
accurate than ever before. Laser “scanning” of questions should play a more central role in
structures produces the most accurate and ruins preservation. Why are we preserving
detailed two-dimensional representations of ruins if not to increase our understanding of
sites and features ever possible. Standardized the people who built them and make sure the
data collection has produced one of the most story we tell the public is as accurate as possi-
detailed and consistent sets of information ble? We must clearly define what questions
about prehistoric architecture in the remain unanswered and the particular data
Southwest. Additionally, detailed documenta- needed to answer those questions. This is
tion of past and current treatments enables especially true for Vanishing Treasures parks
managers to define original elements and that have had little scholarly study of prehis-
those added during stabilization. toric and historic architecture. Mesa Verde
But have we lost the “why” in our rush to and Chaco tradition architecture has been
develop the “how” of architectural documen- studied extensively while Kayenta architecture
tation? Vanishing Treasures discussions and remains largely ill-defined. In 1969, Dean
publications about documentation tend to described Kayenta architecture as 60% mortar
focus on technique rather than content. With and 40% stone based on work at Betatakin
all of the detailed data being collected about and Keet Seel. Little work has been done since
Vanishing Treasures resources, we have a that time to either refute or support this con-
unique opportunity to study architecture in tention.
ways that were never possible before. In many The research model developed by Nordby
instances, documentation standards and tech- and Metzger (1991) provides an excellent
niques that were identified and developed in a foundation for studying architecture in great
few parks have spread to other parks working detail. This paradigm addresses the questions
on Vanishing Treasures projects with only most commonly asked of architecture by
minor modifications. An enormous, and very archeologists. However, most of the questions
consistent, dataset is being collected. focus on the site or structure, not where it fits
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Nordby and within a regional perspective. Further, no clear
Metzger (1991) and others developed a holis- link exists between a particular research ques-
tic approach to ruins preservation that empha- tion and what data should be collected to
sizes detailed documentation and analysis of answer it.
architecture as artifact in conjunction with To build on this foundation, additional
treatments. They developed a series of questions should be developed based on
research questions for both structures and park-specific research designs and common
167
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

regional questions. This was touched on earli- tion of the full suite of archeological remains
er in the paper, but a summary of potential from a site—architecture, ceramics, and other
questions is appropriate here. The following cultural material.
list focuses on issues that could be addressed As we look at the possibilities for new
by architectural documentation completed in interpretations of cultural heritage through
parks in Northern Arizona, but these could the architecture of masonry ruins, we may be
easily be expanded to other regions of the looking too hard and too far. Maybe the
West. Many of these questions could be answer to the variety of masonry styles lies in
addressed with only minor changes or addi- a very simple truth told to Mindeleff by his
tions to the architectural documentation cur- Hopi colleagues. They related to him that
rently completed by most parks. “the Hopituh, after being taught to build
A primary topic of interest is cultural stone houses, were also divided, and the dif-
boundaries and cultural identity, both ferent divisions took separate paths. The leg-
between and within identified archeological ends indicate a long period of extensive migra-
traditions. Is there truly a pan-Kayenta archi- tions in separate communities; the groups
tectural style? Does Dean’s (1969) characteri- came to Tusayan at different times and from
zation of Kayenta architecture as 60% mortar different directions....” Can we find the
and 40% stone hold true? From the examples remains of those paths running through our
from Grand Canyon presented earlier, it does parks?
not appear so. If that’s the case, can discrete
groups be identified through the detailed References
analysis of architecture? If so, what attributes Dean, Jeffrey S. 1969. Chronological Analysis
need to be considered and how should infor- of Tsegi Phase Sites in Northeastern
mation be collected to address the question? Arizona. Papers of the Laboratory of Tree
Is it possible to identify specific clans or fami- Ring Research no. 3. Tucson: University
lies based upon architectural style? How can of Arizona Press.
Native American oral traditions enlighten us Haury, Emil. 1931. Kivas of the Tusayan Ruin,
about the prehistoric architecture? A second Grand Canyon, Arizona. Gila Pueblo,
broad research category is temporal change. Globe, Arizona: The Medallion.
What can we discover from sites with intact Mindeleff, Victor. 1989. A Study of Pueblo
architecture that have yet to be excavated? Architecture in Tusayan and Cibola.
What can we learn from surface artifacts, tree Washington: Smithsonian Institution
rings, and other datable material? Press.
Finally, the growing Vanishing Treasures Nordby, L.V., and Todd R. Metzger. 1991.
dataset should be analyzed with these ques- Architecture as artifact: this slice of orange
tions in mind. It is necessary to take a step ain’t been sucked yet. Unpublished manu-
back from the mortar joints and chinking script. Washington, D.C.: National Park
stones to see the people who made them. In Service.
addition to sharing methods for collecting ———. 1998. Draft Ruins Preservation
architectural data, publications, conferences, Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: National
and symposia should discuss why the data are Park Service.
collected and how the data are being used. ———. 2002. Vanishing Treasures, Year End
Outside researchers should be encouraged to Report Fiscal Year 2001 and Proposed
use the data to conduct detailed analyses. Activities for FY2002. Washington, D.C.:
These analyses should include a re-examina- National Park Service.

168
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

NPS’s Cultural Resource Inventories:

Understanding Resources, Improving Stewardship
Nancy J. Brown, National Park Service, 200 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106;
nancy_j_brown@nps.gov
Allen H. Cooper, National Park Service, 200 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19106; allen_cooper@nps.gov
Jacilee Wray, Olympic National Park, 600 East Park Avenue, Port Angeles, Washington 98362;
jacilee_wray@nps.gov
Amanda Zeman, Petrified Forest National Park, P.O. Box 2217, Petrified Forest, Arizona
86028; amanda_zeman@nps.gov
Phil Bedel, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, 401 West Hillcrest Drive,
Thousand Oaks, California 91360; phil_bedel@nps.gov

This paper will provide an overview of five cultural resource inventories that are currently on-
going within the National Park Service (NPS) and how they are being used to improve preser-
vation and management of diverse cultural resources. They are the Cultural Landscapes
Inventory, Archeological Sites Management Information System, Ethnographic Resources
Initiative, List of Classified Structures, and Automated National Catalog System. We will exam-
ine how each inventory identifies resources and their significance, and how these inventories
assist in park stewardship by providing information for master plans, facility development, and
natural and cultural resource management and preservation.
The Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) and in Washington, and work is underway to
is a comprehensive inventory of historically move it to the web.
significant landscapes within the National The CLI provides invaluable landscape
Park System. It is an evaluated inventory that information that helps parks manage and pre-
provides baseline documentation for cultural serve both cultural and natural resources. It
landscapes. It includes general descriptive has been used to improve knowledge of land-
information and looks at the history and phys- scape resources and inform planning efforts.
ical development of a landscape. Information At the Delaware Water Gap National
is gathered from secondary sources and Recreation Area, a park created as a recre-
through field surveys of the landscape looking ational area, documenting cultural resources
at 13 characteristics: natural systems, spatial such as villages and farms allowed park staff to
organization, land use, cultural traditions, develop greater understanding of cultural
topography, vegetation, circulation, buildings landscape issues.
and structures, cluster arrangements, views CLIs inform planning efforts, such as the
and vistas, constructed water features, small- general management plan at Appomattox
scale features, and archeological sites. Each Court House National Historical Park, and
characteristic is described in its historic and raise questions for further study, such as the
current condition, and evaluated for its contri- role of the African American Civilian
bution to the significance of the site. The land- Conservation Corps. CLIs also provide base
scape is also analyzed for integrity, which, information for other studies, such as the
along with significance, is weighed to deter- National Register nomination for Roberts
mine eligibility for the National Register of Farm in Delaware Water Gap, and the cultural
Historic Places. The CLI also assesses the landscape report for Eisenhower National
condition of the landscape, which is impor- Historic Site.
tant for accountability under GPRA (the The CLI is used to inform natural
Government Performance and Results Act). resource and maintenance decisions. At
The database exists only in regional offices Delaware Water Gap, the CLI raised aware-
169
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

ness about the importance of vernacular land- NPS-determined condition, relevant treaties
scape features, and the landscape information and laws, and documentary sources. The
is now used to set priorities and establish database distinguishes these fields from the
guidelines, including the historic agricultural “group view,” which includes vernacular
leasing program. Another way that natural name, sacred and legendary status, and the
resource and maintenance decisions have group’s evaluation of condition and preferred
been influenced is by linking the CLI database treatments. The database also includes fields
to GIS mapping. By overlaying current and to document all consultations with the group.
historic aerials at Delaware Water Gap, it has The ERI currently uses Microsoft Access
been possible to establish broad patterns in on stand-alone PCs. The regional ethnogra-
the landscape to assist in stabilization and phers or coordinators train park staff to use
treatment decisions. CLIs include a section on the database, and ensure data reliability and
impacts that affect landscapes and stabiliza- validity. In the Pacific Northwest Region, park
tion measures with cost estimates that can be staff maintains the database, and currently
cited to help justify funding needs. CLI infor- Olympic National Park, San Juan Island
mation assists in completing the compliance National Historical Park, and Fort Vancouver
for stabilization and treatment projects. National Historic Site are using the database.
Next we’ll look at the Ethnographic This will increase as more parks become
Resource Inventory (ERI). An ethnographic aware of the database and staff are trained and
resource is a landscape, place, object, or natu- assigned to manage its use. The national coor-
ral resource of cultural significance to people dinator certifies that data meet the mandatory
traditionally associated with that resource. requirements for GPRA reporting.
NPS does not make the judgment whether The ERI makes information easier to
that resource is significant, since the signifi- retrieve and can be used to track changing
cance is based on the viewpoint of the tradi- conditions of ethnographic resources. It is
tionally associated people. Ethnographic also an easy reference for consultation with
resources are not driven by National Register park affiliated groups, and can produce
criteria, although some ethnographic reports and data sheets for management
resources may be eligible National Register queries. The ERI creates a way to “come up to
properties. NPS defines “traditionally associ- speed” quickly and links ethnographic
ated peoples” differently from other park visi- resources to other resource databases.
tors “in that they typically assign significance So how can another database benefit your
to … places closely linked with their own park? What are the ethnographic resources in
sense of purpose” (NPS 2001:57). NPS views your park and who are the associated people?
people as “traditionally associated” with a Are the descendants of the homesteaders who
park when: once lived in the park traditionally associated
• The entity regards the park’s resources as people? What about commercial fishermen
essential to its development and continued who have fished there for generations? This
identity as a culturally distinct people; and information is an important component of
• The association had endured for at least park management actions and community
two generations (40 years); and heritage preservation. In order to understand
• The association began prior to the estab- the people who have special relationships
lishment of the park (NPS 2001:48). with the parks, you need to understand what
the resources are and how the people value
The ERI database helps the park docu- them. This information is available in some
ment these resources, and the value ascribed cases; it just needs to be accessible. In other
to them, by utilizing two categories. First, the instances, ethnographic studies are a neces-
park resource management documentation sary first step. The ERI is part of the process
includes common name, type of resource of documenting this information.
(plant, animal, place, or object), location, The List of Classified Structures (LCS) is
170
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

another database currently being used by NPS decision-making by cross-referencing other

to manage, document, and track resources. databases, especially the Archeological Site
However, LCS is the only cultural resource Management Information System (ASMIS)
database with real-time, on-line editing capa- and the Facility Management Software System
bility. (FMSS).
LCS is officially defined as “an evaluated The purpose of LCS is to provide a web-
inventory of all historic and prehistoric struc- accessible, user-friendly system for recording
tures that have historical, architectural, and/or and managing buildings and structures. The
engineering significance within parks of the database assists resource managers that deal
National Park System in which the National with historic properties, and makes manage-
Park Service has, or plans to acquire, any ment decision-making, funding requests, and
legally enforceable interest” (NPS 2002:1-1). infrastructural planning much easier. It may
It is a comprehensive resource management be used in many ways for important decision-
tool that allows park personnel to inventory making processes regarding impact, condi-
park historic structures, keep complete and tion, and treatment.
concise records of all historic properties, and Overall, LCS is a functional, useable sys-
manage resources for preservation, manage- tem with great benefits for cultural resource
ment, and stewardship purposes. personnel. The concise nature of the program
The LCS includes properties that are list- provides a quick reference source for all his-
ed on the National Register of Historic Places toric buildings under NPS management,
or determined eligible by the keeper of the thereby allowing resource managers to query
National Register and/or the state historic and compare the significance, condition, and
preservation officer. Not all buildings within a ultimate treatment of related buildings.
park are listed on LCS. It is only for those The Automated National Catalog System
properties that have been formally determined (ANCS+) is the cataloguing database for the
eligible. NPS Museum Management Program.
In its current web-based form, data are Originally based on dBase III, the current
entered, maintained, and updated by individ- database is a Windows-based version of the
ual parks and/or regional offices. Regional original ANCS that parks have been using
LCS coordinators then verify the entered since 1987. ANCS+ is the NPS-customized
information and send each record to version of re:Discovery, which uses Microsoft
Washington, D.C., for final approval. This FoxPro as its database engine. Each park is
hierarchical review system is designed to pro- responsible for using ANCS+ to record the
vide greater accuracy and consistency. required information about its museum and
LCS assists preservation professionals and archival collections and for submitting that
cultural resource personnel with section 106 information annually to the National Catalog.
compliance document preparation, provides ANCS+ is a collection of closely related
all the necessary National Register data on databases that use discipline-specific and
buildings and structures with a few clicks of a park-specific fields for cataloguing. A park can
mouse, provides a chronological list of physi- create its own fields, although there are
cal events (construction, modification, reha- already some 60–70 defined fields for each
bilitation, etc.), and stores condition assess- discipline. Up to 999 digital images may be
ments so one can track how the building’s attached to each record for more complete
condition has changed over time. and accurate descriptions.
LCS benefits management by recording Individual objects and lists of related
important treatment information. These data objects can be found using the word search
come directly from general management plans function on any and all fields. This is a power-
and similar documents, while condition ful word search function, but it requires that
assessments are directly tied to GPRA goals. you use a consistent terminology. Therefore
LCS also contributes to resource management ANCS+ includes several lexicons, including
171
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

The Revised Nomenclature for Museum nps.org). With its imaging capability, the web
Cataloging. catalogue is an opportunity to achieve the
The collections management module is NPS mission to provide for the enjoyment of
divided into two sections: cultural resources, cultural and natural resources in a way that
which includes history, archeology, ethnology, will leave them unimpaired for future genera-
and archival/manuscript collections; and nat- tions.
ural history, which includes biology, geology, ANCS+ is an essential tool to meet the col-
and paleontology. In addition, there is a sepa- lection management responsibilities of the
rate archives and manuscript module for museum program. It empowers museum staff
detailed archives/manuscript description at to efficiently maintain and preserve collec-
the series, sub-series, folder, and item levels. tions, and to make those collections more
ANCS+ allows for extensive reporting and accessible to staff, researchers, and the public.
associated record-keeping, including: a data-
base for accessions and for associated person- Conclusion
nel and institutions; the ability to track loans, The inventories and their databases for
exhibits, maintenance, treatments, and deac- each of these disciplines are very important
cessions; and the ability to create location and for NPS to measure what cultural resources
condition lists, catalogue histories, a finding we have, evaluate them for quantity and quali-
aid for archives, and housekeeping schedules. ty, and track change over time. But for parks,
It will also print over 40 related NPS forms. the real importance of our collective informa-
In addition, ANCS+ assists the curator in tion lies in using these systems to make the
conducting the annual inventory of museum best possible decisions about the preservation
objects, the collections management report, and management of the resources in our care.
and the NPS museum checklist for preserva- It is our responsibility to preserve and protect
tion and protection. these assets for future generations, and they
The public search mode allows non-muse- will decide how well we have done this.
um staff and the public to explore the collec-
tions database. To protect sensitive informa- References
tion, the curator controls the fields and NPS [National Park Service]. 2000. NPS
records that are available in this read-only Management Policies 2001. Washington,
mode. For example, provenience information D.C.: NPS.
for archeological artifacts is not available to ———. 2002. NPS List of Classified Structures
the public. Manual (draft). Washington, D.C.: NPS.
This same service is being made available
to the public on the web (www.museum.

172
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Innovative Concepts of Cultural Resource Management

Sarah Craighead, 3693 Old South Spanish Trail, Tucson, Arizona 85730;
sarah_craighead@nps.gov

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site was created on November 12, 1996, to interpret
the attack of Lieutenant Colonel George Custer and the 7th Cavalry on the sleeping Cheyenne
village of Chief Black Kettle in 1868. The attack was waged as reprisal for raids by the tribes on
Kansas settlements. Between 50 and 100 men, women, and children were killed during the attack
and another 52 women and children were taken as prisoners and held until the following sum-
mer. Twenty-three soldiers lost their lives that day at the battle. Washita was established not only
to interpret Custer’s rise to fame as an Indian fighter, or to talk about the end of a way of life for
native peoples, but as a place of consecration and reflection. Cultural resource management plays
an important role in all of that.
From the beginning, we were committed at park is to:
Washita to telling the story from multiple per- Establish the site of the Battle of the
spectives and being balanced in every way Washita as a national historic site and
possible. In developing the park’s interpretive provide opportunities for American
media, we made every effort to talk about the Indian groups including the
Southern Plains Indians Wars and the bloody Cheyenne–Arapaho Tribe to be
atrocities that were being committed by both involved in the formulation of plans
the American military and the Plains tribes and educational programs for the
that led up to the Washita attack. We made national historic site.
extra efforts to engage the Native Americans
that are affiliated with this site in the park’s And so we were asked from a legislative
development as directed by the park’s legisla- perspective to be innovative in our manage-
tion. This paper focuses primarily on these ment of the park.
efforts to gain a tribal perspective and some of When I arrived at Washita I came with the
the approaches we used to do that. Those intention of gaining substantive, consistent
were not the only efforts we made to engage involvement by the tribes in developing the
the public. But they probably led to the most park. I wanted our Native American partners
innovation. to be at the table helping to make plans and
Washita—which is located in western decisions, not at the receiving end of a draft
Oklahoma about halfway between Oklahoma document that we expected them to approve.
City and Amarillo, Texas—was designated as We had some successes and we made some
a national historic landmark in 1965 and mistakes.
national park status had been discussed even One of our initial actions was to begin a
earlier. With the election of Congressman Washita Symposium, which was a two-day
Frank Lucas who grew up within a few miles event that allowed a variety of speakers to do
of the historic site, the park was established in presentations on different perspectives of the
1996. The Oklahoma Historical Society Washita. This included Indian and non-
worked closely with a few of the elders of the Indian speakers, as well as costumed interpre-
Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes on Washita’s tation, field trips, and performing arts presen-
establishment and a Cheyenne elder testified tations. Each of the three symposia have built
before Congress supporting the park. The leg- upon each other. For this year’s symposium
islation for the park was drafted to include the (after I left, I might add), the park did an excel-
participation of the tribes in the park’s devel- lent job working with the local arts council to
opment and educational programs. The legis- get a grant for the event and creating the
lation states that one of the purposes of the theme, “Through the Eyes of History.” Craig
173
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Moore, the park’s education technician, was forming a strong bond between the two enti-
able to bring in a large local Cheyenne popu- ties, gained unparalleled good will for both the
lation involving a variety of ages and experi- park and the tribes. The park will be able to
ences. fully fund the position beginning this year due
We were able to use the original sympo- to a base increase to the park budget.
sium in 1997 as the basis for an ethnographic We were also heavily involved in a project
study for the park. We began with oral histo- called the Cheyenne Heritage Trail. The tribe
ries of the Cheyenne people, followed up with had been very clear on their belief that the
literature searches, and then researched affilia- park’s staff needed to educate the public about
tions of the other tribes and the local non- the Cheyenne tribe’s living culture as well as
Indian population. Our original intent was to the event in 1868. They also strongly
have the Cheyenne tribe perform their own believed, as did the park staff, that some of
ethnographic work; although we were not able Washita’s stories needed to be told with a trib-
to carry this out, our Cheyenne partners were al voice. In addition, we felt that it was impor-
appreciative of the efforts that we made to do tant to interpret the Washita in context rather
this. The ethnography has preserved and than as an isolated event.
allowed the park to interpret the many con- We were very fortunate to have in western
nections of the Cheyenne and other people to Oklahoma a man by the name of Lawrence
the site and has given the staff the personal Hart living in the community. He is a
stories that make the attack come alive for vis- Cheyenne, one of the traditional Cheyenne
itors. peace chiefs, and serves as one of the four
Because we had such difficulty in engaging principal chiefs. Hart is also the executive
the tribe on a consistent basis, we felt like we director of the Cheyenne Cultural Center, a
needed a person to help us to make sure that non-profit corporation he founded 24 years
park issues were being taken seriously within ago. He has served on the National Review
the tribe and that tribal issues were being Committee of the Native American Graves
addressed within the park. The tribe had Protection and Repatriation Act.
assigned the tribal Native American Graves Hart created the concept of developing a
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Cheyenne Heritage Trail. We worked with
coordinator to work with the park, but when him on this trail concept, which envisioned
NAGPRA coordinators changed several times taking visitors throughout western Oklahoma
within a three-year period—thus also chang- to various sites that were historically impor-
ing our contact person—we tried to find a bet- tant to the tribe. Over the course of two years
ter way of collaborating. Gordon Yellowman, we developed a partnership that included site
who was our main contact during most of my managers from federal, state, tribal, and pri-
time at Washita, and a great person to work vate partners and entities such as the
with, devised the idea of a cultural liaison Oklahoma Department of Tourism and
position for the tribe who would work with Recreation and the Oklahoma Historical
the park. In fiscal year 2001 we received a Society. The partners determined their pur-
Challenge Cost Share grant to fund half of the pose to be the protection of the cultural her-
position. The tribe agreed to fund the other itage of western Oklahoma and education of
half of the salary and benefits. We jointly hired the public about the rich Native American
a tribal employee for one year. His main objec- occupation there. The goal was to do this
tive was to develop consultation guidelines through increased and more effective domes-
that were realistic for all parties, affordable for tic and international visitation to the area, to
everyone involved, allowed the tribe to tell the help those visitors to experience the heritage
park staff how they wanted to collaborate, and of the Cheyenne tribe, and to learn about the
to give the park staff the important informa- Arapaho, Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains
tion they needed to develop the park and edu- Apache people.
cate the public. The position, dedicated to The Cheyenne Heritage Trail was estab-
174
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

lished as the first Native American Cultural Approximately 20,000 visitors per year
Route in the state of Oklahoma. The trail is a see some or all of the Cheyenne Heritage
420-mile route that passes through historic Trail, and that number is increasing. Tour
and cultural sites that are significant to the groups have included Native American ele-
Cheyenne people and to other tribes that lived mentary and secondary students, college stu-
in the historic tribal lands of western dents from other states, Native American cul-
Oklahoma. The trail includes twelve sites that tural organizations, Elderhostel groups, and
interpret significant portions of the Cheyenne museum groups.
story. The trail gives visitors the opportunity The park could never have accomplished
to explore not only Native American culture, alone what this partnership has achieved to
but also the idea of westward expansion, cul- interpret this era of American History.
tural conflict, and the Plains Indian Wars as a Because of that fact, the partnership was
part of western history. awarded the National Park Foundation’s 2001
Visitors may travel the trail in their own Park Partnership Award for Heritage
vehicles using a brochure as a guide or they Education, one of only four national awards
may participate in a bus tour provided by given to recognize partnership efforts within
companies that purchase a guided program. the National Park Service. It also received the
Each venue along the route has different activ- Oklahoma Redbud Award, which is the state’s
ities, some of which are interactive, all of tourism award.
which teach visitors about Cheyenne and The benefits of this endeavor have been
Native American cultures. Each partner in the substantial. The partnership has created a
Cheyenne Heritage Trail is responsible for high degree of cooperative spirit between
orienting visitors to its site and to the overall local, state, federal, and tribal agencies in
concept of the trail. Washita Battlefield Oklahoma. Collaboration and contact
National Historic Site is, of course, one of the between the partners has created a sense of
stops on the trip. ownership of the Cheyenne Heritage Trail and
Because a project like this had never been a feeling that all parties are concerned with the
done in Oklahoma and because of Hart’s rela- best interests of educating the public about
tionships with state government, we were able Native American heritage. This was particu-
to obtain the assistance of Oklahoma’s larly advantageous to the National Park
Tourism Division. They planned and con- Service as we worked to develop a new nation-
ducted debut tours with Oklahoma dignitaries al park site at Washita and looked for creative
and media. They retained a consultant to train ways to enhance partnerships.
the tour guides, and they developed the color The trail facilitated an increase in tourism
brochure for the trail. in this sparsely populated area of western
The Oklahoma Historical Society was an Oklahoma, bringing tourist dollars and thus
essential partner. They researched a historical economic development to the communities
chronology of the major events of the located there. It gave impetus to structural
Cheyenne Indians in Oklahoma, which was restoration and rehabilitation at four of the
provided for use in training the tour guides so historic sites. It has also assisted with protect-
that they could narrate the history of the cul- ing the cultural heritage of the area and edu-
ture as the coach travels between the sites. cating the public about the rich Native
This information was also used to develop the American occupation here. This partnership
brochure. is unprecedented in Oklahoma. The work that
Hart worked with a state senator to pass was accomplished on the Cheyenne Heritage
legislation directing the Oklahoma Trail is making a difference in the education of
Department of Transportation to mark the visitors. It is a model of how national parks
trail with signing. The signs have a trail logo should be working with our partners and what
that we developed by holding a Native can be accomplished.
American art contest. And of course, I don’t believe that cultural
175
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

resource management can be separated from addressed at Washita, just as they are at many
natural resource management, or at least with- other primarily “cultural” sites. Good plan-
out making less sense of either. This is partic- ning, strong partnerships, and a strong base in
ularly true in a cultural landscape when the science and information all lend themselves
resource you are preserving tells the story of a toward a final product of strong cultural
people in a particular place in time. The legis- resource management.
lation for Washita directed park staff to return Innovative concepts and creative
the area to its 1861 appearance. Much of the approaches are necessary to manage for the
cultural work being done there will return the health of the park as well as for the best visitor
park to what we believe was the “native envi- experience that we can provide. After all,
ronment,” one untouched by Europeans. So that’s what we’re here for and that’s what we
what is the implication of thousands of people have a responsibility to provide for this and
camping in a riparian area for several months future generations.
with a large herd of horses grazing on the veg-
etation in the river bottom? What picture do [Ed. note: The author was superintendent
we want to convey to park visitors? This and at Washita before moving to her current post.]
other complex questions are still being

176
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Reading the Cultural Landscape at Dyea, Alaska

Tonia Horton, National Park Service, Alaska Support Office, 240 West Fifth Avenue,
Anchorage, Alaska 99501; tonia_horton@nps.gov

If, as folklorist Henry Glassie has written, “history is the essence of place,” our literacy in the
cultural process of historical landscapes is of paramount importance to the American national
parks.1 Without the ability to “read” landscapes as historical phenomena that continue to evolve,
interpreting their stories is largely restricted to an artifactual perspective, rather than that of con-
stant flux and dynamism, characteristics more typically assigned to “natural” resource paradigms
rather than those of “cultural”—historic preservation and heritage production. However, as the
practice of landscape architecture in historic environments methodologically progresses, the
implications for understanding landscapes as critical processes, rather than static fields of arti-
facts, portends some rather dramatic revision of the ways in which we can view park lands from
the interdisciplinary stance of cultural landscapes. This paper is a short introduction to building
a mapping infrastructure for a historic cultural landscape to provide park management with an
on-going, integrated portrait of history, change, process, and place.
The Dyea historic townsite is located steep, rocky fjord topography that character-
within the larger Klondike Goldrush National izes the Taiya River valley.
Historical Park, with its headquarters in the Now part of a national historic landmark,
southeastern Alaskan town of Skagway. the remains of Dyea historic townsite are
Primarily known for its importance as a gate- located within a dramatically changing land-
way boomtown for the 1898–1900 gold rush scape. Situated at the foot of a dynamic river-
to the Yukon gold fields of interior Canada, ine corridor, Dyea’s landmass exhibits a range
Dyea’s strategic importance lay in its location of environmental dynamics. The heavily sedi-
at the foot of the Chilkoot Trail, one of only mented Taiya River is a braided, continually
three non-glaciated routes to the Canadian meandering system which, impacted by natu-
interior. Until overwhelmed by sheer numbers ral (e.g., topography) and constructed (bridge
of “Stampeders” and goods waiting to make and armored banks) factors, continues to
their way up through the Chilkoot Pass, the erode portions of the site at key points of
native residents of Dyea—the Chilkat/ scouring, bank cuts, and flood zones. Nearly
Chilkoot Tlingit—utilized the site for seasonal one-third of the historic townsite and virtually
resource harvesting (salmon and berries as all of the Tlingit village are now in the active
prime examples) and to maintain control over river zone. In contrast to archeological degra-
the Chilkoot trail as an important native trade dation, numerous sloughs and low-water
route between coastal Tlingit and interior areas, historically rich habitats, continue as
Tagish communities. After the abandonment active salmon spawning sites. Isostatic
of Dyea as a boomtown in 1900, its brief efflo- rebound—the decompression of land as gla-
rescence as a thriving community became a ciers retreat—is another aspect of rapid envi-
memory as the former seasonal village, trading ronmental change. Since the gold rush period
post, and gridded townsite transformed into a of 1898–1899, the Dyea townsite has risen
handful of homesteads. These, too, were relin- nearly six feet in elevation, continuing to rise
quished as active vernacular landscapes by the at an annual rate of 0.059 inches. Vegetation
1940s. Until the creation of Klondike patterns, too, are part of the landscape story of
Goldrush National Historical Park in 1976, ecological transition. The advance of a succes-
Dyea’s significance was largely that of isolated sional forest—no longer subject to logging and
residences and community recreation by left untouched by park management—
virtue of its open, flat tidelands amidst the obscures nearly the entire range of archeolog-
177
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

ical resources still embedded in the landscape array of historical and contemporary data sets,
from the gold rush and homestead eras. ranging from rare narrative accounts, period
In order to further park management maps, homestead surveys, and an especially
objectives for the both park and adjacent lands pertinent series of aerial photographs from the
(which include a mix of federal, state, and pri- 1940s, 1970s, and 1990s. Complementing
vate parcels), the documentation and analysis these sources is a 1986 archeological survey
of Dyea as a cultural landscape began in 1999, map locating artifact clusters and sites (includ-
and continues to the present. As an interdisci- ing many depressions associated with lost
plinary approach, cultural landscape method- buildings), and a 2002 Bureau of Land
ology is ideal for Dyea because it focuses on Management cadastral survey of park bound-
revealing layers of occupation and use over aries. This latter survey is especially important
time in evolving environmental conditions— in that it depicts the extent of the river’s incur-
an integration that suggests powerful insights sion along the remaining eastern edge of the
into how resource contexts for any future townsite, a baseline for analyzing the historic
development is proposed and evaluated. This aerial photographs from earlier periods.
work is particularly timely considering the rate Seasonal fieldwork during the period
of impacts on the site due to increased visita- 1999–2002 contributed critical pieces of the
tion to Dyea with the rise in cruise ship overall spatial patterning of the site. In the
tourism in nearby Skagway. In addition, larger attempt to locate an axis of two major streets
numbers of rafting, biking, and horse tours, from the 1898–1899 boomtown, the first
coupled with an increase in vehicular traffic (1999) field survey to address historic street
on narrow, winding access roads, further alignment led to a computer-aided design
emphasize the need for understanding long- (CAD) composite drawing depicting the
range planning at the landscape scale. series of historic survey layers from 1898 to
In order to develop a strategy for a master 1986, complete with notations on the features
plan for Dyea as a cultural landscape, a major recorded by the earlier surveyors. During the
effort to document and analyze the historic period 2000–2002, photographic inventories
townsite and affiliated areas first entailed an of the site’s natural and cultural features were
intensive research and mapping effort, much systematically documented for the first time.
of which is still underway. At the outset of the With the completion of the 2002 boundary
project, the goal was to create a spatial infra- survey, the basis for beginning a coordinated
structure in which the history of Dyea could effort at GIS (geographic information system)
be “read”—namely, the construction of base mapping of the site began with the most recent
maps at a workable scale (rather than the 20- collection of GPS (global positioning system)
foot contours of the existing U.S. Geological trail and road data throughout the townsite in
Survey topographic quad maps). This series the fall of 2002. With the completion of a
of base maps is the foundation for successive LIDAR (light detection and ranging) survey in
historical layers locating features and 2002–2003, these data will be further refined
resources within more traditionally conceived to fit a 2-foot contour interval with recording
historical periods (such as the Tlingit occupa- of all features at sub-meter accuracy, allowing
tion, gold rush era, and early-20th-century for future three-dimensional modeling to suit
homestead occupation). Also integrated with- a variety of park management needs.
in the historic layers is an environmental his- The initial importation of the CAD com-
tory of the site, particularly showing the extent posite drawing of the townsite and cadastral
of river meander, erosion, and deposition, as survey into an ArcView environment with the
well as vegetation changes. GPS roads and trail data provides the park
Developing a synthetic context for spatial with a powerful glimpse into the complexity of
data—ultimately leading to the ability to create site’s history. For the first time, the park has
elevational models with predictive capabili- the beginnings of a “real time” model illustrat-
ties—rests on assembling and analyzing an ing the progression of the landscape and its
178
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

resources—both natural and cultural—within continuum of change wrought by the river,

an integrated context. Although only in its ear- and our attempts to reorder ideas of resource
liest stages, the assemblage of data in a GIS protection in light of the inevitability of per-
model attests to the efficacy of conceiving and sistent riverine impacts in the future. The
documenting park lands as cultural land- river, then, becomes a force of encounter, a
scapes. And, most importantly, it points to the historical agent, that cannot be abstracted
critical importance of developing a compre- from the history of place.
hensive spatial infrastructure at the outset of In reality, the on-going mapping and analy-
any landscape planning efforts. sis of the Dyea historic townsite reaffirms the
The importance of this initial mapping inherent value of cultural landscape method-
effort cannot be underestimated. First, the ology in attempting to not only “reconstruct”
only mapping of Dyea during the past three the past on a landscape scale, but to create a
decades has primarily focused on archeologi- historical model that responds to the future.
cal surveys, and those are now nearly twenty With technological advances in mapping and
years old. The coordinated impetus toward illustration, the new baseline of knowledge
developing the CAD/GIS base map has liter- about the Dyea landscape is the foundation
ally created a “new” Dyea by revealing the for assessing future changes in the landscape
extent of landscape scale and change. Certain and incorporating them into a living model of
baseline information is now established: for process, one that effectively illustrates the
instance, the park boundaries and extent of elliptical movement between time and place in
riverbank erosion were in question, as were rather enlightening ways. Ultimately, this envi-
the identity and disposition of many of the less sioning of landscape as process is about place-
apparent historic features—vegetation and making—how a sustainable history can be cre-
road traces. Discrete features present in his- ated and interpreted from the “bottom up,”
toric photos and surveys can now be analyzed rather than the typological model implied by
within the overall landscape matrix, broaden- the standard historic preservation methodolo-
ing their interpretation. With the future addi- gy rooted in the National Register of Historic
tion of the LIDAR survey and an analysis of Places.2 It eschews the idea of a dramatic dis-
the existing spread of aerial overlays, knowl- continuity between past and present, and
edge of the degree to which this landscape has between past and future, by expanding the
changed in the past half-century, in particular, story of Dyea past the boomtown allure to one
will be of immense value to any park develop- that reflects a world of constant change, and,
ment schemes, from potential trail networks to importantly, how we map and interpret those
a new visitor contact station. changes with contemporary technology.
Additionally, by utilizing an interdiscipli- It also begins to ask very important ques-
nary team to gather, analyze, and compile the tions about the storied nature of cultural land-
spatial data within the context of the cultural scapes: how are landscapes symbolically and
landscape, it quickly became apparent that physically constructed as repositories of a
mapping this complex landscape as a process national heritage? Essentially, how are land-
would be a rich field of inquiry. For example, scapes called into being by their physical rep-
by extending the idea of the historic landscape resentation and symbolic interpretation? How
to recontextualize artifacts within the broader viable is the history we “write” by mapping,
paradigm of environmental change, the histo- by our cartographic views of the world? And
ry of Dyea as a place begins to shift toward the perhaps most importantly, how do we design
interaction between culture and nature, his- new layers, stratigraphies that future genera-
toric communities, and the impacts of the tions will read as stories, voices in themselves?
powerfully meandering Taiya River. In The implications of a landscape literacy
essence, the fuller landscape story decenters based on cultural landscapes methodology
the mythic boomtown (the artifact) as a adds a critical dimension to the design
romantic “golden age” in favor of revealing the process. How we perceive and read cultural
179
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

process in each unique environmental con- constructing histories of place. The beauty of
text, how we construct and map authentic his- cultural landscape methodology is that it
tories of place is based on the revelation of a allows for a continual accretion of meaning, as
“deep structure” that can be graphically illus- the stratigraphy of physical and symbolic
trated in sophisticated ways. But, just as there landscapes grows with each new layer of doc-
is no absolute past, but rather one that is con- umentation, analysis, evaluation, and design.
tingent upon interpretation, there are no It poses some very intriguing questions that
absolute landscapes whose history can be can be explored in equally intriguing and
frozen to one time period or another. While innovative ways. Building the spatial vocabu-
this tenet is one that is generally accepted by lary—the infrastructure—through the ongoing
most practitioners within historic preserva- mapping project at Dyea historic townsite has,
tion, the extension of the argument leads to in many ways, only just begun. But, as with
the realization that any landscape is a medium any story, the deeper the excavation, the more
of exchange and negotiation. This, in turn, enlightening, the more profound the tale
constitutes a fundamental alteration of the his- becomes. And isn’t this the real reason we
toric preservation model. The central ques- cherish the national parks?
tion is no longer simply one of “What is it?”
(the artifact), but “How is it written?” Endnotes
(process), a challenge to the artificial separa- 1. Henry Glassie, Passing the Time in
tion between history and design, nature and Ballymenone: Culture and History of an
culture. Ulster Community (Philadelphia: Univ-
This is particularly salient for the unin- ersity of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 201.
habited landscapes of the national parks 2. I propose the term “sustainable history” as
where the stakes for interpreting place are an alternative to the typological, thematic
much higher. How we understand our designs histories that are written to conform to the
as not solely ordering devices, interventions, standards of the National Register of
superimpositions upon the land, but as woven Historic Places. The fit between histories
into the tapestry of the cultural landscape as of landscape and those of archeological
process signifies a critical self-awareness that and architectural focus is uneasy, especial-
national parks can incorporate to great advan- ly when considering the issues of natural
tage. As the Taiya River continues to shift and site evolution, and range of environmental
meander, altering the riverbanks by simultane- dynamics at play. With the principles of
ously accreting and eroding areas of the Dyea sustainable design adopted by the
historic townsite every year, the proposed National Park Service, as articulated by
resource protection strategy of engineered architect William McDonough’s
logjams, as an example, is one that continues Hannover Principles, a “sense of place”
the story of human adaptation to place. Rather linked integrally with the “resources of the
than being viewed as separate from the history site” is the second determinant of sustain-
of Dyea, they illustrate a rich window of inter- ability, the first being the survival of the
pretative opportunity that opens on a sus- natural world (see National Park Service,
tained process of change and adaptation. The Sustainable Grand Canyon {1996}, in
Situated within the cultural landscapes con- which McDonough’s principles are articu-
text suggested by the comprehensive base- lated). It stands to reason, then, that con-
mapping project, the construction of engi- structing a history that reflects the full
neered logjams can be incorporated seamless- panorama of the landscape of place
ly into the environmental history of place. through a synthetic interpretation of its
Ultimately, our ability to read the land- integrated environmental context, rather
scape of Dyea through advanced cartography than concentrating on physical cultural
and expanded interpretation speaks to our resources and their integrity within “peri-
own contemporary perspectives and biases in ods of significance,” would more fully
180
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

reflect ideas of sustainability.

181
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

The Vanishing Treasures Program of the Tres Piedras Group

James W. Kendrick, El Malpais National Monument, 123 East Roosevelt Avenue, Grants, New
Mexico 87020
Patricia Thompson, Karen Beppler-Dorn, Scott Williams, and Hallie Larsen, Petrified Forest
National Park, P.O. Box 2217, Petrified Forest, Arizona 86028

Ruins Preservation Challenges in Western National Parks

The prehistoric and historic architectural remains of our shared heritage (Figure 1) face more
threats today than any other time since the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906. In
America’s national parks, increased visitation, looting, vandalism, extensive soil erosion, years of
insufficient funding, and many other threats pose serious risks to long-term preservation of these
irreplaceable structures. Examples of the enormous variety of preservation challenges we face
today in our national parks and other public lands include:
• Stabilization and routine maintenance for frontcountry structures;
• Statutory requirements of inventory, documentation, and evaluation of all historic properties
on all land managed by the National Park Service (NPS);
• Condition assessments and treatment evaluations for thousands of backcountry sites;
• Monitoring and increased law enforcement patrols for resource protection;
• Data management and reporting; and
• Education and interpretation to ensure that the public and agencies are aware of the signifi-
cance and relevance of cultural resources.
These challenges are great, and will be impossible to meet unless unique, flexible, and inno-
vative strategies are developed soon.

Figure 1. The Upper Ruin at Tonto National Monument, Arizona, typifies the kind of prehis-
toric architectural remains found in many western national parks.
182
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Three NPS units in New Mexico and efforts to build a long-term preservation work-
Arizona are developing one such innovative force.
strategy through cooperation and collabora- What are the goals of the Vanishing
tion, and by participation in the Vanishing Treasures program? The goals of Vanishing
Treasures program. These three parks, known Treasures are clear and simple. The first goal
as the Tres Piedras Group, include Petrified is to stop the current loss of unique and irre-
Forest National Park in east-central Arizona, placeable prehistoric and historic structures
and El Malpais and El Morro national monu- by securing funding and personnel to conduct
ments in west-central New Mexico. Vanishing emergency and high-priority preservation
Treasures is a preservation program tightly projects. The second goal is to renew the
focused on preserving archeological resources preservation workforce in the parks. Finally,
containing exposed architecture. Now in its the third goal is to develop into a proactive,
sixth year of funding, Vanishing Treasures is rather than reactive, ruins preservation pro-
one of the most successful cultural resource gram.
initiatives in the history of NPS. This paper What are Vanishing Treasures
introduces the Vanishing Treasures program, resources? One reason for the success of the
describes the cooperative effort of the Tres program is that it has a specific focus on what
Piedras Group, and discusses the variety of we call “Vanishing Treasures resources,”
preservation projects being conducted. We which are prehistoric (pre-European contact)
conclude by examining the key aspects of this or historic structures that meet the following
program that make it a success. criteria:
• Are in a partially collapsed or “ruined”
The NPS Vanishing state;
Treasures Program • Contain architectural fabric (such as
What is Vanishing Treasures? Vanishing
wood, stone, earthen materials, and such)
Treasures is a ruins preservation program that
that is exposed;
began in 1993 when cultural resource special-
• Are not being used for their original pur-
ists and managers in the parks realized a crisis
pose;
was looming regarding the preservation of
• Are characterized by interrupted or dis-
countless prehistoric and historic structures
continued occupation and use for an
(Metzger and Kendrick, in press). Decades of
extended period;
inadequate funding for the preservation of
• Are located in the arid West;
these irreplaceable archeological resources,
• Are the resources or part of the resources
some of which are World Heritage sites, had
for which the park was created, or are
taken their toll and were now threatening their
national historic landmarks, or are listed
very integrity. Adding to this crisis was an
on or are eligible for listing on the National
aging preservation workforce nearing retire-
Register of Historic Places.
ment. Few mechanisms existed to develop and
train the younger workforce that would soon Examples of Vanishing Treasures
be needed by NPS. resources include ancient pueblos, cliff
The Vanishing Treasures program is cur- dwellings, historic forts, homesteads, and mis-
rently active in 44 units of the National Park sions. Examples of resources that do not qual-
System in eight states of the arid West ify as Vanishing Treasures include:
(Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming). The • Archeological sites with no exposed archi-
program operates in national parks, monu- tecture;
ments, historic sites, memorials, and recre- • Civilian Conservation Corps and Civil
ation areas. The program has hired conserva- Works Administration (CWA) buildings
tors, archeologists, masonry workers, exhibit and features;
specialists, and a structural engineer in its • NPS facilities;

183
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

• Historic structures that are regularly main- • $300,000 to meet the management needs
tained; of the program.
• Petroglyphs or pictographs; and
• Reconstructed buildings (such as the Vanishing Treasures Program
reconstructed great kiva at Aztec Ruins of the Tres Piedras Group
National Monument). A collaborative ruins preservation pro-
gram between three NPS units. Spanning
How does Vanishing Treasures work?
more than 200,000 acres across the southern
The Vanishing Treasures program is often
Colorado Plateau, the Tres Piedras Group of
considered a “grassroots” initiative. This is
parks—so named after the distinctive basalt of
because Vanishing Treasures is a self-directed
El Malpais National Monument, the promi-
and self-managed program, one with a clear
nent sandstone Inscription Rock of El Morro
focus on accomplishments and accountability.
National Monument, and the well-known pet-
The program is also directed and managed at
rified wood of Petrified Forest National Park—
the park level by a leadership committee com-
contains thousands of archeological sites.
prising four to five park superintendents and a
Vanishing Treasures resources abound in the
full-time program coordinator. The program
three parks. At El Malpais, prominent
is also guided by advisory, career develop-
Vanishing Treasures resources include a
ment, database, funding, and guidelines work-
Chaco-style great house and great kiva, and
groups (primarily containing cultural resource
extensive prehistoric trail systems containing
specialists within the Vanishing Treasures
formal basalt ramps and bridges spanning lava
program).
crevasses. Other fascinating sites include pre-
Importantly, though, the Vanishing
historic subterranean architecture with
Treasures program is accountable for its fund-
ancient pottery sherds frozen in the depths of
ing. At the end of the fiscal year, each park
ice caves. El Malpais Vanishing Treasures
contributes a fiscal accounting of their activi-
resources also include the ruins of Dust Bowl-
ties, projects, and accomplishments. The
era homesteads.
Vanishing Treasures program coordinator
At El Morro, Vanishing Treasures
then compiles these into a fiscal report that is
resources range from small 13th-century
presented to Congress every year. Individuals
households to the enormous 700-year-old
hired through the Vanishing Treasures pro-
Atsinna Pueblo, which has 800–900 rooms
gram are expected to work primarily (at least
(by comparison, Pueblo Bonito in Chaco
80% of their annual work) on Vanishing
Canyon contains about 650 rooms). Across
Treasures resources, projects, and issues.
the box canyon from Atsinna is North Ruin,
Vanishing Treasures accomplishments
another massive multi-room site contempora-
to date. In the brief time since funding began,
neous with its cross-canyon neighbor.
the Vanishing Treasures program has made
Petrified Forest National Park may contain
significant contributions to the preservation of
the oldest Vanishing Treasures resources in
cultural resources. These accomplishments
the entire 44-unit program. House structures
include:
dating to the earliest centuries of the first mil-
• $8.7 million since 1998 (fiscal years 1998 lennium AD are found there. These sites also
through 2003) to meet the goals of the contain some of the oldest pottery in the
program; northern Southwest. Not to be forgotten at
• $5 million for 78 emergency and high-pri- Petrified Forest, of course, is the Chaco Era
ority project in 30 parks; (AD 1050–1150) McCreery Pueblo with its
• $3.4 million to hire 56 preservation spe- great kiva and the late prehistoric Puerco
cialists in 22 parks (these specialists Ruin. Puerco Ruin is one of the few major
include archeologists, masonry workers, ruins of the Pueblo IV period (AD 1300 to
conservators, a structural engineer, and about 1450) managed by NPS. It contains
exhibit specialists); and about 125 rooms and is the most visible and
184
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

visited Vanishing Treasures resource at • Preservation history being finalized;

Petrified Forest. • Condition assessments completed for over
Though the management and preservation 70 wall surfaces;
challenges are great, the Vanishing Treasures • Elevation drawings of wall surfaces initiat-
program provides several mechanisms by ed; and
which to meet them. These include a renewed • Previous preservation treatments harmful
preservation workforce, project funding, and a to the original fabric removed and
network of cultural resource and historic replaced in-kind with unamended mortar
preservation specialists to provide advice and in three walls (Figure 2).
assistance when needed.
Garrett Homestead preservation project, El
Examples of current projects. Because of
Malpais National Monument. Site type:
the variety of site types across the three parks,
Single-room, sandstone masonry structure,
the Vanishing Treasures program has initiated
and main residence for a homestead. Period of
a number of different preservation projects
occupation: AD 1937 to ? (possibly the
since fiscal year 2000. Below, we provide sum-
1960s). Accomplishments to date:
maries of our multi-year projects.
Atsinna Pueblo preservation project, El • Elevation drawings and condition assess-
Morro National Monument. Site type: Pueblo ments for entire structure completed;
(800 to 900 rooms). Period of occupation: AD • Repointing of each wall completed in
1200s to middle 1300s (final occupation). 2002; and
Accomplishments to date: • Interpretation begun, through use of rack
cards.
• Drainage system beneath the structure
(built in 1950s and 1960s) renovated; Puerco Pueblo preservation project,

Figure 2. Vanishing Treasures masonry worker treating a void in a 700-year-old wall at Atsinna
Pueblo, El Morro National Monument, New Mexico.
185
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Petrified Forest National Monument. Site hand-in-hand. We will continue to ask ques-
type: Pueblo (approximately 100 rooms). tions about the resources and preservation
Period of occupation: middle AD 1200s to late techniques, contribute to a better understand-
1300s (final occupation). Accomplishments to ing of the past, and relay that new information
date: and its relevancy to the public and our fellow
• As-built maps completed; staff of NPS. Finally, all of these core functions
• Previous research and preservation history will require constant management of data.
initiated; and Keys to a successful multi-park pro-
• Condition assessments for each of wall gram. Though we are just beginning to devel-
surface of 25 exposed rooms initiated. op the tri-park program, we have observed
several important points that make the collab-
Erosion control at three archeological sites oration successful. Primary among these is
in El Malpais National Monument. Site types: agreement on priorities. Each year the super-
Pueblos, both large (approximately 60 rooms, intendents of the parks and the Vanishing
a tower kiva, a prehistoric road, and a great Treasures personnel in those parks meet in
kiva) and small (containing 10 or fewer order to assess the progress of the program
rooms). Period of occupation: all three sites and discuss immediate and long-term needs of
date between AD 1050 and 1150 (the Chaco Vanishing Treasures resources. This ensures
Era). Accomplishments to date: projects and other activities focus on the high-
• All three sites thoroughly documented; est priorities each year. Valuing professional
• Pre-project condition documented; and diversity is another important part of the pro-
• Excelsior sediment logs made of photo- gram’s success. Each park benefits from the
degradable netting and chipped aspen professional diversity the tri-park arrangement
installed at arroyo head-cuts and within offers. Alone, each park might have one or two
active arroyo channels in two sites. specialists who work solely in their particular
park. Together, the three parks draw on each
Core functions of the Tres Piedras other’s expertise and experience. The larger
Group Vanishing Treasures program. The Vanishing Treasures initiative also allows
core functions of the program tie statutory access to other preservation specialists, such
mandates and NPS policy with the overall as structural engineers and conservators.
Vanishing Treasures initiative. Primary among Although our tri-park program has just
these core functions is preservation of the begun to pursue partnerships, we realize that
architectural remains (or ruins) of prehistoric long-term success will not be possible without
and historic structures throughout the three them. We are currently developing working
parks (but not those structures that are NPS relationships with the following groups:
facilities or are currently still in use, as dis-
cussed above). Documentation of known • University of New Mexico, which will
Vanishing Treasures resources and inventory hold its 2003 archeological field school at
to locate the remaining structures is also a core El Malpais (focusing primarily on invento-
function of the program. For example, over ry, documentation, and condition assess-
90% of El Malpais has not received a system- ments).
atic, professional inventory for cultural • Arizona State University, which will begin
resources. Therefore, inventory and docu- extensive research into the prehistory of
mentation are vital activities of the program. the El Morro valley in 2003. This will pro-
Program development is also a core function. vide a tremendous opportunity for new
This function focuses on securing project interpretations of Atsinna and the ancient
funding and ensuring sustainability in the pro- context in which it developed.
gram. Another core function is education and • Petrified Forest Museum Association,
research through a heritage preservation per- which annually fund an archeology intern-
spective. Education and research flourish ship at Petrified Forest.
• Pueblo of Acoma, which has expressed an
186
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

interest in working together on a number the Vanishing Treasures program focuses on

of preservation projects at El Malpais and one particular type of those resources—pre-
at Acoma. Discussions have also focused historic and historic structures containing
on training and educational opportunities exposed architecture. This focus has allowed
(for both Acoma and NPS), and an in-kind it to become a model program not just for
service agreement. accountability but also for significant accom-
plishments.
Finally, the most important keys to success
are maintaining fiscal accountability and con- Reference
tinuing to accomplish high-priority preserva- Metzger, Todd R., and James W. Kendrick. In
tion projects. Ultimately, future generations press. Vanishing Treasures: a unique
will judge us successful or not by whether we approach in the management of cultural
have upheld the mission of the National Park resources in the National Park Service.
Service by preserving and protecting SAA Archaeological Record 3:3.
resources of our shared heritage. By design,

187
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Using Historic Structures to Serve Park Needs:

The McGraw Ranch, Rocky Mountain National Park
Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Mountains/Plains Office, 910 16th
Street, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80202; james_lindberg@nthp.org

The short press release had a disturbingly familiar ring to it: “After careful consideration of
all alternatives, Rocky Mountain National Park has decided that removal of the historic McGraw
Ranch is the only feasible and cost effective course of action to pursue.” Removal was justified,
continued the release, due to “the high cost of rehabilitating the buildings … and the basic lack
of need for the structures.” To those of us in the Mountains/Plains Office of the National Trust
for Historic Preservation (NTHP), these statements sounded very similar to what we had been
hearing from Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. In that park, numerous rustic barns and
classic dude ranches that predated the establishment of the park had been systematically demol-
ished over the years and others were still threatened. Similar losses had also occurred in Glacier
National Park in Montana, where more than half of the park’s original inventory of historic build-
ings was gone, including several classic guest lodges built by the Great Northern Railroad. There
was even talk of removing another rustic lodge, the Many Glacier Hotel.
Why were so many historic buildings in shortly thereafter a ranch house, barn,
national parks throughout the Rockies threat- bunkhouse, springhouse, and rustic-style out-
ened with demolition? Maintenance costs and house were constructed, using locally harvest-
lack of use were certainly major factors. But it ed logs and stone. During the Depression, the
seemed that the underlying cause was a belief, owners of the ranch decided to make the tran-
held by generations of park managers and sition from raising cattle to hosting guests, or
some environmental advocates, that historic “dudes.” A group of small cabins was built to
buildings didn’t really belong in the great, sce- accommodate visitors who would pay to stay
nic parks of the West. Unless they were at the ranch, ride horses, fish, and explore the
national historic landmarks like the Old mountain scenery. The first guests at the
Faithful Inn, most historic structures in these McGraw Ranch were Kansas governor and
parks were seen as impediments to the goals of 1936 Republican presidential candidate Alf
preserving scenery and natural resources. Landon and his family. “I want to lead a flan-
When the plan to demolish the McGraw nel shirt life,” said Landon, who made
Ranch was announced, we at NTHP decided McGraw his summer campaign headquarters.
it was finally time to challenge this thinking. Generations of visitors followed, and the
We wanted to see if we could come up with an McGraw Ranch gained a reputation as one of
alternative approach that would not only save Colorado’s finest guest ranches.
this historic site in Rocky Mountain National After five decades of operation, the
Park, but perhaps influence decisions in other McGraw family retired from the ranch and in
parks as well. Little did we know that we were 1988 the property was acquired by the park.
embarking on a nine-year journey! For several years, the ranch buildings sat
Located at the head of a popular hiking empty and deteriorating, until finally the park
trail in the Northeast corner of Rocky announced its plan to demolish all 15 struc-
Mountain National Park, the McGraw Ranch tures and return the site to its “natural” condi-
is not the kind of historic site that immediate- tion. To the park’s surprise, preservationists
ly impresses visitors with its ornate architec- and local residents quickly voiced strong
ture or grand scale. It is a collection of 15 opposition to the plan and a major public con-
modest, vernacular-style structures that fit troversy erupted.
comfortably into the mountain landscape. The struggle between historic preserva-
The property was homesteaded in 1884 and tionists and the park over the fate of the
188
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

McGraw Ranch might have continued for past was to build a new dormitory for
years had not a new park superintendent, A. researchers somewhere in the park, but Jones
Durand “Randy” Jones, arrived and called for saw the potential for something more cre-
a cease-fire. He defused tension by setting up ative—a chance to address two park needs
a committee to evaluate the condition and re- with one project. His “win–win” proposal was
use potential of all historic structures through- to establish a complete in-park research center
out Rocky Mountain National Park, not just at by re-using the vacant buildings at the
McGraw Ranch. At the same time, an informal McGraw Ranch. It was a good fit. Without any
group of park staff and representatives from new construction, the ranch could be rehabil-
outside groups began collecting ideas for how itated to accommodate up to 20 researchers in
various vacant park buildings might be used, private quarters, with room left over for an
based on park needs. A variety of adaptive-use office, library, laboratory, seminar and meeting
options were discussed, including park rooms, kitchen and dining facilities, and living
employee housing, artist-in-residence pro- areas for informal socializing.
grams, public education programs, With this concept for re-use in hand,
Elderhostels, and retreat centers. This potential university partners were asked if the
approach to the problem of vacant park build- proposed research facility would be attractive
ings was similar in many ways to what Main to their faculty and students. Colorado State
Street groups have been doing for years to University, an institution with long-standing
revitalize downtowns—matching up available connections to the Park Service, was seen as
building inventory with unmet market the key “launch client.” After they agreed that
demand. their College of Natural Resources would
As it turned out, the key unmet market partner in the development of an expanded
demand in Rocky Mountain National Park research program for the park, similar depart-
was housing for visiting scientists and ments from the University of Colorado and
researchers. Parks in general have been criti- University of Northern Colorado came on
cized by groups such as the National Academy board.
of Science for not having sufficient scientific Paying for the rehabilitation was the next
data on which to base important management challenge. In part because we had started the
decisions. Gathering better data is a particu- whole debate about the McGraw Ranch, but
larly high priority in Rocky Mountain mostly because we believed in the importance
National Park, where independent consult- of the project’s success, the Mountains/Plains
ants have identified a backlog of more than Office of NTHP decided to become the lead
$12 million in unmet natural and cultural private fundraising partner. Our commitment
research needs, including the investigation of was to raise $800,000 toward the $2 million
issues such as the impact of acid rain on the total project cost. The balance of the funding
park ecosystem, how to manage the growing was provided by the park, primarily for budg-
elk population, and what to do about invasive et items that are hard to raise money for, such
weeds in the park. With park budgets as utilities and infrastructure improvements.
stretched thin to meet growing demands for Because the project had so many dimen-
visitor services, it was impossible to hire staff sions—historic preservation, scientific
to address these research needs. For years research, university involvement, partner-
parks have relied heavily on outside institu- ships—we found that a range of outside fun-
tions, particularly universities and their gradu- ders were interested in supporting the rehabil-
ate students, to carry out a range of scientific itation of the McGraw Ranch. Our first major
research. The problem for Rocky Mountain grants came from the largest source of historic
National Park, and for many other parks in the preservation funding in the state, the
system, was a lack of in-park housing for these Colorado Historical Society’s State Historical
researchers. Fund. With this key state support and a
One solution that was considered in the matching commitment from the park in hand,
189
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

we were able to obtain additional support with partner organizations, and engage the
from private donors as well as several public more fully in park resource and man-
Colorado foundations. The Rocky Mountain agement issues. Designation as a learning cen-
National Park Association, a strong park ter also provides Rocky Mountain National
friends group with a proven track record of Park with additional long-term funding for
raising funds for other historic sites in the research staff and maintenance dollars for the
park, joined as a funding partner as well. McGraw Ranch research facility.
Volunteers have played a major role The newly named Continental Divide
throughout the rehabilitation of the McGraw Research and Learning Center in Rocky
Ranch—logging more than 5,000 hours to Mountain National Park is among the first five
date. Nearly one hundred NTHP members such centers that have been established
from along the Colorado Front Range as well around the country. The others are located at
as groups from the Rotary Club, local church- Point Reyes National Seashore in California,
es, the Navy Seabees and Habitat for Cape Cod National Seashore in
Humanity have contributed their time and Massachusetts, Great Smoky Mountains
skills. Volunteers were attracted by the beauti- National Park in Tennessee, and Kenai Fjords
ful park setting, the opportunity to learn new National Park in Alaska. Another eight park
skills, such as repairing historic windows or learning centers are currently being devel-
re-chinking logs, and the chance to be part of oped, with the ultimate goal of establishing a
a highly visible public project. total of 32 learning centers in parks across the
Carrying out a major rehabilitation in a nation by 2005.
highly visible public setting such as Rocky Preservation advocates should be pleased
Mountain National Park has also presented that the criteria for selecting locations for
excellent opportunities for historic preserva- learning centers includes a preference for
tion education and outreach. The rehabilita- adapting historic structures. For example, at
tion site has become an outdoor classroom. Point Reyes, the historic Hagmaier Ranch was
For instance, when we were deciding what to rehabilitated for use as the Pacific Coast
do with the barn at McGraw Ranch, we invit- Learning Center, while at Cape Cod a former
ed a barn rehabilitation specialist to conduct a Air Force facility is being re-used as part of the
public workshop for barn owners from the Atlantic Learning Center. In addition, the list
surrounding area, using the McGraw barn as of research underway at these centers includes
an example. Another workshop, organized by cultural as well as natural resource projects.
the Architectural Preservation Institute at Cultural landscape investigations, historic
Colorado State University, focused on the structures assessments, ethnographic studies,
restoration of historic log structures at the and the development of a historic archives
ranch. As part of the Preservation and Skills database are examples of projects already
Training (PAST) program developed by the underway. As research efforts expand and
National Park Service (NPS), a group of main- more learning centers come on line, there is
tenance personnel from national parks around great potential for parks to build stronger con-
the country spent more than a week at nections between cultural and natural
McGraw, learning skills from experienced resource preservation and to engage park visi-
mentors while accomplishing considerable tors in these efforts.
rehabilitation work on the property. We hope that the preservation of the
The final piece of the McGraw Ranch McGraw Ranch, which will have required
project came when Rocky Mountain National nearly a decade of effort by the time it opens
Park was selected to be a park learning center. for researchers in the summer of 2003, has
Funded in part through an NPS initiative contributed to an evolution in attitudes about
called the Natural Resource Challenge, these historic structures in national parks. When the
learning centers are intended to expand park battle over the McGraw Ranch began, the
research capacity, encourage collaboration property was viewed by the park as a site of
190
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

minor local interest, a drain on precious main- Michael Pollan in his book Second Nature.
tenance funds, and an impediment to natural Maybe it is time we got over this idea, espe-
resource management goals. Today, the cially in our national parks.
McGraw Ranch is a model for the adaptive
use of historic structures, a catalyst for [Ed. note: This article appeared originally in
increased park funding, and will soon become the summer 2002 issue of the National Trust
the centerpiece of the park’s expanded Forum. It is re-printed with permission from
research program. the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
“Americans have a deeply ingrained habit 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
of seeing nature and culture as irreconcilably Washington, D.C. 20036; www.national-
opposed; we automatically assume that when- trust.org.]
ever one gains, the other must lose,” writes

191
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

When Disaster Strikes at

Your Historic Site During Construction

David W. Look, National Park Service. Pacific Great Basin Support Office, 1111 Jackson Street,
Suite 700, Oakland, California 94607; david_w_look@nps.gov

Cultural resources are unique, non-renewable, and irreplaceable. Once a resource is gone, it
is gone forever. Our cultural resources are most vulnerable during construction for a variety of
reasons.
Most of what I have to say applies both to ty to prevent these.
an in-house job where you use your own Combination of circumstances: There are
employees, and to a job where a contractor risks during construction of which we must be
accomplishes the work. constantly mindful. Electricity may be turned
Natural disaster can strike at almost any off to do electrical work; therefore, any smoke
time. Check the weather forecast daily. In the or fire detection system and alarms may not be
Midwest there are weather alert radios that operable. Water may be turned off to do
switch on to broadcast when there is a weath- plumbing work, so you may not have water
er change. What is the nature of the risk? when you need it most. Phone lines may not
Think about it. Develop an emergency pre- be operable. How do you call 911 if you do
paredness or disaster plan. If it is a contract not have an operable phone? If there are cell
job, involve the contractor in developing and phones on the job, where are they? Can you
implementing the plan. pinpoint your location to the 911 operator?
This is not something that we must think The 911 operator cannot pinpoint the loca-
about once and then forget. What is the risk tion from a cell phone number. If in an urban
today of a storm: ponding on the roof because or a remote location, can you give good direc-
of a clogged drain, lightning, a flood, mud- tions to the fire department? More than one
slide, snow overload or avalanche, frozen fire truck has gotten lost trying to find the fire.
pipes, a forest fire, an earthquake, etc.? Is If you are in a remote location, there may not
there a special hazard adjacent to your site: a be a fire department. You may have to provide
dam, a highway, a railroad, a factory? your own fire protection.
Human error is always possible. We need to think both about what we want
Remember Murphy’s Law: If it can possibly to accomplish, but also what we want to pre-
happen, sooner or later it will happen and vent.
usually at the worst possible time. What are Be concerned for both the safety of the
the chances of an oil spill or a toxic hazard? workers and the safety of the historic building.
These, of course, have adverse effects on cul- Look for slip or fall hazards. Railings may be
tural, natural, and human resources. removed for repairs. Use barricades where
Human attitude: you value your cultural needed. Injury or death on the job site cannot
resources and are passionate about their just ruin your day; it can end your career and
preservation but the construction worker you maybe your life. Safety is everyone’s business.
hire or the contractor you retain and his or her Think about how to minimize risks. If at
employees may or may not care about the site. all possible, prohibit any open flames on the
Some may be very professional and be very job.
proud of working on a historic site. To others Communication is very important: Does
it may be just a job in a dirty old building. everyone know what to do if a disaster strikes?
Attitude can make a big difference. Has there been a pre-construction meeting on
Human attack: theft, vandalism, graffiti, safety? Are there weekly meetings and
arson, terrorism, etc. We must provide securi- reminders? Are signs posted? One of my
192
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

favorites is: “SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT! the requirement of delivering a free case of gin
SAFETY IS GOOD PLANNING AND to the architect’s office every Friday at noon.
TRAINING.” Safety does not just happen. Be Many contractors did not read the specifica-
redundant. Post several signs where they can- tions thoroughly. I began to look forward to
not be missed. noon on Friday because the architect fre-
Selection of a contractor is very important. quently handed out bonuses on Friday—a
What is the contractor’s safety and loss bottle of gin (or rum, or vodka) to everyone on
record? Contractors are required to have con- the staff. We cannot use this clause in govern-
struction insurance. Make sure it covers disas- ment contracts, but we could test the contrac-
ters. What is the contractor’s track record? tor in other ways. Maybe this is how we can
Check with the insurance company on the get someone to dress up in a bunny costume
contractor’s past history of claims. and hand out Easter eggs at the NPS
How should we communicate to the work- Employees Association spring party.
ers or contractor? Use meetings with contrac- Also, put important notes on the construc-
tors and workers. Holding a pre-construction tion drawings because workers and contrac-
meeting is very important. Workers, whether tors usually refer to the plans more often than
they are employed by a contractor or by the they re-read the specs.
National Park Service, must have a fire safety Mark the fire lane on drawings. Designate
orientation. Monitor changes in personnel. areas on the drawings for dumpster and stor-
Contractors often send their best staff to the age of materials so that they do not block the
pre-construction meeting. Sometimes you fire lane.
may not see them again. If there is a change in Put safety reminders in pay envelopes to
personnel, each new person must go through workers or payments to the contractor.
a safety orientation. If it is a long job, have reg- If workers cannot read or speak English,
ular safety meetings and refresher safety brief- be sure that there is always a translator on site.
ings especially on the days of hot work. Hot You may need to post signs in more than one
work includes, but is not limited to, welding, language.
soldering, brazing, hot roofing, removal of Have you invited the park safety officer to
paint by heat gun (never remove paint by inspect the site on a regular basis? Include fire
using a torch). Don’t forget about sparks from marshals—they are good at spotting hazards,
cutting or grinding. My Uncle Edward was better than you or me.
killed in 1929 by an aluminum dust explosion Have you invited the contractor’s insur-
caused by a spark. ance carrier to the site for inspections?
Make sure to stress to the contractor Identify hazards: combustible materials,
and/or employees why the historic building is systems, chemicals, finishes, and fabrics.
significant and that it is an irreplaceable cul- Inspect storage areas: Are the roofs and/or
tural resource. Once destroyed, no replica can floors overloaded because of the arrival and
ever replace it and be as significant. storage of construction materials? Is 100% of
The purpose of construction specifica- the new roofing stacked on 10% of the roof ?
tions is to communicate. Specifications are Are there any old gas fixtures or pipes that
usually dull but they are a legal document and still have gas in them? Better to find out before
take precedent over plans because a lawyer someone cuts the pipe.
can read specs and tear them apart; lawyers What are the risks and hazards in specified
usually do not know how to read plans. materials and treatments? Are there welding
Contractors do not always read or re-read the gas tanks stored at the site? Steel wool is flam-
specs after making their bid. mable. Beware of using steel wool around out-
For two years I worked for an architect in lets.
private practice. He hid things in his specifica- Seasonal risks: What are the risks at cer-
tions to determine if the contractor read the tain times of the year? Are portable heaters
specification. One contractor actually found being used in the winter? Could combustible
193
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

materials (e.g., empty paper cement sacks) be Do not allow any hot work where flammable
blown into a space heater when the door construction materials are stored. Do as much
opens and there is a draft? Are fans being hot work outside the building as possible. If
used? hot work must be done in or on the building,
Demolition is risky! What can go wrong? create a safety zone. Know what’s going on
Everything from stepping on a rusty nail to each day and where the risks are.
unknown hazards (such as pigeon droppings Cover flammable materials that cannot be
in the attic) to unexpected collapses because moved with a fireproof cover. If possible, you
of improper sequencing of demolition. may want to wet down surrounding materials.
How many electrical panel boxes are Wet surfaces are less likely to burn.
there? If there are more than one, do not Evaporating moisture cools the surface.
assume that all of the electricity is off just Who supervises hot work and the use of
because some of it is off. You could have a tools? Maintain fire equipment. Always have
rude surprise that could ruin or end your fire extinguishers on site, especially at the site
day—or even worse, your life. of hot work. All construction workers should
Obstruction of the fire lane: Is the dump- be trained on the use of fire extinguishers.
ster or the construction shed blocking the fire Have the fire extinguishers been inspected?
lane? Is the dumpster emptied on a regular Have they been recharged? Stop all hot work
basis? One night I was bicycling home from three hours before workers leave. There may
work. When I passed the State Building, I saw need to be a 24-hour guard. The guard needs
a dumpster on fire in the alley behind it. to know if there has been any hot work that
Flames were leaping 30–40 feet in the air. The day. Inspect areas where hot work has been
dumpster was within five feet of the building done. Don’t just look, also feel the surface for
and almost set it on fire before the Fire any heat. Dust in wall or floor cavities can
Department arrived. smolder for hours before breaking into flames.
Very few construction sheds are totally Use common sense. No smoking should
fireproof. If a portable heater accidentally sets be allowed on the job site, but smokers will
the construction shed on fire, could the fire smoke. Maintenance workers smoking once
spread to your historic building? The con- set the Main Interior Building in Washington,
struction office trailer should be at least 30 D.C., on fire. Provide a safe smoking area out-
feet from your historic building, if possible. side of the historic building and away from all
Means of egress: construction materials, hazards. Enforce the rules. If you are lax on
especially paint cans, should not be stored on enforcement, workers are more likely to cheat.
or under stairs or in exit corridors. These Do daily checks. Inspect the smoking area.
must always remain clear. Incomplete systems Some people think they can cheat without get-
(open floor joists and wall studs) allow fires to ting caught.
spread more rapidly. The sprinkler system Keep the site clean. Construction debris,
may be installed but not yet operable. especially an accumulation of sawdust, can be
Hot work: We cannot avoid all hot work. If a preventable hazard.
there is to be hot work, we must plan for safe- Arson—don’t provide an opportunity.
ty during and after hot work. There must be a Provide site security.
hot work permitting process. The safety offi- Ever forget to purchase something at the
cer must be involved. Who is authorized to grocery store? Usually you forget less often if
issue a permit? Who is responsible? Who you have a list. There are a lot of things that
inspects? These decisions need to be worked can go wrong and a lot to remember. The larg-
out in advance. There must be a hot work per- er the job the more than can go wrong.
mit every day hot work is done—no blanket Develop checklists for your construction site
permit for a long period of time. Do not allow and use them. This documents your safety
any hot work where there is dust, sawdust, oil, program. If the worst happens, it is good to
flammable chemicals, animal droppings, etc. have a safety paper trail. Store your safety
194
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

records off-site or they may go up in flames disaster will strike. Inspect sites often. Speak
with your historic site. to individuals. Discipline violators.
I must re-emphasize communication— I can only hit a few highlights in this paper.
what do you want and why is it important? For more in-depth coverage, get a copy of the
Also, emphasize what you do not want. Assign publication National Fire Protection
responsibility for safety. Develop a plan and Association 241: Safeguarding Construction
use it. Drill, drill, drill. You never know when Sites, read it, and use it.

