INTERPRETATION

Spring 1990

Partnerships in Interpretation

Warren Bielenberg
Annie Brittin
Douglas L Caldwell
Gary Candelaria
Bruce Craig
Linda Finn
Patricia Gillespie
Robert Huggins
Marti Leicester
Dolores Mescher
Gary W Mullins
George E Price, Jr
James M Ridenour
John W Tyler
Mary Vavra
Michael D Watson
Al Working

I was pleased to learn that the spring issue of Interpretation would
deal with partnerships. As I'm sure most of you know I'm all for
such efforts! We need to reach out to those who are interested in
helping us; both because we can use the help and because it
strengthens the support and commitment of those who get in-
volved. We need to appreciate that good partnerships are never
one-sided; they are cooperative alliances with benefits, both tangi-
ble and intangible, for all those involved.

The assistance that comes from partnerships will likely take many forms-
some will be "old" and very familiar; others "new" and well want to try
them out. Some of the lands of partnerships we are or will be involved with
include volunteerism, cooperative research and resource management ac-
tivities, educational and interpretative efforts, and fundraising.
While this list may seem somewhat "routine," I am continually im-
pressed with the creativity and diversity of individual projects.

I am aware that there are those who have wondered what business it is
of the National Park Service, or any Federal agency, to encourage assis-
tance from others outside the Federal government. They ask, "Why don't
we, or why shouldn't we, get all the funds we need from the appropria-
tions process?" The practical answer to that is, "we never have and
probably never will." I don't know of any agency that has ever gotten all
the funding it would like. I would also suggest that we may not really
even want to. As we all know, throughout the Service's history, the pri-
vate sector has long and, I believe, appropriately played an enormous role.
Over the years, weVe received gifts of lands, materials, services, historic ob-
jects, and, of course, funds. The list is almost endless, and its value in
helping us to carry out the mission of the Service is immeasurable.

I think the question is not "whether we should be involved in part-
nerships, " but rather, "where do we go from here. " Basically, to
borrow a line from President Bush, we're going to "stay the course"
and then some. We're going to continue to facilitate and assist
those interested in helping us; frankly, I really don't see how we
could do otherwise. And, as far as I'm concerned, we're also going
to increase partnerships when and where possible.

Obviously, we need to see that these partnerships are handled in an
"above board" manner. That means we need to be>sure that these ac-
tivities are consistent with Park Service, and all other relevant pol-
icy and regulations. I can't stress enough how important it is that
we "dot all the 'i's and cross all the Vs." In those situations where
you may have doubts as to what should be done, seek appropriate
counsel.

The role that the private sector has played in assisting the Service
is an essential one. It's a role I want to see us continue and con-
tinue to expand.

James M Ridenour

Director, National Park Service

Regional Information
Survey

Alaska

Pacific
Northwest

Midwest

Wo have an ongoing interagency agree-
ment to operate two major interpretive
centers in Alaska. The policy committee
consists of eight separate agencies three
state and five Federal. We are the operat-
ing agency for two of the three Alaska
Public Land Information Centers.

We have a cooperative agreement with
the Alaska Native Brotherhood Camp #1
to operate a Southeast Alaska Indian Cul-
tural Center. The purpose of the Center
is to "provide an understanding and ap-
preciation for the rich cultural neritage of
the Tlingit people and other Indians of
Southeast Alaska."

We signed a cooperative agreement with
the SeAlaska Heritage Foundation to pro-
duce a ceremonial Tlingit canoe at Glacier
Bay National Park ana Preserve. This
agreement included interpretive services
by Tlingit elders.

I hope these examples will he useful to
you. Call Glenn Clark if you have ques-
tions.

Regional Director Charles H Odegaard an-
nounced the new Chief of Interpretation
and Visitor Services at the Regional
Superintendent's Conference in Spokane,
WA, April 24-26, 1990. Charles W Mayo
from Jefferson National Expansion Memo-
rial will fill the vacant position arriving in
Seattle in June. "Corky" has directed the
interpretive program at the Gateway
Arch in St Louis for the past two years.

In other news, Interpretive Management
Trainee Scott Shane is completing his
training program with an assignment to
Klondike Gold Rush NHP. Scott will be
available for GS-9 interpretive positions at
the end of this program. This two-year
training opportunity will again be avail-
able. At Fort Clatsop, the Fort Clatsop His-
torical Association has raised $600,000 _
towards the construction of the park visi-
tor center. In Tacoma, WA, Mount Rainier
NP, the US Forest Service, and several
other organizations combined their efforts
to observe Earth Day.

This column has often reported updates on
the challenges of designing, writing, field
testing, printing, and distributing the Bio-
logical Diversity Curriculum. There were
delays but we did not want to sacrifice
quality for a speedy completion date. Now
the project is finished. Every permanent
NFS Interpreter should have received
their personal copy of the book. At the Re-
gion V NAI Workshop, the Curriculum
was presented to 45 Field Interpreters who
eagerly embraced the concepts and ap-
proach. Workshops to introduce school
teachers to the Curriculum have been con-
ducted at Voyageurs NP and other areas. '

Many groups contributed to turning this
educational idea into reality: the Minne-
sota Environmental Education Board,
the National Parks and Conservation As-
sociation, Eastern National Parks and
Monuments Association, the Parks Pass-
port Fund, Voyageurs NP, Indiana
Dunes NL, the Midwest Regional Office,
and others. The end product was well-
worth the wait, but not if it gathers dust
on a shelf.

Western

Rocky
Mountain

Southwest

The Western Regional Office is planning
a course entitled "Managing For Biologi-
cal Diversity." It will beheld in San Fran-
cisco, September 10-14, 1990. This
course is intended to provide field area
staff with the most current information
on conservation biology and the manag-
ing of biological diversity of National
Parks areas. Various aspects of manage-
ment, research, resource management,
and public interpretation/education will
be covered. Potential topics will include;
basic biogeochemical cycles, speciation
and evolution, management of threatened
and endangered species, the impacts _of
alien species, global climate, monitoring,
restoration ecology, the role of natural
corridors, urban wildlife, migratory birds,
island biogeography, the role of interpre-
tation/education. For further information
please contact Regional Chief of Interpre-
tation Dick Cunningham, (415J 656-3184.

Trumpeting our emphasis on "partner-
ships brings back memories for some of
us of the "Year of the Visitor." The titles
suggest that last year, we cared little for
visitors, and whew, next year, we'll not be
bothered by partners! The theme-of-the-
year approach is a healthy reminder
mechanism, nonetheless. Though at
times underused, "partnerships are a
permanent tool in our managerial kit.

Very pleasant experiences early in the
history of Rocky Mountain Region Skills
Courses taught us the value of inviting
our "partners" from concessions, cooperat-
ing associations, the Forest Service, and
various states to attend. The Skills Team
now has a policy of reserving at least ten
percent of the seats in each course for
non-NiPS participants. The result is a
term which has been much overused for
the last decade "synergism." Overused,
perhaps, but try finding another world
which means the same thing ... unless,
perhaps, it's "partnerships."

Wapatki-Sunset Crater was recently
blessed with research directed by Dr Rob-
ert T Trotter II, professor of anthropology
at Northern Arizona University. Aided by
a grant from the university, Dr Trotter
conducted an ethnological study of visitor
behavior. The project involved several stu-
dents, in addition to Dr Trotter, who un-
obtrusively observed and recorded visitor
behavior and conducted visitor inter-
views. This was complemented by photo-
graph of visitor use, which revealed
distinctive patterns of behavior how visi-
tors responded to (or failed to respond) to
regulatory signs, and patterns of use re-
garding interpretive signs and publica-
tions.

The result was a revelation to the park
staff, and a realization that there were
"services" provided that did not get used
and patterns of abuse to the archeological
resources that could be reduced by chang-
ing schedules of patrols and changing the
nature of the non-personal interpretive
materials provided. It is an approach
with application many parks.

Program Integration

Cooperating Associations and the National
Park Service A Unique Partnership

Robert Huggins

Interpretive Specialist
Michael D Watson

Chief

Division of Interpretation,

WASO

Seventy years ago, just four years after the creation of the National
Park Service, a new partnership idea was born. The idea was to
use private sector assistance to provide interpretive services to visi-
tors to the National Parks, In 1920, the Yosemite Museum Associa-
tion was formed to augment the infant budget of the National Park
Service, specifically by building a museum/contact station in the
Yosemite Valley. By 1924 the renamed Yosemite Natural History
Association had expanded its scope of responsibility to offer printed

Interpretation

The cover photo, provided by Golden
Gate National Recreation Area, depicts a
children's mask making workshop held by
the Fort Mason Art Center, one of the
park's partners in San Francisco.

interpretive materials to the visitors. The printed material offered
was not made in an effort to make mega-bucks, but because it was
the only way that site-specific publications could be made available
to the public. Trade publishers were not interested in introducing
materials for such a limited audience; and the Government Print-
ing Office, as it is today, was backlogged with other priorities.