195
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Expanding the Meaning of Heritage: The New Mexico

Heritage Preservation Alliance
Jerry L. Rogers, New Mexico Heritage Preservation Alliance, 29 Bosque Loop, Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87508; jrogers@phronesis.com

I am glad the director of the National Park Service (NPS) advocates having the units of the
National Park System work with partners who participate in the larger set of common interests
that revolve around, and in many cases have grown out of, the NPS mission. Obviously there are
many difficulties in reaching out beyond park boundaries, as it makes others feel entitled to reach
in from outside. There is an understandable temptation to adopt a defensive way of thinking, but
the trouble with this is that points are not scored—progress is not made and ultimately the parks
will not be preserved—by defensive action alone.
There is more than one way to preserve a historic preservation programs throughout
park. I want to focus on the abilities partners the United States.
may have to do something the managers of But “official” approaches are only one
protected areas need done in ways that may way—not always the best way—of making
not be available to public employees. In an preservation happen. I want to focus now
effort to make NPS the historic preservation upon unofficial forces, such as public opinion,
leader the National Historic Preservation Act and some of the ways that non-governmental
says it should be, I spent much of my career organizations such as statewide citizen non-
trying to enable new ideas about cultural profit heritage organizations can help to shape
resources to make sense in the context of the the forces. I have the honor of being president
National Register of Historic Places. This was of one such organization—the New Mexico
natural. The National Register was founded Heritage Preservation Alliance.
on a new idea—that the American people All fifty states have organizations like the
needed more in the way of historic preserva- alliance. They are loosely affiliated as partners
tion than could be accomplished by setting of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
aside a handful of nationally significant places and of one another. New Mexico was one of
as museums, monuments, and memorials. In the very last states to organize one of these
general, national park units and nationally things, with our corporate charter approved in
protected areas are the cultural resource 1995 and our work only really becoming a
equivalent of the “charismatic megafauna.” meaningful force three or four years later. This
They may look great alone, but they have vital has both good and bad aspects to it. One of
interrelationships with other less spectacular the bad aspects is that, unlike statewide organ-
resources. It is necessary to preserve the total- izations that have had 20 or more years to
ity of the larger environment. build endowments and other financial
I grew up in the tutelage of Ernest arrangements, we live pretty much hand-to-
Connally, Robert Utley, William Murtagh, and mouth, able to pay only one poor overworked
Robert Garvey, and absorbed their vision of staff member and required to raise 100% of
the National Register, section 106, and the our annual budget de novo each year. One of
network of federal, state, local, and tribal the good aspects is that, unlike some statewide
preservation officers functioning as one great organizations that have had many years in
comprehensive program to identify and pre- which to become stodgy, we have internalized
serve the national heritage. I am proud of hav- no limits upon our own creativity. The world
ing worked to make the National Register one expects us, as adolescents, to act up a bit; and
great tent capable of sheltering all types of cul- we, as adolescents, act up in order to get the
tural resources, and of having helped to keep attention that can make us effective.
the National Register at the center of official By acting up, I really mean the subject of
196
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

this paper—expanding the public’s under- energized a coalition of people who had been
standing of what historical heritage can mean. working for night sky protection from an
Statewide organizations do many things, but astronomer’s perspective and, with a lot of
virtually all of them release a list each year of behind-the-scenes guidance from NPS
what they have dubbed their state’s most employee Joe Sovick, 90 days later the state
endangered historic places. Older and more had a new law regulating light pollution.
settled statewides are apt to list a dozen or so This succeeded so spectacularly that the
buildings or districts—the daring ones throw- alliance has since then made it a deliberate
ing in maybe a bridge or an archeological site practice to introduce at least one innovative
or a place significant to a minority. These lists concept each year. We have designated, along
are the organization’s one great chance each with the normal array of buildings, structures,
year to call attention to their work and their and sites, a mountain (now saved), a railroad
values; the one great chance to have their work (now saved), a cultural tradition (now on its
and values noticed by a news reporter or way to being saved through enactment of a
remembered by a governor or a legislator or a National Heritage Area), and a river valley
potential benefactor. (probably not going to be saved). But in 2003
The upstart New Mexico Heritage we went further than ever before, designating
Preservation Alliance, however, has developed two vast topographical land forms: the greater
a marvelous track record of attracting the Otero Mesa, a scenic, natural, and archeologi-
attention of people who ordinarily might skip cal area in southeast New Mexico; and the La
over a historically-based article in their news- Bajada Escarpment, a long and magnificent
paper. The reaction we strive for among peo- bluff that served as the boundary marker
ple who read about us is not so much “aha” as between two Spanish administrative jurisdic-
“I never thought of that!” tions during colonial times. But the real block-
It started in our very first year of releasing buster this year was “The waters of New
a most endangered list, when in 1999 we Mexico.” This was timely because the state
declared among our state’s most endangered has been in extreme drought. I want to read to
places a waterworks, a residential district, a you selections from the nominating docu-
ghost town, a bridge, an industrial site, and the ments by which cultural values were identified
New Mexico night sky. “The New Mexico night in such resources as the night sky and the
sky!” people said, “I never thought of that!” waters of New Mexico. The point of reading
Most people in the United States who can still this is to reveal the logic that enabled such
see the brilliance of stars and the moon at unorthodox designations. It is not as “far out”
night are vaguely aware that they like seeing as one might presume.
them. They may even be regretfully aware that
this blessing is gradually being taken from The Night Sky
them by light pollution and reduced air quali- “From the pleistocene to the present the
ty, but they are probably resigned to its loss as night sky has been an important element in
part of the price of “progress.” And the few cultural heritage. The combination of what
who actually want to do something about it appeared to be eternal order in certain night
are apt to think in terms of preserving what we sky patterns with such changeable things as
in the National Park Service would probably lunar phases, planetary movements, seasonal
categorize as a “natural” resource. But an angles of declination, and annual meteor
endangered historic place? Holy cow! I never showers was one of the early great stimuli to
thought of that! And the justification was not curiosity. The discovery of predictable order
really very hard. All it took was to apply tradi- among the inconstants was important in the
tional cultural property concepts to the heav- development of belief systems and their atten-
ens. But the boldness of the concept worked dant cultural values—influencing even the
exactly as we had hoped. It received extraor- idea of what it means to be human. It remains
dinary and positive attention. The attention so today.”
197
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

“Mammoth hunters at Clovis and Folsom, limit human activity. Acequias—more than
ancestral Puebloans at Chaco and Pecos, mere distribution systems, became human
Vasquez de Coronado in his explorations, associations, cultural traditions, and the foun-
Onate and de Vargas in their conquests, cow- dations of legal systems. The significance of
boys on nightherd duty, and office workers water is evident in the locations and distribu-
resting from their daily toils all have lived tion of ancient habitation sites; road and trail
under, admired, and wondered about the routes; farms and field patterns; greenlines
same night sky—virtually unchanged in and tree rows; windmills and the cattle they
human history.” support; and the locations of villages, towns,
“A pristine night sky almost universally and cities. Water has become so completely a
stimulates thought. Some are humbled in their “cultural” resource that many people now
insignificance before the visible universe, and consider its natural sources mere utilities, for-
some are exhilarated by a sense of identifica- getting their greater roles in shaping human
tion therewith. Some measure and test the activity and supporting the interlocking sys-
movement of our earthly platform within the tems upon which all life depends.
solar system, the solar system within the The famous spring that gave Portales its
galaxy, and the galaxy within the universe until name has been dried by wells into a crusty
human understanding is exhausted and calcu- rock shelf. The “Hope” that named an Eddy
lation at its limit. Some speculate about life County town is poignantly memorialized in
elsewhere, and some contemplate that the dry ditches and dead orchards. The mighty
flesh, blood, and bones of our very bodies— Rio Grande, fourth longest river in North
even the energy powering our thoughts—are America, is sometimes dry less than halfway to
of the light and substance we see coming the sea. Institutions and legal systems that
down from the spangles above.” governed water use in earlier times have
“Without conscious action it will be much ceased to be effective, ignoring links between
more difficult for future generations to have surface sources and aquifers and allowing
the same experiences, or even to imagine water rights to exceed actual water. Public
them. As urban areas expand and as change officials and private enterprise, focusing on
without consideration of the night sky contin- short-term gain rather than sustainable possi-
ues, places where it can be experienced grow bilities, have not confronted the facts.
fewer and more difficult to reach. We risk los- Growing profligate uses threaten acequias,
ing a beauty that has been the backdrop to and small farms, and other uses deeply rooted in
motivator of human actions since time imme- heritage. As New Mexico prepares to address
morial.”1 these problems, there is danger that a crassly
utilitarian approach may reduce her waters to
The Waters of New Mexico a simple element of economic production or a
From the first human’s entry into present component of infrastructure. The true value of
New Mexico until now and into the infinite New Mexico’s waters can only be understood,
future, water has been and will be the primary and humane solutions found, within the con-
determinant of where, how, and whether peo- text of her history and cultures.
ple will live. The earliest known structure in I have not said very much in this paper
this state is a well made perhaps 10,000 years about reaching out beyond park boundaries
ago at Blackwater Draw, and is evidence of the and interacting with the vast federal, state,
profound human drive to take action with tribal, local, and private-sector historic preser-
regard to water in order to live here. Human vation network that is actually led by the
recognition of water as giver of life made it a National Park Service because I have made
cultural, as well as a natural, resource. Blue that speech since 1981 and because many
Lake, Zuni Salt Lake, and other waters are park managers have learned its truth—
held sacred by indigenous cultures. Water although a few Neanderthals still cower
sources are focal points that both enable and behind park boundaries. I have suggested that
198
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

public opinion may be a more effective pre- itself against a coal-fired generating plant
server than legal protections, and that innova- whose emissions would diminish Chaco’s
tive and imaginative concepts can be effective wonderful archeo-astronomical values. And
shapers of public opinion. Although I have working to preserve the waters of New Mexico
focused mostly on two very innovative cultur- will set conceptual precedents important to
al resource concepts, let me say that the moun- parks all over the world—as one not too dis-
tain we declared endangered (Buffalo tant example, the ecosystem in Big Bend
Mountain, near Cerrillos) has been saved by National Park that depends upon the water
recognition that it is important to the county and the aquatic life of the Rio Grande, not to
park that has been created near it. The rail- mention the importance of New Mexican
road (the Cumbres & Toltec steam railroad) waters to Chamizal National Memorial,
functions essentially as an interstate park run Amistad National Recreation Area, and Palo
by both Colorado and New Mexico. The cul- Alto Battlefield National Historic Site.
tural tradition (Hispanic heritage of northern So if you still think the State Historic
New Mexico) leads logically to development Preservation Officer, section 106, and the
of a heritage area that will be led by the National Register are burdens to be endured
National Park Service. The river valley (the or obstacles to be evaded; and if you think
Hondo Valley, east of Ruidoso) will probably your statewide heritage preservation organiza-
not be saved because it is essentially an old- tion is some sort of remote ally of questionable
fashioned historic preservation controversy value—wake up and get involved. It ain’t so.
involving widening of a highway, but our State
Historic Preservation Office has become more Endnote
cognizant of cultural landscapes as a conse- 1. Jerry L. Rogers, and Joseph E. Sovick,
quence of the designation. The 1999 designa- “The Ultimate Cultural Resource?” The
tion of the New Mexico night sky enables us in George Wright Society Forum (Vol. 18,
2003 to help Chaco Culture National No. 4, 2001), 25–28.
Historical Park, a World Heritage site, defend

199
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

California’s Cultural Heritage Resources Summit:

A Call for Action
Denzil Verardo, California State Parks, 3428 Benedix Way, Elk Grove, California 95758; den-
zilv@accessbee.com or dvera@parks.ca.gov

Californians today are vitally interested in their cultural heritage and in those cultural heritage
resources that give them identity, visibility, and a sense of belonging. These cultural heritage
resources are our historic sites, structures, and monuments; our art, artifacts, and museum col-
lections; our libraries and archives; our cultural landscapes and archeological preserves; our
folklore and folk life traditions; and our literature and oral traditions. For the purposes of this
paper these treasured cultural heritage resources collectively form a unique legacy of who we
were, and are, as Californians.
There is little argument among profession- cultural resource-related activities, as well as a
als that cultural heritage resources bind our willingness to pay for such services. These
peoples together. In their very existence is a facts allude to the tremendous opportunities
spirit of renewal. In their preservation, there is that exist for education, public outreach, and
hope. In the advocacy for their preservation economic development in the management,
are bonds among a diverse group of organiza- interpretation, and effective use of California’s
tions to protect a valuable past and evolving cultural heritage resources.
present because of the cultural value placed It was with this background that the
on these resources. In fact, we contemporary California Cultural Heritage Resources
Californians will perhaps be judged as a peo- Summit, a forum for discussion of the issues
ple who cared and endured, or a people who surrounding cultural heritage resources, was
squandered their heritage by letting their cul- organized. The summit was a colloquium
tural heritage resources lie unprotected or planned and organized by the California
under-interpreted. However, cooperation and Department of Parks and Recreation (also
coordination for the statewide management of known as California State Parks) and the
cultural heritage resources is admittedly diffi- California Office of Historic Preservation.
cult and complex. Those resources, often frag- The purpose and goal of the summit was to
ile, difficult to protect, and costly to restore begin the development of a statewide common
and maintain, are not renewable and their very agenda among the diverse groups who have
diversity and breadth increase the complexity some responsibility for California’s cultural
of the management challenge. “Our coopera- heritage resources. The term “common agen-
tion with one another is really difficult da,” as used for the purposes of the summit,
because our media are so different,” states was defined as a collaborative effort between
Professor I. Michael Heyman.1 those present that results in unity of purpose
Visiting museums and historic sites is also to protect and preserve California’s cultural
increasingly popular as a family recreation heritage resources while educating and
activity, as evidenced in the 1997 study enlightening our citizenry about the wonders
“Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor of the state’s cultural landscape. Museums,
Recreation in California.2 The survey showed historic parks, buildings and monuments, the
that nearly 75% of all Californians participat- arts, academia, historical societies, cultural
ed in visiting museums or historic sites during awareness advocates, archival resources, and
the year. Respondents visiting museums and historic preservation groups were all part of
historic sites averaged 10 activity-days, for an that agenda.
estimated 61.8 million household-participa- The California Cultural Heritage
tion-days per year. Also gleaned from the sur- Resources Summit was an unprecedented
vey was that there is a high, unmet demand for gathering in that it brought together individu-
200
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

als who normally do not come together. These itage division was formed that unified and
individuals, while considered leaders in their heightened the internal awareness of State
fields or within their representative organiza- Parks holdings and responsibility, and pro-
tions, usually associated only with peers at moted a stronger working relationship with
professional gatherings or within their own the Office of Historic Preservation, adminis-
professional organizations. These organiza- tratively already an office within the California
tions and individuals had not had the oppor- Department of Parks and Recreation but
tunity to communicate at a cross-professional whose mission differs from that of State Parks.
colloquium with a single focus on cultural her- Concurrently, plans for a cultural heritage
itage resources. The invitation-only event summit were developed whereby ideas from
included stewards, spokespersons, and schol- the diverse array of cultural heritage stake-
ars for significant portions of this larger cul- holders could be both shared and gleaned for
tural legacy. the benefit of not only State Parks, but those
The summit was held in November 2002 stakeholders as well. No one agency—public
at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles. or private—in California could, or should,
The gathering had support from the Friends take on the daunting quest of ensuring that all
of Hearst Castle, the Hearst Castle Californians see themselves represented in
Preservation Foundation and the J. Paul Getty culturally sensitive ways in the state’s cultural
Trust, and co-sponsorship from the following heritage resources. But a collective summit
groups: California Association of Museums, goal was to ensure that Californians saw them-
California Council for the Promotion of selves somewhere in those resources when they
History, California Historical Society, were taken collectively. How that very signifi-
California Preservation Foundation, cant goal would be met, however, was a press-
California State Archives, California State ing question that needed exploration through
Library, Los Angeles Conservancy, National dialogue with a broad array of individuals,
Park Service, National Trust for Historic agencies and organizations, both public and
Preservation, and Society for California private.
Archaeology. The assistance of Tom Frye, chief curator
The summit was originally conceived of in emeritus of history for the Oakland Museum,
2000. Concern over the management and was enlisted as cultural resources advisor to
organization of cultural heritage resources— the director. Frye developed several depart-
specifically those in the care of California mental strategies in the cultural resource man-
State Parks—was expressed by professionals agement arena and played a key role in the
and the public at a series of public workshops planning of the summit, which began in
that were held to gain input for State Parks earnest in early 2001 with the appointment of
strategic plan development. California State a steering team3 to work on summit details.
Parks holds in public trust cultural heritage The J. Paul Getty Trust and Museum was
resources of astonishing breadth and diversity. approached by Frye, and key State Parks
Within California State Parks are approxi- executive staff, to assess its receptivity of host-
mately 13,000 historic and archaeological ing and co-sponsoring the event. The knowl-
sites including 47 state historic parks, and edge, experience, and reputation of the Getty
3,000 historic structures containing 4.5 mil- Museum within the cultural heritage field, as
lion artifacts. Internally, California Parks’ cul- well as its spectacular setting and location
tural resource management staff echoed the within Los Angeles, made it an ideal partner
need for increased visibility of these for this premier gathering. The staff of the
resources, the organizational focus of which Getty Trust agreed to host and provide signif-
should equal the intensity and commitment icant support for the event, but wished to
made to our natural heritage treasures. State remain in a secondary role to State Parks in
Parks executive staff agreed. the planning and implementation of the sum-
To begin that commitment, a cultural her- mit. State Parks solicited and received co-
201
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

sponsorship and support from other organiza- In order to provide a focus for the discus-
tions considered critical to the success of the sion that would ensue, several additional
summit. By early 2002 the summit steering objectives were presented, including:
team had secured full grant funding for the
• Exploring and identifying of what is miss-
event, enabling the 90 invited participants to
ing from California’s cultural heritage
attend at no cost, which assisted in ensuring
resources tableaux, and how filling those
their attendance.
gaps might be addressed;
Concurrently with summit planning, two
• Exploring and identifying of the nature of
other events occurred that added an addition-
the partnerships and collaborations need-
al degree of complexity to that effort. While
ed in the cultural heritage resources field;
California’s quality of life can be significantly
• Determining whether the creation of a
enhanced by its cultural heritage resources,
high-profile roster of California’s Most
state and municipal funding and financial
Endangered Cultural Heritage Resources
incentives for historic preservation had been
might contribute to efforts and means to
minimal during the past several decades.
preserve them;
However, beginning in 2000 Californians
• Forging a vision of promise and possibili-
passed Proposition 12, the largest park bond
ties for California’s cultural heritage
act in the nation’s history, which contained a
resources, mindful of the challenging real-
modest amount of seed money, $12 million,
ities faced by many organizations, such as
for historic preservation grants to local agen-
the economy, budget deficits, staffing
cies and $10 million for state park cultural
issues, competing priorities, and national
resource projects. Two years later another
and regional crises; and
bond act, Proposition 40, also passed. This
• Exploring and determining ways by which
bond contained $230 million for cultural
the visibility and importance of our collec-
resource projects—more than had ever been
tive cultural heritage resources may be
appropriated for such efforts. While the sum-
extended to the broadest range of
mit planning team purposely kept the focus of
Californians.
the proposed meeting on its original goal,
there was no question that suddenly the The summit was divided into three ses-
California Cultural Heritage Resources sions, each exploring one of the questions
Summit would take on an added dimension as considered fundamental to the development
a multitude of diverse heritage groups vied for of a common agenda. Each session was pre-
a share of these dollars. ceded by a notable speaker who set the stage
When finalized, the summit’s outcomes for what followed. A panel of representative
and issues revolved around three basic ques- stakeholders then presented a point of view on
tions, the answers to which would serve as a the subject, after which audience participants
basis and framework for the goal of a collective asked questions or presented their own point
common agenda. Those questions were: or counterpoint. Breaks between sessions
“What is the state of California’s cultural her- allowed for interpersonal discussion or
itage resources today with regard to the issues debate. Special keynote presentations were
of preservation, stewardship, audience, rele- made by Professor I. Michael Heyman,
vancy and diversity, education and interpreta- Congressman George Radanovich, and John
tion, and funding?”; “Where do we want to be Nau, III, chair of the National Advisory
with California’s cultural heritage resources in Council on Historic Preservation.
five to ten years and what outcomes do we So what is the state of the state with
want to achieve?”; and “What do we do to get regards to its cultural heritage resources here
there?” In addition, the organizers and spon- at the early beginnings of the 21st century?
sors hoped that the summit would inaugurate First, California has massive holdings with
a continuing dialogue among the diverse per- regard to these resources. However, there is
spectives represented at the event. little coordination between and among the

202
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

various agencies and organizations that pos- demonstrates that tremendous public and
sess them. In addition: political support exists for efforts that pro-
mote California’s cultural heritage resources.
• There is no direct nexus between universi- Grassroots historic preservation efforts are
ty studies and historic preservation. There taking place throughout the state. All of this is
are no generally accepted curricula in his- occurring during a period of economic crisis.
toric preservation that lead to special stud- However, I am certainly not alone in recogniz-
ies and research. ing that there is little innovation in govern-
• Preservation and stewardship issues ment unless there is a crisis. Little dramatic
revolve around the availability of financial change takes place without one.
resources. Some museums are well The California Cultural Heritage
endowed; others, not. For governmental Resources Summit generally exceeded the
agencies, regardless of jurisdiction, expectations of planners, sponsors, and par-
deferred maintenance is a constant issue ticipants alike. The first steps toward the goal
due to the expense of rehabilitating and of a common agenda were made with the fos-
maintaining historic structures and other tering of a more complete understanding of
cultural heritage resources such as artifacts the mission of represented organizations and
and art works. agencies, and their connection to heritage
• California faces a daunting task with resources. Perhaps the major revelation, by no
regard to relevancy, in the context of the means an assumed one, was that the myriad of
broader view of cultural heritage organizations, organizational representatives,
resources, because of the fact that its citi- and spokespersons for those resources had
zens form one of the world’s most diverse much more in common with each other and
populations. Dozens and dozens of cultur- collectively than they had differences separat-
al groups look to make the California expe- ing them. Other outcomes from the confer-
rience their experience. More than a hun- ence included:
dred different languages are spoken in the
• Overwhelming support for continuing the
Los Angeles School District alone.
dialogue begun at the summit.
• There is no current “California History
• Support for future formal meetings,
Plan”—the last one was done in 1973—
including the potential for another summit
which could address acquisition, develop-
with a structured format.
ment, a statewide sites inventory, and the
• Agreement that a collective advocacy had
thematic deficiencies that need representa-
the potential to achieve results within the
tion.
competitive funding environment that
However, the state of this state’s heritage exists within California today. Within the
resources also possesses positive footnotes. current budgetary crisis, this advocacy at a
California’s broad cultural heritage resources minimum could achieve acknowledgment
community is poised and committed to work that California’s cultural heritage
together to meet the demands of relevancy and resources are a critical element in defining
audience, stewardship and preservation, edu- who we were and are as Californians and
cation and interpretation. The summit proved as such are non-renewable treasures.
this. The diversity of California’s population • Agreement that accessibility and inclusion
is not a weakness, but a strength. By address- was critically important to creating a
ing the issues and difficult challenges sur- vibrant collective cultural heritage
rounding relevancy, tremendous opportuni- resources program to which all
ties exist for cross-cultural communication. A Californians could relate.
California history plan based on a new, mod- • Agreement that more ties were needed
ern, thematic framework, rather than a with the academic community specifically
chronological one, is in the testing stages. The and in general among the interests vested
success of ballot Propositions 12 and 40 in some portion of California’s cultural
203
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

heritage. achieving a common agenda should be devel-

• And for California State Parks, a height- oped. This would detail the strategy, and the
ened awareness of the context of its cultur- devil is in these details. Without facing that
al heritage resource holdings within the devil, only rhetoric will continue.4
broader heritage resources community.
Post-summit communication and evalua- Endnotes
tion echoed the success of the conference as a 1. Quote from Heyman’s keynote address,
defining event within California. Many of the November 17, 2002. Heyman is secretary
organizations not individually represented at emeritus of the Smithsonian Institution
the gathering expressed their interest in future and chancellor emeritus of the University
dialogue as a common agenda is beginning to of California, Berkeley.
be shaped and structured. 2. “Public Opinions and Attitudes” was pre-
My opinion of what must occur next if pared by CIC Research, Inc., of San Diego
this agenda is to be successful can be summa- for California State Parks.
rized with four thoughts. First, the momentum 3. The steering team consisted of the follow-
of the summit must be used to gain further ing State Parks staff: Steade Craigo, FAIA,
understanding of each other’s media as they chief, Cultural Resources Division; Hoyt
contribute to the greater collective whole of Fields, chief curator, Hearst San Simeon
California’s cultural heritage resources. State Historical Monument; L. Thomas
Second, as stakeholders continue to meet, a Frye, cultural resources advisor to the
collective advocacy must be designed, pub- director and chief curator emeritus of his-
licly and politically, for the preservation, inter- tory, the Oakland Museum of California;
pretation, development, and acquisition of Knox Mellon, state historic preservation
those resources as a part of the agenda. Similar officer; Steve Mikesell, deputy state his-
to the environmental movement of the late toric preservation officer; Erin Saberi,
1960s and the 1970s, we must use the assistant director, California State Parks;
strength of what these groups have in common Catherine Taylor, museum director,
and not what divides them. A common agenda California State Railroad Museum; and
certainly need not be a passive one! Third, a Denzil Verardo (summit chair), chief
California history plan, to include an invento- deputy director for administration,
ry of the state’s cultural resources with the- California State Parks.
matic deficiencies identified, must be com- 4. A full summit Proceedings is available by
pleted. And finally, a strategic plan with goals, contacting California State Parks.
time frames, and performance measures for

204
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Fort Stephen A. Douglas:

Adaptive Re-use for a Community of Scholars
Robert A. Young, University of Utah Graduate School of Architecture, 375 South 1530 East,
Room 235 AAC, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0370; young@arch.utah.edu

Introduction
This paper explores the stewardship aspects of rehabilitating the built environment. The
University of Utah’s award-winning re-use project at Fort Stephen A. Douglas in Salt Lake City
will be used to illustrate good practices in stewardship of the built environment. It also demon-
strates how historic buildings can be revitalized to promote a positive perception of urban renew-
al in the built environment.
The fort is on the east bench in the described herein.
foothills immediately adjacent to the
University of Utah at the eastern periphery of Defining Stewardship
Salt Lake City. Fort Stephen A. Douglas was of the Built Environment
originally established in 1862 as Camp The short-term gains of expanding the
Stephen A. Douglas to protect the Overland built environment have long been viewed as
Mail Route from attack by hostile Indians. financially attractive despite the resultant and
The original commander, Colonel Patrick E. unfortunate long-term degradation of the nat-
Connor, also felt a duty to “keep an eye on the ural environment that has been taken for
Mormons” whose loyalty to the Union at the granted. The resultant landscape of both envi-
time was considered suspect (Peterson 2002). ronments reveals that the overwhelming
Consolidation of military activities led to the majority favors an extraction and depletion
designation of the camp as Fort Stephen A. philosophy. Although this degradation has
Douglas in 1878. The fort continued to grow been mostly ignored in the last five centuries,
throughout the 19th century and reached its the past century or so has seen a growing
zenith during World War II. The post-war number of individuals and groups who have
period saw a long slow decline in the fort and been outspoken in defending the natural envi-
eventually it was reduced to a reserve center ronment. What affects the built environment
headquarters (Stock 1996). The historic core affects the natural environment. Conversely,
of the fort was designated as a national historic what affects the natural environment affects
landmark in 1970. Most of its original 10,525 the sustainability of the built environment. By
acres have already been ceded to the understanding the closed system of forces that
University of Utah for academic, administra- affect both landscapes it is possible to adopt a
tive, and residential facilities built in the latter stewardship approach wherein the effects of
part of the 20th century. Significant other por- change are taken in the context of the whole
tions have been transferred to the National rather than individually. As this concept has
Guard, Veterans Administration, and the U.S. become widely recognized, stewardship of the
Forest Service. Approximately 58 acres built environment has increasingly become a
remain in use by the military (University of goal of many.
Utah Department of Facilities Planning 2000). An increasing amount of the built envi-
With the designation of Salt Lake City as host ronment lays underused throughout the coun-
of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the uni- try. Stewardship explores how changes in the
versity had an opportunity to host the natural and built environments interact with
Olympic Athletes’ Village while resolving a one another. Therefore, by extension, the
shortfall in its student residential accommoda- intrinsic philosophy of the stewardship
tions. Thus began the stewardship process approach to growth is to reverse the current
205
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

outward flow of development back towards for movement of vehicles to and from the sub-
the central cities and to reconsolidate existing urbs. The optimism of the era led to the
built environments that have declined due “Great Society” programs of the 1960s,
social and political trends. including the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 that made the federal government
Stewardship Transforms Urban responsible for mitigating the loss of histori-
Renewal into Urban Revitalization cally significant properties through the section
“Urban renewal” evokes many images. For 106 review process.
those who experienced it in the early second The economic upheavals of the 1970s,
half of the 20th century, it meant razing older including a recession and two energy crises,
buildings and replacing them. However, when temporarily tempered expansion into the sub-
conservation and stewardship of the environ- urbs as soaring fuel costs provided a wake-up
ment are added, “urban renewal” is trans- call for a re-evaluation of transportation sys-
formed into “urban revitalization.” Instead of tems and the economics of expanded subur-
losing the historical continuity and communi- ban markets. While not a complete reversal, by
ty that older neighborhoods and built land- the 1980s socioeconomic awareness fomented
scapes can provide, the more appropriate con- a new concept of “urban revitalization” in lieu
cept of urban revitalization adapts existing of the earlier urban renewal. This period start-
buildings to accept the modern amenities and ed the initial developments in both the inner
building code interventions necessary for city and suburban markets of what has
their continued operation and use in the 21st become known as “New Urbanism.” While
century. Urban revitalization is the culmina- the concepts forming these philosophical
tion of responses to how American politics approaches borrow directly from buildings of
have addressed the built environment. Prior to earlier eras, their manifestation has largely
the 1949 creation of the National Trust for been in the suburbs where land prices and a
Historic Preservation, preservation was large- perceived high level of consumer demand
ly seen as the work undertaken by a few provide more favorable market conditions.
“wealthy” or “devoted” individuals to save While expansion into the suburbs resumed in
only the finest examples of historic buildings. this period, preservation tax credits demon-
However, prosperity after World War II led to strated that revitalization could be done at a
a burgeoning suburban housing market sur- large scale. Widespread investment propelled
rounding many urban centers and thus started a previously small market segment into promi-
an exodus to the suburbs that subsequently nence, and this period saw the re-invigoration
led to the deterioration of many inner-city and expansion of the need for skills and prod-
neighborhoods and the creation of urban ucts that became commonplace in the historic
renewal programs across the country. Those preservation and conservation sector.
unable to leave had little political wherewithal Unfortunately, the Tax Act of 1986 cut invest-
and the resultant renewal programs designed ment interest in many of these programs short.
to remove “urban blight” across America left Thus, the echoes of political climate of the
their mark on the built landscape. These pro- 1950s reverberated throughout the societal
grams were also fueled by the National climate of the 1960s and were tempered by
Highway Transportation Act of 1956 that at the economic crises of the 1970s. These then
the initial stages of the Cold War responded to were fueled by the proven merits for revitaliza-
the perceived need for emergency evacuation tion in the 1980s and 1990s that still hold res-
routes during a nuclear attack. While those onance. The combination of the market devel-
attacks have not materialized, the “evacua- opment from the 1980s and the growing
tion” did occur, albeit at a multi-decade pace. recognition of the value of the older or historic
Fostered by the newly opened access to hith- built environment has enabled large property
erto remote environments, suburban sprawl owners to enhance livability and hence the
evolved and formed an even greater demand revitalization of communities.
206
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

An Opportunity for Large-Scale residential/scholastic environment that moves

Stewardship of the Built students and the academic environment clos-
Environment er together. In preparation for the 2002
In recent decades, numerous buildings Winter Olympic games, Fort Douglas was
have been left vacant, underused, or simply selected as the site for the athletic village hous-
abandoned. The cause can largely be account- ing. The university used this opportunity to
ed for within the economic framework of the expand its deficient housing while meeting
sociopolitical system. Recently many domes- the need for accommodations for 2,500 ath-
tic industries have been down-sized due to off- letes.
shore competition, leaving numerous build- As a national historic landmark, Fort
ings—and, by extension, the residential and Douglas is protected by the strictest preserva-
commercial districts supporting them—vul- tion regulations. This factor led the university
nerable to accelerated decline. However this to undertake a planning study to ensure that
tends to occur in a more discrete and seg- infill buildings would not adversely affect the
mented fashion over an extended time frame. composition and form of the fort and its envi-
Up until the recent war on terrorism, one ronment. Overall, and in the larger context,
recurring opportunity in the post-Cold War this housing master plan process was con-
era has been the consolidation of military ducted as part of developing and refining a
operations that has provided a multitude of long-range development plan (LRDP) for the
simultaneous adaptive re-use opportunities entire university. In this light, a planning con-
for many older and historic buildings at a sin- sultant was hired and spent two years conven-
gle location and at one time. The Base ing numerous meetings to coordinate the
Realignment and Closure Commission needs of the university with the demands of
(BRACC) was formed so that decommis- the Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC)
sioned military facilities could be transferred and the requirements of the Secretary of
to the public sector and re-used. Two notable Interior’s Standards as overseen by the Utah
examples are the Presidio in San Francisco, state historic preservation officer. Anne Racer,
California, which has become a major incuba- the university’s director of facilities planning,
tor for small business and non-profit institu- specifically describes the philosophy of col-
tions, and Fort Ord near Monterey, California, laborative participation as “unique” and fur-
which has been converted into the Monterey ther states that “we approached the project
Bay Community College. Both underwent sig- with the idea that people who are actively
nificant planning periods to enable potential involved in developing a plan are more likely
users to fully comprehend the demands that to accept it, adopt it, and use it” (Racer
such a conversion requires. 2002:4). Similarly, the university had to reach
In Salt Lake City, a similar transformation a decision regarding the continued use of its
has occurred at Fort Stephen A. Douglas. The existing residential facilities, which had
University of Utah has envisioned re-using the become seriously outdated (University of
fort buildings for its Fort Douglas Heritage Utah Alumni Association 2001). The process
Commons program in which existing residen- was composed of these phases:
tial and administrative aspects of the fort
would be converted to student housing and 1. Programming and need assessment. The
small classroom spaces. The project encom- planning consultant interviewed and coor-
passes more than 40 buildings and is expect- dinated the information flow between all
ed to cost $44 million (Wolf 1998:16–22). concerned parties. Preliminary visual
Prior work had included converting several studies were made to educate these parties
small housing units on “Officer’s Circle” into as to the potential impacts of their needs,
housing for students in a scholarship pro- and housing and operational support
gram. However, the university had a larger requirements were identified.
goal to use the entire fort as a 2. Identification and physical exploration of
207
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

existing facilities. A local architectural allow for the construction of a commons

firm was hired to investigate the physical building. The adverse effect of the move was
condition of the buildings affected by the mitigated by the structure’s careful relocation
proposed project. The historic aspects of within the immediate vicinity. Third, pro-
the buildings (in part and as a whole) were posed materials were reviewed to complement
identified to establish a baseline for the the existing material palette of the fort. Fourth,
historic rehabilitation work. A cost esti- significant buildings not used as dormitory
mate for rehabilitation was prepared for spaces were restored for ancillary uses. These
each building, infrastructure modification included the chapel, theater, officer’s club,
and extension costs were calculated, and and base commandant’s quarters. Finally,
an overall cost estimate was prepared. other buildings not re-used for the Olympics
3. Schematic design development. Significant were mothballed and await programming for
buildings and those spaces where infill later re-use.
buildings could be built were identified. As a result, the project was recognized in
Several schematic designs were developed 1999 as an official Save America’s Treasures
using a materials palette based on existing project. Subsequent honors and awards con-
elements at the fort. Resource allocations tinued to arrive. In 2001 this designation was
were coordinated with a budget developed followed by an honor award from the Society
concurrently with this process. of College and University Planners
4. Schematic design review/modification. Association and the American Institute of
The alternatives were reviewed by the Architects, and culminated with a preserva-
interested parties and a final design was tion award in October 2001 from the National
selected based on modifications to get the Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP). In
project within the $120 million budgetary presenting the award, Richard Moe, president
constraints established by the state legisla- of the NTHP, stated that the student housing
ture. project was “one of the most significant
5. Construction document development. The restoration projects in America” (Racer
project plans were developed into con- 2002:9–10). Most recently, the restorations of
struction documents. the post chapel, post theater, commander’s
6. Bid submission and contractor selections. house, and the officer’s club were each indi-
The project was sent out to bids and the vidually recognized in 2002 with preservation
contractors were selected. awards by the Utah Heritage Foundation, the
7. Construction. The construction period statewide preservation advocacy organization.
took approximately two years.
8. Occupation. The SLOC required that the Conclusion
buildings be in operation for at least twelve The positive effects and outcomes from
months prior to the 2002 games so that this process have been multifaceted. The ath-
operational problems could be detected letes of the Olympics were housed in first-
and remedied. As part of a commissioning class facilities, and the university now has a
process, this phase enabled plant opera- revitalized residential community upon which
tions to engage in the use and maintenance to build its “Community of Scholars” pro-
of the buildings prior to the Olympics. grams. This project demonstrates that careful
stewardship can result in the large-scale re-use
During this process, several notable activi- of an underused set of buildings rather than
ties on site occurred. First, buildings not con- their wholesale demolition. At the broad scale
sidered historically contributing were of the Fort Stephen A. Douglas revitalization,
removed to allow new buildings to be built stewardship of the built environment is work-
without destroying the view corridors defined ing—a prime example of urban revitalization.
by the protective covenants. Second, one con- The ability of institutions and individuals to
tributing structure was physically moved to complete this project is a testament to the
208
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

ready opportunity to do so. Although com- ing at Fort Douglas. (Script for the Fort
plexities vary, the outcome is still the same: the Douglas 140th anniversary commemora-
re-use of the built environment that extends tion.)
the sustainability and, perhaps most impor- Stock, Jody, ed. 1996. Overlays of History: The
tantly, the vitality of the overall system of the Architecture of Fort Douglas, Utah, 1862-
total environment itself. 1995. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture.
Acknowledgment University of Utah Alumni Association. 2001.
The author thanks Anne Racer, director of Residential living: a visual tour.
facilities planning at the University of Utah, Continuum 10:4.
for inviting his participation in the LRDP University of Utah Department of Facilities
process and providing access to university Planning. 2000. Historic Fort Douglas at
materials used in the preparing this paper. the University of Utah: A Brief History and
Walking Tour. Salt Lake City: University
References of Utah Department of Facilities Planning.
Peterson, Ann Palmer. 2002. Fort Douglas Wolf, Karen. 1998. Breaking ground.
post chapel. Continuum 12:2. Continuum 7:4.
Racer, Anne. 2002. University student hous-

209
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Preserving the Painted Desert Inn

in Petrified Forest National Park
Amanda Zeman, Petrified Forest National Park, P.O. Box 2217, Petrified Forest, Arizona
86028; amanda_zeman@nps.gov
Karen Beppler-Dorn, Petrified Forest National Park, P.O. Box 2217, Petrified Forest, Arizona
86028; karen_beppler-dorn@nps.gov

Painted Desert Inn (Figure 1) is the architectural centerpiece of Petrified Forest National
Park. Its history and architectural significance is integral to the cultural interpretation of the park
and greatly enhances the visitor’s experience. Nevertheless, Painted Desert Inn suffers from
structural deterioration caused by bentonite clay, which produces severe expansion and con-
traction, resulting in numerous physical challenges. This essay shall summarize the history and
development of Painted Desert Inn and how its architectural design enhances interpretation and
the visitor experience. The threats and challenges facing Painted Desert Inn will then be elabo-
rated upon, followed by a brief discussion of current treatments.

Figure 1. Painted Desert Inn, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona.

Petrified Forest, located in northeastern The story of Painted Desert Inn begins in
Arizona, was initially established as a national 1924 when Herbert Lore constructed what he
monument in 1906 under the Antiquities Act called the “Stone Tree House.” It was called
to protect and preserve petrified wood this because he constructed it of petrified
deposits in what is now the south end of the wood. Lore provided food, lodging, and curio
park. The monument was greatly expanded in sales for visitors to the Painted Desert region,
the 1930s, and then re-established as a nation- many of whom he personally transported from
al park in 1962. the nearby railroad stop in Adamana.
210
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

Additional visitors reached Painted Desert paint and plaster, an improved lunch counter,
Inn from Route 66, which passed just to the and additional architectural details.
south. In 1931, Lore constructed another Colter’s design for Painted Desert Inn also
road from the Rio Puerco Bridge near included interior murals, for which she hired
Adamana to the Painted Desert Inn, offering Fred Kabotie, a Hopi Indian artist she had
an additional way for visitors to reach his previously worked with for her design of the
property. Watchtower at Grand Canyon. Colter hired
As early as 1931, the National Park Service Kabotie to paint two murals in the Painted
(NPS) considered expanding what was then Desert Inn’s lunch room and three in the din-
Petrified Forest National Monument to ing room. The largest mural depicts Kabotie’s
encompass the Painted Desert area and there- interpretation of the Hopi legend regarding
by acquire the Stone Tree House. In 1932, ceremonial salt gathering.
NPS purchased 53,300 acres of the Painted The Fred Harvey Company continued to
Desert, which did not include Lore’s proper- operate the Painted Desert Inn until 1963,
ty. Then in 1936, NPS purchased an addition- when the company moved its operation to the
al 2,500 acres from Lore, including the Stone new Painted Desert Community Complex,
Tree House and related improvements. At that which is located three-miles to the south of the
time, the Painted Desert Inn was closed and inn. As a result, the inn was closed and
Lore departed (Livingston 1994:7–8). remained so for ten years.
As part of its planning effort for the By the early 1970s, the building had been
Painted Desert region, NPS solicited Civilian abandoned for so long that it was thought of as
Conservation Corps (CCC) labor to expand an eyesore. As a result, the Painted Desert Inn
and improve the Stone Tree House. This proj- was slated for demolition in 1975. Thankfully,
ect began in 1937 and lasted until 1940, great- public outcry and administrative actions pre-
ly expanding the building’s size and incorpo- vented this outcome, and the building was
rating various details, including carved cor- listed on the National Register of Historic
bels, carved wooden furniture, and stamped Places in August 1975. Later, the building was
tinware fixtures. With completion of all these included in the Architecture in the Parks
improvements in 1940, the building was re- Theme Study and thereby listed as a national
opened as the Painted Desert Inn. historic landmark in 1987.
In 1940, Standard Concessions, Inc., Since the building was listed on the
entered into a three-year contract with NPS National Register and NPS was now “obligat-
for concession services at the newly complet- ed” to keep and maintain the building, the
ed Painted Desert Inn. Standard Concessions, park made some cosmetic improvements and
under the direction of Edward McGrath, con- reopened the building as their Bicentennial
tinued to operate the Painted Desert Inn until Travel Center in 1975–1976. The building
1947, except for a brief hiatus during World continued to serve as a seasonal operation
War II. from 1976 until 1991, and with a few further
As early as May 1947, the Fred Harvey improvements and the cooperative interest of
Company expressed interest in taking over the the Petrified Forest Museum Association, the
Painted Desert Inn concession contract, building was opened to the public year-round
which they successfully negotiated in July in 1992, and it remains so today.
1947. In October of that same year, the Fred Historically, the building served as a visi-
Harvey Company announced that their tor contact station; concession sales, food, and
designer/architect, Mary Jane Colter, would lodging facility; and as a museum. During the
renovate the interior of the Painted Desert Fred Harvey era, the building was essentially
Inn. It was closed between November and divided, with the company operating one side
January for this purpose, and further improve- as a food, sales, and lodging facility, while NPS
ments were conducted during the summer of managed an information desk and museum on
1948. Colter’s redesign plan included new the other. In fact, there were two separate
211
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

entrances for these different uses, although Scenery, Painted Desert Inn and its museum
each could be accessed from the interior. elements are highlighted. Petrified Forest
Unfortunately, staffing limitations prevented Museum Association also plans to publish a
NPS from maintaining a presence in the so- book specifically on the inn, while additional
called “Ranger Room” year-round. publications have featured the Kabotie
As a result of varying needs and functions, murals. In fact, some visitors come to Painted
some of the historic uses have changed. Desert Inn specifically to see these murals,
Today, the building serves as a visitor contact, and the Museum of Northern Arizona is cur-
museum, and sales area. Interpretive tours are rently considering the Kabotie murals for
held daily, museum objects and exhibits are inclusion in a traveling exhibit they are devel-
displayed throughout the building, and the oping on the southwestern mural tradition.
cooperating association, the Petrified Forest The very nature of Painted Desert Inn
Museum Association, maintains a book and influences the interpretation and use of this
small souvenir sales area. structure. It is a unique building with attrac-
Museum objects contained within Painted tive features that visitors are drawn to when
Desert Inn include historic furnishings con- traveling through Petrified Forest National
structed by the CCC, Kabotie murals, glass Park. The inn’s architectural design enhances
ceiling tiles with Indian motifs, and stamped interpretation in three ways:
tinware fixtures and features designed by the The visitor experience is deeply influenced
CCC. When dealing with museum collections by the Spanish Revival style of the building,
in historic buildings, such as Painted Desert which draws people to the structure because it
Inn, three important elements must be is unique and aesthetically appealing.
addressed: interpretation, security, and out- Similarly, visitors are attracted to the building
reach education. because of its location. It rests on the edge of
In the comprehensive interpretive plan for the Painted Desert with 180 degrees of
Petrified Forest, Painted Desert Inn is defined breathtaking vistas. Once attracted to the
as a “cultural interpretation location” where building, the architectural design carries visi-
the cultural and social history of the park and tors in a dynamic circulation pattern that
the inn are interpreted and discussed. allows them to move in and out of the struc-
Exhibits and interpretive programs at the inn ture and its interior spaces, each of which
focus on the cultural history of Petrified Forest presents new views and new experiences. For
National Park, especially that of the inn. In example, when the Fred Harvey Company
addition, there are several display cases that occupied the building, guests would move in
feature archeological and historic objects, and out of the structure to gain different serv-
including some specific to the inn and others ices. The architectural features of this building
related to the CCC. Thus, Painted Desert Inn also influence the visitor experience. The
contributes to the overall interpretive mission carvel corbels, glass ceiling tiles, stamped tin-
of the park. ware, viewing terraces, open vistas, and outer
Because of these museum objects, Painted courtyards all lend themselves to a pleasurable
Desert Inn’s lack of security is a cause for con- and unique visitor experience.
cern. In preparation for the bicentennial and Painted Desert Inn serves as a visitor con-
related displays in 1976, iron security bars tact area, where many questions are asked, not
were installed on all of the windows and the least of which are those regarding the
doors, and this is still the only significant secu- building and its present condition. It is not
rity measure in place. However, all display unusual for visitors to ask if the building is
cabinets are locked and historic furnishings really “safe” for occupancy, and they accusing-
are corded off. ly ask why NPS has not taken better care of the
Outreach is chiefly accomplished through property. Other questions pertain to the use of
publications, and in the primary literature for the building. Visitors ask if lodge rooms are
Petrified Forest, titled Story Behind the still available, if the building will ever be
212
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

returned to an inn, and if food service is still building without navigating stairs, which
available. None of these things are available. presents a significant obstacle for visitors who
Interpretive tours of Painted Desert Inn are physically challenged. The proper use of
are held daily. Tours typically focus on the the inn’s interior spaces is currently being
human and social history of the building and debated. Since it was originally designed to
the region, but naturally such discussions provide food and lodging, it is difficult to
must also include comments regarding the determine the proper use for this structure
building’s architectural history. Interpreters without providing or at least acknowledging
will often take this opportunity to discuss the the concessionaire history, but we must also
Recreation Fee Demo program and how it will consider the impact a food service operation
contribute to the restoration of the inn. Tours may have on museum objects and architectur-
have also focused on the Kabotie murals and al features that are openly displayed. With all
related tourism and travel themes. Once a of these physical conditions, it becomes a
year, a special Harvey Girl interpretive pro- challenge to provide an enjoyable visitor expe-
gram is hosted by the “Winslow Harvey rience.
Girls” who dress up in Harvey uniforms and In an effort to rectify or at least treat some
greet visitors. Various other special events of these challenges and conditions, several
have occurred at the Painted Desert Inn over measures have been taken. Cracks are moni-
the years, including events during Founders tored on a monthly basis, and this information
Day, National Park Service Week, and is stored in a database that records lateral
National Archeology Month. Historically, movement. The temperature and humidity of
traveling exhibits were also featured at Painted the interior is also measured and recorded by
Desert Inn, and special events for park per- a datalogger every two hours. This informa-
sonnel are periodically held there. Since the tion is stored in a similar database. Because of
1940s, the local constituency has lovingly the hantavirus threat, rodents are monitored
referred to the inn as the “pink palace,” where and trapped. Many of the trapped rodents are
they used to hold social events and similar then given to a wildlife biologist at the U.S.
community gatherings. Geological Survey (USGS). When it rains,
Painted Desert Inn presents many chal- buckets are placed throughout the building to
lenges for park managers. As is quite common catch leaks, but unfortunately, the worst leaks
for the area, the building was constructed on a are at the perimeter or even inside the walls,
vein of bentonite clay, which has a very high making leak capture very difficult. Beginning
expansion and contraction rate, and due to in the spring of 2003, the roof will finally be
this subsurface movement, the building also replaced, which should fix many of our water
moves and flexes, causing impressive and infiltration problems. In an attempt to stem
somewhat disconcerting expansion cracks. the tide of deterioration, the murals were
Since the building serves as a museum space, restored in 1977 after cracks and time had
there are also environmental concerns because damaged many of them. Sometime within the
historic furnishings and artifacts are subject to next few years, we will once again embark on a
extreme changes in temperature and humidity. mural restoration campaign to repair some of
Whenever it rains, the roof leaks, causing the damage that has occurred since 1977. We
severe water damage to the interior plaster and are also slated for a substantial line-item con-
finishes. Rodent infestation is also of concern. struction project to completely restore Painted
A few rodents may carry hantavirus, a serious Desert Inn, but it was dropped from the 2002
medical threat to those who encounter rodent and 2003 budgets. We are hopeful Congress
feces in enclosed spaces, although there has will make the money available to us in 2004.
never been a reported case of hantavirus con- The challenges at Painted Desert Inn are
tamination within Petrified Forest National great, and, as is the case in most parks, our
Park. Accessibility presents another chal- resources are few. Since the park first acquired
lenge. As designed, there is no way to enter the the property in 1936, the concessionaires and
213
 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage

NPS have spent a lot of time and money on the opment; it relates to Route 66, the “mother
building’s upkeep and maintenance. road”; and it was one of the last projects Mary
Unfortunately, because it was constructed on Colter ever did for the Fred Harvey
bentonite clay the building moves and will Company. Its rich history and unique archi-
continue to move for the rest of its maintain- tectural treatment, as well as its problems, lend
able life. Extensive reports and investigations a great deal to the history of the park. We have
of the structure and its subsurface conditions made a lot of effort to turn the building’s chal-
have been conducted, but there is very little lenges into an asset for resource management
that can be done to rectify this innate condi- and interpretation. We can learn from these
tion. In fact, several other buildings in the experiences and pass this information on to
park suffer this same fate. other parks and to the public at large.
Though the challenges are great, the pri-
vate and public support of Painted Desert Inn Reference
has been a saving grace. If it were not for pri- Livingston, Dewey, et. al. 1994. Historic
vate interests, the inn would have been demol- Structure Report: Painted Desert Inn,
ished in the 1970s. It is a wonderful addition Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona.
to Petrified Forest National Park and a great Denver: National Park Service, Denver
resource for the American public. It tells the Service Center.
story of exploration and early tourism devel-

214
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

California’s New Marine Managed Areas System

W. James Barry, California Department of Parks and Recreation, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento,
California 94296-0001; jbarr@parks.ca.gov
Gena R. Lasko, California Department of Parks and Recreation, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento,
California 94296-0001; glasko@parks.ca.gov

Introduction
Point Lobos State Reserve became the first permanent marine protected area in the nation on
July 1, 1960. Seven hundred and fifty acres of submerged lands were annexed to the terrestrial
portion of the reserve. Buck Island Reef National Monument, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, was
established in 1961, followed in 1963 by John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park in the Florida
Keys.
In 1968, Director William Penn Mott Department of Fish and Game also manages
established the California Department of several variations of refuges (20) and reserves
Parks and Recreation Underwater Parks (9).
Program, appointing a scientific- and indus- In the 1970s, the California State Water
try-represented panel: the California Advisory Resources Control Board established 34
Board for Underwater Parks and Reserves. Its “areas of biological significance” in coastal
mission was to identify outstanding and repre- waters. These were designated to protect
sentative examples of marine and inland marine biota from point-source and thermal
underwater ecosystems, and to recommend pollution.
management methods for both preservation The California Marine Resources
and recreational use. Protection Act of 1990 was a referendum that
The board investigated numerous sites required the California Fish and Game
and made recommendations for inclusion into Commission to establish four fully protected
the State Parks System. Quarterly site investi- ecological reserves. These were brought into
gations and public meetings were held from the new classification system on January 1,
1968 to the early 1980s, when budget 2003. They are King Range (Punta Gorda),
restraints precluded further investigations. Big Creek, Vandenberg, and Big Sycamore
The State Parks System includes over 500 Canyon state marine reserves.
units, of which 273 have been classified. Following the “California and the World
Currently, 28 of the 273 classified units Oceans Conference ’97”, the California
include contiguous underwater portions, Resources Agency released an analysis which
totaling around 59,600 acres. Of these units, indicated that the state’s array of ocean and
16 are in marine environments, 13 are estuar- coastal managed area designations (such as
ine, 2 are freshwater, and 1 is saline. Most are reserves, state reserves, refuges, state parks,
managed by California State Parks under 49- and natural preserves) that has evolved over
or 10-year leases from the California State the last 50 years is complex and often confus-
Lands Commission. ing.
The California Ecological Reserve Act of The analysis recommended development
1968 authorized the Department of Fish and of a more effective and less complicated
Game to create ecological reserves (California statewide system of ocean and coastal man-
Fish and Game Code Sections 1580–1585, aged areas. It further recommended develop-
1907). There are 28 ecological reserves with- ing a comprehensive program, with clear crite-
in marine and estuarine waters of the state. ria for creating, administering, and enforcing
Regulations vary from protection of one taxon management measures in these areas. To
(e.g., California hydrocoral at Farnsworth address this issue, the Resources Agency con-
Bank Ecological Reserve) to total protection vened the State Interagency Marine Managed
(e.g., Heisler Park Ecological Reserve). The Areas Workgroup to better define and evalu-
215
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts
ate state marine managed area classifications. Game Commission to establish a network of
The workgroup’s January 2000 report, marine protected areas around the northern
“Improving California’s System of Marine Channel Islands. This request preceded the
Managed Areas,” made recommendations for Marine Life Protection Act by nearly one year.
improving the organizational system and man- As a result of the request, the Fish and Game
agement of the array of state marine managed Commission directed the Department of Fish
areas in California, and was the result of a col- and Game and Channel Islands National
laborative effort spanning an 18-month peri- Marine Sanctuary to jointly support a process
od. to discuss marine protected areas in the
The California Marine Managed Areas Channel Islands area. In October 2002, the
Improvement Act of 2000 provided a uniform Fish and Game Commission adopted 12 new
classification system and defined the terms marine protected areas around the Channel
“marine managed areas” and “marine protect- Islands as a result of this process.
ed areas.” It also gave priority to establishing
marine protected areas adjacent to protected California Marine
terrestrial lands. The workgroup conducted Managed Areas System
its deliberations, where possible, in coopera- The 1991 amendments to the California
tion with other marine managed area efforts Ocean Resources Management Act trans-
that were underway in California. One such ferred all responsibility for marine and coastal
effort was the passage of Assembly Bill 933 resource management programs to the secre-
(Shelley 1999), the Marine Life Protection tary for resources. The Resources Agency
Act, requiring the California Fish and Game drafted the following vision and mission state-
Commission to adopt a master plan for guid- ments:
ing the adoption and implementation of a Vision. “Provide statewide leadership to
marine life protection program by the ensure that California’s marine managed area
Department of Fish and Game, focusing on needs are met fully and efficiently for future
the protection of living marine resources and generations. These needs include, but are not
their habitats through marine protected areas, limited to heritage preservation, adequate
where the extraction of such resources is pro- marine life refugia to perpetuate commercial
hibited or restricted in some fashion. A draft and sport fisheries, non-consumptive scientif-
report to the Fish and Game Commission was ic and recreational uses and public educa-
to be submitted by January 2002 and the final tion.”
master plan by April 2002. These deadlines Mission. “To provide an efficient, inte-
have been extended three years by the legisla- grated system of marine managed areas that is
ture at the request of the Department of Fish representative of all marine ecosystems found
and Game. within State waters and tidelands. To access,
The requirements of the Marine Life conserve, and/or restore marine ecosystems.
Protection Act are consistent with, and com- To manage California’s ocean resources on a
plementary to, the recommendations made in long-term, sustainable basis. To maintain bio-
the marine managed areas report. The com- logical diversity and productivity and to pro-
prehensive set of findings and recommenda- tect marine archeological resources.”
tions address such issues as designing a more “Marine managed areas” in California are
manageable classification system, the site pro- defined as named, discrete geographic marine
posal and designation process, management or estuarine areas along the California coast
and enforcement within designated areas, and designated by law or administrative action,
improving public education, research, moni- and which are intended to protect, conserve
toring, and evaluation activities. or otherwise manage a variety of resources and
In 1998, the Channel Islands Marine their uses. The resources and uses may
Resources Restoration Committee, a group of include, but are not limited to, living marine
concerned citizens, requested the Fish and resources and their habitats, scenic views,
216
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

water quality, recreational values, and cultural uration of the continental shelf north of San
or geological resources (California Public Francisco as well as the undersea mountain
Resources Code, Section 36602(d)). range—the Mendocino Escarpment. The con-
“Marine protected areas” in California are tinental shelf is narrow here, unlike southern
defined as marine or estuarine areas seaward California, where the same tectonic forces
of the mean high tide line or the mouth of a have created a broader shelf (continental bor-
coastal river, including any area of intertidal or derlands) with islands and submarine moun-
subtidal terrain, together with its overlying tain ranges separated by basins. North of Point
water and associated flora and fauna, that have Conception, submarine canyons and deep sea
been designated by law or administrative fans caused by violent turbidity currents
action to protect or conserve marine life and punctuate the shelf. Southward, sea mounts
habitat (California Public Resources Code, (submerged mountains) are numerous. Four
Section 36602(e)). marine ecological regions identified by Barry
The six classifications of marine managed and Foster (1998) are illustrated in Figures
areas (including estuarine) that have been 1–4. These ecological regions are divided into
established for the state of California are: 12 subregions. Subregions were determined
by environmental factors such as water tem-
• State marine reserve. Protected areas perature, geologic features, and biota.
where all features and marine life are pro-
tected.
• State marine park. Protected areas that
are designated to protect marine life but
allows some recreational take of resources.
• State marine conservation area.
Protected areas that are designated to pro-
tect marine life but allow some commercial
and recreational take of resources.
• State marine cultural preservation area.
Protected areas that are designated to pre-
serve cultural objects or sites of historical,
archeological, or scientific interest in
marine areas.
• State marine recreational management
area. Protected areas that are designated to
provide, limit, or restrict recreational
opportunities while preserving the basic
resource values for present and future gen-
erations.
• State marine water quality protection
area. Protected areas that are designated to
protect marine species or biological com-
munities from an undesirable alteration in
natural water quality (formerly called
“areas of special biological significance”).

Planning by Ecological
Regions and Subregions
California’s coastal configuration and
oceanic environments are extremely varied. Figures 1–4. California’s four marine ecolog-
The San Andreas Fault determines the config- ical regions, from north (Figure 1) to
south (Figure 4).
217
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

Figure 2.

The new marine managed area system Oregonian Marine

includes the following components, some of Ecological Region
which also have been reclassified (as state Gorda Marine Ecological Subregion
marine water quality protection areas) under • Tolowa Dunes State Park
the new system. Areas thus classified are • Redwoods National & State Parks
marked with an asterisk. • Redwoods National Park*
• Kelp Beds at Trinidad Head*

218
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

Mendocino Marine Ecological Subregion

• King Range Marine Ecological Reserve
• MacKerricher State Park
• Point Cabrillo State Marine Reserve
• Russian Gulch State Park
• Van Damme State Park
• Manchester State Park
• Arena Rock Marine Natural Preserve
• Kings Range National Conservation Area*
• Pygmy Forest*

Northern Californian Marine

Ecological Region
Bodega Marine Ecological Subregion
• Kelp Beds at Saunders Reef
• Del Mar Landing Ecological Reserve
• Salt Point State Park
• Gerstle Cove Reserve
• Fort Ross State Historic Park
• Sonoma Coast State Beaches
• Bodega Marine Life Refuge
• Tomales Bay Ecological Reserve
• Del Mar Landing*
• Gerstle Cove*
• Bodega Marine Life Refuge*
• Bird Rock*

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

219
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts
Farallones Ecological Subregion Big Sur Marine Ecological Subregion
• Point Reyes Headlands Reserve • Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park
• Estero de Limantour Reserve • Big Creek State Marine Reserve
• Point Reyes National Seashore • Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park*
• Duxbury Reef Reserve • Ocean Area Surrounding Salmon Creek*
• James V. Fitzgerald Marine Life Refuge
• Point Reyes Headland and Extension* Santa Lucia Bank Marine Ecological
• Double Point* Subregion
• Duxbury Reef Reserve and Extension* • Atascadero Beach Pismo Clam Refuge
• Farallon Island* • Morro Beach Pismo Clam Preserve
• James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve* • Pismo Invertebrate Reserve
• Pismo Clam Preserve
San Francisco Bay Ecological Subregion
• Angel Island State Park Conception Marine Ecological Subregion
• China Camp State Park • Vandenberg State Marine Reserve
• Benicia State Recreation Area, South- • Harris Point State Marine Reserve, San
ampton Bay Natural Preserve Miguel Island
• Brannan Island State Recreation Area • Judith Rock State Marine Reserve, San
• Franks Tract State Recreation Area Miguel Island
• EastShore State Park • Richardson Rock State Marine Reserve,
• Albany State Marine Reserve San Miguel Island
• Emeryville Crescent State Marine Reserve • Carrington Point State Marine Reserve,
• Fagan Marsh Ecological Reserve Santa Rosa Island
• Peytonia Slough Ecological Reserve • Skunk Point State Marine Reserve, Santa
• Corte Madera Ecological Reserve Rosa Island
• Marin Islands Ecological Reserve • South Point State Marine Reserve
• Robert W. Crown Reserve • San Miguel*
• Redwood Shores Ecological Reserve • Santa Rosa*
• Bair Island Ecological Reserve • Begg Rock*
• San Nicolas Island*
Central Californian
Marine Ecological Region Southern–Baja Californian
Monterey Bay Marine Ecological Subregion Marine Ecological Region
• Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve Santa Barbara Channel Marine Ecological
• Salinas River State Beach, Salinas River Subregion
Mouth Natural Preserve • Refugio State Beach
• Hopkins Marine Life Refuge • Santa Cruz Islands
• Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish • Painted Cave State Marine Conservation
Refuge Area, Santa Cruz Island
• Carmel River State Beach, Carmel River • Scorpion State Marine Reserve, Santa
Lagoon and Wetland Natural Preserve Cruz Island
• Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve • Anacapa Island State Marine Reserve
• Point Lobos State Marine Reserve • Anacapa Island State Marine
• Azo Nuevo Point and Island* Conservation Area
• Hopkins Marine Life Refuge* • Mugu Lagoon–Latigo Point*
• Pacific Grove Gardens Fish Refuge* • Anacapa Island*
• Carmel Bay*
• Point Lobos Ecological Reserve* Santa Catalina Marine Ecological Subregion
• Abalone Cove Ecological Reserve
• Point Fermin Marine Life Refuge
220
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

• Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve References

• Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Baird, Brian, Melissa Miller-Henson, and
• Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge Brice Semmens. 2000. Improving
• Crystal Cove State Park California’s System of Marine Managed
• Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge Areas. Final Report of the State
• Heisler Park Ecological Reserve Interagency Marine Managed Areas
• Laguna Beach Marine Life Refuge Workgroup. Sacramento: California
• Niguel Marine Life Refuge Resources Agency.
• Dana Point Marine Life Refuge Barry, W. James, John W. Foster, and Kenneth
• Doheny State Beach W. Collier. 1995. California Underwater
• Doheny Marine Life Refuge Parks and Reserves Action Plan.
• Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve Sacramento: Department of Parks and
• Batiquitos Lagoon Ecological Reserve Recreation.
• City of Encinitas Marine Life Refuge Barry, W. James, and John W. Foster. 1997.
• San Elijo State Beach California underwater parks and reserves,
• Cardiff State Beach planning and management. In California
• San Dieguito Lagoon Ecological Reserve. and the World Oceans ’97. Vol. 1. Orville
• Torrey Pines State Reserve, Los T. Magoon, Hugh Converse, Brian Baird
Penasquitos Natural Preserve and Melissa Miller-Henson, eds. Reston,
• San Diego Marine Life Refuge Va.: American Society of Civil Engineers,
• San Diego–La Jolla Marine Life Refuge 86–97.
• Silver Strand State Beach Barry, W. James, John W. Foster, and Gena R.
• Farnsworth Bank Ecological Reserve Lasko. California Department of Parks and
• Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge* Recreation marine managed areas plan,
• Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge* 2002 working draft. Sacramento:
• Heisler Park Ecological Reserve* Department of Parks and Recreation.
• San Diego Marine Life Refuge* California Department of Fish and Game.
• San Diego–La Jolla Marine Life Refuge* 2001. Marine Life Protection Act initial
• Isthmus Cove to Catalina Head Santa* draft concepts for marine protected area
• North End of Little Harbor to Ben Weston networks. Monterey: California
Point* Department of Fish and Game.
• Farnsworth Bank Ecological Reserve* ———. 2002. Descriptions and evaluations of
• Binnacle Rock to Jewfish Point* existing California Marine Protected
Areas. Monterey: California Department
Santa Cruz Basin Ecological Subregion of Fish and Game.
• Gull Island State Marine Reserve, Santa California Resources Agency. 1997.
Cruz Island California’s Ocean Resources: An Agenda
• Santa Barbara Island State Marine Reserve for the Future. Sacramento: State Printing
• San Clemente Island* Office.
• Santa Barbara Island* California Water Resources Control Board.
1998. Areas of Special Biological
Proposed New Additions Significance. Sacramento: Office of Public
New additions identified include 25 pro- Affairs.
posed state marine reserves, 51 state marine Collier, Ken. 1984. California State Park
parks, 3 state marine conservation areas, 4 System Underwater Parks Master Plan:
state marine conservation areas, 5 state marine Update. Sacramento: Department of Parks
cultural management areas, and 5 state marine and Recreation.
recreational management areas. Davis, Braxton, John Lopez, and Andrea
Finch. 2003. State Polices and Programs
Related to Marine Managed Areas: Issues
221
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts
and Recommendations for a National Protected Areas. La Jolla: California Sea
System. Final Draft. Washington, D.C.: Grant College System, University of
Coastal States Organization. California.
McArdle, D.A. 1997. California Marine

222
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

Building a Coral Nursery at Biscayne National Park

Richard Curry, Shay Viehman, and Daniel DiResta, Biscayne National Park, 9700 SW 328
Street, Homestead, Florida 34141

Introduction
Biscayne National Park is one of nine coral reef parks in the National Park System. Five are
in the western Atlantic (Virgin Islands National Park, Buck Island Reef National Monument,
Biscayne National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park, and Salt River Bay National Historical Park
and Ecological Reserve). Coral reefs provide relief, habitat, and substrate to a diverse communi-
ty of organisms that rivals the diversity of a tropical rain forest. The western Atlantic coral reef
parks are very near commercial shipping lanes and popular recreational locations, and are heav-
ily used by commercial and recreational fishers. The coral reefs in each of these parks have a high
potential for being damaged by boat and ship groundings, anchors, gear placement (including
recovery and loss), and breakage from direct human contact.
cal processes occurring simultaneously: (1)
Background accretion, the growth of the forest or coral
Coral reefs are home to a complex and reef, such as the accumulation of substrate;
diverse biological community. The scleractin- and (2) degradation, the erosion of living tis-
ian corals, in particular, are capable of build- sue and of the substrate, which is essential for
ing massive limestone reefs through the accu- nutrient recycling and for opening niches for
mulation and coalescence of dead coral skele- recruitment. The balance between the
tons loosely cemented together by coralline processes of calcification and reef growth and
algae. Coral reefs range in depth from 0.5 m to mechanical destruction and bioerosion is
more than 30 m. The coastal location of coral important for the persistence and recovery of
reefs make them very susceptible to both nat- disturbed coral reefs.
ural and anthropogenic disturbances, yet they Our understanding of forest ecosystems is
support a variety of potentially damaging broad enough to allow the reconstruction of
activities because of their physical beauty and devastated sites to conditions that are almost
species abundance and diversity. Tropical identical to pre-event conditions. Further, we
tourism depends heavily on the attraction of know enough to manipulate their community
coral reefs, and many fisheries depend on the structure and function to achieve a particular
large biomass of fish populations. Coral reefs aesthetic or functional value. In both forests
are not readily visible to the average boater and coral reefs, system recovery is slow, often
and reefs are rarely marked, increasing their requiring decades to centuries for full recov-
vulnerability to boat damage. Groundings, ery. In forests there is a latent source of seeds,
coupled with the added pressure of over-har- and volunteers, available in the understory
vesting and other anthropogenic and natural and soil to initiate the recovery process, rapid-
stressors on limited resources, make coral ly stabilizing damaged areas. There is no anal-
reefs one of the most endangered ecosystems ogous process for coral reefs. Forests are more
on the planet. robust, capable of withstanding air and soil
The structure of coral reefs can be under- pollution levels several orders of magnitude
mined by both natural and anthropogenic above that tolerated by most marine organ-
events. Destruction of the reef framework by isms. Biologists are just beginning to under-
tropical storms and hurricanes can be consid- stand coral reefs and how biological, chemi-
erable, yet these types of events are analogous cal, physical and geological processes interact
to fires in forests, critical to the health and in reef systems. Coral reef reconstruction with
rejuvenation of the ecosystem. In general, both a goal of “restoration to pre-event conditions”
coral reefs and forests have two basic ecologi- is a daunting task, well beyond our limited

223
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts
understanding of reef processes and the cur- through the recovery of larger colony frag-
rently available technology. ments and dislodged soft corals, or by harvest-
Catastrophic grounding events occur ing material from the surrounding intact reefs.
within National Park Service (NPS) areas Transplanting hard- and soft-coral colonies
once or twice a decade. Smaller groundings or generally works; however, harvesting coral
reef-damaging events occur more often, with a colonies from surrounding reefs for the pur-
frequency somewhat inversely proportional to pose of rehabilitation is both environmentally
vessel size. At Biscayne National Park there and legally questionable. Harvesting coral
have been five major groundings in 25 years, colonies—in effect, damaging coral reefs
and there are more than 20 documented (ves- already under stress to rehabilitate another
sels stuck on the reef long enough to be reef—is a questionable practice, and the col-
observed, or requiring commercial assistance) lection of coral is illegal in Florida and in most
groundings every year. Undocumented protected areas under U.S. jurisdiction.
groundings probably double if not triple that Unfortunately, there is no other source of coral
number. Small-vessel groundings damage available to managers or contractors for
approximately 5 to 30 m2 per event, and most restoration or habitat enhancement.
require some sort of rehabilitative action to
stabilize the broken coral colonies, salvage The Original Concept
coral fragments, and minimize further damage Biscayne National Park established three
from wave surge. prototype coral nurseries in 1993, using
Coral reefs worldwide are declining rapid- Americorps volunteers and year-end funding.
ly, mostly from consumptive activities. Other It has been shown that corals transplanted for
symptoms of stress, diseases and bleaching rehabilitation will grow at a new site and there
events, are increasing in frequency, duration, is an expanding literature reporting the
and degree. New coral diseases are being growth of coral under laboratory conditions.
described almost quarterly, and summer tem- The operational plans for the coral nurseries
peratures are increasing steadily. Two of the in the park are based on those concepts.
five major coral species in the Atlantic, The initial design question was where to
Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis, are cur- locate the nurseries to achieve maximum
rently being considered for listing as endan- growth rates. Three sites were selected for the
gered species under the Endangered Species pilot project. One was located on the seaward
Act. Compounding these impacts, exotic edge of the coral reef platform, an area strong-
species are being found in ever-increasing ly influenced by the Florida Current. Another
numbers along the Atlantic coast. was located near the longitudinal center of the
reef platform (mid-platform), an area of active
Rehabilitation patch reef development. The last site was in a
Coral reef rehabilitation projects have tidal creek connecting estuarine Biscayne Bay
largely focused on areas mechanically dam- to the seaward reef platform. Here the water is
aged during vessel groundings, and rarely turbid, with strong tidal currents and wide
involve more than the stabilization of the seasonal fluctuations in temperature. In 1993,
remaining reef framework and transplanting a colony fragments approximately 5–10 cm in
large number of hard-coral colonies into the size were transferred to structures at each site
area, letting nature do the rest. Some restora- from an “orphan” grounding site and a seawall
tion efforts have been more creative, recon- damaged during Hurricane Andrew. The
structing the topography in an effort to restore coral fragments were attached to nursery
habitat complexity. A few projects have trans- structures using a two-part underwater epoxy
planted other coral reef organisms from the (Z-Spar).
area being rehabilitated. Transplanted corals We hypothesized that maximum coral
used for rehabilitation typically come from growth would occur on the mid-platform
one of two sources: the damaged area itself nursery structures and minimal growth would
224
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

occur on the tidal creek structures. The struc- lates the National Park Service mandate “to
tures placed off-shore were quickly destroyed preserve and protect for future generations”
during early winter storms. The mid-platform (as stated in the 1916 National Park Service
structures withstood winter storms and grew Act and Biscayne’s enabling legislation, P.L.
well. The structures also recruited a spectrum 96-287).
of other reef organisms such as sponges, tuni-
cates, and soft corals. The corals placed on the Wild Stock
tidal creek structures grew even better. On average, each boat grounding damages
However, at this site, only turf algae grew between 1 to 10 coral heads. Much of this
between the attached coral fragments. material can be salvaged by re-attachment at
Our nursery goal is to have enough hard the grounding site, but many fragments are far
coral colonies in culture to supply the needs of too small to survive even if re-attached. These
rehabilitation projects in the Florida Keys. We are recovered for stocking the nursery.
chose to use tidal creeks for nursery purposes Collected fragments range in size from several
because they supported coral growth, are eas- cm2 to about 700 cm2. Larger fragments are
ily accessible during any weather, contain cut into 2-cm2 squares using a standard 10-
islands that provide a suitable area to stage inch lapidary saw and seawater coolant. Much
maintenance and monitoring activities, do not of the coral rock is removed, leaving the
require SCUBA diving skills to conduct our healthy coral over a skeleton about 1.5 cm
research activities, are accessible by boat or thick. The corals are then epoxied to PVC
land, and provide a strong potential for the (polyvinyl chloride) stakes, our equivalent of
non-diving public to learn about coral reefs the flowerpot. Passive integrated transponders
and even participate in the maintenance and (PIT tags) are placed between the PVC rod
monitoring of the nursery stock. Another and coral fragment to give each fragment a
advantage of the tidal creeks is that they are unique 12-digit identification number that
not a visual intrusion on the park’s visitor can be electronically read both in and out of
experience. The disadvantage to locating the water (see Figure 1). This allows us to fol-
nurseries in tidal creeks is that temperature of low the history of the coral fragment through-
the water leaving Biscayne Bay can fluctuate out its life in the nursery. At the present time
dramatically, from very cold during periodic we have over 250 coral colonies in culture.
winter cold fronts to warm in the summer.
Exposure to temperature extremes can result
in high coral mortality.

The Current Nursery Concept

The operational premise of the park’s
coral nursery is very similar to the field aspect
of terrestrial nurseries that are used to stock
trees for forest restoration. Like terrestrial
nurseries, the coral nursery in Biscayne
National Park requires a source of corals.
Terrestrial nurseries do this by purchasing
seeds, collecting seeds from the wild or their
own stocks, or using cuttings from existing
stock. The coral nursery can do the same
thing: sourcing material from grounding sites
(the wild), from the nursery stock itself (cut-
tings), and from the culture of settled coral
gametes captured during spawning (seed Figure 1. PIT tag inserted in epoxy with coral
acquisition). None of these stock sources vio- fragment removed.

225
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts
The research question is, “How small can crete substrate, making it difficult to recover
we cut the pieces to get a reasonable number an undamaged coral colony, collect growth
of colonies within the next ten years, assuming data, and find an easy way of identifying which
that we will have a catastrophic grounding colonies came from where, other than map-
within that time frame?” Initial work under ping their location on the structure.
laboratory conditions indicates that coral frag- We have revised the structure design to
ments having at least five polyps will survive accommodate these problems, ending up with
and grow, but we have no idea if that is true in a coral rock quadri-pod with centered holes
our field-level nurseries, nor how large the drilled on all sides (see Figure 2) to accommo-
polyps must get before we can place them in date rods of coral mounts as described earlier.
the field nursery. The PIT tag reader may also be used under-
water, allowing accurate positioning of the
Cuttings corals fragments on the nursery structures as
As the coral colonies grow, they will even- needed for various experiments.
tually take on a spherical shape, and some of
the corals that were placed in the nursery one
year ago are already starting to round out nice-
ly. Coral colonies will be kept in the nursery
until they reach sexual maturity. Some
researchers speculate that, for the non-
branching corals, this will occur when they are
about 15 cm in diameter (10–15 years in the
nursery). When they reach this size, the lower
hemisphere (the side with the PVC post) will
be cut away and cut into several sections to
increase the nursery population. The upper
hemisphere will be transplanted to a suitable
rehabilitation site.

Seed Collection
The final way to increase the number of
coral colonies in the nursery is to collect coral
gametes during the annual coral spawning and
culture them to the settlement stage. Settled
coral larvae will be kept in a laboratory envi-
ronment until they grow large enough (3 cm2
diameter) to survive the rigors of life in the
natural environment in the field nursery. We Figure 2. Coral rock nursery structures with
have attempted this over the last three years fragment “lollipops” attached.
for the annual spawn of the Montastraea
corals. Our collections, and those of our col- Gardening
laborators, have been alive only for approxi- We are just starting to study how to main-
mately the length of time required for fertil- tain the nursery for optimal growth. After only
ized gametes to reach the settlement phase. a short time in the field, the PVC rod and the
block of epoxy become encrusted with algae
The Greenhouse and other fouling organisms. We can only
Our original grow-out structures used in speculate about whether the encrusting organ-
the field nurseries were three-sided concrete isms along the coral margin are impeding
pyramids. The problem with them was that as growth. We assume for now that they do, so
the corals grew, they expanded onto the con- we remove them (weeding). To obtain quanti-
226
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

tative growth information, we need to remove Early Results

the encrustation from the PVC rod and the It wasn’t until late 2001 that we started a
epoxy. Since the corals are not permanently quantitative approach to the growing of coral
attached to the structure (the PVC rods are for coral reef rehabilitation, and the data col-
inserted into holes in the structures), we can lected so far are insufficient to report any sig-
easily remove them, scrape off any encrusting nificant findings. However, we have observed
organisms, measure weight and volume, and that corals to which the epoxy was applied
count the number of polyps. only to the lower surface of the fragment
The hermatypic corals have a mutualistic appear to show a rapid growth of tissue over
symbiosis with a photosynthetic dinoflagellate the exposed skeletal surface, whereas growth
(zooxanthellae). Some researchers think that appeared to be inhibited in those in which the
the corals do not need to feed on plankton to cut surfaces were covered with epoxy. Our
survive, getting the nutrition they need from preliminary data also show that there is an ini-
the zooxanthellae. Recent laboratory research tial period of almost no growth upon transfer
(Capo and Carter 2002) has shown that peri- to the nursery structure, followed by a steady
odically feeding the corals brine shrimp increase in growth and colony weight.
increases growth rates (fertilizing), as does
lengthening the photoperiod and elevating Reference
water the temperature. The research challenge Capo, Thomas R., and Robert W. Carter.
here is to determine an effective method for 2002. Efficacy of coral nurseries for reef
manipulating these conditions in a field-level restoration in South Florida, Final Report,
nursery. National Park Service Contract.
Unpublished report.

227
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

Monitoring Visitor Impacts in Coastal National Parks:

A Review of Techniques
Christine Ingle, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8004; mcingle@unity.ncsu.edu
Yu-Fai Leung, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8004
Christopher Monz, Department of Environmental Studies, St. Lawrence University, Canton,
New York 13617
Heather Bauman, Sterling College, Craftsbury Common, Vermont 05827

Introduction
Coastal areas, particularly sandy coasts and barrier islands, are prime destinations for out-
door recreation activities, yet the same zones possess diverse, dynamic, and, often, sensitive
ecosystems (Beatley et al. 2002). There are 295 barrier islands, totaling 2,700 miles of barrier
length in the 18 eastern U.S. states alone (Leatherman 1988). Visitor use and impacts are an
important and growing concern in national parks located in these sensitive zones. Activities such
as the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs), walking on the beach or dunes, and feeding wildlife can
trample vegetation, accelerate soil erosion, reduce sand dune height, and change wildlife behav-
ior.
The utility of visitor impact monitoring as and Steiner (1987) compiled an annotated
an effective tool for managing visitation in bibliography with 110 entries on the impacts
coastal parks has been recognized (Marion et of ORVs and walking traffic on coastal ecosys-
al. 2001). As part of the National Park Service tems. This bibliography included both social
(NPS) Vital Signs Program, we initiated a and environmental impacts, and most of the
research project to develop visitor impact entries are rather dated (1970s or earlier).
indicators and monitoring protocols for seven ORV use was an early but consistent visi-
park units within the NPS Northeast and tor impact concern in coastal parks, particu-
Barrier Network. One of the project objectives larly on barrier islands and near sand dunes
was to conduct a thorough review of the sci- (Rickard et al. 1994). At Cape Cod National
entific literature, with the scope set to sandy Seashore, Godfrey and Godfrey (1980) con-
coasts and barrier islands. This paper high- ducted a comprehensive study on the effects
lights results of this literature review. We iden- of ORV use on different ecological compo-
tified relevant publications in our personal nents such as birds, sand dunes, and salt
databases and also conducted thorough marshes. Management implications of their
searches in reference databases through the findings were provided (Godfrey et al. 1980).
university libraries. A substantial number of In the same region, Carlson and Godfrey
references were identified, but only a small (1989) applied vegetation survey and map-
portion is applicable to sandy coasts and bar- ping techniques to evaluate the effectiveness
rier islands. Several studies were conducted in of a visitor management plan developed for
the park units included in this project (such as R.T. Crane, Jr., Memorial Reservation in
Patterson et al. 1991; Steiner and Leatherman Massachusetts. McAtee and Drawe (1981)
1981). studied recreational impacts on the beach and
foredune microclimate in Texas. The primary
Research on effect was reduced vegetation cover and lower
Coastal Visitor Impacts species diversity. They also found that as
Earlier studies of visitor impacts to coastal recreational activities increased, the dune
areas have been reviewed by Leatherman height decreased. In North Carolina, Hosier
(1988) and Vaske et al. (1992). Leatherman and Eaton (1980) studied ORV impacts to

228
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

dunes and found that vegetation cover and the ning dogs significantly reduced the amount of
number of species were lower in areas with time sanderlings spent foraging. Through a
ORV use. The potential impacts of ORVs on controlled experiment, they found group size
macroinvertebrates have also been investigat- to be significant in reducing foraging time. In
ed (Wolcott and Wolcott 1984). both measurements, they found that sander-
Much of the literature focused on the lings respond (by either running or flying)
effects of visitor impacts on the ecological when humans approach within 30 m. Burger
communities. Steiner and Leatherman (1981) (1986) found that only 30% of birds were
studied the distribution of ghost crabs at unaffected by human activity, and that most
Assateague Island National Seashore in rela- birds flew away in response. Burger was
tion to ORV and pedestrian usage. unable to determine if these activities were
Pedestrians were found to have no harmful harmful to the overall health of the birds, but
effects on ghost crabs. In fact, the density was indicated that disturbance during prime for-
higher in these areas, possibly due to the aging times would have an adverse affect on
abundance of food scraps. The ORV sites health. Patterson and others (1991) found no
contained significantly fewer ghost crabs than evidence to suggest that recreational activities
the pedestrian sites. The difference between had a detrimental effect on the productivity of
areas of high and low ORV use was not signif- piping plovers. Low productivity was attrib-
icant. Barros (2001) found the number of uted to predation.
ghost crab burrows in non-urban beaches to
be higher than in urban beaches. Visitor Impact Monitoring:
Thomas et al. (2003) studied the effects of Methodologies and Techniques
visitor activities on the foraging behavior of A thorough review of relevant scientific lit-
sanderlings. They found through field obser- erature suggests that there are two dominant
vation that the number and proximity of peo- methodological approaches to visitor impact
ple, their activity, and the presence of free-run- monitoring in coastal areas (Figure 1). The

Figure 1. A classification of visitor impact monitoring techniques developed for coastal parks
and protected areas.

229
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts
biophysical approach includes studies that inland forests and parks (Leung and Marion
evaluate the extent and intensity of visitor 2000). In North Carolina, Buerger et al.
impacts based on remotely sensed data or (2000) assessed impacts of recreation on a
direct measurements of recreation sites, barrier island. Researchers identified impact
coastal habitats, and wildlife behavior. Within areas as sites (resulting from camping, pic-
this first approach, remote sensing, on-site nicking, and boat landings) and trails. Physical
assessments, and observation of animal behav- impacts such as compacted sand, loss of vege-
ior are the three major groups of techniques. tation, and trash were recorded. These
On the other hand, studies that employ the impacts were compared over time to deter-
social science approach evaluate the extent and mine if mitigation of recreation impacts
intensity of visitor impacts based on (1) per- occurred naturally. They found the degree of
ception of park visitors, managers, local mitigation depended largely on the location of
experts, and/or general public; or (2) direct the impact on the island. Sites closer to the
observation of visitor behavior that has high water had a higher level of mitigation.
impact potential. The following is a concise Chandrasekara and Frid (1996) used on-site
description of each group of techniques with measurements to determine the effects of
examples from past studies. trampling on tidal flat infauna. Faunal and
Remote sensing. Remote sensing refers to sediment samples were taken from the site and
the detection and recording of values of emit- brought to the lab for further analysis.
ted or reflected electromagnetic radiation with Sediment pH was measured on site. The
sensors onboard aircraft or satellites. This authors found trampling caused a change in
group of techniques is particularly useful for the composition of benthic fauna.
monitoring easily detectable visitor impacts Behavior observation. Behavior observa-
that occur in a large expanse of coastal areas. tion is a group of techniques that may fall
Butler and Wright (1983) discuss the poten- within either the biophysical or social science
tial of remote sensing in recreation research, methodological approach, depending on the
including the measurement of user density actual subject of observation. In visitor obser-
and intensity and comparison of changes over vation, human behaviors that cause impacts
time. Welch et al. (1999) created databases of are systematically observed. In wildlife obser-
digital maps detailing vegetation and ORV vation, immediate behavioral response of
trails in the Everglades for use in management wildlife to the presence of visitors or visitor
and modeling. Hockings and Twyford (1997) activities is observed. These techniques can
used aerial photography to identify beach be used together (Burger 1986; Thomas et al.
camping impacts. They used the extent of 2003) or separately (Patterson et al. 1991;
clearing and vehicle tracks as indicators. They Loegering and Fraser 1995). Burger (1986)
compared their findings with ground surveys found walking (40%) and fishing (10–20%) to
and found aerial photography to be a valid be responsible for the majority of disturbances
and reliable measure. Aerial photography was to shore birds. Dogs accounted for less than
also used in the study to examine spatial and 10% of the disturbances. Shorebird responses
temporal changes within the campsites. were recorded as one of three behaviors:
On-site assessment. On-site biophysical remained at the site, flew away but returned,
assessment refers to direct measurements or and flew away and did not return. While there
assessments on the ground, usually with were some differences between sites, the per-
portable field equipment. This research centage of birds that flew away and did not
approach may also involve collection of field return was inversely related to the number of
samples for laboratory analysis. Several camp- disturbances. Burger also found evidence to
site impact studies recently have been con- suggest that birds in small flocks were more
ducted in North America (Monz 1998; Gajda likely to fly away and not return than birds in
et al. 2000). These studies extended field pro- large flocks. Thomas et al. (2003) found that
cedures from earlier studies conducted in group size, activity type, and free-running
230
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

dogs tend to have a significant effect on the developed or adapted for a wide array of
foraging time of sanderlings. Observation of impact indicators, although on-site assess-
behavior has also been used to determine if ment and behavior observation appear to be
human disturbance had an effect on animal the most popular methodological approaches.
survival (Patterson et al. 1991; Loegering and On-site biophysical assessment has been
Fraser 1995). applied to various countries, while remote
Perception survey. The extent and severi- sensing and behavior observation techniques
ty of visitor impacts may be evaluated based were largely developed in North America.
on human perceptions of such problems. This Several current trends in methodologies
social science approach can be implemented for coastal visitor impact monitoring were
in forms of systematic interviews and/or sur- identified:
veys (intercept or self-administered). Survey
1. Expanding geographic scale of monitoring
respondents typically include visitors and
studies from primarily North America to
managers of the study area. However, the gen-
different world regions in recent years,
eral public and professionals who are familiar
partly as a result of rapid growth in coastal
with the study area may also be surveyed.
ecotourism;
Vaske et al. (1992) used written self-adminis-
2. Increased number of integrated studies
tered surveys to understand visitor percep-
that include both biophysical and social
tions of conflict and of the natural environ-
research components; and
ment. Responses were separated by user
3. Increased application of technologies in
group (pedestrian, boater, ORV user) and by
visitor impact monitoring studies. These
use area. They found that boaters were less
technologies, such as global positioning
educated about the ecology of the area, regu-
systems (GPS), geographic information
lations, and human impacts. Survey responses
systems (GIS), and remote sensing,
also revealed that visitors felt the beach area
enhance the overall quality and especially
was becoming crowded. The responses from
the spatial accuracy of monitoring data.
the surveys were combined with ecological
data to create new management techniques. The process of literature review benefits
Becker et al. (1986) assessed the threats of the next steps of this project. For example,
human impacts to coastal areas based on a sur- some of the indicators reviewed, such as the
vey of visitors and public, though managers use of remotely sensed data, site assessments,
and experts were also involved. Similar to sur- shorebird responses, the presence of ghost
veys of visitors and the public, surveys or crabs, and visitor behavior observation, are
interviews of managers may also be used to being adapted to the project. Informed by the
gauge the extent and intensity of visitor state-of-knowledge in visitor impact monitor-
impacts, based on managers’ or experts’ per- ing, our next critical step is to adapt or devel-
ceptions. In the Becker et al. (1986) study, op network-wide and park-specific impact
coastal park managers and experts were also indicators and monitoring protocols for the
involved in the survey. No other park manag- seven park units and integrate these proce-
er/expert surveys focusing on perceived visi- dures into the broader Vital Signs Program,
tor impacts on coastal areas have been identi- which strives to protect the park resources for
fied. future generations.