What a simple and unselfish partnership concept! Produce qual-
ity site-specific educational materials; offer these materials to the
public at a reasonable price that allows one to recoup the cost
while building a cash base to offer more materials in a not-for-
profit environment. Sounds like an idealistic concept that could
never work in the highly capitalistic and materialistic world of the
1920s.

But the concept worked and even grew despite the great stock mar-
ket crash, the Depression, World War II, the visitation surge of the
1950s, and Korea and Vietnam. It survived the gas embargo, reces-
sions, budget cuts, and all of those things that could have spelled
disaster for this unique partnership called National Park Cooperat-
ing Associations unique, because no other government agency
had this relationship with such a dedicated group of private sector
individuals. It survived as a grass roots movement where people
providing a needed service to people was the basic ingredient for
success. Sure, we have measured success with other mileposts- do-
nations to the National Park Service; gross sales; number of titles-
major projects, and so on. There is nothing inherently wrong with
those measurements of success as long as we do not lose sight of
our primary purpose for the partnership ... to provide a service
which the government could not otherwise provide, to the visitors
to our National Parks.

In the 1920s when the Yosemite Museum Association built its mu-
seum in the valley, it was not constructed as a monument to a coop-
erating association, but rather as a gift to all of those who shared
in their love for a particular National Park. We must never lose
sight of our roots. The long term partnership between the Na-
tional Park Service and National Park Cooperating Associations ex-
emplifies the best of such arrangements/ wuaraons ex

.

Partners In Research

Mary Vavra
Dolores Mcscher

Outdoor Recreation Planners
Mid-Atlantic Region

How many times have you expressed concern over your inabilitv to
get something accomplished whether it's because of hmita?fon s in

trn 'fl r Staff? A1 - mOSt evei ^ 0ne has experienc~eTu
F K,l many Pn0ntieS Snd a Shorfca ^ e of resources.
*aced with the management decision of how to undertake the

Interpretation

organization would not only benefit from the research being pro-
vided, but students would have a range of interesting topics to
choose from.

In 1983 Jim Coleman acted on his idea by creating "Partners In Re-
search," a direct and unique method of capturing the knowledge
and expertise of the private sector, specifically the graduate pro-
grams of universities.

Partners In Research is a program designed to encourage do-
nated research time in exchange for the opportunity to work on
an interesting research project that is needed by the National
Park Service. The research is often undertaken in the park
which provides a laboratory setting that can be most rewarding.
Parks seeking donated research time routinely provide the re-
searcher with clerical assistance and the use of office space.
Major undertakings require more incentives to entice the poten-
tial researcher. Assateague Island National Seashore,
Gettysburg National Military Park, and Shenandoah National
Park have provided free living quarters and the use of a park ve-
hicle for the researchers who must sometimes spend months in
the parks working on their projects. Creative approaches are
being employed to provide tangible assistance to a researcher do-
nating his/her time.

To sell the partnership concept, a catalog and a marketing strategy
are employed to reach a specifically targeted audience. The
catalog's attractive format identifies natural, cultural, social sci-
ence, and park support research projects in the 26 Mid-Atlantic
parks. The marketing approach is designed to reach all the appro-
priate departments of universities in the region, as well as
organizations that may have an interest in National Park Service
research initiatives. The catalog is distributed to more than five
hundred university departments and organizations in September
and January of each year, just in time for the new academic semes-
ters. News releases and notices of publication are sent to major
professional magazines; direct advertisements are placed in stu-
dent newspapers, university newspapers, and alumni publications,
In addition, superintendents are urged to visit the educational in-
stitutions in their areas with copies of the Partners In Research
catalog in hand to gain the respect and credibility that often re-
sults from a personal approach.

There is great variety and scope in what is being accomplished
through Partners In Research. More than 145 research projects
have been directly attributed to this program. At Assateague Na-
tional Seashore researchers are studying the effects of visitors and
wild ponies on the beaches and salt marshes. Erosion, water pollu-
tion and water quality are under study at New River Gorge
National River and at Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational
River. The Jamestown and Yorktown collections of artifacts are
being organized, documented and catalogued at Colonial National
Historic Park. A major study of air pollution and its effects on the
environment is underway at Shenandoah National Park.

A number of unforeseen benefits have occurred as well. Relation-
ships with educational institutions are flourishing where the
Partners In Research catalog is most used. The University of Mary
land - Eastern Shore offers undergraduate credit courses related t(

Interpretation

Assateague National Seashore research. Volunteer interns work on
various projects at Colonial National Historical Park, which has a
long-standing relationship with the College of William and Mary.
Shenandoah National Park has cultivated an excellent relation-
ship with Pennsylvania State University and Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and University. University officials are beginning to tele-
phone the parks and the regional office about possible collaborative
research projects.

Partners In Research has become an excellent public relations
tool. The partnerships begun with the first catalog in 1983 are
now firmly established. The hard work that went into pursuing a
very good idea is paying off in partnerships whose limits are yet to
be defined.

NPS Friends Groups:
Our Growing Partnerships

Patricia Gillespie

Outdoor Recreation Planner
Mid-Atlantic Region

The Wall Street Journal carried an article by Peter Drucker, Pro-
fessor of Social Sciences at the Claremont Graduate School, on Sep-
tember 8, 1988, where he described the growth of a major
American economic force which he calls the "Third Sector," compris-
ing non-profit, non-governmental community-based groups which
support services. According to Mr. Drucker:

Government has become too big, too complex, too remote for each cit-
izen actively to participate in it. Yet we no longer believe... that
community tasks cannay, shouldbe, left to government. As a vol-
unteer the individual can again find active, effective citizenship,
can again make a difference, can again exercise control. This a
uniquely American achievement: it may well be America's most im-
portant contribution today.

Today, more than ninety citizen groups located all over the coun-
try are committed to supporting the mission and a variety of
functions of the National Park Service and individual park
units. These groups are respectfully referred to as "friends
groups," and their numbers are growing. Each month we hear
from parks or private individuals who are interested in starting
a friends group or revitalizing an existing one. To distinguish
among other types of NPS support organizations, like historical
societies, cooperating associations, and civic groups, an NPS
friends group is defined as a non-profit organization formed for
the primary purpose of supporting the mission of a park unit,
several units, or the entire National Park System. (Please refer
to the August 1987 Courier for a complete discussion on friends
groups in NPS.) It is not necessary, however, for the organiza-
tion to have the word "friends" in its title.

As we enter the 1990s, we are recognizing that this trend will only
continue, and we must prepare ourselves, through skill develop-
ment and strategic planning, to creatively and productively work
in partnership with friends groups toward our common goals.

While no two friends groups are alike, there are several areas
where they primarily choose to focus their energy: to provide public

Interpretation

input into a park's planning efforts, both short and long range; to
fundraise for park projects; to volunteer time to work on service
projects; to perform research; and to serve as the park's formal con-
stituency group, promoting the mission of the park to others.

Much has been written on how to start and operate non-profit orga-
nizations and friends groups. These articles are filled with
techniques and guidelines which provide good points of reference
depending on which stage of development your group is in. In addi-
tion to these more standard "how to" approaches, I offer you a list
of ideas, insights, and expectations to help you understand and
plan for your park personnel's involvement and partnership with
existing or future friends groups and ways to give your friends
group a boost.

The following tips were gathered from discussions with park per-
sonnel as they described their successes and failures in working
with friends organizations. I urge each of you to pay close attention
to them, because they represent the most common lessons learned
and experiences by park personnel who were once in your shoes
and will probably be there again:

I never thought that working with a friends group would
take this much time. Well, now you know. It does. Park manag-
ers and supervisors must recognize that park personnel will be
called upon, in varying degrees, to work with the friends group.
Park personnel efforts in working with friends groups frequently
go unnoticed or are not recognized to the extent which is meaning-
ful to the employee. If this goes on too long, then the employee will
view this work as a burden and an obstacle to carrying out other re-
sponsibilities which are personally more meaningful and provide
for more recognition. Superintendents and supervisors should an-
ticipate, plan for and acknowledge that energy and time demands
generated by friends group work will impact park personnel and
must be accommodated and recognized.

I don't understand why the superintendent spends so much
time with the friends group. Statements like this are more com-
mon than park superintendents and managers may think. Behind
these statements are well-meaning, dedicated park personnel who
need to have opportunities to provide meaningful input and share
their creative ideas on how the park and friends group can work to-
gether in partnership.

We never seem to make progress. Everything is a priority.

This commonly expressed concern usually leads to the realization
that the organization must enter into a re-evaluation stage where
the group's mission or purpose is either reviewed for its reasonable-
ness, or perhaps the group needs to create one for the first time.
Often times a group's energies are dispersed onto too many pro-
jects without an agreed upon mission and priorities, and truly
nothing gets accomplished except for membership burn-out and
drop-out. One of the most frequently repeated mistakes is to de-
velop goals which are too lofty and unrealistic for the group to
reach. Do not fill your plate too full. Choose projects that are quick
and easy to accomplish, and which provide for high visibility. Pub-
licly announce and celebrate your successes. This will create
credibility for the group, attract new members and increase motiva-
tion and group morale. Everyone likes a success.

Interpretation

Is your board too busy? It's never too late to create a "working"
group of individuals who are committed to performing the group's
tasks for an agreed upon period of time, e.g., six months, one year.
loo often, the board of directors are expected to perform the "leg
work" of the group, and in reality, do not have the time because of
higher priority commitments. As a general rule, keep the working
group to a manageable size of four to seven individuals, recogniz-
ing that if this group grows larger, the tasks will still be
accomplished by a few dedicated individuals.

Who should we put on the board? Carefully select a board of di-
rectors which will create a presence for the group in the
community. The individuals should possess personal and profes-
sional qualities which complement the mission of the group and
the park unit. They should also represent interests and skills
which support the goals of the organization, e.g., if the group's goal
is to fundraise, then the board should have fundraising, marketing
corporate and legal representation; if the goal is volunteering, then
select individuals with human resource skills and who possess
strong community-group ties.

We have to increase our membership! Not so fast! Perhaps the
reason you are losing membership is because you have not been
able to nurture and sustain their support through promotions, spe-
cial recognitions and meaningful participation in the group's
operations. You must correct that problem before you recruit more
memberships and lose them, too. Once a person chooses not to
renew, it s hard to recruit them again. Or, maybe you really don't
need a large membership to accomplish your goals, but rather a
core group of dedicated individuals who can accomplish the tasks
of the organization For instance, if fundraising is your main goal
your energies should be directed on running a fundraising cam-
paign, not ways to increase membership.

9 V S?M h ^ ^. St time y ur mem bers were publicly recog-

? While dedicated volunteers may appear to have an endless
supply of energy, don't let it fool you. Everyone needs to be recog-
nized for their contributions in ways which are meaningful to
them. While public recognition in local papers, magazine articles
and public ceremonies with VIP participation is essential, ask the
person what forms of recognition would be most meaningful then
do it over and over again. Park superintendents should plav a lead-
ing role in this. * J

We in the National Park Service, understand and welcome
the fact that organized citizen organizations, such as friends
groups, are an increasing trend and are here to stay As part
of our management planning process and daily operations we
must provide for their involvement and support. Just as im-
portant, we must recognize that park personnel at all levels
need exposure to and involvement with friends groups to fos
ter increased communication, mutual understanding and
organizational acceptance of the park's partnership with the
friends group. As park personnel increase their involvement
with friends groups, both parties will enjoy a richer more fer
tile exchange of ideas and a stronger commitment to combine
talents to work toward common goals.

Interpretation

Partnership: Interpretation At Mesa Verde

Douglas L Caldwell

Interpretive Specialist
Rocky Mountain Region

Mesa Verde National Park, established by Congress in 1906, is one of
the oldest of our national parks, and enjoys the distinction as the first
national park set aside to preserve the works of man. Often referred to
as the flagship of the Park Service's archeological areas, Mesa Verde
has been designated by the United Nations as a World Heritage Site.

Although cowboys and archeologists, Americans and Europeans,
and amateurs and professionals have dug, poked, prodded, and
snooped through the amazingly well preserved villages of the An-
asazi (the Ancient Ones) for a hundred years, Mesa Verde still
evokes an aura of mystery and wonder. And, from its earliest days
as a national park, efforts were made to accommodate the visitor's
basic needs for food, lodging, and transportation.

The Early Days

These earliest efforts were rather primitive by today's standards ar-
duous wagon and horseback rides to the park, and a log cabin or tent
for shelter. The quality of the meals varied greatly depending upon
the cook and diner. Perhaps the kindest thing that can be said is that
the accommodations wouldn't have merited a five-star rating.

Despite the hardships in reaching the park no roads led to south-
western Colorado in those early days, only a rail line from Denver
to the nearby farming and ranching community of Mancos peo-
ple still came to see the fabled cliff dwellings of a "vanished
civilization." Slowly and with fits and starts, the park's physical
plant evolved. A museum and other public buildings were erected,
as the more readily accessible and spectacular mesa top and cliff
dwellings were excavated, stabilized, and opened for public viewing.

Interpretive Developments

Until the arrival of Jesse Nusbaum as park superintendent in
1921, the business of guiding visitors through the ruins was un-
even. Under Nusbaum, three approaches were devised to remedy
the situation: 1) a specially trained cadre of rangers was selected to
conduct all visitors to and through the major ruins; 2) the park mu-
seum and its related programs were improved and expanded; and
3) informal evening campfire talks were given by the superinten-
dent and rangers on the work of the National Park Service and the
prehistoric cultures of the American Southwest.

Caravans in which visitors drove their own vehicles were guided by
rangers or official guides on interpretive trips, Both the seasonal
rangers and guides were selected and trained by the superintendent.
These auto caravans were so popular that they were adopted by Yo-
semite, Yellowstone, Sequoia, and Grand Canyon National Parks.

The Mesa Verde Museum Association was founded in 1930 and by
1937, was designated as a cooperating scientific and historical associ
tion. With this latter development, the four elements of the park's
interpretive program museum, guided tours, campground talks,
and the museum association were in place, the same four elements
which constitute the core of the park's interpretive program today.

Interpretation

The Concessioner's Role

Today's visitor to Mesa Verde will find basic interpretive services
with origins reaching back into 1930s and earlier. At some point or
other, the concessioner has provided, and continues to provide in-
terpretive services. In 1915, for example, the lodge concessioner
persuaded Dr Jesse Fewkes to present campfire talks on his exca-
vation of Sun Temple. Given in the evenings in front of the lodge
building, the talks were attended by twenty to thirty people.

Over the years, other services were initiated such as guided bus
tours of the park, tours which continue to this day. The conces-
sioner, ARA Mesa Verde, cooperates with the park in taking
visitors to the archeological museum and the major cliff dwellings
on Chapm Mesa (Spruce Tree House, Cliff Palace, and Balcony
House). The concessioner guide doesn't lead visitors through these
rS?j bu ! i 1 ! eaves the interpretation up to rangers on duty in the
cliff dwellings. However, the concessioner guide conducts visitors
through various mesa top sites where rangers are not on duty.

Critics point out that visitors end up paying additional fees to
see park features that are available at no additional cost beyond
the park entrance fee. While this may be true, we should remem-
ber that many visitors do not enjoy driving their own vehicles in
a new setting, either because of an uneasiness with road condi-
tions or a desire to "rubberneck" as much as possible. They can
sit back, relax, and not worry with reading maps and brochures
on the park s archeology. And most important of all, they have
that interaction with another person that is desired by so many
people. J

Tours offer another advantage in that they reduce the number of pri-
vate vehicles on park roads-a boon to visitor and park manager
alike On Wetherill Mesa, the concessioner provides mini-train ser-
vice to a series of mesa top village ruins and to one cliff dwelling
Visitors can park their cars in one spot for the entire time spent in
the southwest comer of the park. Not only are there no cars intruding
upon the prehistoric scene, but noise and air pollution are minimized
ARA also provides an opportunity for visitors to learn about the An-
asazi culture and the park with several teaching devices available

TS" 1 ^ w Pe ? P erations - ^^ visitors ar nve in their rooms
at the Far View Lodge, they have an attractively designed informa-
tion brochure waiting on the writing desk that contains basic
information on the park, the Anasazi Indians, and the services
available from the concessioner.

Visitors patronizing the Lodge's dining room receive further interpre-
tation from the menu. A brief paragraph on the menu reminds diners
that several items from the kitchen were also available to the An-
asazi. Such foods as corn, squash, beans, rabbit, turkey, and trout
have been identified by archeologists as components of the ancient
Indians' diet. Although contemporary recipes undoubtedly differ from
those used in prehistoric times, the menu heightens visitor apprecia-
tion and understanding of Anasazi foods, an appreciation that is
reinforced by the tastes and smells of the dining room.