Discussion and Conclusions References

The scientific assessment and monitoring Barros, F. 2001. Ghost crabs as a tool for
of visitor impacts on sandy coasts and barrier rapid assessment of human impacts on
islands emerged about 30 to 40 years ago, exposed sandy beaches. Biological
though our knowledge of direct impacts of vis- Conservation 97, 399–404.
itors on coastal resources is still limited. A Beatley, T., D.J. Brower, and A.K. Schwab.
variety of monitoring techniques have been 2002. An Introduction to Coastal Zone
231
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts
Management. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: barrier beach. Journal of Applied Ecology
Island Press. 17, 173–182.
Becker, R.H., F.D. Dottavio, and N.L. Leatherman, S.P. 1988. Barrier Island
Menning. 1986. Threats to coastal nation- Handbook. College Park, Md.: University
al parks: a technique for establishing man- of Maryland, Laboratory for Coastal
agement priorities. Leisure Sciences 8, Research.
241–256. Leatherman, S.P., and A.J. Steiner. 1987. An
Buerger, R., J. Hill, J. Herstine, and J. Taggert. Annotated Bibliography of the Effects of
2000. The impact of recreation on barrier Off-Road Vehicles and Pedestrian Traffic
islands: a case study of Masonboro Island. on Coastal Ecosystems. Public
Coastal Management 28, 249–259. Administration Series P2238. Monticello,
Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity Ill.: Vance Bibliographies.
on shorebirds in two coastal bays in north- Leung, Y., and J.L. Marion. 2000. Recreation
eastern United States. Environmental impacts and management in wilderness: a
Conservation 13, 123–130. state-of-knowledge review. In Wilderness
Butler, R.W., and C.J. Wright. 1983. The Science in a Time of Change Conference—
application of remote sensing to recreation Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats,
research. Recreation Research Review and Management. D.N. Cole, S.F.
10:2, 13–18. McCool, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin,
Carlson, L.H., and P.J. Godfrey. 1989. Human comps. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of
impact management in a coastal recreation Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky
and natural area. Biological Conservation Mountain Research Station, 23–48.
49, 141–156. Loegering, J.P., and J.D. Fraser. 1995. Factors
Chandrasekara, W.U., and C.L.J. Frid. 1996. affecting piping plover chick survival in
Effects of human trampling on tidalflat different brood-rearing habitats. Journal
infauna. Aquatic Conservation: Marine of Wildlife Management 59:4, 646–655.
and Freshwater Ecosystems 6, 299–311. Marion, J.L., C. Roman, B. Johnson, and B.
Gajda, A.M.T., J. Brown,, G. Peregoodoff, and Lane. 2001. Summary of Visitor Use
P. Bartier. 2000. Managing coastal recre- Management Working Group, Vital Signs
ation impacts and visitor experience using Workshop for the North Atlantic Coastal
GIS. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Park Network, Gateway National
Change Conference—Volume 5: Wilderness Recreation Area, NY. Unpublished report.
Ecosystems, Threats, and Management. McAtee, J.W., and D.L. Drawe. 1981. Human
D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie, and impact on beach and foredune microcli-
J. O’Loughlin, comps. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. mate on North Padre Island, Texas.
Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Environmental Management 5, 121–134.
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Monz, C.A. 1998. Monitoring recreation
115–123. resource impacts in two coastal areas of
Godfrey, P.J., and M.M. Godfrey. 1980. western North America: An initial assess-
Ecological effects of off-road vehicles on ment. In Personal, Societal and Ecological
Cape Cod. Oceanus 23:4, 56–66. Values of Wilderness: Sixth World
Hockings, M., and K. Twyford. 1997. Wilderness Congress Proceedings on
Assessment and management of beach Research, Management and Allocation,
camping impacts within Fraser Island Vol. I. A.E. Watson, G.H. Alphet, and J. C.
World Heritage Area, South-East Hendee, comps. Ogden, Ut.: U.S.
Queensland. Australian Journal of Department of Agriculture–Forest Service,
Environmental Management 4, 26–39. Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Hosier, P.E., and T. Eaton. 1980. The impact 117–122.
of vehicles on dune and grassland vegeta- Patterson, M.E., J.D. Fraser, and J.W.
tion on a south-eastern North Carolina Roggenbuck. 1991. Factors affecting pip-
232
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

ing plover productivity on Assateague Biological Conservation 109, 67–71.

Island. Journal of Wildlife Management Vaske, J.J., R.D. Deblinger, and M.P.
55:3, 525–531. Donnelly. 1992. Barrier beach impact
Rickard, C.A., A. McLachlan, and G.I.H. management planning: findings from three
Kerley. 1994. The effects of vehicular and locations in Massachusetts. Canadian
pedestrian traffic on dune vegetation in Water Resources Journal 17, 278–290.
South Africa. Ocean and Coastal Welch, R., M. Madden, and R.F. Doren. 1999.
Management 23, 225–247. Mapping the Everglades. Photogrammet-
Steiner, A.J., and S.P. Leatherman. 1981. ric Engineering and Remote Sensing 109,
Recreational impacts on the distribution 163–170.
of ghost crabs Ocypode quadrata fab. Wolcott, T.G., and D.L. Wolcott. 1984.
Biological Conservation 20, 111–122. Impact of off-road vehicles on macroinver-
Thomas, K., R.G. Kvitek, and C. Bretz. 2003. tebrates of a Mid-Atlantic beach. Biologi-
Effects of human activity on the foraging cal Conservation 29, 217–240.
behavior of sanderlings Calidris alba.

233
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

Restoration of Coral Reef Habitats

within the National Park System
Jim Tilmant, National Park Service Water Resources Division, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite
250, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525; jim_tilmant@nps.gov
Linda Canzanelli, Rick Clark, and Richard Curry, Biscayne National Park, 9700 SW 328
Street, Homestead, Florida 33033
Bruce Graham, Marine Resources, Inc., 10 Central Parkway, Suite 130, Stuart, Florida 34994
Monika Mayr, Biscayne National Park, 9700 SW 328 Street, Homestead, Florida 33033
Alison Moulding, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,
Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida
33149
Robert Mulcahy, Marine Resources, Inc., 10 Central Parkway, Suite 130, Stuart, Florida 34994
Shay Viehman, Biscayne National Park, 9700 SW 328 Street, Homestead, Florida 33033
Tamara Whittington, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Denver Colorado 80225-0287

Introduction
The National Park Service (NPS) has long been involved in resource restoration activities
designed to enhance the recovery rate of injured terrestrial resources. When injury to natural
resources occurs, rapid restoration and recovery is important, both to other resources depend-
ent on the injured resource and to the public who utilize the resource. Restoration actions may
reduce cumulative impacts to these stressed systems, speed the recovery of ecosystem function,
and minimize loss of dependent organisms.
Coral reefs are often vulnerable to human- Interdisciplinary Restoration Team. This
caused injury. Coral reefs occur in relatively team is reviewing past coral reef and seagrass
shallow water, are utilized by the boating pub- restoration actions, compiling available scien-
lic, and are often located near navigation and tific literature on restoration techniques, and
shipping channels. Injuries from wayward developing a guidance document that can be
shipping vessels, recreational boat ground- used to address coral reef ecosystem injuries
ings, anchors, sport divers, and fishing gear and restoration within the park.
often compound the effect of other reef stress-
es and create a need for resource managers to Challenges of
restore the injured resource. Biscayne Coral Reef Restoration
National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park, Ocean environments, particularly coral
Virgin Islands National Park and other coral reef ecosystems, present special challenges to
reef parks in the Pacific have all suffered reef those wanting to mitigate human-caused
injury incidents caused by grounded vessels. injuries to natural resources and undertake
Many vessel groundings result in massive restoration actions. The primary challenges of
injuries to the reef ecosystem; this then coral reef restoration include:
requires mitigative actions to facilitate ecolog-
ical recovery. • Coral reefs support a dense and diverse bio-
logical community and are ecologically
NPS Interdisciplinary Team complex. Macro-organisms injured or dis-
To help address the issue of coral reef turbed by even a minor incident of small
ecosystem restoration at Biscayne and other spatial extent can number as many as sev-
national parks, the NPS Natural Resource eral thousands (Glynn 1976; Connell
Program Center, in conjunction with Biscayne 1978; Gulko 1998). Replacements for
National Park and Marine Resources, Inc., macro-organisms impacted during an
have formed a Coral Reef Ecosystem injury event are extremely difficult to

234
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

obtain, and natural recruitment and through mitigative actions. Goals may
regrowth can require decades or longer to need to be based on the ability of restora-
occur (Salvat 1987). In the highly compet- tion actions to accelerate habitat recovery
itive and ecologically complex reef ecosys- following injury incidents. Different agen-
tem, the natural balance of organisms pres- cies and organizations have varying opin-
ent is also often important (Connell 1976; ions as to what are acceptable mitigative
Glynn 1976). Organisms selected for actions and site-specific goals associated
transplanting or repair, if not placed care- with these actions.
fully and with natural processes in mind, • A long time is needed to evaluate results.
can gain an unnatural advantage, prevent Because of the slow growth and low
recruitment of other organisms, and even- recruitment potential of coral and many
tually result in permanently altered com- other reef organisms, a long time is needed
munities. to fully evaluate results of restoration
• Coral reefs occur in high-energy environ- efforts and the usefulness of the utilized
ments. Ocean surge, wave action, and cur- techniques.
rents are continuous and often relentless in
their effects on restoration attempts. This The primary challenges facing the team are
necessitates utilization of creative technical making the determination as to what restora-
approaches. tion actions and techniques are appropriate
• Coral reefs have many fragile and/or site- for national parks and establishing goals and
specific microhabitat species. Coral reefs success criteria.
are highly competitive environments, and
many reef organisms have evolved into Restoration Goals
highly specialized niches (Connell 1976). One of the most widely accepted defini-
Loss of habitat or three-dimensional struc- tions of ecosystem restoration in terrestrial
ture due to vessel groundings severely environments is: “actions taken to return an
impedes or precludes re-establishment of impacted site or ecosystem to a close approxi-
the pre-injury reef community without mation of its condition prior to disturbance”
recreating the original topographic struc- (Cairns 1995). A return to a close approxima-
ture and habitat complexity (Pearson tion of its prior condition is often the goal of
1981; Miller et al. 1993; Jaap 2000; terrestrial natural resource restoration efforts
Hudson and Goodwin 2001). in national parks (NPS 1991).
• There is a lack of experience and knowledge Coral reef ecosystem restoration is more
in successful restoration techniques. difficult to define. Studies have shown that
Restoration techniques for coral reef since coral reefs are such highly complex and
ecosystems are still being developed and ecologically diverse systems, once an injury
evaluated. To deal with high-energy forces occurs, the reef cannot be readily “restored”
within this environment, artificial materi- to any close approximation of their pre-impact
als and adhesives have often been used to condition through artificial manipulations
stabilize reef substrate and to recreate the (Jaap 2000; Precht et al. 2001; Pinit et al., in
habitat complexity necessary to re-estab- press). Most marine biologists acknowledge
lish pre-injury species diversity (Miller et that natural recovery processes, often in con-
al. 1993; Hudson and Goodwin 2001). junction with artificial manipulation, are nec-
Some managers feel that the techniques essary to fully restore the ecological condition
and materials used at some coral reef of an injured site. The rate of recovery to a
restoration sites are inappropriate for use pre-injury condition can be accelerated
in national parks. through mitigative actions and management
• There is greater difficulty in defining goals. intervention by providing physical habitat
Injured sites may not be completely requirements conducive for natural recovery
restored to their pre-injury condition processes. Therefore, coral reef ecosystem
235
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts
restoration must meet structural and function- vide the latitude to encompass a number of
al goals. alternative restoration actions.

Structural and Functional Goals of Injury Categories

Coral Reef Restoration To properly analyze and understand the
Injured coral reef ecosystems cannot be nature of injuries that can occur to a coral reef,
entirely reconstructed to a pre-impact condi- it is first necessary to understand the geologic
tion. Thus, the goal of coral reef restoration structure and reef growth processes that occur
activities becomes one of attempting to restore within a coral reef ecosystem. Reef substrate is
structural and functional components of the composed primarily of limestone and is char-
site to accelerate natural recovery processes. It acterized by a reef platform matrix of encrust-
is important to achieve the following elements ed and lithified hard-coral skeletons and calci-
in this process: um carbonate rubble. The reef formation is
geologically dynamic due to the relative bal-
• Resiliency to further erosion and loss;
ance of depositional and erosional processes
• Self-sustainability in terms of natural
occurring on the structure. Hard corals, cal-
processes of repair and recolonization;
careous algae, hydrocorals (e.g., fire coral),
• Similarity in appearance to natural reef
and bryoans all accrete calcium carbonate
substrate; and
onto the reef, building and maintaining the
• Substrate conditions such that, over time,
complex structure. Natural erosional process-
the site will produce a quantity and diver-
es working to break down the reef matrix
sity of organisms similar to surrounding
include both physical factors, such as currents
unimpacted areas.
and storm damage, and biological factors,
The following goals for coral reef restoration such as effects of boring sponges, mollusks,
actions have been adopted by others: polychaetes, and echinoderms. This dynamic
• “Actions taken to re-establish a self-sus- balance of on-going, diametrically opposed
taining coral reef habitat that, in time, can processes provide structural topographic fea-
come close to resembling a natural condi- tures of the reef and the highly variable micro-
tion in terms of structure and function.” habitats within the reef structure. Habitat cre-
(Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary) ation within the reef structure facilitates
• “A proactive program designed to speed species diversity due to niche partitioning and
biotal zonation. Loss of structural reef compo-
recovery of a damaged reef to an endpoint
that has aesthetic value and is functional as nents is detrimental to the maintenance of the
a coral reef ecosystem.” (National Oceanic complex web, which it ultimately supports.
Any anthropogenic impact that eliminates reef
and Atmospheric Administration Office of
Habitat Conservation) structure also accelerates habitat degradation
and can change the constructional balance of
All of these goals have a common element of the reef.
“taking actions that will enhance natural Although diving, snorkeling, and other
recovery processes.” The amount of manage- recreational uses of the coral reef ecosystem
ment intervention and the type of actions nec- result in some injury to corals and other reef
essary to achieve this type of goal statement organisms, the extent and nature of these
vary with the nature and extent of injury sus- impacts seldom reach a level that requires mit-
tained, rate of recovery desired, and the igation for recovery to occur. Injuries caused
degree to which introduction of artificial by inadvertent contact by divers’ fins or stand-
materials is acceptable. ing on corals usually does not impact the
The NPS Coral Reef Ecosystem reef ’s geologic structure, and injury to biolog-
Interdisciplinary Restoration Team is working ical organisms usually is isolated and not fatal.
to develop a goal statement that will accom- This type of injury is considered to be a limit-
modate a variety of coral reef injuries and pro- ed “surficial biological injury.” However,
236
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

when a vessel grounding occurs, impacts to have shown that once this occurs, recovery is
the reef are usually more substantial and may not likely without mitigative actions to stabi-
require mitigative actions to decrease recovery lize the site (Miller et al. 1993; Jaap 2000;
time. Vessel grounding impacts can be divided Hudson and Goodwin 2001). Lack of man-
into two categories, surficial and topograph- agement intervention following the incident
ic/structural injury, as described below. will often result in a continued degradation
Surficial injury. Surficial injury includes and enlargement of the impacted site over
that to the biological organisms living on or time. Such impacts can be significant and con-
near the outer surface of the reef and the tinue for decades. Stabilization of the site is
scraping, grinding, or minor gouging of the mandatory even if no other actions are taken.
reef surface. This category of injury may range This category of injury usually occurs with
from only minor injury of surface biota to vessels over 30 feet in length and usually
much more damaging injuries involving bro- involves widespread injury and destruction of
ken coral heads, crushed organisms, and surface biota in conjunction with loss of reef
scraping of the reef surface over large geo- topographic complexity.
graphic areas. The reef ’s geologic structure With topographic/structural injury, the
remains intact and natural topographic relief impact assessment requires three-dimensional
(rugosity) at the site remains unaltered. analyses (surface length x width x vertical
Surficial injuries include the displacement of relief ). If topographic height or structural
organisms, overturning and breakage of indi- complexity has been lost due to the grounding
vidual living coral heads and other benthic incident, restoration of the original reef form
organisms, and/or burial of living organisms and structural complexity through mitigative
from fragmented material. actions may be crucial to recovery. Many
Surficial injury impact assessments are organisms within the coral reef community are
two-dimensional (length x width of surface highly sensitive to water depth, currents, and
area impacted). Restoration may require light levels. All of these factors are changed
removal of loose or grated material to ensure when topographic relief and structural com-
that organisms are not buried and adjacent plexity are altered. If not restored through mit-
areas are not impacted from loose material igative actions, natural processes will likely
washed around by ocean currents and wave change the site into a permanently altered
action. If impacts are significant, recovery time coral community.
can often be greatly reduced through mitiga-
tive actions that restore living biological Measures of Restoration Success
organisms to the site. Restoration actions As with any management action, it is
enhance the recovery of ecosystem function, important to thoroughly evaluate restoration
as well as improve the aesthetic appearance of goals and determine the relative success of
the site. restoration. Actions taken to enhance the
Topographic/structural injury. Because recovery of injured coral reefs are primarily
coral reefs are geologically composed of a hard directed at regaining the structural and func-
outer shell with an interior of unconsolidated tional characteristics of the site. Evaluation of
sand, shell, and coral fragments, vessel the relative success should focus on the struc-
groundings involving heavy ships can cause tural and functional aspects of the restored
injury to the reef ’s geological structural site. Structural and functional parameters to
integrity. In this category of injury, the reef be considered for monitoring include, but are
matrix is cracked or penetrated and/or major not limited to, the following:
portions of the reef ’s topographic relief have
been altered. Structural:
This type of injury destabilizes the reef ’s • Morphological/topographic form of the
surface and makes the reef vulnerable to the site—does it resemble the pre-injury habi-
erosional processes of ocean currents. Studies tat or a reference site?
237
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts
• Stability and structural integrity of lead to pre-impact, near-natural condi-
restored topography. tions.
• Similarity of abundance and diversity of 4. Management intervention involving site
flora and fauna to the natural unimpacted stabilization and reconstruction of geolog-
reef or reference site. ic topographic structure is usually neces-
sary whenever either of the two forms of
Functional: impact mentioned above have occurred.
• Ichthyofauna—does it resemble that of 5. Restoration actions at sites not involving
uninjured reef areas? the above two factors may be limited to
• Biological recruitment rates. loose substrate removal and/or biological
• Epibiotal colonization. mitigation for recovery to occur within
• Biological community structure (percent decadal time frames.
cover, density, and relative abundance). 6. Transplanting of biological organisms to
• Stability, attachment status, and relative impacted sites can serve to greatly improve
health of reattached organisms. aesthetic appearances and help accelerate
overall site recovery.
Monitoring a select list of parameters
should provide the information necessary to References
evaluate the relative success of the restoration Cairns, J., Jr. 1995. Rehabilitating Damaged
actions in promoting ecological recovery. Ecosystems. Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis.
Resource recovery will ultimately depend on Connell, J.H. 1976. Population ecology of
successful biological recruitment, survival, reef-building corals. In Biology and
and development to withstand natural pertur- Geology of Coral Reefs, Vol. II: Biology 1.
bations and provide structural and biological O.A. Jones and R. Endean, eds. New York:
three-dimensional relief that closely resembles Academic Press, 205–246.
that of the pre-injury habitat. Restoration is a Connell, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain
process to correct an artificially altered forests and coral reefs. Science 199,
resource and should be applied to prevent the 1302–1310.
loss and degradation of that resource. Glynn, P.W. 1976. Aspects of the ecology of
coral reefs in the western Atlantic region.
Conclusions In Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs, Vol.
1. Techniques and success of methods for II: Biology 1. O.A. Jones and R. Endean,
coral reef ecosystem restoration are still eds. New York: Academic Press, 271–325.
being evaluated. Gulko, D. 1998. Hawaiian Coral Reef
2. Goals of restoration actions need to be Ecology. Honolulu: Mutual.
stated in terms of re-establishing structure Hudson, J.H., and W.B. Goodwin. 2001.
and function to the damaged site. Assessment of vessel grounding injury to
3. Two factors should be of primary concern coral reef and seagrass habitats in the
when evaluating coral reef damage from Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
vessel groundings or anchoring: (a) extent Florida: protocols and methods. Bulletin
of penetration and fracturing of the reef ’s of Marine Science 69:2, 509–516.
hard outer surface, which may result in Jaap, W.C. 2000. Coral reef restoration.
further erosion; and (b) loss of reef topo- Ecological Engineering 15, 345–364.
graphic relief and structural complexity Jones, O.A., and R. Endean, eds. 1973.
that may have existed at the site before the Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs, Vol. I:
injury occurred. These two factors will Geology. New York: Academic Press.
largely govern the extent of geologic stabi- Miller, S.L., G.B. McFall, and A.W. Hulbert.
lization and structural restoration that 1993. Guidelines and recommendations
needs to be implemented to achieve eco- for coral reef restoration in the Florida
logical function and processes that will Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
238
 Protecting Oceans and Their Coasts

Workshop report, Key Largo, Florida, Pinit, P.T., R.J. Bellmer, and G.W. Thayer. In
April 13–15, 1993. Silver Spring, Md.: press. NOAA Fisheries Technical Guidance
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Manual for Success Criteria in Restoration
Administration, National Undersea Projects. Silver Spring, Md.: National
Research Center. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
NPS [National Park Service]. 1991. NPS 77: tion, Office of Habitat Conservation.
Natural Resources Management Salvat, B., ed. 1987. Human Impacts on Coral
Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: NPS. Reefs: Facts and Recommendations.
Pearson, R.G. 1981. Recovery and recoloniza- Papetoai, Moorea, French Polynesia:
tion of coral reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Antenne Museum–EPHE (l’Ecole
Series 4, 105–122. Pratique des Hautes Etudes).

239
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

Permanently Protected Parks for a Dynamic Society:

An Examination of Race and Ethnicity in
National Park Visitation and Participation
Megan Brokaw, Wrangell–St. Elias National Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper Center,
Alaska 99573; Megan_Brokaw@nps.gov

The United States has the oldest and perhaps most well-respected National Park System in
the world. It represents, in principle, the finest the country has to offer in scenery, history, and
culture. Stewardship of the national parks is a tremendous responsibility entrusted to the
National Park Service (NPS) and the American people, through the action of their elected rep-
resentatives and civil society (including nongovernmental organizations [NGOs]). NPS and
associated NGOs have observed that, as the American public has become more racially and eth-
nically diverse, the national parks’ constituency has not followed the same pattern. Recent stud-
ies indicate that minorities are represented in national park visitation in percentages lower than
their population percentages in all types of National Park System units all across the country
(Machlis 1993; Machlis 1999; Floyd 1999; Wilkinson 2000). NPS and associated NGOs have
become concerned and some individuals and groups have attempted to address this as a threat
to the future of the National Park System.
group comprising a numerical minority of the
Race, Ethnicity, total population; in the U.S. context, it usually
and Minority Americans refers to African Americans, Hispanic
This paper uses the terms “race,” “ethnic- Americans, Native Americans, and Asian
ity,” and “minority” to describe components Americans (Floyd 1999).
of the American population. “Race” refers to The American public is now more racially
“a social group distinguished or set apart, by and ethnically diverse than at any other time in
others or by itself, primarily on the basis of the history of the country. The 1990 and 2000
real or perceived physical characteristics” censuses indicate the continuing trend
(Floyd 1999:23). For the purpose of this towards diversity (Table 1).
paper, “African American,” “Asian American,”
“Native American,” and “White” are used as National Park Visitation
racial categories. “Ethnicity” refers to “a social Studies examining racial and ethnic demo-
group set apart on the basis of cultural or graphics of national park visitation show that
nationality characteristics” (Floyd 1999:23). minorities visit national parks in percentages
Members of an ethnic group may be of any lower than their percentage contribution to
race. For the purposes of this paper, the American public. NPS, in conjunction
“Hispanic” is used as an ethnic category. The with the Cooperative Park Studies Unit at the
term “minority” refers to a racial or ethnic University of Idaho, annually produces ten

Table 1. U.S. race and ethnicity data, 1990 and 2000

Race/Ethnicity 1990 2000
White 80.2% 77.1%
African American 12% 12.9%
Hispanic 9.0% 12.5%
Asian American 2.8% 4.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001a (White), 2001b (African American), 2001c (Hispanic),
2001d (Asian American).
241
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

survey studies of visitors to individual parks. visited a national park site in the two years
While the vast majority of these studies do not prior to being interviewed (1998 and 1999).
include information on ethnicity or race, the Although this study serves to give a relative
few that do can provide insight into minority- idea of park visitation by segments of the
use patterns in specific national parks. The American population, it was designed such
race and ethnicity data in these studies were that representative sample sizes were not
not collected for individual visitors; rather, obtained for all populations. The sample sizes
visitor groups were asked to indicate the races were as follows: n=2631 for Whites; n=406 for
and ethnicities represented in their group African Americans; n=379 for Hispanics;
(Floyd 1999). What has been learned about n=90 for Asian Americans; n=34 for Native
minority visitation through this research is Hawaiians; n=28 for Native Americans. While
indicated by the following examples (Table 2). the data provided may give an idea of visita-
Other studies also indicate that minorities tion within those groups, many of the sample

Table 2. Visitation by race and ethnicity at selected National Park System units, 1990s
Sources: Rock Creek (Machlis 1993); Santa Monica Mountains (Machlis 1993; Floyd 1999); Bent’s Old Fort,
Native
Hawaiian/
African Asian Hispanic Native Pacific
White American American American American Islander Other
Rock Creek 74% 24% 3% 2% 1% 1% —
Santa Monica 95% 4% — 8% — — 10%
Mountains
Bent’s Old 94% — — 5% — — 7%
Fort
Whitman 93% 0% — 1% — — 7%
Mission
Booker T. 85% 17% — 4% — — 4%
Washington
Bandelier 90% 1% — 8% 2% — 1%
Yellowstone 90% 1.5% 4.1% 1% 0.5% — —
Whitman Mission, Booker T. Washington, and Bandelier (Floyd 1999), Yellowstone (Wilkinson 2000).

are under-represented in national park visita- sizes are insufficient to allow extrapolation to
tion when compared with nationwide popula- the entire population of a racial or ethnic
tion percentages. In 2000, Nina Roberts con- group. The study also produced unpublished
ducted a survey study at Rocky Mountain data correlating ethnicity with sites visited
National Park. She found that visitation was as (Brian Forist, NPS assistant social scientist,
follows: 94.2% White, 2.2% Bi- Washington Area Service Office, personal
racial/Multiracial, 1.4% Hispanic, 1.1% communication, 4 January 2002). This may
Pacific Islander, 0.7% African American, and be useful to park managers in further identify-
0.4% Native American (Erickson 2001). ing which sites are used by particular groups.
A report commissioned by NPS, The These studies indicate that, on a national
National Park Service Comprehensive Survey scale, members of minority groups have signif-
of the American Public (NPS 2001), provides icantly lower visitation rates to areas of the
information on individual racial and ethnic National Park System than does the White
groups’ visitation rates. This study claims to majority. They also show that minorities are
have found that 35% of the White population, under-represented across the spectrum of
32% of the American Indian / Alaska Native NPS-run sites and in NPS visitation as a
population, 27% of the Hispanic population, whole. Including race and ethnicity in such
18% of the Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander, studies on a regular basis would allow NPS to
and 14% of the African American population understand, in depth, the use patterns by spe-
242
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
cific park, by type of park unit, and by region. comprises the entire population, and cannot
This would help NPS make informed man- be built through partial representation. For
agement decisions on an individual site, NPS, the design and management of the parks
regional, or site-type basis. is only negotiable within certain limits.
Essential park values and resources must be
Defining the Problem preserved. Those limits take the form of laws
NPS and associated NGOs have both rec- and rules that govern park use and ensure park
ognized low visitation rates by minority protection. NPS and associated NGOs must
groups and they perceive it as a problem in convince a representative cross-section of the
two ways. First, it represents a failure of NPS population that the natural, historical, and cul-
to implement its mission, and second, it poses tural values of the parks should be protected.
a political threat to the future integrity of the Both the NGOs and NPS have also
National Park System. These problems are, of defined the lack of diversity in NPS visitation
course, intimately connected. It is the mission and participation as a potential political prob-
of NPS to provide for the enjoyment of the lem. It is recognized that, “national parks exist
parks and to protect them for future genera- because the people want them to exist. They
tions. The future generations of the U.S. will were created by an act of Congress and they
be racially and ethnically diverse. Therefore, can be done away with by an act of Congress.
in order to protect the parks for those genera- The parks have to be relevant to the people....
tions and to ensure that they enjoy the parks, If the parks aren’t reality to a portion of the
NPS must develop a demographically repre- population, then they won’t be something to
sentative political constituency, visitation, and vote for either” (Shelton Johnson, interpretive
participation base. park ranger, Yosemite National Park, personal
The lack of a diverse visitor group reflects communication, 20 January 2002). The lack
an agency that is not serving a representative of diversity in national park visitation has been
cross-section of the American population but identified as a potential political problem for
rather only a segment thereof. It is the man- NPS if it persists in the face of an increasingly
date of the federal government to serve the diverse and politically active American popu-
American public and each agency of the U.S. lation.
government must carry out its mission with In discussing the changing demographics
that purpose in mind. The implication is that of the American population in the National
NPS is serving the White population at the Parks for the 21st Century: The Vail Agenda,
expense of serving minority populations for the National Parks Steering Committee states:
reasons that are not inherent to park protec- “[O]urs is a nation and world that is rapidly
tion. changing, and any public service agency that
The NPS mission is defined in terms of is not adapting will eventually create its own
acting on behalf of the future. “As a people, crisis. Hence the National Park Service must
our quality of life—our very health and well- act” (NPS Vail Steering Committee 1992:64).
being—depends in the most basic way on the Furthermore, it states that “effective leader-
protection of nature, the accessibility of open ship requires an understanding of the chang-
spaces, and recreation opportunities, and the ing political environment in which an agency
preservation of landmarks that illustrate our operates. Policies and goals must fit into this
historic continuity.... The larger purpose of dynamic context. In a democracy, an agency
this mission is to build a citizenry that is com- that ignores its political environment does so
mitted to conserving its heritage and its home at its own peril” (NPS Vail Steering
on earth [sic]” (National Park System Committee 1992:104). NPS does not operate
Advisory Board 2001:13). In order to fulfill in a vacuum; it must operate within and con-
the further defined purpose of this mission, it form to the larger political context of the
will be vital that the entire cross-section of the nation.
American population participates. A citizenry NGOs also have determined that a broad-
243
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

based and diverse constituency is imperative zenship right. They are something they
to the NPS’ political viability. The National get by either having been born or
Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) becoming a citizen. It’s one of the
states: American values. They need to know
what they have received and what
If the Park Service continues its current responsibility it carries. [The national
trend, the agency runs the serious risk parks are] not just going to take care of
of becoming irrelevant to and out of themselves. They need a constituency.
touch with a large and increasing seg- They need love and care. Therefore, if
ment of the United States population.... we, as the stewards of this land now,
If people of color remain strangers to take our mission to heart, we need to be
the park system and the Park Service, it looking out there to those future gener-
will be unfair and unrealistic to expect ations and making a monetary and pro-
them to serve as advocates when the grammatic staffing commitment to
parks face future threats.... This pro- teaching the next generation about that
nounced gap between the national responsibility.... We have a responsibili-
parks and communities of color will ty to the future to make sure [these
come right at the time when a large por- national parks] persist (personal com-
tion of the responsibility for protection munication, 24 January 2002).
of our natural and cultural resources
will fall to Native, Asian, Latino, and Stated in this way, the assurance of a diverse
African Americans. As taxpayers, voters, constituency for the future is part of the mis-
and citizens, it is both our right and our sion of NPS. The development of that con-
obligation to play a more prominent role stituency is part of protecting the national
in park advocacy. Enhancing cultural parks for future generations.
diversity throughout the National Park
Service is a crucial first step towards Conclusion
making that happen (National Parks It is generally agreed that diversifying the
Conservation Association 2001:1). NPS visitation base and constituency is
important in order to maintain the integrity
NPCA and NPS are in agreement on the and quality of the National Park System that
need to diversify the national park constituen- we know today and to ensure that the enjoy-
cy in order to remain relevant to the diverse ment of that system is equitably distributed
and changing American population and to throughout the population. This will be
maintain the political viability the agency has important to the development and implemen-
enjoyed in the past. tation of effective, system-wide national poli-
While both mission-oriented and political cies and programs to promote racial and eth-
reasons for addressing diversity in the nic diversity in our national parks.
National Park System have been articulated NPS and associated NGOs concerned
separately, they have also been described as with protecting the national parks are at the
inextricably intertwined. Jonathan Jarvis, NPS beginning of what must become a widespread
Pacific West regional director, described his effort to reach each corner of America and
reasoning in this way: every nook of NPS, to make fundamental
changes in the way national parks are per-
Our mission is to preserve and protect ceived, used, and managed. If NPS and associ-
for the enjoyment of future generations. ated NGOs hope to ensure the perpetual
Those future generations are very integrity of the national parks, they must
diverse. The National Park System and become valuable to the broad-based American
all public lands in America are part of public for reasons specific to and consistent
[future generations’] birthright or citi- with their environmental and cultural integri-
244
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
ty. We, as a society, must eliminate the socially 2001. Cultural diversity. On-line at:
constructed components of the national parks www.npca.org/cultural_diversity/diversi-
that are divisive to members of American soci- ty.
ety, at the same time that we promote the com- NPS [National Park Service]. 2001. The
ponents that protect the ecological and cultur- National Park Service Comprehensive
al integrity of the parks and their associated Survey of the American Public.
ecosystems and historic sites. It is imperative Washington D.C.: NPS.
that the divisive practices of NPS and those NPS Vail Steering Committee. 1992. National
that associate themselves with national parks Parks for the 21st Century: The Vail
(and thus contribute to their image) end, in Agenda. Washington D.C.: NPS.
order to continue to protect the essential com- National Park System Advisory Board. 2001.
ponents of the parks and allow NPS to fulfill Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st
its mission in the service of the American pub- Century. Washington, D.C.: National
lic. Geographic Society.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001a. The White pop-
References ulation: 2000. On-line at: www.cen-
Erickson, E. 2001. Rocky Mountain National sus.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.
Park: History and Meanings as html.
Constraints to African American Park ———. 2001b. The Black population: 2000.
Visitation. Morgantown: University of On-line at: www.census.gov/popula-
West Virginia, Division of Forestry. tion/www/cen2000/briefs.html.
Floyd, M. 1999. Race, ethnicity and the use of ———. 2001c. The Hispanic Population:
the National Park System. NPS Social 2000. On-line at: www.census.gov/popu-
Science Research Review 1:2, 1–13. lation/www/cen2000/briefs.html.
Machlis, G. 1993. Santa Monica Mountains ———. 2001d. The Asian Population: 2000.
National Recreation Area. Moscow, Id.: On-line at: www.census.gov/popula-
National Park Service/Cooperative Park tion/www/cen2000/briefs.html.
Studies Unit/Visitor Services Project. Wilkinson, T. 2000. The cultural challenge.
———. 1999. Rock Creek Park. Moscow, Id.: National Parks 74:1/2, 20–23.
National Park Service/Cooperative Park
Studies Unit/Visitor Services Project.
National Parks Conservation Association.

245
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

Nervous Landscapes: The Heritage of

Racial Segregation in New South Wales, Australia

Denis Byrne, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1967, Hurstville,
New South Wales 2220, Australia; denis.byrne@npws.nsw.gov.au

Introduction
The geographical focus of this paper is the Manning Valley on the lower North Coast of New
South Wales (NSW), Australia.1 I should mention that the National Parks and Wildlife Service
(NPWS) in NSW is accountable for Aboriginal heritage across the whole state, not just on-park,
and that explains my involvement in a project whose focus is mainly outside the park system.
My paper addresses itself to the segrega- ancestors, Aboriginal people in NSW after
tion of Aboriginal and white populations that 1788 lived fairly lightly on the ground. Their
took place in the Manning Valley, in one form dwellings were also liable to be demolished,
or another, between the 1820s and the burned, or removed by the authorities.
1970s.2 At a global level, racial segregation Relatively speaking, where the white heritage
has occurred in a surprisingly large number of of the post-contact period is fabric-heavy,
countries at some point in their history. The Aboriginal heritage is fabric-light and the
history of segregation is perhaps best known, odds are stacked against it surviving into the
or best researched, in the United States and archeological and architectural heritage
South Africa, in each of which, especially over record.
the last couple of decades (less in the case of Another difficulty is posed by the increas-
South Africa), it has been the subject of her- ing use by Aboriginal people through the
itage discourse and the focus of various acts of post-contact period of a material culture bor-
commemoration.3 rowed from Europeans. Aboriginal people
Racial segregation, by its very nature, is a used teacups and spoons, hammers and nails,
spatial practice. It is about the separation of bicycles, and steel rabbit traps. While the
people in space and the rules and devices that objects themselves may not be distinctively
are set up to achieve this. It has been the spa- Aboriginal, we can assume that the distribu-
tiality of segregation in Australia that has been tional pattern of the objects at any one site will
the particular subject of my interest. As her- reflect distinctive behavioral patterns. But
itage practitioners we operate not just in the how do we find these sites? My present proj-
field of place, but also in the field of space. ect evolved out of a concern that Aboriginal
post-contact heritage sites were radically
The “Lightness” of the under-recorded relative to non-indigenous
Aboriginal Presence heritage places for the same period. The proj-
I would argue that segregation was not ect aims to develop principles for finding
merely a historical reality in NSW but that, Aboriginal people in the historical (post-con-
taken in its broadest sense, it is the key to tact) landscape. It is looking for the logic that
deciphering and understanding the whole explains where Aboriginal people were in the
spatial pattern of Aboriginal life in the post- colonial landscape, and that logic, I contend,
1788 NSW landscape (1788 marking the is the (highly illogical) logic of segregation.
beginning of white settlement in Australia).
The absence of any major infrastructure of In-between Space
segregation, apart from the Reserves system, When we think of racial segregation in
accords with a general sparseness of obvious Australia we normally think of the institution-
physical traces of the Aboriginal presence in alized racism of the latter part of 19th century
the post-contact landscape overall. Like their and the first half of the 20th century.4 I suggest
246
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
we need to look earlier than this. In my study lines of movement. There were, however, gaps
area, the Manning Valley, the first land grants and opportunities in the grid which
and sales were made to white farmers in the Aboriginal people could occupy and move
1820s. What we see is the familiar rectangular through. These openings included water
grid of white land holdings spreading along reserves, traveling stock reserves, and town
the alluvial flats of the valley and then expand- commons. They included narrow strips of
ing into the grazing country back from the land reserved for roads that had not yet been
river. The fertile ground in the valley was all built as well as terrain too steep or boggy or
taken up by the 1880s. What had begun as a sandy to have ever been cleared for agricul-
mosaic of rectangular farms became a contin- ture.6 Aboriginal people often could and did
uous carpet of white-owned land along the camp in these gaps and negotiate their way
bottom of the valley and over the foothills. through the colonized landscape by means of
The concept of private land ownership them. It is thus possible to think of the
was itself an instrument of segregation, a key Aboriginal presence in the colonized land-
separator of the two races. The exclusionary scape in terms of in-betweenness.7
effect was not immediate, though. In the Oral and documentary history sources
1820s and 1830s, white settlers simply did provide fragmentary evidence of an
not have the technology to clear more than a Aboriginal life lived “in between.” We have
paddock or two around their homesteads. supplemented this by what you might call an
The forest and woodland covering the rest of audit of gaps and openings in the cadastré. For
their holdings remained more or less accessi- sample areas of the valley, we have reviewed
ble to the Biripi people. Even though the the series of cadastral maps going back to the
white population of the valley grew from 400 1880s in order to identify road reserves.
in the early 1840s to about 3,000 by 1860, the There were always far more of these than ever
valley remained substantially bush covered.5 had roads constructed on them and in the
Ring-barking changed that. Widely practiced days before cars replaced horses they provid-
in the valley from the 1860s, ring-barking pro- ed networks for white as well as Aboriginal
duced landscapes that look like scenes from movement through the landscape. Narrow
an eco-disaster. Over large parts of the bands of reserved land along some of the
Manning Valley the native tree cover was waterways provided another opening. For
wiped off the map, producing, in a sense, a Aboriginal people living on the Aboriginal
clean slate for the lines that would be drawn Reserve gazetted at Purfleet in 1900, the water
by the wire fences, which were introduced reserves in the nearby Glenthorne area
from the 1870s. Wire fences made the cadas- allowed access for line fishing from the shore
tral grid a visible, tangible reality on the as well as the mooring of the fishing boats
ground where, previously, it had for the most some Aboriginal families owned (and often
part been real only on paper. built) and sites for drying fishing nets. These
These developments radically curtailed continue to be used into the present. Other
Aboriginal freedom of movement through the water reserves along the river allowed the river
countryside. It is now appropriate to ask the itself and its wide estuary to become some-
question, “How, in a practical–spatial sense, thing of a zone of free movement for
do you live in a landscape that no longer Aboriginal people who had access to boats.
belongs to you?” This is to say, how do you The cadastral grid stopped at the shoreline
live inside a cadastral grid which you have no and, to an extent, the water was a neutral,
proprietary state in? As white settlement unsegregated zone and, from an Aboriginal
spread, from the 1820s, many or most of the point of view, a gap in the cadastré.
customary Aboriginal camp sites, ceremony
places, and food resource places became inac- Segregation and
cessible and unusable. The rectangular farms Tactics for Testing It
increasingly cut across customary Aboriginal As the title of my paper suggests, I am
247
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

interested in the idea of racial segregation as a real threat of shotguns and dogs and the
spatial regime that was always, to borrow specter of the police, I’m inclined to think of
Michael Taussig’s term, a “nervous system.”8 them almost as a systematic refusal of the
The Manning Valley over the last 150 years or boundaries of cadastral system, a refusal to
so can be seen as a cultural landscape that acknowledge its legitimacy, a constant prod-
vibrated with the tensions set up not just by ding and testing of its resolve. These experi-
the strictures of racial segregation and their ences and the relating of them are a significant
enforcement, but by the numerous ways that part of Aboriginal folklore, as are the stories,
those strictures were tested and undermined particularly from the 1970s, of how individu-
by people on both sides of the highly unstable als defied boundaries in segregated picture
racial divide. So, while the ideal or objective of theaters and the previously racially bounded
segregation was a neat—and one might say, space of white bars and discos. All these expe-
clinical—separation of black and white lives riences are spatial and therefore eminently
for all but economic purposes, the social-his- mappable as heritage.
torical reality of segregation was somewhat the They are, in quite a real sense, already
opposite: the black and white populations mapped by Aboriginal people. Something I
existed in a state of mental and behavioral noticed early in our fieldwork in the Manning
entanglement. My purpose in taking up racial Valley was the extent of Aboriginal knowledge
segregation as a heritage theme or topic is of white land ownership. As we drove through
partly to highlight this entanglement and, in the valley with local Aboriginal people they
doing so, lend support to those arguing that frequently noted, in passing, not just who a
Aboriginal and non-indigenous historical her- particular farm belonged to but often who had
itage should not be kept in separate boxes.9 owned it previously, the names of the parents
One of the main reasons segregation may and grandparents of the current owner, etc.
speak more about racial entanglement than This knowledge was almost always backed by
real racial separation is that people resisted it. information about how friendly or otherwise
I have pointed to the ways in which the cadas- these white people were to Aborigines.
tral system was replete with cracks and open- Narratives about fence-jumping and orchard
ings that enabled Aboriginal people to live raiding had their counterpart in narratives of
inside it, in a state of in-betweenness. These farmers who had always let them cross their
gaps, in the form of various types of reserves, fields, or who had given them fruit, or even, in
were a formal, proper part of the cadastral sys- one case, a white family who planted extra
tem and Aboriginal people were merely taking vegetables specifically for them to come and
advantage of the opportunities they offered. In pick. Or the shop in Taree in the 1950s where
a different category are what might be called you could always get served and be spoken to
the anti-cadastral practices of Aboriginal peo- decently, or the doctor who could be relied on
ple. I refer here to the jumping of fences, the to treat you well. All of this comprises a men-
raiding of orchards and corn fields, the short- tal map of the valley that is an alternative to the
cutting across a hostile farmer’s lower pad- official “white map.” It is a map maintained
dock in order to get to the river, the sneaking and updated and passed on from generation to
onto a property by Aboriginal children in generation. So an answer to the question,
order to swim in a farmer’s dam-pond. “How do you live in a landscape that no
Historical records indicate that incursions longer belongs to you?” may be that you main-
such as these were common across the whole tain your own map of that landscape. We’ve
of NSW and were on on-going source of inter- tried to record parts of this alternative map on
racial tension. They are also a major theme in paper (actually on GIS).
oral histories recorded from Aboriginal peo- In this area of research I have found the
ple. Listening to the way Aboriginal people in work of the French historian, Michel de
our own study area recall and narrate these Certeau, to be particularly helpful and
acts of trespass, often carried out against the provocative.10 Certeau drew a comparison
248
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
between reading and walking. He observed quietly.
that no matter how tightly written a particular In the Manning Valley these events are nei-
text might be, you can’t control people’s read- ther attested to nor commemorated by physi-
ing of it. The agency of the reader lay in the cal fabric. The heritage of segregation—like
unique interpretations he or she could bring the rules governing its enforcement—remains
to the text, but also in the way it could act as mostly in the realm of the unspoken.
an unpredictable springboard to his or her
own lines of thought—not as something exter- Segregation and Visibility
nal to the text but as taking place in the spaces I turn now to the issue of visibility, always
between and around and even inside its words a critical factor in racial segregation.
and lines. Similarly, no matter how densely Aboriginal people, and others who have expe-
built an urban environment might be, people rienced racism, often describe how effectively
walking through a city or neighborhood the disapproval of white people—their sense
would devise their own personal patterns of of superiority and control over you—is con-
movement.11 People would find ways to veyed in the way they look at you. They speak
inscribe their everyday lives, their whims and of the effect of living under this disapproving
desires, in spaces whose design made no gaze on a daily basis and what that does to
allowance for them. you. We saw, how from the 1860s, through the
practice of ring-barking, great tracts of the
Sites of Segregation Manning Valley lost their tree cover. The situ-
In a different category from those ation of the Aborigines was not just that they
described so far in this paper are those places were dispossessed of their land—they also
where Aboriginal people were subject to seg- became visible in it in a new and presumably
regation inside the built space, and thus quite disturbing way. They were subject to
potentially inside the built heritage of white white surveillance.13
people. In the Manning Valley these include No surprise, then, that Aborigines often
the old public swimming pool and the sought to remove themselves from the white
Boomerang picture theater, both in Taree. gaze. And here the term “bush cover” takes on
Aboriginal children were allowed into the new meaning. It is clear that several of the
public pool but were required to keep to their places and pathways we have mapped during
own end of it. In the case of the picture the- oral history recording sessions were valued for
ater, they had to sit in a roped-off section up the privacy that the bush cover afforded. It
the front. When the Boomerang Theatre is appears that many of the places that people
mentioned to older Aboriginal people in the walked, fished, swam, and picnicked were
area today, the first thing that springs to their chosen either for this reason or because they
minds is the humiliation of having to sit in were specifically not the places white people
those front rows and of only being allowed in walked, fished, swam, and picnicked. An
after the lights went down. For them this is often-overlooked aspect of segregation is that
what the Boomerang Theatre means, but that by the time it became a feature of white public
meaning has no direct physical expression in policy in the late 19th century, Aboriginal
the fabric of the place and would only become people were already to an extent, and where
visible through an assessment of the place’s practicable, voluntarily withdrawing their
historical or social significance.12 presence.
The Boomerang Theatre is also significant
as a site of desegregation. Aboriginal people in Endnotes
the early 1970s simply refused to sit in the 1. Several of the themes in this paper have
roped-off section any more. They took their been developed in more detail in Denis
seats up the back, discovering that in the face Byrne, “Nervous landscapes: race and
of their defiance this part of the “color bar” space in Australia,” Journal of Social
collapsed. In other cases it did not depart so Archaeology 3:2 (forthcoming 2003).
249
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

2. This area has been the subject of a study of (New York: Routledge, 1991).
post-contact Aboriginal heritage by myself 9. Denis Byrne, “The ethos of return: era-
and others at the NSW National Parks and sure and reinstatement of Aboriginal visi-
Wildlife Service. My co-researcher at bility in the Australian historical land-
NPWS has been Maria Nugent (now at the scape,” Historical Archaeology 37:1
School of Historical Studies, Monash (2003), pp. 73–86.
University). The study has been carried 10. Michel de Certeau, The Practice of
out in partnership with the Taree–Purfleet Everyday Life, translated from the French
Local Aboriginal Land Council (repre- by Steven F. Rendall (Berkeley: University
sented by Vienna Maslin) and the Forster of California Press, 1998).
Local Aboriginal Land Council (repre- 11. Certeau used the term “tactics” to
sented by Robert Yettica). describe the means that the disempowered
3. For the U.S., see, for instance, Owen J. employ to create space for themselves.
Dwyer, “Interpreting the Civil Rights The tactic, as Certeau (1998, p. 36) says,
movement: place, memory, and conflict,” “must vigilantly make use of the cracks
Professional Geographer 52:4 (2000), pp. that particular conjunctions open in the
660–671; for South Africa, see, for exam- surveillance of the proprietary powers. It
ple, the District Six Museum in Cape poaches in them. It creates surprises in
Town (www.districtsix.co.za) and The them.”
Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg 12. An interior photograph of the Boomerang
(www.apartheidmuseum.org). Theatre (ca. 1923) appears on the cover a
4. David Hollinsworth, Race and Racism in recent publication by NPWS promoting
Australia (Katoomba, Australia: Social social significance assessment: Denis
Science Press, 1998). Hollinsworth and Byrne, Helen Brayshaw, and Tracy
others point to the period after the 1860s Ireland, Social Significance: A Discussion
in southeastern Australia as one in which a Paper (Sydney: NSW National Parks and
decreased reliance on Aboriginal labor Wildlife Service, 2001). In this photo
was accompanied by “the construction Aboriginal people can be seen occupying
and naturalisation of hegemonic ideas of the front rows of seats.
racial exclusivity and superiority” by white 13. Michel Foucault showed us how impor-
settlers (Hollinsworth 1998, p. 87). tant visual surveillance became in the 19th
5. For white population estimates, see W.K. century as a way of the modern state con-
Birrell, The Manning Valley: Landscape trolling and modifying the behavior of
and Settlement 1824–1900 (Sydney: people who are outside the definition of
Jacaranda Press, 1987), p. 118; John the “model citizen,” e.g., in his Discipline
Ramsland, The Struggle Against Isolation: and Punish (New York: Viking, 1979).
A History of the Manning Valley (Sydney: The visual observation of the colonized
Library of Australian History, 1987), p. (the need to “keep an eye on them”) is part
29. of the process of building up a body of
6. Much of this resonates with the marginal knowledge about them which, as Nicholas
existence of the hill people of West Thomas points out in Colonialism’s
Virginia as described by K. Stewart, A Culture (Melbourne: Melbourne
Space on the Side of the Road (Princeton: University Press, 1994), “is intimately
Princeton University Press, 1996). linked with a classification and diagnosis
7. See T. Minh-ha, “The undone interval” (in of the inferiority or inadequacy of the lat-
conversation with Annamaria Morelli), in ter, that establishes the need for manage-
I. Chambers and L. Curti (eds.), The Post- ment” (p. 41).
colonial Question (London and New York:
Routledge, 1996), pp. 3–16. ✥
8. Michael Taussig, The Nervous System
250
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

Impact through Action, Influence and Involvement—

Ethnic Minority Recreation: Where to from Here?
(Session Summary)
Edwin Gómez, Old Dominion University, Department of Exercise Science, Sport, Physical
Education, and Recreation, 140 HPE Building, Norfolk, Virginia 23529; egomez@odu.edu
Nina S. Roberts, Colorado State University, Department of Natural Resources, Recreation, and
Tourism; and National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 250, Fort Collins, Colorado
80525; nina.roberts@colostate.edu
Deborah J. Chavez, Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest
Service, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, California 92507; dchavez@fs.fed.us

Introduction
This paper documents the outcome of a panel discussion session that addressed the theme
reflected in the title. Five professionals and scholars were part of this panel, including a senior-
level executive from the Student Conservation Association, research social scientist from the
Forest Service, professor from Old Dominion University, interpretive ranger/outreach specialist
from Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and education/outreach specialist from the
National Park Service Washington Office.
The purpose of the presentation and dis- users?
cussion was to provide a format for dialogue • What are some of the best practices your
among natural resource professionals and aca- agency uses in meeting the recreational
demicians on outreach strategies, programs, needs, and program desires of people of
and research involving diverse communities. ethnically diverse cultures?
Within this format, questions were presented
to initiate dialogue, and an extremely valuable Paradigm Changes
interaction proceeded thereafter. This paper This discussion started by defining para-
highlights some of the discussions. Although digm and paradigm shift. In general, a para-
not all of the questions initially developed digm is a mental model that reflects common-
were addressed (due to the ensuing discus- ly held beliefs among a group of people (e.g.,
sion), the presentation and subsequent dis- park managers). A paradigm shift is a change
course centered on the following questions: in thinking that is driven by agents of change.
• What paradigm changes are required to Some of the changes that were discussed were
ensure that land management agencies are personal, systemic, and institutional in nature.
more inclusive regarding decisions From a personal standpoint, we as resource
impacting the lives of people of color? management and related professionals have to
What do these changes demand from us take the extra steps necessary to “connect”
with the diverse population we will undeni-
personally?
ably encounter.
• If we think we understand how natural
These extra steps should include a proac-
resources and outdoor recreation are
tive stance (personal), continued research on
viewed through the filters of urban youth,
diverse groups (personal and institutional),
how can we best connect with them in
and guidance and support from management
planning for the future?
(institutional and systemic). We need to con-
• What do managers of our public lands
tinually educate ourselves with respect to
need to consider when they want to
understanding and accommodating the needs
engage diverse communities?
and desires of our diverse constituent base.
• What are the different roles of parks, pro-
This means risk-taking. We must reach out to
tected areas, and cultural sites in promot-
all our constituents, not just a select and priv-
ing relevancy of these areas to diverse
251
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

ileged few. future generations.”

A member of the audience brought up the One panelist noted that we need to create
point of challenging the level of “sincerity” on an element of partnership, and that this rela-
the part of the federal land agencies. He ques- tionship needs to be an equal partnership.
tioned whether or not the agencies are sincere Too often we say, “Come join us, come play
in their efforts towards truly embracing diver- our game” and we explain rules as we go along
sity and conducting outreach. He suggested versus creating the “game” together. Examples
that perhaps decision-makers, especially those of programs that have served youth well and
with funding allocations, need to include can serve as models, according to the audience
some form of “grading” or evaluation compo- and panelists, are FamCamp, the California
nent for diversity outreach efforts (e.g., make it Environmental Program, Hawkins Park, and
a fund-based initiative). Additionally, it was ECO-Teams. The key to engaging youth is
suggested that community outreach require- not only about experiential learning, but giv-
ments be imposed on new initiatives. ing them the skills to protect resources, and
Use of the “I Triad” (invite, include, and helping them become informed advocates for
involve) was also recommended by one of the the future.
scholars on the panel. Park managers, for
instance, should invite people of color to use Consideration of
their services, perhaps through brochures. Diverse Communities
People of color should also be included in In general, when engaging diverse commu-
meaningful ways. For example, they could be nities, managers of public lands need to con-
liaisons to community leaders (key inform- sider “staying the course,” understanding
ants), or help in the translation and adminis- diversity within groups, embracing change,
tration of surveys. Involvement of people of and valuing new opinions and multiple per-
color needs to be more prominent and delib- spectives. An example of staying the course
erate. In addition to hiring people of color into was provided by Hawkins Park in South
front-line and management/decision-making Central Los Angeles (Compton). The park
positions, involve them as board members. was named after a pioneering black educator
An example of a successful outreach proj- and congressman, Augustus F. Hawkins. The
ect is the use of a “Forest Information Van.” Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy is the
This program discovered the kind of informa- regional agency that built and operates the
tion that Latinos were interested in; learned 8.5-acre park. Hawkins Park is a miniature
that Latinos do not use traditional communi- Santa Monica Mountains replica. The conser-
cation outlets, such as visitor centers; and sub- vancy has made a commitment to educate the
sequently brought a van directly to the visitor young people from inner-city neighborhoods,
at the outdoor recreation sites where they and then take them to visit the actual park.
were gathered. Additionally, bilingual employ- Understanding diversity within groups is
ees and volunteers handled the operations and another essential ingredient. As managers of
functions of the van. public lands, we must understand that there
are differences within the broad categories
Connecting with Youth used as labels for these various ethnic/racial
Connecting with youth from multicultural group members. This has both research and
backgrounds was brought up as another criti- practical implications. From both a research
cal issue. Today’s youth will be tomorrow’s and practical perspective, language varies in
voters. It is important not only to educate groups within these broad categories. For
these youths, but also to prepare them to be example, Salvadoran Spanish is different from
our supporters and promoters of conserva- Mexican Spanish, which is different from the
tion, balanced with recreational use, as they Caribbean Spanish. This example is similar to
will be the future voters as well as leaders for the differences between English spoken in the
the protection of park resources—yes, “for United States and that spoken in Great
252
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
Britain. Even within the same ethnic group Native people of Alaska represent one seg-
there are differences (e.g., Vietnamese from ment of indigenous populations that continue
the north speak a different dialect than those to lack trust in land agencies, indicating a con-
from the south of the country, and the Chinese tinued need for enhancing community rela-
speak Mandarin or Cantonese, among other tions.
dialects). Differences in language usage are In short, the consensus among the group
critical to know when asking survey ques- at this session was that we must do a better job
tions, or for signage. From a practical per- of incorporating stories other than those of the
spective, use of the actual resource will vary dominant society into our interpretation and
among groups. As such, adaptive management education efforts; not doing so was viewed as
will be needed for reconstructing areas for “unethical.” We often tell the story in the con-
high-quality use depending on local recre- text of what we think is appropriate, but often
ational preferences and participation patterns. find that there are stories that are not told
The “face” of America is changing; this is because of “sensitivity” issues and fear of
no secret. Therefore, we must be much more offending someone or some group of people.
pluralistic in our approach, and our manage- As such, we need to recognize the roles others
ment practices must change to reflect this play within a structure—if we miss that, we
change. Embracing change is important, and may be missing the real story.
there should be action-oriented strategies
from both within an organization (managers) Our Role in Promoting
and outside of the organization (policy leaders Relevancy to Diverse Users
in the community) to hold park agencies A suggestion was made that our role in
accountable for the inclusion of diversity in promoting relevancy of protected areas could
their management plans. be stated from a self-centered perspective. In
As our country becomes more diversified, other words, we need to include these groups
managers and interpretive specialists of public in certain decision-making processes to sur-
land agencies should value and incorporate vive! The following were stated as concerns
opinions and histories of those who are com- that resource managers and educators need to
ing to visit these special places. The audience consider:
at the session during this conference partici- • Strengthen the mentorship program;
pated in much debate on this issue—especial- • Address perceived discrimination;
ly as it relates to ethical issues of presenting a • Address barriers that the public reports
“balanced” approach to the reporting of histo- (time commitments, financial issues, built
ry. The majority of the interpretation of histo- accommodations, information, etc.);
ry in our parks is from a white perspective, • Take an inclusive stance (managers and
and does not represent the contributions of frontline);
other ethnic groups which may have played a • Market to differences;
decisive role in the history of any given park • Make interpretation multi-faceted;
(e.g., Civil War parks and national battle- • Vary the message, and message delivery, by
fields). racial/ethnic group;
One audience member from Alaska also • Become more accountable for diversity;
noted the lack of dialogue between national and
park managers and Alaska natives. She com- • Instill a sense of ownership (which is diffi-
mented on the need for the Park Service to be cult, as there are few people of color
more inclusive and shared the significance employed in our ranks).
and benefits of having a more balanced repre-
sentation of the Alaska native ethnic groups
and their culture at the table. Related to this Best Practices
was the general distrust that still exists The discussion on best practices began by
between Alaskan native peoples and whites. noting that diversity training does not go far
253
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

enough, and the training may be inadequate • Willing to have evaluation work complet-
without accountability and efficient follow- ed;
through. Besides making our employees more • Willing to “stick” with programs, and see
culturally sensitive, we need to make them them through;
more culturally competent. One of the panel • Willing to ask questions and seek help;
members stated that it should start with the • Use the data when developing manage-
“understanding of the others.” We must ment plans; and
understand the values that other cultures • Allow for self-determination of the users.
place on cultural, natural, and human
resources and landscapes, and acknowledge Conclusion
that these values may not necessarily conform The discussions and dialogue were very
to mainstream values. The key is to find a lively and informative. The format was very
bridge between the multiple values. As was conducive to allowing professional, research,
stated, “We cannot be everything to everyone, and academic input. As the title indicates:
but we can strive to be most things to most where to from here? The discussion that
everyone.” occurred in this forum is merely another step
If our constituency base is changing, then in the recipe for success. Resource managers
perhaps land management and interpretive and educators must continue discussing the
plans also need to change to reflect current impact and influence that ethnic minority
and future needs of all citizens. The concept populations will indisputably have on public
of wording was also seen as an issue. How we lands, and progress from discussion to action
word our program descriptions has a cultural and accountability. Multiple examples were
connotation that may be inappropriate, such given of success stories that abound within
as “hoods in the woods.” The prescription: public land agencies. We must all learn from
build cultural competency among our staff these pioneering efforts and continue to strive
and cultivate diverse users into partnerships. to invite, include, and involve current and
The following is a summary of suggestions potential users of what will be a more diverse
for best practices: tomorrow.
• Willing to try adaptive management;

254
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

Teaching Cultural Heritage Preservation: Developing

Curriculum Materials for Minority Colleges and Universities
Antoinette J. Lee, National Center for Cultural Resources, National Park Service, 1849 C
Street NW (2251), Washington, D.C. 20240-0001; toni_lee@nps.gov

The “Teaching Cultural Heritage Preservation” project grew out of the need to attract
young, diverse individuals to the cultural resources field. This cooperative project involved the
National Park Service (NPS) and representatives of minority colleges and universities in the
development of a basic course outline for teaching cultural heritage preservation. The project
resulted in a printed and on-line course outline and provided a model by which established cul-
tural resources organizations may work with minority organizations to achieve a mutually ben-
eficial goal.
For decades, the professionals who work the program expanded in scope to include
in the field as historians, archeologists, archi- increasing the number of historic and cultural
tects, landscape architects, and curators have resources associated with the nation’s diverse
not represented the multicultural nature of the cultural groups that are identified, document-
country. There are various theories about why ed, preserved, and interpreted. It also took on
this field remained non-diverse, while other the goal of increasing the number of diverse
professions, such as law, medicine, account- organizations and communities that are
ing, and computer science, became diversified involved in preserving the nation’s heritage in
through the leadership of the professional cooperation with NPS and its partners.
schools and leading professionals. The major There are several legislative bases for the
disciplines that feed professionals into the cul- CRDP. One of these is found in section
tural resources field—history, architecture, 101(j)(I) of the National Historic Preservation
archeology, landscape architecture, and oth- Act (NHPA):
ers—are also very non-diverse.
The Secretary [of the Interior] shall ...
Cultural Resources develop and implement a comprehen-
Diversity Program sive preservation education and train-
Rather than accepting the status quo, in ing program ... [that shall include]
1998, the National Park Service initiated the technical or financial assistance, or
Cultural Resources Diversity Program both, to historically black colleges and
(CRDP) in order to address the demographics universities, to tribal colleges, and to
of the field. The impetus for the CRDP came colleges with a high enrollment of
from Robert Stanton, then director of the Native Americans or Native Hawaiians,
National Park Service, who was concerned to establish preservation training and
that NPS and its partners were increasingly degree programs.
addressing cultural resources associated with
minority cultures and cooperating with This paragraph was added to the NHPA
diverse communities on resource management through the 1990 amendments and provided
issues. He thought that NPS should take the a legislative justification for the CRDP pro-
lead in diversifying the professional ranks of grams directed at minority colleges and uni-
those who worked on these resources and versities. These programs could include
with these communities. cooperative efforts in training, professional
While the major purpose of the CRDP was development, research, and community out-
to increase the number of individuals repre- reach.
senting all the nation’s cultural and ethnic One of the major programs to develop
groups in professional cultural resources jobs, from the overall CRDP was the Cultural
255
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

Resources Diversity Internship Program. State University and Morgan State University,
Since 1999, between 15 and 20 diverse under- both of which are historically black colleges
graduate and graduate students per year work and universities (HBCUs) also located in
at NPS or with one of its partnership organi- Baltimore. The planning group also included
zations on a 10-week internship. The diversi- NPS’s Harpers Ferry Center, which was
ty internship program is envisioned as provid- responsible for NPS training in cultural
ing career exploration opportunities for resources. Each of the planning group mem-
diverse undergraduate and graduate students. bers recommended individuals from minority
Because of the careful selection of internship colleges and universities and diverse profes-
projects, the program offers challenging work sionals who were interested in the purposes of
experiences that help interns build their the project and experienced with minority
résumés in this field. In cooperation with the students.
Student Conservation Association, which is The Curriculum Forum met for a day-and-
the administrative partner on the diversity a-half in Baltimore in April 2001, and moved
internship program, NPS actively recruits stu- its deliberations from Morgan State to Coppin
dents from minority colleges and universities. State and finally to Goucher College. Its mem-
bers included educators and cultural
Development of Teaching resources professionals representing 11 col-
Cultural Heritage Preservation leges and universities, the National Park
Course Outline Service, the Cincinnati Museum Complex,
As successful as the Diversity Internship and the Smithsonian Institution. The profes-
Program was in providing initial exposure to sional disciplines represented included his-
the field to dozens of undergraduate and grad- toric preservation, history, architecture, ethnic
uate students, its reach does not extend studies, anthropology, and ethnography.
beyond a relatively small number of benefici- Based on extensive meeting notes, drafts of
aries per year. If minority colleges and univer- the course outline were prepared and distrib-
sities offered at least one course in cultural uted to the Curriculum Forum members and
heritage preservation, then potentially hun- others for review and comment. The final
dreds of students could be reached. Course course outline was edited, printed, and dis-
offerings could provide students with expo- tributed to hundreds of minority colleges and
sure to the field and, if preservation profes- universities, as well as state historic preserva-
sionals were invited to participate in the tion offices, federal preservation offices, and
course, additional internship opportunities national organizations. An e-mail message
could be organized nearby the schools. from the U.S. Committee of the International
The National Park Service realized that it Council on Monuments and Sites (US/ICO-
could not simply duplicate and distribute the MOS) generated requests from other coun-
teaching materials offered at any one of a num- tries, such as Korea, Sweden, Australia, and
ber of graduate degree programs in historic Italy. The electronic version of the course out-
preservation because few of them were spon- line was posted on the website of the NPS
sored by minority colleges and universities. Cultural Resources Diversity Program
NPS decided to develop new materials based (www.cr.nps.gov/crdi). The Archaeological
on the active involvement of the constituents Institute of America was impressed with the
who would use the materials. course outline and posted the electronic copy
of on its own website.
Organizing the Curriculum Forum
To develop the course materials, NPS ini- Contents of the Course Outline
tiated discussions with one of its educational The “Teaching Cultural Heritage
partners—Goucher College in Baltimore, Preservation” course outline was organized
Maryland—regarding assembling a planning into three units: (1) Place and Culture, (2)
group. Goucher College contacted Coppin Power and Politics, and (3) Process and
256
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
Profession. For each unit, learning objectives, Reactions to the Teaching Cultural
activities, and resources were developed. The Heritage Preservation Course
course outline also included a general discus- Outline
sion of the challenge of diversifying the cultur- When the Teaching Cultural Heritage
al resources field and the goal of the course Preservation course outline was distributed,
outline of encouraging colleges and universi- most of the responses came from established
ties to create undergraduate courses in the historic preservation organizations. A repre-
preservation of minority cultural heritage. sentative of the Division of Historical
The Place and Culture unit addresses Resources of the state of Florida wrote, “I
what is encompassed within the term “cultur- strongly believe that your book has provided
al heritage.” (It is interesting to note that the the preservation field with another step for-
Curriculum Forum members preferred the ward in recognizing the intangible heritage of
term “cultural heritage preservation” to “his- our many peoples.” The Office of Parks,
toric preservation” or “cultural resource stew- Recreation and Historic Preservation of the
ardship.”) The unit encourages students to state of New York reported, “One of the goals
learn from communities what is important and of our State Historic Preservation Plan is to
worthy of preservation. The unit also encour- ‘educate New Yorkers on the importance of
ages students to analyze the ways in which his- preserving the state’s rich heritage.’— your
toric places and events are interpreted to the publication will definitely be a resource in
public. This unit suggests that communities helping us achieve this goal!” These respons-
also may value other expressions of cultural es, plus many other e-mail messages, under-
heritage, including intangible culture, such as scored the importance of NPS endorsement of
songs and stories. a broader “footprint” for the cultural
The Power and Politics unit directs stu- resources field. The respondents also appreci-
dents to examine the role of power and poli- ated the connection between the wider scope
tics in decisions about the recognition, preser- of the field and educational objectives.
vation, and interpretation of cultural heritage. There were few unsolicited responses
Many of these decisions are made by govern- from professors at minority colleges and uni-
ment agencies and elected officials and reflect- versities. When contacted by NPS, professors
ed in the desires of property owners and com- at these schools were pleased to receive the
munity members. The end result of this unit is course outline and were considering ways in
to encourage communities to involve them- which to integrate parts of it into their course
selves in the shaping of these decisions to offerings. This points out the need for contin-
ensure the preservation of cultural heritage ued dialogue with these professors to ensure
that is important to them. that the materials are relevant to their teaching
The third and final unit, Process and needs.
Profession, provides a compressed discussion
of the official process of identifying, docu- The Next Steps
menting, and preserving the historic places The next step in the implementation of the
and cultural heritage. It suggests ways in Teaching Cultural Heritage Preservation proj-
which the process could be more inclusive of ect is to find ways to assist minority colleges
diverse points of views. Finally, this unit intro- and universities with the development of new
duces students to the range of professions that courses. An opportunity arose to address this
play important roles in the preservation topic during the April 2003 meeting of the
process. Ideally, students will become familiar Organization of American Historians (OAH)
with preservation organizations and agencies in Memphis, Tennessee. The OAH organized
in their communities and learn how various a number of sessions at the conference in
professionals entered the field. order to address the special needs of histori-
cally black colleges and universities. One of
these sessions was titled “Historically Black
257
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

Colleges and Universities and Historic the surrounding communities, and other his-
Preservation.” torical needs of the school. The HBCUs rep-
Several professors reported that they had resented at the OAH session agreed to form
received the Teaching Cultural Heritage an informal consortium and discuss an agenda
Preservation course outline and were review- and plan for future action. The National Park
ing ways in which they could integrate the Service will continue to work with minority
contents into their courses. Others expressed colleges, not just because it is the right thing to
an interest in using the course outline to build do, but because this commitment will con-
campus support for historic campus build- tribute to the ability of NPS and its partners to
ings, the historical archives of the institution, address the cultural heritage needs of the mul-
stronger connections between themselves and ticultural United States of the 21st century.