The concessioner also offers for a fee two slide programs at the
Lodge, one on the Anasazi culture, and the other on contemporarv
Native Americans in the Four Comers region. The programs were de

Interpretation

signed not to duplicate Park Service audio-visual offerings, but instead,
to augment the number of interpretive experiences for the visitor.

Visitors also obtain a greater appreciation for the aesthetics and
skills that go into Native American crafts through the high quality
items that are sold by the concessioner. Pottery, jewelry, rugs, and
other traditional and contemporary craft items represent the vari-
ous Pueblo peoples who live in nearby New Mexico and Arizona,
and who claim cultural and physical descendence from the An-
asazi. A Navajo rug weaver demonstrates her traditional craft in
the Far View Gift Shop during the summer months to captivated
audiences of both children and adults.

This past year, ARA commissioned four large wall murals for the
eating area in the Morefield Campground Snack Bar. Each mural
depicts a developmental stage in the Anasazi culture The
Basketmakers (AD 1-AD 550), The Modified Baaketmakers (AD
550-AD 750), The Developmental Pueblo (AD 750-AD 1100), and
The Great Pueblo Period (AD 1100-AD 1300). Thus, a rather non-
descript eating plaza has been brightened by colorful murals that
reinforce park efforts to educate visitors about the pre-Columbian
culture that existed on the mesa.

During the 1989 season, ARA donations to the park kept the Far
View Visitor Center open for a month longer than would have been
possible with appropriated funds. This enabled the Mesa Verde
staff to be more responsive to visitor needs by providing interpre-
tive services and exhibits longer into the fall shoulder season.
Increasingly longer visitor seasons are making it more difficult for
parks to maintain full interpretive services with current restrictive
budgets, and this willingness by ARA to underwrite these costs re-
flects the concessioner's recognition of the importance of
interpretation to the visitor.

This Mesa Verde/ARA cooperation shows no signs of abating. ARA
has developed information guides and training manuals for its
cadre of bus drivers/guides. Park employees periodically monitor
concessioner employees for accuracy of information, and ARA em-
ployees are encouraged to attend orientation training for park sea-
sonals. Accuracy and consistency in the information provided to
the visitor is a primary motivator in all of this, and by pursuing
this goal, the park visitor comes out the winner!

Partnerships for AV Programs

Warren Bielenberg

Chief of Interpretation
Midwest Region

In 1983, the National Park Service working through private audiovi-
sual producer Ron McCann, had an informal agreement with the
InterNorth Corporation to produce new sound and slide programs for
16 NPS areas. When InterNorth moved its corporate headquarters
from Omaha in 1985, the programs languished because McCann's
funding ended. Ron McCann, working as a Volunteer in Parks for
Midwest Region, has sought new corporate sponsors for AV progra
production. In recent months new corporate sponsors have been
found and AV programs are again being provided to NPS areas.

In December, 1988, the NPS signed a five year-agreement with 1
tual of Omaha to develop and maintain audiovisual programs in

Interpretation

selected NFS sites. The McCann Group and its production com-
pany, Point of Light Productions, is developing a new sound and
slide program for Sugarlands Visitor Center in Great Smoky Moun-
tains National Park. In July, 1989, the NFS signed a five-year
agreement with Phillips Petroleum Company to provide audiovi-
sual programs in selected NFS areas. This year the McCann Group
is updating the old InterNorth programs at eight NFS sites and is
developing a new program for Padre Islands National Seashore.

The Midwest Region has been working closely with HFC, the corpo-
rate sponsors and the contractor to minimize problems that existed
with the InterNorth programs. Maintenance of the Apollo dissolve
units and replacement of slides were major concerns of parks with
U e Ami y Int , erNorth Programs. The formal agreements between
the NFS and the corporations provide funding for a program's ini-
tial development, program maintenance and replacement slides
periodic updates and the AV equipment to operate the show for a
five year period. All new programs produced under these agree-
ments will be compatible with Harpers Ferry AV Depot equipment
and will include a video taped version for easy off-site use.

The Midwest Region has initiated a subagreement with each bene-
fiting park to insure they will work with the contractor in
developing the program, to use the program for five years and to re-
train trom substituting or borrowing slides from the program
without permission of the sponsor and contractor. Each corporation
nas produced a brochure describing their support of the NFS
through these AV programs. These brochures will be available at
participating parks.

Working in concert with HFC, the Region has developed a priority
list of parks needing new programs to present to corporate spon-
sors tor additional program development in future years To
develop the list, the Region and HFC managers reviewed the
faervicewide priorities to identify which parks need new slide pro-
grams. These parks were then contacted to explore initial
involvement with a corporate sponsored program.

With the long list of Servicewide priorities at Harpers Ferry and
the shortage of new funding, we feel this corporate sponsorship of
AV programs is an excellent means to provide parks with new au-
diovisual programs. If your park needs a new program and you
would like to become a part of our AV Partnership, please contact
Midwest Region Chief of Interpretation, Warren Bielenbere at
(402) 221-3477 or FTS 864-3477. ^noerg, at

Built To Last:

Golden Gate National Recreation Area And
The Fort Mason Center

Marti Leicester

Chief of Interpretation
Golden Gate National
Eecreation Area

to

Just a few days after the October earthquake in San Francisco
public notices were posted throughout the city. Titled "Built to '
Last," the notices announced that the Fort Mason Center had sur-
vived the quake with only minor damage and was open as usual for
community activities. As an example of partnership between the

Interpretation

federal government and a community, the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area-Fort Mason Center partnership is also truly "built
to last."

Initiated in 1977, the partnership reflects new ways to adaptively
reuse historic buildings. It also brings a non-traditional approach
to providing programs that meet the diversity of interests repre-
sented in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural urban community enriched
by visitors coming from across the country and around the world.

If you were a park ranger sent to the newly established Golden
Gate National Recreation Area in 1972, what would you have done
with Fort Mason's three deteriorating piers and three dilapidated
warehouses that totalled 375,000 square feet? What programs
would you have developed to serve millions of visitors speaking
every language and representing every culture, every age and
every economic background? What would have been your choices
based on an extremely tight budget? Given the sheer numbers of
visitors and the hundreds of buildings that were the new responsi-
bility of GGNRA, the future seemed exciting but somewhat
overwhelming. Park staff began the exhilarating but risky process
of developing a new approach to park management. Their task was
to create the future at Fort Mason but they decided to do it by
building on the colorful history that was Fort Mason's past.

History Of Fort Mason

Fort Mason as a military base dates back to 1776 when the Spanish
first arrived on the shores of the San Francisco Bay. The area re-
mained under Mexican rule until 1846 when it was given to the US
government. In 1882, Point San Jose, as it was known under Mexican
rule, was named Fort Mason after Richard Barnes Mason, first mili-
tary governor of California. Due to its location in the San Francisco
harbor, Fort Mason was used primarily as a supply depot and port of
embarkation. After the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, it served
as a refugee center. An abortive attack on Siberia was launched from
Fort Mason in 1918. Fighting men and materials shipped out of Fort
Mason to the war in the Pacific in 1941-45, and logistical support for
troops in Korea was available from Fort Mason in 1950-53.

By the early 1960s, however, Fort Mason was no longer useful as a
military base and Congress designated it for civilian use. In 1972 }
Golden Gate National Recreation Area was established and Fort
Mason officially became a part of the national park system. In
1985, the Fort was declared a National Historic Landmark.

Planning The Fort Mason Center

In order to develop the best use of the buildings and natural areas
of GGNRA, an 18 member Citizen's Advisory Commission was es-
tablished and a five year planning process took place. More than
four hundred suggestions were received for Fort Mason. In a
"swords to plowshares" transformation, the area was established
as a multi-cultural community center that could showcase the best
of San Francisco's non-profit organizations and contribute to an en-
hanced appreciation for the arts and history of the Bay Area. A
non-profit foundation was established to serve as the overall man-
aging entity for Fort Mason Center. No ranking or commanding
officer of the Spanish, Mexican, or American forces housed at Fort
Mason over the two centuries of its military past would ever have

Interpretation

believed that it would one day be the home of over 52 non-profit
groups and advocates for peace and the environment.

The Early Years

When Fort Mason Center opened its doors in 1977, nothing quite
like it had ever been tried. The National Park Service had a vari-
ety of successful but smaller cooperative programs underway in the
Washington, DC area, but this "regional" community center was a
unique endeavor for the agency.

The Center started with six resident organizations who were re-
sponsible for all interior renovations to the office spaces permitted
to them. GGNRA was responsible for all exterior maintenance,
major repairs and for working with the Fort Mason Foundation to
develop the management guidelines and policies for the Center.
During the first years of its operation, the process of creating Fort
Mason Center was the hallmark of this exciting new concept as

u 1 ^ u S!Sn actual services and Programs that it provided. At first,
both the NFS and the Fort Mason Foundation had a lot to learn:
how to encounter problems and devise solutions; how to respond to
opportunities; how to try different models for managing the Center
and adjusting them as needed. Given the originality of the concept,
the complexity of the task, and the uncertainty about how the pub '
he would respond to this new phenomenon, it was impractical to
develop a rigid plan and then follow it like a checklist.
Goals Of The Fort Mason Center

Slowly the Fort Mason Foundation and the Park Service devel-
oped the goals that still guide the Fort Mason Center today

Although Fort Mason Center is still a "work in procrP tfc

M ' SMS i'ST, 1 ? ;'" i .f a, F. rt

atrical, and environmental aSe, W Cahforma's arts, the-
busier than the year before 6ry year ls bl ^ er

Interpretation

Fort Mason Center Today

So what would you do if you spent a day at Fort Mason? The Cen-
ter offers more than 15,000 activities annually for more than one
and a half million people. Take your pick of fairs, exhibits, work-
shops, classes, and performances of all kinds - there's always
something going on.

The diversity of resident groups at the Center reflects the goal to
attract and maintain a balanced program of activities. Resident or-
ganizations include galleries, theaters, a restaurant and snack bar,
three museums, outdoor adventure organizations, a coffee house
and music center, a dance coalition, and advocacy groups for ani-
mals, rivers, oceans, and artists to name just a few. Drop in and
take a pottery class, buy folk art at the African- American or Mexi-
can Museums, take your son or daughter to a children's play,
browse your way through the annual Northern California art show
or landscape and gardening exhibition. You can end your day with
an elegant and delicious vegetarian meal overlooking the San Fran-
cisco Bay before you go on to an evening performance of a new play
or your favorite folk music.

The staff of the Fort Mason Foundation stands at 27 and the an-
nual budget is $1 million. The 300,000 square feet available for
programs are distributed among eight buildings consisting of large
and small offices, classrooms, galleries, performance areas, a Con-
ference Center, and two pier buildings that accommodate 5,000
people each. Due to the size of the Fort Mason Center and because
of its phenomenal success, the Center has attracted the attention
of officials from Japan, Australia, and Spain interested in trans-
forming old warehouses and military bases into cultural centers. In
each case, Executive Director for the Fort Mason Foundation, Marc
Kasky, has said, "We stress the value of having nonprofit organiza-
tions, as opposed to something that's government operated,"

At Fort Mason, the Federal role of supporting and nurturing a new
approach to managing cultural resources and providing public pro-
grams has been successful. The Fort Mason Foundation is now
financially self-sufficient. In 1984, a twenty-year Cooperative
Agreement was signed between the NFS and the Foundation in
order to provide a stable, long term home to hundreds of non-profit
groups and to make it possible for the Foundation to continue to
carry out major fundraising campaigns.

In 1987, the Fort Mason Foundation launched a major corporate
and foundation fundraising campaign. The foundation's successful
efforts are funding ten major projects that include creating a
30,000 square foot exhibition hall, a 70,000 square foot festival pa-
vilion, remodeling six theaters, upgrading galleries, adding a
media center with a screening room, developing outdoor patios and
landscaping, and improving handicap accessibility to all programs
and buildings.

Rules For Success

Looking back on our first attempts to develop partnerships, our
analysis indicates that most of the partnerships we have at
GGNRA began at the time of budget cutbacks during the 1970s. As
the staff ability to carry out the NFS mission decreased, it was to
the park's benefit to allow a partner to take the lead in developing

Interpretation

atS P ! ex - cr ? a ^ 1Ve public Programming. During the changes cre-
ated in the federal bureaucracy by the cutbacks, park staff had
u locus more on basic park operations than on the external pro-
grams that were the responsibility of the cooperators. The price
we paid was little recognition of the NFS role, a lack of consistent
standards, and confusion over roles and responsibilities, particu-
lany m regard to building maintenance. In the end, the fact that
we nad not done a thorough job of communicating NFS standards
co the cooperators meant it took even more work for NFS staff to
entorce those standards and a kind of landlord/tenant relationship
developed that was often adversarial. However, during the last
torn years, we have been able to solve these problems.

fiPMRA SS i!i Ul ^ a J tnership is not alwa ^ s easy and the success of the
^ 7u 0r J i 11 Foundati on partnership has meant long
I I ? ardwork f ? r both organizations. Perhaps some of the les-
sons we have learned will be useful to other parks that already

f ^ planmn to ini tiate similar partnerships. Some of our

to create successful partnerships includes:

n broad gui^ines and general divi-

learn as ^ OU S alon and Develop oper-
experience.

?ari??? a ff whn^ p 1 ' 8 . (with excellent listening skills!) on the

park Thtec, HCt A S haiso , n between the P artner and the
&S^ JT* be comf ^table with the fact that non-profit
strenih ?? , 0t ^ rnment ^eaucracies and that the
erafand thp^n Partn A rshlp rest , S on the di ^rence between the fed-
tmuin^ ^daHv?f ; P /hf PPr aCh ^ P ^ blic Service ' Encourage con-
the on g jt e ^ld sta e | ed) communica tion between the partner and

to review the

staff on - N F S ? andards and establish a

program to communicate them to the partners

Park and its partae rs
and operations manuals.

*** ** *

with press events can g s

^r <* Pfk-conmunily partnerships include improved
lelations, facilities maintenance that is not totally depen-

adan SCa !f K a ,?f ? Priated funds ' excitin S approaches to the
adaptive rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings, the ability
to expand the creativity and diversity of interpretive progt-ams

'

e NR t P ? M f S n Center P ar tnership works be-
on a plan developed with broad community partici-

Interpretation

pation, it is managed by people willing to take risks, and it meets
the true test of a partnership - everyone involved comes out a win-
ner. Add to that a beautiful and historic location and buildings
with room to accommodate almost any kind of activity and you've
got a formula for the kind of enthusiastic community support that
means success.

s

Gary W Mullins, Ph D

Associate Professor

School of Natural Resources

The Ohio State University

Partnerships ... marriage, corporate partners, partners in crime
the list continues. The latest trends in partnerships are those de-
veloping between business and education. As some sectors of the
US business economy lose ground in the world market, businesses
are looking for new avenues to revitalize its productivity. They are
turning to educational institutions. Likewise, educational institu-
tions are turning to businesses to help them revitalize their curric-
ula and to supply sorely needed funds. This symbiotic relationship
is beginning to work.

The National Park Service, though, is not languishing in the
international marketplace and curricula in the natural and cul-
tural resource management institution is not at death's door. On
the other hand, it is the reasoned judgment of this author that the
National Park Service can greatly enhance its capabilities by devel-
oping more partnerships with academic institutions. In turn,
institutions, such as the School of Natural Resources at Ohio State
University, can better educate their students and create new know-
ledge through research if we are partners with agencies such as
the National Park Service.

Partnership, by the nature of the term, implies sharing of duties
and profits. Partnership also implies a relationship that is differ-
ent than the lowest bidder versus high profit concept. Partnerships
are designed to foster a mutually beneficial working relationship
between the partners.

So has been the case over the past few years between the School of
Natural Resources at Ohio State University, the National Park Ser-
vice, and other organizations that are allied with the NFS mission.
Currently our School, as well as a number of other academic insti-
tutions, has cooperative agreements with NFS to jointly engage in
mutually beneficial teaching and research activities. Such partner-
ship agreements are strictly controlled to insure that they are not
used as a substitute for contract research. Although universities
such as ours do bid on contracts in the greater marketplace, the co-
operative agreement concept is entirely different. The agreement
permits cooperators, within the bounds of the document, to work
on special projects jointly with NFS personnel. OSU and NFS per-
sonnel make up the project team. Research and products are
jointly produced with the praise and blame shared equally. Fund-
ing is negotiated on a project-by-project basis.

To view the partnership in terms of a benefit-cost scenario, we at
Ohio State reap numerous benefits. First and foremost our stu-
dents benefit. Graduate student associates, working on NFS

Interpretation

projects, have gained tremendous insights in research, interpretive
materials development and in how to work with a sophisticated
agency such as NFS. Projects such as developing the Clearing the
Air materials, the Biological Diversity Handbook for NFS Commu-
nicators and "Our Backyard Biosphere-An Environmental
Education Guide for K-8" (Southern Appalachian region) have
been high points in their academic training. These materials and
associated research data also serve as reference materials in our
undergraduate classes. As each research project progresses we find
new ways of addressing the issues and more sophisticated means
of conducting our research.