258
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

Protecting a Diverse Heritage: Engaging Communities in

Preserving and Interpreting That Which They Value
Ernest W. Ortega, National Park Service, P.O. Box 728, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504;
ernest_ortega@nps.gov

In spite of our claim as preservers and interpreters of our nation’s heritage that our parks, pre-
serves, protected areas and cultural properties relay a comprehensive and accurate picture of our
nation’s diverse heritage, the fact remains that we do a very poor job in some respects. In some
cases we have a very poor record in conducting accurate and thorough research of some of the
periods of history in our country, or in some cases, of a history of a people within a specific geo-
graphical area. Although the National Park Service (NPS) is not directly responsible for the
preservation and interpretation of all heritage sites throughout the country, it is this writer’s opin-
ion that we, too, fall short in relating some historical periods accurately. We, too, fall prey to these
general misrepresentations.
During the period of 1996–1998 in New of that lonely land; until the monstrosity
Mexico, Hispanic folks in the area were of the present fanaticism had devel-
engaged in planning and undertaking activi- oped.
ties through which they could commemorate
the arrival of the Spanish in July 1598. These Moreover, his biases and inaccuracies were
commemorative activities, referred to as the not limited to the penitentes, as is reflected in
Cuarto Centenario, all but fizzled. Those com- his opening chapter:
memorative activities that were held could
best be compared with a laser-light exposition Then the ten thousand Navajo Indians—
under a bushel basket. This writer attributes whose other ten thousand are in
“fizzled commemoration” to the “Oñate Arizona—sullen, nomad, horse-loving,
Syndrome”—a general lambasting of all the horse-stealing, horse-living vagrants of
Spanish settlers who established the first the saddle; pagans first, last, and all the
Spanish capital in what is now the United time.... Last of all, the Mexicans; in-bred
States. The lambasting came about because of and isolation-shrunken descendants of
the alleged atrocities that Don Juan de Oñate, the Castilian world-finders; living almost
the adelantado y gobernador, had committed as much against the house as in it; igno-
against the Acoma Indians. rant as slaves, and more courteous
However, this is not the only period in than kings; poor as Lazarus and more
these people’s history about which inaccura- hospitable than Croesus [ancient king
cies and slanted interpretations have been pre- of Lydia]; Catholics from A to Izzard,
sented by anthropologists, historians, or sim- except when they take occasion to be
ply by folks who dabble in history and litera- penitentes....
ture. This is best reflected by Charles F.
Lummis in his book, Land of Poco Tiempo, in The slanted and biased perspectives of some
which he wrote in 1928: authors are evident as recently as 1987, when
Lorayne Ann Horka Follick, in her book, Los
The first public penance in New Mexico Hermanos Penitentes, states:
(as it then was) was by Juan de Oñate
and his men, in 1594 [sic]. By slow These Spanish colonials became isolat-
degrees the once godly order [referring ed in the mountains during the six-
to Los Hermanos Penitentes of Spain] teenth and seventeenth centuries. Their
shrank and grew deformed among the only recollections of civilization were
brave but isolated and ingrown people those brought with the conquistadores

259
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

from Spain. Until modern man contact- by ourselves or by others?”

ed them again in the nineteenth centu- Unfortunately, most of the history books
ry and especially in the twentieth centu- that have been utilized in our schools, and in
ry, they lived a life of a sixteenth centu- units of the National Park System for that mat-
ry Spanish peasant.... That the ter, are replete with inaccuracies—inaccura-
Penitentes present a bizarre note in the cies that keep being repeated over and over as
American landscape cannot be new textbooks are printed. These same books
denied.... As this work is read, let the of history and these same textbooks become
reader bear in mind that he is dealing the sources for the interpretive material used
with a sixteenth century people.... by our interpreters in the units of the National
Park System to the point that erroneous infor-
And she proceeds to state: “Therefore, judge mation becomes fact.
these men and women within their own con- During the past three decades, NPS
text, not yours, as they are not a part of it.” employees in the Santa Fe office, including
Amongst native New Mexicans, specifical- historians and archeologists, have been
ly Hispanics and American Indians, there has wrestling with the dilemma of how to pursue
always existed a concern as to how the history the preservation of northern New Mexico’s
of peoples from northern New Mexico had rich history without compromising those very
been presented and how this history had been values that make this one of the richest places
perceived by those unacquainted with this to our nation’s heritage. In other words, how
rich heritage. More importantly, there was a can an area’s living heritage be interpreted and
deeper concern about how the history of this preserved through means that leave the ways
area was being understood by the peoples of life intact, or even enhance and encourage
themselves, especially by younger folks. Some the perpetuation of the same? In 1988,
native New Mexico historians are trying to Congress requested that NPS undertake a fea-
rectify the erosion and distortion of the sibility study of how the state of New Mexico,
region’s history—their heritage, and the legacy and communities therein, could commemo-
left by their ancestors. One such author is rate and interpret Spanish colonization sites
Andy Lovato, an administrator at the College throughout the state. The study concluded
of Santa Fe. During an interview published that this period of our nation’s history
March 31, 2003, for the Journal North of the deserved appropriate treatment and recogni-
Albuquerque Journal, Lovato stated: tion. Seven alternatives, without an identified
preferred one, were forwarded with the study.
Most of what’s been written about us The alternatives ranged from having commu-
has been by and for outsiders. But as a nities working with communities in the com-
local Hispanic, I’ve always felt conflicted memoration of these sites, to having a state
about other people appropriating our agency work with communities towards the
way of life for tourist use. Sure, it’s same end, and even having communities pur-
helped us economically. But we always sue the establishment of a national monument
need to distinguish between what’s or a national historic site in some of the more
authentic and what’s manufactured. I’m important sites of Spanish colonization.
very intrigued by the question of what Although some interest was raised as a result
happens when stereotypes become of the public meetings, discussions and con-
reality. sultation with many folks in the state, little
action was taken with regard to any of the
Lovato’s concern has resulted in a book, seven alternatives. The more traditional
Santa Fe Hispanic Culture: Preserving approach of creating a national monument or
Identity in a Tourist Town, which will be pub- national historic site would not lead to the
lished by the University of New Mexico Press desired end, for the mere establishment of a
later this year. During the interview, Lovato national monument or historic site would
further stated, “To what extent are we defined
260
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
result in acquisition of property and the Indian historians and people of these cultural
“expulsion” of the very people whose lifeways groups who are engaged in various walks of
were the focus of preservation and interpreta- life. The response to the national heritage area
tion in these traditional communities. concept as a means of preserving and inter-
The interest in, and concern for, the preting the region’s heritage was extremely
preservation and interpretation of this rich positive. The principal reason for this
heritage continued among some of us in the response was due to the principle espoused by
NPS office in Santa Fe. In 1998, folks in NPS heritage areas: local control and local determi-
nominated the Hispanic culture—the tangible nation. This principle—coupled with that of
and the intangible, including the language communities working with communities,
spoken in northern New Mexico—to the New communities working with the various gov-
Mexico Heritage Preservation Alliance’s list of ernmental entities, governmental entities
endangered cultural resources. The nomina- working with other governmental entities, as
tion was accepted and the fragility of the area’s well as non-governmental preservation groups
Hispanic heritage was highlighted during the working with all of the above—led to the pur-
course of the year. But the struggle for a more suit of a national heritage area by these diverse
sustained effort to preserve and interpret this groups. Thus, the folks in the NPS Santa Fe
geographic region’s heritage continued. office began a systematic public information
In early 1999, NPS historians and man- process regarding the national heritage area
agement in Santa Fe started investigating the idea. Contact was then made with officials
national heritage area program as a possible from other federal agencies, as well as with
vehicle for such an undertaking. After prelim- members and/or staff of the state’s congres-
inary research into the national heritage area sional delegation to discuss the national her-
concept, and through some deliberation, the itage area idea.
decision was made to pursue the idea and to During the next eleven months, four NPS
share it with key folks in northern New employees took to the roads of northern New
Mexico. However, the scope of the undertak- Mexico—with support and assistance from
ing was modified to include the broader her- key people from communities in the area
itage of the area—that of the American Indian, under consideration—to visit informally with
whose presence is still vibrant in eight pueblos individuals in the communities within nine
within the area of consideration. This area of “districts” identified in the informal public
consideration included the cities of Santa Fe, information strategy. The reception to the idea
Española, and Taos, tens of traditional of a national heritage area in the region was
Hispanic communities, and the eight pueblos. positive, although there was some trepidation,
The heritage of this area is multi-dimensional given the long-standing distrust of the federal
and intertwined with co-mingled traditions, government by these traditional communities.
customs, and values of American Indians and The strongest concern that was voiced came
Hispanics due to four centuries of co-exis- with regard to tourism and what that would
tence—peaceful and otherwise. mean to the privacy and ways of life of these
During the period of July through peoples. However, there was a realization that
September 1999, contact was made with the tourism had existed in the region for almost a
mayors of Española and Taos as well as sever- century and that the tourism infrastructure
al key New Mexico state government officials within the state—in the form of the
in the departments of Economic Department of Tourism, tourism organiza-
Development, Tourism, Energy, Minerals, and tions, as well as chambers of commerce and
Natural Resources; with the state historian; convention and visitors bureaus—was seeking
and with the Office of Cultural Affairs where and employing means through which this
the museums, monuments, and historic industry could be expanded. There also came
preservation divisions reside. Discussions a realization that the principle of local control
were also held with Hispanic and American and management of a heritage area could lead
261
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

to forms of tourism that take the people’s membership to a 25-member board as pre-
interests into account. scribed in its by-laws. The board has begun
After having completed an informal cir- another round of contacts with governmental
cuit-riding to introduce the concept of her- officials, county commissions, municipal
itage areas, the mayor of the city of Española councils, and non-governmental organizations
hosted a forum on the national heritage area to seek their renewed support for designating
idea in September 2000. Representatives from legislation. Once again, the two U.S. senators
the nine “districts,” including representatives and the representative of the 3rd congression-
from some of the pueblos, came to a consen- al district have introduced legislation—S. 211
sus that there was sufficient interest in the idea and H.R. 505, respectively—for the designa-
of a national heritage area to proceed. Each tion of the Northern Rio Grande National
“district” then selected a representative to Heritage Area.
serve on a steering committee to work with To summarize, these descendants of the
NPS to pursue the concept in earnest. The pueblo Indians and the Spanish settlers in the
steering committee began its work on a dual vicinity of north-central New Mexico are seri-
track: becoming more deeply informed and ous about pursuing the congressional desig-
educated on heritage areas, and pursuing sup- nation of a national heritage area. They are
port for the idea from local and county coun- committed to the concept because:
cils and commissions. At the same time, the
• They can preserve that which they value;
steering committee began outreach efforts to
• They are the most qualified to relate their
their neighbors: the eight American Indian
respective histories;
pueblos and their collaborative entity, the
• Management of their national heritage area
Eight Northern Indian Pueblo Council.
is in their hands;
Letters of support were solicited from individ-
• They can engage local, state, and federal
uals, non-profit organizations, and state gov-
agencies in a collaborative implementation
ernment officials, as well as state senators and
of a management plan for the national her-
representatives. Resolutions of support were
itage area;
sought and acquired from county commis-
• They can employ the principles of tourism
sions and municipal councils. All of these doc-
management; and
uments were secured by early 2002, before the
• They can realize a level of respect and
state’s U.S. senators and the U.S. representa-
national recognition of their rich her-
tive from the 3rd congressional district intro-
itage—a recognition and respect long-
duced legislation in their respective chambers.
awaited and deserved.
During the waning days of the 107th
Congress, the legislation to designate the This undertaking—a people in control of
Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, the preservation and interpretation of their
encompassing the counties of Santa Fe, Taos heritage—serves as an excellent case study for
and Rio Arriba, passed the Senate but met an the theme of this conference: protecting a
untimely death when the House of diverse heritage. Moreover, this undertaking
Representatives chose not to take any action serves as an excellent case study because
on legislative matters, other than homeland diverse peoples are pursuing the protection,
security, on the last day that they convened in preservation, and interpretation of their
mid-November. diverse heritage! Of the existing twenty-three
In the meantime, the steering committee national heritage areas, very few, if any, focus
formalized itself into the board of the on the heritage of diverse peoples, thus mak-
Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, ing this an even greater undertaking.
Inc., and is presently seeking to enlarge its

✥
262
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

Promise and Challenge: Interpreting Race

and Slavery at Civil War Sites (Session Summary)
Dwight Pitcaithley, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW (2280), Washington, D.C.,
20240; dwight_pitcaithley@nps.gov
John Hennessy, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National
Military Park, 120 Chatham Lane, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22405; john_hennessy@nps.gov
Michèle Gates Moresi, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW (2251), Washington, D.C.,
20240; michele_gates_moresi@contractor.nps.gov
John Tucker, Fort Sumter National Monument, 1214 Middle Street, Sullivans Island, South
Carolina 29482; john_tucker@nps.gov

The development of newly expanded interpretive programs presents unique promises and
challenges for Civil War battlefield sites. The larger context of the war—the debate about slav-
ery—is slowly becoming a regular part of interpretive programs. Given the strong emotions about
and sensitivity to the topic, presenting competing views and memories of the Civil War chal-
lenges the well-established practice of remembering it through the narrow lens of military
endeavors. Nonetheless, the promise of stimulating dialogue, prompting questions, and fostering
new understanding about the Civil War and its meanings for different people is the end goal of
developing renewed interpretations at Civil War historic sites.
only in the South, but also in many other parts
Pitcaithley’s Remarks of the country. With few exceptions, the aca-
With the ending of the Civil War, there was demic community largely accepted it as well.
a fervent and triumphant effort by the South to Change in the dominant interpretation
tell its version of the war: its causes, its events, would not come until the 1950s with the work
and its legacy. Indeed, white America was pre- of scholars such as Kenneth Stamp and C.
occupied with reconciling the differences Vann Woodward. Since then, there has been
between North and South. an explosion of scholarship placing slavery at
The “Lost Cause” interpretation was for- the center of the controversies that caused the
warded by figures such as Jubal Early, Civil War.
Jefferson Davis, and Alex Stephens. The These new interpretations were not
United Daughters of the Confederacy and acknowledged widely throughout the country
other women’s groups worked to institutional- nor were they integrated into historic site
ize this view of the war and the “Lost Cause” interpretations. The 1998 gathering in which
ideology quickly took hold on the popular park superintendents developed a consensus
level. Essentially, the “Lost Cause” contends to expand the interpretation of Civil War sites
that the Confederacy is the rightful inheritor to include the causes of the war marked an
of the legacy of the American Revolution; that important beginning to the transformation
secession was constitutionally authorized; that currently underway. In 2000, a directive from
the Confederacy was defeated by superior the U.S. Congress stated that Civil War battle-
military might, not by a morally superior soci- field sites must include in its public educa-
ety; and that the war was about states’ rights tional presentations the broader context of the
and not slavery. war’s causes, particularly the unique role
The “Lost Cause” became a kind of cot- played by the institution of slavery.
tage industry in the South and it expanded at The National Park Service is not doing at
the same time that reconciliation among white Civil War sites anything different than what it
northerners and southerners was a powerful does at other sites: we ask and attempt to
force. With no strong opposing interpretation, answer, What happened? Why? and, So
the “Lost Cause” interpretation took hold not what? Change is controversial. However, once
263
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

the new exhibits go up, the new handbooks participants of battle.

are distributed, and other programs are imple- There may be many reasons why the Park
mented, I think we will find there is little or no Service has largely remained faithful to this
controversy about the expanded interpreta- monolithic interpretation, but there is one
tions. very large one: slavery. No issue more fright-
ens public historians than slavery. The great
Hennessy’s Remarks fear is that by acknowledging slavery as a
Beginning with the landmark 1998 meet- cause of the war, we will all presume that it
ing in Nashville, superintendents of Civil War- was, therefore, the cause for which men
related parks initiated the re-evaluation and fought.
revision of interpretive programs to tell more We know, however, that different people,
than the stories of specific battles. depending on one’s race, gender, geography,
Interestingly, only one of the issues addressed socioeconomic status, and cultural back-
at the meeting was interpretation. We also ground, experienced the war differently.
dealt with roads, landscape issues, recreation- Focusing on the military experience alone
al uses, adjacent land use, and the like. ignores the fact that other franchises are chal-
However, over time, interpretation has lenging the traditional bastions of Civil War
emerged as the dominant issue. memory. It ignores the reams of research over
This is not because interpretation alone is the last half-decade that clearly reveal the com-
the most important issue, but because it is so plex web of people, places, trends, and places
difficult and complex, for many reasons. It is that comprised the Civil War.
historically complex—social, political, eco- We who manage Civil War parks work in
nomic, and military come together. This is, of the vortex of a great debate—a great battle rag-
course, for the interpreter both virtue and ing over how this nation will remember and
opportunity. It is politically charged—which is interpret its Civil War. There are forces on all
to say it’s highly relevant (another virtue). It is sides who seek to co-opt history and use it to
culturally difficult; we are firmly rooted in the further an agenda. If we don’t act intelligently,
idea of viewing the Civil War almost exclusive- someone will act for us—and not necessarily
ly through military eyes. And it is logistically with intelligence and historical validity.
difficult—it is more than just getting certain The challenge that faces the National Park
people to say different things. Service today is a huge one: to convey the sig-
Changing or expanding America’s inter- nificance and relevance of the Civil War in all
pretation of its single most important national its aspects while at the same time sustaining
experience requires much more than the sim- the agency’s invaluable tradition of resource-
ple decision to do so. Understanding why this based interpretation (a concept that is at the
is so requires us to retreat backward—to very foundation of the National Park Service’s
understand the origins of the lens through mission).
which we view the Civil War. Superintendents are working from the bot-
Most of the legislation for America’s bat- tom up to make these changes. We are working
tlefield parks is a legacy of the commemorative on an initiative that will expand America’s
and reconciliatory efforts of veterans—con- interpretation of the Civil War, and we hope to
ceived in a period where a visitor’s under- do it by the Sesquicentennial.
standing of context was assumed, when the For the public to view the Civil War as
ownership of the war’s memory, legacy, and more than a succession of battles and cam-
meaning was unchallenged. Though the veter- paigns, the nation (and therefore the National
ans are now gone, the National Park Service Park Service) must expand its definition of a
faithfully carries on the veterans’ traditions. Civil War site to go beyond battlefields. While
We as a nation still use our battlefields to each battlefield must clearly demonstrate how
define the nation’s Civil War experience in it fits into the continuum of the war, and while
largely military terms—through the eyes of the each battlefield will be able to illuminate sev-
264
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
eral larger themes, most battle sites are ill suit- Thomas Jefferson in Charlottesville, Virginia
ed to tell anything approaching the entire (not a National Park service unit). Under this
story of the American Civil War. Indeed, for new cooperative agreement we are planning to
them to do so would be a disavowal of the conduct surveys at Arlington House/Robert
National Park Service’s invaluable tradition of E. Lee Memorial in Arlington, Virginia, the
resource-based interpretation. Frederick Douglass Home in Washington,
Instead of asking battle sites to do every- D.C., and at Manassas National Battlefield
thing, the National Park Service must look to Park, in Manassas, Virginia.
other sites within the system (or perhaps iden- We are currently in the planning stages for
tify new sites) that can illuminate some of the these surveys to take place over the next three
larger themes of the war. These sites are read- years. The previous surveys will serve as mod-
ily identifiable; in fact, most are anxious to els for the next surveys. Here, I describe my
assume their rightful place as part of the Civil impressions, rather than quantitative results,
War mosaic. about the Gettysburg and Monticello surveys
Americans have for 140 years viewed the in which I participated as an interviewer.
nation’s Civil War largely through the eyes of A team of graduate students conducted
men who waged battle. The military lens on both visitor surveys and one or two interviews
the Civil War is indispensable and inviolable, with staff interpreters. We asked visitors about
but it is not the only lens through which to the content of both self-guided and guided
view the struggle. The National Park Service tours and at both sites, focused on the inter-
will give voice to observers and participants pretation of slavery. All interviews were tape-
with differing, relevant perspectives on key recorded and transcribed.
events and places. Such an approach will For both types of interviews we developed
enhance rather than diminish the perceived questions in consultation with a sociologist in
significance and relevance of both military and order to elicit four basic things: information
non-military events. on what the visitor saw/heard/read at the site;
For the National Park Service to expand its what they thought about what they saw/
interpretation beyond traditional bounds, it heard/read at the site; and how that compared
needs to be guided by strong thematic state- with what they already knew or understood
ments that are both grounded in solid scholar- about the topic of slavery in general, or the site
ship and reflective of differing perspectives of in particular. Fourth, the survey was intended
the war and its meaning. The themes are to allow people to express their opinion about
intended to act as a point of departure for how the topic was or was not presented at the
developing media and live programs and site.
engaging visitors in figurative or literal discus- We were operating very consciously with
sions about the nation’s most destructive and the understanding that discussions about race
transforming epoch. and slavery in all kinds of venues are a con-
tested topic with plenty of opinions and
Gates Moresi’s Remarks opposing ideas. One of the goals of the sur-
The research project, “Presenting Race veys, then, was to collect information about
and Slavery at Historic Sites,” will be under- how visitors receive this information and what
taken through a cooperative agreement they expect from interpretive programs. Also,
between the National Park Service and the a more general goal of the project is to estab-
Center for the Study of Public Culture and lish dialogue among site historians, site inter-
Public History of the George Washington preters, and academic resources, because they
University. We are extending the work of pre- can learn from each other.
vious visitor surveys, supervised by Professor At Gettysburg, we noticed some important
James Horton, that were conducted at the his- aspects of the site that strongly influenced vis-
toric sites of Gettysburg, a Civil War battle- itor responses to questions about slavery.
field park, and Monticello, the home of Because of the high death toll at this site (more
265
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

than 51,000 soldiers were killed, wounded, or I think that the most important thing that
captured over the three-day battle), because can happen out of these kinds of collaborative
the site includes a large cemetery in which sol- projects between the Park Service and aca-
diers of this battle and other war veterans are demic institutions is the exchange of ideas and
buried, and because there are so many monu- the exchange of experience. Both sides gain
ments to individual infantries who participat- from this mutually beneficial project. The site
ed in the battle, these realities all work to make historians and interpreters learn from the sur-
Gettysburg a memorial site dedicated to the veys and can establish a relationship with an
sacrifice of thousands of young lives. academic institution.
Discussing slavery in this context is more sen- By conducting the surveys, graduate stu-
sitive than at other kinds of historic sites, so dents have a unique opportunity to speak with
we were very careful about where we stood interpreters on the “front line” of history. In
and approached visitors. We also noticed, in addition, the students themselves are put in a
contrast to the Jefferson site (which had its situation that does not happen in the protect-
own particular issues making it a sensitive ed world of the classroom nor in the some-
topic there) a very somber mood at times quite-removed experience of graduate
Gettysburg. studies research. By conducting these surveys,
The visitors themselves expressed the idea they have to confront the public. Students are
that the site was “hallowed ground” and some then faced with beginning to understand the
expressed that slavery was not relevant to the unique promises and challenges of interpreta-
Civil War (at that moment) or to the site—in tion in the National Park Service.
contrast again to the Jefferson site. I believe
the new museum and visitors’ center plan for Tucker’s Remarks
Gettysburg is a useful way to contextualize the Fort Sumter National Monument was
battle and its larger meaning without detract- authorized by an act of Congress in 1948,
ing from the park setting and its memorial which simply stated that the site “shall be a
aspect. public national memorial commemorating
While every historic site has its particular historical events at or near Fort Sumter.”
issues that make it unique, we did discover Without further direction from Congress, the
some general findings about the presentation National Park Service relied upon its staff to
of slavery. First, visitors are more receptive and clarify the interpretive purposes for Fort
even interested in the topic than one might Sumter National Monument. Interpretation
think. Also, staff interpreters love their job and consisted of guides leading small groups to
are excited to be able to work with new mate- interesting spots within the fort.
rial, to use new material in ways that really When the Park Service published the first
engage visitors, and to learn more about their master plan for Fort Sumter in the 1950s, the
topic. Finally, discussing slavery and race rela- fort’s interpretive program was based on the
tions can be particularly difficult in the public 1860 election of President Abraham Lincoln,
setting: talking about it in the past is hard the secession of South Carolina, and the sub-
because dealing with it in the present is hard, sequent movement of Major Robert Anderson
too. from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. The major
We learned that while new interpretive focus was on the initial Confederate attack of
methods were employed, getting information 1861 and the Federal bombardments of 1863
to visitors about slavery, and to relay how it and 1864, known as the Siege of Charleston.
was significant to a particular site, really During the following decade, once the
depended upon the tour guide and the face archeology was completed, permanent exhibit
time that he or she had with visitors. facilities were needed to enhance the visitor
Handbooks and labels are very good and use- experience at Fort Sumter. A new museum
ful, but it is up to the guide to point visitors in was constructed with Mission 66 funding in
those directions. the disappearing gun position of Battery
266
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future
Huger—an Endicott Battery completed in Charleston. Fixed media in the landscaped
1899. But the focus of interpretation did not area highlight contributions to America’s lib-
appreciably expand with the museum erties from the Constitution era to modern
exhibits. The events of 1861 and the bom- times.
bardments of 1863–64 remained the central As it turned out, the name of the site was
interpretive themes. fortuitous since the word “Liberty” became a
By the 1990s, National Park Service inter- unifying interpretive theme that finally
pretive rangers were beginning to make a re- brought into focus the interpretive themes of
evaluation of the role of holistic interpretation Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, Fort
in programming within the national parks. Moultrie, and Fort Sumter National
Those responsible for interpretation began Monument under a single umbrella. The word
this re-evaluation long before Congress or the “Liberty” provided a platform that allowed
Washington Office identified it as a need. the staff to explore the advancements of this
Interpretive efforts such as those begun at Fort ideal from our birth as a nation through the
Sumter in the early 1990s were reflected in Civil Rights Movement in the 20th century.
many Civil War sites around the country. The exhibit plan for the new visitor education
Washington supported these individual park center and dock facility at Liberty Square
efforts. National Park Service regional offices would provide orientation and enticement to
helped formalize the efforts with the multi- visit the historic fort, exhibit and interpret the
regional conference of battlefield superintend- Garrison flag, and interpret the causes of the
ents held in Nashville during the summer of Civil War, with a special emphasis on the role
1998. of slavery in America and the role of
In this new environment, the interpreta- Charleston in particular.
tion at Fort Sumter began to change. Park staff During the intervening months between
redid the 1960s-era museum at historic Fort the time the facility opened and the perma-
Sumter in the early 1990s. Completed in nent exhibits were installed, full-scale vinyl
1995, the new museum retained many of the color prints of each permanent exhibit were
treasured artifacts that were a part of the old hung on temporary plywood frames. This
museum, now exhibited in fresh surroundings gave visitors a chance to see and comment on
with a more sweeping story line. the exhibit program prior to its production.
A high priority was bringing the text in Several comments were received, ranging
line with current scholarship. New exhibit text from glowing to condemning. Most were pos-
and graphics includes an introductory section itive, appreciative, and constructive.
that deals with the growth of sectionalism, Change is difficult. Even for the dedicated
antebellum politics, and slavery as the causes staff assembled at Fort Sumter, changing Civil
of secession and war. Most of the exhibit War interpretation was difficult. Each of us
remains site-specific, dealing with topics such brings to the table a particular set of experi-
as the fort’s construction, people and events ences, education, and cultural background
leading to the firing of the first shot of the Civil depending on to whom we were born, where
War, and what happened to the fort during the we have lived, and how we have been educat-
ensuing war. A section was added on the par- ed. Much has been done over the past ten
ticipation of African-Americans in the war, years to implement an expanded interpretive
highlighting the role of the 54th program. It has involved increasing staff
Massachusetts on nearby Morris Island. understanding and perception and broaden-
An even more ambitious exhibit project ing our community partnerships. The staff has
began in the fall of 1999 with exhibit planning participated in conferences, training pro-
for the new Fort Sumter tour boat facility at grams, dedications, special resource studies,
Liberty Square. Museum exhibits at Liberty sensitivity sessions, and diverse cultural
Square are within the new visitor education events to help with the transition. Today the
and transportation center in downtown staff sits on the “point of the sword” for the
267
 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Acknowledging the Past, Planning for the Future

National Park Service doing their job. They tion was published in The George Wright
are prepared to tell the story faithfully, com- Forum (vol. 19, no. 3, 2002) under the title
pletely, and accurately. “Interpreting slavery and civil rights at Fort
Sumter National Monument.”]
[Ed. note: A full version of Tucker’s presenta-

268
 Wilderness and Wildness

Perpetuating Natural Wildness

William E. Brown, P.O. Box 225, Gustavus, Alaska; brownelder@charter.net

Adolf Murie had a knack for saying profound things simply. In his book The Mammals of
Mount McKinley, he wrote: “All the plants and animals enjoy a natural and normal life without
human restrictions. Freedom prevails....” Foxes dig burrows where they will; they hunt ptarmi-
gan, ground squirrels, and mice as the spirit moves. Bears wander their ancestral ranges unmo-
lested. The “bad” wolf seeks an honest living, morally on a par with anyone else. Likewise, no
species of plant is favored above the rest.
He said that the task of nature’s guardians, He goes on to say that public policy caters
we here in this room, “is to perpetuate this to such recreational uses through artificial
freedom and purity of nature, this ebb and modes of tourism, management, and control.
flow of life—first, by insuring ample park These, in turn, spiral out of control—as more
boundaries ... to maintain the natural relation- human intrusion and more controls in what
ships, and secondly, to hold man’s intrusions has become Institutionalized Wilderness—
to a minimum.” Wilderness for Fun. The “fun hog” approach
So, what is our basic objective? It is to to wilderness is, in many ways, as destructive
preserve natural wildness in the wilderness. of the natural wild as the extractive industry
That objective is under assault from a that spawned the wilderness movement in the
giant pincer attack. The great debate, in this first place. No wonder the debate between
modern era of more people and shrinking work and play has become so rancorous. Play
space and resources, is whether we encroach in the last several decades became another
and eventually consume the remnant places consumptive industry. Well then, why not log-
where wild things run free—by work (say, ging, mining, grazing?
extractive industry) or by play (motorized Where does this sad progression lead us?
recreation). In my view we must retrace some steps,
Thinking about this session, I just reread revisit the spiritual and scientific concerns of
Jack Turner’s 1996 book, The Abstract Wild. the original conservationists. Building on that
He notes that people must spend extended earlier foundation, we need to add the evolved
time in expansive space to truly experience ecological understandings of modern conser-
wildness in the wilderness. Aldo Leopold said vation biologists. And somehow we must con-
it takes a minimum of two weeks, in a space vince the gravitational mass of humanity,
that takes that much time to traverse. Such which will never experience Leopold’s
spaces are rare indeed. Alaska has them, time/space-in-the-wild prescription, that
Canada, Patagonia. The law of wild human health and survival is daily and direct-
space/time is simple: the farther from a road, ly measured by the health and survival of sup-
the longer you are out, the wilder your experi- porting natural systems, including moose,
ence, the closer you jibe with nature’s mice, and microbes.
rhythms. Few people have such experiences. Only with broad acceptance of that fact
Small, crowded wilderness areas usually can we use the higher social utility of the
lack big predators. Without big predators, the world’s great parks, refuges, and reserves as a
wilderness is tamed. The bear track on the reason for saving and protecting them. Until
trail, or in the mud by the creek, isn’t there. uncaring ignorance is replaced by informed,
Domestication follows, says Turner, when inspirited caring for these reservoirs of diverse
intensive recreation requires trails, bridges, life, we will be unable to perpetuate them as
directional signs—all of which diminish sur- spiritual sanctuaries, as scientific baselines, as
prise, discovery, the unknown, and the dan- new and restored ecological preserves.
gerous—the very qualities that make a place Of course we’re losing the battle at this
wild. point! Deprived and suffering people at home
269
 Wilderness and Wildness

and abroad get little vision from those who for a livable future on Earth, for all its passen-
can afford to visit parks, refuges, and wild gers. They are our last touchstones with the
rivers with all their equipage in tow, but with natural world that are reasonably healthy and
little love. We must deliver that vision, by edu- whole and unaltered by human interventions.
cation and a stern management regime that Their continued degradation for trivial pur-
makes our point: that these priceless places suits is simply unacceptable.
are the archives of evolution and the seedbeds

270
 Wilderness and Wildness

Wasteland, Wilderness, or Workplace:

Perceiving and Preserving the Apostle Islands
James Feldman, Department of History, University of Wisconsin, 3211 Humanities Building,
455 North Park Street,, Madison, Wisconsin 53706; jwfeldman@wisc.edu
Robert W. Mackreth, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Route 1, Box 4, Bayfield, Wisconsin
54814; Bob_Mackreth@nps.gov

What must have been once a far more striking and characteristic landscape of dark conif-
erous original forest growth has been obliterated by the axe followed by fire.... The eco-
logical conditions have been so violently disturbed that probably never could they be more
than remotely reproduced.1

This was the judgment of the National Park Service (NPS) representative who was sent in
1930 to assess the suitability of the Apostle Islands for national park designation. Lest there be
any doubt, Harlan Kelsey continued,

The hand of man has mercilessly destroyed [the islands’] virgin beauty, and, therefore, a
largely controlling element as outstanding national park material ... the project does not
meet National Park Service standards.2

Seventy-three years later, it seems that Kelsey was badly mistaken. By the 1960s, the island
forests had grown back. In 1970, in the midst of a national environmental awakening, Congress
created Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Currently, NPS is conducting a wilderness suit-
ability study to determine how much of the park should be included in the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
The history of wilderness at the Apostle in a challenging environment.
Islands turns the prevailing narrative of An archipelago of 22 islands in Lake
American environmental history on its head. Superior, the Apostle Islands lie off the north-
Environmental historians usually explain ern tip of Wisconsin. Although the Apostles
America’s past as a tale of how misguided per- provided a stage for French fur trade and mis-
sonal ambition and unchecked industrial cap- sionary activity since the 1700s, and a home
italism have resulted in a degraded modern for Ojibwe and other native groups for far
environment. This history has helped to longer, the extractive industries that so marked
make wilderness a precious commodity in the the islands intensified with the opening of
early 21st century. At the Apostle Islands, Lake Superior to large-scale commerce in the
though, the traditional story is turned upside 1850s. Island residents fished, farmed, quar-
down. The past is denuded, scarred by log- ried the region’s red sandstone, and partici-
ging and other human activity, the present pated in a buoyant tourist economy through-
seemingly a wilderness. out the late 19th century. Without question,
One result of this backward narrative is though, logging had the greatest impact on
that modern perceptions of wilderness seem island landscapes: nearly all of the islands
to threaten the visible evidence of the islands’ were logged at one time or another.
human past. Today’s Apostle Islands, seem- How are we to understand this human his-
ingly so wild, are the product of intricately tory, these human stories, in a place that today
connected processes of human and natural seems wild? The history of logging and farm-
history. This history includes the experiences ing in the islands is every bit as important as
of men and women living, and making a living, ecological succession in the creation of the

271
 Wilderness and Wildness

modern landscape. Land use patterns dictat- were converted into summer homes. The
ed by extractive industries and settlement fields gradually shrank as woody plants grew
shape the way that the landscape appears in from the margins, and the apple trees dis-
today. The wilderness itself has a history, one appeared as the forest grew up around them.
created by intertwined human and ecological But to view this transition, this returning of
processes. the wilderness to Sand Island, as only a result
Natural and cultural history have com- of ecological succession, as purely a natural
bined to shape landscape patterns on a large and not a human phenomena, misses an
scale at Outer Island. The Schroeder Lumber essential part of the process.
Company established a logging camp on the Consider what is happening to the fields at
island in 1923. Logging operations there Burt Hill’s farm on the island’s southeastern
were extensive: the camp housed over two corner. In the 1920s and 1930s, Hill cleared
hundred lumberjacks who built a narrow- several acres of forest to expand his dairying
gauge railroad to transport equipment and operations. When maintenance of these fields
logs. Between 1924 and 1930, Schroeder stopped, woody vegetation moved in from the
removed an estimated 40 million board feet of old boundaries, disregarding the barbed wire
lumber from the island. Logging operations fence that Hill installed to mark the edge of the
on Outer ceased by 1931; over the next cleared land. In some areas of the clearing,
decade, fires swept across the southern, willow, hawthorn, mountain ash, and service-
logged-over portions of the island, fueled by berry have moved into the meadow in straight,
the slash piles left behind by loggers. These regular lines, following the drainage ditches
fires did not burn on the northern, unlogged that Hill dug when he expanded his fields.4
portion of the island. Today, evidence of The impact of human choices made 60 or
Outer Island’s human history is clear only to 100 years ago can be found all over Sand
those who know what to look for: the old rail- Island. The Norings were the last family to
road grade now serves as a trail carrying live on the island year-round; now, all that
unsuspecting visitors through a seemingly remains of their homestead are rows of
pristine forest, but a close examination of the moldering logs. But the spruce trees they
vegetation pattern reveals a clear break transplanted to the northeastern side of their
between the 60-year-old second-growth forest house to form a windbreak still mark the site
on the southern half of the island and mature of their home, as do lilac bushes that Bergitt
northern hardwood forest in the north.3 Noring planted by the side of the house.
This kind of connection between natural Nature alone cannot explain the way that Sand
and cultural history can be found on a much Island looks today; history—the choices of
more intricate scale at Sand Island, the only individual men and women—helped create
island within the park that provided a home this landscape, too.5
for a year-round community. At its height Environmental historians do not have an
around 1910, the Sand Island settlement had accurate term to explain what has happened at
about 75 residents, primarily Norwegian Sand Island over the past century. Terms like
immigrant families who participated in a “exploitation,” “degradation,” and “destruc-
mixed economy that balanced fishing, farm- tion” are usually used to describe the impact
ing, logging, and tourism. The community of American industrial activity on the land-
boasted a one-room schoolhouse, a post scape; terms like “healing” and “recovery” are
office, a cooperative store, and a road. By the employed to characterize the return of wilder-
1920s, though, the community was already in ness characteristics to a once-degraded place.
decline, primarily because economic opportu- These terms might apply to Outer Island,
nities for the second generation of island resi- where a large lumber company logged virgin
dents were so limited. In 1944, the last year- forest, leaving behind ugly piles of slash,
round residents left the island. Some of the refuse, and fuel for forest fires.
homes and farms fell into disrepair, others But what about at Sand Island? Is it right
272
 Wilderness and Wildness

to characterize the choices of Burt Hill or However, the same document directs,
Bergitt Noring in this way? Were their deci-
sions to plant apple orchards or lilac bushes The Service will re-establish natural
acts of destruction and degradation? If not, functions and processes in human-dis-
then perhaps “recovery” is not the correct turbed components of natural sys-
word to explain what has happened to the tems ... [and] will seek to return
Sand Island landscapes that their lives helped human-disturbed areas to the natural
to shape. We prefer the term “rewilding.” conditions and processes characteris-
Rewilding landscapes should be interpret- tic of the ecological zone.... Efforts
ed as evidence neither of past human abuse may include, for example ... [r]emoval
nor of triumphant wild nature, but rather as of contaminants and non-historic
evidence of the tightly intertwined processes structures or facilities....7
of natural and cultural history. Rewilding
points toward a narrative that explains the Passages such as this call into question the
seemingly denuded past and pristine present place of cultural resources in the midst of a
of places such as the Apostle Islands, but does wilderness. Reconciling the contradictions
so without characterizing any human activity inherent in these mandates will be the key to
as a wound in need of recovery. Human activ- successfully preserving and interpreting these
ity certainly can be destructive and degrading, rewilding islands. How can the agency recon-
but it isn’t necessarily so. The Apostle Islands cile these seemingly contradictory impera-
are becoming wild again primarily because of tives?
human choices—the choices made by the NPS management policies do provide
Hills and Norings to leave Sand Island, but some guidelines in reconciling these contra-
also the choice to turn the islands into nation- dictions. In most circumstances, the decision
al park, to allow some kinds of activity but not to treat a site as a cultural resource is guided
others. The narrative of rewilding helps by the standards of the National Historic
explain human action that is not always Preservation Act. If a site meets National
destructive and exploitative, as well as the Register criteria, it merits preservation; if not,
implicit human involvement in the return of it is to be removed, along with other “contam-
the wild to the Apostle Islands. inants.”
Federal agencies charged with overseeing But using National Register status as a lit-
wilderness areas struggle to manage rewilding mus test presents its own suite of problems.
landscapes like those of the Apostles. To To state that those traces of human occupation
guide individual park managers in the inter- listed on the Register are resources to be pre-
pretation of legislative mandates, NPS has served, while those not listed are contami-
produced a set of management policies, appli- nants to be obliterated, is to freeze the inter-
cable nationwide. Do these policies have room pretation of a site’s history to that prevailing at
for wild places with human pasts? One read- the time of wilderness designation. The histo-
ing would seem to indicate that wilderness ry of the National Park System is replete with
designation is not inconsistent with preserva- examples of the rash, and later regretted,
tion of human history: removal of features thought by one era to be
without significance.
Cultural resources that have been It also forces us to privilege some human
included within wilderness will be pre- stories over others. Again, Sand Island can
served and maintained according to the serve as an example. The West Bay Club, an
pertinent laws and policies governing Adirondack-style lodge, was built in 1911 as
cultural resources, using management hunting and fishing retreat for wealthy St. Paul
methods that are consistent with the businessmen. When evidence was found
preservation of wilderness character showing it had been designed by the influen-
and values.6 tial architect Henry Buechner, the building
273
 Wilderness and Wildness

was ruled eligible for the National Register as established to tell this story have been slow to
“the work of a master.” But across the island catch up.
is another summer home: less grand, yet to A second reason NPS employs a rigid def-
many eyes, more graceful. The small cottage inition of wilderness is its need for what might
known as “Plenty Charm” was built in 1943 be called a “legible landscape.” James Scott,
for a schoolteacher named Gertrude Wellisch in his book Seeing Like a State, uses the con-
by a local carpenter named Clyde Nylen. Both cept of legibility to explain practices as diverse
Wellisch and Nylen are interesting characters as the creation of permanent last names and
in their own right. Wellisch was a pioneer in the codification of property division. Scott
her own way, occupying the cabin with the explains these as a part “of the state’s attempt
woman who was her life partner. Although to make a society legible, to arrange the popu-
lacking Buechner’s fame, Swedish immigrant lation in ways that simplified ... classic state
Nylen was locally renowned as a carpenter of functions....”8 The same logic can be applied
unmatched intuitive skill; a half-century after to wilderness management. The federal gov-
his death, people still speak of his uncanny ernment has rigidly specified the way that a
way with wood. And though unschooled in wilderness should look and feel so that wilder-
classical architecture, Nylen built for Wellisch ness management can be consistent across
a cabin of extraordinary elegance that fits har- federal lands, no matter the local conditions in
moniously into its surroundings, and never any specific place. Such a management policy
fails to elicit exclamations of admiration from is easily applied—and the environment there-
those who encounter it. by more easily controlled.
However, it has been ruled that Plenty Concepts such as narrative constructs and
Charm does not meet National Register crite- legible landscapes might sound abstract, but
ria. Will NPS management policies mandate they have on-the-ground consequences at the
obliteration of this embodiment of Clyde Apostle Islands as NPS conducts its first
Nylen’s work and Gertrude Wellisch’s life? wilderness suitability study in over two
And if such action is taken, will future genera- decades. Park managers need to decide
tions agree with the decision? which, if any, islands will be recommended for
Why does NPS employ such rigid policies designation as wilderness. Whether Sand
of wilderness management? Two reasons sug- Island is included will dictate what NPS man-
gest themselves. First, the definition of wilder- agers can do there.
ness advanced in the 1964 legislation, and the Among the wilderness designation alter-
management policies that have resulted from natives currently under consideration is one
it, is predicated on the standard narrative of that excludes all of Sand, Basswood, and Long
environmental history, on the myth of the pris- islands, along with small portions of several
tine past and the degraded present. Evident other islands, from wilderness status. This
human use—especially modern, Anglo would still confer wilderness designation
American, use—necessarily degrades wilder- upon about 80 percent of the park’s land area,
ness. Scholars from a wide variety of fields yet provide maximum flexibility in the preser-
have started to tear down this standard narra- vation and interpretation of a broad cross-sec-
tive. Native Americans everywhere conscious- tion of the islands’ cultural features.
ly shaped their environments with their agri- Under currently prevailing interpretations
cultural practices, their use of fire, and their of the Wilderness Act, this scheme may pro-
residential patterns. Scholars have also ana- vide the most satisfactory resolution of the
lyzed the cultural construction of wilderness. conflicting mandates in the case of the Apostle
Places such as the Apostles—where the pres- Islands. However, even under this plan, virtu-
ent is more wild than the past—complicate ally every island will still have a mix of natural
this picture still further. Although the tradi- and cultural resources to manage and pre-
tional narrative of environmental history has serve. Moreover, at other park areas faced with
begun to change, the management policies similar dilemmas, it may not be possible to
274
 Wilderness and Wildness

draw such convenient boundaries. In the long Emmet J. Judziewicz and Rudy G. Koch,
run, it seems clear that NPS must work toward “Flora and vegetation of the Apostle
a wilderness management policy that recog- Islands National Lakeshore and Madeline
nizes the interconnections between natural Island, Ashland and Bayfield counties,
and cultural history, rather than placing Wisconsin,” Michigan Botanist 32:2
boundaries between them. (1993), p. 110.
5. William B. Tishler, Arnold A. Alanen, and
Endnotes George Thompson, “Early agricultural
1. Harlan Kelsey to Horace M. Albright, development on the Apostle Islands,”
January 20, 1931, National Archives, (Madison: Apostle Islands National
Record Group 79, Box 2822, Entry 7, Lakeshore/Department of Landscape
proposed national parks, 0-32. Architecture, University of Wisconsin,
2. Ibid. 1984).
3. Mary T. Bell, Cutting Across Time: 6. National Park Service, Management
Logging, Rafting, and Milling the Forests Policies 2001 (Washington, D.C.: NPS),
of Lake Superior (Schroeder, Minn.: section 6.3.8.
Schroeder Area Historical Society, 1999); 7. Ibid., section 4.1.5.
Aerial photos, Outer Island. 8. James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How
4. John Harrington, “Shaw Farm vegetation Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
survey,” University of Wisconsin–Mad- Condition Have Failed (New Haven,
ison, 1982, in Apostle Islands National Conn: Yale University Press, 1998), p. 2.
Lakeshore (APIS) Library; APIS Library;

275
 Wilderness and Wildness

The Wilderness Experience as Purported by Planning

Compared with that of Visitors to Zion National Park
Wayne Freimund, University of Montana Wilderness Institute. 33 Campus Drive, Missoula,
Montana 59812; wayne@forestry.umt.edu
Steve Peel, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812
Jeff Bradybaugh, Zion National Park, Springdale, Utah 84767; jeff_bradybaugh@nps.gov
Robert E. Manning, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
05405; Robert.Manning@uvm.edu

Introduction
Zion National Park, located in southwestern Utah, was established in 1909. It was enlarged
in 1918 and again in 1937. Two areas of the park were merged in 1956 into what now constitutes
148,016 acres of picturesque canyon country. The purpose of Zion is to preserve dynamic nat-
ural processes of the extraordinary canyon erosion, scenic beauty, archeological features, scien-
tific potential, and opportunities for the enjoyment and enlightenment of the public. Zion is par-
ticularly significant because of its unique scenery, geological showcasing, free-flowing Virgin
River, biodiversity, and cultural history (NPS 2001).
Zion is a unique place that has a long his- approximately 90% of Zion is proposed
tory of issues associated with its popularity. wilderness. Thus, the recreational opportuni-
Currently, a mandatory mass transportation ties are additionally focused on the concepts
system has been placed in the valley bottom to of solitude and primitive or unconfined types
alleviate an enormous congestion problem. of recreation.
Additionally, many of the backcountry
canyons have been permitted to maintain the Background
use level in those areas. In many places within Zion managers are now engaged in a back-
the park, camping is restricted to designated country management plan that was called for
sites, which in turn results in the need for itin- by the GMP. In the GMP, a strategy was
eraries for overnight use. Popularity continues designed to develop carrying capacities for the
to increase: the number of permits issued park through use of the Visitor Experience
increased by 97% between 1998 and 2002. and Resource Protection (VERP) framework.
Thus, it is not surprising that among the mis- Within that framework, managers committed
sion goals agreed upon in the recently adopt- to using “park staff, with public input” to
ed general management plan (GMP) were to: determine “desired resource conditions and
visitor experiences in different areas of the
• Provide park visitors educational and park” (NPS 2001:35). This procedure calls
recreational opportunities that foster an for a process of zoning, identifying indicators
appreciation for Zion and its resources; of quality, setting standards for those indica-
and tors, and monitoring to maintain desired con-
• Ensure that visitor impacts do not impair ditions.
the resources. Solitude, encounters, and Zion’s back-
country experience. Solitude is a common
In these mission goals, there is an inherent feature of backcountry experience studies
tension between the desire to provide recre- (Manning 1999). Guided by the language of
ational access to this significant and unique the Wilderness Act and widespread adoption
place, while assuring that access does not of planning frameworks such as VERP or
degrade the environmental or social resources Limits of Acceptable Change, solitude is often
over time. The context for the integration of measured as a function of the number of
these values is further framed by the fact that encounters a visitor has with other people or

276
 Wilderness and Wildness

groups while in the backcountry (Manning and qualitative interviews.

and Lime 2000). Indeed, encounters with
other people have been established as a corre- Study Methods
late with levels of setting acceptability Quantitative surveys were conducted with
(Manning et al. 1996) and as an experience several groups of backcountry visitors during
variable that people are able to conceptualize the summer and fall of 2002. Surveys
in relationship to visitor access (Manning addressed baseline data on visitor use and
2001; Manning and Lawson, 2002) or the users and potential indicators of the quality of
quality of biophysical settings (White et al. the visitor experience. Visitor questionnaires
2001). were administered to day-use hikers in three
However, there is also a concern that areas through an on-site questionnaire. A total
focusing management on standards for soli- of 357 completed questionnaires were
tude can deny the visitor opportunities for attained, a response rate of 80%.
unconfined forms of recreation or dismiss the Day-use hikers to canyons requiring a per-
fact that experiences are dynamic, that the mit were administered a mail-back question-
importance of encounters may change naire. A total of 133 completed questionnaires
throughout the experience (Borrie and were attained, a response rate of 74%.
Roggenbuck 2001), and that people will, Overnight backcountry hikers were adminis-
given the choice, be able to cope with settings tered a mail-back questionnaire. A total of 204
in ways to ensure they experience the solitude, completed questionnaires were attained, a
privacy, or naturalness they seek (Shafer and response rate of 78%.
Hammitt 1995). Finally, while is it established Seventy visitors participated in in-depth
that people can and will make trade-offs to semi-structured interviews about their park
ensure they get a high-quality experience, they experience during three one-week blocks dur-
may be less receptive to reducing their free- ing that same summer and fall. Forty-five of
dom or access if they do not see, understand, the visitors were on day trips and 25 spent at
or appreciate a clear problem (Borrie et al. least one night in the backcountry. Visitors
2001). There has also been recent concern were asked about their experience, including
that the common forms of quantitative social the importance of solitude, encounters with
research that have been prevalent in the study other people, whether their expectations were
of backcountry experiences can be misinter- met, and suggestions they may have for the
preted due to an absence of clear descriptions management of the park. Interviews were tran-
about why visitors respond as they do to scribed and analyzed via the content analysis
framed questions (Davenport et al. 2002; program Nudist*.
McCool, this volume). The findings of these interviews provide a
To assist with gaining visitors’ input on the contextual foundation for the results of the
integrity of social and biophysical resource quantitative studies described above.
conditions (including perceptions of solitude
and primitiveness), a two-year study of Zion’s Selected Results
summer visitors was developed. The first In this section selected results for the two
year’s goal was to develop an understanding of forms of data collection are reported. These
how Zion’s day users and overnight visitors to results were selected in an attempt to link the
the backcountry are defining and evaluating kinds of language used in the management
the setting and experience. The second phase plan to visitor impressions and the language
of the study will narrow the questions to gain they used to describe the same concepts.
visitor responses to standards for social and While the two forms of data are reported in
resource indicators. such a way as to complement one another, it is
The focus of this paper is a comparison of important to note that each research method
how the language used in the plan relates to has distinct advantages and disadvantages.
visitor responses to quantitative questionnaire The quantitative studies generalize out to the
277
 Wilderness and Wildness

visitors within the sample universe they were Varying definitions of solitude. As
selected within. Qualitative interviews do not described earlier, the park should be provid-
generalize but are intended to describe some ing “outstanding opportunities for solitude.”
dimensions of why visitors may feel as they Our quantitative research indicates that both
do. Together, these data sources assist non-permitted and overnight backcountry vis-
researchers in refining our questions as itors to Zion are encountering many people
inquiry into the Zion experience proceeds. while in Zion’s proposed wilderness, yet are
Day visitors. Zion National Park is popu- still seeking and gaining solitude. Thus, we
lar and busy. Non-permitted day visitors are have a need to better define the relationship
dominantly traveling with family (64%) and in between encounters and solitude if indicators
small groups (median 2, mean 4). The visitors relative to encounters are going to be useful for
in our sample came from 37 states and 21 for- managing that experience.
eign countries. For 65% of the visitors, it was Results from the interviews suggest that
their first visit to the park. Scenery and being visitors defined solitude as “being by our-
outdoors in natural surroundings were the selves” where one does not “hear anything
highlights of the experience for 75% of the else but water”; “[I]t was so quiet. It was very
respondents. Non-permitted day visitors peaceful, and no sign of other people.” These
encountered an average of 13.2 other groups definitions are consistent with conventional
and 103 other people during their visit. This notions of solitude. The incongruity, however,
was more than expected for 28% of the visi- may be explained by the temporal qualifiers
tors and fewer or about as many as the remain- that were often apparent in the responses.
ing visitors expected. It was more than about Examples would include “were alone most of
50% of the respondents preferred to the time,” “there was a lot of time,” “in gener-
encounter. al, we were able to keep to ourselves, for the
When asked about the importance of soli- most part.”
tude to their visit, 81% of the visitors said it Similarly with encounters, the descrip-
was very important or important to their expe- tions suggested that encounters occurred at
rience. When asked about their opportunity to anticipated times, especially at the end of the
attain solitude, only 11% identified their trip: “[A]t the end, it got busy”; “[W]hat we
opportunity to be poor or very poor. expected, I guess. Coming down there was a
Overnight visitors. Overnight visitor big group of people.” People also demonstrat-
groups are somewhat smaller (median 2, mean ed that they were using various coping mech-
2) and more likely to travel with friends (40%). anisms to avoid encounters: “We planned on
They were much more domestic, with only going early to beat the heat and probably beat
three foreign countries represented in our some of the crowds.” And finally, the behavior
sample. They most often identified scenery as of the people encountered had an important
the best part of their trip with solitude as the influence on the nature of the encounter:
second most commented-upon feature. “They were respectful. Everyone we met
Visitors generally did not encounter anyone seemed to be pretty well mannered and
while in their campsite, but while hiking polite.”
encountered a range of 3–19 groups per day. Thus, it is not necessarily the fact that vis-
Fifty percent of the respondents encountered itors to Zion may have low standards for
fewer people than expected while hiking, encounters in their definition of solitude, but
while only 13% encountered more groups that they are able to manipulate either their
then they expected to. Ninety-six percent of expectations or behaviors to work within the
the visitors identified solitude as very impor- set of conditions that are there to still achieve
tant or important to their experience. Only the solitude they desire.
2.5% suggested their ability to find solitude Zion as wilderness. It is also plausible to
was less than satisfactory, while 56% suggest- consider the possibility that Zion may not be
ed it was excellent. considered a wilderness by the visitors, and
278
 Wilderness and Wildness

thus solitude may have a different meaning for trails, I’ve never been on a trail like that before,
them. When asked about their perception of that, you know, gets so much use.” “And I
Zion as wilderness, there was general agree- mean I understood that, just for erosion, going
ment by day users that Zion’s backcountry up to Angels Landing. But then, even when
was a wilderness setting, sometimes exclusive- you continue past that, it stays paved.”
ly, sometimes qualified: “All of it.” “Oh yeah.
The whole time almost.” Quiet was an impor- Conclusion
tant variable in defining wilderness: “You The connection of the guiding language
don’t hear the road until you get right up for Zion’s backcountry and the evaluation vis-
somewhere in here [indicating trail below]. I itors have of the social and natural conditions
stopped to listen for it. I didn’t hear a thing.” in that backcountry are filled with contradic-
But the size of the area was less important for tions. Visitors generally see Zion’s backcoun-
at least one visitor: “[I]t’s nice to have this lit- try as a form of wilderness and seek the kinds
tle section back here that the people that want of experiences that are consistent with wilder-
to do this can do it.” But in some cases, the ness (solitude and primitive conditions in nat-
concept of wilderness was quite widely ural areas). They are also finding that solitude
defined. “Q. Would you consider this wilder- while meeting as many as 19 groups a day
ness then, back in here? To sum it all up. A: while hiking on overnight trips, and often
Yeah, well I mean even in the main park, some meeting over 100 people on a backcountry
of that is kind of wilderness-type area. But it day hike.
sees a lot more traffic than it does up here.” It appears from these data that people are
A qualified criticism of wilderness was coming into their experience with a relatively
related to the degree of regulation. “Well, accurate set of expectations about Zion as a
there [were] ... regulations. But I guess the popular and busy park. They are often using
main thing is that the campsites were desig- coping mechanisms that relate to both their
nated. Um, but that’s the only part of it that expectations and their behavior to manage the
feels developed. The place itself is primitive.” encounters they have. They also have a defini-
But the need for regulation was acknowl- tion of solitude that is not absolute and con-
edged: “[A]gain, I don’t look at that as a neg- sider the acquisition of solitude to be some-
ative. It’s just ... it’s just the way it is ... to keep thing that is important but only needs to hap-
the, you know, to keep it as nice as it is.” pen for portions of the experience.
“We went backpacking this summer at the While they are aware of the effect of back-
trailhead next to our subdivision, within a country regulations on their experience, they
half-mile it turns into wilderness. And, I mean are generally accepting of it to maintain the
it’s alpine; it’s high. I guess I’d have to say that park’s integrity. Thus, it appears that back-
you definitely don’t run into as many people.” country visitors to Zion have accepted a ver-
“Well, and there’s not designated camps. It’s sion of wilderness in which opportunities for
not as regulated ... you don’t have to purchase solitude and a primitive or unconfined type of
a permit.” “I guess it feels more wilderness to recreation can exist in a busy, highly regulated
me, because there’s not the designated camp- park. In this case it seems that the solitude is
sites.” “But I guess because of the place we acquired through coping and the regulation is
live, we definitely have a different idea of what accepted to safeguard the area’s primitive
wilderness is.” qualities.
And for some visitors, Zion is too overde- These data should help managers under-
veloped to be wilderness “The perception of, stand the limitations associated with boiling
‘Well, I’m in the wilderness, but the fact that their management down to an indicator-stan-
I’m on the trail means I’m not.’ That I can only dard monitoring approach. To get specific
get into wilderness if I go off trail. I don’t think information on indicators and standards,
everybody thinks that way.” “But, you know, managers and researchers will need to appre-
over in the main part of the park, on those ciate that the environment is novel to many
279
 Wilderness and Wildness

visitors and that impact may need to be approach to normative research. Leisure
demonstrated to get meaningful information Sciences 24:3/4, 297–312.
evaluations of it from visitors. Additionally, Manning, R. 1999. Studies in Outdoor
current conditions are highly desirable to the Recreation: Search and Research for
existing visitors. Visitors were pleased with Satisfaction. 2nd ed. Corvallis: Oregon
their experiences and supportive of the exist- State University Press.
ing management regimes. Thus visitors expect Manning, R.E., and D.W. Lime. 2000.
to see many visitors at Zion, and define soli- Defining and managing the quality of
tude in terms of quiet, spending periods of wilderness recreation experiences. In
time alone, and the absence of roads. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change
Conference—Volume 4: Wilderness
Acknowledgments Visitors, Experiences, and Visitor
The authors would like to thank Alan Management. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-
Watson for his review of this project and assis- VOL-4. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of
tance with Office of Management and Budget Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky
approval. Mountain Research Station, 13–52.
Manning, R.E., and S.R. Lawson. 2002.
References Carrying capacity as ‘informed judgment’:
Borrie, W., W. Freimund, M. Davenport, and the values of science and the science of val-
R. Manning. 2001. Crossing methodolog- ues. Environmental Management 30:2,
ical boundaries: assessing visitor motiva- 157–168.
tions and support for management actions NPS [National Park Service]. 2001. Zion
at Yellowstone National Park using quanti- National Park: General Management
tative and qualitative research approaches. Plan. Springdale, Ut.: Zion National Park.
The George Wright Forum 18:3, 72–84. Shafer, C.S., and W.E. Hammitt. 1994.
Borrie, W.T., and J.W. Roggenbuck. 2001. Management conditions and indicators of
The dynamic, emergent, and multi-phasic importance in wilderness recreation expe-
nature of on-site wilderness experiences. rience. In Proceedings Southeastern
Journal of Leisure Research 33:2, Recreation Research Conference (volume
202–228. 15). General Technical Report SE-90.
Hall, T.E. 2001a. Hikers’ perspectives on soli- Asheville, N.C.: U.S. Department of
tude and wilderness. International Agriculture–Forest Service, 57–67.
Journal of Wilderness 7:2, 20–24. ———. 1995a. Congruency among experience
———. 2001b. Use limits in wilderness: dimensions, condition indicators, and
assumptions and gaps in knowledge. In coping behaviors in wilderness. Leisure
Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Sciences 17:4, 263–279.
Experience: Proceedings, Missoula, MT, ———. 1995b. Purism revisited: Specifying
June 1–3, 2000. W.A. Freimund and D.N. recreational conditions of concern accord-
Cole, comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-20. ing to resource intent. Leisure Sciences
Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of 17:1, 15–30.
Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky White, D.D., T.E. Hall, and, T.A. Farrell.
Mountain Research Station, 39–48. 2001. Influence of ecological impacts and
Lawson, S.R., and R.E. Manning. 2002. other campsite characteristics on wilder-
Tradeoffs among social, resource, and ness visitors’ campsite choices. Journal of
management attributes of the Denali Park and Recreation Administration 19:2,
wilderness experience: a contextual 83–97.

✥
280
 Wilderness and Wildness

National Park Service Contribution to

Increasing a Virtual Visitor’s Appreciation of Wilderness
C.B. Griffin, 218 Padnos, Biology Department, Grand Valley State University, Allendale,
Michigan 49401; griffinc@gvsu.edu

Introduction
This research project was designed to answer three questions about wilderness areas man-
aged by the National Park Service (NPS). But rather than just list the questions, I want to begin
by briefly discussing how each of them came into existence.
At the George Wright Society conference in 2001, I heard a high-ranking NPS official pub-
licly admit that the agency may not be successful in protecting wilderness in the long run because
it focuses on what wilderness is against rather than what wilderness is for. Hypothesis one:
Wilderness messages focus on what wilderness is against, rather than on what it is for.
During my sabbatical last year, I took trips Late in the book, the authors suggested that
to several wilderness areas and areas recom- regulations are most effective if accompanied
mended for wilderness designation. I also by explanation as to why they are needed.
went on a patrol with an agency employee who That didn’t seem like an incredibly insightful
was well intentioned, but woefully inadequate- recommendation. Then I thought about all
ly trained in wilderness management. I specu- the park brochures, newsletters, permits, and
lated on how the individual would manage the signs I’ve seen about wilderness areas, and I
area differently had he/she at least been to the concluded that I had seldom seen an explana-
Carhart Center Wilderness training I had tion as to why regulations exist. Hypothesis
been to earlier in the year. The training includ- three: Wilderness regulations have little
ed a powerful talk by Roger Kaye on the spiri- accompanying explanation.
tual values of wilderness. You had the sense If these hypotheses are correct, the follow-
wilderness was unique. ing results can be expected:
On one of my trips, I talked to a man, his
• Compliance with existing wilderness
son, and their dog who got turned away from
guidelines and regulations will be low;
the ferry to North Manitou Island (part of
• Biophysical impacts will persist or
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore)
increase;
because they wanted to bring the dog. I won-
• Social impacts will persist or increase;
dered why the family didn’t know pets weren’t
• More management actions will be needed,
allowed. Didn’t they do their homework
which may lead to less primitive and
before their visit, or was the information miss-
unconfined recreation; and
ing on the NPS website (it turns out to be the
• The enduring resource of wilderness may
former rather than latter). The man’s question
be eroded.
to me was, “We drove from Ohio to get here, is
there another wilderness that we can go to?” Methods
Clearly there is a powerful allure to wilderness A website analysis was conducted because
designation; it was a unique resource for this official sources of information are viewed as
family (note: the island is recommended for highly credible and websites are accessible to
wilderness; it has not yet been designated). many prospective visitors prior to their arrival.
Hypothesis two: NPS presents little informa- The reason NPS was selected rather than the
tion about the uniqueness of wilderness. other wilderness-managing agencies is three-
Last summer I read the latest (2002) edi- fold. First, NPS has few wilderness areas.
tion of Wilderness Management by Hendee Second, NPS’s preservation mandate suggests
and Dawson in preparation to teach a new that it should be easier for the institutional
course in wildland recreation management. culture to embrace wilderness than if it were

281
 Wilderness and Wildness

an agency with a multiple-use mandate. between 1970 and 1994, with most being des-
Third, over 75% of the National Park System ignated in 1978. Based on the age of designa-
is congressionally designated wilderness or tion, one would expect there to have been suf-
recommended as wilderness. ficient time to update websites to include
The complete website for each NPS unit information about the wilderness.
containing wilderness was downloaded using Approximately 80% of the NPS units had
Adobe Acrobat. I searched on “wilderness” detailed maps on their websites, but only 60%
and then examined the information derived. actually showed the wilderness boundaries on
Some of the information was compiled in a the map.
spreadsheet for quantitative analysis and the The standardized main page of each unit
rest of the information was saved in a separate was analyzed to determine if wilderness
file for textual analysis. showed up on the designation listing. Only
57% of the parks with wilderness listed it on
Results their main page. The standardized page listing
The results are based on an analysis of 21 activities was also analyzed. Of the units that
of the 44 NPS units with wilderness. The listed activities (two did not), all but Mesa
remaining sites will be analyzed later this year. Verde listed it. Less than 30% of the parks had
Quantitative analysis. Figure 1 indicates clickable links that take a user to a separate
the wide range of wilderness sizes included in page for more information. Of the NPS units
this analysis. Figure 2 shows that over half the that had any clickable links, less than half had
NPS units examined contain more than 50% a clickable link for wilderness.
wilderness. Qualitative analysis. All the information
The wilderness areas were designated that the public would access for trip planning
was analyzed; documents
40
such as wilderness and
35 backcountry plans, envi-
ronmental impact state-
NPS Units (%)

30
25 ments, and fire plans were
20 not evaluated. Some NPS
15 units contained no infor-
10 mation about wilderness,
5 while a couple of sites
0 contained the vast major-
0-24,999 25-49,999 50-74,999 75-99,999 >100,000 ity of information. What
Size of Wilderness (ac) follows is almost all the
information that exists
Figure 1. Amount of wilderness in each NPS unit (n=21)
about wilderness on the
21 sites examined.
50 Values. The first sec-
tion deals with the values
40 articulated in the
NPS Units (%)

Wilderness Act, i.e., that

30
wilderness areas “may
20 also contain ecological,
geological, or other fea-
10 tures of scientific, educa-
0 tional, scenic, or histori-
0-24 25-49 50-74 75-100 cal value.”
Percent Wilderness
Figure 2. Percentage of NPS unit that is wilderness (n=21)
282
 Wilderness and Wildness

Ecological Values Historical Values

• “When trees fall in a wilderness area, they • “In the early part of this century, goat and
are left alone to provide food and shelter sheep ranchers constructed small check-
for plants and animals.” (Congaree Swamp dams at many seeps. Remains from these
National Monument) activities ... can still be seen” (Carlsbad
• “... great diversity of wildlife in Katmai Caverns National Park)
which encompasses millions of acres of • “... remnants of these 20th century home-
pristine wilderness” (Katmai National sites. Remember that all objects at these
Park and Preserve) sites are artifacts to be left in place ... for
• “... the cougar is the symbol of wilderness, other visitors to discover and reflect on the
a large animal ranging freely in wild areas, difficulty in living in this beautifully barren
independent of human interference. At the place (Badlands)
end of food chain they serve as an indica- • “… cultural/historical sites and artifacts
tor of ecosystem’s health.” (Guadalupe are strictly protected and will remain
Mountains National Park) undisturbed” (Guadalupe)
• “Visitors found hiking away from desig-
Scientific Values nated trails ... are subject to penalties....
• “A prairie wilderness. As we attempt to [R]egulations are necessary to protect the
assemble the great biodiversity puzzle, fragile and irreplaceable archeological
prairie is the heart of the piece.” (Badlands sites and artifacts” (Mesa Verde National
National Park) Park)
• “... all objects at these sites are artifacts to
be left in place for future study” Recreation and solitude. The second
(Badlands) section of the analysis focused on recreation
• “Wilderness Laboratory—National parks and solitude based on the Wilderness Act ver-
and wilderness areas are key places to con- biage: “has outstanding opportunities for soli-
duct scientific studies because of their rel- tude or a primitive and unconfined type of
atively pristine state.” (Lassen Volcanic recreation.”
National Park)
Recreation
Scenic Values • “Traveling by canoe is a great way to enjoy
• “Look closely and you’ll see every color of this primeval wilderness” (Congaree)
the rainbow painted in delicate brush • “... primitive qualities provide ... rustic
strokes across this dramatic wilderness” backpacking, wildlife watching, horseback
(Badlands) riding” (Badlands)
• “The wild mountain beauty, the clean, • “... offer superb opportunities for back-
clear water of the Buffalo, and the myriad country hiking and camping.” (Great Sand
of other sights are ideal subjects to be cap- Dunes)
tured on canvas, film, in print or perform-
ance. This place can inspire creativity” Some of the NPS units have trails in the
(Buffalo National River) wilderness:
• “Glacier-carved peaks towering over
alpine meadows and sub-alpine forests • “Former roads in wilderness provide
make this a dramatic landscape” (Great many outstanding trails.” (Mojave)
Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve) • “There are miles of trails to explore.”
• “... experience the ... scenic beauty of (Great Sand Dunes)“
these special places” (Mojave National • Wilderness trails receive no maintenance
Preserve) and have no signs.” (Craters of the Moon
National Monument)
• “Stay on established trails, and as you
283
 Wilderness and Wildness

enjoy the view, remember it would not be • “Bicycles and other mechanized equip-
as pretty if each of us trammeled [sic] ment are not allowed” (Craters of the
wherever we chose.” (Guadalupe) Moon)
• “... no roads or permanent structures can
Some of the areas don’t have wilderness trails: be built” (Craters of the Moon)
• “Firearms are prohibited” (Hawaii
• “... cross country travel without the pres- Volcanoes National Park)
ence of established trails ... forces its • “Pets, hunting, bicycles, and motorized
explorers to be self-reliant and prepared.” vehicles are not allowed” (Lava Beds
(Badlands) National Monument)
• “Trails have been left undeveloped to pre-
serve and enhance the wilderness experi- Many wilderness areas do not allow fires, but
ence” (Carlsbad) only two provide a rationale as to why their
• “There are no maintained or marked use is banned:
trails.... [R]outes are difficult to follow....
[H]ikers are expected to find their own • “Due to high winds and dry grasses, fires
way and to be prepared for self-rescue” are not permitted.... Coached by the Great
(Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Plains wind, a simple dropped match can
Park) trigger a massive wildfire in seconds.”
(Badlands)
Solitude • “Why can’t I have a campfire? Dams
• “... never encounter another person, hear upstream prevent a natural flow and cycle
traffic, or smell car exhaust.... places for of driftwood entering the lower canyon.
quiet contemplation as well as for friends What little organic debris makes its way
to get away together.” (Carlsbad) through the canyon is a vital resource for
• “... offers outstanding opportunities for the recycling of nutrients back into the
solitude and primitive recreation” riverbank and the earth.” (Black Canyon)
(Carlsbad)
• “You will have the sense of being truly Many areas require a free camping permit, but
alone” (Craters of the Moon) only two explain the value of permits:
• “Some value solitude and hike into the
wilderness (80% of the monument) for an • “Permits help us monitor use of the
overnight camp out” (Craters of the wilderness.... [H]elp us identify potential
Moon) emergencies by letting us know your
• “... experience the solitude ... of these spe- expected itinerary.” (Black Canyon)
cial places.” (Mojave) • “... monitor how many people are using
• “Popular with hikers, equestrians, and the wilderness, to inform them of regula-
fishermen.... [H]ike midweek to find soli- tions, and to make sure that they return
tude.” (Great Sand Dunes) safely.” (Craters of the Moon)

Wilderness users often confront regulations Much of the wilderness information on NPS
(i.e., wilderness is “against”), although it is websites deals with camping:
seldom clear as to why they exist:
• “Camp in wilderness area of park 100 feet
• “Pets are not permitted in the wilderness” away from backcountry trails and water,
(many sites) 500 feet away from visitor center and
• “... wheeled vehicles are not allowed” boardwalk. Primitive camping—no facili-
(Badlands) ties.” (Congaree)
• “No motorized vehicles (including ATVs) • “Backcountry camping is restricted to the
are permitted” (Buffalo River) designated wilderness area.” (Craters of
284
 Wilderness and Wildness

the Moon) of life” described in the Wilderness Act.”

• “Camping limited to 14 days per year” (Badlands)
(Lassen) • “It is now up to us to accept the challenge
• “No person may camp in a nondeveloped of wilderness: to come to the edge of for-
or wilderness area with a group size of ever and feel complete.” (Badlands)
more than twelve, including horses and • “... Wilderness Areas are of immeasurable
pack animals.” (Lava Beds) value to our natural and spiritual well-
being, and are special places that should
A few websites explain why camping rules be treated with reverence and respect.”
exist: (Carlsbad)
• “... these areas have as the last best
• “Be considerate of others. Camp at least untrammeled landscapes in the nation.
400 yards from other campers” (Badlands) Whether we go there for recreational, spir-
• “To minimize impact on fragile wetland itual, educational, or scientific reasons—or
areas, group size is limited to 6 people” simply to take refuge from the paved and
(Congaree) ordered domain of our daily lives—we can
• “In order to restrict human impact to a find quiet contemplation and solitude in
limited area, please camp at Echo Crater.... the deep canyons and tree-lined mesas.”
[I]f you do select other campsites, use (Carlsbad)
them for only one night and then move • “The remote dunes lend themselves to
on.” (Craters of the Moon) panoramic views of the heavens. Immerse
• “The desert is fragile and recovers from yourself for the night surrounded by swirls
human impact much more slowly than of sand. Watch for shooting stars. Listen to
many other ecosystems. Roads, trails and the amazing quiet.... [I]t takes effort ... to
campgrounds leave lasting scars. To mini- reach a sandy wilderness campsite, but it’s
mize these scars, designated campgrounds a worthwhile experience to discover the
with hardened tent pads have been estab- reality of a night surrounded by sand.
lished.... [R]espect the land—do not camp Listen for the howl of the coyote and the
outside these designated areas.” whisper (or gale!) of the wind.” (Great
(Guadalupe) Sand Dunes)

Unique aspects. The third section of the Conclusions and Recommendations

analysis focused on the unique aspects of NPS websites are only one method of
wilderness. communicating with visitors about wilder-
ness. Despite the fact that the wilderness areas
• “Wilderness offers itself to each of us on of most of the NPS units analyzed had been
our own terms. Some of us are content to designated over 30 years ago, many of the park
experience wilderness of the mind—it’s websites do not list wilderness on their main
enough to know wilderness exists in the page, most don’t have clickable links from the
world. Others are compelled to explore wilderness section on the activities page, and a
designated wilderness to take on its chal- few do not show wilderness boundaries on
lenges. Hopefully, we do not aspire to con- their map.
quer wilderness. The legal concept of All three hypotheses seem to be support-
wilderness has a companion inside all ed: websites discuss what wilderness is
humans: wildness. It is this primitive qual- against rather than for, regulations seldom
ity of life that causes innovation, wonder, have explanations, and there is little informa-
and exploration. Valuing the wildness in tion about how wilderness is unique.
ourselves and wilderness as an American Four main recommendations can be
landscape brings us closer to becoming gleaned from this preliminary research.
active members in the in the “community
285
 Wilderness and Wildness

• Wilderness designation should be listed NPS should increase the information

on the main page; about wilderness on its websites for each unit
• The wilderness link on the activity page containing wilderness, or it is likely that the
should be “live”; enduring resource of wilderness will be lost.
• The wilderness link should lead to a page
that presents the positive and unique Reference
aspects of wilderness; and Hendee, John C., and Chad P. Dawson. 2002.
• Maps should show the wilderness bound- Wilderness Management: Stewardship and
ary. Protection of Resources and Values. 3rd ed.
Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum.

286
 Wilderness and Wildness

Extending the Wilderness Concept as a Cultural Resource

Andrew Kliskey, Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies, Resilience and Adaptive
Management Group, University of Alaska–Anchorage, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage,
Alaska 99508; afadk@uaa.alaska.edu
Lilian Alessa, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alaska–Anchorage, 3211
Providence Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Martin Robards, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alaska–Anchorage, 3211
Providence Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508

Introduction
Wilderness areas, “wild” places, and landscapes evoking wilderness experiences are the nat-
ural environments at the core of many protected area systems. In this paper we explore how peo-
ple from different cultures view these same wild places and the importance to protected area
managers of including an understanding of cultural processes in wilderness management frame-
works. Protected area management in New Zealand has been referred to as being about “parks
for the people.” In the United States, similar sentiments, espoused in policy, highlight the impor-
tance and richness of demonstrating cultural equity in park management. Internationally, the
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Man and the
Biosphere (MAB) reserves program provides management mandates to “promote and demon-
strate the balanced relationship between people and nature.” An individual’s culture affects his
or her perception of landscapes, thus mediating behavior and actions and so playing an impor-
tant role in the ability of managers to manage and mitigate biophysical impacts. The principle of
ecological and social resilience, in integrated social–ecological systems, underlies some cultural
perspectives toward wild places. Practices based on resilience, found in a range of cultural
beliefs, are significant for the sustainable management of protected areas. We present some pre-
liminary findings on cultural understanding of natural environments that highlight the need for
park managers to think about wilderness as a cultural resource as well as a natural resource.
protecting, enhancing, and managing legislat-
The Dominant Culture of ed Wilderness. The National Wilderness
Wilderness Research Conference, held in Fort Collins,
Wilderness areas, wild places, and the Colorado, in 1985 (Lucas 1987), summarized
wilderness experience in countries such as the the efforts to understand wilderness as a recre-
United States, Canada, Australia, and New ation resource and the biophysical conditions,
Zealand have a strong cultural meaning. The sociological understanding, and management
dominant Eurocentric view of wilderness, approaches associated with that resource.
widely documented (Nash 1973) and This view of wilderness management was per-
enshrined in the United States Wilderness Act petuated, though on a foundation of more
of 1964, harks back to a pioneering spirit, a sophisticated science, in a follow-up meeting,
pristine environment void of humanity, and a the Wilderness Science in a Time of Change
back-to-basics outdoor recreation that in part Conference, held in Missoula, Montana, in
could be considered a reflection of a national 1999 (Cole et al. 2000). The post-colonial
psyche. This dominant idea of wilderness is Westernized view of wilderness is valid, and
therefore a strongly cultural concept— has a strong science base supporting it, and
Callicott (2000) refers to the wilderness idea the places identified as wilderness by its pro-
as being ethnocentric. The prevailing notion ponents deserve protection and are important
of wilderness has been the subject of an on- as a cultural resource.
going research agenda with numerous man- A variation on the single purist definition
agement strategies and techniques aimed at of wilderness à la the U.S. Wilderness Act is

287
 Wilderness and Wildness

that there are different places that are associat- 2002). Traditional and subsistence use by
ed with wilderness according to an individ- indigenous people and by rural Alaskans of
ual’s perception of the environment. This has the wilderness resource in Alaska is recog-
led to the idea of multiple perceptions of nized in the National Wilderness Preservation
wilderness, devised as a methodology in New System, acknowledging, whether consciously
Zealand for mapping the variation in areas or not, the cultural nature of these areas. This
that elicit a wilderness experience for back- is apparently at odds with the remainder of the
country users (Kliskey 1994). Other depar- wilderness system, in the lower 48 states of the
tures from the purist or received wilderness U.S., where traditional values associated with
idea (Callicott 2000) have considered alterna- lands protected as wilderness have been
tive environments, for example urban wilder- ignored (Alessa and Watson 2002).
ness (Wali et al. 2003), and subterranean or Wilderness in the Circumpolar North is not
marine places that elicit a wilderness experi- empty or excluded from permanent human
ence (Smith and Watson 1979; Barr 2001). activity—rather it is a wilderness for work
Thus new boundaries in wilderness are possi- rather than play.
ble so that wild places and wilderness experi- Numerous indigenous cultures with
ences are not restricted to terrestrial environ- Earth-based beliefs view the human–nature
ments or the land base defined as the National relationship holistically rather than dualisti-
Wilderness System of the United States. cally (Colchester 1997). These viewpoints see
These departures are, however, variations on society as inseparable from the natural world,
the same theme, since the major components and indeed many of the wilderness areas that
of the wilderness experience are still rooted in people from Western cultures consider to be
the dominant Western cultural view of wilder- “empty of civilization” are considered by
ness that rests on a dualistic idea of nature— indigenous people as part of their everyday
the cultural environment being separate from life—both physically and spiritually. In
the natural environment. However, there is an Australia the post-colonial view of wilderness
increasing awareness that people can be, as areas as terra nullius, or an empty land, is con-
they often have been, part of wild places. This sidered a fantasy by Aboriginal people for
includes suggestions that areas perceived as whom the concept has the effect of denying
pristine wilderness are frequently in fact com- their cultural relationship with those land-
plex systems that integrate social and ecologi- scapes (Langton 1998). These are homelands
cal characteristics (e.g., Flanagan 1992; that are “known and loved, sung and recount-
Martin and Szuter 1999). ed, owned and cared for to promote life”
(Rose 1996).
Alternative Cultural In Aotearoa (New Zealand), the indige-
Views of Wild Places nous Maori similarly view the natural environ-
The dominating view of wilderness and its ments that comprise the country’s protected
management has been interspersed with con- area system as landscapes with which they as a
trasting ideas (Colchester 1997) that empha- people have long-standing generational ties
size alternative cultural notions of wilderness, and intimate connection (whakapapa, or
wild places, and the wilderness experience. genealogical association) with—we are one
These “other” notions of wilderness should with the world in which we live. These areas
inform cultural resource management if may have traditionally been considered
resource managers are to encompass the rich- mahinga kai, or a food-gathering area.
ness of diversity in users of natural environ- Management of natural areas by Maori was
ments. For example, the wild expanses of (and is gradually becoming again) based on
Alaska, whether delineated and protected as concepts of mauri (life force of the natural
wilderness or not, define a range of relation- world), tapu (respect for sacredness),
ships that cultures and communities have with whanaungatanga (interaction with the envi-
natural environments (Alessa and Watson ronment as kin), manaakitanga (care and hos-
288
 Wilderness and Wildness

pitality), and kaitiakitanga (guardianship and human communities to absorb disturbance

responsibility for a place; Patterson 1994). and recover from such perturbation (Folke et
Thus wild places can be harvested from, pro- al. 2002). Recent work has shown that visitors
vided that these traditional virtues are to protected areas who perceive high ecosys-
adhered to. So wilderness is a dynamic, multi- tem resilience in coastal ecosystems exhibited
faceted cultural concept from which the dom- significantly more depreciative behavior than
inant view and approach toward management those who perceived low ecosystem resilience
can learn. (Alessa et al., in press). So building
social–ecological resilience requires an under-
Resilience in Cultural standing of ecosystems that incorporates the
Views of Wild Places knowledge of local users, including the long-
A distinguishing feature of the cultural standing knowledge of indigenous societies
viewpoint of these indigenous understandings and local communities. We represent this as a
of wild places is the practice of linked systems conceptual model (Figure 1) where the
of people with nature, or what are contem- human/cultural component of the system
porarily referred to as “social–ecological sys- interacts dynamically with the biophysical/
tems” (Berkes and Folke 1998). The view that ecological component and in which manage-
wild places are social–ecological systems, as ment may intercede in adjusting this interac-
Aboriginals, Maori, and others inherently tion. Such management processes are inher-
believe, incorporates the concept of ently dependent on the values, perceptions,
resilience—the capacity of ecosystems and and understandings of people and their result-

Figure 1. Conceptual model of wild places as a social–ecological system

289
 Wilderness and Wildness

ant behaviors with respect to potential bio- watching, meeting with friends, and spiritual
physical states of the environment. activities. An activity that accorded strongly
We documented the knowledge of people with the Maori view was sharing and meeting
from a Maori iwi (tribe) in New Zealand in with families. Although this is also an activity
order to identify similarities and contrast dif- that is consistent with the dominant wilder-
ferences in values and perceptions of natural ness view, it tends to be emphasized less.
environments by local indigenous users of Specific activities consistent with the Maori
wild places. Using focal group discussions view but not the dominant wilderness view
and open-ended questionnaires, the following included gathering food and greeting ances-
perceptions, values, and understandings were tors. Awareness of ecosystems, therapeutic
elicited from 12 respondents: feelings, and spiritual renewal were experi-
ences realized in natural environments consis-
• Natural environments important to them; tent with both Maori and dominant wilder-
• Images these environments evoke; ness views, while connection to the world,
• Reasons for going to these environments; awareness of the past, mana (pride in places as
• Activities carried out in these environ- home), and sadness at the health of places
ments; were experiences that were important in the
• Experiences or feelings that arise from Maori view but not obvious in the dominant
being in these environments; wilderness view.
• Factors that influence their experiences in Important influences on experiences of
these environments; natural environments that were specific in the
• Factors that threaten their experiences in Maori view were the mauri (life-giving force
these environments; and of a place) and the oral knowledge and cus-
• Ways of minimizing these threats to their toms. There were several threats to the experi-
experiences. ences of natural environments that both views
recognized, including increasing recreational
These perceptions, values, and under- and tourism use, loss of biodiversity, and
standings of indigenous people toward the encroaching resource extraction. Specific
natural environment were compared with the threats in the Maori view included lack of trib-
dominant wilderness view (e.g., Lucas 1987; al consultation (although this could be com-
Cole et al. 2000). There were a number of pared with lack of local community consulta-
broad similarities in images of natural environ- tion in the dominant wilderness view), legisla-
ments between the indigenous sample and the tion that restricts traditional food gathering,
dominant wilderness view, including forests, and sickness (biophysical and spiritual) of a
lakes, rivers, wildlife, and tranquility, indicat- place. There were numerous suggested ways
ing some consistency in these two views. of minimizing threats to natural environments
However, specific points of difference were that were common to both views, including
the recognition of whakapapa (an individual’s restricting recreational use, protection of bio-
inherent connection to a place), mauri (life diversity, restoration of habitat and ecosys-
force within elements of a place), and mahin- tems, and increased education and research.
ga kai (traditional food-gathering places) in Approaches to minimizing threats that were
the Maori view. Major reasons for being in nat- specific to the Maori view included acknowl-
ural environments that accorded with the edging customary food gathering in legisla-
Maori view only included the life essence of tion, and tribal involvement in management.
elements of the environment, reminders of
identity and ancestry, and a strong wish to Implications
undertake traditional food gathering. There These results highlight contemporary
were numerous activities in common between views of Maori with respect to natural envi-
the Maori view and the dominant wilderness ronments and contrast how these differ from
view, including fishing, recreation, wildlife the dominant wilderness view. Notably con-
290
 Wilderness and Wildness

cepts of mahinga kai (food gathering), mauri tions is likely to be a valuable tool in prevent-
(life force), whakapapa (genealogical tie to the ing depreciative behavior (Alessa et al., in
land), and whanaungatanga (kinship and press). The value in treating wild places as
family activity with the land) set the Maori social–ecological systems lies in the integra-
view apart from the dominant wilderness view. tion of values, perceptions, and understand-
These concepts are all consistent with the cus- ings of local communities (indigenous and
tomary virtues of Maori toward the environ- rural societies) with biophysical knowledge to
ment (Patterson 1994). We acknowledge the identify vulnerable ecosystems and social sys-
small sample size used in this pilot study and tems (Figure 2). In ecosystem management we
from which these exploratory results have have to accommodate both natural variability
been derived. Yet the results indicate a valu- and human activities (the source of stress in a
able direction for research coupled to manage- system) and so we are constantly dealing with
ment and a larger study is now in progress that social and biophysical change as multiple
will further explore Maori views toward natu- stressors in social–ecological systems. Current
ral environments and compare and include approaches are largely missing an important
Alaskan Native views using more substantial component by focusing predominantly on
sample sizes. highly valued areas. The awareness and incor-
The concepts that are uniquely identified poration of alternative cultural views of natural
above as Maori are ones that tightly intermesh environments are necessary if wilderness man-
people with ecosystems, consistent with view- agement approaches are to include vulnerable
ing wild places as social–ecological systems social systems and indigenous or local rural
(Figure 1). Such cultural concepts and this groups, and therefore be effective for high-risk
cultural–ecological integration can, we systems, both social and ecological (Figure 2).
believe, strongly accommodate resilience in We reiterate Flanagan’s (1992) recognition of
the management of wild places. This knowl- the need for wilderness to be inherently
edge of values, understanding, and percep- important to all people, transcending its bio-

Figure 2. Conceptual model for resilience and impacts in social–ecological systems of wild
places
291
 Wilderness and Wildness

physical boundaries, a step that will only hap- O’Loughlin, comps. Proceedings RMRS-
pen when we cease to see wilderness as some- P-15-VOL-1. Ogden, Ut.: U.S.
thing separate from ourselves, and recognize Department of Agriculture–Forest Service,
that it is an integral aspect of our individuality Rocky Mountain Research Station, 24–31.
and our collective societal existence, and that Colchester, M. 1997. Salvaging nature: indige-
we are an integral part of wilderness. nous peoples and protected areas. In
Social Change and Conservation:
Acknowledgments Environmental Politics and Impacts of
We would like acknowledge funding for National Parks and Protected Areas. K.B.
this project through U.S. Department of Ghimire and M.P. Pimbert, eds. London,
Agriculture–Forest Service joint venture 02- U.K.: Earthscan Publications.
JV-11222044-208. Cole, D.N., S.F. McCool, W.A. Freimund, and
J. O’Loughlin, comps. 2000. Wilderness
References Science in a Time of Change Conference.
Alessa, L., S.M. Bennett, and A.D. Kliskey. In Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOLS-1–5.
press. Effects of knowledge, personal attri- Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of
bution and perception of ecosystem health Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky
on depreciative behaviors in the intertidal Mountain Research Station,
zone of Pacific Rim National Park and Evans, M.M. 2002. “Nature” and environ-
Reserve. Forthcoming in Journal of mental justice. In The Environmental
Environmental Management. Justice Reader: Politics, Poetics, and
Alessa, L., and A. Watson. 2002. Growing Pedagogy. Tucson: University of Arizona
pressures on Circumpolar North wilder- Press, 181–193.
ness: a case for coordinated research and Flanagan, R. 1992. Wilderness and history.
education. In Wilderness in the Public History Review 1, 103–117.
Circumpolar North: Searching for Folke, C., et al. 2002. Resilience and
Compatibility in Ecological, Traditional, Sustainable Development: Building
and Ecotourism Values. A.E. Watson, L. Adaptive Capacity in a World of
Alessa, and J. Sproull, comps. Proceedings Transformation. Stockholm: Environ-
RMRS-P-26. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. mental Advisory Council.
Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Kliskey, A.D. 1994. A comparative analysis of
Rocky Mountain Research Station, approaches to wilderness perception map-
133–142. ping. Journal of Environmental
Barr, B. 2001. Getting the job done: protect- Management 41, 199–236.
ing marine wilderness. In Crossing Langton, M. 1998. Burning Questions:
Boundaries in Park Management: Emerging Environmental Issues for
Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Indigenous Peoples in Northern Australia.
Research and Resource Management in Darwin, Australia: Centre for Indigenous
Parks and on Public Lands. D. Harmon, and Cultural Resource Management,
ed. Hancock, Mich.: The George Wright Northern Territory University.
Society, 233–238. Lucas, R.C., comp. 1987. Proceedings—
Berkes, F., and C. Folke, eds. 1998. Linking National Wilderness Research Conference:
Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge, Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future
U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Directions. General Technical Report
Callicott, J.B. 2000. Contemporary criticisms INT-220. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of
of the received wilderness idea. In Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain
Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Research Station.
Conference—Volume 1: Changing Martin, P.S., and C.R. Szuter. 1999. War
Perspectives and Future Directions. D.N. zones and game sinks in Lewis and Clark’s
Cole, S.F. McCool, W.A. Freimund, and J. West. Conservation Biology 13:1, 36–45.
292
 Wilderness and Wildness

Nash, R. 1973. Wilderness and the American Smith, P.M., and R.A. Watson. 1979. New
Mind. 2nd ed. London and New Haven, wilderness boundaries. Environmental
Conn.: Yale University Press. Ethics 1, 61–64.
Patterson, J. 1994. Maori environmental Wali, A., G. Darlow, C. Fialkowski, M. Tudor,
virtues. Environmental Ethics 16, 397- H. del Campo, and D. Stotz. 2003. New
409. methodologies for interdisciplinary
Rose, D.B. 1996. Nourishing Terrains: research and action in an urban ecosystem
Australian Aboriginal views of Landscape in Chicago. Conservation Ecology 7:3, 2.
and Wilderness. Canberra: Australian On-line at www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/
Heritage Commission. art2.