Cost to the university comes in the form of partial donation of fac-
ulty time, long-term commitments to working with the agency and
loss of a small amount of independence due to the partnership rela-
tionship. All of these tend to be very minor in terms of the benefits
gained.

NFS, if I may speak for the agency, appears to be gaining an ex-
panded staff that seeks to work within the agency's mission and
guidelines. Universities, where interdisciplinary research is pro-
moted, can complement the NFS staff by adding multidimensional
S CU ?^ j StU f ent P ers P ec tives to the project. With the advent of
i V\u 6aS b ., etween working partners flow back and forth more
quickly. Ihese ideas gradually become products to support the
agency efforts manuals, reports, audio visuals, research papers
and journal articles It is also the intent of both partners to expose
more students to NFS in hopes of attracting the best possible candi-
dates to NFS positions.

To share a few of our joint successes the best place to begin is with
the research, development and evaluation of "Our Backyard Bio-
sphere a curriculum guide to the Southern Appalachian MAB
region. The idea was developed by John Peine, a scientist in the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Funding and other forms
ol support came from such diverse sources as the City of Gatlin-
burg, Tennessee, the Great Smoky Mountains Natural Historv
Association US Man and Biosphere Program, NFS Washington of-
fices, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and The Ohio State
University. Using small amounts of money, volunteer and gradu-
ate student services, and dedication by individuals on all sides of
the partnership, numeroui schools in the Southern Appalachians
now have a curriculum guide geared for their MAB region Later
Kim Tassier, the graduate student who coordinated the proiect '
had the opportunity to intern in the NFS Wildlife and Vegetation
Division (WASO) under the direction of William Gregg.

Copies of the package are now in all NFS regional offices and more
than one hundred copies have been sent to various local, state and
international groups. Currently Mammoth Cave and Everglades
are considering developing their own "Our Backyard Biosphere"
package. "Our Backyard Biosphere" reflects what I feel is the es-
sence of partnerships people with a vested interest getting
together to do what Theodore Roosevelt recommended: "Do what
you can, with what you have, where you are."

In that spirit of doing, NFS and Ohio State, with additional sun-
port from organizations such as the US Man and Biosphere
Program and Conference of National Park Cooperating Associa

Interpretation

tions, have begun developing materials and conducting communica-
tion research relating to interpreting critical resource issues in
National Parks. Acidic deposition, deteriorating air quality, loss of
biological diversity, and global change are the major focal issues at
this time.

Acid deposition/air quality materials (Clearing the Air) have been
distributed to all national parks. Ohio State, working in conjunc-
tion with a number of parks and NFS divisions, had the
opportunity to help develop a number of pieces of materials for the
effort. In addition to fact sheets, program sheets, and two slide
sets, a directory of materials was developed. In the spirit of the ex-
panded partnership the Center for Environmental Information in
Rochester, New York, is donating their research efforts to NFS and
Ohio State to produce a 1990 directory of acidic deposition/air qual-
ity materials.

Partnership efforts have now yielded "Interpreting Biological Di-
versity: A Handbook for National Park Service Communicators."
Contribution of review time, article preparation, etc, were numer-
ous both within and beyond the two main partners NFS and
Ohio State. The appeal to potential contributors was that this
handbook is a team effort; please join the team!

Both the "Clearing the Air" and the "Biological Diversity" initia-
tives were accompanied by fairly extensive needs assessment
research and a variety of inquiries into attitudes and perceptions
of NFS communicators toward critical resource issues initiatives.
These data helped to shape and will continue to shape interpretive
initiatives in NFS and in other interpretive organizations.

NFS and Ohio State are jointly working to evaluate these efforts as
well as to renew the discussion of what constitutes interpretive
evaluation in NFS in general. As we evaluate, we also seek to re-
fine communication planning strategies that are in place. Parks
such as the Great Smoky Mountain National Park have employed
a communication specialist/interpreter who focuses primarily on in-
terpreting critical resource issues and reaching out to the local
communities that constitute part of the greater Southern Appala-
chian MAB cooperative. The efforts of the initiative have become
part of the examples used in interpretive classes at Ohio State to il-
lustrate innovation in interpretive programming.

In April 1990, NFS, Ohio State, National Association of Interpreta-
tion, and numerous other partners working in interpretation
joined together to discuss the state of evaluation. The research pro-
gram in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is now
working with its partners to develop a concept paper on interpre-
tive evaluation.

These are only our personal examples. NFS is involved in partner-
ships with a variety of other organizations, each with its own
success stories. Only your agency can determine how many partner-
ships are enough.

Partnerships are needed. In the spirit of cooperation, NFS, as well
as numerous other local, state, and federal agencies and private re-
source management organizations, needs to avail itself of the
opportunity for securing sound research and quality employees
from the university community. Close working partnerships permit

Interpretation

NFS to have greater input and more vested interest in research
and development they secure from universities. By actively devel-
oping co-op programs with universities NFS can more selectively
chose their future employees. By employing a student as a co-op
seasonal over time, NFS can better assess the students' capabili-
ties to function well into the twenty-first century.

The bottom-line of partnerships is you get what you pay for but
pay is not just in dollars. By making an investment of time, energy
and commitment to success, working partners such as NFS and
Ohio State can greatly expand their productivity, efficiency and
goal attainment.

As an NFS cooperator I encourage each park and regional office to
seek out the best research and the best employees possible. By ef-
fectively utilizing partnership arrangements, such as cooperative
agreements for research and for student interns, you can reap nu-
merous benefits for your park and aid universities in doing a much
better job for you and for the profession. If you do enter into
partnerships, please keep in mind that the partnership only works
when all partners work.

Park Cooperators and Interpretation:
Lowell National Historical Park

George E Price, Jr

Chief of Interpretation
Lowell National Historical
Park

"Lowell is unique."
"Lowell is a Cooperative Park."

These are two statements I have heard since starting my tenure at
Lowell National Historical Park in 1980. Looking at other National
Park areas, however, I soon realized a couple of points. In fact "all"
Parks are unique in their own way and many of them are as "coop-
erative as Lowell. But why the steady stream of national and in-
ternational visitors to see this "cooperative urban" park? Why the
statements of awe and disbelief that a revitalization effort and cele-
bration of-history and culture could not work in their communities?
The answer to both of these questions emanates from Lowell's re- '
sources and the tremendous cooperative spirit in the community
These factors came together to turn around an economically de- '
pressed city and celebrate its nationally significant heritage which
contributed to the growth of America in the Industrial Age The Na-
tional Park works with many partners to tell this story.

?/** " ourteen S 4 u are miles with approximately
citizens. It was created in the 1820s by a group of Boston
mvestors who were bok ng to expand the successful factory system
they had developed in Waltham, Massachusetts. Here on the MerH
mack River they could derive ample waterpower from a 32-foot
falls, while their technical expertise allowed the planning of a wa-
terpower system. Abng the river banks, plenty of available land
could be developed into mills and worker Wag, creating the

Td /S I nt P anned Indu f rial Clt ^ in the ^ited Sta g t s Five
and a half miles of power canals brought the power of the river to
ten different cotton textile mills and a major machine shop I
Boardmghouse system was designed to house Lowell's oriLal
workers, those daughters of Yankee Farmers called "mill

Interpretation

who would later be replaced by immigrants. Developments in wa-
terpower technology and machine engineering placed the Lowell
Factory System in the vanguard of industrial city development for
the rest of the century.

The glory days of Lowell would end after the turn of the century
with the demise of the cotton textile industry in the North, caused
largely by the flight of investment capital Cities such as Lowell hit
hard times with high unemployment and abandoned buildings,
and left the community with a poor self-image.

This depressed condition would dramatically turn around through
a grass roots effort. Local community leaders, disenchanted with
the "urban renewal" or "urban destruction" approach, successfully
spearheaded an effort to use the tremendous historical resource of
Lowell's past, which was largely still in place, as an anchor for an
economic and spiritual revitalization.

By 1975, Lowell Heritage State Park was established and by 1978
the Lowell Historic Preservation Commission and Lowell National
Historical Park were in place.

These government organizations were established to assist in eco-
nomic revitalization through historic preservation, but they were
not intended to be the total solution. Their job was to provide guid-
ance in the preservation effort and interpretive programming, be
the storytellers of history and revitalization, and in general contrib-
ute to shaping a new public image for the community.