293
 Wilderness and Wildness

The Essence of Indecision: The Hayduke Principle and

Wilderness Policy Paralysis on National Park Service Lands
David Ostergren, Department of Political Science, Center for Environmental Sciences and
Education, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001; david.oster-
gren@nau.edu
Peter Jacques, Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
32816

Undisputed areas of wilderness exist within several “crown jewel” National Park Service
(NPS) units, especially Grand Canyon National Park, Glacier National Park, and Yellowstone
National Park. However, since the late 1970s these areas have only been provisionally protected,
which leaves open the possibility for change (particularly on the fringe) with new park leadership
despite the NPS policy to retain the character of land with wilderness potential. Gary Everhardt,
who director of NPS during the mid-1970s, warned Congress in 1976 that “many people ask
why have wilderness in National Parks at all. I think our answer to that is very simple: It pre-
cludes capricious action by a future land manager which might have the result of allowing devel-
opment or use practices what would be inconsistent with out congressional mandate to preserve
units of the National Park System for future generations. It is the recognition by law of the high-
est land classification that the nation can bestow on its natural resources” (Congressional Record
1976:18). In fact, 13 million acres in 40 NPS units have been recognized as potential wilderness
and await official permanent protection (Watson 1996). In 1994, the Congressional Research
Service noted that almost half of the pending recommended wilderness areas waiting for desig-
nation are in areas of the National Park System (Gorte 1994).
At the bottom of the indecision to formal- designations. With closer inspection of desig-
ly designate these wilderness areas is a cultur- nated and undesignated wilderness areas, we
al barrier to wilderness compromise. find that neither nature, nor human use, con-
Wilderness is unnecessarily seen as either forms to this strict division. Expecting such
“on/existent” or “off/nonexistent.” Indeed, clarity provides serious barriers to designa-
novelist Edward Abbey’s famous character in tion, even areas that are geographically
The Monkey Wrench Gang, George Hayduke, remote. Other areas that are highly contested
measured driving distances in six-pack incre- experience high human use but low levels of
ments—36 six-packs to New York City, for development, such as the Colorado River cor-
instance. And the empty cans went out the ridor in Grand Canyon National Park.
window because it’s not the litter that is the
problem—it’s the road. Any sign of civilization The Wilderness Debate
spoils the area for an indeterminate distance, and the Hayduke Principle
completely and forever. The divisive argument Roderick Nash wrote: “The bitterness of
that any particular area does not qualify for the controversies that climaxed in the estab-
wilderness works to the advantage of either lishment of the National Wilderness
pro-wilderness advocates or anti-wilderness Preservation System suggested that clear-cut,
organizations. Pro-wilderness NGOs (non- opposing factions were rallying to the stan-
governmental organizations) may argue for the dards of either the civilized or the wild” (Nash
complete and absolute elimination of some 1967:226). This struggle and the cultural val-
activity for wilderness, or opponents of desig- ues that surround it have promoted a dualism
nation may suggest that an indistinct and of pure nature and nature which has been
ancient road disqualifies thousands of acres. soiled by human activity. Thus, areas receiving
We call this the “Hayduke Principle.” This this important protection are strictly “untram-
dualism prevents compromise over wilderness meled by man, where man himself is a visitor

294
 Wilderness and Wildness

who does not remain” (1964 Wilderness Act). which is important information for wilderness
Linda Vance (1997) criticizes this dualistic advocates. In fact, sometimes 99 votes in the
thinking: “Wilderness is more than a land-use U.S. Senate aren’t enough. One senator can
designation: it is the part of our environment put a “hold” on a bill until circumstances
that is idealized as ‘perfect nature,’ as, indeed, encourage him or her to acquiesce. This
the highest or purest form of nature we have. means that vigorous opposition (or almost any
In defining wilderness by the absence of opposition) from the local congressional dele-
humans, we are saying, in effect, that nature is gation must be avoided for designation to take
at its best when utterly separated from the place. The political reality is that some com-
human world. The idea of wilderness is thus promises may need to be made to get wilder-
an extreme manifestation of the general ness designation. The reality for wilderness
Western conceptual rift between culture and advocates is that of the 2.3 billion acres in the
nature” (Vance 1997). Places that are heavily United States, only 106,302,240 acres
used but not overtly developed, places within (Wilderness Information Network 2003) are
eyesight or earshot of roadways, places with protected to the highest extent of the law, and
established mountain bike use, or places in nature has compromised enough.
need of extensive restoration and anti-invasive
weed measures do not fit our black-and-white Grand Canyon National Park
expectations. These areas then complicate Grand Canyon National Park is an illustra-
surrounding areas that otherwise clearly do tive example of wilderness policy paralysis.
fit. The debate is visceral. For instance some The vast majority of this park is undisputed
analysts suggest that in southern Utah there is wilderness; however, none is designated. This
a significant number of people who will not, does not seem to be a result of Arizonan con-
under any circumstances, allow the govern- gressional resistance. Nine laws from 1964 to
ment to have any wilderness, anywhere, at any 1990 designate wilderness in Arizona, which
time (McCool 2002). has over 4.5 million acres of wilderness in
Perhaps this duality comes out of a con- ninety-three units. Arizona holds over 4% of
trast with industrial expansion. Craig Allin the National Wilderness Preservation System,
argues that wilderness developed in relation and has more wilderness than 46 other states.
to national development and expansion. About 10% of these acres are managed by
Initially, wilderness was viewed as a “worth- NPS in four designated areas: Chiricahua
less impediment to progress” (1982:4). As a National Monument, Organ Pipe Cactus
result, wilderness became more scarce and National Monument (the largest NPS Arizona
eventually more valued as a function of this wilderness unit), Petrified Forest National
scarcity. Thus, wilderness preservation, Park, and Saguaro National Park (National
according to Allin, occurs as a result of the Wilderness Preservation System 2002). Nor
abuses of industrial expansion where wilder- does the problem seem to be the National
ness becomes that place where development Park Service. Most of Grand Canyon National
has not occurred. This same dynamic can be Park has been treated as wilderness at least
seen in other countries as well and strategies since 1980. Currently, the general manage-
to protect those wild lands have been shared ment plan for the park reads: “Over 90% of
across international boundaries (Ostergren the park will be managed as wilderness, in
and Hollenhorst 1999). accordance with the park’s 1993 wilderness
If the standard for wilderness is too high, proposal.”
few places will qualify, and those that do will The problem is the division over designa-
be subject to a high burden of proof that will tion within the Colorado River corridor. The
be less likely to succeed and more easily river flows freely for 240 miles, but also expe-
defeated. Consequently, and importantly, less riences at least 23,000 floaters a year, a major-
political power is needed to block wilderness ity of whom ride with commercial river run-
designation than is needed to push it through, ners who use motors (Grand Canyon National
295
 Wilderness and Wildness

Park 1997). The subsequent generation of (filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
$23.3 million in regional economic impact is a of Columbia against Secretary of the Interior
strong force in the debate (data are from com- Gale Norton and NPS Director Fran
mercial and non-commercial motorized and Mainella). Unfortunately, NPS should expect
non-motorized raft trips from 2001; see such actions, and more in the future. If the
Hjerpe 2003). The status of the river has been United States is to protect its wilderness assets
so ambiguous and irreconcilable that the within the National Park System, then some
park’s wilderness plan has not even been for- agent or interest group must take a proactive
warded to the secretary of the interior, from stance. The group may be an NGO, a federal
which it would go to the president after a new agency, or the general public itself through
or refurbished environmental impact state- elections and actions. Of course, Congress
ment, and then to Congress—a trek longer may suddenly allocate additional funds for
than Bright Angel Trail itself. A solution that wilderness plans, management, and designa-
allows for designation of the gray area—the tion and thus preclude any further legal
river—seems unlikely. The implication is that action.
including the river takes the designation If the nature/culture dualism is operating
process of the whole park off the table. as we believe it is, then the policy solution
would be to overcome it by allowing for com-
Discussion and Suggestions plexity and compromise in our conceptions of
One issue that we only consider parenthet- what “good nature” looks like—and allowing
ically is the bureaucratic behavior of NPS. Is it for a more gradual change in perception,
conforming to the 1964 Wilderness Act? We which presumably would take generations.
suggest that, yes, NPS is conforming to the Were the latter to occur and people were able
best of its ability and is, in many cases, doing a to view human interaction with nature as nei-
very good job. On-the-ground implementa- ther dominion nor alien, then perhaps wilder-
tion is just as the political science literature ness policy would become obsolete (to the
would predict. Regardless of the impasse at extent that natural degradation is a result of
the congressional level, NPS has a policy to human dominion and humans would live with
maintain the wilderness character of lands that wild nature rather than domesticating nature).
may qualify. Some superintendents have a rep- Both of these developments are important, but
utation for zealous preservation and observa- policy decisions are needed in a more timely
tion of using the least-intrusive tool. Others manner.
may be a little more willing to employ motor- One strategy toward wilderness designa-
driven tools and vehicles, but several environ- tion in the Grand Canyon is to separate the
mental NGOs we talked to felt that in some bulk of the park’s wilderness from the
conditions, even helicopters are the minimum Colorado River management plan. This is a
tools, compared with a long line of horses to strategy that seems to be taking place already,
supply remote sites or a series of burial pits for but is still under review. The local congres-
refuse. In the few cases where NPS refuses to sional delegation could meet with the NPS
forward recommendations, or put any effort congressional liaison and Grand Canyon
into developing a wilderness plan (“back- wilderness managers to negotiate two things.
country plan” by another name), wilderness First, this meeting should establish what
advocates ought to keep up the pressure. The areas are uncontroversial in order to free them
unfortunate byproduct of the NPS doing the for permanent, immediate protection. If both
best that any bureaucracy in its place can, is the congressional delegation from the region
that outside organizations will inevitably do and the administration can agree on areas that
the best they can and turn to the courts. The are indisputable wilderness, it would be diffi-
recent suit by the Wilderness Society to com- cult for other members of Congress to argue
pel NPS compliance is a tool to urge realloca- against this. No riders—e.g. trading to keep
tion of funds and resources to wilderness other wilderness areas out of the process—
296
 Wilderness and Wildness

should be accepted at this time. Some con- areas and allow managers to move forward.
gressional delegations we interviewed have The resulting conversations and differences
said they would consider designating NPS may linger for many years, while old issues
wilderness if Title II precluded future desig- pass and new ones arise to complicate the
nation of areas under the U.S. Forest Service wilderness debate. On the other hand, a chap-
(USFS) and Bureau of Land Management ter could close on millions of acres within the
(BLM). This is the type of negotiation that National Park System.
stops wilderness bills in Utah: the environ-
mental NGOs will not allow politicians to References
adopt “a shade of green” in Title I while Allin, C.W. 1982. The Politics of Wilderness
developing the USFS and BLM areas that are Preservation. Westport, Conn.:
more at risk. Greenwood Press.
Next, the ambiguous areas should be dis- ———. 2001. Wilderness policy. In Western
cussed in geographic detail with potential Public Lands and Environmental Politics.
exemptions used to further protect areas that 2nd ed. Charles Davis, ed. Boulder, Colo.:
receive heavy use but maintain many wilder- Westview Press, 197–222.
ness qualities, such as the Colorado River. If Congressional Record. 1976. Wilderness
negotiations over the river allow for perma- Additions—National Park System.
nent protection of that system, it may be worth Hearings before the Subcommittee on
allowing for a motorboat exemption, which is Parks and Recreation, Committee on
clearly permissible both by precedent, such as Interior and Insular Affairs, 94th
in Glacier Bay National Park and the Congress, second session. February 6.
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
and by the wording of the original 1964 act Printing Office.
under section 4(d)(1) (National Park Service Cronin, W. 1996. The trouble with wilder-
1998). If policy-makers and wilderness advo- ness; or, getting back to the wrong nature.
cates struggle to keep motors out of the river Environmental History 1:1, 7–25.
in order to preserve “good nature,” it will take Gorte, R.W. 1994. Wilderness: Overview and
a great deal of time and political capital that Statistics. Congressional Research Service
apparently is more easily used to stall rather Report. Washington, D.C.: National
than forward wilderness protection. Also, the Council for Science and the Environment.
exemptions allowed in wilderness are not Grand Canyon National Park. 1995. General
inherently “on or off ” any more than wilder- Management Plan. On-line at
ness itself; these exemptions should be heavi- www.nps.gov/grca/mgmt/.
ly negotiated to at least reduce motor use in Grand Canyon Private Boaters Ass’n v. Alston,
the river and balance out the distribution of Case no. CV-00-1277-PCT-PGR-TSZ,
passengers to private and commercial boaters. District Court of Arizona. Settlement
Even if wilderness advocates vehemently dis- agreement on-line at http://www.nps.gov/
agree with this specific recommendation, grca/colorado/settlement.htm.
there seem to be very few good reasons for Hjerpe, E.E. 2003. Regional economic
gambling the entire wilderness area in the impacts of Grand Canyon river runners
Grand Canyon that can be permanently pro- and amenity-driven markets in the rural,
tected today on the less than 1% that cannot. inter-mountain West. Master’s thesis,
The Hayduke Principle assumes that Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
wilderness designation is paralyzed by dualis- McCool, D. 2002. The wilderness debate in
tic thinking and a dichotomy of what good Utah: using community values and educa-
nature and bad nature can be. We don’t expect tion to resolve conflict. Paper presented at
that all groups will compromise in all areas, the 9th International Symposium on
although there is a chance that policy inertia Society and Resource Management, 2–5
could be overcome to decide on many NPS June, Indiana University, Bloomington,
297
 Wilderness and Wildness

Indiana. and-answer session at the Annual

National Park Service. 1979. Colorado River Convention of the American Newspaper
Management Plan. On-line at Publishers Association in New York City.
www.gcpba.org/pubs/library/1979CRMP Public Papers of Ronald Reagan. On-line
pt1.pdf. at www.reagan.utexas.edu/.
———. 1998. Use of motorboats in designated Watson, J. 1996. Wilderness in the national
wilderness. Washington, D.C.: National parks—now more than ever. International
Park Service. Journal of Wilderness 2: 24–25.
Ostergren, D.M., and S.J. Hollenhorst. 1999. Wilderness Information Network. 2003.
Convergence in protected area policy: a America’s wilderness. On-line at
comparison of the Russian zapovednik www.wilderness.net/.
and American wilderness systems. Society Williams, T.T. 1999. A shark in the mind of
and Natural Resources 12:4, 293–313. one contemplating wilderness. The Nation
Poirier, R., and D.M. Ostergren. 2002. 269:18, 42–46.
Evicting people from nature: indigenous Vance, L. 1997. Ecofeminism and wilderness.
land rights and national parks in Australia, National Women’s Studies Association
Russia and the United States. Natural Journal 9:3.
Resources Journal 42:2, 331–351.
Reagan, R. 1983. Remarks and a question-

298
 Wilderness and Wildness

Inholdings within Wilderness:

Legal Foundations, Problems, and Solutions
Randy Tanner, University of Montana and Wilderness Watch, 707 Kemp Street, Missoula,
Montana 59801; randy.tanner@umontana.edu

For many people, the wilderness ideal is a vast and contiguous tract of unspoiled wild land.
However, unknown to many is the fact that well over 1 million acres (404,700 ha) and thousands
of parcels of private or state-owned lands may be contained within designated wilderness in the
United States. These lands, termed wilderness inholdings, present challenges to wilderness advo-
cates that require creative solutions and deliberate action due to serious concern about motor-
ized access to inholdings, land speculation and threatened development, uses of inholdings that
are incompatible with wilderness, legal ambiguities of ownership rights, and multiple legal guide-
lines for wilderness managers.
In the western United States, land renouncing all claims to the rest of the state
inholdings in wilderness are largely a result of (Zaslowsky 1986). The result on the land-
five legislative acts: the 1872 Mining Law (17 scape was a patchwork of private and state-
Stat. 91), the 1862 Homestead Act (12 Stat. owned land scattered across public lands.
392), the 1864 and 1870 Land Grant acts (12 In contrast, much of the land in the east-
Stat. 503 and 26 Stat. 417), and the Alaska ern United States was privately owned before
Native Claims and Settlement Act (ANCSA; public lands were established by the federal
P.L. 92-203). Under the first four acts, public government. When the government decided
lands were distributed to the private sector to establish public lands in the East, it was dif-
and states to advance westward expansion and ficult to do so without some private or state-
development of the land; ANCSA distributed owned lands being contained within them.
public lands to Alaskan Natives as a land set- Thus, wilderness throughout the United
tlement. Many inholdings in wilderness areas States often contains inholdings; it would
are quite large. Under the 1872 Mining Law, have severely limited the National Wilderness
parcels were claimed in units of 20 acres (8 Preservation System (NWPS) to have exclud-
ha), and 160 acres (64 ha) were turned over to ed such areas. Table 1 lists the acres of private
individuals under the Homestead Act. While and state land inholdings contained within
these four acts distributed land to private indi- designated wilderness administered by the
viduals, the Land Grant acts distributed land U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land
to states in 640-acre (259-ha) parcels. ANCSA Management (BLM), and National Park
awarded a total land grant of 44 million acres Service (NPS). Data on the acreage of inhold-
(18 million ha) to Alaskan Natives for ings within U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Agency Privately Owned State-Owned

USFS 132,603 acres 305,453 acres
(53,667 ha) (123,616 ha)
BLM 311,554 acres 267,653 acres
(126,086 ha) (108,319 ha)
NPS 2,462 acres 15,208 acres
(996 ha) (6,155 ha)
USFWS not available not available
Table 1. Extent of private and state-owned inholdings in wilderness areas managed by feder-
al agencies.
299
 Wilderness and Wildness

(USFWS) wilderness areas are not available. rights of inholding landowners. Access to
wilderness inholdings is subject to the restric-
Problems Associated with tions imposed by the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-
Wilderness Inholdings 577) and the legislation that designated that
Inholdings present wilderness advocates particular wilderness. Section 5(a) of the
and federal agencies with a number of prob- Wilderness Act serves as the legal basis
lems, which can be summarized into five main regarding land inholdings contained within a
situations: motorized access across wilderness wilderness, in the absence of any other legisla-
to inholdings, land speculation and threat- tion relevant to a particular wilderness. The
ened development of inholdings, uses of Wilderness Act directs agencies to offer ade-
inholdings that are incompatible with wilder- quate access or an exchange of lands.
ness, legal ambiguities related to the property Subsequent wilderness legislation relevant to
rights of inholding landowners, and multiple inholdings sometimes only included provi-
legal guidelines for wilderness managers. sions to grant adequate access (not necessarily
Motorized access to inholdings. The use motorized) if it is requested, but the legislation
of motor vehicles on wildlands was a serious does not preclude the agencies from offering a
concern in the early wilderness movement and land exchange. In addition to the Wilderness
is one activity the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88- Act, the most important pieces of wilderness
577) tried to guard against. Increasingly, agen- legislation relevant to land inholdings are the
cies are granting motorized access through Eastern Wilderness Act (P.L. 93-622), Alaska
wilderness to inholdings based more on National Interest Lands Conservation Act
landowner convenience rather than the ade- (ANILCA; P.L. 96-487), and California
quacy of nonmotorized access for the inhold- Desert Protection Act (P.L. 104-433), which
er. Thus, there is an increasing amount of are listed in Table 2 along with key legal pro-
motor vehicle traffic within the NWPS lands. visions related to inholdings.
In some cases, motorized access through While all four federal agencies managing
wilderness has been allowed when travel by wilderness under the NWPS are bound by the
foot or horse would be adequate for reason- Wilderness Act and other relevant legislation,
able use of the property by the inholder. In agencies promulgate their own regulations or
addition to impacts upon the biophysical policies that serve as their interpretation of
characteristics of wilderness, motorized intru- those laws. While both regulations and poli-
sions are damaging to the wilderness experi- cies serve as the foundation for the agencies’
ences of users. management of wilderness, regulations are
Land speculation and threatened devel- legally binding, whereas policies are only
opment of inholdings. Land speculation and administrative guidelines. However, should a
development are not words typically associat- legal issue be brought before the courts and
ed with wilderness, but some inholders have there is found to be a conflict between the leg-
recently begun to employ such practices to islation and agency regulations or policies, the
make a large profit off of their land by threat- legislation has precedence over the regula-
ening to develop or mine it. tions or policies of the agencies. Table 3 lists
Incompatible uses of inholdings. the federal agency regulations and policies
Designated wilderness area are the most pro- concerning wilderness inholdings.
tected public lands in the U.S. Incompatible With regard to inholdings, wilderness leg-
use of inholdings can affect the ecological islation contains inconsistent language that
health, aesthetic value, and character of the has led to multiple interpretations by federal
adjoining wilderness. Incompatible uses can agencies. These varied interpretations have
include major building construction, use of caused difficulties both in determining the
airfields, mining, and introduction of exotic type of access to be permitted to inholdings
species (e.g., fish stocking). and the intended scope of some legislation.
Legal ambiguities related to the property Two pieces of legislation at the center of this
300
 Wilderness and Wildness

Table 2. U.S. legislation concerning private and state-owned inholdings in the NWPS.

Table 3. Extent of private and state-owned inholdings in wilderness areas managed by feder-
al agencies.

301
 Wilderness and Wildness

controversy are the Wilderness Act and Section 1323(a) directs the secretary of
ANILCA. agriculture to provide adequate access to land
Section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act directs inholdings located within the National Forest
agencies to provide adequate access or offer a System that will secure the owner the reason-
land exchange for the inholding. This section able use and enjoyment of the inholding.
of the legislation has been interpreted a couple USFS has interpreted section 1323(a) to
of different ways. Some have implied that the apply to wilderness nationwide, including
appropriate federal agency must, if an Alaska, and consequently the agency has
exchange offer is not acceptable to the proper- adopted it as its policy governing access to
ty owner, make adequate access available. wilderness inholdings. However, subsection
Conversely, if the property owner does not see 1110(b) applies to all designated wilderness
the granted access as adequate, then an offer in Alaska, including national forest wilder-
for exchange must be made. However, a 1980 ness; therefore, current USFS policies regard-
U.S. attorney general opinion interpreted the ing access to Alaska wilderness inholdings
section to mean that the appropriate federal should be in accordance with 1110(b).
agency has the option of choosing either an
exchange or granting access to the inholding, Multiple Guidelines
and once one of the two offers has been made, for Wilderness Managers
the agency has satisfied its responsibility The variety of legislation relevant to
(Civiletti 1980). Also, as subsection 5(a) wilderness inholdings has created some con-
states, regardless of which option is chosen, fusion as to which legislation is applicable for
the action is subject to the preservation of a particular wilderness. Since there are
wilderness character. numerous pieces of wilderness legislation, and
ANILCA is one of the most important some legislation regarding access to wilder-
pieces of wilderness legislation since the ness inholdings may not be applicable to all
Wilderness Act of 1964. After a decade of leg- agencies managing wilderness, access is often
islative debate, more than 104 million acres of regulated differently depending on which
federal lands in Alaska were preserved as agency administers the particular wilderness.
national parks, wildlife refuges, and conserva- Different directives for access to wilderness
tion areas, and 56.5 million acres of those inholdings are found not only inter-agency,
lands were designated as wilderness (The but also intra-agency. For a particular agency,
Wilderness Society 2001). Just as important the permitted access to wilderness inholdings
as the designation of protected areas, the in Alaska under ANILCA may be substantial-
ANILCA specified management directives for ly different from what it allows to wilderness
all 224 million acres of federal land in Alaska. inholdings in the lower 48 states.
Two sections of ANILCA are particularly
relevant to wilderness inholdings: sections Solutions to Problems with
1110 and 1323. Subsection 1110(b) specifi- Wilderness Inholdings
cally addresses access to wilderness inhold- Some possible solutions include clarifying
ings in Alaska, regardless of the managing fed- and strengthening wilderness legislation and
eral agency, and declares that “adequate and agency regulations regarding wilderness
feasible access for economic and other pur- inholdings, supporting land trusts, and, in
poses” shall be provided “subject to reason- extreme cases, allowing condemnation of
able regulations issued by the Secretary to lands. Combining creative solutions with pub-
protect the natural and other values of such lic support ideally will result in a resolution of
lands.” Since approximately half of our the dilemmas encountered when wilderness
nation’s designated wilderness is in Alaska, areas contain public and state land inholdings.
including the majority of national park and Adherence to wilderness legislation and
wildlife refuge wilderness, 1110(b) is an legal clarification. While, in most cases,
exceptionally important subsection of law. agencies managing designated wilderness are
302
 Wilderness and Wildness

required to grant access (not necessarily sary to condemn lands within wilderness
motorized access) to inholdings, the access boundaries. With the passage of the Eastern
granted is conditional and depends upon the Wilderness Act, 16 national forest wilderness
wilderness designation legislation and the areas were established east of the 100th
Wilderness Act. Thus, agencies have an meridian and USFS was authorized to con-
opportunity to practice wise stewardship by demn inholdings in them if the use of the
denying any access that is contrary to funda- inholding was found to be incompatible with
mental wilderness principles. For example, an the protection of the wilderness and the owner
inholder in the Absaroka–Beartooth were unwilling to discontinue the incompati-
Wilderness recently requested that the USFS ble use. No inholdings have been condemned
construct an 8.6-mile road to his inholding under the Eastern Wilderness Act. While con-
and grant motorized access. The USFS demnation is a last resort for managers to solve
denied the request based on the concern for a problem, such an approach may be neces-
the preservation of the wilderness character. sary for the preservation of a wilderness area’s
The USFS decision was upheld in a federal character.
district court. We recommend that managers
prioritize wilderness protection over the con- Conclusion
venience of inholders, and existing legislation The management of the designated
will enable them to preserve wilderness char- wilderness areas in the NWPS has often
acter in most cases. proven to be an arduous and delicate task.
Land trusts. Ultimately, it may be advanta- The five types of problems arising from
geous for agencies managing wilderness to wilderness inholdings, outlined in this paper,
purchase all private and state land inholdings certainly raise concern among wilderness
in order to preserve wilderness character in managers. For many wilderness areas, there is
the designated area. Such an approach is potential for a few inholdings to shape the
expensive and, consequently, agencies are character of the entire wilderness. Thus, with
unable to afford to purchase all wilderness a significant number of wilderness areas con-
inholdings. In the event that an agency is taining inholdings, timely and effective solu-
unable to purchase an inholding from a will- tions to the problems associated with them are
ing seller, land trusts—organizations devoted needed.
to acquiring lands in the spirit of conserva-
tion—can purchase the land and hold it in the References
spirit of wilderness stewardship, or sell the Civiletti, Benjamin R. 1980. Opinion of the
land to the agency when more public funding Attorney General of the United States:
for land purchases is available. Land trusts Rights-of-Way Across National Forests.
have traditionally been an effective tool in June 23.
combating problems with wilderness inhold- Clifford, Hal. 2000. Bulldozer blackmail. Ski
ings. For example, since its origin in 1992, the Magazine (February), 117–121.
Wilderness Land Trust (2002) has acquired Department of the Interior Board of Land
180 private inholdings in 35 designated Appeals. 1984. United States Department
wildernesses. of the Interior, Office of Hearings and
Condemnation of wilderness inhold- Appeals, Interior Board of Land Appeals.
ings. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. IBLA 83-356. March 30.
Constitution allows federal agencies to con- Montana Wilderness Association v. United
demn lands if the lands will be turned over to States Forest Service. United States Court
public use. The Wilderness Act does permit of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 1981. No. 80-
condemnation of lands, but does not grant 3374. August 19.
this authority to federal agencies. Instead, it is The Wilderness Land Trust. 2000. On-line at
stipulated in section 5(c) of the act that www.wildernesslandtrust.org.
authorization of the U.S. Congress is neces- The Wilderness Society. 2001. Alaska
303
 Wilderness and Wildness

National Interest Lands Conservation Act: Lands: Parks, Wilderness, and Public
A Citizens’ Guide. Palmer, Alaska: The Lands. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Wilderness Society.
Zaslowsky, Dyan. 1986. These American

304
 Natural Resource Management

Fire Management and Resource Management

at Big Cypress National Preserve
James N. Burch, Big Cypress National Preserve, HCR 61, Box 110, Ochopee, Florida 34141;
jim_burch@nps.gov

Big Cypress National Preserve is located in southwestern Florida, north and west of (adjacent
to) Everglades National Park. Wetland communities, especially those dominated by bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum) trees, make up much of the preserve’s landscape. Topographic relief in the
preserve is limited, with a gradual slope (about 1 foot per mile) toward the coast, so that most of
the preserve is under at least few inches of water during the summer rainy season. The flat nature
of the land also supports large areas of shortgrass prairies and sawgrass marshes. These
graminoid communities naturally burn every few years, so that fire is a common and significant
ecological factor.
Fire Management reside in mesic-to-hydric communities in the
The Big Cypress prescribed fire manage- preserve. Red-cockaded woodpeckers
ment program is the largest in the National (Picoides borealis) require old-growth pine
Park Service (NPS) in terms of the amount of forests for nest colony sites; these communi-
burning accomplished. The preserve burns ties became uncommon after timber cutting in
about 40,000 acres annually to reduce accu- the southeastern United States during the last
mulated fuels in plant communities. This pro- century. Several colonies occur in Big
gram has about 20 full-time employees, and in Cypress, and consideration is given to possi-
2002 made up about half of the area in the ble impacts on this bird when planning for
National Park System that was burned for fuel burns in these areas. The Cape Sable seaside
reduction. Property owners in areas that may sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis),
be affected by nearby fires are contacted when an endangered bird that resides partly on the
they are available; prescribed fires are almost southeastern part of Big Cypress, relies on
always well received by adjacent property graminoid marshes for nesting. The effect of
owners, as fires historically were used to fire on this community is being studied to
reduce fuels or improve forage for domestic or determine its possible effects on the marsh
game animals. Preserve fire management staff and nest site availability. Florida tree snails
work closely with the state of Florida’s (Liguus fasciatus) reside in hardwood ham-
Division of Forestry, as state restrictions often mocks in Big Cypress. These hammocks are
constrain fire operations. identified so that effects of fires on snails can
be minimized.
Resource Management Cultural resources and controlled fires.
Resource management at Big Cypress Several historic and prehistoric cultural sites
actively shares information about the pre- have been identified in Big Cypress with help
serve’s natural resources with other divisions from fire management staff. Sites have been
in the preserve. This is a practical application surveyed by NPS Southeast Archeological
of the science needed to understand natural Center archeologists after burning, when they
systems. Communication with fire manage- are more easily located with vegetation
ment staff is especially valuable, as fire is a removed. Also in early 2003, fire management
common and important abiotic component of staff used hand tools to clear a dense stand of
southern Florida’s ecology. exotic Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthi-
Wildlife management. Management con- folius) trees from a Calusa Indian shell
cerns for fauna in the preserve include fire’s mound, so that excavation and artifact recov-
impact on species such as Florida panther ery could most effectively take place at this
(Felis concolor coreyi) and its prey animals that archeological site.
305
 Natural Resource Management

Exotic plant removal and habitat cent communities, and areas closer to the
restoration. Whenever possible, exotic plant hydric interior of the slough will experience
management staff coordinates with fire man- less frequent fires. As slough community areas
agement staff at Big Cypress to burn areas typically are linear with little topographic
from which exotic Melaleuca (Melaleuca quin- relief, these ecotonal areas can be extensive,
quenervia) trees have been removed. These but here they are considered outside of the
areas are burned after the Melaleuca seeds slough and mixed hardwood community.
have germinated, but before they are large Much variation occurs in mixed hardwood
enough to tolerate fires (usually within a year and cypress communities, so that fire frequen-
of germination), as recommended by Myers et cy is estimated at 50–100 years.
al. (2001). Marl prairies and marshes. Marl prairies
USGS long-term fire ecology project. and marshes are hydric communities that are
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) dominated by ground cover, and occupy
Biological Resources Division has maintained about 20% of Big Cypress National Preserve.
a field station to study fire effects on hydric Duever et al. (1986) cited works that suggest
and mesic pinelands in Big Cypress for about fires occur in these communities about as
20 years. Data gathered from this long-term often or more often than in pinelands, but
study will help managers understand what fire indicated that some prairies are less produc-
frequencies may be appropriate for these tive than pinelands so that fuel loads may not
woodland communities. accumulate fast enough to support more fre-
quent fires. Areas dominated by sawgrass
Major Communities (Cladium jamaicense) may burn every 2–5
and Fire Regimes years, but Wade et al. (1980) cited estimates of
Cypress and mixed hardwood swamps. pre-disturbance frequency at 3–25 years, sug-
Cypress and mixed hardwood swamps cover gesting that frequencies near the low end of
about 50% of Big Cypress. Wade et al. (1980) this estimate may have been most common.
suggested that these wetland communities are These estimates suggest a natural fire frequen-
probably more common now than before dis- cy of 3–5 years.
turbance by logging, and that pre-drainage fire Mesic and hydric pine flatwoods. Pine
frequencies may have been 100–200 years in flatwoods communities are mesic-to-hydric
dense cypress sloughs. Myers and Ewel communities that are dominated by open-
(1990) indicated about 20-year fire intervals canopied slash pines (Pinus elliottii); these
in cypress forests. These are communities communities cover about 20% of Big Cypress
with long hydroperiods and high humidity, so National Preserve. Mesic pine flatwoods are
fires are not well supported here except dur- usually co-dominated by saw palmetto
ing times of extreme drought. Fire, however, is (Serenoa repens) shrubs, and hydric pine flat-
apparently important to these communities in woods are usually co-dominated with
maintaining dominance by cypress. Dwarf graminoid ground cover. Myers and Ewel
cypress, an ecotonal community with ele- (1990) indicated variation of fire frequencies
ments of cypress slough and marl prairie, burn in these communities with environmental vari-
more frequently (see below under “Marl ables. Wade et al. (1980) indicated much vari-
prairies and marshes”). ation in pine flatwoods fire frequencies, but
Wade et al. (1980) provided no estimate pointed out that in closely related pine rock-
for natural fire frequency in mixed cypress land communities, fire every five or six years
and hardwood sloughs, but suggested that the was enough to inhibit effective recruitment of
very wet, dense, interior parts of the sloughs pine seedlings, so that natural fire intervals
probably seldom burn. The edges of these may be greater than seven years. These com-
communities that are ecotonal with marl munities are often adjacent to frequently burn-
prairies or with mesic pine flatwoods, howev- ing prairies, and may be subject to ignition by
er, may experience fires as often as the adja- those fires, so that more frequent fires can
306
 Natural Resource Management

occur. Duever et al. (1986) cited studies of fire Plant community activities and fires. A
frequencies in pine forests at 3–7 years, and primary ecological consideration for pre-
studies that demonstrated succession to hard- scribed fires should be the seasonality of natu-
wood communities after 15–25 years without rally occurring fires. Fire may be considered a
fire. These estimates suggest a natural fire fre- stochastic event, so that its occurrence
quency of 7–20 years. involves a statistical likelihood in each com-
Mesic hammocks. Mesic hammocks are munity, but the actual time of the event is ran-
slightly elevated insular areas that are domi- dom. This should not be taken to mean that
nated by hardwood trees. Inland, these tree fires should occur with regularity, but that
islands usually are dominated by temperate over time, most fires naturally occur during a
trees; in coastal areas, by tropical trees. particular season, and fewer occur during the
Duever et al. (1986) and Wade et al. (1980) rest of the year. In southern Florida, we may
mentioned that hammocks are usually insulat- consider late spring as a likely season for fires,
ed from fires by wetlands that surround the based on several ecological observations: (1)
islands; also, hammock soils are usually moist, late spring is usually the driest season; (2) dry
with water tables within 1 m of the soil surface conditions occur through much of this sea-
for most of the year. Duever et al. (1986) con- son; and (3) afternoon lightning becomes
servatively estimated fire frequencies in hard- common. Comparing plant activities in sever-
wood hammocks of 50 years or more. Wade et al natural communities that are affected differ-
al. (1980) provided no estimated fire frequen- ently by fires can partly test this hypothesis.
cy, but cited evidence of an interval of 200+
years for fires in hammock interiors. Methods
Growth and reproduction in plant com-
Seasons and Naturally munities often varies with seasons. Plant com-
Occurring Fires munities largely are a function of physical sur-
Rainy and dry seasons. Seasons in south- roundings, so that fires may be considered an
ern Florida are less defined by temperature important factor in their structure. By looking
than in more northern parts of North at flowering plant reproductive activity (flow-
America; however, wet and dry seasons pro- ering), seasons of reproductive activities can
duce predictable annual changes. Spring be compared with seasons of naturally occur-
months are usually the driest of the year, fol- ring fires. Reproductive activity is only one
lowed by the rainy summer season. Daily factor that should be considered as part of the
afternoon thunderstorms begin to build from ecology of communities subject to fire.
about mid-May to mid-June and occur Seasonal flowering of vascular plants that
through early autumn. Lightning that is part of are commonly found in four communities in
these storms creates fire activity during the Big Cypress were compared with estimated
summer rainy season. Wade et al. (1980) indi- fire return intervals for each community. The
cated that 75% of thunderstorms in south- species selected were from lists of plants
western Florida occur from June through found in several locations in southern Florida
September. Duever et al. (1986) indicated near to and within Big Cypress. The commu-
May as the month most likely for fires. nities selected are marl prairies (118 plants),
Records of fires occurring at Big Cypress over pine flatwoods (104 plants), mixed hardwood
the past 20 years indicate that natural fire fre- and cypress swamp (119 plants), and tropical
quencies are greatest during summer, when hardwood hammocks (130 plants). Seasons of
thunderstorms are most common. Areas flowering were taken from Wunderlin (1998).
burned by naturally occurring fires are great- Estimates of fire return frequencies were inter-
est early in the summer when conditions are preted from several authors (see above,
driest and lightning becomes common (Big “Major Communities and Fire Regimes”).
Cypress National Preserve Fire Operations Fire is assumed to occur most often during
2003). spring as a result of lightning from thunder-
307
 Natural Resource Management

storms during dry conditions. also have fire returns of only a few years, simi-
lar to adjacent marl prairie communities.
Results and These communities represent most of the
Management Implications mesic habitat here, and are important for the
Reproductive activities of plants found in success of at least two listed animals (Florida
major biological communities in Big Cypress panther and red-cockaded woodpecker) that
National Preserve varied with estimated natu- reside in the preserve. Maintaining these
rally occurring fire return frequency. uplands in current successional stages is
Communities with short fire return intervals important for these animals, so that fire fre-
had fewer resident plants with reproductive quencies of 7–20 years should be considered
activity during the spring, suggesting that nat- for these plant communities.
ural fire regimes may influence the species Mixed cypress and hardwood sloughs and
compositions of these communities (Table 1). tropical hardwood hammocks are communi-
Marl prairie communities have the highest ties that apparently have fire return intervals
fire frequencies with the lowest percentage of on the order of decades or centuries. Soils,
plants flowering in spring (dry season), and plants, and hydrology in these communities
the highest percentage of those flowering in do not promote fires (Wade et al. 1980;
summer (wet season). Wade et al. (1980) indi- Duever et al. 1986), and the proportions of
cated that a fire frequency of 2–5 years is nec- plant reproductive activities in these commu-
essary in sawgrass marshes to minimize fuel nities is higher during times of greater fire
build-up. Duever et al. (1986) mentioned that probability than in marl prairies or pine flat-
low vegetation, burned back to the substrate woods (Table 1). Hammocks have the longest
surface level, can recover well when re-growth fire return frequencies, and the greatest per-
occurs before the summer rains. Wade et al. centage of spring-flowering plants. These
(1980) recommended spring burning for saw- communities occupy relatively little area in
grass, if soils are damp or inundated. This Big Cypress, but contain at least one State of
allows fire to remove the dead or old growth, Florida listed animal (Florida tree snail), and
but offers protection of meristem tissues that many state-listed threatened or endangered
occur near the soil surface. Frequent pre- plants (mostly epiphytic orchids and bromeli-
scribed fires (3–5 year intervals) should be ads). Prescribed fire should not be promoted
considered for these communities. in these communities, as naturally occurring
Pine flatwoods that occur in Big Cypress fires apparently were rare.

Table 1. Seasonal flowering of plants and fire frequencies: estimated percentages of flower-
ing plants that produce flowers during each season and year-round in natural communities
with different fire frequencies in Big Cypress National Preserve. Seasons of flowering were
taken from Wunderlin (1998). Fire is assumed to occur most often during spring, as a
result of dry conditions and lightning from thunderstorms.

Marl Pine Mixed Tropical

Prairies Flatwoods Swamp Hammocks
Spring 53 64 67 87
Summer 91 83 79 81
Fall 82 74 66 73
Winter 22 21 24 44
All Year 20 19 22 40
Fire
Frequency 3-5 yrs. 7-20 yrs. 50-100 yrs. 100+ yrs.
308
 Natural Resource Management

Conclusions T.R. Alexander, R.L. Myers, and D.P.

The ecology of biological communities Spangler. 1986. The Big Cypress National
should be considered in planning fires. Wade Preserve. Research Report no. 8. New
et al. (1980) indicated that 70% of plants York: National Audubon Society.
endemic to southern Florida occur in pyrocli- Myers, R.L., H.A. Belles, and J.R. Snyder.
mactic (fire climax) communities, and plant 2001. Prescribed fires in the management
reproductive activities outlined here appear to of Melaleuca quinquenervia in subtropical
be related to fire frequencies and seasons. Florida. In Proceedings of the Invasive
Duever et al. (1986) indicated that out-of-sea- Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the
son fires may change life cycles of native plants Control and Spread of Invasive Species.
and animals and may promote growth of some (Fire Conference 2000: The First National
exotics. At Big Cypress, decisions on timing Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and
and use of prescribed fire are based on infor- Management.) K.E.M. Galley and T.P.
mation collected by USGS and NPS scientists Wilson, eds. Miscellaneous Publication
on the conditions of natural systems. no. 11. Tallahassee, Fla.: Tall Timbers
However, in general, frequencies and timing of Research Station, 132–140.
prescribed fires largely reflect human require- Myers, R.L., and J.J. Ewel. 1990. Ecosystems of
ments. Efforts should be made to set pre- Florida. Gainesville: University Press of
scribed fires during seasons having conditions Florida.
most similar to those conducive to naturally Wade, D., J. Ewel, and R. Hofstetter. 1980.
occurring fire. Fire in South Florida Ecosystems. General
Technical Report SE-17. Asheville, N.C.:
References U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest
Big Cypress National Preserve Fire Service, Southeast Forest Experiment
Operations. 2003. Unpublished data. Station.
Ochopee, Fla.: Big Cypress National Wunderlin, R.P. 1998. Guide to Vascular
Preserve. Plants of Florida. Gainesville: University
Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, J.F. Meeder, L.C. Press of Florida.
Duever, L.H. Gunderson, L.A. Riopelle,

309
 Natural Resource Management

Water Quality Data Collection and Analysis

in Support of Anti-Degradation Standards:
A Case Study with General Lessons
Richard Evans, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, 294 Old Milford Road, Milford,
Pennsylvania 18337; richard_evans@nps.gov

Summary
Protecting water quality unimpaired for future generations is a primary goal for many nation-
al parks and conservation areas. The National Park Service’s (NPS’s) Natural Resource
Challenge includes funding and programs to increase water quality monitoring in national parks.
However, designing and implementing technically sound water quality monitoring programs and
regulations that prevent degradation may be more difficult than generally recognized.
A case study covering 121 miles of the Delaware River (Pennsylvania, New York, and New
Jersey), including the Middle Delaware Scenic and Recreational River (MDSRR) and the Upper
Delaware Scenic and Recreational River (UDSRR), illustrates some of these difficulties—and
ways overcome them. This case study focuses on comparisons of monitoring data with numeric
“anti-degradation” regulatory standards for 12 water quality parameters (such as dissolved oxy-
gen) pertaining to the MDSRR, and 10 parameters pertaining to the UDSRR. In the vast major-
ity of cases, the data failed to conform to the regulatory standards: out of a total of 59 compar-
isons, the data fit within the standards in only five cases (8%). Most of the discrepancies result-
ed from technical problems and inconsistencies with the regulatory standards, the sampling
(data generating) program, and the “recommended” data analysis procedures.
To be effective, regulatory standards, sampling programs, and data analysis procedures must
be developed and implemented in a technically sound, consistent, and thoroughly integrated
manner. Spatial and temporal variability (such as seasonal, diurnal, and flow-related variability)
of each parameter of interest must be taken into account in developing regulatory standards and
sampling and data analysis procedures.
Maintaining organizational focus and accountability also can be challenging, but is very
important. External professional review of monitoring and regulatory programs can be very help-
ful. Timely (annual) and appropriate data analysis and reporting are necessary to recognize and
fix problems quickly, and maximize the benefits of monitoring programs.
The DRBC has primary regulatory
Background of Monitoring Program authority over waters of the Delaware River. In
and Special Regulations December 1992, after six years of effort, the
Since 1984, the Delaware River Basin DRBC, with support from NPS, adopted
Commission (DRBC) and NPS have coopera- “Special Protection Waters” regulations.
tively conducted the “Scenic Rivers Water These regulations are intended to prevent
Quality Monitoring Program” in the upper degradation of this section of the Delaware
121 miles of the Delaware River. This section River (DRBC 1996), while allowing human
of river includes the MDSRR and the development to continue. These regulations
UDSRR. While there is no dam on the main stipulate that: (1) there be “no measurable
stem of the Delaware River, water released change in existing water quality except
from dams on the major tributaries to the river towards natural conditions”; (2) “existing
typically comprise 70% or more of the main water quality” is defined numerically by
stem flow through this section of river. Much “reach-wide” means and 95% confidence lim-
of the region has been experiencing rapid its for the concentrations of selected water
human development throughout the past 20 quality variables (such as dissolved oxygen) at
years. UDSRR and the MDSRR; (3) “measurable
310
 Natural Resource Management

change” is defined as “a mean concentration lected from 1992 through 1998) for 12
outside of the 95% confidence limits that parameters pertaining to the MDSRR and 10
define existing water quality.” parameters pertaining to the UDSRR with the
Numeric water quality standards for 16 numeric regulatory standards (Evans 2002).
parameters for the MDSRR and 14 para- Methods. In accord with the regulations
meters for the UDSRR are specified in these (DRBC 1996) and guidelines for the monitor-
regulations (DRBC 1996). The numeric stan- ing program (DRBC and NPS 1995), “cumu-
dards were derived from pre-existing data lative means” for each of the water quality vari-
compiled from a variety of sources (the Scenic ables were calculated and compared with the
Rivers Monitoring Program [SRMP], the U.S. regulatory standards. Cumulative means are
Geological Survey, and state agencies of New averages calculated from a required minimum
York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey). For number of data points; in this case, 200
some water quality variables, such as biologi- (DRBC and NPS 1995). The time required
cal oxygen demand and fecal coliform, the reg- for the SRMP to accumulate this number of
ulations stipulate that sample data must be data points for any given parameter was typi-
collected in the period May–September if they cally three to four years; hence the term
are to be compared with the standards. For “cumulative.”
other variables, such as conductivity and dis- As an alternative, I calculated “yearly
solved oxygen at MDSRR, the regulations means and 95% confidence intervals”—calcu-
allow sample data to be collected anytime lated separately for each year of data, regard-
throughout the year and compared with the less of the number of data points included—
standards. and compared these with the standards. I also
From 1984 to 1993, water quality samples evaluated seasonal changes in dissolved oxy-
were collected approximately every two weeks gen and specific conductance, and compared
during the period May–September as part of these with their “non-seasonal” regulatory
the SRMP. The data collected through 1991 standards.
were included in the data sets used to create Results. A total of 59 cumulative means
the regulatory, numeric definitions of “exist- were calculated and compared with the regu-
ing water quality.” In 1994, the monitoring latory standards. Only 5 (or 8%) of these
program was “redesigned” (DRBC and NPS means fell within the regulatory standards; 54
1995), and water quality samples were collect- (or 92%) were outside of the standards. At
ed only once a month—but throughout the least 13 (22%) of the cumulative means repre-
entire year, to the extent feasible. Part of the sented change away from, rather than towards,
rationale for this change was that intensive natural conditions. Specifically, these were (1)
sampling during May through September was low dissolved oxygen in the MDSRR, (2) high
no longer necessary, since the regulatory stan- specific conductance in the UDSRR, and (3)
dards had been established, and that sampling high “seasonal” total Kjeldahl nitrogen in both
throughout the year might provide other use- the MDSRR and UDSRR.
ful information. A total of 86 yearly means with 95% confi-
dence limits were calculated and compared
Monitoring Data Compared with with the regulatory standards. The yearly 95%
the Regulatory Standards confidence intervals included the regulatory
Unfortunately, ten years passed before the standards in 26 (30%) of these comparisons;
water quality monitoring data collected after the confidence intervals were outside of the
the regulations were established were com- regulatory standards in the other 60 (70%)
pared with the regulatory standards. Changes comparisons. At least 11 (13%) of these com-
in organizational structures, priorities, and parisons indicated change away from, rather
personnel within the DRBC and NPS con- than towards, natural conditions. Again, these
tributed to this delay. In 2002, I completed a were (1) low dissolved oxygen in the MDSRR,
report that compared water quality data (col- (2) high specific conductance in the UDSRR,
311
 Natural Resource Management

and (3) high “seasonal” total Kjeldahl nitrogen of the year, Conductivity is not. Similarly, it
in both the MDSRR and UDSRR. would be advantageous to develop a standard
Dissolved oxygen and specific conduc- for percent oxygen saturation, which would be
tance showed pronounced seasonal changes relatively stable throughout the year, rather
in the MDSRR, in contradiction to the “non- than dissolved oxygen, which is not.
seasonal” regulatory standards. Dissolved The lower limits of the regulatory stan-
oxygen concentrations increased dramatically dards for all the parameters considered here,
through the fall and winter, in concert with except dissolved oxygen, do not seem to have
decreasing water temperatures. Specific con- any practical use. Thus, for simplicity and
ductance decreased dramatically through the clarity, these lower limits could be removed
fall and winter, and reached peak levels in July from the regulations.
and August. Completely separate “non-seasonal” and
Mean dissolved oxygen concentration in “May–September” regulatory standards exist
the MDSRR was significantly higher in 1994 for ammonia + ammonium, total Kjeldahl
(about 10.5 mg/l), when year-round sampling nitrogen, and nitrite + nitrate for the MDSRR.
occurred, than in 1993 (about 8.8 mg/l) when But this is not logically defensible, because a
sampling occurred only during May through “non-seasonal” standard must include the val-
September. Specific conductance was dramat- ues of a seasonal standard.
ically lower in 1994 (about 42 umhos/cm, Comparison of fecal coliform data with the
25oC) when year-round sampling occurred, regulatory standards is difficult because typi-
than in 1993 (about 80 umhos/cm, 25oC), cally some samples have fecal coliform
when sampling occurred only May through colonies that are “too numerous to count”
September. (TNTC). A fecal coliform standard based on
the frequency of occurrence (percentage) of
Conclusions and Recommendations samples having more than 200 colonies/100
The fact that only 5 of 59 cumulative ml (the limit for contact recreation such as
means (8%) calculated from SRMP data swimming) would avoid or minimize this
between 1992 and 1998 fell within the estab- problem. This approach would simplify data
lished regulatory standards is clearly a prob- analysis and interpretation, and be directly
lem. At least 13 (22%) of the means represent useful to park managers.
change away from, rather than towards, natu- Sampling. The dramatic changes in
ral conditions. If these results do not reflect MDSRR dissolved oxygen and specific con-
real changes away from natural conditions, ductance from 1993 to 1994 and later were
they reflect problems with the monitoring most certainly due to changes in the time of
(data generating) procedures, the data analysis year that samples were collected (from
procedures, and the regulatory standards. May–September to year-round). Such
Regulatory standards. Several technical changes in any monitoring program should
flaws appear to exist in regulatory standards. not be made without first determining the
The “non-seasonal” regulatory standards for effects of the changes on the data produced.
dissolved oxygen and specific conductance in Data analysis. The “cumulative mean” is
the MDSRR do not reflect the very pro- not necessary and has several major disadvan-
nounced seasonal changes in these variables, tages. The supposed need for this method
and therefore are of little or no use. These reg- developed out of the mistaken idea that
ulatory standards should be revised to be sea- enough data must be accumulated to “repli-
sonally specific. What I have been referring to cate” the data set used originally to calculate
as “specific conductance” is actually listed in the regulatory standards. This is just erro-
the regulatory standards simply as “conduc- neous. Furthermore, this method does not
tivity.” Whereas specific conductance is incorporate any information about the amount
adjusted for water temperature, and so would of uncertainty associated with the calculated
be more stable through the changing seasons cumulative mean. Because several years of
312
 Natural Resource Management

data must be combined (typically three to four has been proposed, as well as a standard for
years), changes from year to year are percent oxygen saturation. For the past two
“damped,” and thus less detectable. Also, years, the MDSRR has used the yearly mean
when there is substantial variation between and confidence interval method to analyze
years, the amount of hidden variation within a data and produce informative annual reports.
“cumulative mean” increases greatly, and can Critical analysis and evaluation is leading to
easily exceed that of a yearly mean. Finally, the improvements in our monitoring and regula-
combination of several years of data precludes tory program and better protection for water
(or at least severely complicates) analysis for quality of the Delaware River—and, one
trends. In short, yearly changes and trends are hopes, other waters as well.
more difficult to detect, and take longer to
detect, using this method than using the year- References
ly mean and confidence interval method. DRBC [Delaware River Basin Commission].
The yearly mean and confidence interval 1996. Administrative Manual—Part III:
method has many significant advantages. Water Quality Regulations. West Trenton,
This method provides valuable information N.J.: DRBC.
about uncertainty (precision) of the calculated DRBC and NPS [National Park Service].
mean. In many cases, the statistical precision 1995. Redesign of the DRBC/NPS Scenic
obtained using the yearly mean method is as Rivers Monitoring Program. Report no.
good as—and in some cases much better 18 of the DRBC/NPS Cooperative
than—that obtained using the cumulative Monitoring Program.
mean method. The yearly mean and confi- Evans, Richard A. 2002. An Evaluation of
dence interval method also allows independ- Scenic Rivers Water Quality Data
ent, annual comparisons of the data with the (1992–1998) in Relation to the Special
standards, and statistical analysis of trends. Protection Waters Regulatory Standards
Improving programs. A number of the for the Delaware River. Milford, Pa.:
changes suggested above are under considera- Research and Resource Planning
tion and are likely to be implemented in the Division, Delaware Water Gap National
near future. For example, a May–September Recreation Area.
dissolved oxygen standard for the MDSRR

313
 Natural Resource Management

Lakewater Chemistry at Acadia National Park, Maine,

in Response to Declining Acidic Deposition
J.S. Kahl, Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research, 5710
Norman Smith Hall, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469; kahl@maine.edu
S.J. Nelson, Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research,
5710 Norman Smith Hall, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469;
sarah.nelson@umit.maine.edu
J.L. Stoddard, Western Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 200 SW 35th
Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333; stoddard.john@epa.gov
S.A. Norton, 111 Bryand Global Sciences Center, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469;
norton@maine.edu
T.A. Haines, 313 Murray Hall, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469; haines@maine.edu

Introduction
Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) sets target reductions in the United
States for sulfur and nitrogen emissions from industrial sources to reduce the acidity in deposi-
tion. These reductions have continued the trend of reductions in emissions and deposition of
sulfur during the past 30 years, with the rate of decline accelerated by Phase I of the 1990 CAAA
that was implemented in 1995 (Lynch et al. 2000). Slight reductions in nitrogen emissions have
occurred since 1996.
One of the intended effects of the CAAA Driscoll et al. 2001; Skjelkvåle et al. 2001;
reductions was to decrease the acidity of low- Evans and Monteith 2001; Stoddard et al.
alkalinity waters and thereby improve their 2003).
biological condition. The key science and pol- This paper reports on lake chemistry data
icy questions related to the CAAA are collected at Acadia National Park since 1982
whether (1) the declines in emissions yield (Kahl et al. 1985; Figure 1), and puts the
reductions in acidic deposition; (2) changes in response to acidic deposition in the context of
deposition cause changes in surface water the recent assessment of the response of sur-
chemistry; and; (3) biologically relevant water face waters in the northeastern United States
chemistry has improved in acid-sensitive to changes in atmospheric deposition
regions as a result of changes in deposition. (Stoddard et al. 2003).
Documentation of acidification of surface Why do we care about lake and stream
waters began in Scandinavia (e.g., Oden chemistry? Long-term chronic acidification
1968), although reports of acidic lakes date and short-term temporary episodic acidifica-
back to the 1950s in North America (Gorham tion are of concern in regions receiving acidic
1957). Recognition of the issue became com- deposition. Surface water chemistry is a direct
mon in the U.S. in the early 1970s (Likens et indicator of the potential deleterious effects of
al. 1972), with identification of impacts on fish acidification on biotic integrity. Because sur-
by the mid-1970s (e.g., Schofield 1976). face water chemistry integrates the sum of
Trend assessments for surface waters have processes upstream in a watershed, it is also
been common in the literature for more than a an indicator of the indirect effects of water-
decade, with the general conclusion that sur- shed-scale impacts, such as nitrogen satura-
face water recovery is slow to non-existent tion, forest decline, or soil acidification.
(Stoddard and Kellogg 1993; Webster et al. Biologically relevant surface water
1993; Kahl et al. 1993; Driscoll and van chemistry. The main cause for concern over
Dreason 1993; Dewalle and Swistock 1994; the effects of surface water acidification in the
Driscoll et al. 1995; Likens et al. 1996; U.S. and elsewhere is the potential for detri-
Mattson et al. 1997; Stoddard et al. 1998; mental biological affects (Baker and

314
 Natural Resource Management

Figure 1. Location of Acadia National Park on Mount Desert Island in Maine, USA, with loca-
tions of study lakes and ponds.

Christensen 1991; NADP 1998). Typically, stages of fish and sensitive invertebrates.
there is concern for biological impact if sur- Aluminum is an abundant and normally harm-
face water pH is less than 6. At low pH values, less component of rocks and soils. However, it
aluminum may be present at concentrations leaches from silicate minerals when they come
that are toxic to biota, including sensitive life in contact with low-pH waters. While much of

315
 Natural Resource Management

the aluminum present in surface waters is Results and Discussion

organically bound and relatively non-toxic, Declines in sulfate deposition. Sulfate
certain inorganic species are highly toxic. concentrations declined substantially in the
Nitrogen saturation. One of the key northeastern U.S. at a median rate of between
remaining research issues is the role of nitro- –1.0 and –1.5 µeq/L/year for the period 1990
gen in watershed responses to acidic deposi- to 2000 (Table 1). At Acadia’s NADP site, the
tion. The concept of nitrogen saturation rate of change in sulfate was –0.53 µeq/L.
(Aber et al. 1989; Stoddard 1994) received Changes in sulfate emissions correspond
increasing attention in the 1990s (Mitchell et directly to changes in sulfate deposition.
al. 1996; Williams et al. 1996; Aber et al. Declines in nitrate emissions and depo-
1998). “Nitrogen saturation” is defined as sition. Decreases in NOx emissions were
deposition of nitrogen to a watershed in more modest than those of sulfur (Table 1).
excess of the assimilative capacity of soils and There was a slight increase in nitrogen depo-
vegetation, resulting in the export of nitrate sition at the park. Since 1990, total utility
(NO3). Nitrate export can contribute to acidi- NOx emissions (Phase I and II sources) were
fication (especially episodic acidification), reduced an average of 23% nationally, follow-
mobilization of aluminum, and leaching of ing implementation of Phase I of the Acid
cations from soils (Aber et al. 1998). Rain Program. However, electric utilities con-
tribute only about one-third of total NOx
Methods emissions. Total NOx emissions from other
This paper uses long-term records of wet sources have remained relatively constant
deposition from the NADP (http://nadp. (motor vehicles and other industrial sources
sws.uiuc.edu/), repeat surveys of lake chem- also contribute significantly), and therefore
istry at Acadia National Park dating back to the reductions achieved under the Acid Rain
1982 (Kahl et al. 1985; Kahl 1996), data col- Program have not resulted in a significant
lected by the park’s resource management change in total NOx emissions and deposi-
division, and long-term records of lake chem- tion.
istry from research conducted in New Increases in pH and base cations in dep-
England (Kahl et al. 1991; Stoddard et al. osition. Lynch et al. (2000) found significant
2003). The lake data from Acadia cover the declines in hydrogen ion at many NADP sta-
period from 1982 to either 1998 or 2000, tions during 1990–2000, at rates that were
depending on the availability of data at each less than the decrease in sulfate. Wet deposi-
site. Accepted Environmental Protection tion of hydrogen ion decreased in every region
Agency (EPA) methods and quality assurance (Table 1). Base cation deposition increased
are documented in various publications non-significantly in the northeastern U.S.,
(Nelson and Kahl 2003; Morrison 1989; continuing the pattern of flat-to-increasing
Newall et al. 1987; Hillman et al. 1986). base cation deposition at most stations in the

Table 1. Regional trend results (1990–2000) for atmospheric deposition (wet-only annual
concentration data from NADP/NTN network) in acid-sensitive regions (from Stoddard et
al. 2003). All units are µeq/L/yr. Values are the median slopes for each region, with sig-
nificance determined by calculating confidence intervals around each regional median.
Data for Acadia are the NADP results for the station at McFarland Hill (NADP 2002). Base
cations are defined here as the sum of Ca + Mg (ns regional trend not significant, p > 0.05;
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).
Region SO4 Nitrogen NO3 Base Cations Hydrogen Ion
ns
New England -0.96** -0.26* -0.20** +0.02 -0.81**
ns
Adirondacks -1.47** -0.37** -0.38** +0.01 -1.48**
ns ns
Acadia NP -0.53** +0.04 +0.05 +0.17** -0.29*
316
 Natural Resource Management

region during the past 20 years. Deposition of solved organic carbon), a possible indicator of
base cations increased significantly at Acadia, changes in natural organic acidity.
driven by decadal increases in deposition of Sulfate (SO4) declined in surface waters in
marine salts from the Gulf of Maine (Figure the glaciated regions of the northeastern U.S.
1). by median values of between –2 and –4
Status of surface waters. The National µeq/L/year (–0.4 µeq/L at Acadia; Table 2).
Surface Water Survey (NSWS) documented The declines in SO4 concentrations are
the status and extent of chronic acidification almost certainly direct responses to declining
during probability surveys conducted from emissions and SO4 deposition in the 1990s,
1984 through 1988 in acid-sensitive regions and represent the most dramatic effects of
throughout the U.S. (Linthurst et al. 1986; Title IV of the CAAA and previous emissions
Landers et al. 1988; Kaufman et al. 1988). regulations. These changes in emissions and
The NSWS concluded that 4.2% of lakes in deposition continue the trend in declining
the northeastern U.S. were acidic. The SO4 that has been occurring for three decades
Adirondack Mountain region had the greatest (Stoddard et al. 2003).
proportion of acidic surface waters (14%) for Stoddard et al. (2003) concluded that sur-
lakes larger than 4 ha. Counting smaller lakes, face waters in glaciated terrain have, on aver-
the Adirondack Lake Survey Corporation age, responded relatively rapidly to the decline
estimated that 26% of lakes larger than 0.5 ha in sulfate deposition. Additional reductions in
were acidic (Driscoll et al. 1991). The large deposition will result in additional declines in
numbers of lakes in these regions translate to surface water concentrations of sulfate in
several hundred acidic waters in each region. glaciated terrain.
At Acadia, Sargent Mountain Pond and Duck Changes in NO3 were much smaller than
Pond are acidic, representing 9% of the 21 changes in SO4, with the only significant
lakes sampled. This is a higher percentage changes occurring in the two regions with the
than in the rest of Maine, reflecting the granitic highest ambient NO3 concentrations. Most
bedrock and thin soils common at Acadia. waters at Acadia have low NO3 concentra-
Changes in surface water chemistry. Our tions. However, sites such as the PRIMENet
analysis of surface water response to changing sample site at Hadlock Brook have significant
deposition focuses on the key variables that leakage of NO3, and there is no indication in
play major roles in acidification and recovery: the data that NO3 concentrations have
sulfate and nitrate, base cations, pH and ANC declined at Hadlock Brook as they have in
(acid neutralizing capacity), and DOC (dis- many other areas during the 1990s. These

Table 2. Regional trend results for long-term monitoring sites for the period 1990 through
2000 (Stoddard et al. 2003). Values are median slopes for set of sites in each region. Units
for sulfate, nitrate, base cations [Ca + Mg], Gran ANC and hydrogen are µeq/L/year. Units
for DOC are mg/L/year (insufficient historical data at Acadia). Units for aluminum are
µg/L/year (ns regional trend not significant, p > 0.05; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, NA insuffi-
cient data).

Region SO4 NO3 Base Cations Gran ANC Hydrogen DOC Aluminum

New England
-1.77** +0.01ns -1.48** +0.11 ns -0.01ns +0.03* +0.09ns
Lakes
Adirondack
-2.26** -0.47** -2.29** +1.03** -0.19** +0.06** -1.12**
Lakes

Acadia lakes -0.39* -0.06 ns -0.43* +0.33 ns +0.02ns NA +0.05ns

317
 Natural Resource Management

unexplained changes in NO3 in many surface One of the most universal watershed
water concentrations at a time of stable nitro- responses to acidic deposition is the mobiliza-
gen deposition underscore the complexities of tion of base cations from soils. As rates of
nitrogen biogeochemistry. We expect that that acidic deposition decline, and the supply of
a decline in nitrogen deposition will lead to acid anions to watershed soils decreases, the
general declines in surface waters, but the tim- rates of cation mobilization are also expected
ing and the correlation cannot be predicted at to decrease. Lowered rates of cation mobiliza-
this time. tion translate to declines in surface water base
Increasing ANC is the main indicator of cation concentrations, a change widely
recovery from acidification. In the northeast- observed in the northern hemisphere for more
ern U.S., there were modest increases in the than a decade. All of the glaciated regions in
Adirondack region and at Acadia (Table 2). the northern and eastern U.S. exhibited signif-
Hydrogen ion (acidity) followed ANC with icant declines in base cation [Ca + Mg] con-
small declines in each region. centrations in the range of –1.5 to –2.5
The largest recovery should be possible at µeq/L/year. This decline in base cations off-
sites that have undergone the most severe sets some of the decline in sulfate concentra-
acidification. Stoddard et al. (2003) analyzed tions, and limits the extent of recovery.
Gran ANC trends by ANC class and deter-
mined that the most impacted sites recovered Conclusions
faster in the 1990s. Sites with ANC less than The rate of change in surface water ANC
zero gained ANC four times faster than sites appears to largely be the result of changes in
with ANC greater than 25 µeq/L. The average acid anions versus base cations, as represent-
increase in ANC was 12% for acidic lakes, 7% ed by:
for low-ANC lakes, and less than 1% for lakes Change in ANC = change in [Ca + Mg +
with ANC greater than 25 (Figure 2), suggest- Na + K] minus change in [SO4 + NO3 +
ing that ANC values are converging during the Cl]
recovery process toward an ANC that may be
Regionally, SO4 has decreased at a rate of
in the range of 25 to 30 µeq/L ANC (Stoddard
approximately –2.5 µeq/L/year (the mean of
et al. 2003).
regional median slopes), and NO3 at a rate of

Figure 2. The lowest ANC (highest-acidity) lakes in the Northeast are responding fastest to
declining acidic deposition.

318
 Natural Resource Management

–0.5 µeq/L/year, in surface waters of glaciated reviewed by these agencies and does not nec-
terrain. These rates of change set an upper essarily reflect the views of the agency.
limit to our expectation of ANC recovery of +3 Additional funding was provided by the
µeq/L/yr (i.e., the sum of declines in SO4 and Senator George J. Mitchell Center for
NO3). The actual increase in Gran ANC is Environmental and Watershed Research.
about +1 µeq/L/year, because the decline in Field, laboratory, and administrative support
SO4 and NO3 (acid anions) has been offset by were provided by the staff and students of the
a decline of 1.8 µeq/L/year in base cations. At Mitchell Center, and the USGS-BRD
some sites, the decline in base cations has Leetown Science Center, Orono Field
exceeded the decline in acid anions, and these Station. Resource management staff at Acadia
sites have acidified. National Park and hydrologists at USGS in
This general pattern occurs in the lakes at Augusta, Maine, provided assistance with this
Acadia. For example, Ca + Mg in Bubble Pond project.
declined at a rate of 0.6 µeq/L per year, while
sulfate was declining faster, at 1.2 µeq/L per References
year. The difference is a 0.6 µeq/L-per year Aber, J.D., K.J. Nadelhoffer, P. Steudler, and
increase in ANC, exactly the rate of increase in J.M. Melillo. 1989. Nitrogen saturation in
the data. Conversely, The Bowl has acidified northern forest ecosystems. BioScience 39,
slightly because base cations decreased faster 378–386.
(–0.6 µeq/L per year) than the acid anions Aber, J.D., W. McDowell, K.J. Nadelhoffer, A.
(–0.3 µeq/L per year). Magill, G. Bernston, M. Kamakea, S.
Regionally, there has been some recovery McNulty, W. Currie, L. Rustad, and I.
in ANC, especially in the lowest-ANC waters. Fernandez. 1998. Nitrogen saturation in
Stoddard et al. (2003) estimated that there are temperate forest ecosystems: hypotheses
about one-third fewer acidic lakes (ANC < 0) revisited. BioScience 48, 921–933.
in the Northeast during the past 15 years, Baker, J.P., and S.W. Christensen. 1991.
although these lakes still have very low ANC. Effects of acidification on biological com-
At Acadia, Sargent Mountain Pond and Duck munities in aquatic ecosystems. In Acidic
Pond both have higher ANC (less acidity) in Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems:
2000 compared with 20 years ago, but both Regional Case Studies. D.F. Charles, ed.
are still acidic (i.e., negative ANC). New York: Springer-Verlag, 83–106.
We do not know if the rates of increase in Driscoll, C.T., R.M. Newton, C.P. Gubala, J.P.
ANC will continue without further reductions Baker, and S. Christensen. 1991.
in deposition. This is the major uncertainty Adirondack Mountains. In Acidic
for rates of recovery: to what extent is recovery Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems:
resulting from recent changes in deposition Regional Case Studies. D.F. Charles, ed.
already reflected in current surface water New York: Springer-Verlag, 133–202.
chemistry, or are further reductions in deposi- Driscoll, C.T., G.B. Lawrence, A.J. Bulger,
tion necessary to continue the present trends? T.J. Butler, C.S. Cronan, C. Eager, K.F.
The only way to answer this question is to Lambert, G.E. Likens, J.L. Stoddard, and
maintain the commitment to long-term assess- K.C. Weathers. 2001. Acidic deposition in
ments of surface water chemistry in regions the northeastern United States: sources
such as Acadia that have waters that are sensi- and inputs, ecosystem effects and manage-
tive to the effects of acidic deposition. ment strategies. BioScience 51, 180–198.
Driscoll, C.T., K.M. Postek, W. Kretser, and
Acknowledgments D.J. Raynal. 1995. Long-term trends in
This research was funded by the National the chemistry of precipitation and lake
Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey water in the Adirondack region of New
Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), York, USA. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
and the U.S. EPA. This paper has not been 85, 583–588.
319
 Natural Resource Management

Driscoll, C.T., and R. Van Dreason. 1993. Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United
Seasonal and long-term temporal patterns States. Volume I: Population Descriptions
in the chemistry of Adirondack lakes. and Physico-Chemical Relationships.
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 67, Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
319–344. Landers, D.H., W.S. Overton, R.A. Linthurst,
Evans, C.D., and D.T. Monteith. 2001. and D.F. Brakke. 1988. Eastern Lake
Chemical trends at lakes and streams in Survey: regional estimates of lake chem-
the UK Acid Waters Monitoring Network, istry. Environmental Science & Technology
1988–2000: evidence for recent recovery 22, 128–135.
at a national scale. Hydrology and Earth Likens, G.E., C.T. Driscoll, and D.C. Buso.
Systems Sciences 5, 351–366. 1996. Long-term effects of acid rain:
Gorham, E. 1957. The chemical composition response and recovery of a forest ecosys-
of lake waters in Nova Scotia. Limnology tem. Science 272, 244–246.
and Oceanography 2, 12–21. Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, and N.M.
Hillman, D.C., J. Potter, and S. Simon. 1986. Johnson. 1972. Acid rain. Environment
Analytical Methods for the National 14, 33–40.
Surface Water Survey, Eastern Lake Linthurst, R.A., D.H. Landers, J.M. Eilers,
Survey. EPA/600/4-86/009. Las Vegas, D.F. Brakke, W.S. Overton, E.P. Meier,
Nev.: EPA. and R.E. Crowe, 1986. Characteristics of
Kahl, J., S. Norton, C. Cronan, I. Fernandez, Lakes in the Eastern United States. Volume
T. Haines, and L. Bacon. 1991. Chemical 1. Population Descriptions and Physico-
relationships of surface water chemistry Chemical Relationships. EPA/600/4-
and acidic deposition. In Acidic Deposition 86/007a. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
and Aquatic Ecosystems: Regional Case Lynch, J.A., V. Bowersox, and J. Grimm.
Studies. D.F. Charles, ed. New York: 2000. Acid rain reduced in the eastern
Springer-Verlag. U.S. Environmental Science and
Kahl, J.S. 1996. Lake chemistry at Acadia Technology 34, 940–949.
National Park, 1995. Report to the Mattson, M.D., P.J. Godfrey, M. Walk, P.A.
National Park Service, Bar Harbor, Maine. Kerr, and O.T. Zajicek. 1997. Evidence of
Orono, Maine: Water Research Institute. recovery from acidification in streams.
Kahl, J.S., J.L. Andersen, and S.A. Norton. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 96,
1985. Water Resource Baseline Data and 211–232.
Assessment of Impacts from Acidic Miller, P. 1999. Emissions-related acidic dep-
Precipitation, Acadia National Park, osition trends in Maine. Final report for
Maine. NPS Technical Report no. 16. Bar the Maine Ecological Assessment Project,
Harbor, Maine: Acadia National Park. EPA Office of Air and Radiation,
Kahl, J.S., T.A. Haines, S.A. Norton, and R.B. Washington, D.C.
Davis. 1993. Recent temporal trends in Mitchell, M.J., C.T. Driscoll, J.S. Kahl, G.E.
the acid-base chemistry of surface waters Likens, P.S. Murdoch, and L.H. Pardo.
in Maine, USA. Water, Air, and Soil 1996. Climatic control of nitrate loss from
Pollution 67, 281–300. (See also reply to forested watersheds in the Northeast
comment by Mattson and Likens; Water, United States. Environmental Science and
Air, and Soil Pollution 83 [1995], Technology 30, 2609–2612.
101–104.) Morrison, M. 1989. QA Plan for the Long
Kaufmann, P.R., A.T. Herlihy, J.W. Elwood, Term Monitoring Program. Corvallis,
M.E. Mitch, W.S. Overton, M.J. Sale, J.J. Ore.: U.S. EPA.
Messer, K.A. Cougan, D.V. Peck, K.H. NADP [National Atmospheric Deposition
Reckhow, A.J. Kinney, S.J. Christie, D.D. Program]. 1981-98. NADP/NTN Annual
Brown, C.A. Hagley, and H.I. Jager. 1988. Data Summaries: Precipitation Chemistry
Chemical Characteristics of Streams in the in the United States. Fort Collins: Natural
320
 Natural Resource Management

Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado Reservoirs. Advances in Chemistry Series

State University. no. 237. L.A. Baker, ed. Washington,
Nelson, S., and J.S. Kahl, eds. 2003. Inferring D.C.: American Chemical Society,
Regional Patterns and Responses in N and 223–284.
Hg Biogeochemistry Using Two Sets of Stoddard, J., C.T. Driscoll, J.S. Kahl, and J.
Gauged Paired-watersheds. Final report to Kellogg. 1998. Can site-specific trends be
EPA and National Park Service. Orono: extrapolated to the regional level?
Mitchell Center, University of Maine. Ecological Applications 8, 288–299.
Newell, A.D., C.F. Powers, and S.J. Christie. Stoddard, J., J.S. Kahl, F. Deviney, D.
1987. Analysis of Data from Long Term DeWalle, C. Driscoll, A. Herlihy, J.
Monitoring of Lakes. EPA/600/4-87/014. Kellogg, P. Murdoch, J. Webb, and K.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA. Webster. 2003. Response of Surface Water
Oden, S. 1968. The Acidification of Air and Chemistry to the Clean Air Act
Precipitation and its Consequences in the Amendments of 1990. EPA/620/R-03/001.
Natural Environment. Stockholm: Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
Swedish National Research Council. Webster, K.E., P.L. Brezonik, and B.J.
Schofield, C.L. 1976. Acid precipitation: Holdhusen. 1993. Temporal trends in low
effects on fish. Ambio 5, 228–230. alkalinity lakes of the Upper Midwest
Skjelkvåle, B.L., J.L. Stoddard, and T. (1983–1989). Water, Air, and Soil
Andersen. 2001. Trends in surface water Pollution 67, 397–414.
acidification in Europe and North Williams, M.W., J.S. Baron, N. Caine, R.
America (1989–1998). Water, Air, and Sommerfield, and R. Sanford. 1996.
Soil Pollution 130, 787–792. Nitrogen saturation in the Rocky
Stoddard, J., and J. Kellogg. 1993. [No title Mountains. Environmental Science and
provided.] Water, Air, and Soil Pollution Technology 30, 640–646.
67, 301–318. Wright, R.F. 1983. Predicting Acidification of
Stoddard, J. 1994. Long-term changes in North American Lakes. Acid Rain
watershed retention of nitrogen: its causes Research Report no. 4. Oslo: Norwegian
and aquatic consequences. In Institute for Water Research.
Environmental Chemistry of Lakes and

321
 Natural Resource Management

California Condors of the Colorado Plateau

Elaine Leslie, Grand Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023;
elaine_leslie@nps.gov

The spring of 2001 brought a significant event to the skies over the Colorado Plateau and the
hidden caves and ledges of Grand Canyon National Park. For the first time in over 100 years,
California condors laid an egg in the wilds of Arizona. Although they promptly broke the egg,
hopes for successful breeding of condors and restoration of this extirpated species were encour-
aged. Then, in the spring of 2002, two pairs of condors laid eggs in remote caves below the South
Rim of the park. Although the eggs initially appeared viable, both nests failed.
The discovery of these eggs came at an primarily to lead poisoning. Many biologists
opportune moment for the condor restoration hypothesize that ingestion of lead bullets
program, which, at the time, was about to found in animal carcasses scavenged by con-
begin a five-year review of reintroduction dors may have been a primary factor in their
efforts. The program has been under fire late- decline. To address this concern, rangers in
ly by some scientists who argue that too many the park use copper slugs to dispatch animals
of the released birds are dying due to various wounded by vehicles. Moreover, a break-
causes. Back in the wild, condors continue to through that biologists are cheering is a so-
succumb to old hazards. In spite of aversive called “green bullet” developed by the U.S.
training and conditioning to keep condors Army. Instead of lead, the bullet’s core is made
away from humans and their structures, con- of tungsten and tin or tungsten and nylon, and
dors continue to be killed by collisions with the cost is just slightly higher than lead.
power lines, consumption of antifreeze, and Recently, the resource staffs of Lake Mead and
lead poisoning. These dangers create a Glen Canyon national recreation areas and
quandary for the biologists trying to restore Grand Canyon National Park met to discuss
the species in both Arizona and California. placing restrictive measures on the use of lead
How can they save these creatures from near- in hunting and fishing activities within the
extinction, only to release them back into a parks and recreation areas. Discussions are in
world where the same threat awaits them? early stages and are very complex. The resolu-
At Grand Canyon National Park, staff biol- tion of this one issue may result in a sharp
ogists took a proactive approach. Power lines decline in scavenger, waterfowl, and raptor
and poles throughout the developed zone mortalities across the West in the near future.
have been fitted with devices to deter colli- Further discussions will take place at the next
sions. Human structures in locations where California Condor Recovery Team meeting.
condors are tempted to perch or roost have an While the existing monitoring and release
aluminum wire deterrent called Nixalite tem- program is an important aspect of the recovery
porarily affixed to the rooftops to prevent efforts, more scientific data collection will be
landing. Funded by the National Fish and incorporated in order analyze habitat utiliza-
Wildlife Foundation and the Grand Canyon tion by the birds. For Grand Canyon National
National Park Foundation, a condor biologist Park, this is necessary in order to incorporate
constantly patrols the areas of high visitor use, recent and pertinent information into park
tracking birds and managing visitors, in hopes planning and NEPA (National Environmental
of decreasing encounters between humans Policy Act) documents and to help analyze
and condors. potential recreational impacts. Continued
The release program has provided strong monitoring through the use of radio transmit-
support for the hypothesis that the decline of ters in addition to new satellite tracking units
the original wild condor population, in will allow for critical data collection in canyon
progress since at least about 1950, was due country, where logistics are difficult at best.