The importance of partners in cooperative activities was empha-
sized from the beginning of the Park. The list of cooperating groups
is long and, in some cases, overlapping. Volunteer community
groups are key components. The Greater Lowell Regatta Festival
Committee, for example, is made up of over four hundred volun-
teers who participate in both the management and operation of our
many special events. The Regatta's management involvement in-
cludes contacts with community leaders, financial expertise, and
coordination of over twenty-three ethnic festival groups. They also
stepped in to provide a vital service to the Park when our contract
canal boat operator shut down shortly before the beginning of the
1987 summer season. On very short notice, the Regatta assumed
contractual responsibility for the canal boat operation. The per-
sonal and philosophical commitment from the individuals who
make up the Regatta is inspirational.

The Lowell Plan and the Lowell Development and Finance Cooper-
ation are a group of businessmen, bankers and community leaders
who provide business expertise and financial assistance on critical
projects. When the previous contractor boat folded, for example,
they purchased the canal boats for use on our tours. The LDFG
also provided seed money for the planning of the Tsongas Indus-
trial History Center, which will be discussed elsewhere in this
article. The Lowell Plan's support of cultural programs has had a
direct impact on quality of life issues which affect visitors in the
form of public art and special events. This involvement has ex-
panded into the newly formed Office of Cultural Affairs.

Traditional organizations such as The Lowell Museum, the Lowell
Historical Society and the University of Lowell's Special Collec-
tions Department have cooperated with invaluable assistance and

Interpretation

materials for exhibit collections and displays. We are also formaliz-
ing Cooperative Agreements with The New England Quilt
Museum, The Whistler House Museum of Art and The Brush Art
Studio to form an educational collaborative for students. This edu-
cational effort will allow coordination of thematically related visits
which will combine programs on art in the Industrial City, textile
history, architecture, etc. with visits to park sites which focus upon
Capital, Power, Industrial City, Machines and Labor the Park's
interpretive themes.

Our most ambitious and far-reaching partnership is with The
Tsongas Industrial History Center. This Center is an outgrowth of
our existing partnership with the University of Lowell. This exciting
idea has exploded into a center which will become the educational
arm of the National Park in Lowell and will be in a position to pro-
vide substantial assistance throughout the Region and beyond. The
University is responsible for funding the salary for the Director and
staff while the National Park is providing the space. We are then com-
bining our resources to plan and develop curriculum-based programs.
The Center is a place where students and teachers can "do" history in
new hands-on ways. It will feature spaces where students can build
their own canal system, test their models with water, and compare
their results with the existing system. They will be able to role-play
real life scenarios which affect immigrant people, past and present,
and then explore the immigrant neighborhoods and see the shops
which were once Irish, then Greek, Portuguese and Hispanic and are
now Cambodian or Vietnamese,

The Tsongas Center will also work with teacher opportunities for
intellectual enrichment and have them participate in the produc-
tion of curriculum materials, evaluation of the program, and
operation of the Center.

There are many other examples of cooperative and partnership ef-
forts. In fact, we list 46 organizations in our Statement for
Interpretation and mention how each contributes to the overall suc-
cess of the Park. These cooperators and partners range from the
City of Lowell to the Chambers of Commerce, the Convention and
Visitors Bureau, the School Department, the Rotary and Kiwanis
Clubs, and the Merrimack Repertory Theatre. It is important to re-
alize that this partnership effort was not just a "nice thing to do;" it
was critical to the success of the Park in Lowell. The community
feeling of ownership of the Park has been immeasurable. Park coop-
erators and Park neighbors, who live down the street or in the
senior citizen apartments in the mill complex above the Visitor
Center, feel no hesitation in seeking us out for positive or negative
criticism. What impresses me about these comments and criticisms
when I receive them, either on a street corner or by phone call at
home, is that they are not negative finger pointing or positive strok-
ing to inflate egos, but a caring report on how "WE" are doing. The
"WE" referred to is the collective community, in which the State
and National Parks are included.

There is no question that working with partners takes time and ef-
fort by all parties. Issues of control, finances, expectations, quality
and evaluation all have to be factored hi the partnership. Yet, the
greater common goal soon overshadows these concerns as successful
results satisfy everyone and there is plenty of credit to spread around.

Interpretation

As we move toward the twenty-first century, the Park Service will
either face new challenges or reface old ones. The expanded use of
non-traditional partnerships in managing park resources and in-
creasing the scope of interpretive programs makes good sense and
results in stronger community ties, community support and en-
hanced visitor services. The more we can be identified as a "WE"
instead of a "THEY", the more successful our organization will be
in achieving our cultural, environmental, resource management
and recreational missions.

My personal experience at Lowell National Historical Park has
been tremendously rewarding. Working with dedicated partners in
this community has been inspirational, as visitor programs con-
tinue to grow and increase in quality. I truly believe that Lowell is
unique and that "Lowell is a Cooperative Park." At the same time,
I look forward to hearing these statements made about more and
more Park areas throughout the National Park System,

The Fort McHenry Partnership

John W Tyler

Superintendent
Fort McHenry National
Monument and Historic
Shrine

Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine the birth-
place of our National Anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner," is lo-
cated in Baltimore, Maryland. Nearby is the successful Inner
Harbor development and the National Aquarium. Like in many
NFS areas, visitation to Fort McHenry continues to grow while visi-
tor facilities remain the same and time and the elements continue
to do their work on the masonry star fort. It is a place where now:

"Oh, say can you see, with the dawning of spring.

What so proudly we hailed, now with more visitors each season.

Broad rows and long lines now wait for a chance,

To see the film, or the flag, or to use the restroom."

A number of years ago a partnership was formed through establish-
ing a friends groupThe Patriots of Fort McHenry. The goal was
to raise the funds necessary for the restoration work on the star
fort and the construction of a new visitor center, along with contin-
ued support of the park operation,

The first board of the Patriots was an enthusiastic group represent-
ing veterans organizations and Baltimore businesses. Their initial
enthusiasm, however, was not matched with the right kinds of con-
tacts or a planned program to raise the $15,000,000 needed for the
projects. They had a lot of commitment and love for the Fort, but
they didn't have connections with the financial and corporate com-
munity in Baltimore,

The partnership is now maturing; a variety of other community in-
terests are becoming involved in meeting the park's needs. The
board now represents the veterans organizations, the local media
(newspaper, radio and television), it has members with political in-
terests and is involving the financial and corporate community in
the process.

The initial difficulty was seeing so much that needed to be done
and hoping that anyone else who could be shown the needs would
jump right in with money. That approach didn't work. The ap-

Interpretation

proach that has succeeded elsewhere was finally adopted. Plan and
stage the effort.

Over the past year, the Patriots have been working with the park
on two initial efforts. First defining and articulating the needs.
Rather than a long list of projects that need to be funded, we are
now focusing on two critical needs: (1) The preservation of the fort;
and (2) adequate facilities for visitors. Second raise public aware-
ness of the Fort and its needs. The 175th anniversary of the Battle
of Baltimore and the writing of "The Star-Spangled Banner," coin-
cided well with the need for public awareness. Progress has been
made during the past year on both of these efforts.

A group of retired business executives in the city have organized to
assist non-profit groups with organizational needs, financial man-
agement, personnel issues, and fundraising. The Patriots have
"hired" a retired professional fundraiser to consult on the planning
phase. The organization charges $20.00 per hour for a maximum of
ten hours. The Patriots have gotten more than $200 worth of assis-
tance. The consultant identified financial leaders and corporate
leaders in Baltimore that would match the needs of the park. He
set up the introductory meetings for the president of the Patriots
and myself with the leaders. As a result of this work, we expect to
have a fundraising committee established with the participation of
the president of a major bank corporation, the president of a major
manufacturing corporation, and the president of a major transpor-
tation company. The people with the contacts to raise funds are
now becoming involved.