322
 Natural Resource Management

As reintroduction efforts in Arizona con- must ensure that suitable habitat for survival,
tinue, so do similar efforts with the California reproduction, and recruitment is stable, both
population. Defenders of Wildlife and the inside and outside of park boundaries, in
Ventana Wilderness Society have developed order to reach a long-term goal of a viable yet
an environmental assessment for both the unmanaged population of condors in the
National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish wild.
and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Led by the Grand Canyon National Park is a primary
USFWS condor recovery coordinator and the cooperator in the multi-agency project to re-
staff at Pinnacles National Monument, scop- establish the California condor to the south-
ing meetings resulted in favorable public sup- western United States. In addition to provid-
port for the reintroduction efforts. Staff at ing input on project issues and direction, the
Pinnacles hope to have condors flying over park also has protection and management
another NPS unit very soon. responsibilities for condors within the park.
Following the five-year review process, Therefore, the primary goals of this project
Grand Canyon National Park, USFWS, and are to (1) contribute to the monitoring effort
the Peregrine Fund are working closely with and daily management of condors within the
adjacent land management agencies, such as park; (2) manage condor/visitor interactions
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. and educate the public about condor natural
Forest Service, and the Navajo, Hualapai, and history and the recovery effort; and (3) record
Havasupai tribal nations, to prepare for the a variety of biological information (e.g., habi-
upcoming breeding season and the challenges tat use, movement patterns, breeding activity,
it holds. feeding and roosting patterns, intra- and inter-
The park is also launching a long-term specific social interactions, etc.) regarding
monitoring plan for this highly endangered condor activity inside the park.
bird. The plan will include the development During the 2002 season, two condor pairs
and implementation of a park-wide plan that nested in caves near the South Rim of the
addresses the conflicts between human and Grand Canyon. This was truly a landmark
condors. To date, grants from the Grand event since the nests represented two of only
Canyon National Park Foundation and eight total nests in the wild that have been
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation have established between Arizona and California
funded the salary of a condor technician, trav- since the beginning of the reintroduction pro-
el to critical Recovery Team meetings, and gram. Biologists spent a considerable amount
telemetry equipment that includes receivers of time monitoring the breeding activity and
for BLM staff to monitor the birds as they helped coordinate a volunteer nest-watching
move across the Arizona Strip area. The program consisting of over 25 volunteers.
importance of these tasks cannot be overstat- Although the nesting attempts were unsuc-
ed. This program operates on a mere $20,000 cessful, the information learned will be critical
per year, awarded from the Grand Canyon for monitoring the upcoming breeding sea-
National Park Foundation. In order to expand son. In addition to monitoring the breeding
the program and meet the goals and objectives activity, we also documented 13 carcasses on
of the Recovery Team, serious consideration which condors fed within the park, and 21
must be given to base-funding the threatened carcasses just outside the park. Furthermore,
and endangered species program at Grand three main communal roosting areas for con-
Canyon National Park. dors were documented near the South Rim.
It is critical that the ecological aspects of The year 2003 has proven to be an excit-
the recovery efforts be given high priority. It is ing and eventful one for the program. At the
not merely enough to “preserve” the species; time of this writing, biologists are eagerly
we must examine and collect the appropriate awaiting the fledging of the Arizona’s first wild
data on distribution, abundance, and ecologi- condor chick in over 100 years! The chick
cal relationships of the California condor. We appears healthy and active in a remote canyon
323
 Natural Resource Management

near the South Rim. Fledging in expected in rels, rabbits, coyote, gray fox) will be col-
late October or early November. lected for lab analysis of lead, environ-
In upcoming seasons, we will again focus mental contaminants, and other human-
on monitoring the breeding activity of the associated toxins. Tissues from carcasses
condors inside the park, documenting move- along the river corridor will be collected
ment corridors of condors moving to and from during the annual wildlife monitoring
the park, and studying the condors habitat use trip and other park resource trips to sam-
and feeding/roosting activity. Currently, ple the river corridor prey base and its
Grand Canyon National Park is involved in a environment.
formal consultation with USFWS regarding 5. Prepare and implement standard operat-
the effects of the air tour industry on condors. ing procedures and protective measures.
One priority will be to improve our under- These will be incorporated in NEPA
standing of condor flight patterns and move- documents, and communicated to park
ment corridors, and contribute scientific and project staff in conjunction with gen-
information to the consultation process. eral management plan construction activ-
Finally, we will work with the Federal Aviation ities. A similar protocol will be estab-
Administration (FAA) to organize safety class- lished that addresses the Fire and
es to educate pilots in the Grand Canyon area Aviation Program as it directly relates to
about the condor project, condor behavior, helicopter traffic in the park. This is crit-
and ways for avoiding conflicts with condors. ical when pairs are nesting in a typical
administrative flight corridor.
Future Goals and Objectives 6. Coordinate with Peregrine Fund field
Grand Canyon National Park biologists staff to test and implement appropriate
will work toward achieving the following goals hazing techniques and effective perching
and objectives in order to ensure the success and roosting deterrents in order to
of the recovery of the California condor in decrease human/condor interactions and
northern Arizona: to ensure protection from hazardous
sites, such as the Orphan Mine and areas
1. Develop a long-term monitoring plan and of dense human concentration.
protocols coordinated with the agency 7. Implement more sophisticated monitor-
members involved in the reintroduction ing of the condors. This will allow for
efforts in the field. This plan will address, better coordination between USFWS,
respond to, and prevent negative condor Peregrine Fund, and NPS field crews and
and human interactions. improve methods of recording, summa-
2. Develop effective and innovative educa- rizing, and analysis. It will also assist in
tional materials addressing condor issues determining the location of contaminated
that can be utilized throughout the home carcasses in hopes of responding in a
range of the condor. timely manner before more birds feed on
3. Work closely with the western regional them and then succumb to lead poison-
EPA coordinator to locate sources of lead ing or other toxins. This will provide
within the park and clarify lead’s effect on information regarding established flight
wildlife species. corridors within and outside of the park
4. Analyze tissue samples collected from the in order to consult with USFWS on FAA
condor’s prey base (deer, elk, and overflight issues, as well as in-house
bighorn sheep), when carcasses are administrative flights.
accessible, by working closely with the 8. Coordinate a Condor Nestwatch
Arizona State Veterinary Laboratory in Program, consisting of interested volun-
Tucson. Samples of road kill, relocated teers and staffed by a seasonal technician,
animals, and other scavenger species in order to collect pertinent breeding,
within the park (deer, elk, bighorn, squir- nesting, and brooding data.
324
 Natural Resource Management

9. Work closely with the Grand Canyon nician, purchase telemetry equipment,
National Park Foundation and the and assess the issue of lead in the envi-
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to ronment.
raise funds for the continued implemen- 11. Continue to work closely with Recovery
tation of the condor program within the Team partners in achieving goals and
park. objectives associated with the long-term
10. Work closely with the National Fish and recovery of the species.
Wildlife Foundation to fund a park tech-

325
 Natural Resource Management

A Historical Overview of Consumptive Use Patterns

in National Park Service Areas
Frank Norris, Alaska Support Office, National Park Service, 240 West Fifth Avenue, Room 114,
Anchorage, Alaska 99501; frank_norris@nps.gov

Perhaps for the sake of argument, I’d like to begin our discussion by deconstructing the
broadly held notion that consumptive uses really have no pleace, or at best a marginal place, in
the National Park System. Most if not all of us, after all, grew up with the idea that parks were
special places, and to many of us, what made them special was that they were havens safe from
all those consumptive, ecologically destructive practices that took place everywhere else.
So I’d like to look a little deeper into this • Yellowstone allowed unrestricted hunting
notion—not so much to debunk it but to put it and fishing from 1872 to 1894;
into broader historical perspective. Because • At Yosemite, in the years both before and
what rises to the surface, after a little historical after 1900, Native Americans quite visibly
investigation, is that consumptive uses, to carried on hunting, fishing, and gathering
some degree, have been allowed in quite a activities in Yosemite Valley;
number of park units. Political necessity, • At Mount Rainier, authorities went to
changing societal attitudes, and the agency’s great lengths to arrest Native hunting par-
growth over the years have created a constant- ties in the park, but they tolerated and
ly changing context for consumptive use pat- even encouraged spear fishing because of
terns. its interpretive value;
Perhaps the best template for establishing • At Glacier, Blackfeet Indians responded to
the National Park Service’s (NPS’s) philo- the park’s 1910 establishment by ignoring
sophical stance toward consumptive uses is the law and hunting as they had for gener-
the well-known 1918 letter that was written by ations; and
Horace Albright and signed by Franklin Lane, • At Mesa Verde, Ute Indians responded to
President Wilson’s Interior Secretary. That a 1911 park expansion by also flouting the
letter unequivocally noted that “hunting will law, when they regarded as hostile and
not be allowed in any national park,” but it unfair.
also noted that “mountain climbing, boating
and fishing will ever be the favorite sports” By the time NPS was established in 1916,
[author’s emphasis]. The next general state- some of these consumptive uses had ended of
ment on the subject took place in 1938, when their own accord, and in a few other cases,
the first Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) these uses were slowed or stopped by NPS
was published. The CFR stated that “the enforcement actions in later years. Congress,
parks and monuments are sanctuaries for however, selectively bucked that trend by
wildlife of every sort, and all hunting ... of any allowing new exceptions to the no-consump-
wild bird or animal ... is prohibited within the tive-use rule. In the Territory of Alaska, the
limits of the parks and monuments.” The CFR 1917 act that established Mount McKinley
also stated that “fishing with nets, seines, traps National Park specifically allowed local
... or for merchandise or profit, or in any other prospectors and miners “to take and kill game
way than with hook and line ... is prohibited.” or birds ... as may be needed for their actual
But what neither the Lane letter nor the necessities when short of food,” and the 1938
general regulations noted, however, was that law that expanded Hawaii National Park along
many of the so-called crown jewel parks the Kalapana coast—also in a U.S. territory—
allowed exceptions to the no-consumptive-use allowed subsistence fishing by local residents.
rule. For instance: And in other cases of new parks, as at
Everglades and Olympic, harvesting by local
326
 Natural Resource Management

native groups was tacitly allowed to continue. considering the establishment of tens of mil-
There were regulations against these activi- lions of acres in new parklands in Alaska, and
ties, but harvests were so small that NPS offi- sure enough, December 1980 saw the
cials tactfully decided against enforcement Congressional passage of the Alaska National
actions. Interest Lands Conservation Act, which
Perhaps more important than these indi- brought an additional 44 million acres into the
vidual cases, a number of structural changes in National Park System. Of that total, all but
the National Park System have collectively about 3 million acres were open to hunting,
softened the agency’s anti-consumptive-use fishing, and other subsistence activities by
stance. Beginning in 1936, for example, the rural Alaska residents, and more than 21 mil-
agency began administering its first national lion of those 44 million acres were part of
recreation area. Further clouding the picture, national preserves, which were open to sport
in 1937, was the first national seashore, and hunting by anyone with a valid hunting
the first national lakeshore came along in license.
1966. Many of these recreation areas, So, by way of conclusion, it’s true that
seashores, and lakeshores allowed hunting, Alaska’s national park units contain far more
and several allowed commercial fishing as acreage open to a broad range of consumptive
well. uses than are available elsewhere in the
In October 1974, a major new step in the National Park System. However, this generali-
agency’s stance toward consumptive uses took ty is largely true because most of Alaska’s park
place when Congress created the first two units were established fairly recently, and
national preserves, at Big Thicket in Texas because society’s attitudes toward our park
and Big Cypress in Florida. This designation neighbors have changed a good deal over the
specifically allowed hunting. The acreage in years. Finally, it’s worth noting that the prohi-
these units wasn’t really all that large—about bitions in the 1918 Lane letter need to be seen
800,000 acres—but what made them impor- as a product of their time. For a number of rea-
tant was that they provided a bureaucratic sons, many NPS units have allowed consump-
mechanism for the establishment of new NPS tive activities over the years without jeopardiz-
units that similarly permitted hunting. During ing the values and resources contained within
the mid-1970s, Congress was in the midst of them.

327
 Natural Resource Management

Mexican Spotted Owl Distribution and Habitat

within Grand Canyon National Park
David W. Willey, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman,
Montana 59715; Willey@montana.edu
R.V. Ward, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon Science Center, Grand Canyon,
Arizona 86023; RV_Ward@nps.gov

Introduction
Because of significant threats to its habitat, the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis luci-
da) was listed as a “threatened species” in 1993 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS
1995). The Mexican spotted owl is widely distributed in montane and rocky canyonland ecosys-
tems throughout the southwestern United States (Figure 1). The Recovery Plan for the Mexican
Spotted Owl (USFWS 1995) listed the general inventory of Mexican spotted owls on National
Park Service (NPS) lands as a primary research objective. In the Grand Canyon, the Mexican
spotted owl uses the myriad tributary canyons of the Colorado River, where it nests and hunts in
the steep rocky habitat distinctive of the Colorado Plateau province.

Figure 1. Distribution of the three subspecies of spotted owls inhabiting western North
America (from USFWS 1995).

328
 Natural Resource Management

The patterns of habitat use observed for to understand the distribution and (3) abun-
spotted owls in Grand Canyon contrast dance of spotted owls in Grand Canyon
sharply with the owl’s classic dependence on National Park. We believe that the success of
old-growth conifer forests (Ganey and Balda spotted owls inhabiting the Grand Canyon is
1989; Willey 1995). Willey and Spotskey relevant to the owl’s conservation in the region
(2000) examined the characteristics of spotted because these owls may represent an impor-
owl breeding habitat at known nesting areas in tant source population to surrounding areas
Grand Canyon National Park using a geo- (USFWS 1995). In addition, information on
graphic information system (GIS). They the distribution and status of the owl is need-
found that spotted owls use narrow, steep- ed by park managers for resource management
walled canyons where ledges and caves pro- planning and to construct baseline informa-
vide cover from high temperatures, as well as tion on this threatened species.
nest sites and foraging habitat. In essence, Our primary goal during this project was
complex, rocky terrain has been substituted to conduct systematic field surveys within pre-
for old-growth forest. Willey and Spotskey dicted suitable breeding habitat within the
(2000) used GIS to identify key features of interior of Grand Canyon National Park. We
owl habitat and then map the extent of suit- hoped to locate many new spotted owl territo-
able habitat within the park’s interior (Figure ries and determine the distribution of spotted
2). owls in the park. Accordingly, we implement-
Given the owl’s threatened status and ed the following objectives:
recent evidence of population declines in the
southwestern U.S. (Seamans et al. 1999), 1. We identified unsurveyed tributary
understanding the distribution of spotted canyons with accessible canyonland
owls and the extent of suitable breeding habi- breeding habitat along the main Colorado
tat in Grand Canyon is germane to the owl’s River corridor through the Grand Canyon
long-term management. Therefore, we con- between Soap Creek and National
ducted this research to meet three main goals: Canyon.
(1) to test predictions of GIS models, and (2) 2. Using the GIS habitat model, we proposed

Figure 2. Distribution of predicted Mexican spotted owl breeding habitat, showing the primary
cover types in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.
329
 Natural Resource Management

three key breeding habitats (strata): high- tributary canyons using 240 independent call-
elevation steep-slope mixed conifer forest; ing stations. Mexican spotted owl adults were
mid-elevation steep canyonlands; and low- detected at 15 of the 37 sites (Table 1). Results
elevation steep canyonlands. in 2001 included eight sites with single owls
3. We selected sampling units within each and seven sites with owl pairs (Figure 3).
habitat class within the park. Although no previous nesting evidence had
4. We systematically conducted point calling been observed prior to our work, we observed
surveys for Mexican spotted owls within direct evidence of nesting by spotted owls.
each habitat stratum for those tributary The first active nest was confirmed in Grand
canyons accessible via the Colorado River Canyon when two owlets, approximately 50
between Soap Creek and National days old, were observed near Fossil Bay.
Canyon. The surveys were done During the 2002 field season, surveys
March–August in 2001 and again in 2002. were completed at 43 unique study sites using
240 calling stations. Single adults were detect-
Methods ed at eight sites and pairs at five sites. Thus,
We used a stratified-random sampling pro- we located 13 new owl territories during the
cedure in ArcGIS (ESRI 1996) to select 80 2002 field season. In addition, from the set of
survey sites within each of three habitat class- 28 historical owl sites in the park, i.e., sites
es identified by our GIS model (Willey and located during previous study, we randomly
Spotskey 2000): high-elevation steep-slope selected 13 sites that we visited during the
mixed conifer forest; mid-elevation steep 2002 field season to assess occupancy and
canyonlands; and low-elevation steep canyon- nesting status. All 13 sites were occupied,
lands. All sites were visited once during the including nine sites used by single owls and
breeding season (March–September) and four sites occupied by pairs. Although no
most sites were accessed using river expedi- young owls were observed during the 2002
tions starting at Lee’s Ferry and floating field season, this was likely a result of visiting
downriver to Diamond Creek. too early in the nesting period (i.e., during
Field survey procedures followed stan- incubation) to observe young owls.
dardized protocols developed by spotted owl The surveys in Grand Canyon during
field biologists (Willey 1989; Franklin et. al 2001 and 2002 located 34 previously
1990; Rinkevich 1991). At each survey area, a unknown spotted owl territories. Twenty-two
team of two to six owl hooters left the river and historical records were already known prior to
hiked up the side canyons to establish calling this study (Willey 1995), bringing the park’s
routes within suitable habitat identified at the grand total to 56 territories, or approximately
survey sites by the GIS field maps. At each 112 owls in the park. All owls were located
survey site, we established calling routes that within mid- and low-elevation steep canyon
systematically surveyed all suitable habitat. habitat identified by the GIS model, highlight-
Along routes we placed calling stations every ing canyonlands habitat for this species. To
0.5–1.0 km, and at each calling station we imi- date, surveys have covered about 50% of suit-
tated spotted owls by producing a variety of able steep canyon habitat predicted by the
standard calls for 30 minutes (Ganey 1990). GIS models; thus a population of over 200
All calling points were surveyed once during spotted owls could be present in these habi-
the field season. We also visited several histor- tats in Grand Canyon. All of the territories we
ical spotted owl territories located along the located occurred within the upper reaches of
river to assess occupancy status. large tributary canyons within steep and
rugged rocky canyon terrain located below the
Results and Discussion main canyon rims. Although a single male was
During the first year of field surveys (sum- heard outside of a canyon (1 km south of
mer 2001), we conducted four river expedi- Grand View Point), the true level of forest rim
tions. The surveys were completed within 37 use by spotted owls is unknown and will
330
 Natural Resource Management

Table 1. Study site locations of Mexican spotted owl field surveys in the interior wilderness of
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2001.
Number of
calling points Species detected (spotted owls in italics)
Study site

16-Mile Canyon 4 none

Hot Na Na 4 great-horned owl
19-Mile Canyon 3 great-horned owl
24.5-Mile Canyon 4 none
Buckfarm Canyon 4 great-horned owl
Saddle Canyon 5 great-horned owl
Little Nankoweap 5 northern pygmy-owl
Nankoweap 12 male spotted owl
Unkar Creek 12 single male; spotted owl pair (nest)
Red Canyon 6 male spotted owl
Sinking Ship Point 10 spotted owl pair; flammulated owl
Cremation Canyon 8 male spotted owl
Boulder Canyon 8 spotted owl pair
Salt Creek Canyon 5 spotted owl pair
Pipe Creek 8 spotted owl pair
Boucher Canyon 3 spotted owl pair (nest)
Travertine Canyon 5 none
Slate Creek 5 spotted owl pair
Turquoise Canyon 5 male spotted owl
Topaz Canyon 6 none
Ruby Canyon 6 none
Shinumo Canyon 10 none
Waltenburg Canyon 6 male spotted owls
Forster Canyon 4 spotted owl pair, 2 owlets
Tapeats Creek 15 western screech-owl
140-Mile Canyon 8 great-horned owl
Deer Creek 4 none
Fishtail Canyon 7 none
150-Mile Canyon 4 none
Tuckup Canyon 12 single male, spotted owl pair (nest)
National Canyon 15 great-horned owl
Mohawk Canyon 4 none
The Cove 4 none
Spring Canyon 6 none
Parashant Canyon 8 none
Trail Canyon 8 northern pygmy-owl
Indian Creek 8 western screech-owl

require further research. observed, particularly in forests dominated by

In addition to locating Mexican spotted ponderosa pine.
owls, the field surveys also detected western The project survey results support the
screech-owls (Otus kennicotti), flammulated GIS-based approach to prioritizing inventory
owls (Otus flammeolus), great-horned owls locations and streamlining field efforts. We
(Bubo virginianus), long-eared owls (Asio learned through this process that nesting and
otus), and pygmy owls (Glaucidium gnoma) roosting areas used by spotted owls are gener-
within Grand Canyon. Great-horned owls ally located in the upper reaches of steep-
were the second most common species locat- walled canyons in the park. Owl sites were
ed in the park (spotted owls being the most located below the main canyon rims within
common), and great-horned owls were locat- arid vegetation and rocky canyonland terrain.
ed in terrain similar to that occupied by Although spotted owls may travel up to rims
Mexican spotted owls, i.e., steep canyonland and out into plateau forests, most activity
habitats. During surveys conducted in the appears to concentrate below the rims within
forested habitat along the canyon rims, flam- the rugged canyonland habitat predicted by
mulated owls were the most common species our GIS model. Although potential effects of
331
 Natural Resource Management

Mexican Spotted Owl Response Site

Grand Canyon National Park
Figure 3. Locations of Mexican spotted owls located during the 2001 and 2002 field seasons
in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.

rim-based management actions on the owl’s (Brown 1982). The canyonland breeding
habitat are currently unknown, our results habitats used by the owl in the park are rather
suggest that most spotted owl territories are unusual considering the classic, late-seral for-
located below areas proposed for management est habitat requirements typically reported for
activities, e.g., trail construction along the the owl (Zwank et al. 1994; Seamans and
South Rim and prescribed fire along the Gutierrez 1995; Miller et al. 1997). Our
North Rim. In a study using radiotelemetry, results in Grand Canyon provide strong evi-
Willey (1997) examined the effect of pre- dence that rocky canyon habitat is an impor-
scribed fire on the movement of several spot- tant landscape cover type for the owl. Grand
ted owls in Saguaro National Park’s Rincon Canyon likely supports an active and impor-
Mountains. Following low-intensity ground tant local source of spotted owls.
fires, spotted owls continued foraging within
heavily burned ponderosa pine stands, and no Management Recommendations
significant influence of fire on home range size The potential effects of activities such as
and shape was identified. Thus, fire manage- trail building, prescribed fire, and construc-
ment activities on the rims of Grand Canyon tion activities on the owl and its habitat in
may not pose threats to the owl and its habitat. Grand Canyon are unclear. However, we think
The results from our GIS analysis, predic- that our survey results suggest that effects
tive mapping, and field validation surveys sup- from rim activities on spotted owls may be
port the concept that spotted owls in Grand minimal or absent because few territories have
Canyon are not dependent on classic old- been detected near or on the rims. Trail build-
growth forests (Ganey and Balda 1989; Willey ing and prescribed fire could affect owls that
1998). All known breeding sites in Grand are located below the rims, but understanding
Canyon have been located in steep-walled these effects are beyond the scope of this
sandstone canyons, despite many survey paper. We recommend additional research
points placed in forest habitat. In Grand efforts designed to examine movements and
Canyon, the owl is thus associated with steep habitat use by spotted owls located below the
sandstone canyons with relatively open Great rims.
Basin or Mojave desert scrub or Great Basin Prescribed fires are designed to reproduce
conifer woodland vegetation communities natural fire regimes and restore the long-term
332
 Natural Resource Management

health of Grand Canyon forests (Mast et al. spotted owl location in the park. If followed,
1999; Wolf and Mast 1998). Using we believe these recommendations will pro-
radiotelemetry, Willey (1997) examined the tect the owls and their habitat. Future research
effect of prescribed fire on the movement of efforts can provide park personnel with infor-
several spotted owls in Saguaro National mation relevant to the owl’s management and
Park’s Rincon Mountains. Following low- streamline future decisions for the forests and
intensity ground fires, several spotted owls interior canyonlands in Grand Canyon
continued foraging within ponderosa pine National Park.
stands, and no significant changes in home
range size or shape was detected. Prescribed References
fire and healthy spotted owl habitat may not Andersen, M.C., and D. Mahato. 1995.
be mutually exclusive in Grand Canyon Demographic models and reserve designs
National Park. We see no major threats to for the California spotted owl. Ecological
spotted owls in the park from planned pre- Applications 5, 639–647.
scribed fire activity, but we urge the park’s sci- Bias, M.A., and R.J. Gutierrez. 1992. Habitat
entists to design and support investigations associations of California spotted owls in
that study the relationship among owls, forest the central Sierra Nevada. Journal of
habitat, and fire in Grand Canyon. Wildlife Management 56, 584–595.
Surveys for Mexican spotted owls within Blakesley, J.A., A.B. Franklin, and R.J.
the park have located 56 territories, and nest- Gutierrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and
ing was confirmed by the observation of nest site selection in northwestern
young owls in a side canyon below the Great California. Journal of Wildlife
Thumb (Willey and Ward 2001). Habitat at Management 56, 388–392.
these interior canyon sites ranges from low- Brown, D.E. 1982. Biotic communities of the
elevation desert shrub to higher-elevation American Southwest—United States and
mixed conifer forest. Willey and Spotskey Mexico. Desert Plants 1-4.
(2000) categorized these sites as falling within Cully, J., and W. Austin. 1993. Endangered
the “steep canyon habitat cover type.” Our and threatened wildlife and plants; listing
results on the rims provide additional support of the Mexican Spotted Owl as threatened.
that the owl primarily occupies the interior Federal Register 58, 14248–14271.
canyon cover types composed of Great Basin Dettmers, R., and J. Bart. 1999. A GIS model-
desert scrub and Great Basin conifer wood- ing method applied to predicting forest
land vegetation communities (Brown 1982). songbird habitat. Ecological Applications
In closing, we recommend the following 9, 152–163.
research and management goals for spotted ESRI. 1996. Arc/Info command references
owls in Grand Canyon: (1) continue compli- and users guides 7.0 the geographic infor-
ance-clearance surveys in areas with impor- mation system software. Redlands, Calif.:
tant spotted owl habitat, e.g., forests on the ESRI.
canyon rims where park activities may modify Forsman, E.D. 1983. Materials and Methods
the habitat; (2) continue to use GIS-based for Studying Spotted Owls. GTR-PNW
approaches to identify habitats that may 162. Portland, Ore.: U.S. Department of
require additional surveys; (3) continue to Agriculture–Forest Service, Pacific
survey for spotted owls in interior canyon- Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
lands identified by the GIS model as being Station.
potential breeding habitat, and estimate the Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M.
abundance and nesting status of owls in the Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of
park; (4) investigate the relationship between the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife
habitat changes related to fire and Mexican Monographs 87.
spotted owls; and (5) designate protected Franklin, A.B., J.P. Ward, R.J. Gutierrez, and
activity centers (USFWS 1995) around each G.I. Gould, Jr. 1990. Density of northern
333
 Natural Resource Management

spotted owls in northwest California. Simberloff, D. 1987. The spotted owl fracas:
Journal of Wildlife Management 54, 1–10. mixing academic, applied, and political
Franklin, J. 1995. Predictive vegetation map- ecology. Ecology 68, 766–772.
ping: geographic modeling of biospatial Thompson, W.L., G.C. White, and C.
patterns in relation to environmental gra- Gowan. 1998. Monitoring Vertebrate
dients. Progress in Physical Geography 19, Populations. San Diego: Academic Press.
474–499. USFWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service].
Ganey, J.L. 1988. Distribution and habitat 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican
ecology of Mexican spotted owls in Spotted Owl. Albuquerque: USFWS.
Arizona. M.S. thesis. Northern Arizona Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading
University, Flagstaff. indicator of habitat quality. Journal of
———. 1990. Calling behavior of spotted owls Wildlife Management 47, 893–901.
in northern Arizona. Condor 92, 485–490. Willey, D.W. 1989. Spotted owl inventory on
Ganey, J.L., and R.P. Balda. 1989. the Kaibab National Forest, Utah.
Distribution and habitat use of Mexican Contract no. 43-8156-9-0273. Submitted
spotted owls in Arizona. Condor 91, to North Kaibab Ranger District.
355–361. ———. 1998. Movements and habitat utiliza-
Johnson, L.B. 1990. Analyzing spatial and tion by Mexican spotted owls in the
temporal phenomena using geographical canyonlands of Utah. Ph.D. dissertation,
information systems. Landscape Ecology 4, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
31–43. Willey, D.W., and D. Spotskey. 2000. Field
Mast, J.N., P.Z. Fule, M.M. Moore, W.W. Test of a GIS Habitat Model for Mexican
Covington, and A.E.M. Waltz. 1999. Spotted Owls in Northern Arizona.
Restoration of pre-settlement age structure Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish
of an Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Department, Heritage Program.
Ecological Applications 9:1, 228–239. Willey, D.W., R.V. Ward, and D. Spotskey.
Neter, J., and W. Wasserman. 1974. Applied 2001. Clearance surveys for Mexican spot-
Linear Statistical Models. Homewood, ted owls on the north and south rims of
Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Grand Canyon National Park. 2001 field
Rinkevich, S.E. 1991. Distribution and habi- season annual report. Grand Canyon
tat characteristics of Mexican spotted owls National Park, Arizona: Grand Canyon
in Zion National Park, Utah. M.S. thesis, Science Center.
Humboldt State University, Arcata, Wolf, J.L., and J.N. Mast. 1998. Fire history of
California. mixed-conifer forests on the North Rim,
Salwasser, H. 1987. Spotted owls: turning a Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.
battleground into a blueprint. Ecology 68, Physical Geography 19, 1–14.
776–779. Zwank, P.J., K.W. Kroel, D.M. Levin, G.M.
Seamans, M.E., R.J. Gutierrez, C.A. May, and Southward, and R.C. Romme.1994.
M. Zachariah Peery. 1999. Demography of Habitat characteristics of Mexican spotted
two Mexican spotted owl populations. owls in southern New Mexico. Journal of
Conservation Biology 13, 744–754. Field Ornithology 65, 324–334.

334
 Museums and Collections

Museum Affinity Group Meeting (Session Summary)

Joan Bacharach, National Park Service Museum Management Program, 1849 C Street NW,
Washington, D.C. 20240; joan_bacharach@nps.gov

The session was structured as follows:

• Introduction and overview—Joan Bacharach, NPS Museum Management Program

• Documenting collections. Managing non-collection digital images—Phil Bedel, Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
• Preserving and protecting collections. Collections management issues—Giles Parker,
Northeast Museum Services Center
• Access to and use of collections. Teaching with Museum Collections, or, “How do we work
with interpreters and other park colleagues to get collections out in the open and on-line?”—
Joan Bacharach, Museum Management Program
• Staffing. Out-sourcing museum operations—Bob Wilson, Southeast Archeological Center
• Professionalism and training—Kent Bush, Pacific West Region
• “Significance of Collections” discussions—Abby sue Fisher, Keweenaw National
Historical Park
• Questions from the Floor—Blair Davenport, Death Valley National Park (discussant).

Managing non-collection digital images (Phil Bedel, Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area). Parks may receive and create digital images that are not appropriate for acces-
sion and therefore do not become part of the Automated National Catalog System (ANCS+)
database. Yet these images, along with the information associated with them, may contain valu-
able historic information and should be managed with the same care as the park’s regular
archives. What is the best way to store, manage, and retrieve this archival information that is
inherently unstable? How do the National Park Service (NPS) guidelines for accessioning apply
to digital media? What is an appropriate database for managing digital information that does not
belong in ANCS+?
Collections Management Issues (Giles Teaching with Museum Collections, or,
Parker, Northeast Museum Services Center). “How do we work with interpreters and
Parks in the Northeast Region confront chal- other park colleagues to get collections out
lenges similar to most collecting institutions in in the open and on-line?” (Joan Bacharach,
the areas of documentation, records manage- Museum Management Program). The
ment, security, fire protection, storage, Teaching with Museum Collections (TMC)
staffing, and programming. In the fifth year of initiative introduces collections-based, stu-
a regional initiative to support cultural dent-centered activities to enrich NPS educa-
resource management during the general man- tion and interpretation programs. TMC will
agement plan process, the Northeast Museum emphasize the links between the “real things”:
Services Center (NMSC) identified common cultural and natural collections, and the places
objectives and priorities in the stewardship of where those collections were found, collected,
over one-third of the museum collections in or used. Park TMC activities will highlight
NPS. The session will focus on the compara- park interpretive themes, link to national edu-
ble issues and corresponding recommenda- cation standards, and be made available on-
tions with a highlight on the processes and line. Collaboration between curators and
technology used by the NMSC to streamline interpreters and educators will also be dis-
collection management planning documenta- cussed.
tion. What is A76 out-sourcing of museum

335
 Museums and Collections

operations? (Bob Wilson, Southeast viduals without the necessary education and
Archeological Center). Wilson presented back- experience. Some key positions have been
ground on A76 out-sourcing and described abolished. In addition, there is no established
web sites containing a new definition of training program for individuals entering the
“museum operations” and new amendments curatorial professions, and no training pro-
to regulations. He defined relevant terms, gram for the continuing education of curatori-
including “inherently governmental work,” al workers currently in the NPS work force.
“museum operations,” “performance work These issues need to be recognized and
standards (PWS) service provider,” “residual addressed. [Ed. note: the full text of Bush’s
efficient organization,” and “most efficient presentation is presented elsewhere in this
organization.” He then discussed various volume.]
issues, including staff time, quality control, “Significance of Collections” discus-
funding, the Volunteers in Parks (VIP) pro- sions (Abby sue Fisher, Keweenaw National
gram, inventory, minor property, use of equip- Historical Park). At the GWS/CR2003 con-
ment, past contracting, and reductions in the ference, Fisher will represent Laurel Racine,
number of contractors. who was asked by to lead the Museum
Professionalism and training (Kent Bush, Collection Significance Criteria Committee.
Pacific West Region). Museum collections in The update will include a brief history of sig-
NPS are being endangered at an increasing nificance criteria in the NPS, how the commit-
rate do to inactive management. Key curatori- tee was assembled, committee tasks, and
al positions at the park, regional, and national progress-to-date. She will also outline what
levels have been allowed to remain vacant for the committee plans to accomplish at their
extended periods of time, or be filled by indi- meeting on Tuesday, April 15.

336
 Museums and Collections

Determining Use Patterns for

Museum, Archives, and Library Collections
Kent Bush, National Park Service Pacific West Region, 909 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98104; kent_bush@nps.gov

In the middle 1990s, National Park Service (NPS) Western Regional Curator Jonathan
Bayless proposed a different way of doing collection management plans (CMPs). Three of us had
been doing the classic “operations evaluation” type of CMP in the Southeast, Western, and
Pacific Northwest regions for a number of years, and they just were not being accepted and used
by the parks.
Bayless proposed changing the approach: • First, the survey must have “buy-in” from
rather than address technical issues in collec- park management, and must be sent out
tions management procedures, address the under the superintendent’s signature.
core “issues” that were preventing the park • Second, the survey must go to every mem-
staff from implementing a viable museum ber of the park staff, including both per-
management program. manent and temporary-status employees.
Along with this change in philosophy we
realized that our view of any park museum With these two condition in place, we began
operation was very single-dimensional, and getting some interesting results that were use-
that we had been relying mostly upon infor- able in understanding what was required in
mation from a single individual, or single park planning for museum operations in a specific
division, to identify and document the needs park.
of the park as a whole. In order to expand our
view of park operations and needs, we decid- Survey Objectives
ed to survey the park staff in advance of our on The primary objectives of the survey are to
site visit. Since I had an interest in survey determine the following information:
methodology, I volunteered to develop the
system. • Percentage of staff using the park collec-
Development of a meaningful survey tions and library;
requires some background study and testing. • Percentage of staff using non-park infor-
Through the annual conferences of the mation resources;
American Association of Museums (AAM) I • Primary areas (categories) of material use,
had become acquainted with the Visitor and reasons for use of those specific
Studies Association, and their quarterly publi- resources;
cation Visitor Studies. I also used Randi • Primary reasons staff do not use park
Korn’s book Visitor Surveys: A User’s Manual museum collections and library;
(an AAM publication) and Judy Diamond’s • What measures may be necessary to pro-
Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for mote resource availability and use; and
Museums and Other Informal Educational • General impressions concerning the value
Settings (University of Nebraska Press), and use of archives and museum collec-
among other references. tions.
We took the survey through two beta tests:
one at Sequoia–Kings Canyon National Parks In addition, some limited demographic infor-
while doing a collections storage plan, and mation is collected to develop a collective
one at Yosemite National Park when develop- length of service and experience profile, and
ing a programmatic outline. In addition to to demonstrate equitable response to the sur-
tightening up the survey format, these test vey from each park administrative unit.
runs documented two other required factors: Demographics can also assist in understand-

337
 Museums and Collections

ing the motivation and needs of the respon- library, and under half use the park collec-
dent population. tions. More than one-third of the staff use
non-NPS collections for their information
Survey Methodology needs.
The survey is distributed to the temporary • Park photo collections are used the most,
and permanent park staff under a memoran- followed by resource management
dum from the superintendent, requesting that records, historical archives and adminis-
the survey be completed by a certain date and trative records. Archaeological and histor-
returned directly to the responsible CMP ical collections were used less.
team member. Two types of questions were • Herbarium collections are used most
used to collect different types of information: among the natural science material, fol-
lowed by geology, insect, mammal, and
• Checklist questions designed to determine bird specimens.
what types of services were being used, • Project-related research drives most use,
and what types of services were needed; followed by information for visitors as a
and distant second reason. Use for mainte-
• Evaluative questions designed to deter- nance and repair information accounts for
mine the respondents’ attitudes toward a large segment of collections use (presum-
park-specific operations, and servicewide ably park records and photographs).
operations in general.
We have discovered some interesting reasons
Respondents were also given two opportu- why park staff do not use collections.
nities to add comments: one in the “services Remember, anything over 10% is statistically
used” and the other in the “services needed” significant:
sections. Write-in responses are not generally
used in this type of survey because they often • 45% don’t know what types of collections
fail to elicit a statistically valid response, and are available;
any response that is generated is often difficult • 32% don’t know where the collections are
to quantify. located in the park; and
A response rate of 12% is required for this • 23% don’t know who can get them into the
“mail-out/mail-in” type of survey to be con- collections.
sidered statistically valid. The responses are
then considered the “sample population” and It appears that the collections are a well-kept
results are considered to be representative of secret in most parks.
the “sample universe.” Higher response rates Park staff had some specific ideas on what
naturally translate into more reliable statistics. was needed to improve the way collections
In the twenty surveys conducted thus far, we were managed:
have discounted the results in three due to
inadequate response (less than 12%). The • 57% suggested providing a listing of what
remaining 17 parks have various response was in the collections;
rates between 12% and 83%, for an average • 42% suggested providing a finding aid to
response rate of 48%. As a result, we are con- the collections;
fident these compiled results are accurate for • 27% suggested providing on-line services
the Pacific West Region (represented by ten to support research;
parks) and the Intermountain Region (repre- • 22% suggested providing professional staff
sented by seven parks). to manage the collections;
We have documented some interesting • 22% wanted remote computer access to
trends: the collections; and
• 19% wanted to combine the museum col-
• Over half the park staff use the park lections with the library.
338
 Museums and Collections

These figures provide a good cross-check to The implications documented here are over-
the section on why collections were not being whelming. It is apparent that park staff thinks
used. The implication is that we may solve the the collections should document the park
former by instituting the latter—which are just resources, should be maintained for study and
the kind of results you are looking for in a sur- use, and should be exhibited more to the pub-
vey. lic.
The evaluative section of the survey docu-
mented the value the staff ascribes to the man- Conclusion
agement and use of archival, library, and muse- Over the past several years the survey has
um collections in NPS. proved a useful tool in documenting the needs
of park collections management, particularly
• 85% think collections should be used to in the Pacific West Region. It has provided
document park resources; park staff with a method to make their needs
• 83% think there is value in parks maintain- concerning archival, library, and museum col-
ing these collections for use; lections known to park management.
• 83% think the park collections should Moreover, it has given those of us involved in
contain copies of all studies and reports planning for these resources the ability to
done about the park; define and quantify those needs in an efficient
• 78% think that the collections serve as an manner. The survey also allows us to docu-
“institutional memory” for the park; ment and quantify the value the park staff
• 67% believe the collections should be con- ascribes to these resources. In turn, this
sulted for information prior to beginning knowledge should allow park management to
resource management projects; and better allocate available resources to collec-
• 65% believe that park visitor centers tions preservation and management.
should exhibit more material from park
collections. The compiled 17-park survey is appended
below.

339
 Museums and Collections

340
Museums and Collections

341
 Museums and Collections

342
Museums and Collections

343
 Museums and Collections

344
 Museums and Collections

Professionalism and Training

Kent Bush, National Park Service Pacific West Region, 909 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98104; kent_bush@nps.gov

Item: The Yellowstone park curator vacates her position in the summer of 2002 after a pro-
tracted illness and lengthy absence. The park archivist position is also vacated. The park collec-
tions are expanding, and will be moved into new storage in 2003. Park management combines
the two positions and downgrades the composite from a GS-12 to GS-11. The position has been
advertised, but currently remains vacant.
I can think of no other profession in a park where the lead position is combined and down-
graded. It doesn’t happen with the rangers, and it doesn’t happen with maintenance.
Item: The National Park Service (NPS) Preservation Program [MCPPP]. Parks and
Southeast Region’s regional curator vacates regions are not allowed to re-direct these
the position in 1995. The region abolishes the funds in this manner. How come they get do it
position, and turns the duties over to a person at the national level?)
whose previous job was secretarial. This These three examples are not “exceptions
leaves the 64 parks in the region without pro- to the rule.” For the most part, they are more
fessional and technical guidance for five years. like the normal way the National Park Service
The position of regional curator is filled in does business when dealing with the Museum
2000, but is paid with “soft” money at a Management Program at the park, region, and
reduced grade, a situation that is continuing. national level. So we have to look at these
I can think of no other profession in a three examples and figure out why it happens
region where the lead position is vacated and with museum management, and why it hap-
filled with a clerical-grade person, or filled pens at all levels.
with a position on soft money. It doesn’t hap- One reason is poor program definition.
pen in contracting, and it doesn’t happen in We obviously have not adequately defined
personnel. what it is that a professional museum curator
Item: The servicewide Museum does that can’t be done just as well by a secre-
Management Program is given the task of pol- tary. Water treatment plant operators have
icy and program development for NPS. The done it. Personnel officers have done it.
program was left without professional man- Archeologists have done it. When was the last
agement for one year. The chief conservator time you saw an untrained person doing water
position has been vacant for some 16 months, treatment, or ranking job applications? You
and the funds have been pulled for the remain- need at least a four-year degree plus special-
der of fiscal year 2003. The chief archivist has ized training and experience to manage an
now filled the management position, but it is archeological investigation. Do professional-
uncertain whether the archivist position will level collections documentation and preserva-
be back-filled. This leaves two professional tion and management require any less educa-
positions vacant at the national program level. tion, knowledge, and skill than archeology?
I can think of no other profession at the (By the way: In one park recently I saw an
agency level where the lead position is vacat- injured fire fighter assigned curatorial duties.
ed, and not filled for over a year. It doesn’t He was cataloguing historic collections. I have
happen in concessions management, it doesn’t never heard of a curator being pulled out of
happen in wildlife management, it doesn’t the collections to build a fire line; you need
happen in ranger activities, and it doesn’t hap- training to do that.)
pen in budget and finance. (By the way: the The question of “professional training”
program funds for both the chief archivist and and “continuing education” logically follows
chief conservator positions come from the the above. Consider the following:
Museum Collections Protection and
345
 Museums and Collections

• In order to apply pesticides you are tors have presented a paper or written an
required to attend a basic course, and peri- article for publication?
odic training is required to maintain your
A third reason is program myopia. For the
certificate.
past twenty years museum management in the
• In order to fight fire you are required to
National Park Service has emphasized muse-
take a basic course, then additional train-
um documentation and storage, mostly at the
ing in various specialties (such as felling
expense of other program missions. What
trees, operating a pumper truck, being a
should be a diversified program offering use-
crew boss). Annual refresher training is
able tools to park staff and the public has been
required.
reduced to a series of handbooks, numbering
• In order to supervise contracts, you are
schemes, tables, checklists, and other account-
required to take 40 hours of contract offi-
ing tools. Collectively we have promoted a
cer’s technical representative training, fol-
pseudo-professional approach which pre-
lowed by an eight-hour refresher course
sumes that basic documentation and safe,
every two years.
secure storage are results sufficient to justify
The last regular servicewide curatorial the existence of archives and museum collec-
methods training course was in 1995. Many of tions.
our “collateral-duty collection managers” have Example: When asked why the park was
not had any curatorial training other than the making and keeping collections, a park cura-
Automated National Catalog System tor responded “Why, to preserve them, of
(ANCS+). Most of our professional-level GS- course!” As well as that collection had been
1015 curators have not had professional-level documented and cared for, it was obvious the
training since their basic-level curatorial meth- curator was not looking at the bigger picture.
ods course received upon their entry to NPS. The Museum Handbook insists on artifi-
This is partly the result of poor identifica- cially high security and preservation stan-
tion with the larger profession. We have not dards for all materials on exhibit. As a result,
made a collective effort to tie our Museum the exhibit design people are using fewer and
Management Program to the larger archival fewer actual objects and specimens, or are
and museum professions. Consider the fol- going to ridiculous lengths to secure all exhib-
lowing: it cases.
Example: A very expensive environmen-
• Most law enforcement rangers I know are
tally controlled exhibit case, complete with
members of at least one organization—the
tamper alarm, is used to “exhibit” trash picked
Association of National Park Rangers, if
up along a park trail as part of a permanent
nothing else. How many curators belong
environmental exhibit. Park Service people
to at least one professional museum organ-
are not dumb, and this sort of thing sends a
ization?
message: “We curators don’t really know
• Most historic architects I know subscribe
what we are doing, and we are wasting money
to at least one professional journal. How
that could be better spent elsewhere.”
many curators regularly read at least one
When is the last time you saw a new exhib-
professional journal?
it in a visitor center that contained a lot of real
• Most historians I know read several books
things? Most park interpreters will tell you
each year dealing with their specialty. How
that NPS does not have “museums”—we run
many curators regularly read new books
“visitor centers.” This is partly an attempt to
dealing with our profession (other than
get around often needlessly restrictive stan-
Museum Handbook updates)?
dards suggested by the Handbook and applied
• Most archeologists I know present at least
by people who don’t know better.
one professional paper at a conference, or
Also in the name of “preservation” we
write at least one article for a journal, every
have locked collections up, and locked out the
year. Over the past year, how many cura-
primary users. The plain fact of the matter is
346
 Museums and Collections

that everything NPS owns is not a 16th-centu- job.”

ry panel painting, or a signed George It is apparent from this remark that there is
Armstrong Custer letter, or a passenger currently there is no downside to poor or
pigeon specimen. We own a lot of fairly ordi- mediocre management of archives and collec-
nary, run-of-the-mill stuff whose primary value tions. We have not provided management with
lies in what it can tell us about the park and the necessary indicators needed to distinguish
our management of the resources. For many of between a job well done, a job partly done,
our frequently used collections, we can afford and a job not done.
a much more liberal use policy than what is in So, what do we need to do to fix the situa-
the Museum Handbook. tion? Unfortunately there is no single answer,
Example: A collateral-duty collections no “silver bullet” to make the problem go
manager reads the Handbook, and makes the away. But there are some things that we can
case to the superintendent that the park start doing, at the park, at the central office,
herbarium needs to be taken away from and at the national program levels.
resources management and locked in the col- We need to develop a message that
lections room. The following week the answers the question: “Why should manage-
resource management staff goes out and starts ment care?” We need to begin developing our
collecting specimens for a “comparative col- own support groups in each park, each region,
lection” that will not be “official” and thus not and on the national level. If we do so, there is
documented. As a result the “official” collec- someone who will complain, long and loudly,
tion goes static, does not receive any new when the collections deteriorate, are not avail-
specimens, and is not used by the park staff. able for easy access, are poorly documented,
This was the result of a non-professional or when the curator’s position is not filled
having no understanding of how natural sci- quickly and with a qualified applicant.
ence collections are used, but aggressively We need to stop hiring the untrained, the
applying poorly written “standards” from the half-trained, the poorly trained, to do profes-
Handbook. There has been a real curator at sional-level work. Even though the qualifica-
the park for three years now, but the resource tion standards for the positions of museum
management staff is still very leery about hav- technician, museum specialist, and museum
ing “their” collections documented. curator were written in 1956, they are still
Since we have imposed draconian condi- considered the standards and we need to
tions on their access and use, park staff and insist that they be followed when filling pro-
the public have found other avenues to get fessional jobs in these series.
their information. The in-house surveys we Park managers need to start insisting that
have been doing in the Pacific West Region professional positions currently in their parks
show that about half the staff at any given park be filled by professionals when they become
don’t know what is in the collections, where vacant, and at professional-level grades (GS-
they are located, or who can get them in to use 11 and above).
the material. If people don’t use the collec- Regional and central office curators need
tions, who cares about their accessibility or to start insisting that park-level positions be
condition? filled with qualified professionals, and curato-
Example: It is the close-out for a collec- rial work be supervised by qualified profes-
tions planning effort at San Francisco sionals. This year in the Pacific West Region
Maritime National Historical Park, and we we have started insisting that the expenditure
have been talking with the superintendent and of BAC-CAT (backlog cataloguing) and
senior staff about the poor conditions in MCPPP funds be supervised by at least a GS-
museum storage. The former superintendent 11 curator. We are tired of untrained seasonal
turned in his chair, pointed to the ships out- employees being supervised by untrained col-
side and said: “If one of those ships sinks I get lateral-duty employees. We are not ending up
fired. If the collections fall apart, I still have a with professional products, and the money is
347
 Museums and Collections

too hard to come by to waste in this manner. sional standards and regular refresher train-
From now on in the Pacific West Region, you ing, and pass it along to the NPS director for
will need an approved work plan, or an implementation. Remember, similar programs
approved scope of work statement, or an are required by our counterparts in mainte-
approved treatment plan in order to get your nance, law enforcement, fire control, person-
money. You can use seasonal employees to cat- nel, and contracting, to name a few.
alogue and do basic-level collections manage- Finally, at the national level we need to
ment, but they need to be supervised by a GS- break out of the narrow mind-set about cura-
11 curator. If you don’t have a curator on the torial work that has dominated the last two
staff, you need to employ one, rent, or borrow decades. We have done a fairly good job of
one from a neighboring park. This require- reducing the catalogue backlog, and address-
ment was instituted by the Pacific West ing the deficiencies in the storage and protec-
Cultural Resources Advisory Committee, and tion of collections. We now have to look for
approved by the regional director. ways to make the collections we manage more
The national Museum Management available for many kinds of use. If we don’t,
Program needs to insist that regional and cen- park management will start looking at the
tral office positions be filled by qualified pro- meager resources they are currently spending,
fessionals on base (ONPS) funding, and and wondering whether this might be a good
vacancies need to be filled in a timely manner. place to implement out-sourcing.
If regions are reluctant to do so, try withhold- And if we have not done everything in our
ing BAC-CAT and MCPPP funding. This is power to make the collections available and
done for inadequate documentation, so why useful to the staff and public, they will be
not for inadequate professional supervision? right. For without using these things to help us
The national Museum Management manage the park resources, and tell the story
Program also needs to take ownership and of the parks and our stewardship to the pub-
give direction to the need for both basic-level lic, we really don’t have collections in the large
curatorial training and continuing education sense. We have pathetic assemblages of fur
for practicing professionals. The Museum and feathers, meaningless symbols of past cul-
Management Program council needs to devel- ture, wood pulp with printers ink, and fading
op a “certification program” based on profes- images that no one looks at.

348
 Museums and Collections

A Note on Performance Standards and Conservation

Specifications for Exhibit Cases
Toby Raphael, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center, P.O. Box 50, Harpers Ferry, West
Virginia 25425; toby_raphael@nps.gov

A conservation-grade exhibit case is a well-designed and carefully fabricated display enclo-

sure. It is possibly the most important and cost-effective tool for preserving vulnerable collec-
tions on exhibition.
Park museums put their most significant housed in well-designed and carefully fabri-
objects onto display and, by doing so, place cated cases, they can be effectively preserved
these collections at much greater risk than if at levels remarkably close to those provided in
they had remained under the controlled con- storage.
ditions of protective storage cabinetry. The technology is now available for
Although display in cases and vitrines is the National Park Service (NPS) staff to insist that
norm for most museum exhibits, the pitfalls their display enclosures balance the need to
and benefits of conventional display enclo- present and interpret cultural resources aes-
sures are only now being calculated by con- thetically with the conservation characteristics
servation and exhibit specialists. necessary to protect them from needless loss.
The display case, unfortunately, has been Conservation features can be specified as stan-
taken for granted as an effective means of mit- dard components if the staff is aware of what
igating damage while objects remain on exhib- constitutes a conservation-grade case. In
it. The truth is that, until recently, exhibit spe- weighing the advantages and costs of different
cialists have had little information on the exhibit enclosures when procuring new case-
impact of common exhibit cabinetry on vul- work, NPS exhibit specialists will soon have
nerable collections or the degree to which access to new tools to specify what preserva-
they actually provide protection. As we learn tion features and levels of performance are to
more about the traditional exhibit cabinet be expected.
from scientists, we have serious reason to be The NPS publication Exhibit
concerned. Research indicates that the exhib- Conservation Guidelines is currently available
it case has an alarming potential for adding to through the Harpers Ferry Historical
the deterioration of its contents. Association by calling 1-800-821-5206; a
The good news is that an enclosure that is companion publication, Performance
properly engineered has an equally surprising Standards and Conservation Specifications for
potential for protecting and preserving vulner- Exhibit Cases, is under development.
able collections. When objects on display are

349
 Museums and Collections

On the Road to Democracy: The Gulag Museum at Perm-36

Gay E. Vietzke, Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, 20 Sagamore Hill Road, Oyster Bay, New
York 11771-1899; gay_vietzke@nps.gov

In December 1999, Marie Rust, director of the National Park Service’s (NPS’s) Northeast
Region, became a founding member of the International Coalition of Historic Site Museums of
Conscience. At the coalition’s first formal meeting, Rust met Victor Shmyrov, director of the
Gulag Museum at Perm-36 in Russia, another founding member/institution of the coalition, and
the two agreed to begin a collaboration.
Shmyrov’s museum preserves and inter- In the 1990s, the camp complex was redis-
prets a gulag camp built under Joseph Stalin covered by a group of historians who decided
in 1946 in the village of Kutschino, Russia, that preserving this difficult story from
near the city of Perm. Known as Perm-36, the Russia’s past was critical to the country’s
camp is a typical labor camp—this one being future. The Gulag Museum at Perm-36 was
focused on timber production. If you’ve read created to “promote democratic values and
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, this is civil consciousness in contemporary Russian
very much like the camp described by society through preservation of the last Soviet
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. political camp as a vivid reminder of repres-
Later, the camp became a particularly iso- sion, and an important historical and cultural
lated and severe facility for high government monument.” Civic engagement was part of this
officials. In 1972, Perm-36 became the pri- museum’s mission from its inception.
mary facility in the country for persons Since 1996, the museum has undertaken
charged with political crimes. Many of the the task of preserving and reconstructing the
Soviet Union’s most prominent dissidents, camp as a historic site and providing a range of
including Vladimir Bukovsky, Sergei Kovalev, interpretive and dialogue experiences for
and Anatoly Marchenko, served their sen- schoolchildren and visitors to the site. The
tences there. The camp closed in 1987. Many museum has sent several delegations to the
believe this to be the last preserved unit in an United States to learn from NPS. These
intricate chain of prisons, labor camps, and groups observed interpretive and educational
remote areas of exile stretching across thou- programs, looked at self-financing examples,
sands of miles in Russia. Although there were and visited significant American sites that deal
over 12,000 camps like this one in Russia, with difficult issues and recent history. They
Perm-36 is the last surviving intact example also asked NPS to send a team of preservation
from the system. and museum professionals to Perm-36 to pro-
Scholars estimate that 20 million people vide technical assistance, and I was honored
died in the labor camps as a result of Stalin’s to lead that group.
repressions. Many millions more were impris-
oned or deported to remote areas. The gulag Civic Engagement
system affected everyone in the country. This at the Gulag Museum
was a way of controlling the entire population; Over the past several years, the Gulag
the country was industrialized on the backs of Museum has developed a number of impres-
its forced labor. Let me be clear here: this is sive educational programs for visitors to the
not a system of jails—those existed for crimi- site and for schools throughout the Perm
nals. This was a system of repression and fear region.
for everyone else. Being late to work three First and foremost, the Gulag Museum is a
times merited a five-year sentence. An unex- historic site. It uses a real place to teach about
cused absence from work or failure to make the history of totalitarianism and political
daily work quotas usually meant ten years in repression in the former Soviet Union. A rich
the gulag. program of sharing the complex history of the
350
 Museums and Collections

place and discussion is presented to the site’s past. There is certainly a place for emotion
30,000 annual visitors.1 The museum staff and reflection in the desired visitor experi-
sees the site as a vehicle to teach visitors about ence, but it cannot be at the sake of educating
the darker side of the Soviet past: to under- the public about the system of political repres-
stand how a population is affected living sion that permeated Russia under the gulag
under a totalitarian system of government. system. Visitors are encouraged to discuss,
Although they are concerned with questions debate, and engage the subject matter intellec-
such as “What happened here in this place?” tually as a necessary foil to the emotional reac-
they are even more interested in such ques- tions the place elicits. A civic hall—a place
tions as “How does a totalitarian state affect typical of community gatherings in Russian
the individual citizen?” In addressing these villages—has been created inside one of the
questions to Russians today, they ask how the structures to provide a safe forum for this con-
system of repression that existed not even a versation.
generation ago still affects Russian citizens Hard work is already paying off. The Perm
and all of Russia today. Regional Government has publicly acknowl-
The site itself possesses great power. Even edged its belief that the presence of the muse-
unfurnished and in its present state of incom- um and its educational programs in the area
plete rehabilitation, it conveys a remarkable have positively influenced the democratic
sense of the power of the state and the vulner- process in the region. More and more teachers
ability of the individual. The labor camp’s want to bring their classes to the site, and the
remote location, its spartan structures, the demand for traveling exhibits on the gulag sys-
rows of wooden and barbed wire barriers—all tem has steadily increased. The museum is
convey a powerful story even without the nar- now working with the regional government to
rative intervention of tour guides, exhibits, or amend school curricula to include the repres-
furnished interiors. The museum is lucky to sive history of Soviet Russia and the introduc-
have a remarkable understanding of the site’s tion of liberal democratic values in the nation.
history and significance already. The museum is now collaborating with a
However, the museum has struggled with number of NPS sites to create an exhibit to be
many of the same issues that American sites hosted by American historic sites, including
such as Manzanar National Historic Site have. Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic
Should the fencing and guard towers be Site, Manzanar, Boston National Historical
reconstructed where missing (Figure 1)? Is it Park, and Ellis Island. The exhibit will incor-
enough to evoke the sense of imprisonment— porate civic engagement principles in its
or do you need the eight rows of security organization—stating questions and encour-
perimeters to truly understand how people aging the audience to enter the dialogue.
were made to feel here? Through active Introductory panels at each host site will link
engagement with former prisoners and contemporary issues of human rights, immi-
guards, the museum staff has decided that gration, and repression to the historic themes
restoring key features, such as the guard tower of the gulag and the host site. Formal interpre-
from the maximum security unit, is appropri- tive opportunities and educational programs
ate. will accompany the exhibit to ensure that all
Shmyrov has clearly articulated one key visitors have an opportunity to engage the
point in developing the desired visitor experi- material. Through this international partner-
ence: knowledge and education must be pri- ship, NPS sites will benefit from the Gulag
mary to the experience; emotion must remain Museum’s extensive experience with civic
secondary. Visiting the Gulag Museum is a engagement, and will build mechanisms to
truly powerful experience. Visitors, particular- continue this work in their everyday program-
ly Russians, often respond emotionally to this ming.
experience because it brings up highly
charged feelings about the nation’s recent
351
 Museums and Collections

Figure 1. A reconstructed guard tower in the maximum security complex. National

Park Service photo.

Endnote
1. This visitation figure was quoted by Visitation projections at the museum sug-
Shmyrov several times while visiting the gest that this number may quadruple in
United States in November 2002. the next five years.

352
 Technology for Resource Management

Synthesis as a Law Enforcement Tool

at Shenandoah National Park:
A Synthesis Regional Support Center Case Study
Andrew Diego, 22572 Middleburg Chapel Court, Ashburn, Virginia 20148-6704;
andrewdiego@hotmail.com
Andrew Welti, 906 Marshall Drive Northeast, Leesburg, Virginia 20176; weltiar@jmu.edu
Éadaoin O’Drudy, 1449H Devon Lane, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801; odrudyee@jmu.edu
Ken Johnson, National Park Service, 3655 U.S. Highway 211 East, Luray, Virginia 22835;
ken_johnson@nps.gov
Carollyn Oglesby, James Madison University, Integrated Science and Technology, MSC 4102,
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807; oglesbcs@jmu.edu
Bruce Nash, National Park Service, Natural Resources Information Division, 12795 West
Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado 80228; bruce_nash@nps.gov
Steven Frysinger, James Madison University, Integrated Science and Technology, MSC 4102,
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807; frysinsp@jmu.edu

Synthesis is an information management tool for efficiently organizing, integrating, and dis-
seminating data and information. Synthesis presents users with an easy-to-use graphical user
interface that functions as a gateway to information that may be stored on local computers, net-
works, intranets, as well as the internet. From this single gateway, a user may view and integrate
many types of information, including text-based documents, photographic libraries, databases,
spreadsheets, presentation graphics, GIS (geographic information systems), bibliographies,
internet-based information, and decision-support systems. The Synthesis Regional Support
Center (SRSC) at James Madison University (JMU) in Harrisonburg, Virginia, was established
in late 2001 to support national parks in their use of Synthesis for information management. The
SRSC’s first customer, Shenandoah National Park, provided documents and guidance for the
development of ginseng (discussed herein) and bear gall databases intended to support special
park agents and criminal investigators with both research and law enforcement for threatened
natural resources.
Synthesis began life as a “hard-wired” air- resources in America’s national parks. It over-
quality information management system. Its sees inventory and monitoring programs
capabilities were gradually expanded and throughout NPS. It assists parks, regions, and
enhanced to accept all types of information other NPS offices in the acquisition of natural
from any subject area. Eventually, because of resource inventory and monitoring informa-
the broader nature of the system, it was decid- tion and in the application of this information
ed that the system should be moved to the to management decision-making and resource
National Park Service (NPS) Natural protection.
Resource Information Division (NRID), The Systems Management Branch pro-
which happened in March 2000. vides and administers servicewide databases
The NRID is part of the Natural Resource to meet the needs of natural resource program
Program Center, administered by the NPS managers. It also develops and maintains data
associate director for natural resource stew- processing tools and procedures to help park
ardship and science. It maintains offices in staffs manage natural resource information
Fort Collins and Denver, Colorado, and consistently.
Washington, D.C., and consists of three The Information Services Branch devel-
branches. ops and communicates information for the
The Inventory and Monitoring Branch preservation, management, and understand-
documents the status and trends of natural ing of park natural resources. Informational
353
 Technology for Resource Management

materials and services are geared to reach the found between the several agencies charged
public, park staffs, and NPS partners, and with making decisions on the protection of
include education, interpretation, and public these species.
outreach programs. Having determined that a common data
The Office of the Division Chief, through set was a primary protection tool, law enforce-
the natural resource web manager, coordinates ment planners, with the support of the NRID,
and manages NPS natural resource web activ- selected Synthesis as the information manage-
ities. This includes overall coordination of ment tool. Documents were sent from
NatureNet and the Natural Resources Shenandoah, Great Smoky Mountains, and
Intranet, leading the interdisciplinary Natural Blue Ridge to the SRSC at JMU to be intro-
Resource Web Team, and coordinating guid- duced into the database. NPS special agents
ance and policy recommendations on natural provided NPS supervision of the project. The
resource web publishing. ginseng database developed for Shenandoah
Law enforcement and compliance actions in response to this need is now a collection of
in NPS are managed by park superintendents. well-organized, easily accessible, and search-
Specially trained rangers provide emergency able electronic documents containing infor-
services and uniformed resource protection. A mation on ginseng and other protected or
small cadre of criminal investigators focuses endangered plant species. Ginseng topics
on long-term resource crimes or those which include, but are not limited to, biology, popu-
require extensive investigation to halt the lation surveys, import/export data, conserva-
resource harm and to restore the resource. tion programs, and regulations. A limited
Planning and prioritization of enforcement number of documents on endangered plants
and compliance actions is conducted at the other than ginseng has been included.
park level, in conjunction with resources spe- Several evolutions of data organization
cialists. Superintendents and chief rangers were modeled for the end user. Eventually, a
from Great Smoky Mountains National Park, structure that mirrors the thought process of
Blue Ridge Parkway, and Shenandoah conservation enforcement professionals was
National Park have determined to engage in constructed. The primary divisions are
shared evaluation, response planning, and Species Status, Threats to Resource, and
active protection when resources held in com- Protection Tools.
mon are threatened. Species Status is first on the outline
In 2000, the three parks engaged in a because it is the first thing that a conservation
cooperative project to identify, quantify, and law enforcement officer will seek to determine.
mitigate the risks to ginseng (Panax quinque- If resources are stable, further investigation is
folius), galax (Galax rotundifolia), and three unlikely. By looking at the habitat require-
other medicinal herbs. The resource risks are ments of the ginseng, the surveys document-
a result of large and escalating international ing its locations in the park, how humans have
markets. used ginseng in the past, and ginseng popula-
Early in the project, rangers and agents tion dynamics, the officer, in consultation with
identified the absence of an extensive, shared resource scientists, will be able to quickly
data set among resource-serving agencies. A assess whether enforcement action and/or
common data set, shared among agencies with other conservation tools are required.
common missions, would serve as a conserva- Once a preliminary determination of
tion tool in itself. It would also facilitate the resource risk is made, the next logical step to
development of additional protective method- take is to assess and quantify threats to the
ologies. Preliminary data gathering showed resource. Hence, part two of the outline:
that a large body of information resided in sev- Threats to Resource. Under guidance from law
eral federal and state agencies; however, the enforcement personnel at Shenandoah, sever-
information was paper-based and lacked con- al topics were discussed for inclusion in the
tinuity. No common links of information were outline. International trade reports, local and
354
 Technology for Resource Management

foreign price lists, import/export data, prior scanning, each document is converted to a
criminal cases, and documents on hunting, JPEG (.jpg) image. OCR is used to correct
finding, and digging medicinal herbs were scanning errors, to repair damaged docu-
found to be top priorities. These provide ments, and to transform documents into key-
important conservation information on word-searchable files. As each document is
exploitative methods and motivators, and successfully converted and conditioned, it is
insight into complex derogation patterns. added into an organized tree index of relevant
Reports on international trade can identify categories. Documents are easily accessed
locations in the park from which foreign mar- through the tree, or identified through key-
kets are receiving medicinal herbs. Price lists word searches of files and metadata.
of ginseng in local markets can help identify Currently, the ginseng database contains
where these herbs are bought for the highest approximately 280 documents.
cost, thus poached the most. Import/export Each document has its own metadata file
data can help law enforcement officers locate that can be accessed to allow evaluation with-
areas around parks where the most herbs are out opening the actual file. Metadata are
being sold. Prior criminal cases will store pieces of information about the file that
information on past poachers, so if an officer include author, date, title, publisher, and a
crosses paths with someone on the list, closer description—basically all information that is
attention can be paid to that individual. Many essential if the file is to be useful as a reference.
companies are in the medicinal herb business. The metadata for Synthesis are based on
Some of these companies wish to educate cit- Dublin Core, an international metadata stan-
izens about how to attain specific herbs such dard.
as ginseng by giving workshops, holding Keyword searching is done either with a
meetings, or even distributing brochures. The full-text algorithm or by using pre-assigned
last portion of the outline stores information keywords. Assigning keywords, which
on these topics. requires careful reading of each document, is a
The third and final portion of the outline, time-consuming task for Synthesis specialists.
Protection Tools, provides law enforcement The full-text search function was recently
officials the toolkit needed to design and implemented in Synthesis and saves a great
implement interdisciplinary protection plans. deal of time in database development; howev-
Listed first are conservation programs that er, manual keyword indexing can still be
have been created to protect medicinal herbs advantageous in law enforcement and can be
and other resources. The next section offers a done at the prerogative of the customer. The
collection of laws and regulations from across ginseng documents have all been manually
the country that focus on policies regarding indexed. Full-text capability is an option in
the protection of these resources. Last on the either case.
list is what may be the most important part of The outline of the Shenandoah ginseng
all the documents: public education. These database is shown in Table 1, with the number
documents are used to educate the public on of documents for each category in parenthe-
every aspect of the medicinal herb trade. ses. When clicked, a category reveals addition-
There is a wide range of conservation tools, al cascading categories and the actual docu-
laws and regulations that may be improved. ment titles. The documents in each category
Current ideas include marking techniques have been qualitatively assessed and sorted by
involving tracing technology and replanting order of importance/relevance. More impor-
techniques to further enforce restrictions. tant documents are placed at the top of the list
For electronic conversion and data condi- under each category.
tioning, each paper document was scanned in Shenandoah’s ginseng database is a work
conjunction with OCR (optical character in progress. It is expected to be implemented
recognition) technology, then indexed for by the park’s special agents in 2003. The
metadata and keywords. In the process of SRSC at JMU will provide on-going support
355
 Technology for Resource Management

Table 1. Outline of the Shenandoah National Park ginseng database

Species Status (71) Laws and Regulations
Ginseng International (0)
Biology and Habitat Requirements (10) National (10)
Population Surveys (18) State
Historic Human Uses (15) Arkansas (2)
Scientific Studies (12) Georgia (3)
Other Protected/Endangered Plant Species (16) Iowa (2)
Threats to Resource (57 total) Kentucky (3)
TRAFFIC Report on International Trade (2) Maryland (3)
Price Lists New York (2)
Foreign (0) North Carolina (5)
Local Markets (18) Ohio (2)
Import/Export Data (16) Tennessee (2)
Prior Criminal Cases (0) Virginia (3)
Hunting/Finding/Digging Ginseng (21) Wisconsin (2)
Protection Tools (142) Others (4)
Ginseng Conservation Programs Cases and Rulings (10)
International (3) Plant Marking Techniques (1)
National (19) Plant Replication Techniques (11)
State Public Education (18)
Indiana (3) Miscellaneous Documents (10)
Kentucky (2)
North Carolina (6)
Tennessee (2)
Virginia (9)
West Virginia (3)
Others (12)
and management as more information is databases; providing support for such efforts;
revealed. The capabilities of the Synthesis and, most recently, developing multimedia
Information Management System will allow interpretive VIEWS of the national parks.
for continued expansion of the ginseng data- Parks served to date, in addition to
base. In addition to new documents, the data- Shenandoah, are Fort Sumter National
base will handle GIS information, which may Monument and New River Gorge National
contain different data types ranging from pho- River. The New River Gorge work will sup-
tographic libraries to spreadsheets to internet- port future general management planning.
based information. The newest partnership, with Lava Beds
The SRSC at JMU also functions as a con- National Monument (Klamath Network), is
duit between users and program designers. scheduled to begin summer 2003.
The full-text search engine referred to earlier,
as well as improvements to metadata function- Acknowledgments
ality, were constructed in response to needs Support of this work by the Natural
identified by the agents and rangers, commu- Resources Information Division of the
nicated by SRSC specialists to Synthesis sys- National Park Service (U.S. Department of the
tem designers and programmers. Other func- Interior) and Shenandoah National Park is
tions of the SRSC include training park per- gratefully acknowledged.
sonnel to create, maintain, and use their own
356
 Technology for Resource Management

Using GIS to Focus Field Inventories of Rare and Endemic

Plants at Badlands National Park, South Dakota
Sandee Dingman, Badlands National Park, P.O. Box 6, Interior, South Dakota 57750;
sandee_dingman@nps.gov

Background
In southwest South Dakota there is a unique landscape known as the “Big Badlands” (Gries
1996) or the “White River Badlands” (O’Harra 1920) that is characterized by the presence of
barren erosional features, known as “badlands,” interspersed with mixed-grass prairie. These
features form a dynamic land surface prone to landslides and rapid erosion, creating new land
surfaces in the form of outwash plains at the base of buttes and scoured gullies, with each geo-
logic formation lending unique soil chemistry and texture to its deposition (O’Harra 1920;
USDA–Soil Conservation Service 1971, 1986, 1996).
Deeper soils mantling the buttes, hills, and from similar habitats near the park. In 2003,
alluvial valleys support relatively dense and the park initiated a two-year study to docu-
diverse plant communities, typically grass- ment the location and distribution of these
lands. Soils on and adjacent to badland expo- nine rare plant species based on potential
sures and in drainage channels are rapidly habitat at the park.
deposited, and support a sparse plant commu-
nity (Von Loh et al. 1999). These processes Project Objectives
have shaped a variety of habitats for plants that The study’s objectives are to:
are able to cope with rapidly changing sub- • Use a geographic information system
strate, variable moisture, and short-term com- (GIS) to define potential habitat of the
petition. As these plants exist within a typical nine state-listed rare plant species, based
Northern Great Plains environment, they are on spatially explicit habitat parameters
also influenced by landscape processes of fre- found in the literature, from known sites,
quent fire, herbivory, and drought (Wright and and on voucher labels.
Bailey 1980). • Inspect probable habitat for the presence
There are several rare plant species that of the nine state-listed rare plant species.
are known to live in the barren badlands habi- • Document the presence or absence of each
tat, including some species that are consid- species in each polygon searched. Verify
ered endemic to the Northern Great Plains, a habitat characteristics, map distribution,
region generally considered depauperate of and describe the population. Collect
endemic flora (Great Plains Flora Association voucher specimen for species not previ-
1986). The interspersed grassland provides ously vouchered in the park.
habitat for other species that are rare due to • Formalize documentation of presence (or
their local occurrence at the edge of their absence) by recording observations and
range. vouchers in various NPS databases and
Established in 1939, Badlands National the South Dakota Natural Heritage
Park is located in the Big Badlands landscape Database.
and preserves one of the nation’s largest • Make baseline data available for subse-
mixed-grass prairies. Yet the National Park quent studies beyond the scope of this
Service (NPS) lacks information on rare plant project.
inventory and distribution throughout the
park’s 244,000 acres. Nine state-listed rare Methods
species, including four endemics, have been An attempt was made to use GIS to focus
confirmed within the park incidentally during field inventory efforts in order to maximize
the course of other studies, or they are known efficiency and provide the most information

357
 Technology for Resource Management

for proactive protection of the rare plant pop- entire range. This species is known from sev-
ulations and their habitat, whether occupied eral locations in and near the park, although it
or unoccupied. The distribution and abun- has never been systematically inventoried in
dance of many plants are influenced by the the park. It exhibits consistent and precise
spatial arrangement of suitable habitats across habitat correlations that can be analyzed using
landscapes (Ritters et al. 1997), and the quan- GIS and existing geospatial data, making it
tification of such species–environment rela- feasible to accurately predict its occurrence
tionships represents the core of predictive based on habitat. Using ESRI ArcGIS 8.2
geographical modeling in ecology (Guisan software, four categories of habitat character-
and Zimmerman 2000). Knowledge of which istics (geology, soils, vegetation, slope) were
habitat parameters most accurately predict the scored based on their association with A. bar-
occurrence of a rare plant species, and the rii, as indicated in the literature, on existing
likelihood that the species will occur given vouchers, and from documented populations.
specific site conditions, is fundamental to Each record in each layer was given a score
effective management of rare species of 0, 1, or 2, where 0 represents no associa-
(Simberloff 1988; Brussard 1991; Falk and tion, 1 represents weak or imprecise associa-
Olwell 1992; Wiser et al. 1998). tion, and 2 represents strong association. Each
Three different approaches are being used habitat parameter was given equal weight. All
to document the distribution and abundance four layers were then summed on a 200x200-
of these nine species (see Table 1). The m grid cell covering the entire park. The result
approach chosen reflects the information is that the entire surface of the park is scored
available for each species, its life history and on a linear scale of 0 to 8, with 8 representing
habitat characteristics, and its relative impor- the best, and 0 the worst, habitat for A. barrii
tance to management. (Dingman 2003). These scored raster cells
were then converted into polygons represent-
Preliminary Results ing contiguous habitat with the same score.
The most intensively investigated species Sixty polygons were then haphazardly select-
is Astragalus barrii, a long-lived perennial ed across the full range of habitat scores, with
endemic species that is rare throughout its more samples drawn from the high-score

Table 1. Nine state-listed rare plant species will be studied to document location and distri-
bution within Badlands National Park, South Dakota.

358
 Technology for Resource Management

polygons and fewer from the low-score poly- mation most needed by managers to avoid and
gons. minimize impacts to the plants and their habi-
These sites will be inspected during the tats. As populations of these species are iden-
flowering season in 2003 for the purpose of tified and mapped, it may be possible to better
recording presence and absence of A. barrii define their habitat preference and then use
and other habitat and population information. GIS to develop habitat suitability models for
These data will then be used to refine a pre- these species (Table 3).
dictive habitat suitability model that will then Probable habitat for five other species
be validated on the adjacent Buffalo Gap could not be defined using GIS due to the lack
National Grasslands. Such a model could then of habitat specificity demonstrated by the
be used to anticipate the location of existing species and/or the resolution of existing spa-
populations as well as unoccupied but suit- tial data. Some of these species tend to be
able habitat for future populations. This infor- microsite-specific, such as “thin” areas of
mation will assist park managers in proactive- prairie that are not discernable based on the
ly preserving the species and its habitat (Table resolution of existing geospatial data, thus
2). making it impossible to pick out microsite

Table 2. The habitat parameters of geology, soils, vegetation, and slope have been scored
based on their association with Astragalus barrii, as indicated in the literature, on existing
vouchers, and from documented populations. The result is that the entire surface of the
park is scored on a linear scale of 0 to 8, with 8 representing the best, and 0 the worst,
habitat for A. barrii. This preliminary habitat suitability model will be refined and validated
during spring 2003 by searching a sample of polygons in each score to verify the habitat
parameters and confirm presence or absence of the species.

Eriogonum visheri, Thelesperma habitats. These species will not be subjected

megapotamicum, and Cryptantha cana have to a focused inventory effort. Park field
habitat specificity that can be analyzed using employees and cooperators will be trained to
GIS and existing geospatial data. However, recognize these species and report sightings.
the available habitat information is too impre- Species occurrences will be documented as
cise or the species are too ubiquitous in their populations are opportunistically encoun-
distribution to make predictive habitat suit- tered and verified. If enough populations are
ability modeling feasible. Probable habitat, as found, it may be feasible to better define their
defined using GIS, will be searched with the habitat characteristics and use GIS to define
highest-priority search areas located within probable habitats for future inventory efforts.
700 m of improved roads and 100 m of desig- In summary, GIS was used to the extent
nated trails. Because visitor use and manage- possible to focus field inventory efforts for the
ment activities are concentrated along road short flowering season of each species, thus
and trail corridors, this approach maximizes increasing the efficiency and efficacy of this
search efficiency and also provides the infor- inventory project. The effort to document
359
 Technology for Resource Management

Table 3. Probable habitat maps for Cryptantha cana, Thelesperma megapotamicum, and
Eriogonum visheri were created based on the habitat parameters of geology, soils, vege-
tation, and slope. The 2003–04 inventory work will focus on those habitats, and possibly
populations, that are within 700 m of improved and 100 m of designated trails. From this
information, we hope to gain the information needed to create a habitat suitability model
that will focus future inventory efforts more effectively.

location and distribution of these species will Falk, D.A., and P. Olwell. 1992. Scientific and
provide the information needed for more policy considerations in restoration and
meaningful environmental analyses and reintroduction of endangered species.
proactive preservation of these species and Rhodora 94, 287–315.
their habitats. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of
the Great Plains. Lawrence: University
Acknowledgments Press of Kansas.
Funding for implementation of this project Gries, J.P. 1996. Roadside Geology of South
is being provided by NPS’s Biological Dakota. Missoula, Mont.: Mountain Press
Resource Management Division, Northern Publishing.
Great Plains Inventory and Monitoring Guisan A., and N.E. Zimmerman. 2000.
Program, and Badlands National Park. Project Predictive habitat distribution models in
design assistance is being provided by Dr. ecology. Ecological Modelling 135,
Kaius Helenurm and Dr. Karen Olmstead of 147–186.
the Department of Biology at the University of O’Harra, C.C. 1920 [revised 1976]. The
South Dakota and David Ode of the South White River Badlands. South Dakota
Dakota Natural Heritage Program. GIS assis- School of Mines, Bulletin no. 13,
tance is being provided by Tim Cowman of Department of Geology. Stickney, So.
the South Dakota Geologic Survey and the Dak.: Argus Printers.
University of South Dakota. The author’s Ritters, K.H., R.V. O’Neill, and K.B. Jones.
graduate studies are partially supported by the 1997. Assessing habitat suitability at mul-
National Park Foundation’s Albright–Wirth tiple scales: a landscape level approach.
Fellowship. Biological Conservation 81, 191–202.
Simberloff, D. 1988. The contribution of pop-
References ulation and community biology to conser-
Brussard, P.F. 1991. The role of ecology in vation science. Annual Review of Ecology
biological conservation. Ecological and Systematics 19, 473–511.
Applications 1, 6–12. USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture]–Soil
Dingman, S. 2003. GIS scored habitat analy- Conservation Service. 1971. Soil Survey:
sis for Astragalus barrii (Fabaceae) in Shannon County, South Dakota.
Badlands National Park, South Dakota. Washington, D.C.: USDA.
Unpublished report on file at Badlands ———. 1987. Soil Survey: Jackson County,
National Park, Division of Resource Northern Part, South Dakota.
Management. Washington, D.C.: USDA.
360
 Technology for Resource Management

———. 1996. Soil Survey of Custer and Wiser, S.K., R.K. Peet, and P.S. White. 1998.
Pennington Counties, Prairie Parts, South Prediction of rare-plant occurrence: a
Dakota. Washington, D.C.: USDA. southern Appalachian example. Ecological
Von Loh, J., D. Cogan, D. Faber-Langendoen, Applications 8:4, 909–920.
D. Crawford, and M.J. Pucherelli. 1999. Wright, H.A., and A.W. Bailey. 1980. Fire
USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Ecology and Prescribed Burning in the
Badlands National Park, South Dakota Great Plains—A Resource Review. Ogden,
(Final Report). Technical memorandum Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–
No. 8260-99-03. Denver: U.S. Bureau of Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Reclamation Technical Service Center. Range Experiment Station.

361
 Technology for Resource Management

GIS, GPS, Cultural Resource Database Information, and the

FMSS Program at Kalaupapa National Historical Park
Tom Fake, National Park Service Pacific Islands Support Office, Box 50165, Honolulu, Hawaii
96850; tom_fake@nps.gov

Kalaupapa National Historical Park, established in 1980, contains the physical setting for
two tragedies in Hawaiian history. The first was the forced removal of indigenous people in 1865
and 1895 from an area where they had lived for over 900 years on the island of Molokai. This
resulted in the cutting of cultural ties and the association of generations of Hawaiians with the
aina (land). The second tragedy was the forced relocation of thousands of Hawaiians, sick with
leprosy, to this isolated settlement starting in 1866 and continuing until 1969. The establishment
of the isolation settlement, first at Kalawao and then at Kalaupapa, was the government’s
response to the growing fear of the disease.
The community of Kalaupapa, on the lee- ArcView building shape files were developed
ward side of the Kalaupapa Peninsula, is still with key data fields listing the LCS number
home for many surviving Hansen’s Disease for each building. The LCS data are joined
patients. Many of the structures that support with the map data to produce an interactive
this community still exist today. There are dis- map with both building locations and detailed
tinctive neighborhoods that support many information about each building from the
activities of daily life. Since 1980, when the database.
park was established, the National Park The next step in the preservation of the
Service (NPS), in cooperation with the Hawaii historic buildings took place in 2002 with the
Department of Health and the Department of implementation of the NPS Facility
Hawaiian Home Lands has begun a process of Management Software System (FMSS). Each
transfer of historic structures over to NPS’s of the buildings in the settlement is entered as
care. This process includes a careful analysis an asset into FMSS. Each of the structures is
of the historic value of the structure as well as given an asset priority index (API), which
of the steps necessary for future care of the assigns an importance value to the building.
building. With over 400 buildings in the set- The next process is to define the current
tlement, it was necessary to prioritize build- replacement value (CRV) for each of the struc-
ings with the goal of preserving the cultural tures. This number will be used to determine
landscape of the neighborhoods. Over 200 the condition relative to other structures. A
buildings were identified as a high priority for condition assessment is completed on each
preservation. structure and “work orders” are entered
Even before the establishment of the describing work to be completed on each
national park, the Kalaupapa Leprosy structure. The total cost for the work orders is
Settlement was designated a national historic compared with the CRV and the API to pro-
landmark in 1976. Many individual structures duce an asset condition index (ACI). The ACI
are now listed by NPS on the List of Classified indicates the condition of each structure, from
Structures (LCS). The LCS database contains “poor” to “good” condition. The information
important information concerning each build- is entered for each structure in FMSS, then
ing. An important part of the on-going man- combined with the LCS data in the interactive
agement of the historic structures by NPS is ArcView map. The database for FMSS is
the use of a geographic information system stored in a central server in Washington, D.C.,
(GIS) to map the LCS database. A detailed but the data are accessible through reports.
map was produced from digitized utility and The reports can be assembled so as to be com-
survey maps showing the location of each patible with GIS. The Kalaupapa building
structure. From these digitized maps, shape files also note the individual FMSS
362
 Technology for Resource Management

asset number, so the two databases can be The use of ArcView GIS and the ability to
joined. The database for each building now join other databases with the GIS data have
lists the FMSS data. As new data are added to become important tools for park managers to
FMSS, the joined database is also updated. preserve historic resources at Kalaupapa.

363
 Technology for Resource Management

Non-invasive Mountain Lion Sampling

in Seven Southwestern National Parks
Emily Garding, Grand Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023;
Emily_Garding@nps.gov

Elusive, mysterious hunters lurk in the shadows. Most of us will never see them; some do.
Hundreds of mountain lion sightings are reported across the western United States and Canada
each year. The majority of mountain lion and human encounters are of a benign nature. Research
shows that only 66 attacks—resulting in 15 human fatalities—have been recorded in the past cen-
tury. While this averages out to fewer than one mountain lion attack per year over the past 100
years, the alarming reality is that over three-quarters of these attacks have occurred since 1970.
The distinct increase in attacks over the past few decades provokes increased concern among
managers about risks to people recreating or residing in an environment with mountain lions.
While recreationists in wilderness areas plete and sustainable ecosystems. Predators
face inherent risks, resource managers can are often referred to as keystone species whose
take measures to reduce those risks, including presence indicates a healthy ecosystem, as
those posed by predators. Useful indicators of they require substantial amounts of habitat
lion activity in proximity to humans may pro- and diverse prey bases. With large carnivore
vide early warnings, enabling managers to populations declining worldwide, the moun-
minimize potential for harmful situations. tain lion fills an integral ecological niche as the
Knowing how and when mountain lions use last remaining predator throughout much of
habitat, especially areas frequented by its historical range.
humans, may contribute to reducing the Large carnivore populations across the
potential for dangerous incidents involving West are facing increasingly shrinking and
mountain lions and humans. Data collected fragmented habitat as human development
regarding lion populations and movement clambers farther into wild ecosystems. Large
patterns enable managers to protect mountain tracts of undeveloped land, which often occur
lions, people, and ecosystems. A multiyear in national parks, provide some of the only
project at Grand Canyon National Park is pro- remaining habitat where populations of large
viding a framework for other parks to obtain predators can thrive. National parks often
valuable information about their mountain serve as safe havens for large carnivores where
lion populations. they are not hunted and can successfully
Historically, mountain lions occupied reproduce. Resource managers in national
almost every identifiable biogeographic zone parks are faced with the complex mandate of
throughout North and South America. The maintaining critical predator populations
lion had the widest distribution of any mam- while providing for visitor safety.
mal in the Western Hemisphere, testimony to The situation facing parks today is under-
its ability to adapt to ecosystems and the mul- scored by an insufficient understanding of
titude of species inherent within them. The park ecosystems and threats. According to
cat’s greatest adaptive challenge has been research in California, most attacks on people
eradication campaigns in the United States. and pets occur along the “urban fringe,”
The lion’s superb predatory abilities and elu- where human development and recreation in
sive nature made it hated and feared among mountain lion habitat is highest. Visitor serv-
the settlers. Since then, the lion has disap- ices and residential areas located within parks
peared from nearly two-thirds of its previous create a wildland–urban interface, similar to
range. urban fringe, where the risk of attacks is
Natural systems require viable popula- increased.
tions of predators in order to maintain com- Currently, many parks only have informa-
364
 Technology for Resource Management

tion on the presence of mountain lions, in part areas of the park. Information obtained from
because of the notorious difficulties obtaining this research will have direct applicability to
information about populations of large terres- development of management alternatives in
trial mammals with low densities. Practical each park. This research will allow the
and accurate methods of estimating popula- National Park Service to refine its manage-
tion numbers and monitoring trends are ment strategies to protect mountain lions,
scarce and tend to be very costly and time- people, and ecosystems.
intensive. Invasive sampling techniques are The National Park Foundation, Grand
often impossible for small parks due to finan- Canyon National Park Foundation, and
cial and practical constraints. Recent develop- Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystem
ments in non-invasive, genetic sampling tech- Study Unit Research Office funded the proj-
niques provide a practical alternative. Non- ect and also paid for a shared seasonal techni-
invasive sampling can be used successfully to cian experienced in non-invasive sampling.
monitor elusive carnivores that often inhabit Matching Cooperative Ecosystem Study Unit
remote, inaccessible areas. These techniques funding allows for multi-lab analysis at the
are often cost-effective, require less intensive University of Idaho, Virginia Tech, and the
field work than invasive methods, and do not University of Arizona, to ensure accuracy of
interfere with the natural behavior of the ani- DNA fingerprinting and consistency in analy-
mals. sis, and to allow for several years of data col-
In an effort to initiate a project among mul- lection.
tiple parks to gather information on mountain
lion populations, resource managers from six References
national park and monument units joined Ames, N. 1980. Predators in Captivity: A
forces in 2001. A protocol using non-invasive Review of the Lineage Originating in the
sampling techniques was developed and 1960s at the Arizona–Sonora Desert
implemented, first at Grand Canyon National Museum. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and
Park, then expanded to include Mesa Verde, Wildlife Service.
Saguaro, Carlsbad Caverns, Guadalupe Beier, P. 1991. Cougar attacks on humans in
Mountains, Zion, and Flagstaff-area national the United States and Canada. Wildlife
parks and monuments. The non-invasive Society Bulletin 19, 403–412.
methods include track surveys, scat collec- Beier, P., D. Choate, and R.H. Barrett. 1995.
tion, hair sampling, and use of remote infrared Movement patterns of mountain lions dur-
camera systems. Two years of field surveying ing different behaviors. Journal of
at each park was initiated in fall 2001. Staff Mammalogy 76:4, 1056–1070.
and volunteers trained in 2001 are assisting in Ernest H.B., M.C.T. Penedo, B.P. May, M.
data collection and coordinating lab analysis Syvanen, and W.M. Boyce. 2000.
in support of the project. Molecular tracing of mountain lions in the
This study is providing a standardized Yosemite Valley region in California:
process for conducting extensive mountain genetic analysis using microsatellites and
lion surveys. The protocol is intended to faecal DNA. Molecular Ecology 9:4, 433.
assist other national park and forest units in Hornocker, M. 1992. Learning to live with
monitoring lion populations and movement mountain lions. National Geographic
patterns. This project will expand non-inva- (July), 52–65.
sive sampling to focus on mountain lion Kendall, K.C. 1998. Sampling grizzlies with
response to varying human population densi- noninvasive techniques. Washington,
ties within parks. The primary objectives of D.C.: National Park Service.
this study are to document movement patterns Leslie, E. 2001. Mountain lion–human inter-
of mountain lions, focusing on the areas of actions on the Colorado Plateau: the
high human activity, and to relate temporal effects of human use areas on mountain
and spatial use patterns of mountain lions to lion movements, behavior, and activity pat-
365
 Technology for Resource Management

terns. In Crossing Boundaries in Park Seidensticker, J. 1992. Mountain lions don’t

Management: Proceedings of the 11th stalk people: true or false? Smithsonian
Conference on Research and Resource 22:11, 113.
Management in Parks and on Public Taberlet, P., and G. Luikart. 1999. Non-inva-
Lands. D. Harmon, ed. Hancock, Mich.: sive genetic sampling and individual iden-
The George Wright Society, 193–196. tification. Linnean Society Biological
Noyce, K.V., D.L. Garshelis, and P.L. Coy. Journal 68:1/2, 41–55.
2001. Differential vulnerability of black Taberlet, P., L.P. Waits, and G. Luikart. 1999.
bears to trap and camera sampling and Noninvasive genetic sampling: look before
resulting biases in mark-recapture esti- you leap. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
mates. Ursus 12, 211–225. 14:8, 323–327.
Quigley, H.B. 1994. Encounters with a silent Torres, S. 1997. Mountain Lion Alert.
predator. Natural History 103 Helena, Mont.: Falcon Publishing.
(December), 57. Torres, S.G., T.M. Mansfield, J.E. Foley, T.
Stander, P.E. 1998. Spoor counts as indices of Lupo, and A. Brinkhaus. 1996. Mountain
large carnivore populations: the relation- lion and human activity in California: test-
ship between spoor frequency, sampling ing speculations. Wildlife Society Bulletin
effort and true density. Journal of Applied 24, 451–460.
Ecology 35:3, 378.

366
 Technology for Resource Management

A Comparison of Grid Sampling Designs with

Stratified/Nonuniform Probability Sampling Designs for
National Park Monitoring (Summary)
Paul H. Geissler, U. S. Geological Survey, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, Maryland 20708-
4038; Paul_Geissler@usgs.gov
Trent L. McDonald, West, Inc., 2003 Central Avenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001;
TMcDonald@West-Inc.com

Summary of Full Paper

Grid sampling with a random start is an excellent general-purpose design that assures that all
areas of the park are fairly represented. The grid can be intensified in areas of particular interest.
Issues and objectives certainly will change over time, but the sampling grid will remain constant
and provide a good sample for all questions. Stratified/nonuniform probability sampling designs
provide the opportunity for optimization, considering habitat differences, travel time to the plots,
administrative requirements and other issues. Stratified designs will provide more precise esti-
mates for important variables, are more flexible and can more easily target rare habitats, but grid
designs are simpler and may be better for other variables. Plots can be easily added to stratified
designs, but strata changes require the more complex nonuniform probability sampling
approach. A grid design can be easily intensified to add plots, but the number of plots is restrict-
ed to fit the grid. The full paper is available from the authors or on-line at: www.pwrc.usgs.gov/
brd/sampledesignsgw.htm.
We discuss the strengths and weaknesses — Domains – Estimates for Habitat Types
of each approach and the situations where • Changing Strata and Adding Points in
each would be appropriate, considering the Undersampled Habitats
park’s objectives. Simple worked examples are • Comparison of Sampling Approaches
provided to illustrate each approach. • Sampling Over Time

Table of Contents of Full Paper References

• Introduction Fancy, S. 2000. Guidance for the design of
• Systematic (Grid) Sampling sampling schemes for inventory and mon-
• Stratified Sampling itoring in national parks. On-line at:
— Sample Allocation to Strata www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/nps_sg.
— Cluster Sampling (subplots and tran- doc, and at www.nature.nps.gov/im/mon-
sects) itor/examples.doc.
— Estimation Lohr, S.L. 1999. Sampling: Design and
— Domains – Estimates for Habitat Types Analysis. Toronto: Duxbury Press.
— Example – North Cascades National Thompson, S.K. 2002. Sampling. New York:
Park John Wiley & Sons.
• Unequal Probability Sampling
— Estimation

367
 Technology for Resource Management

An Interactive Educational Tool for Understanding

Cultural and Natural Resource Preservation
at Petersburg National Battlefield
Mary K. Handley, Department of Integrated Science and Technology, James Madison
University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807; handlemk@jmu.edu
Elisabeth Ranger, Department of Integrated Science and Technology, James Madison
University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807; rangerea@jum.edu
Robin Snyder, Petersburg National Battlefield, 1539 Hickory Hill Road, Petersburg, Virginia
23803

Introduction
The interpretive rangers at Petersburg National Battlefield and members of James Madison
University’s Department of Integrated Science and Technology have been working together to
develop a virtual experience that highlights the historical significance of Petersburg National
Battlefield and the challenges of preserving this battlefield landscape. The National Park
Service’s Natural Resource Information Division provided the technological foundation for dis-
playing the content and creating an informative, exciting, interactive tool that can be used by stu-
dents, teachers, visitors, and virtual travelers to more fully explore this historic park. The
Petersburg Views project is accessible online, along with Views of other parks at
www.nature.nps.gov/synthesis/views.
Cultural Resources Natural Resources
Petersburg National Battlefield preserves Preserving the cultural resources at
an important piece of Civil War history. Petersburg and managing the visitor experi-
Located just 25 miles south of Richmond, ence at the park requires many natural
Virginia, Petersburg became an important resource management decisions. Some of the
supply center to the Confederate capital dur- most important natural resource issues facing
ing the Civil War. With five railroad lines and Petersburg National Battlefield include the
key roads, both Grant and Lee knew that if maintenance of earthworks, management of
these transportation lines could be cut off then invasive species, preservation of open space
Petersburg could no longer supply Richmond and vistas in the battlefield, erosion of the
with much-needed food and supplies. monuments and markers in Poplar Grove
Without this, Lee would be forced to leave National Cemetery, and riparian restoration
both cities. along the shores of the James and Appomattox
Grant was not able to capture Petersburg, rivers at City Point.
and so the siege began in June 1864. Both
sides constructed earthen fortifications and Features of the Project
dug trenches to protect and shelter the troops. Views of Petersburg National Battlefield
Nine and a half months later, the war ended explores both the stories of the past and the
when Lee evacuated Petersburg and surren- natural resource issues of the present. The
dered at Appomattox a week later. battlefield can be explored through the eyes of
The lives lost at Petersburg, the unique a war general, a plantation owner, a soldier, a
fortifications, the extended siege, and the surgeon, an engineer, or a civilian to learn
bravery and determination of many individu- about the cultural resources at the park. To
als that fought at this site make it a valuable explore the current challenges in maintaining
cultural resource. Poplar Grove National this historic landscape, the natural resources
Cemetery with its 6,148 Union graves and are viewed through the eyes of an interpreter,
Grant’s Headquarters at City Point are part of a biologist, a protection ranger, and a superin-
the Petersburg story as well. tendent.
368
 Technology for Resource Management

Petersburg National Battlefield contains about what they would do. Engaging viewers
2,659 acres and is made up of five major units; in the decision-making process emphasizes
Grant’s Headquarters at City Point, the the challenges of maintaining and preserving
Eastern Front, the Western Front, Five Forks resources in the national parks. Teachers’
Battlefield, and Poplar Grove National resources will include further information
Cemetery. A closer look at each unit within the about the ultimate resolution of some of the
park, whether in the historical context or the scenarios, such as the decision to replace
natural resource context, provides the viewer rather than restore eroding monuments in
an understanding of the war and its causes, Poplar Grove National Cemetery.
impacts, and legacies to all Americans.
The virtual experience was designed to Partners in the Project
teach people about the park using a variety of As this project has evolved, many people
tools, at a level appropriate for upper elemen- and groups contributed to its development.
tary and middle school audiences. Video, The 2001 Natural Resource Management
interactive maps, virtual views, historic photo- class (ISAT 424) at James Madison University
graphs and documents, interactive games, and developed case studies for the project, and
primary-source scenarios provide access to came up with the idea of “The
the rich historical background of the park. Superintendent’s Hat.” In their example,
Photos, diagrams, animations, and explana- users explore resource management issues
tions layered for casual interest and deeper from several viewpoints and then make deci-
curiosity about the natural resource manage- sions as the “virtual superintendent.” The
ment issues and the scientific basis of the final product incorporates this idea, allowing
issues provide accurate information about the user to study the challenges of preserva-
management concerns and the technology of tion at the battlefield through the eyes of an
possible solutions. interpreter, a biologist, a protection ranger,
and a superintendent. The dialogue between
Teacher Resources students and classes at James Madison
The teacher guide will provide teachers University and the interpretive staff at
with curriculum-based activities and lesson Petersburg gave the project the added excite-
plans that can be used in the classroom and in ment of partners explaining new ideas to each
the field. These teaching tools will include other.
both history and science-based lessons on
Civil War-related themes and battlefield Acknowledgments
preservation that can be printed or viewed on Thanks go to Dana Wiggins, Heather
the computer. Edmondson, Janet Sobel, and the James
A unique feature of the Views project and Madison University ISAT 424 class, fall 2001
teacher resources is a series of scenarios (in (for natural resource management content);
development) that present information about the cultural heritage and interpretive staff at
resource management problems from a variety Petersburg National Battlefield; Dave Krueger
of viewpoints. The scenarios provide the for CD-ROM development and program-
background information and the viewpoints ming; and Bruce Nash of the National Park
of the interpreter, biologist, protection ranger, Service Natural Resource Information
and any others that are needed to explain the Division for support and overall project
situation. Viewers (students) are asked to wear advice.
the superintendent’s hat to make decisions

369
 Technology for Resource Management

Soil Compaction as Indicated by Penetration Resistance:

A Comparison of Two Types of Penetrometers
Yu-Fai Leung, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8004; leung@ncsu.edu
Kristin Meyer, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8004

Introduction
One of the most common ecological changes induced by recreational use is soil compaction,
a process in which individual soil particles within the soil matrix are forced to rearrange them-
selves into closer proximity (Liddle 1997). Some common forces of soil compaction in recre-
ation settings include trampling by foot and vehicular traffic on recreation sites and trails, though
soil compaction can also occur from natural causes such as drying and wetting. Soil compaction
typically results in reduced amount and size of pore space and total soil volume, which in turn
lead to decreased infiltration capacity and increased surface runoff, standing water, and erosion
(Brady and Weil 2002). These changes represent site degradation and may have a detrimental
effect on vegetation and soil resources.
The objective of this paper was to apply adopted penetrometry as the soil compaction
two common types of soil compaction meas- measure due to its requiring a minimum of
uring tools in Boston Harbor Islands National ground disturbance, as mandated by park reg-
Recreation Area to evaluate their utility and ulations, and its efficiency in island settings. In
data variability. a campsite impact study, Marion and Cole
(1996) documented a 460% relative change in
Measuring Soil Compaction penetration resistance between the campsites
Four approaches have been developed in and the control areas as measured by pocket
agriculture and related disciplines to measure penetrometer. The mean penetration resist-
soil compaction: penetrometry, bulk density, ance on 29 campsites was 2.8 kg/cm2, while
conductivity/permeability, and radiation the undisturbed control sites averaged 0.5
(Freitag 1971). Penetrometry, or soil strength, kg/cm2 (Marion and Cole 1996).
measures the resistance of soil surface to verti-
cal force by poking a rod or penetrometer into Methods
the soil. Bulk density is determined by the Study area. This study is part of a larger
weight of oven-dried solid per unit volume. Visitor Experience and Resource Protection
This approach requires collection of soil sam- (VERP) research project in Boston Harbor
ples and oven-drying in a laboratory (Lowery Islands. Soil compaction was evaluated as a
and Morrison 2002). Conductivity/permeabil- potential resource indicator. Boston Harbor
ity evaluates the rate at which water or air per- Islands consists of 34 islands and peninsulas
meates through soil. A common technique in in Boston Harbor, and is 650 ha in total size.
this category is infiltration capacity, which Due to its proximity to population centers,
requires the availability of field time and dis- this new park receives an ever-increasing visi-
tilled water. Finally, radiation methods, such tation, with 262,000 recreational visits
as surface nuclear gauges, measure soil densi- recorded in 2002 (Boston Harbor Islands
ty instantly based on penetration of gamma National Recreation Area 2003). The park is
rays or neutrons. This approach requires managed by a 13-member partnership that
expensive equipment and licensed users. includes the National Park Service, federal,
Penetrometry and bulk density are the state, and municipal agencies, and non-profit
most common compaction measures in visitor organizations. This paper focuses only on two
impact studies (Liddle 1997). This study public-use islands, where soil compaction

370
 Technology for Resource Management

measurements were performed. Georges resulting in reduced number of SCT readings

Island is a heavily used island with in some cases. Eight background PR measure-
Udorthents (Ud) loamy soil as the dominant ments were taken with two penetrometers,
soil type. Grape Island possesses a more natu- respectively, at adjacent, environmentally sim-
ral setting with less visitor use. Newport silt ilar control areas outside each plot. All meas-
loam (NpC) and Pittstown silt loam (PtB) soils urements of a single plot were completed on
dominate Grape Island. They are reported the same day.
herein as a combined soil type (NpC/PtB). The same plots and quadrats were relocat-
Penetrometers selected. Two different ed and remeasured in August and October
types of portable penetrometers were chosen 2002 to evaluate temporal changes. The
to measure penetration resistance as an indi- August data were collected during a severe
cator of soil compaction. The pocket pen- drought, resulting in extremely high PR read-
etrometer (SOILTEST, Inc.) is a spring- ings under unusual soil moisture regimes. For
loaded instrument 15.2 cm in length and 1.9 comparability purposes, only data from June
cm in diameter. The instrument measures and October 2002, representing the begin-
penetration resistance when its 6.4-mm-diam- ning and end of the visitor-use season, are pre-
eter round tip is pressed 6.4 mm into the soil. sented. PR readings from two plots represent-
When pushed into the ground, a metal ring is ing the same use level were combined.
pushed up the scale, marking the penetration Relative PR change of each plot was calculat-
resistance value in kg/cm2. The soil com- ed by the difference between mean plot and
paction tester (DICKEY-john Co.) is a control PR values divided by the control mean
portable cone penetrometer 93 cm in total PR value. Relative changes are valid for com-
length with a dial on top to immediately read parison among sites with varied background
the soil compaction value (pounds per in2). PR levels. Data variability was evaluated by
An angled cone attachment of 12.7 mm or the coefficient of variation (CV; standard devi-
19.1 mm is screwed onto the other end of the ation as the percentage of the mean). The per-
70-cm rod that is pushed into the ground. centage of successful SCT penetration to each
The rod is marked every 7.6 cm to enable depth level in each plot was reported as pene-
measurement of soil compaction at 7.6-cm tration depth. All SCT and PR readings were
increments (up to 45.7 cm). converted to kg/cm2 for analysis and report-
Field procedures. In June 2002, a total of ing.
12 circular plots (6-m radius) were estab-
lished on Georges and Grape islands. On each Results
island, two plots were randomly located with- Beginning of visitor-use season. High-
in high-use zones (close to a pier), while use plots started with higher PR values on
another two were randomly located in low-use both islands in June. On Georges Island (Ud
zones. Within each plot, 12 quadrats (25 cm x soil), the mean PP–PR was 3.0 kg/cm2 for
25 cm) were randomly located along six radi- high-use plots and 2.1 kg/cm2 for low-use
al transects that are 60º apart. In each quadrat, plots (Table 1). The relative PR change based
four penetration resistance (PR) readings were on PP was 54.3% for high-use plots and
taken using the pocket penetrometer (PP), and 53.0% for low-use plots (Table 2). On the
four pairs of PR measurements were taken other hand, the mean SCT–PR was 31.6
using the soil compaction tester (SCT) at a kg/cm2 for high-use plots and 18.8 kg/cm2 for
depth of 7.6 cm and 15.2 cm. Hence, the max- low-use plots. The relative PR change based
imum numbers of PP and SCT readings for on SCT readings was 66.4% for the high-use
each plot were 48 and 96, respectively. Only area and –0.05% for the low-use area, indicat-
the SCT readings at the 7.6-cm level are com- ing essentially the same PR level between use
pared with PP readings. Due to rocks, roots, and control sites in the latter case (Table 2).
and compaction, not all SCT measurements PR values as measured by both penetrom-
could be taken at their intended depths, eters were lower on Grape Island (NpC/PtB
371
 Technology for Resource Management

Table 1. Penetration resistance measurements on Georges Island (Ud soil) using two types
of penetrometer.

Table 2. Relative percentage changes in penetration resistance on George Island (Ud soil).
Penetrometer/
Use Level June 2002 October 2002

Pocket Penetrometer

High Use 54.3* 35.4

Low Use 53.0 60.9

Soil Compaction Tester (7.6 cm)

High Use 66.4 21.3

Low Use -0.1 25.9

soil). For example, the mean PP–PR was 2.0 With respect to variability of PR measure-
kg/cm2 for high-use plots and 1.5 kg/cm2 for ments, results were comparable between the
low-use plots. According to the relative PR two soil types, with CV values ranging from
difference, use sites on Grape Island actually 23.1% to 37.1% on Georges Island (Ud) and
had more substantial compaction change as 31.2% to 42.1% on Grape Island (NpC/PtB)
compared with their off-site controls. For (Tables 1 and 3). The measurements on high-
example, relative PR changes for PP were use Ud plots showed less variability, while the
85.9% and 143.5% for high- and low-use NpC/PtB plots exhibited a reverse pattern.
plots respectively, while those for SCT were Pocket penetrometer readings appeared to
111.7% and 53.5% (Table 4). have a higher variability than SCT readings in
372
 Technology for Resource Management

Table 3. Penetration resistance measures on Grape Island (NpC/PtB soil) using two types of
penetrometer.

Table 4. Relative percentage changes in penetration resistance on Grape Island (NpC/PtB

soil).

Penetrometer/
Use Level June 2002 October 2002

Pocket Penetrometer

High Use 85.9* 34.8

Low Use 143.5 42.7

Soil Compaction Tester (7.6 cm)

High Use 111.7 37.8

Low Use 53.5 25.7

most cases, particularly on Grape Island fewer readings. Consistent with June data,
(Tables 1 and 3). high PR values were recorded on high-use
End of visitor-use season. All Georges sites using both penetrometers. On Georges
Island plots were reassessed in October 2002. Island (Ud), the PP mean was 2.3 kg/cm2 for
Due to inclement weather conditions, only high-use plots and 1.6 kg/cm2 for low-use
one high-use plot and one low-use plot were plots, both of which were lower than at the
remeasured on Grape Island, resulting in beginning of the visitor-use season (Table 1).
373
 Technology for Resource Management

The relative PR changes based on PP were depth and mechanism. However, they may be
35.4% and 60.9% for high- and low-use plots, evaluated based on their utility and data vari-
respectively (Table 2). The SCT–PR mean for ability. The PP is less expensive (about $60)
the high-use plot was 23.7 kg/cm2 and 24.5 and is very efficient to operate with one per-
kg/cm2 for the low-use plot. The relative PR son. The ring attached to the penetrometer
changes were 21.3% and 25.9% for high- and holds the PR reading until it is reset. Pocket
low-use plots (Table 2). penetrometer measurements also create less
On Grape Island (NpC/PtB), the PP–PR ground disturbance. In contrast, the SCT is
mean was 2.4 kg/cm2 for the high-use plot and more expensive (about $250), is harder to
1.8 kg/cm2 for the low-use plot. These values carry, and requires two persons to operate
were higher than the June values (Table 3). effectively. One person must be dedicated to
The relative PR changes based on PP were taking the dial reading, as it changes constant-
34.8% and 42.7% for the high- and low-use ly. Another person must keep track of rod
plots, respectively; these were lower than the markings to ensure that a reading is taken at
June values (Table 4). The SCT results each desirable penetration depth. As a result,
showed similar patterns on this island. the inter-rater variability could be higher. This
Both soil types exhibited a higher variabil- aspect of measurement error, however, was not
ity of PR measurements at the end of the visi- assessed in this study. Furthermore, the two
tor-use season, with CV values ranging from sizes of cone tip and corresponding scales on
26% to 51.7% for George Island (Ud) and the dial gauge could create confusion.
17.5% to 35.9% for Grape Island (NpC/PtB) On the other hand, the PP readings con-
(Tables 1 and 3). In the Ud soil type there was tain a higher degree of variability based on
the same pattern in which high-use sites CV. This may be due to the short penetration
exhibited less variability, while in the depth of this equipment. Irregularities of soil
NpC/PtB soil type there was less variability on surface, such as rocks, stones, plant litter, and
low-use sites. Quite consistently, PP showed a tree or grass roots, are more likely to interfere
higher degree of variability than SCT in both with the PP readings. Since SCT measures
soil types. compaction at a deeper level, it is less influ-
Penetration depths. These measurements enced by surface conditions. The SCT is also
were applicable to only SCT. The results sug- capable of measuring compaction at various
gest that soil was generally less penetrable on depths.
high-use sites and on Georges Island (Ud), on There are several other observations from
which most of the SCT measurements were this study. First, the relative PR changes in this
not able to reach the depth of 15.6 cm. At the study were much lower than those reported in
7.6-cm level, there was a decreasing trend in Marion and Cole (1996). This may be related
penetration depth from the beginning of the to generally higher PR levels on both use and
visitor-use season (83.3–95.8%) to its end control areas in Boston Harbor Islands as
(68.8–79.2%). Soil was more penetrable on compared with campsites in Delaware Water
Grape Island (NpC/PtB soil). Twenty-four Gap National Recreation Area (Marion and
percent to 46% of SCT measurements Cole 1996). Second, the PR level of Georges
reached the penetration depth of 15.6 cm. Island was generally higher than that of Grape
The soil was less penetrable at the 7.6-cm Island. A number of factors, such as soil type
level in October, with the percentage penetrat- and amount of use (higher visitation on
ed decreasing from 100% to 85% on the high- Georges Island), may have contributed to this
use site. variation. Third, the high-use plots on
Georges Island (Ud soil) showed less data
Discussion and Implications variability for both penetrometers, whereas
It should be noted that the PR values of less data variability were found on the low-use
two penetrometers cannot be directly com- areas on Grape Island (NpC/PtB soil). In
pared due to differences in their measurement other words, data variability of PR readings
374
 Technology for Resource Management

appeared to increase with decreasing PR level. Acknowledgments

A possible explanation is that soil strength The authors would like to thank Keith
could become more uniform in compacted Johnson, Chrissie Ingle, Laura Lam and Karl
soil. Finally, the relative PR changes were Meyer for their field assistance. This project
found to decrease in most cases from June to was funded by the National Park Service.
October, indicating the closing gap of PR
between use and control areas. Both decreas- References
ing on-site PR values and/or increasing con- Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation
trol PR values may have caused this effect. Area. 2003. 2002 visitor statistics.
Unpublished data.
Concluding Remarks Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 2002. The Nature
There are a number of limitations in this and Properties of Soils. 13th ed. Upper
study. Only two islands and two penetrometer Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
types were involved. Bulk density and soil Freitag, D.R. 1971. Methods of measuring
moisture were unavailable to provide a more soil compaction. In Compaction of
comprehensive comparison. The control Agricultural Soils. K.K. Barnes, W.M.
areas are not entirely free of human influence Carleton, H.M. Taylor, R.I.
and may be subject to limited foot traffic. This Throckmorton, and G.E. Vanden Berg,
data set is being further examined to under- eds. St. Joseph, Mich.: American Society
stand spatial and temporal patterns and to of Agricultural Engineers, 47–103.
correlate with vegetative ground cover. Hammitt, W.E., and D.N. Cole. 1998.
While soil compaction has been excluded Wildland Recreation: Ecology and
from the final list of resource indicators for Management. 2nd ed. New York: John
implementation of VERP at Boston Harbor Wiley and Sons.
Islands, this study has provided the park with Liddle, M.J. 1997. Recreation Ecology: The
baseline PR data on three different islands Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation
(data on Peddocks Island were not presented and Ecotourism. London: Chapman and
here). It seems useful to conduct similar meas- Hall.
urements on selected sites that show signs of Lowery, B., and J.E. Morrison, Jr. 2002. Soil
growing degradation. The PR data can inform penetrometers and penetrability. In
management of the need for visitor and/or site Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 4–Physical
management actions to reduce soil com- Methods. J. Dane and C. Topp, eds.
paction and increase soil quality of recreation Madison, Wisc.: Soil Science Society of
sites. America, 363–388.
Marion, J.L., and D.N. Cole. 1996. Spatial
and temporal variation in soil and vegeta-
tion impacts on campsites. Ecological
Applications 6:2, 520–530.

375
 Technology for Resource Management

Using Global Positioning Systems

to Monitor Elkhorn Coral, Acropora palmata,
at Buck Island Reef National Monument, U.S. Virgin Islands
Philippe A. Mayor, Buck Island Reef National Monument, Division of Resource Management,
2100 Church Street, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 00820;
philippe_a_mayor@nps.gov
Zandy M. Hillis-Starr, Buck Island Reef National Monument, Division of Resource
Management, 2100 Church Street, Christiansted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands 00820;
zandy_hillis-starr@nps.gov
Caroline Rogers, U.S. Geological Survey–Biological Resources Division, Caribbean Field
Station, 1300 Cruz Bay Creek, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands 00830;
caroline_rogers@usgs.gov
Kimberly K. Woody, Buck Island Reef National Monument, Division of Resource Management,
2100 Church Street, Christiansted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands 00820;
kimberly_woody@nps.gov
Barry Devine, Eastern Caribbean Center/Conservation Data Center, University of the Virgin
Islands, #2 John Brewer’s Bay, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802; bdevine@uvi.edu

Introduction
Elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata, is a major reef-building species that is found mostly in
water depths of less than 10 m. Up to the 1970s, elkhorn coral was the dominant coral in wave-
exposed and high-surge reef zones throughout the Caribbean (Adey 1978; Gladfelter et al.
1977). In 1973, white band disease was recorded for the first time at Buck Island Reef National
Monument (Robinson 1973). This disease affected Acroporids throughout the Caribbean, and
within two decades killed over 80% of the elkhorn coral at the park. Hurricanes, such as
Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and Marilyn in 1995, further damaged those reefs (Bythell et al. 2000;
Hubbard et al. 1991; Rogers 1992). The wide-scale decline of elkhorn coral led to its being
added in 1999 to the candidate species list of the Endangered Species Act.
Some areas in the park have experienced breaks, and ship groundings.
elkhorn coral recruitment and growth within
the last decade. The growth rate of elkhorn Methods
coral can reach 10 cm/year, and the species is Buck Island Reef National Monument (N
one of the fastest-growing among stony corals 17°47’/ W 64°37’) encompasses a 176-acre
(Gladfelter et al. 1978). However, problems island and 18,839 acres of submerged lands.
have occurred when applying conventional Buck Island is located 1.5 miles to the north-
coral-monitoring methods to this species. The east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The
chain transect method may result in the acci- eastern part of the island is surrounded by a
dental breakage of some of the fragile branch- barrier reef system with a protected lagoon
es, especially in high-surge zones, while two- and a wave-exposed fore-reef. Our study area
dimensional quadrant methods may poorly was an 18.4-acre section of this fore-reef,
quantify its complex three-dimensional struc- where large elkhorn thickets previously domi-
ture. nated.
The objectives of this study were to (1) We defined the elkhorn colony size as its
develop a non-invasive method to monitor maximal dimension and grouped the colonies
distribution, abundance, and size of elkhorn into size classes: small, measuring 1–49 cm;
coral within large areas of linear reef, and (2) medium, 50–99 cm; large, 100–199 cm; extra-
collect baseline information for damage large, 200–399 cm, and so forth. Two
assessment after hurricanes, disease out- researchers using snorkels recorded the loca-
376
 Technology for Resource Management

tion of every colony using handheld global error (<5%). It thus can detect a 5% change in
positioning system (GPS) units that were put the number of colonies within a study area or
into waterproof bags. One GPS was designat- even within sections of a study area. Changes
ed for each size class. We used 1-m PVC in the number of colonies will also be reflect-
(polyvinylchloride plastic) poles demarcated ed in density changes. Furthermore, changes
at 0.5-m increments to verify colony sizes. A in the amount of area with no colonies are a
pilot study determined that, for small sign of recruitment or mortality. A further ben-
colonies, the surveyor error was greater than efit is the ability to detect shifts in the size class
25%; thus, we did not survey them. A section distribution that can occur if diseases or hur-
of the reef was surveyed repeatedly to calcu- ricanes are selective for certain size classes.
late errors of the remaining size classes. This method is ideal for linear reefs, where the
We downloaded the location of every data collectors can orient themselves and
colony and time of data collection to a com- avoid double-marking of colonies. However,
puter and then differentially corrected the this method can be modified; for example, by
locations. The corrected locations were then laying out reference lines prior to data collec-
plotted on a georectified aerial photo provided tion. In the future, this method may even be
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric possible using Scuba.
Administration (NOAA) Biogeography At the park, data collection by this method
Program using the GIS (geographic informa- will be done on an annual basis. Additional
tion system) software ArcView 3.2a. We used surveys will be conducted after hurricanes,
ArcView’s spatial analyst extension to calcu- disease outbreaks, and ship groundings.
late elkhorn density. The density was defined Supplemented by data gathered from long-
as the number of elkhorn colonies within a term monitoring sites, recruitment sites, and
100-m2 circle. random survey plots on non-linear reefs, these
data will provide the basis for future popula-
Results tion trend-analysis.
Surveyor error for the medium, large, and
extra-large classes were 3%, 2%, and <1%, References
respectively. Two researchers using snorkels Adey, W. 1978. Coral reef morphogenesis: a
surveyed, on average, 1 acre/hour. We record- multidimensional model. Science 202,
ed 1,808 elkhorn colonies greater than 50 cm. 831–837.
Of those, 57% were medium, 39% large, and Bythell, J.C., Z.M. Hillis-Starr, and C.S.
4% extra-large. Maximal density was 61–70 Rogers. 2000. Local variability but land-
colonies per 100 m2. Thirty-four percent of scape stability in coral reef communities
the study area had no colonies, 56% had a following repeated hurricane impacts.
density of 1–10 colonies/100 m2, 8% a densi- Marine Ecology Progress Series 204,
ty of 11–20 colonies/100 m2, and 2% a densi- 93–100.
ty greater than 21 colonies/100 m2. Gladfelter, E.H., R.K. Monahan, and W.B.
Gladfelter. 1978. Growth rates of five reef-
Discussion building corals in the northeastern
Elkhorn coral distribution, abundance, Caribbean. Bulletin of Marine Science 28,
and size may change rapidly compared with 728–734.
other hard corals due to its fast growth rate Gladfelter, W.B., E.H. Gladfelter, R.K.
and the ability to establish new colonies from Monahan, J.C. Ogden, and R.F. Dill.
broken fragments. However, conventional 1977. Environmental Studies of Buck
coral-monitoring protocols have proven diffi- Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix,
cult for this fragile, branching, shallow-water U.S. Virgin Islands. Washington, D.C.:
species. This new method provides a non- National Park Service.
invasive and rapid way to monitor large areas Hubbard, D.K., K.M. Parsons, J.C. Bythell,
of linear reef with relatively small surveyor and N.D. Walker. 1991. The effects of
377
 Technology for Resource Management

Hurricane Hugo on the reefs and associat- Trails in the Virgin Islands. Washington,
ed environments of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin D.C.: National Park Service.
Islands- a preliminary assessment. Journal Rogers, C. S. 1992. A matter of scale: damage
of Coastal Research (Special Issue no. 8), from Hurricane Hugo (1989) to U.S.
33–48. Virgin Islands reefs at the colony, commu-
Robinson, A. 1973. Natural vs. Visitor-related nity, and whole reef level. Proceedings of
Damage to Shallow Water Corals: the 7th International Coral Reef
Recommendations for Visitor Management Symposium 1, 127–133.
and the Design of Underwater Nature

378
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Ann Hitchcock, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW (2251), Washington, D.C., 20240;
ann_hitchcock@nps.gov
John G. Dennis, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW (2320), Washington, D.C., 20240;
john_dennis@nps.gov

Though natural history specimens represent only 6% of the objects and specimens in
National Park Service (NPS) collections, their number is increasing rapidly. The recent advent
of the natural resource inventory and monitoring (I&M) initiative has stimulated acquisition of
specimens. Accompanying this growth are calls for revisions to policies and procedures and
innovative solutions to arising issues. Several speakers addressed these topics at the George
Wright Society/Cultural Resources 2003 Joint Conference and have made their papers available.
The assembled invited or contributed papers in this section of the proceedings are complemen-
tary and shed light on current trends in NPS natural history collecting and collections manage-
ment.
Papers associated with three case studies accessing the specimens and their associated
at Acadia, Death Valley, and Channel Islands data. With a view to expanding knowledge of
national parks illustrate current practices at biodiversity, the authors surveyed nearly 300
parks and non-NPS repositories in managing museums and other entities seeking informa-
park collections. Several of these papers tion on collections related to 14 northeastern
review the procedures for obtaining a permit U.S. parks and presented the results. They
to collect and the responsibilities of the permit point out the problems of finding park-related
applicant to consult with the park curator specimens, since many non-NPS repositories
about management strategies for specimens lack automated records, and offer advice on
that are permanently retained. They consider structuring manual searches.
the collector’s responsibilities in preparing Another author describes concerns with
and documenting the specimens and associat- handling contaminated collections from the
ed records and in recommending a repository past and emphasizes the importance of using
for the specimens. One paper reviews the current preservation methods that do not con-
options that the parks have in choosing a NPS taminate the collections.
or non-NPS repository for collected speci- Additional presentations open windows
mens and data and the need for parks to have on the issues of ownership and the reluctance,
a well-conceived strategy to guide that choice. or refusal, of some non-NPS repositories to
Taken together, the case study papers empha- accept park collections on loan; on the impor-
size the need to ensure that park permit coor- tance of having collections and being able to
dinators, park curators, permitted researchers, retrieve them in the future for the purpose of
and designated repositories work together to confirming or reassessing findings from the
document, preserve, and facilitate access to past; and on why metadata and quality assur-
the specimens to further science and park ance efforts are important parts of collections.
resource management. They touch on prob- The compilation of topics discussed at an
lems with the process from the viewpoint of NPS workshop on managing park natural his-
the park, researcher, and repository; adjust- tory collections indicates that park curators
ments that can be made to accommodate legit- and research coordinators are focused on such
imate needs; and steps that are taken when issues as improvement to communication and
abuse occurs. information access among park, permittee,
One contributed paper describes a rich and repository personnel through software
legacy of park-related specimens that are in changes to existing systems and development
non-NPS museums and the difficulty in of software-based training; the need for net-
379
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

work, region, and Washington offices to lecting and collections management require-
increase technical support for natural history ments for parks and partners; and accommo-
collections management and facilitate coordi- date recent taxonomic changes and new col-
nation with partners and multi-park research lecting technology in NPS natural history col-
efforts; the need for new or revised guidance lections management systems.
on specimen and associated records acquisi- These papers highlight the kinds of con-
tion and management; and the ability to cerns that park collections managers address
ensure that projects and initiatives that gener- no matter where and how they choose to man-
ate collections support the required collec- age park collections. They also reveal circum-
tions management functions. The discussion stances that users of collections and associated
elicited suggestions for actions that NPS data (whether park scientists, resource man-
might consider to enhance automated permit- agers, or non-park researchers) experience in
ting, inventory, and collections management trying to bring together information collected
systems; address NPS staffing needs; improve over many years and from many sources.
partnership arrangements; clarify NPS col-

380
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Options for Managing Park

Natural History Collecting and Collections: Overview
Ann Hitchcock, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW (2251), Washington, D.C., 20240;
ann_hitchcock@nps.gov

National Park Service (NPS) units have two options for long-term management of natural his-
tory specimens collected within park boundaries. Parks can manage collections in a NPS repos-
itory or lend them to a non-NPS repository. Park staff considers factors such as geographic prox-
imity, available taxonomic expertise, potential for future use in research and park resource man-
agement, and storage requirements when deciding where to place collections. Most parks have
management strategies that use both options to varying degrees. Within the parameters of estab-
lished requirements, parks design unique management strategies that meet their individual
needs, as illustrated by three case studies from Acadia, Death Valley, and Channel Islands nation-
al parks, which follow this paper.
With the advent of the NPS inventory and the web-based NPS Research Permit and
monitoring (I&M) initiative in 2001, collect- Reporting System (RPRS). Reading and fol-
ing and specimen collections have increased lowing the accompanying guidance is impor-
dramatically. Forty-five percent of the current tant to ensuring that the application is com-
NPS natural history collections were added in plete and will not be delayed by missing infor-
the last five years. This rapid growth is pres- mation.
suring parks to re-evaluate options and strate- During initial consultation, the curator
gies for managing natural history collections. explains requirements for preparing, identify-
ing, cataloguing, and submitting specimens
Requirements and associated records or copies. Associated
Permits to collect specimens that will be records include such items as field notes,
preserved, rather than consumed in analysis, maps, photographs, and analytical data. Parks
designate an approved repository for those often post basic requirements on the park web
specimens. Both the permit applicant and the site; however, requirements for each project
park staff participate in the process of identi- may vary. Researchers can access NPS muse-
fying the repository. Each permit applicant um management policies and procedures on
should consult with the park curator to dis- the web as follows:
cuss the proposed collecting and a manage-
ment strategy for specimens that will be per- • Director’s Order #24, NPS Museum
manently retained in a museum collection.1 Collections Management: www.nps.gov
/policy/DOrders/DOrder24.html
Based on that discussion, the applicant pro-
• NPS Museum Handbook: www.cr.nps.
poses management in a NPS repository or a
gov/museum/publications/handbook.html
non-NPS repository. If the applicant recom-
• NPS museum loan form and conditions in
mends a non-NPS repository, the repository
must concur with the recommendation. The “thumbnail” (pages 19–23): www.cr.nps.
gov/museum/publications/MHII/mh2ch5
applicant must ensure that an official of the
.pdf
repository completes and signs a section of the
• NPS Automated National Catalog System
application indicating the institution’s willing-
User Manual: www.cr.nps.gov/museum/
ness to accept the collected specimens on loan
publications/ancs.html
from the park, subject to the general permit
conditions and restrictions and terms of NPS Once the park issues a permit, designating
loan agreements. the repository, the permittee must meet sub-
Researchers seeking permits complete mission requirements for specimens and asso-
applications and repository agreements using ciated data, and use RPRS to complete the
381
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

required investigator’s annual report, provid- they were collected. Generally, only the lead
ing information on specimens collected. park has full-time museum management staff
and resource management specialists, such as
NPS Repository Option biologists. This alternative is especially
A decision to place specimens in an NPS appealing to small parks that do not have suf-
repository offers several alternatives. The park ficient natural resource research activity to
staff may choose to manage collections in: warrant an independent museum manage-
• The park where the specimens were col- ment operation for natural resource collec-
lected; tions.
• An adjacent park that manages park col- The concept of a centralized NPS reposi-
lections for the immediate geographic tory for a wide geographic area is well estab-
area; or lished for NPS archeological resources, but
• A central repository that serves a large geo- only nascent for natural resource collections.
graphic area. The I&M initiative has formed 32 networks
based on biogeographic commonalities.
Under the alternative to manage collec- Increasingly, network offices are taking on the
tions in the park where they were collected, responsibility of developing a network-wide
the specimens and associated data are a readi- strategy to manage collections resulting from
ly available reference for park staff making I&M activities. The network offices generally
resource management decisions on an on- have an interest in making the collections cen-
going basis. Park staff may include botanists or trally available. This option is especially
zoologists who specialize in species found in appealing when a single study project or per-
the park. The collections are critical to their mit involves multiple parks. When developing
long-term scientific activities. In addition, multi-park strategies, the network staff must
non-NPS researchers have access to the col- consult park research coordinators and cura-
lections during their own fieldwork in the tors to ensure that each park’s specific needs
park. They can use specimen vouchers, maps, are met by the centralized strategy.
and field notes to compare identifications and NPS archeological centers serve as excel-
findings while their work is in progress. lent models for providing centralized resource
Though park-based management has many management, fieldwork, and collections man-
advantages, parks often do not have the essen- agement services for parks. These models can
tial expertise or the capability to serve as a be extended to natural resource management
research center, which is critical to responsi- functions and organization. Centers, such as
ble management of collections. In addition, the Western Archeological and Conservation
park storage areas sometimes lack space and Center in Tucson, offer parks archeological
cannot accommodate a rapid growth in collec- and collections management services. Park
tions, such as the I&M initiative generates, superintendents, who have responsibility for
without expansion. archeological sites and museum collections,
Geographically clustered parks often will have the option of asking a center to provide
pool some of their resources. They may share management services for these resources. This
such functions as purchasing, law enforce- option appeals to parks that do not need a full-
ment, or resource management. When one time archeologist, curator, or archivist.
park provides museum collections manage- Centralization of these functions enables NPS
ment functions for its neighbors, each park to hire specialists rather than generalists,
generally has its own exhibits and interpretive thereby applying the most appropriate expert-
functions on site, but record-keeping, storage, ise to each situation. Centers employ archeol-
and other management functions occur at the ogists with knowledge of sites in the region,
lead park. Each park, however, maintains a curators and conservators specializing in
distinct catalogue of its collection, and speci- archeological artifacts, and archivists with
mens carry a label specific to the park where experience in managing archeological
382
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

records. Center staff do project work, advise approving repositories.

parks on on-going management of archeologi- Evaluating proposed repositories serially,
cal sites, and provide long-term management in isolation, with each permit application, can
of the archeological collections. These facili- result in dispersed park collections and an
ties are centers of excellence, attracting unmanageable number of repository loans.
researchers and setting trends in archeological Most parks develop a relationship with certain
resources management. repositories and designate those repositories
Following this model, natural resource when issuing permits. For example, the Santa
centers could provide a battery of biologists, Barbara Botanic Garden is the repository for
paleontologists, and geologists to do project the Channel Islands National Park herbarium.
work and on-going resource management con- Some I&M network offices have estab-
sultation in parks. In addition, centers could lished agreements with non-NPS repositories.
hire specialized curators, conservators, and The South Florida/Caribbean Network has a
archivists to manage the specimens and asso- contract with the Fairchild Tropical Garden to
ciated records. Though such an NPS center serve as the repository for botanical collec-
does not exist, the option is viable. To date, tions made under network auspices. The gar-
most networks seeking a centralized alterna- den is cataloguing specimens and will make
tive to museum collections management for images and label data available, as appropri-
natural history collections have turned to a ate, in its virtual herbarium on the web
non-NPS repository option. (www.virtualherbarium.org/). The network
pays for these services.
Non-NPS Repository Option The NPS chief curator has drafted a
Non-NPS researchers often propose that generic repository agreement that can be
the institution with which they are affiliated adapted for use at the national, regional, net-
serve as the repository for specimens that they work, or park level to establish long-term rela-
collect. Generally, these institutions are natu- tionships with non-NPS repositories. An
ral history museums or research centers, oper- agreement is helpful in detailing responsibili-
ated by non-profit organizations or state gov- ties and expectations of each party and in
ernments, or university museums. In 2001, streamlining NPS management requirements,
71% of NPS permits that authorized collec- such as annual inventories and new loans to
tion and retention of specimens designated the repository with each addition of speci-
non-NPS repositories. That year, permittees mens. An umbrella agreement is essential to
proposed that over 250 different repositories ensure consistency when more than one park
be used to manage their specimens. has collections on loan to a single repository.
Permit applicants propose repositories Such agreements, when approved by contract-
that will facilitate their on-going research. ing authorities, facilitate payment to the non-
Often these repositories are centers for certain NPS institution for services. In addition, NPS
taxa and attract specialists who use the collec- can provide partner institutions with supplies
tions and associated documentation in their and equipment to support maintenance of
research. These specialists annotate the speci- NPS collections. In establishing an agree-
mens and cite them in publications, thereby ment, all affected parties, including each park
increasing their value to science and the park. covered, must approve core features of the
When these facilities are near the park where agreement, but parks can negotiate with the
the specimens originated, the park has all the repository to append park-specific require-
benefits of easy access. When these facilities ments as needed.
are distant, the benefit of easy access is lost. The NPS is one of many federal partners
Many proposed repositories are in the main- that has joined recently established
stream of taxonomic research, but not all are. Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units
Some are unwilling to accept long-term NPS (CESUs) in biogeographic regions through-
loans. Parks must consider these factors when out the country. These CESUs involve multi-
383
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

ple federal and non-federal partners that work the parks, region, network, or Washington
together to address natural and cultural office should jointly develop a single agree-
resources research, technical assistance, and ment with the repository to achieve efficiency
education needs in an ecosystem without and consistency.
regard to administrative boundaries. Many
CESU partners are logical and appropriate Three Case Studies
institutions to serve as collections repositories Because all parks are different, their strate-
for parks. Though not yet used for this pur- gies for managing natural history collections
pose, the CESU partnership can be a founda- will be unique (within the parameters of NPS
tion for development of a repository agree- regulations and policies). Nevertheless, shar-
ment to serve parks in a biogeographic area. ing commonalities, best practices, and experi-
ences benefits parks, NPS and non-NPS
Developing a Strategy for Park repositories, and researchers. All involved in
Natural History Collections natural history collecting and collections man-
Management agement need to have a good working knowl-
A well-crafted strategy that evaluates edge of NPS requirements and options for
needs and options is essential to effective man- managing natural history collections. Acadia
agement of a park’s natural history collection. National Park, Death Valley National Park,
All parks have a scope of collection statement and Channel Islands National Park apply NPS
listing laws, regulations, and policies that requirements through different approaches,
affect collection of natural history specimens yet have much in common.
in the park. It also states areas of emphasis and Acadia National Park has 272,000 natural
gaps in the collection. The management sec- history specimens in its collections, which are
tion names the repositories where natural his- managed by a curator, a museum technician,
tory (and other) collections will be managed if and many volunteers. The park curator and a
outside the park. Parks typically develop botanist in the Department of Botany at the
strategies for managing natural history collec- College of the Atlantic jointly manage the
tions that involve more than one option or park’s herbarium, which is stored at the col-
alternative. For example, a park with a botanist lege. The park directly manages its other nat-
on staff may manage its own herbarium, while ural history collections and, in addition,
loaning zoological and paleontological collec- serves as the official repository for natural his-
tions to the state museum. tory materials collected under the auspices of
The park’s collection management plan the Northeast Temperate Network. In 2002,
describes arrangements with each repository the park issued 13 permits to collect speci-
and identifies needed adjustments to manage- mens that would be permanently retained. For
ment strategies. Repository agreements and the benefit of permitted researchers, the park
information accompanying loan forms inform posts its collections management require-
the repository of its rights and responsibilities ments on the web.
in managing NPS collections. A selected Death Valley National Park manages most
repository generally meets or exceeds NPS of its nearly 18,000 natural history specimens
preservation and protection standards. The and their associated records in park facilities,
repository agrees to comply with NPS docu- though some are in non-NPS repositories.
mentation and reporting requirements, such Researchers actively use the collection. The
as cataloguing, labeling, and annual invento- park’s herbarium is listed in the Index
ries. At the same time, the park conveys vari- Herbariorum, a worldwide index of public
ous kinds of authority to the repository, such herbaria. The park has a curator, intermittent
as making third-party loans or approving project-based assistants, and volunteers who
destructive sampling, that facilitate research manage the natural history specimens and
and effective management in the repository. associated resource management records.
When a repository serves more than one park, Researchers must follow park-specific condi-
384
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

tions when collecting, preparing, and docu- collections. In 2002, the park issued 11 per-
menting specimens before submitting them to mits to collect specimens that would be per-
the park. In 2002, the park issued 50 permits manently retained and housed at partner insti-
to collect specimens that would be perma- tutions.
nently retained. In the papers that follow, a park research
Channel Islands National Park maintains coordinator, two park curators, and a repre-
only a few of its natural history specimens on sentative of a park partner institution share
site, with most being curated at other institu- their experiences and practices in managing
tions. The chief of cultural resources has over- the natural history collections of Acadia,
sight for the park’s museum collection. The Death Valley, and Channel Islands national
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden curates the parks. Though every park is unique, the
park herbarium as part of its extensive collec- authors hope that other parks, partners, and
tion of plant materials from the California cen- researchers will benefit from and improve
tral coast bioregion and the California islands. upon the best practices presented herein.
The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural
History maintains the park’s paleontological Endnote
collections, including pygmy mammoth 1. The Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR
remains, and a number of other natural histo- 2.5g) requires that (1) specimens placed in
ry specimens. In curating natural history spec- displays or collections bear official NPS
imens, partners first catalogue items using museum labels and be catalogued in the
their own cataloguing system, and then the NPS catalogue system; and (2) specimens
park assigns NPS catalogue numbers and and data derived from consumed speci-
imports the data into the NPS catalogue data- mens be available to the public and reports
base. The park has provided storage cabinets and publications resulting from a research
and curatorial supplies to support its partners; specimen collection permit be filed with
the partners provide researcher access to the the superintendent.

385
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Options for Managing Park Natural History Collecting and

Collections: Case Study—Acadia National Park
Brooke Childrey, Acadia National Park, P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, Maine 04609; brooke_chil-
drey@nps.gov

Acadia National Park has established a collections management program that is multi-disci-
plinary, collaborative, and flexible to ensure that all relevant information and specimens associ-
ated with a study are protected and available for future park managers and the scientific com-
munity.
The program resides in the resource man- mens for deposit into the collections, descrip-
agement division with responsibilities for nat- tion of associated data, and the park-specific
ural and cultural resource management, specimen data. Researchers may also be
research, environmental compliance, lands, required to meet with the park’s data manager
and recreation management. Curation of spec- and the park GIS specialist to discuss the park
imens and their associated data is closely requirements for both spatial and tabular data
linked with the management of other informa- prior to receiving a permit.
tion, such as the park bibliography, spatial Acadia’s park-specific conditions are avail-
data (GIS), and other natural and cultural able to research applicants on the park’s web
resource databases. site (nps.gov/acad/rm/research.htm). This
The curatorial program and museum information is reiterated by the division chief
curator are considered on par with other nat- and the resource management staff scientist
ural and cultural resource programs and man- who is assigned to oversee the logistical coor-
agers in the resource management division. dination and oversight of the research project
Scientific research and collecting at the once it is permitted.
park requires close collaboration with the The park requires two copies of all final
curatorial program as well as with other disci- reports generated from research conducted
plines in the resource management division. within the park. One copy is deposited into
When a research proposal is submitted, it is the park archives, the other into the park
reviewed by the division chief (permit coordi- library. Two copies of all electronic data, such
nator) and resource management staff with as charts and graphs, are requested, as well as
expertise in the discipline and others who two hard (paper) copies of all electronic data.
could evaluate potential impacts of the pro- Specimens collected must be properly housed
posed work. The proposals are evaluated to (for example, wet specimens must be in flint
determine if proposed research and/or collect- glass jars with vapor-barrier screw caps) and
ing activities will affect park resources, the vis- labeled by the researcher. All associated data,
itor experience, and/or park operations. The such as field journals, photographs, and draw-
proposals are also reviewed to see if the cost of ings, whether they are on a cocktail napkin or
curation is included in the proposed study nicely typed, are requested.
budget. Acadia requires that all federally funded
If a proposal includes collecting activities, projects submit the originals of their associat-
after it is reviewed the researcher is required ed data. We request that non-federally funded
to meet with the park curator prior to the projects submit good, clear copies of their
issuance of a research permit, if the specimens associated data and consider Acadia as a
collected will not be consumed during analy- repository for their originals if and when they
sis. The meeting can occur in person, over the decide to deposit them in an institution.
phone, or via e-mail. During the meeting, the Investigators who receive federal funds are
park-specific collecting conditions are dis- responsible for cataloging the specimens and
cussed, including preparation of the speci- associated data from their study into the
386
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

National Park Service’s Automated National destructive analysis on a specimen in the sci-
Catalog System (ANCS+). The park will cata- entific collection are reviewed by the resource
logue specimens collected by non-federally management division chief, park curator, and
funded researchers who collect fewer than 50 resource management staff with expertise in
specimens. If more than 50 specimens are col- the discipline.
lected, then we require the non-federally fund- The educational collection comprises
ed researchers to catalogue the specimens into specimens that were collected especially for
ANCS+. interpretive programs and exhibits. Because
Acadia is not getting 100% compliance on these specimens were not systematically col-
our requirements, but we have seen a signifi- lected as part of a scientific study, they have no
cant improvement in the products that we are associated data. These specimens are acces-
receiving. We go out of our way to ensure that sioned into the collection with a notation that
researchers have every opportunity to meet they will be deaccessioned once the interpre-
the requirements. We will provide them the tive program or exhibit is over or upon deteri-
software, training, and computers (if cata- oration/loss due to handling.
logued at the park) to ensure that the speci- Acadia has two repositories where speci-
mens and data are catalogued into ANCS+. mens and associated data are stored. The
The park provides acid-free paper and/or William Otis Sawtelle Collections and
copy machines for researchers to copy their Research Center, the central repository, is
associated data. We will also provide diskettes located at park headquarters. Plant specimens
for the electronic data. We will accept pre- are deposited at the College of the Atlantic’s
pared specimens even if they don’t meet our herbarium. The college is located in Bar
requirements. For example, if a researcher Harbor, three miles from park headquarters.
remembered to place her wet specimens in The specimens at the college are on loan to
70% ethanol in a vial and labeled the speci- the college. The loan agreement permits the
men, but forgot to use a vapor-barrier screw college botanist to collect specimens in the
cap, we will still accept the specimen as ready park and use the specimens for teaching
for deposit into the collections and we will botany (each class is taught how to properly
replace the cap. handle the specimens). The specimens cannot
Researchers submit an update annually on be loaned by the college to another institution
the status of their projects and the collections without first contacting the park curator. In
of specimens and associated data. The pri- exchange, the college catalogues the speci-
mary investigator fills out this information in mens into a database that is converted into
the investigator’s annual report. These reports ANCS+, annotates them, and provides access
are filed by the permit coordinator in the to the scientific community (each researcher
resource management files until the project is signs into a logbook). Should the college’s
completed; then they are transferred to the herbarium ever be disbanded, the park’s spec-
archives. imens will be returned.
Acadia has two natural history collections: Changes have begun that will contribute to
scientific and educational. The scientific col- the future vision of the program. Acadia
lection is composed of voucher specimens National Park is a member of the Northeast
and associated data that were systematically Temperate Network of the inventory and
collected as part of a study proposal. The sci- monitoring (I&M) program and has been des-
entific collection is accessioned into the muse- ignated as the repository for the specimens
um collection and retained in perpetuity; and associated data collected as part of the
access to the collection is provided to the sci- I&M program. We are working closely with
entific community and park staff. The scientif- the program coordinator to establish a collect-
ic collection is not used for exhibitions unless ing and curation policy for the I&M program,
the exhibition is about scientific research in fielding questions from curators and scientists
the park. Scientific proposals to conduct in the Northeast Temperate Network and
387
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

within the Northeast Region, and reviewing that increases with the growing size of the col-
specific needs for the care and preservation of lection, the need to update the taxonomy of
existing collections. the historical collection, improving on-going
In addition, the park has established a communication between resource manage-
learning center at a former naval base. The ment staff and researchers on collecting
Schoodic Education and Research Center issues, achieving adequate staffing levels and
(SERC) will provide key infrastructure (hous- expertise, and interpreting the code of federal
ing, offices, and labs) to support research con- regulations.
ducted in the park. Plans call for the park to Acadia’s curatorial program works
move its natural history collection to SERC so because it ensures that the specimens and
that the scientific community can have ready associated data that are collected as part of the
access and so that it is available to be used as a park’s research program are preserved for
teaching tool in scientific workshops. future park managers, yet are accessible to cur-
Acadia’s curatorial program faces many rent park managers and the scientific commu-
challenges, including the need for a budget nity.

388
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Options for Managing Park Natural History Collecting and

Collections: Case Study—Death Valley National Park,
Collecting and Permits
Richard Anderson, National Park Service, Alaska Support Office, 240 West Fifth Avenue,
Anchorage, Alaska 99501; richard_l_anderson@nps.gov

Death Valley National Park is a large desert wilderness park in eastern California and south-
east Nevada. It receives about 50 research permit applications annually, over half of which are for
geology studies involving the collection of rock or soil specimens. The environmental specialist
is the collateral-duty research permits coordinator responsible for review and processing of the
research proposals and applications.
Prospective investigators apply on-line unless a park staff member feels strongly about
through the Research Permits and Reporting supporting the particular researcher and
System (RPRS; on-line at http://science. research project and signs on the researcher as
nature.nps.gov/research) program of the a park volunteer. Park volunteers have institu-
National Park Service (NPS) and usually tional affiliation with the park itself and work
include their research proposals as an under a staff supervisor and a written position
attached file. The RPRS program notifies the description. Field technicians collecting for
park research coordinator via email when a multiple researchers and multiple studies can-
new application is entered into the system. not be accommodated on one permit. Each
The objectives in administering the park’s study, under a qualified researcher, must be
research permit program are to protect park permitted separately.
resources for future generations and to pro- One applicant identified himself as a pro-
mote the use of the park for research purpos- fessor and corresponded on college letterhead
es. Death Valley’s enabling legislation includes but had actually been fired from his teaching
congressional direction to “retain and position. His former college did not support
enhance opportunities for scientific research this affiliation for his research project and his
in undisturbed ecosystems” (California department was unaware he was using letter-
Desert Protection Act of 1994). head or posing as a professor. His application
Research proposals are put to several tests was rejected due to lack of institutional affilia-
during their review. The first is for scientific tion.
rigor. Most applications are from academic The applications and research proposals
researchers from recognized universities with are circulated to park staff and sometimes to
National Science Foundation or university other subject-matter experts. The park arche-
grants, so additional peer review for scientific ologist reviews all applications involving
quality is usually not needed. The park does ground disturbance (including the removal of
not require investigations to be applied soil samples or rock samples). The park
towards park management needs such as wilderness coordinator reviews all applica-
those identified in park planning documents. tions in wilderness areas of the park (95% of
Another test is institutional affiliation. By the 3.4 million-acre park). Other park staff
regulation, collection permits may be issued specialists are often involved in the review
only to an official representative of a reputable (e.g., wildlife biologist, botanist, curator, min-
scientific or educational institution or a state ing engineer, hydrologist, landscape architect,
or federal agency (36 Code of Federal internet technology specialist, GIS specialist,
Regulations 2.5). Some applications are etc.). Their review comments and recom-
received from people who lack institutional mended or required mitigation measures are
affiliation. These applications are denied relayed to the park’s research coordinator,
389
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

who usually calls or e-mails the principal are added to the accession file even prior to
investigator to discuss the project and any specimen records. Often it takes several years
park issues. If the investigator agrees to the of tracking a study before all the specimen
recommended changes and conditions, then records are finally sent to the park’s curator.
the permit is issued. Sometimes these negotia- Projects are tracked by keeping the permits
tions continue for several rounds and several active while waiting for the specimen informa-
weeks. tion.
Most research permits are approved easily During park review of a proposal, the pur-
and at the lowest level of environmental com- pose of the study is rarely challenged, but the
pliance: a categorical exclusion (CE). The CE methods of the study often receive scrutiny
for “non-destructive data collection” is usual- and changes are suggested. Researchers are
ly used. There has been some debate about encouraged (or required) to use the existing
the use of this CE for research involving col- study collection at the park or at other institu-
lecting, especially that of non-renewable geo- tions before collecting new specimens.
logic specimens that is by its very nature Researchers are encouraged to contact other
destructive of park resources. However, if investigators conducting similar or related
placed in context, such collecting is deemed to work in the park. Often the park research per-
be insignificant. Geologic collecting typically mit coordinator serves as a liaison introducing
involves a few dozen rocks or soil samples investigators to one another. Often the
from common formations. Collecting requests researcher is asked to reduce the number, size,
are typically rejected for vertebrate fossils, and type of specimens collected; for example,
macro-invertebrate fossils such as trilobites, paleomagnetic coring is not allowed.
uncommon crystal formations, uncommon The default situation is for specimens to
strata, or strata of limited extent. The burden be returned to the park’s study collection, but
is on the researcher to demonstrate that the often researchers ask to keep the specimens in
sample type he or she is requesting is com- a non-NPS repository such as their home uni-
mon, and that the permanent removal of the versity. The park strives to use repositories
specimen would not impair the research where the specimens would be most useful to
opportunities of future generations of investi- science. The researchers are usually the sub-
gators. ject-matter experts who help the park to deter-
One Swiss geologist on his third year of a mine where to keep the specimens. The cura-
research project was cited by a park ranger for tors of the non-NPS repositories must accept
collecting specimens well over the permitted an NPS loan agreement because the NPS
weight limit. The ranger confiscated two retains permanent ownership of the speci-
boxes of overweight specimens and later dis- mens. The non-NPS repositories must be
covered that some of the rocks were not part of available to the public. Death Valley has had
the research study but were valuable crystal some problems with what appear to be private
formations apparently taken for personal col- collections. The non-NPS repositories, above
lection or rock show sale. The investigator all, must be able to care for the specimens and
was fined for violation of permit conditions their associated data. The park also has had
and his permit was cancelled. The park does some problems with smaller local museums
not expect to issue another permit for this requesting the specimens but not being able to
investigator. curate the collections.
For all research collecting permits the park Many prospective researchers resent NPS
curator assigns a park accession number to the collection policies. They feel it impedes their
study. The accession number is entered near work. Ideally the scientific research gives
the top of the permit. The accession file ini- added value to the park. It should be to both
tially includes the research proposal, applica- the park’s and the National Park Service’s
tion, and a copy of the permit. The investiga- advantage to host the research and accept the
tor’s annual reports and publication records impacts of collecting. Death Valley, unlike
390
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

most parks, issues lots of multi-year research ties, inform interpretive and patrol rangers,
permits. This has been at the request of the and watch out for the safety of the researchers.
researchers and is one of the few things we Decisions on whether to approve collect-
could do to reduce their aggravation. Rarely ing permits are based on the value of the
have we had to cancel an approved multi-year research to science, the value of the specimen
project because investigators’ annual reports to nature and the ecosystem if left in situ, the
were not received or for some other problem. value of the project to the park, the quality of
The park conducts little or no monitoring the associated data (publications, annual
of researchers’ field activities. Park resources reports, labels, catalogue data), and the value
are protected by the permit conditions and the of the properly curated specimens.
good faith of the researchers in following If parks are made available for science,
them. The park requires notification prior to then science will benefit the parks with knowl-
each trip in order to track researchers’ activi- edge for protection and interpretation.

391
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Options for Managing Park Natural History Collecting and

Collections: Case Study—Death Valley National Park,
Collections Management
Blair Davenport, Death Valley National Park, P.O. Box 579, Death Valley, California 92328;
blair_davenport@nps.gov

Death Valley National Park’s museum collection began soon after 1933 when park natural-
ists collected samples of the rich geologic record that is Death Valley. Soon thereafter plant and
animal specimens and paleontological specimens were also collected. Since those early days of
collecting, the park has accumulated nearly 18,000 natural history specimens, including 357
paleontology, 2,678 geology, and 14,943 biological specimens, as well as their associated records
and reports. These numbers do not reflect the specimens collected before 1933 by early expe-
ditions, or even after 1933 when research permits were not issued or enforced; these collections
are located in national museums or regional universities and colleges.
Since the 1980s, park museum staff have These updated conditions will soon be posted
attempted, though not always successfully, to on the park’s web site where researchers
monitor permitted collecting activities, access the NPS RPRS web site to apply for
including specimen collections and generated permits. The following illustrates the park’s
data. About three years ago, thanks first to the process for keeping track of research and
technological improvements of the National specimen collecting.
Park Service (NPS) Research and Permit The process begins when a researcher
Reporting System (RPRS) and the investiga- contacts the park’s permit coordinator to
tor’s annual report (IAR), then with the request a permit. If collections will be generat-
advent of the NPS inventory and monitoring ed, the permit coordinator discusses the
(I&M) program, the park has been able to research request with the park’s curator. At
standardize and streamline its research permit times, the curator and permit coordinator
program. These advances have allowed the negotiate the quantity or methodology of the
park’s curator and research permit coordina- specimen collecting. For instance, does the
tor to better track research activities and spec- researcher really need to collect five lizards
imen collecting and processing. when one or two vouchers will suffice and tis-
The park’s first step was to add specimen sue samples can be collected instead? The
collecting conditions to the park-specific con- permit coordinator also makes sure the
ditions for research and collecting permits. researcher has carefully read and understands
Thankfully, Yellowstone National Park had the park-specific conditions; sometimes the
already created an excellent example that curator clarifies the museum conditions for
could be easily adapted for Death Valley. As a the researcher.
side note, these same conditions were added Park-specific conditions for specimen col-
to our Mojave Network I&M study and data lecting include citation of 36 Code of Federal
management plans and are utilized by contrac- Regulations 2.5(g) to emphasize that the col-
tors who work in Death Valley National Park, lected specimens and their associated data
Joshua Tree National Park, Mojave National must be accessioned and catalogued into the
Preserve, Manzanar National Historic Site, NPS Automated National Catalog System
Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and (ANCS+) and must bear NPS museum labels.
Great Basin National Park. In March 2003, Conditions for the long-term curation of
the park’s curator and permit coordinator specimens outside Death Valley National Park
drafted another version of these conditions include that the researcher must secure park
and updated the curatorial conditions as well. approval of the designated non-NPS reposito-
392
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

ry in writing, and that the designated reposito- • Collection number;

ry must certify in writing that it will care for • Collection date;
the collections in accordance with standards • Collection method (chisel, shovel, net,
that are consistent with NPS policy for man- hand, etc.);
aging museum collections. Both approvals • Name of person who identifies the speci-
must be obtained before collecting begins and men and date identification is made;
must be referenced in the permit. Repository • Formation (for geology specimens);
agreements and/or NPS’s outgoing loan • Period/system (for geology and paleontol-
agreement (which is available on the park’s ogy specimens);
web site) must be prepared before collections • Condition;
are deposited in the non-NPS repository. The • Type (if designated);
park prefers that specimens are deposited at • Specimen description; and
the park or in repositories that already have • Preservative and/or preparation method.
Death Valley collections (e.g., herbarium sam-
The most difficult research activities for
ples at the University of Nevada–Las Vegas
the park to track are the required deadlines
and Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden; ani-
associated with the permit. Our park-specific
mal specimens at the California Academy of
conditions have been modified to help allevi-
Sciences, etc.).
ate this problem. Within one year of the final
All collected specimens are to be acces-
date of collecting, the permittee must submit
sioned, catalogued, and labeled. The park
to the park curator:
curator assigns accession and catalogue num-
bers as well as cataloguing and label prepara- • All specimens that are to be permanently
tion instructions. The accession number must retained in the park museum collection,
be referenced in the permit and used on all their associated labels, and catalogue doc-
reports, field records, correspondence, and umentation (catalogue worksheets and/or
permit(s) relating to the collection, as well as electronic data);
on the label of each specimen or material that • Associated catalogue documentation (cat-
will be permanently retained. Catalogue num- alogue worksheets and/or electronic data)
bers must be referenced in the final report or for all specimens that are to be permanent-
publication when individual specimens are ly retained in non-NPS repositories;
cited. The permittee or cataloguer may submit • Copies of all field records (notes, maps,
data in either Microsoft Excel or Access for- recordings, reports, etc.), printed or
mat; however, the catalogue fields (numeric copied onto archival or acid-free quality
and text formats and size) and their sequence paper; and
must match the field attributes and sequence • Copies of final reports or publications.
of the ANCS+ record. Specific catalogue data The permittee is required to contact the
include: curator to make other arrangements if he or
• Catalogue number; she is unable meet the one-year submission
• Accession number; deadline (e.g., for specimens that require
• Classification; long-term analyses). The permittee is respon-
• Specimen name (scientific and common sible for reporting the status of the collection
name); analysis and/or cataloguing in the IAR.
• Quantity or item count; Research and collecting projects are consid-
• Collection site; ered complete when most, if not all, of the
• Township/range/section, UTM (Universal above conditions are fully met. The park plans
Transverse Mercator), or latitude/longi- to use the IAR to track outstanding curatorial
tude coordinates (the datum should be processing of specimens, including the com-
included if Global Positioning System pletion and submission of associated speci-
{GPS} technology is used); men data and records.
• Name of collector; It is hoped the above-mentioned park-spe-
393
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

cific conditions will enable the park to better specific vouchers to determine if those extant
track collected specimens; monitor specimen collections can be utilized for research and
collecting, preparation methods, and cata- analysis in lieu of collecting and preparing
loguing; and direct the efforts of the additional specimens. At this time, the permit
researcher to secure appropriate storage coordinator asks researchers if this is an
repositories. The park wants researchers to option, but the park should standardize or
have a clear understanding of their role and require this as a condition of the permit.
responsibility for conducting appropriate and To conclude, no matter how many condi-
professional research activities. tions the park establishes, the most important
Death Valley’s process of tracking research condition is that the curator and the permit
activities and holding researchers accountable coordinator establish an on-going dialogue
for their collecting activities continues to with the researcher to convey the importance
evolve, especially when there are not enough of appropriate curatorial processing of collect-
staff or funds to adequately track their collec- ed specimens. This is because the ultimate
tions. For instance, the park continues to dis- goal for the park is to make the specimen
cuss the possibility of adding an additional information and the researcher’s data and final
condition to the permit that would require the reports accessible to the scientific community
permittee to contact all known repositories for and the public.

394
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Options for Managing Park Natural History

Collecting and Collections: Case Study—
Channel Islands National Park, Plant Collections
Dieter Wilken, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, 1212 Mission Canyon Road, Santa Barbara,
California 93105; dwilken@sbbg.org

The Santa Barbara Botanic Garden herbarium currently houses approximately 140,000
specimens, composed of 120,000 vascular plants, 20,000 lichens, and 1,000 mosses. Thirty-five
thousand specimens are from the eight California Channel Islands, including about 23,000 from
what is now Channel Islands National Park. The Channel Islands have been of considerable
interest to botanists for over 120 years; their collections have been deposited at such institutions
as the Smithsonian Institution, the California Academy of Sciences, the University of California
at Berkeley, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, and the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. The
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden’s Clifton Smith Herbarium is the primary depository for collec-
tions from Channel Islands National Park, enabled through a cooperative agreement with the
park.
The nucleus of the garden’s herbarium 1999; Lee et al. 1982). Pest management
centers on the efforts of Ralph Hoffmann, who includes freezing specimens prior to storage in
was director of the Santa Barbara Museum of the herbarium cabinets and regular inspection
Natural History in the 1930s. Hoffmann col- of collections for potential pests. The herbari-
lected extensively on the northern Channel um collections are housed within a fireproof
Islands from 1925 to 1932. His collections structure and have experienced a very low
have been supplemented by the fieldwork of level of infestation from such pests as book lice
successive researchers, including Martin and silverfish, resulting from regular inspec-
Piehl, Ralph N. Philbrick, E. R. (Jim) Blakley, tions, prompt treatment of infected speci-
and Steven Junak, the current curator. mens, and a positive air pressure maintained
Consequently, a substantial portion of the col- by an air conditioning system. Relative
lection was acquired prior to designation of humidity is maintained at less than 30%
the islands as a national park. However, these through use of a freestanding dehumidifier.
collections provide the foundation for analyz- Study of specimens is restricted to within the
ing and extending knowledge of the islands’ collection rooms, which minimizes exposure
plant diversity. Current collecting activities to potential pests.
focus on new distributional records, especial- The herbarium is actively used by profes-
ly to document rare species, invasive species, sional botanists, students, researchers, and
and new geographical or ecological records. environmental consultants. Most use of the
All current collecting and curatorial efforts are park-based collections is by garden staff, park
conducted under a permit issued through a staff, visiting researchers, and graduate stu-
cooperative agreement between the park and dents; additional use occurs in the form of
the garden. requests from other institutions for loans.
Herbarium specimens are essentially Loans are made under standard practices,
pressed plant materials, selected to represent which include only those institutions with
diagnostic features of the plant that are useful appropriate herbarium facilities. Annotations
for identification, systematic research, and are expected for all returning loans. We esti-
other purposes, including even DNA extrac- mate that at least 400 publications, including
tion. Specimens are prepared using standard scientific journal articles, books, and technical
practices, including use of archival paper, reports, have resulted wholly or partly from
glue, and storage cabinets (Metsger and Byers collections housed in the herbarium.
395
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Published floras based on the collections ment needs. Specimen-based records are
include those for Santa Barbara Island gradually being georeferenced, using latitude
(Philbrick 1972) and Santa Cruz Island and longitude in decimal degrees, which per-
(Junak et al. 1995). Some examples of recent mits analysis output to a geographic informa-
scientific publications include descriptions of tion system (GIS) for mapping purposes. Data
new species (Davis 1997; McCabe 1997) and are generally provided in electronic format on
reproductive biology (Barrett et al. 2000). request to qualified researchers. All data
The herbarium collections also include requests are reviewed and provided with
vouchers for technical reports on vegetation appropriate stipulations that include giving
and rare plants, including Halvorson et al. credit to the source of information. Data have
(1992) and McEachern et al. (1997). been provided to such agencies as the
The garden has developed a database that California Department of Fish and Game
currently holds 60,000 specimen-based Natural History Database (Tibor 2001),
records, of which about 40,000 records are USDA PLANTS, Calflora, the Biota of North
from the Channel Islands. About 90% of the America Project, and the National Park
records are from the herbarium, the remainder Service. Currently the Santa Barbara Museum
having been obtained from other herbaria, of Natural History and the Santa Barbara
including those of the California Academy of Botanic Garden are pursuing development of
Sciences and the University of California at an all-island, all-taxon database, which even-
Berkeley. We estimate that a database on the tually will be available on the internet.
California Channel Islands may approach The garden and the park have enjoyed
100,000 records, judging from conservative mutual benefits from a cooperative agreement
estimates of collections at other institutions. It that clearly defines responsibilities and expec-
is likely that as many as 40,000 records may tations. Specimens and specimen data are
ultimately become available for Channel available through several media, including
Islands National Park. All of the botanic gar- loans of collections and data summarized by
den’s island lichen collections, about 5,000, means of reports extracted from the database.
have been databased and are currently avail- The central location of specimens provides
able through a web site hosted by Arizona for appropriate curation and access, reducing
State University (seinet.asu.edu/collections/ demands on park staff and resources. The sci-
selection.jsp). Until early this year, the gar- entific community has clearly benefited
den’s database on higher plants was accessible through the availability of specimens for study
through the non-profit Calflora, which has and from database records used in various
now been temporarily suspended because of endeavors of analysis.
budget shortfalls. About 75% of the island col-
lections have been databased, and we expect References
to complete the effort by the end of 2003. Barrett, S., D. Wilken, and W. Cole. 2000.
The database uses Microsoft Access as a Heterostyly in the Lamiaceae: the case of
platform, primarily because it provides rela- Salvia brandegeei. Plant Systematics and
tively easy exporting tools so that data can be Evolution 223, 221–229.
shared with other agencies and institutions. Davis, W. The systematics of annual species of
The database structure essentially follows Malacothrix (Asteraceae: Lactuceae)
guidelines established by the International endemic to the California islands.
Union of Biological Sciences, Taxonomic Madrono 44, 223–244.
Database Working Group (www.tdwg.org). Halvorson, W., R. Clark, and C. Soiseth.
Thirty-seven fields are employed for entries 1992. Rare Plants of Anacapa, Santa
on geographic locality, collector(s), date, and Barbara, and San Miguel in Channel
plant specimen data recorded by the collector, Islands National Park. Technical Report
among others. Records can be sorted in differ- NPS/WRUC/NRTR-92/47. Davis:
ent ways, depending on research or manage- Cooperative National Park Studies Unit,
396
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

University of California–Davis. 1997. Inventory and monitoring of

Junak, S., T. Ayers, R. Scott, D. Wilken, and California islands candidate plant taxa.
D. Young. 1995. A Flora of Santa Cruz USGS Open-File Report 00-73. N.p.
Island. Santa Barbara and Sacramento: Metsger, D., and S. Byers, eds. 1999.
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden and the Managing the Modern Herbarium—An
California Native Plant Society. Interdisciplinary Approach. Washington,
Lee, W., B. Bell, and J. Sutton. 1982. D.C.: Society for the Preservation of
Guidelines for Acquisition and Natural History Collections.
Management of Biological Specimens. Philbrick, R. 1972. The plants of Santa
Lawrence, Kans.: Association of Barbara Island, California. Madrono 21,
Systematics Collections. 329–393.
McCabe, S. 1997. Dudleya gnoma Tibor, D., ed. 2001. Inventory of Rare and
(Crassulaceae): a new species from Santa Endangered Plants of California.
Rosa Island. Madrono 44, 48–58. Sacramento: California Native Plant
McEachern, K., D. Wilken, and K. Chess. Society.

397
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Natural History Collections: Overview

John G. Dennis, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW (2320), Washington, D.C., 20240;
john_dennis@nps.gov

A session of contributed papers often appears to have no coherent theme or structure.

Viewed as a whole, however, the papers presented to the Natural History Collections session do
provide a wide-ranging and connected perspective on the topic.
The presentation by Gilbert and mizing the contribution of specimens to all
O’Connell opened a window on the chal- partners by maintaining specimens in high
lenges one faces in trying to find existing col- quality and in places where all users can
lections in a sea of museums, developing opti- access them.
mal strategies for searching and obtaining data Bischoff reported on recent partnership
from those collections, keeping abreast of steps being taken for organizing efforts to cope
locality and taxonomic name changes that with older collections that have been treated
inject sources of confusion through more than with arsenic, mercury, or other hazardous pes-
a century of collecting, and then using the ticides. She identified performers of a variety
resulting information for making judgments of actions, including research to develop test-
about biological diversity. An operational ing methods for contaminants; research on
challenge Gilbert and O’Connell reported was use of microorganisms for decontamination of
coping with specimen fragility, presence of objects; creation of Material Safety Data
poisonous preservatives (arsenic), and the Sheets for contaminated ethnographic/botani-
large investment of time needed while trying cal objects; development of testing methods
to use the more-accurate specimen labels as a for organic pesticide residues on museum arti-
key source of information rather than relying facts; research to develop tests for mercury;
on the less-accurate catalogue records. These development of testing protocols for x-ray flu-
authors concluded by reporting that mathe- orescence analysis; data mining of museum
matical techniques they applied to analysis of records to identify pesticides used on collec-
voucher specimen data indicate that species tions; and study of museum worker exposure
inventory results have potential for objective levels to pesticides. From this review, one can
evaluation of temporal change in species conclude that, for future collections, managers
diversity. should use preservation tools that do not con-
The presentation by Bayless explored taminate the collections; for contaminated col-
problems associated with not finding collec- lections from the past, managers should take
tions in a sea of ownerships. The author steps to minimize the effects of the contami-
pointed out that, during the past 20 years, the nants on people and on uncontaminated spec-
National Park Service (NPS) has more strictly imens.
managed research specimens collected in The Palmer and Sappington presentation
parks, affecting both researchers and reposito- addressed a broader topic of why metadata
ries with which researchers work. The crux of and quality assurance efforts are important
the problem appears to revolve around owner- parts of natural resource data collections.
ship of the specimens and the on-going debate These authors stressed four key concepts:
appears to be impeding park goals to support data must be long-lived; data must be easily
science and consistently implement NPS locatable and accessible; data must be of a
guidance across the National Park System. quality and form that are usable, credible, and
Bayless suggested that solving the question of promoting of knowledge; and the data man-
ownership, finding the means to support cura- agement system must maintain accountability.
tion and storage of specimens, and improving In addressing these concepts, they showed the
partnership arrangements will benefit maxi- importance of including quality assurance

398
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

steps to control the data acquisition process health, and for chemical and genetic analyses
and to determine the uncertainty in the data that can reveal conditions from the past. The
and whether or not the data are appropriate to author observed that the keys to making
support management decisions. Although voucher specimens useful in the future
their focus was broadly on data, their message include collecting the correct parts of organ-
can be adapted by collections managers to isms now, collecting sufficient numbers of
improve the attention paid to proper collec- organisms to provide an adequate sample size,
tion of specimens and data about the speci- and storing the specimens properly to ensure
mens, to improve the care given to preserving long-term preservation and safety. Woodward
the collections together with their associated also suggested that the process of making
data, and to developing usable metadata about voucher collections needs to consider animal
the collections. rights, visitor perceptions, impacts caused by
Irrespective of where collections are the collecting, relationships to on-going stud-
stored or who owns them, a presentation titled ies, and adherence to standards and protocols.
“The Role of Plant and Animal Voucher He also suggested that the collecting of vouch-
Specimens in Natural Resource I&M ers needs to be guided through training, work-
Programs” by Roy Woodward (not available shops, and other forms of sharing informa-
for inclusion in these proceedings) stressed tion.
the importance of having physical collections These contributions to the Natural
and being able to retrieve them in the future History Collections session revealed circum-
for the purpose of confirming or reassessing stances that users of collections and data
findings from the past. Woodward observed about collections, such as park inventory and
that voucher collections increase the reliabili- monitoring personnel, experience in trying to
ty of inventory and monitoring work conduct- bring together information from many sources
ed by many people over many years because and collected over many years. These contri-
these specimens represent the actual plants butions also brought into focus the kinds of
and animals that were observed in the past. In concerns that park collections managers will
addition, the voucher specimens can provide have to deal with no matter how they organize
the future raw material needed for estimation the location and management of their collec-
of past characteristics of organism gender and tions.

399
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Retrieval, Compilation, and Organization

of Vertebrate and Vascular Plant Voucher Specimens
Originating from National Parks
Andrew Gilbert, U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland
20708 (current address: U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
Gardiner, Maine); andrew_gilbert@usgs.gov
Allan O’Connell, U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland
20708; allan_o’connell@usgs.gov

Introduction
Natural history collections are the fundamental source for understanding and interpreting
biodiversity, but their value is unappreciated and poorly supported (Cotterill 1995). An impor-
tant but often overlooked component of this information is the efficient retrieval and compilation
of records available. Museums and herbaria have not done a good job of marketing their
resources and services (Alberch 1993), and, as a result, the initial appeal and application of their
data are limited. In fact, specimens in museums and herbaria are an enigma to many outside the
museum environment because the information is often difficult to access. Furthermore, analyses
using only partial datasets may provide results different from those obtained from a full comple-
ment of records. For example, in the use of butterfly lists to make biodiversity comparisons in
Oregon, less than half of the dataset was used because only that portion was computerized
(Fagan and Kareiva 1997).
Computerization of records in natural his- county and state scales.
tory collections is still in a long way from com-
pletion, and even when accessing collection Methods
data that are computerized, navigating the We obtained information about vertebrate
computer interfaces can be awkward without (except fish) and vascular plant natural history
adequate guidance. Management of collec- collections by first searching two web-accessi-
tions also varies greatly from site to site, often ble databases of natural history collections:
making retrieval of information a complicated the Index Herbariorum (IH; www.nybg.
process. Retrieval and access of specimen data org/bsci/ih/ih.html) and the Directory of
will be necessary to objectively evaluate cur- Research Systematics Collections (DRSC;
rent inventory and monitoring efforts of our www.nbii.gov/datainfo/syscollect/drsc/). We
biological resources in the near future. Thus, also sent out requests for information about
our objectives in this study were to locate, collections to several e-mail listservs (TWS-L,
compile, and organize specimen records orig- NHCOLL-L, ORNITH-L) and obtained a
inating within and around 14 national parks list of museum contacts from John Karish
throughout the northeastern United States. (NPS, Philadelphia Support Office) from a
(Table 1). We used a variety of strategies and similar project. Additional collection informa-
techniques to search natural history collec- tion was found by searching web sites of
tions for four different taxa in three vertebrate regional biology departments.
groups (mammals, birds, and reptiles and We mailed requests for data to 274 collec-
amphibians) and vascular plants. We devel- tion managers curating 299 natural history
oped procedures for assembling collection collections and 8 state natural heritage pro-
records into one of four locality categories in a grams. We specifically requested data for
manner that established a database of histori- specimens originating within the 14 north-
cal diversity for the National Park Service eastern national parks. Information about nat-
(NPS) at increasing scales, from within park ural history collections was recorded in a
boundaries to outside park boundaries at Microsoft Access 2000 database. Collection
400
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Table 1. National parks searched for vertebrate and vascular plant voucher specimens.

State(s) Size (Ac) Year Est.

National Park (Code)

Acadia National Park (ACAD) ME 46,784 1916

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park VT 555 1992
(MABI)
Minute Man National Historical Park (MIMA) MA 967 1959
Morristown National Historical Park (MORR) NJ 1,685 1933
Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Site NY 683 1940
(ROVA)1
Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site (SAGA) NH 150 1964
Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site (SAIR) MA 9 1968
Saratoga National Historical Park (SARA) NY 3,406 1938
Weir Farm National Historic Site (WEFA) CT 60 1990
Assateague Island National Seashore (ASIS) MD 39,732 1965
Cape Cod National Seashore (CACO) MA 43,604 1961
Fire Island National Seashore (FIIS) NY 19,580 1981
Gateway National Recreation Area (GATE) NY, NJ 26,610 1972
Sagamore Hill National Historic Site (SAHI) NY 83 1963
1
ROVA was consolidated from Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site (ELRO, est. 1977, 181 ac), Home of Franklin
D.Roosevelt National Historic Site (HOFR, est. 1945, 290 ac) and, Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site (VAMA,
est. 1940, 212 ac).

information was separated by taxa (e.g., mation, latitude–longitude, and comments.

Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates We e-mailed follow-up requests for data to
ornithology collection) where taxa-specific 177 collection managers who did not respond
data were available. Information such as size of within six weeks of the initial request for data.
collection, percentage computerized, contact We logged responses into the collection data-
person and address, web address, and notes base as they were received. We established two
about the collections were recorded. We databases: one in Microsoft Access for collec-
determined that much of the information pro- tions, and the other in Microsoft Excel for
vided in the two natural history collection specimen records we located.
databases were out of date; therefore, we
checked contact information for all institu- Results
tions through web sites or by contacting insti- We received a 70% response rate form the
tutions directly and updated information as curators we queried and tallied information
necessary. from 78 collections. We assembled 31,110
To reduce search time and increase the specimen records (30,833 categorized 1–4 by
number of responses from institutions, we locality; Table 2) of which 4,745 (15%) are
broadened search criteria to county-wide from within park boundaries (category 1) and
locality requests. This approach also had the an additional 4,552 (15%) may be from with-
benefit of including locations that were mis- in park boundaries (category 2), but for which
spelled or used historic names. We sent insti- we do not have enough information to deter-
tutions a list of parks and localities by state mine their exact location. We gathered the
and county. We requested that the following most specimen records for plants, followed by
data fields be provided: park name, taxonom- birds, mammals, and amphibians and reptiles.
ic name, common name, catalogue number, Within the four taxa, specimens comprised
accession number, condition of specimen, col- 260 families, 909 genera, and 2,055
lector’s name, date of collection, locality infor- species/species hybrids. Plant specimens rep-

401
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

resented the highest diversity of taxa with the Preparation is the key. Knowledge of the his-
greatest number of categories from toric names for the localities for which you are
species/species hybrids to families and genera. searching will be helpful in identifying rele-
More than one-third of all records were from vant specimens. In addition, lists of potential
Acadia National Park, the largest and oldest species for a region can help narrow the
park in this study. Acadia also had the most search field, although care must be taken not
category 1 and 2 specimens (4,615) followed to exclude rare, extinct, and vagrant species.
by Cape Cod National Seashore (2,180). We Efficiency in searching is also important.
were unable to corroborate taxonomic identi- We suggest searching specimen tags if the col-
fication due to time constraints. Most transfers lection is divided by locality. In most large col-
of specimens to other institutions were cata- lections, specimens were divided regionally
logued as accessions, but in some cases dis- into separate folders (for plants) or trays (for
posal of specimens was not recorded. vertebrates). Although size alone can make the
The software EstimateS 6 (Colwell 2001) largest collections overwhelming, they often
generated estimates of species richness for were the easiest to search because they pos-
plant diversity at Acadia (Figure 1) using sev- sessed enough specimens to be divided into
eral different estimators (and functions). smaller discrete geographic regions. Smaller
collections tended to be divided into local
Discussion specimens, the rest of North America, and for-
The staff of most natural history collec- eign specimens, thus requiring searching
tions were unable to search records them- most, if not all, specimens. Searching speci-
selves because of the lack of time and men tags can be tedious, but has the advantage
resources to fulfill such requests, which of having updated taxonomy and the assur-
understandably places the responsibility of ance that specimens are still in the collection.
searching upon the organization requesting Tags are often very difficult to read, particular-
the data. To conduct efficient manual search- ly for vertebrate specimens with small tags and
es, we offer several recommendations. old writing. Additionally, handling specimens

Table 2. The number of specimen records received in each proximity category for all parks.

Number of specimen records1

Park Total (%)2
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
code
ACAD 3,392 1,223 7,739 149 12,503 (40.6)
MABI 1 199 273 20 493 (1.6)
MIMA 72 408 1,797 78 2,355 (7.6)
MORR 0 119 905 46 1070 (3.5)
ROVA 237 4 251 485 977 (3.2)
SAGA 0 10 102 19 131 (0.4)
SAIR 0 17 722 0 739 (2.4)
SARA 180 6 115 423 724 (2.3)
WEFA 12 15 983 8 1,018 (3.3)
ASIS 471 1 197 3 672 (2.2)
CACO 186 1,994 1,806 6 3,992 (12.9)
FIIS 109 276 4,026 0 4,411 (14.3)
GATE 30 277 1,107 75 1,489 (4.8)
SAHI 55 3 201 0 259 (0.8)

Total (%) 4,745 (15.4) 4,552 (14.8) 20,224 (65.6) 1,312 (4.3) 30,833
1
Category 1 = within park boundaries, 2 = may be within park boundaries, 3 = in county, 4 = in state.
2
Totals are reduced by 277 specimens (0.89%), because we were unable to identify current locality based on a
historic place name, there were discrepancies in the locality data, or they could not be assigned to any one park.
402
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Figure 1. Plant species diversity for Acadia National Park plotting the number of voucher
specimens identified (category 1 & 2) using the program EstimateS 6. Results are based
on actual observations (Sobs) and eight numerical estimators. A detailed description of
individual estimators is in Colwell 2001.

degrades them and may be irritating to the NPS national catalogue. Although most NPS
searcher because of harsh chemicals (i.e., natural history catalogue records are now
arsenic) that may have been used for their recorded in the NPS Automated National
preservation. Searching by catalogue is much Catalog System (ANCS+), catalogue records
faster, but data are less reliable and taxonomic created prior to 1987, when the automated
updates are not usually made to catalogue system began, continue to be input into
entries. If time permits, we recommend ANCS+, a project the NPS expects to com-
searching catalogues, then checking and refer- plete within the next two years. Most collec-
encing those records against specimens in the tions we searched were in non-NPS reposito-
collection. Ultimately, every collection is man- ries in an attempt to locate records unknown
aged differently, which will affect the search to the NPS. In a few cases, we also searched
strategy. Flexibility in search strategy is impor- institutions considered NPS repositories as
tant for determining the best method to search part of our overall effort to compile all avail-
for specimens at a particular site. able specimen records. For example, the
Natural history specimens originating College of the Atlantic in Maine maintains the
from NPS lands acquired prior to 1984, and herbarium collection from Acadia National
stored in a non-NPS repository, typically are Park and serves as an official NPS repository
not catalogued in the NPS national catalogue and, as such, has records recorded both local-
and are not tracked (i.e., on loan from NPS to ly and in ANCS+. The herbarium is on loan
non-NPS institutions). A 1984 regulation from the park.
requires that specimens collected in parks and Natural history specimens originating
permanently retained in collections (even in from NPS lands and acquired prior to 1984
non-NPS facilities) be catalogued into the typically are not catalogued in the NPS
403
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

national catalogue and are not tracked (e.g., EstimateS 6 program is vulnerable to the crit-
those on loan from NPS to non-NPS institu- icisms posed above. However, plotting the
tions). A 1984 regulation requires that speci- relationship of the number of voucher speci-
mens collected in parks and permanently men records against the number of species
retained in collections (even in non-NPS facil- identified in these records can be a useful
ities) be catalogued into the NPS national cat- exploratory tool to view the “thoroughness”
alogue. Although most NPS natural history of sampling conducted in an area and com-
catalogue records are now recorded in the pare sampling across regions (Fagan and
ANCS+, data acquired prior to 1984 continue Kareiva 1997) or, in this case, park units.
to be input into ANCS+, a project that NPS For parks such as Acadia with intensive
expects to complete within the next two years. sampling over several decades, voucher speci-
Most collections we searched were in non- mens records may provide species richness
NPS repositories in an attempt to locate estimates that are nearly asymptotic for true
records unknown to NPS. In a few cases, we species diversity. Recent statistical proce-
also searched institutions considered to be dures, such as the information-theoretic
NPS repositories as part of our overall effort to approach (Burnham and Andersen 1998), can
compile all available specimen records. For provide further objectivity in selecting a par-
example, the College of the Atlantic in Maine ticular estimator (and function) to determine
maintains the herbarium collection from the accuracy of species accumulation data,
Acadia National Park and serves as an official assuming a reasonable a priori model set
NPS repository and, as such, has records (Cam et al. 2002). Additionally, techniques for
recorded both locally and in ANCS+. estimating species richness that are preferred
Given the volume of information, we did over the function-fitting approach employed
not error-check data, assuming correct identi- by EstimateS 6 (Cam et al. 2002) can also be
fication of specimens with accurate support- used. The lognormal distribution of species
ing information. Given that taxonomic revi- abundances (Fagan and Kareiva 1997), mod-
sions occur frequently, verification of identity els of detection probability (Cam et al. 2002),
may be necessary. Furthermore, data such as and others based on capture–recapture theory
locality or date can lack specific information are preferred by some authors (see Nichols
or be missing, particularly for older speci- and Conroy 1996; Boulinier et al. 1998).
mens. Locality names can change over time These models can estimate the size of species
and historic names need to be checked to assemblages—an important consideration in
ensure compatibility between the past and the design of biological inventories and moni-
current locations. Despite these limitations, toring programs. We recommend further
these data are useful as a set of tools for exploration of how to use these techniques
exploring changes in biodiversity, especially with voucher specimen data so that species
when records date back over a century or inventory results can be objectively evaluated
more. in the context of temporal change in species
Estimation of species richness has become diversity.
an important topic in community ecology and
monitoring (Cam et al. 2002) and is an impor- References
tant component of evaluating biodiversity Alberch, P., 1993. Museums, collections, and
(Colwell and Coddington 1994). Species biodiversity inventories. Trends in Ecology
accumulation curves (Soberon and Llorente and Evolution 8, 372–375.
1993) have been used to estimate species Boulinier, T., J.D. Nichols, J.R. Sauer, J.E.
diversity, but the use of phenomenological Hines, and K.H. Pollock. 1998.
models to plot species accumulation data has Estimating species richness: the impor-
been criticized because there is no mechanis- tance of heterogeneity in species
tic basis to correct for sampling effort (Fagan detectability. Ecology 79, 1018–1028.
and Kareiva 1997; Cam et al 2002). The Burnham, K.P., and D.R. Andersen. 1998.
404
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Model Selection and Inference: A Practical knowledge, and environmental conserva-

Information-Theoretic Approach. Berlin: tion. Biodiversity and Conservation 4,
Springer-Verlag. 183–205.
Cam, E., J.D. Nichols, J.R. Sauer, and J.E. Fagan, W.F., and P.M. Kareiva. 1997. Using
Hines. 2002. On the estimation of species compiled species lists to make biodiversity
richness based on the accumulation of pre- comparisons among regions: a test case
viously unrecorded species. Ecography 25, using Oregon butterflies. Biological
102–108. Conservation 80, 249–259.
Colwell, R.K. 2001. EstimateS: Statistical esti- Nichols, J.D., and M.J. Conroy. 1996.
mation of species richness and shared Estimation of species richness. In
species from samples. Version 6.0b1. Measuring and Monitoring Biological
User’s guide and application published Diversity: Standard Methods for
on-line at http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/ Mammals. D.E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J.D.
estimates. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M.S. Foster, eds.
Colwell, R.K., and J.A. Coddington. 1994. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through Institution Press, 226–234.
extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions Soberon, J.M., and J.B. Llorente. 1993. The
of the Royal Society London (Series B) 345, use of species accumulation functions for
101–118. the prediction of species richness.
Cotterill, F.P.D. 1995. Systematics, biological Conservation Biology 7, 480–488.

405
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Ownership of Natural Resource Specimens

as a Pitfall in Effective Research

Jonathan Bayless, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort Mason, Building 201, San
Francisco, California 94123; jonathan_bayless@nps.gov

The issue discussed here is straightforward: Who can own scientific specimens collected
from U.S. national parks under research permits? Must all specimens and samples remain the
sole property of the U.S. government or can they become the property of another museum or
institution? This question has been addressed by various National Park Service (NPS) guidance
documents1 that clearly answer “yes,” they must remain federal property. But this answer is not
simple to implement and has never been definitively asserted in law or court rulings. This paper
explores the effects of requiring ownership on the management of scientific specimens. The
opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect official
NPS policy or opinions.
What is the current NPS approach to were transferred to outside repositories.7 In
specimen ownership? During the last 20 1982, the permit regulations were opened for
years, NPS has developed increasingly strict revision, and staff of the natural science divi-
policy interpretations that ownership of spec- sion of the Washington Office (including the
imens collected under scientific permit and author) recommended revised language based
permanently retained in collections or dis- on efforts to upgrade NPS scientific curation.8
plays must remain the property of the NPS.2 This draft language was greatly reduced from
This policy is based upon one sentence in the a paragraph that described the desire to track
regulations3 that control the issuance of specimens and their data to a single sen-
research permits and has caused extensive dis- tence—one that is open to a wide range of
agreement among NPS staff, scientists, and interpretation.
museum professionals. The uncertain mean- Is there a problem? The lack of resolution
ing and intent of the regulation appears inade- on this issue has caused controversy between
quate to base a far-reaching and precedent- parks and other scientific partners, profes-
setting policy upon: that scientific collections sional societies, and repositories, and its vari-
must remain inalienable federal property! able implementation across NPS interferes
NPS has not always had this policy inter- with the effective use of science to increase our
pretation on ownership. In the first half of the knowledge of park ecology. Numerous com-
20th century, NPS was pleased to be the recip- plaints have been received9 about how the pol-
ient of scientific research in remote parks icy of specimen ownership is burdensome and
where little funding existed to purchase the counter-productive. The policy clearly creates
efforts of scientists.4 Permission to collect difficulties in fulfilling goals in NPS’s self-pro-
specimens was granted in a letter, and many claimed “new era of ‘parks for science’ and
repositories throughout the United States ‘science for parks’” in which the agency says
have numerous specimens from these early “it welcomes researchers to explore the
years of discovery. In 1942, a solicitor’s opin- national parks as unparalleled living laborato-
ion on a new directive dealing with permits ries.”10 NPS stands alone in its approach
ruled that only employees of NPS could col- (within the United States, at least) that all nat-
lect wildlife in parks.5 This ruling caused dis- ural resource specimens must, in effect,
ruption of many research projects. It would remain inalienable federal property, and this
take some 34 years to finally correct this prob- stance runs headlong into standard practices
lem with the publication of new regulations in of other state and federal agencies.
1976.6 Throughout this period specimens Why is there a need for a new policy analy-
406
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

sis? The continued uncertainty and increas- ence due to limited staff expertise. There is
ingly highly visible conflicts created by this virtually no capability to store specialized col-
issue suggests that sooner or later it will lections such as frozen collections, specialized
become embroiled in a court case or legislative wet fluid, and living collections. Without the
action. Even without a legal challenge, we are cooperation and partnership of universities,
open to being charged for the cost of storage museums, and repositories, NPS will be obli-
and preservation of NPS collections in outside gated to pay for the storage and curation of
repositories. Once money is needed up front, these important materials, or they will increas-
fewer collections will be preserved to save on ingly not be collected and preserved at all.
limited funds. We need to define what out- Recently, major natural history repositories
comes are in the best interests of the parks, such as the University of Nebraska Museum,
science, and the public. By understanding the Museum of Northern Arizona, and the San
how we want research specimens managed, Diego Natural History Museum have closed
we improve the chances that the outcome will or curtailed operations due to budget cuts and
better meet our needs and be consistent with staff storages.12 The ability of NPS to find
the NPS mission. If we analyze the costs and high-quality storage at little or no cost to the
benefits of various approaches, we can maxi- agency may be rapidly disappearing.
mize best management practices through
effective policies and procedures. Quid Pro Quo13
A long-standing practice has been for sci-
NPS Collections entists to obtain permits from federal and state
NPS maintains natural resource collec- authorities to research and collect specimens,
tions as part of its national catalogue of muse- along with any necessary landowner permis-
um property.11 These museum specimens are sion. Upon completion of the project, materi-
preserved in perpetuity, whether housed with- als collected may be consumed during
in a national park or loaned to an outside research, discarded, or preserved. If speci-
repository for storage and use. When NPS mens or samples are preserved, they are
insists that all collections remain government deposited in a museum or university where
property, it runs the risk that it is discouraging they become the property of that institution.
specimens from being permanently retained. The services of the repository in documenting
If specimens are loaned as NPS property, out- and storing the specimens far outweigh, in real
side repositories may require that we pay stor- dollars, the average value of the specimen
age and processing fees, currently in the itself. This “quid pro quo” reflects an
neighborhood of $50 to $500 per cubic foot. exchange of value between the two parties
These costs, once invoked, will result in some without any direct payments being required.
collections being transferred to cheaper alter- In some instances, scientists transfer speci-
natives (frequently, substandard storage). mens to other specialists to enlist their aid in
NPS currently has very limited in-house describing or further studying the specimens,
capacity to store and curate natural resource and in exchange allow the consulting scientist
collections, very few scientifically trained to retain specimens for his or her institution as
curators, and little infrastructure to support a form of compensation for his or her time, but
specialized collection needs. While our capa- even more as a way to diversify and strengthen
bilities have greatly improved over the years, the holdings of other repositories. The scien-
and additional improvements can be expect- tific data and analysis associated with collec-
ed, it will be many decades (at best) before tions are as important, and often more impor-
NPS has substantial capacity to care for large tant, than the specimens themselves. Access to
numbers of natural resource collections. Large the information gained is the primary benefit
and complex specimens, such as the blue most land management agencies seek. As long
whale from Golden Gate National Recreation as the specimens are well preserved and avail-
Area seen in Figure 1, have been lost to sci- able for public access, the agencies gain a sub-
407
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Figure 1. Author in underground World War II bunker with vertebrae from blue whale
(Balaenoptera musculus) washed ashore in 1988 and buried for five years on the beach.
The lack of monitoring of its buried condition and its subsequent cleaning led to a loss of
bone stability and a crumbling specimen.

stantial benefit through repository ownership. property resides with the landowner, the
These practices are the standard practices that National Park Service.
other federal and state agencies, including What is ownership? To own something is
those in the Department of the Interior, use to to have legal title or right to something. Mere
encourage and regulate scientific collecting.14 possession is not ownership, and ownership is
said to be a “legal title coupled with exclusive
Ownership Explored legal right to possession.”15 This discussion
The resources within NPS lands, where centers on the ownership of property, which is
owned by the federal government, are federal a concept that is inseparable from laws and the
property of the United States, held in trust for legal system:
the people. The living communities and non-
living elements—rocks, soil, air, water, and so Property is commonly thought of as a
on—that make up parks are in a state of thing which belongs to someone and
dynamic flux. Nevertheless, ownership of this over which a person has total control.
408
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

But, legally, it is more properly defined ty, and within acceptable limits of any negative
as a collection of legal rights over a impacts or effects before a permit is issued.
thing. These rights are usually total During the process of conducting scientif-
and fully enforceable by the state or ic research, a series of activities occur that
the owner against others. It has been affects the possession, treatment, and disposi-
said that ‘property and law were born tion of specimens. When a scientific permit is
and die together.’ Before laws were issued that involves collecting, the permit
made there was no property. Take grants researchers permission to conduct
away laws and property ceases. activities not authorized for the general pub-
Before laws were written and lic. The permit review process assesses the
enforced, property had no relevance. effect of the collecting on the environment and
Possession was all that mattered.16 the species, and evaluates any potential effects
against the benefit to NPS and science. The
For moveable property, such as scientific same is also true for non-living materials,
specimens, the collection of legal rights although geological systems require a different
include possession; the ability to decide on set of considerations than do living biota.
the location and storage conditions; the right Once removed from the park, the specimens
to determine uses, both private and commer- are no longer part of the natural resource base
cial (assuming, of course, that these uses are of the park. NPS defines the natural resource
within the law); the ability to alter, disassem- specimens as museum property managed
ble, add to, and even destroy all or part of the under its cultural resource program.
property; and finally, the right to convey title Collecting activities may generate speci-
through gift or sale. There are many other mens far in excess of needs for the research
rights and abilities that come with ownership, (e.g., the use of insect traps or fish nets).
and many forms of use that do not convey These excess specimens may be discarded on
ownership, such as rentals, leases, and loan site or in the laboratory. Specimens may be
agreements. The process of conducting scien- brought to laboratories and subjected to
tific research under permit in national parks methods of analysis, such as dissection or
involves granting scientists some, although chemical analysis, that may destroy the speci-
not all, of the rights of ownership. A set of men. Specimens may also not fit the protocols
rights are granted that makes the ownership established for permanently retained speci-
question not an “all or nothing” proposition. mens and may be discarded after analysis. If
This implies that a functional co-ownership the specimen is intended for permanent
relationship exists that current policy does not preservation, it will be processed, labeled, and
address. documented. It is at this point that NPS poli-
cies currently state that the specimen must
Specimen Collecting in Parks remain federal property.
Specimens and samples are collections The process of collecting and research has
made from the living and non-living materials a direct link with the rights of ownership of
that make up the natural resources of our the specimens. The ability to collect and/or
national parks. Plants, mammals, rocks, water, kill the specimen is one that is granted by the
insects—all these and more are the basic mate- scientific permit. The right is given to possess
rials that parks are established (in part) to pro- the specimen and transport it to a location
tect and preserve. Permission to collect scien- outside the park. The researcher is allowed to
tific specimens is granted to qualified institu- alter, divide, and chemically treat the speci-
tions and individuals after they apply using a men during the research, and even allowed to
standard application.17 A thorough review destroy the specimen (even if we request that
and evaluation of the proposed work must we be contacted first). After this long series of
find the proposal to be consistent with the activities and decisions involved with proper-
park’s mission, a benefit to science and socie- ty rights occur, then, and only then, and only
409
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

in cases where the specimen is preserved, their seeds can be mobile. And of course living
does current policy require ownership of this individuals die and are replaced on regular
property. The scientific research and collect- cycles. Natural resources are a form of dynam-
ing process involves a shared set of rights of ic property, quite unlike real or personal prop-
ownership and property, and their complexity erty (such as land, buildings, equipment) that
suggests that legal analysis is required beyond are carefully tracked and accounted for as gov-
the abilities of the natural and cultural staff ernment property. The conclusion is that a
that have developed these policy interpreta- policy of inalienable property would be in
tions so far. Without legal clarification, the effect only for those natural resources turned
current policy interpretation—that we have no into museum property—a category of proper-
right to convey ownership—creates restric- ty resulting from actions that are a tiny minor-
tions on our ability to pursue the best man- ity of the activities that affect natural resource
agement practices that encourage the develop- property, creating a split in our view of natural
ment and preservation of the largest number resources. Such a dichotomy would stand in
of high-quality scientific specimens from our strong contrast to other inalienable property,
national parks. namely archeological artifacts, which repre-
sent a consistent approach of preservation and
Inalienable Property ownership in perpetuity.18 If natural resource
There are certainly some benefits that specimens are to remain inalienable property,
accrue to the people of the United States by much work remains to clarify why natural
following the policy of making all scientific resource specimens must remain federal prop-
specimens into inalienable federal property. erty while similar organisms and geological
The full rights of ownership are retained, resources are managed separately and with
allowing for their use to benefit science and much greater flexibility.
the management of national parks in such
ways and at such times as determined by the A Vision for the Future
people’s representative government. At the Within a legal framework, we need to
same time, there are a number of reasons for define goals that maximize the contribution of
not pursuing such a policy interpretation as scientific specimens to the protection of
being in our best interest. resources, the gaining of knowledge that ben-
Specimens taken for scientific research are efits society, and the mission of the National
not the only way that natural resources are Park Service. Any policy direction should be
moved, altered, or collected in national parks, analyzed against a vision that would include
and are not even the way the majority of park maximizing the geographical, spatial, and tax-
resources are altered or moved. Parks are vis- onomic representation of specimens from
ited by millions of people who have legal fair national parks that are collected with scientif-
use of the parks when they hike, swim, move ic rigor, have the highest-quality data, and are
surface rocks and soils, and, where permitted, well curated and preserved. There will be
fish, hunt, collect firewood, berries, seashells, great costs associated with achieving such a
and conduct many activities that affect natural vision, and there are almost limitless biologi-
resources. Parks also maintain and develop cal and geological resources under our care.
roads, power line clearances, drainage ditches, Any policy that creates obstacles to these goals
rock wall riprap, bridges, and numerous other needs to ensure that the benefits outweigh the
ground-affecting activities. costs.
Of course, not all natural resources are I’ve seen many instances where scientific
permanently located within a park: there also partners and institutions refuse to accept
is the effect of their dynamic ecosystem prop- specimens on loan in lieu of ownership. After
erties. Water and sediments flow into and out more than 20 years, I’m still waiting to see a
of parks, animals migrate, birds travel long dis- case where ownership allowed us to recover,
tances, and even some plants and especially study, or otherwise benefit in ways that non-
410
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

ownership would not allow. This paper con- Service research and collecting: a fifty-year
cludes with a call for action that would bring search for a legal, flexible, and standard-
together scientists, partners, curators, and ized approach,” pp. 418–422 in On the
legal and policy experts to address the issues Frontiers of Conservation: Proceedings of
raised here and in numerous other documents the 10th Conference on Research and
and forums. Resource Management in Parks and on
Public Lands, ed. by D. Harmon
Endnotes (Hancock, Mich.: The George Wright
1. The NPS Museum Handbook, Part II, Society).
states: “The NPS must accession speci- 6. 36 CFR 2.25.
mens collected under 36 CFR [Code of
Federal Regulations] 2.5g.” “Accessioning 7. “Take, for example, a park’s study series of
is the process of officially accepting items insects ... the park needs to know about
into National Park Service (NPS) museum them, and this knowledge can only come
collections. Accessioning establishes legal from thorough, well documented collec-
custody and ownership.” In the NPS tions. However, the staff may need to keep
Research Permit and Reporting System, at hand ... only those insects which are
the general conditions for all permits state: conspicuous enough to excite visitors
“Collected specimens that are not con- questions.... All the rest might be more
sumed in analysis or discarded after scien- useful in the entomological collections of a
tific analysis remain federal property. The nearby university museum. Obviously, this
NPS reserves the right to designate the arrangement would save curatorial time
repositories of all specimens removed and money for the park. All concerned
from the park and to approve or restrict would benefit whether the specimens were
reassignment of specimens from one on loan from the park or were collected
repository to another. Because specimens under permit and belonged to an outside
are Federal property, they shall not be museum.” R.H. Lewis, Manual for
destroyed or discarded without prior NPS Museums (Washington, D.C. : National
authorization.” Park Service, 1976). Quote from p. 8.
2. The Museum Handbook, Part II, states 8. R. Lewis, “Museum Curatorship in the
that “the NPS must accession specimens National Park Service: 1904–1982.” See
collected under 36 CFR 2.5g. The collec- page 205.
tor must give you information for acces- 9. Examples include “An open letter to
sioning the specimens. You must assign an Superintendent Martin” signed by 14
accession number to the collection, and geologists, April 1999; numerous verbal
give the number to the collector. Assign complaints made to the author at the
one accession number to each project, and Society for the Preservation of Natural
accession the specimens as a field collec- History Collections meeting in San
tion.” Francisco, June 2001; e-mail letter from
3. 36 CFR 2.5 Section (g)(1) reads: The Ornithological Council, May 2002.
“Specimens placed in displays or perma- 10. “Parks for science: The National Park
nent collections will bear official National Service welcomes researchers”; on-line at
Park Service museum labels and their cat- www.nature.nps.gov/challenge/brochures
alog numbers will be registered in the /ParksforScience.pdf.
National Park Service catalog.” 11. Under the authority of the Museum Act of
4. R. Sellars, Preserving Nature in the 1955, as revised.
National Parks: A History (New Haven, 12. L. Krishtalka, “Forum: At natural history
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997). museums, the ox is gored.” Museum News,
5. J. Bayless, “Regulating National Park July–August 2003.
411
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

13. Latin for “Something for something,” or permit system called the “Research Permit
giving one thing and receiving something and Reporting System.” Approved by the
in return, often without any formal con- Office of Management and Budget, this
tract or agreement to do so; that is, with an research application process has provi-
implicit understanding or tradition. sions for the disposition and tracking of
14. See the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s any permanent specimens collected under
permitting system, on-line at permit. See J. Bayless and N. Henderson,
www.fws.gov/. Note that neither permits “Research and permit reporting system:
nor their instructions and regulations dis- the on-line launch is up.” Park Science
cuss ownership of collections, and make 21:1, 39–40 (2001).
no provisions for USFWS ownership. 18. The Archeological Resources Protection
15. Quote from the legal dictionary on-line at Act states: “[T]he archaeological
http://dictionary.law.com/. resources which are excavated or removed
from public lands will remain the property
16. Quote from the legal dictionary on-line at of the United States” (Title 16, Chapter
www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-p.htm. 1B, Section 407cc(b)(3)).
17. In 2001, NPS implemented a new on-line

412
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Leadership of NPS in Dealing with Contaminated

Natural History and Cultural Collections
Judith J. Bischoff, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center–Conservation, P.O. Box 50,
Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425-0050; Judith_Bischoff@nps.gov

Background
At a spring 1999 meeting of the Museum Management Program Council (MMPC), one of the
members, Virginia Salazar-Halfmoon, regional curator from the Intermountain Region of the
National Park Service (NPS), asked if the Harpers Ferry Center tested NPS museum collections
for contaminants. As head of the scientific research and analytical support laboratory at the
Harpers Ferry Center, the question was addressed specifically to me. My answer was “no.” In
fact, at that time my lab had only been in existence for less than a year and our analytical capa-
bilities were very limited. Indeed, I had only been vaguely aware that a problem even existed. I
was soon to learn that many museum collections had been treated with arsenic, mercury, and/or
organic pesticides in order to preserve them against insect infestation. It became evident in dis-
cussions with my conservator colleagues that the issues surrounding contaminated collections,
motivated in part by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA),
were complex, hot topics, and ones in need of much discussion. Unfortunately, the pesticide lit-
erature is scattered and relatively inaccessible to professionals dealing with treatment or handling
of contaminated collections.
The Symposium—Contaminated map future plans of action related to these
Collections: Preservation, issues.
Access, and Use The specific goals of this symposium were
It was imperative that something be done to:
to solve the problems related to contaminated • Identify current scholarship on collection
collections. To that end, I authored—with surveys, development of testing methods,
help from Scott Carroll, curator at the Alaska risk assessment, and treatment of contami-
State Museum; Catharine Hawks, a conserva- nated collections;
tor in private practice; Jim Pepper Henry, • Determine research and training needs for
NAGPRA manager at the National Museum of safe use of collections;
the American Indian (NMAI), Smithsonian • Help develop conservation strategies for
Institution; Jessica Johnson, senior conserva- the safe handling, storage, and treatment of
tor in the NPS Museum Management contaminated objects;
Program (MMP); and Stephen Williams, • Encourage communication among various
assistant professor of museum studies, Baylor stakeholders;
University—a successful grant proposal under • Create working groups to carry out the
the auspices of the Society for the plans; and
Preservation of Natural History Collections • Disseminate information.
(SPNHC) to organize a symposium to discuss
the issues. The National Center for The symposium was held in April 2001 at
Preservation Technology and Training the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National
(NCPTT) funded the project, and I, in collab- Conservation Training Center in
oration with the aforementioned colleagues, Shepherdstown, West Virginia. In addition to
coordinated the symposium. We brought funding from NCPTT, it was supported by
together about thirty conservators, scientists, SPNHC, NPS, and NMAI, with additional
attorneys, public health/safety officials, Native support from the American Institute for
Americans, and other preservation profes- Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works
sionals to discuss current scholarship and to and its Objects Specialty Group and Research
413
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

and Technical Studies Group, and from the Post-Symposium Activities

Repatriation Office, of the Department of Products from the meeting to date include
Anthropology, National Museum of Natural several publications: (1) a compilation of the
History, Smithsonian Institution. papers presented at the Shepherdstown sym-
The format of the symposium was a retreat posium, the executive summary, and the list of
with facilitated sessions. The primary focus of participants (SPNHC 2001); (2) three
the symposium was on repatriation of muse- Conserve O Grams (NPS 2001a, 2001b,
um objects to tribal communities, and because 2002); (3) an article for ICOM–Ethnographic
of this focus, more than half of the invited par- Conservation Newsletter (Johnson 2001);
ticipants were Native Americans. Although and (4) an article in the ICOM-
many natural history collections may also be CC–Ethnographic Group Preprints and
contaminated with hazardous materials such Triennial Conference (Johnson and Henry
as arsenic, mercury, and/or organic pesticides, 2002). In addition to the publications, there
we felt that if we addressed the more complex have been numerous presentations at profes-
issues of collections being repatriated, we sional meetings, including a panel discussion
would also be addressing those issues pertain- at the 2001 annual meeting of the AIC, a pres-
ing to collections care managers and the care entation at the 2001 annual meeting of
of natural history collections. SPNHC, and several presentations at the
In honoring the traditions of and respect- annual meeting of the Society for
ing our Native American participants, the Environmental and Occupational Health.
meeting commenced with an opening blessing The remarkable level of consensus among
by G. Peter Jemison (Seneca), NAGPRA rep- the participants on ways to address the prob-
resentative of the Seneca Nation of Indians, lems associated with contaminated collections
and a keynote address by James D. Nason led to several important outcomes in addition
(Comanche), professor/curator of American to the publications, including a firm commit-
and Pacific ethnology at the Thomas Burke ment to carry out the action plan. As with
Memorial Washington State Museum, many meetings and symposia of this type, par-
University of Washington. Each set of speak- ticipants often profess commitment to an
ers presented an overview of current knowl- action plan, but when faced with day-to-day
edge on the following topics: job responsibilities and other realities,
• Sampling and testing; momentum is lost and the problems stagnate.
• Communication and training; This has not been the case with this group.
• Legal, ethical, and regulatory issues; This symposium led to the creation of a
• Exposure and risk assessment; and core network of people familiar with the issues
• Mitigation and decontamination. associated with contaminated collections.
This network has eagerly assisted others less
Six groups, representing a variety of inter- familiar with preservation, access, and use of
ests and expertise, discussed the presentations contaminated collections. Since the April
and cross-cutting themes were identified. 2001 symposium, a number of individuals
Based on these, an action plan was developed and groups both nationally and international-
that included cost and funds procurement, ly have been working diligently to expand our
policy and planning, historical perspectives knowledge and resources in the area of con-
and basic principles, technical communica- taminated collections. Examples of these
tion and training, testing protocols/research efforts include:
and development, and legal and ethical issues.
With respect for our tribal participants, • P. Jane Sirois, conservation scientist,
the symposium concluded with a closing Canadian Conservation Institute: continu-
blessing by Billy Cypress, executive director, ation of research to develop testing meth-
Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum, Seminole Tribe of ods for contaminants;
Florida. • Timberley Roane (Lumbee/Cherokee),
assistant professor of microbiology,
414
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

University of Colorado at Denver, researchers, conservators, curators, collec-

Department of Biology: initiation of tions care managers, and/or tribal representa-
research on the use of microorganisms for tives. More recently, the group has developed
the decontamination of objects; a set of FAQs (frequently asked questions) that
• SPNHC: creation of Material Safety Data will be posted on the DOI and NPS intranets,
Sheets for contaminated ethnographic/ as well as appropriate internet sites.
botanical objects; Ann Hitchcock is also a member of the
• Museum of New Mexico’s Museum of CCW. She has actively solicited authors for
International Folk Art: development of Conserve O Grams related to contaminated
testing methods for organic pesticide collections. As a result of her efforts and those
residues on museum artifacts; of Sara Wolf, there are now three new ones
• Catherine Hawks, private conservator, and devoted to contaminated collections issues
Kathryn Makos, senior industrial hygien- (NPS 2001a, 2001b, 2002).
ist, Smithsonian Institution, Office of Through the efforts of Paula Molloy, head
Environmental Management and Safety: of the national NAGPRA grant program, the
continuation of research to develop tests program has expanded its grant topics to
for mercury; include those related to testing of collections.
• Nancy Odegaard, conservator/associate Molloy, who is also a member of the CCW, will
professor, Arizona State Museum/ host the contaminated collections web site,
University of Arizona: development of which is currently under construction.
testing protocols for x-ray fluorescence I too have been very involved in a wide
analysis; array of projects related to contaminated col-
• Several museums: mining of their records lections. As a member of the CCW, I have
to identify pesticides used on their collec- been involved in all of the group’s activities.
tions; and More recently, I have been actively involved in
• National Institute of Occupational Safety helping to develop the FAQs and write
and Health and Occupational Safety and answers to some of the questions. On my own,
Health Administration: study of exposure I designed and created the contaminated col-
levels on museum workers. lections web pages, which will soon be hosted
by Molloy at the NAGPRA web site.
Leadership Role of DOI and NPS To raise the awareness and keep the issues
In addition to the above efforts, the alive, I was on the AIC’s contaminated collec-
Department of the Interior (DOI) and NPS tions panel where we presented a synopsis of
have taken a broad leadership role in a variety the symposium to our professional colleagues.
of ways. For example, the MMPC asked Ann Along with Hawks and David Goldsmith,
Hitchcock, NPS chief curator, to meet with associate research professor, Department of
John Robbins, NPS assistant director for cul- Environmental and Occupational Health, The
tural resources stewardship and partnerships, George Washington University, I was one of
and Ronald C. Wilson, museum policy man- the presenters at a session on pesticides and
ager for the DOI, about coordinating a depart- indigenous peoples at the annual meeting of
ment-wide effort to address contaminated col- the Society of Occupational and
lections issues. MMP Senior Conservator Environmental Health. I also serve as a techni-
Sara Wolf also participated in the discussion. cal advisor to Peter Reuben (Tonawanda Band
As a result, Wilson established the of Senecas), a young chemist from the Seneca
Contaminated Collections Working Group Nation of Indians who is the research coordi-
(CCW) and serves as its chair. During its nator on a NAGPRA grant.
monthly meetings, the group has developed a Perhaps the person to whom we at NPS
draft disclosure statement for anyone who are most indebted is Virginia Salazar-
might be handling contaminated objects in Halfmoon, curator at the NPS Santa Fe
DOI or NPS collections, including Support Office. Salazar-Halfmoon had long
415
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

recognized the need for DOI and NPS to take conservation scientists in the entire NPS, per-
a leadership role in tackling the issues of con- haps the most exciting developments for me
taminated collections and it was she who initi- personally and professionally are two projects:
ated this long and complex process with her (1) the development of a research project on a
ostensibly simple question to the Harpers new method for non-invasive analysis of
Ferry Center about testing of collections. Her organic pesticide residues, and (2) organizing
continued commitment in this arena led to a an all-day session on object contamination
job hazard analysis and safety audits of the testing methods and health exposure monitor-
collections at her site and region. Based on ing for the 2004 Eastern Analytical
these assessments, she has developed a safety Symposium, the second-largest analytical
plan for dealing with hazards in her collec- chemistry conference in the United States.
tions. The problems are critical and complex
Through the contaminated collections and will require long-term commitment on the
symposium and the efforts of other knowl- part of many institutions and individuals in
edgeable individuals and institutions, DOI order to find creative solutions. DOI and NPS
and NPS have identified a number of have accepted the challenge to ensure that the
resources for anyone dealing with contaminat- preservation of, access to, and use of cultural
ed collections, whether they be objects for and natural history collections can be done
repatriation or natural history collections: safely and in a manner agreeable to tribal com-
• Conserve O Grams: www.cr.nps.gov/ munities to whom collections are being repa-
museum/publications/conserveogram/con triated, and to researchers, museum workers,
s_toc.html and collection care managers. The continued
• Society for the Preservation of Natural involvement of DOI and NPS in furthering the
History Collections: www.spnhc.org/doc- efforts on behalf of contaminated collections is
uments/CF17-1_2.htm a demonstration of their leadership in this
• Environmental Protection Agency: www. arena.
epa.gov/pesticides/
• Center for Disease Control/National
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the symposium pre-
Institute for Occupational Safety and
senters, participants, organizers, and facilita-
Health: www.cdc.gov/niosh/pestsurv/
tors for sharing their knowledge at the sympo-
default.html
sium. Their hard work and commitment have
The Future laid the foundation for the current efforts to
DOI and NPS will continue their efforts to deal with issues of contaminated collections.
provide accurate and relevant resources for DOI and NPS would not have come as far as
use by persons both within and outside of the we have but for foresight of Virginia Salazar-
federal government. The contaminated collec- Halfmoon and Catharine Hawks; the unflag-
tions web site will soon be available. As part of ging efforts of Ron Wilson, museum policy
an assignment from the CCW, Molloy and I manager, and his CCW; and Ann Hitchcock,
will be creating an annotated bibliography, or chief curator, NPS. None of this would have
literature review of all relevant literature, and been possible without the financial support of
make this available through the web site. Once the National Center for Preservation
the FAQs have been reviewed, they too will be Technology and Training, the Society for the
added to the growing body of valuable Preservation of Natural History Collections,
resources available to federal employees work- the American Institute for Conservation of
ing with contaminated collections, non-feder- Historic and Artistic Works, and the
al museum workers, and tribal groups. Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum
The CCW plans to seek funding to devel- of Natural History and National Museum of
op training for people who must deal with the American Indian.
contaminated collections. As one of only a few

416
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

References ———. 2001b. Conserve O Gram 2/17

Johnson, J.S. 2001. Symposium on contami- (September). Physical properties and
nated collections: preservation access and health effects of pesticides used on
use. ICOM Ethnographic Conservation National Park Service collections.
Newsletter 21:10. ———. 2002a. Conserve O Gram 2/19
Johnson, J.S., and J.P. Henry 2002. Pesticides (January). Guidelines for the handling of
and repatriation at the National Museum pesticide contaminated collections.
of the American Indian. In ICOM SPNHC [Society for the Preservation of
Committee for Conservation, Proceedings Natural History Collections]. 2001.
of the 13th Triennial ICOM Meeting Held Contaminated Collections: Preservation
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 22–28 September Access and Use: Proceedings of a
2002. Volume II, pp. 673–678. Symposium Held at the National
NPS [National Park Service]. 2001a. Conservation Training Center (NCTC),
Conserve O Gram 2/16 (June). Shepherdstown, West Virginia. 6–9 April
Chronology of pesticides used on 2001. J.S. Johnson, ed. Collection Forum,
National Park Service collections. vol. 17.

417
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Information Management and Quality Assurance for

Resource Management Data Collection Efforts
Craig Palmer, Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies, University of Nevada–Las Vegas,
4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 454009, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-4009; palmerc@unlv.edu
Mark Sappington, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City,
Nevada 89005; mark_sappington@nps.gov

Development of an Improved Data Management System

at Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Good data management is achieved, in practice, when data that have been collected and
archived are recognized for their high quality, are readily accessible, and contribute to the intend-
ed purpose of the project, such as resource management decisions, regulatory processes, scien-
tific research, or interpretive and educational needs. Good data management also fosters recog-
nition by the scientific community that translates into increased research funding and scientific
credibility.
In October 1999, Lake Mead National involves six distinct steps from project initia-
Recreation Area began working with the tion to distribution of the project’s findings:
Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies data design, collection, manipulation, analy-
at the University of Nevada–Las Vegas to sis, archiving, and access.
improve the organization and use of Lake Data design. Many potential difficulties in
Mead’s resource management data and infor- data collection, analysis, archiving, and distri-
mation. The first phase in this multi-phase bution can be avoided when sufficient thought
project was an assessment of the current status and effort are given to the data design and
at Lake Mead and development of a frame- management process prior to data collection.
work for data management. During this initial With this in mind, the data design process
phase, four specific objectives were identified begins with a project proposal detailing the
for any new data management system: purpose, methodologies, budget, references,
1. The data must be persistent, or long lived. and other aspects of the proposed project.
2. The data must be easy to locate and readi- This proposal is reviewed by two to three in-
ly accessible. house scientists or managers and may be sent
3. The data must be of a quality and in a form out for independent review if appropriate.
that is usable, credible, and promotes After it is reviewed, the proposal must be
knowledge to a variety of users both with- approved by the chief of resource manage-
in and outside Lake Mead. ment at Lake Mead before work can proceed.
4. The system must accommodate resource This step addresses the data management
managers’ requirements for accountability. objectives of data quality and accountability.
Data collection. In addition to actually
The second phase of the project was collecting data, several practices must be fol-
development of a data management system to lowed during the data collection process. As
address these four objectives. Rather than data are collected, any changes to protocols
beginning after data have been collected or a detailed in the original proposal need to be
project has been completed, the new system documented. One of the most important
starts with the conception and design of a aspects of data collection is ensuring that the
research or monitoring project and continues data collected are of known and high quality.
until the desired end information product Consequently, data quality and assurance pro-
(data, report, map, etc.) is made available to cedures must be followed during data collec-
the intended audience. This approach tion. These procedures are detailed later in
418
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

this paper. In addition, data should be backed data), and tapes and disks will be stored in
up as they are collected to avoid loss, and secure off-site storage. This step addresses the
FGDC-compliant metadata (i.e., conforming data management objectives of data persist-
to the content standard set by the Federal ence and accessibility.
Geographic Data Committee) should be creat- Data access. The ability to easily locate
ed for the data sets from details in the project data is as important as proper storage of data.
proposal. This step addresses the data man- For internal users at Lake Mead, data and
agement objectives of data persistence, acces- metadata will be accessible through profes-
sibility, and quality. sional information management software,
Data manipulation. After data have been such as Synthesis. External users will be able
collected, they often need to be manipulated to locate metadata for data sets by searching
before they can be analyzed. This process can on-line metadata databases, such as those
include conversion to a different data format, operated by the National Park Service
standardization of data fields, organization (www3.nature.nps.gov/im/metadata/quick-
into databases, and linking to other data. search.cfm) and the U.S. Geological Survey
Numerous computer software tools can be (mercury.ornl.gov/nbii/). Using the metadata,
used to accomplish these tasks, including external users would then be able to deter-
databases, spreadsheets, and geographic mine if data would be useful to them and be
information systems. This step addresses the able to request the data. This step addresses
data management objectives of data quality the data management objectives of data per-
and usability. sistence and accessibility.
Data analysis. During data analysis, data Integration with NPS data management
are summarized and formatted for delivery to tools. To ensure persistence and accessibility
their intended audience. Final products may of data collected, the new data management
include maps, reports, data summaries, raw system being implemented by Lake Mead is
data sets, and databases, among others. In designed to integrate with existing NPS data
addition, data analysis and product delivery management tools, such as Dataset Catalog,
should take place in a timely manner. This NPBib, NPSpecies, Database Template, and
step addresses the data management objec- the GIS Theme Manager.
tives of data accessibility, usability, and Legacy data. Since the new data manage-
resource manager accountability. ment system is designed to be integrated with
Data archiving. Archiving, or proper stor- all current and new data collection projects,
age, of data allows potential data users the legacy data will have to go through a process
ability to access data and provides security of inventorying, prioritizing, re-formatting,
against loss. Part of the data management pro- cataloguing, and re-archiving to make them
cedures is to archive data both locally for compatible with this new system. This
internal users and externally for outside users process will ensure the persistence and acces-
and to ensure data security. Internally, data sibility of legacy data.
will be archived on the resource management The third phase of the project involves
data server for access by Lake Mead employ- implementing the new data management sys-
ees. Data on this server are protected on- tem by conducting and evaluating a pilot test
board with a fault-tolerant hard drive system of the system. Currently, pilot test projects are
(i.e., RAID array), and data that frequently being conducted for project planning and data
change are backed up on a daily basis using a quality and assurance within each program
high-capacity tape drive. Data that do not fre- area at Lake Mead. These projects include
quently change, such as images, are also desert tortoise monitoring, Rana onca habitat
archived on current-technology optical discs studies, aquatic plant surveys, exotic plant
(e.g., DVD+RW). Externally, data will be management, arid land restoration, and bat
archived in web-based databases (when monitoring within abandoned mines.
appropriate, such as for non-sensitive GIS
419
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Elements of the Lake Mead ect or program. The two principal compo-
National Recreation Area Quality nents of QA are quality control and quality
Assurance System assessment. Quality control includes those
To help achieve the goal of credible, per- operational techniques and activities that are
sistent, assessable, and useful natural resource used to control the data acquisition process.
information, a quality assurance (QA) system Quality assessment or evaluation includes the
is being developed for the resource manage- application of statistical tools to determine the
ment staff at the Lake Mead. The purpose of uncertainty in the data and whether or not
this section is to provide some background on they are appropriate to support management
the approach we are using in the development decisions. For example, the precision and bias
of this QA system. of measurements can be estimated to identify
Natural resource management agencies if measurements should be considered quanti-
such as NPS often have limited experience tative, semi-quantitative, or qualitative.
with the establishment and implementation of The approach used to develop the QA
formalized QA programs (Figure 1; Palmer system for Lake Mead was to follow the
2003). In contrast, federal regulatory agencies American National Standard (ANSI 1994),
such as the Environmental Protection Agency which provides specifications and guidelines
and the Department of Energy have very for quality systems for environmental data col-
detailed and structured QA programs that lection programs. The value of selecting this
must be implemented by their staff whenever approach is that it is based on the extensive
they collect data. The experience of these experience of a large group of QA profession-
agencies has been that QA not only assists in als and is currently used as the common stan-
making their data more defensible in court, dard for the development of QA programs by
but also improves the likelihood of high-qual- many agencies. This standard requires that a
ity data that have been adequately document- QA program be developed in two main parts.
ed so as to be persistent and assessable. The first part is to specify the quality manage-
QA is an overall system of management ment elements for the overall program. This is
activities designed to assure the quality of data documented in a quality system management
and information that are generated by a proj- plan. The second part is to specify QA ele-

Figure 1. Quality assurance in data collection requires moving from unstructured to struc-
tured programs.
420
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

ments that should be included in any data col- more detail in the following paragraphs.
lection effort. These QA elements should be Planning. The primary project planning
included as part of the planning for data col- tool for the quality system is the resource man-
lection in any given project. agement project plan (RMPP). During the
The development of the QA program for process of preparing a RMPP, a project leader
Lake Mead began with the preparation of a answers a specific list of questions. A unique
draft quality system management plan (Palmer property of this RMPP is that it includes all
and Landis 2002) for consideration by park the information needed to complete a fully
staff. In accordance with the guidelines from compliant FGDC metadata record.
the American National Standard, ten topics An important component of the RMPP is
were addressed in this plan: management and the identification of each of the measurements
organization, quality system description, per- that will be undertaken during the project
sonnel qualification and training, procure- study period. For each of the measurements,
ment of items and services, documents and the project leader is asked to specify a meas-
records, computer hardware and software, urement quality objective (MQO). For exam-
planning, implementation of work processes, ple, an MQO might be set for the measure-
assessment and response, and quality ment of the width of a tortoise shell, frequen-
improvement. cy of correct identification of plant species,
The Lake Mead quality system manage- range in acceptable condition codes, or the
ment plan details a QA system to be imple- concentration of a chemical in a water sample.
mented whenever natural resource informa- The development of MQOs is a critical QA
tion is collected. This QA system is detailed in step as it serves as the basis for evaluating and
Table 1. The table is divided into QA activi- improving the quality of data over time.
ties that should be undertaken during the Data collection. Data collection in proj-
planning, data collection, assessment, and ects should follow written protocols called
continual improvement phases of each proj- standard operating procedures. Field crew
ect. Each of these topics will be considered in members should be trained in these proce-

Table 1. Quality assurance activities, tools, and responsibilities for the Lake Mead Resource
Management Division quality system
Project Phase Activity Tools Responsibility
Planning Develop a project plan with a QA Resource Management Project Prepare: Project Leader
section Plan (RMPP) Review: QA Team
Select measurement quality RMPP Prepare: Project Leader
objectives (MQOs) Review: QA Team
Data Collection Develop detailed methods and Standard operating procedures Prepare: Project Leader
data quality objectives (SOPs) Review: QA Team
Conduct training and certification Training guide and certification Prepare: Project Leader
of trainees forms Review: QA Team
Collect, record, and control data Scientific notebooks, field Prepare: Project Leader
forms, data recorders Review: QA Team
Collect and control samples (if Sample labels and sample Prepare: Project Leader
required) handling procedures Review: QA Team
Calibrate and maintain field and SOPs Prepare: Project Leader
laboratory equipment Review: QA Team
Assessment and Conduct audits Field audit form Prepare: Project Leader
Response Review: QA Team
Remeasurements Field data collection forms, Prepare: QA Manager
remeasurement schedule Conduct: Auditors, QA
remeasurement crew
Data review, verification, and Data entry checks, illegal data Prepare: Project Leader
validation filters, outlier detection, Program: Data Manager
internal consistency checks Conduct: Project Team
Assess quality of data Quality assessment section in Prepare: Project Leader
project reports Review: QA Manager
Continual Conduct annual reviews of Debriefing reports, client Prepare: Project Leader
improvement project interviews; system audits Review: QA team
421
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

dures and then tested as to their ability to per- reviews of on-going projects. The overall
form them within the limits specified in the quality system management plan should also
MQOs. Data collection should proceed using be reviewed on an annual basis.
standardized field data collection forms or Approach to implementation. The
portable data recorders with built-in data col- approach we have used to implement the qual-
lection programs. The advantage of using ity system at Lake Mead has been to gradually
portable data recorders is that they minimize implement the program through training and
field data collection errors, such as missed pilot studies. A day-long training session was
fields or the entry of invalid codes. During used to introduce the staff to quality concepts
data collection, all field equipment should be and the overall approach. Each project leader
calibrated and maintained frequently. was asked to select one of his or her projects to
Assessment and response. During the act as a pilot for QA during the coming year.
first few weeks of data collection, audits Assistance has been provided to the project
should be conducted of field crew members to leaders to help them with the implementation
ensure that they are following established pro- of the quality system components, such as the
tocols and to answer questions that might not preparation of RMPPs, the selection of
have been adequately covered in training ses- MQOs, and the identification of opportunities
sions. The purpose of conducting the audits for the collection of independent remeasure-
early in the field season is to prevent the col- ment data.
lection of erroneous or questionable data.
During an audit or in a subsequent visit, inde- Summary
pendent remeasurements need to be taken of a It is our belief that the formal planning of
subset of the data being collected by the field QA and information management systems will
crews. When these data are collected during a improve the likelihood that credible, persist-
field audit, they can be used to help identify ent, accessible, and useful data will be collect-
problems the field crew might be having with ed by resource management staff in our
the interpretation of field protocols. When national parks. This planning should begin
they are collected at a different time without with the preparation of a data management
knowing the values obtained by the original plan and a quality system management plan.
crew, these remeasurement data can be used to
calculate the precision and (in certain situa- References
tions) bias in the data. ANSI [American National Standards
All data that are collected should be Institute]. 1995. American National
reviewed. The first step is to verify whether or Standard: Specifications and Guidelines
not the numbers placed on the field data for Quality Systems for Environmental
sheets have been correctly transferred to the Data Collection and Environmental
project database during computer data entry. Technology Programs. Milwaukee: Energy
This step is called data verification. The next and Environmental Quality Division,
step is to evaluate whether or not the data are Environmental Issues Group.
internally consistent and scientifically sound. Edwards, D. 2000. Data quality assurance. In
This step is called data validation and Ecological Data: Design, Management and
includes evaluation for outliers and compar- Processing. W.K. Michener and J.W.
isons between parameters (Edwards 2000). Brunt, eds. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell
Continual improvement. An important Science, 70–91.
component of any quality system is to have in Landis, E.B., and C.J. Palmer. 2002. Lake
place a process to improve the system over Mead National Recreation Area Natural
time. The approach recommended in the Resources Division: Data and Information
Lake Mead quality system management plan is Management Procedures. Las Vegas: Harry
to focus on debriefing of field crews at the end Reid Center for Environmental Studies,
of the field season and to conduct annual University of Nevada–Las Vegas.
422
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Palmer, C.J. 2003. Approaches to quality Palmer, C.J., and E.B. Landis. 2002. Lake
assurance and information management Mead National Recreation Area Natural
for regional ecological monitoring pro- Resources Division: Quality System
grams. In Ecological Monitoring of Management Plan for Environmental
Ecosystem Initiatives. D. Busch and J. Data Collection Projects. Las Vegas: Harry
Trexler, eds. Covelo, Calif.: Island Press, Reid Center for Environmental Studies,
211–225. University of Nevada–Las Vegas.

423
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

Workshop Report: Discussion Among NPS Research

Coordinators and Curators of Ways to Improve Cooperation
in Specimen Collecting and Curation
John G. Dennis, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW (2320), Washington, D.C., 20240;
john_dennis@nps.gov
Ann Hitchcock, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW (2251), Washington, D.C., 20240;
ann_hitchcock@nps.gov

In this workshop, approximately 20 National Park Service (NPS) research coordinators and
curators engaged in a wide-ranging discussion of steps NPS could consider taking to improve
management of natural resource collecting in parks and care of the resulting specimens. The
desired outcome was to develop suggestions for best practices that could be applied to (1)
improving the coordination within NPS of purposes, strategies, and activities for administering
the collection and curation of natural history specimens; and (2) communicating these purpos-
es, strategies, and activities to permit applicants and partner repositories. This workshop report
provides a written compilation of the discussions.
The workshop leaders encouraged the group to identify:
• Key points in administration of collecting ANCS+ data, exported to NPSpecies, was
and curation of specimens where coordi- some of the first data to populate
nation among park curator, permit coordi- NPSpecies in its early stages. NPSpecies
nator, permittee, and non-NPS repository developers are working on a routine to
is critical; export NPSpecies data into ANCS+.
• Best practices where this coordination • Include additional data fields in the NPS
works well; Web Catalog to increase its usefulness to
• Possible new practices to improve coordi- researchers. Note: Current natural history
nation; data fields in the Web Catalog are taxo-
• Follow-up tasks to promote best practices nomic classification, scientific name, com-
and to develop new practices for ser- mon name, collection date, collector, cata-
vicewide review; and logue number, eminent figure and organi-
• Needs that are beyond what individual zation, and state. The Web Catalog pro-
permit coordinators, permittees, curators, vides images of specimens, but does not
and repositories can do either separately include locality data, which parks must
or together, such as changes to statutory, protect and release on a case-by-case basis.
regulatory, policy, or procedural guidance, Additional data fields are under consider-
and servicewide training programs. ation.
The discussion produced the following • Improve coordination between the park
suggestions. curator and permit coordinator by identi-
fying the curator in the Research Permit
Improve communication and information and Reporting System (RPRS) and having
access through software changes: RPRS send an automated message to the
• Facilitate export and import of data curator when an applicant proposes to col-
between the Automated National Catalog lect specimens that will be retained. Note:
System (ANCS+) and NPSpecies, the A RPRS work group also recommended
NPS flora and fauna database. Consider this modification. The recommendation is
inclusion of ANCS+ data in the NPS data- being implemented; the software now dis-
base-organizing program Synthesis. Note: plays the park curator’s e-mail address on
the park research coordinator’s home
424
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

page, includes the curator’s e-mail address port and facilitate coordination with non-
in park information provided to research NPS partners in the museum community.
applicants, and triggers an automated mes-
sage to the park curator when an investiga- Augment central NPS staffing to guide NPS
tor submits an application proposing a natural history collections management:
non-NPS repository for collected speci- • Provide curatorial support at the inventory
mens. and monitoring network level.
• Modify RPRS to allow identification of all • Establish a servicewide curator in natural
project personnel, including those who history. Note: The museum management
collect specimens. Note: Currently, RPRS and inventory and monitoring programs
allows identification of one principal jointly have established a position to be
investigator and unlimited numbers of co- filled in 2003.
investigators. The system does not allow
multiple principal investigators for two Facilitate partnership arrangements:
reasons: NPS needs to identify a single • Establish a generic cooperative agreement
responsible research official, and the prin- for parks, networks, regions, and
cipal investigator is a key link to other Washington to use in establishing relation-
fields in the database. ships with one or more non-NPS reposito-
• Improve guidance on the researcher’s col- ries. Note: A draft is under review.
lections management responsibilities. • Seek recurring funding to support non-
Develop an instructional CD-ROM to NPS repositories managing park collec-
explain the step-by-step process for tions.
researchers to meet collections manage- • Place NPS curators at partner repositories.
ment requirements, including working
with the park curator and research coordi- Clarify, update, and disseminate guidance
nator, completing repository agreements for NPS specimen acquisition and manage-
and other requirements in RPRS, prepar- ment:
ing specimens, and exporting or entering • Consider whether the significance of a
ANCS+ data. Modify RPRS to prompt specimen should factor into a park’s deci-
permit applicants to supply required col- sion to acquire it.
lections-related information. In order to • Update the NPS Museum Handbook,
facilitate tracking of specimens, consider Appendix H, Natural History, to include
assigning an accession number to each new or revised guidance on managing
permit for specimens to be retained. Note: DNA and tissue samples, tracking con-
Modifications to include researcher sumption of specimens, and researcher
prompts in the online RPRS process have submission of resource management
been made and the suggestion regarding records or archival copies. Note: These
the accession number is under considera- updates will occur after the museum man-
tion. A distance-learning program is also agement program fills the natural history
under consideration. curator position (see above).
• Respond to repository requests for NPS to
Increase communication among key players convey ownership of specimens.
in permitting and collections management: • Update the taxonomic classification sys-
• Involve park curators at the earliest stages tem (hierarchical classification outline) in
in processing applications that involve col- ANCS+. Note: This update will occur
lecting specimens for permanent reten- after the museum management program
tion. fills the natural history curator position.
• Ask NPS regional and support office cura-
tors to provide park curators and research Make quality improvements to manage-
coordinators with increased technical sup- ment:
425
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

• Consider establishing a servicewide annu- consideration.

al report on repository loans and agree- • Identify funding within the inventory and
ments by collecting this information from monitoring program to compensate per-
parks. mittees who provide collecting and collec-
• Consider adopting protocols for peer tions management services to parks in con-
review of permit applications and study junction with their own independent
proposals. research.
• Consider developing databases equivalent
to NPSpecies for geological and paleonto- Workshop members offered a wealth of
logical resources. ideas for parks, networks, and servicewide
• Provide centralized reference to park-spe- programs to consider. Many of the recommen-
cific and project-specific permit condi- dations pertain to enhancements to ser-
tions. vicewide automated systems and guidance
• Provide training to park and network staff coordinated by the museum management pro-
on collecting and collections management gram and inventory and monitoring program
procedures. Note: The programs that of the Natural Resource Information Division.
manage RPRS and ANCS+ provide train- The programs have these recommendations
ing throughout NPS when introducing for consideration, as appropriate, in planning.
new systems or modifications. A distance-
learning program on permitting and col-
lecting natural history specimens is under

426
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

What’s in the Pipeline for

Natural History Collecting and Collections?
Ann Hitchcock, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW (2251), Washington, D.C., 20240;
ann_hitchcock@nps.gov
John G. Dennis, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW (2320), Washington, D.C., 20240;
john_dennis@nps.gov

A sea change is occurring in National Park Service (NPS) natural history collecting and col-
lections management. The recent advent of the Natural Resource Challenge initiative has already
stimulated changes in the permitting process. Several new developments are in the pipeline and
more will come in the future.
The web-based Research Permit and multiple park collections at non-NPS partner
Reporting System has revolutionized the sci- repositories. NPS use of this generic agree-
entific research and collecting permitting ment could facilitate efforts to compensate
process. It standardized permitting across all and assist cooperating repositories when they
parks and is helping park research coordina- provide collections management services.
tors, park curators, researchers, and reposito- Consolidation of park collections into region-
ries to improve their coordination of permit- ally focused repositories can facilitate scientif-
ting, collecting, and collections management ic research, collections management, access
activities. Drawing from experiences gained for resource management purposes, and
during the two years in which the system has administrative coordination. Streamlined and
been in operation, an advisory group of users automated inventory procedures, such as
has identified a number of desirable changes, those available to NPS centers that manage
such as automated messaging to notify a cura- multiple park collections, are now also avail-
tor of a new permit application to collect and able to non-NPS repositories with similar
retain specimens, software prompts remind- functions.
ing applicants to get a signed agreement from Researchers must enter plant and animal
a proposed repository, and expanding the species data for the inventory and monitoring
software to allow applicants to propose multi- initiative in the NPSpecies database. To
ple repositories for collections made under a streamline the cataloguing of inventory and
single permit. The Natural Resource monitoring specimens and avoid duplicate
Information Division expects to issue these data entry, the NPSpecies developers are
enhancements in 2003. designing a function to readily export data
The wealth of existing and anticipated from NPSpecies to the Automated National
future collections, the dispersed distribution Catalog System (ANCS+) database. This new
of those collections throughout the world, the function will complement existing ANCS+
need to improve our knowledge of the infor- capabilities to export data to NPSpecies and
mation represented by those collections, and to import data from Microsoft Access or Excel
the importance of improving the retrievability files into ANCS+ when the Access or Excel
and conservation of those collections call for files are arranged according to simple proto-
creating partnerships and cooperative funding cols, such as making the catalogue number
arrangements, for no one entity can do it all. field the first field in the database and ensur-
New tools to facilitate coordination with non- ing the researcher’s field names exactly match
NPS repositories managing park collections the import/export format that the park curator
are, or soon will be, available. A model gener- uses.
ic agreement will be issued for parks, net- Using the NPS Web Catalog, introduced
works, and the Washington office to consider in 2002, the parks can make recently collected
using when coordinating the management of and catalogued specimen data and images
427
 Current Topics in Natural History Collecting and Collections

immediately available for public use. hire a natural history curator in 2003.
Researchers in a network can use the Web These new developments, in the pipeline
Catalog to inform colleagues of specimens col- for 2003 and beyond, are some of the steps
lected. The data then are available for other being taken to meet the needs of scientific,
web-based union catalogues to access and museum, and park communities in managing
use. For an example, see the John Day Fossil and accessing NPS specimens and their asso-
Beds National Monument collections on the ciated data for research and education. The
Web Catalog at www.museum.nps.gov/joda/ National Park Service and partner organiza-
page.htm. Although over 50 parks have com- tion experiences reported in the case studies
mitted to post data on the Web Catalog, only and contributed papers offer a number of dif-
13 have made their data available thus far. As ferent models for park collections manage-
more parks take advantage of this opportunity, ment. The NPS workshop report highlights
the electronic accessibility and benefit of NPS the kinds of changes that park research coor-
collections to science and the public will dinators and curators think could improve the
increase. collecting, use, and management of park sci-
Needed revisions to the NPS Museum entific specimens. Our goal is to use the infor-
Handbook, Part II, Appendix H, Natural mation from these case studies and papers and
History, including the taxonomic classifica- the workshop discussion to encourage all
tion system and the hierarchical classification partners to adopt best practices that are effec-
outline, will follow once the partnership of the tive in managing park collections while opti-
museum management program and the inven- mizing their benefit to science and society.
tory and monitoring program fulfills its goal to

428