The second effort to increase public awareness has also been
somewhat successful. Through the president of the Patriots' Board,
Mr Joe Ayd, we were able to contact Tom Clancy (author of Hunt
for Red October and other best-selling novels, one of which includes
references to Fort McHenry). Mr Clancy became involved in the ef-
fort and has made many public appearances on behalf of the
Patriots and the Fort. Another board member, Mr Alan Walden,
local radio news anchor (former chief foreign correspondent for
NBC Radio News) wrote and recorded a series of "historical notes"
that were broadcast. He also arranged for a broadcast by NBC
Today Show weatherman Willard Scott, live from Fort McHenry.
The Hearst Broadcasting Company, owners of the local station Mr
Walden works for, became major financial sponsors for the celebra-
tion and broadcast live from the park for several events. Since this
AM radio station has the greatest number of listeners in Balti-
more, we were confident that the Patriots message and the park's
needs were being heard by the community. In addition, having
media representatives on the board has meant that the park needs
and Patriots activities are regularly included in local television
news, radio news and newspapers. A local television station and a
local video production company have produced video public service
announcements and distributed them to the local stations and the
networks. The work of several board members with Congress-
woman Helen Bentley resulted in a visit by President Bush to
kick-off the 175th Anniversary Celebration. Through the veterans
organization representatives on the board, the governor's office
was contacted and after several visits to the park, an endorsement
for legislation granting state funds to this project was made by
Governor Schaefer.

Interpretation

In addition to the "publicity" contacts, the board was able to raise
the funds and donated services necessary for the anniversary cele-
bration. The equipment and materials, stages and refreshments,
essay contest prizes and printed programs totaled over $250,000
for the week-long event.

Are we any closer to repairing the masonry of the Fort? Are we any
closer to a visitor center that can accommodate forty buses of
school children a day? We sure are! With the formation of the fi-
nance committee we will conduct a fundraising feasibility study,
develop a fundraising plan and strategy, and then proceed.
Throughout the process, the goals will be modified, but I am confi-
dent that the needs of Fort McHenry will be met.

Has the park "paid a price" for the effort? Indeed, but I feel that it is
worth it. The staff has performed miracles with twenty-five people
(no additional funds or staffing), the week-long celebration went off
without a hitch. Major events every day and/or night with several
thousand visitors attending each event, The staff and the Patriots
were a team for the week, Prior to the event, the two paid employees
of the Patriots were regularly included in park staff meetings and
planning meetings. The Patriots members volunteered and organized
volunteers to help with every part of the celebration. The president of
the Patriots closed his business office for the week and spent every
day in the park helping and Mr Clancy attended every event through-
out the week. The awareness of Fort McHenry and its needs now has
a much higher visibility in the Baltimore area.

With all of the effort and energy spent on this partnership, we are
still just beginning. We must regularly remind the board of the vi-
sion of what Fort McHenry can be, we must nurture their work
with regular recognition and appreciation, and we must provide
the constant encouragement to continue working for the long-
range goals we have together established. I am confident that
within the next few years, this partnership will reach it goals and
develop a new vision for a continuing partnership,

International Partnerships: The Second
World Congress

Linda Finn

Interpretive Planner
Harpers Ferry Center

The Second World Congress for Heritage Presentation and Inter-
pretation convened August 30 - September 4, 1988, at the Univer-
sity of Warwick, Coventry, England. Several hundred participants
representing 22 countries attended, among them five official dele-
gates from the US National Park Service: Michael Watson, Chief,
Division of Interpretation, WASO; Marti Leicester, Chief Inter-
preter, Golden Gate NRA; Linda Finn, Interpretive Planner, Har-
pers Ferry Center; Gary Candelaria, Chief Ranger, Sitka NHP;
and Cynthia Kryston, Chief of Interpretation, North Atlantic Re-
gional Office. Other NPS'ers attended on their own: Warren Hill,
Associate Director, Operations, Midwest Region; Joe Wagoner
Chief of Interpretation, Mammoth Cave NP; Linda Moon Stu
Supervisory Park Interpreter, John Muir NHS; Janice Killai
Park Ranger, Longfellow NHS; and Nora Mitchell, Natural
sources Management Specialist, North Atlantic Region,

Interpretation

The theme of the congress was Preparing for the 90s. The program
included many concurrent sessions at the host university as well
as a variety of field trips to nearby sites, including Ironbridge
Gorge, Warwick and Kenilworth Castles, the Coventry Museum of
Road Transport, Stratford-upon-Avon, Peak District National
Park, and others.

The purpose of the international gathering was for managers, plan-
ners, and academics from developed and developing countries to
learn from each other's experiences in presenting and interpreting
heritage sites. Chairman John Foster stated, "As we move towards
the 1990s and the dawn of a new century, in this crowded world of
ours the need for people everywhere to understand the importance
of protecting their environment, both natural and manmade, be-
comes ever more crucial to the overall health of the planet. We
who are involved in heritage presentation and interpretation have
a significant part to play in promoting that understanding."

The following pages are devoted to the impressions of several of
our delegates.

Gary Candelaria

Chief Park Ranger

Sitka National Historical Park

Hands Across The Waters

To paraphrase the Westminster Abbey epitaph of British architect
Sir Christopher Wren, if you seek a partnership, look around you.
This, indeed, could nicely serve as the motto and lesson of the Sec-
ond World Congress. More than three hundred participants from
around the world met to describe their plans, successes, and fail-
ures in the fields of interpretation and conservation. For five days
there reigned an atmosphere of cooperation and sharing that tran-
scended the miles, politics, languages, and economics that rou-
tinely divide the planet's peoples.

Partnerships aplenty exist; opportunities for new exchanges
abound. The presentations made by National Park Service repre-
sentatives at the congress were, in many cases, like hands
extended to the international attendees, invitations to take what
the NPS has learned and build upon it. I recall a Danish park
manager almost knocking me over in his eagerness to talk with Joe
Wagoner about interpretive training. The Dane excused himself,
saying "I must talk with Joe Wagoner! He has exactly what I need
to train my staff!"

This is not to say, of course, that even experienced veteran Park
Service interpreters could not learn from their foreign colleagues.
Difficulties and disasters abroad shook warning fingers at us re-
garding uncontrolled development, atmospheric and water
pollution, commercialization, and politicalization. Sessions describ-
ing international activities in museum interpretation, marketing,
visitor services, interpretive research and evaluation, and historic
preservation were filled with ideas that have direct application at
home.

During session coffee breaks, I, and I suspect all the Americans
present, was surrounded with the sound of exchange. The din of
conversation was almost deafening, but it was profitable, construc-
tive chatter. Partnerships, and friendships, valuable even though
many were informal and short-lived, fostered the feeling that we

interpretation

are all in this game together, and if our side is going to win, we had
best play as a team.

Of course the congress was not all business; there was much to
sing and dance about. Tours, receptions, banquets, an evening at
Stratford-upon-Avon, and a historical reenactment and picnic gave
ample time to relax and enjoy each others' company. In recreating,
as well as in working together, I think that the participants grew
closer together as professionals and as people. We learned about
each others' lifestyles and interests, and we learned that we are
not all that different, regardless of where we called home.

Professionally, I am sure that all of the congress attendees benefit-
ted from the time spent away from home and office. We all had
more opportunity to share than it was possible to accommodate. I
would suspect that many enduring and beneficial liaisons were
forged by this meeting of minds and hearts. I would not be sur-
prised to learn that Joe has been invited to take his interpretive
show on the road to Copenhagen, or that any of the NFS delegates
have found that ideas received, as well as ideas offered, have
played a part in their jobs since returning from England.

Though English was the official language of the congress, it wasn't,
and isn't words that tie us together. All of the agencies, nations,
and peoples represented at the Second World Congress are trying
to do the same job we are involved in here. We share the same
hopes and challenges. It isn't enough for one agency or nation to
succeed. Ultimately, we all must make it, or none of us will. Those
farther down the road must help those just starting, and those who
have yet to start, if our progress to this point isn't to become mean-
ingless. This is the lesson of international partnership. It isn't
words, it's the world we share. Her fate will be ours, and we owe it
to ourselves to work together, to be partners, for her sake, and for
our own.

An Appeal

Linda Finn An eloquent appeal for help by one of the speakers at the congress

[nterpretive Planner made quite an impression on me. He represented a country with

Harpers Ferry Center minimal staffing and funding for parks, where the environmental

interpretation program is described as experimental.

His was a request for assistance that probably could have been
echoed by many third world countries, had they been in atten-
dance. However, the list of participants of the congress contained
very few from fledgling systems. Presumably they could not afford
it. It seems that the sharing of experiences occurred mostly among
representatives from developed countries.

Probably not a single one of those from relatively affluent coun-
tries, including the US, would describe their situation as optimal,
with as much funding and staffing as they wanted. The recent In-
terpretive Challenge put the backlog of interpretive media needs in
the US National Park System at more than $180 million dollars,
Certainly I and my fellow planners have been frustrated over the
years at planning projects that may or may not ever be funded. T
spite our real and legitimate needs, when the park systems of
developing countries are compared, it sheds a new light on the

Interpretation

ject, The constant stream of foreign visitors at Harpers Ferry Cen-
ter makes the same point; they are impressed with the idea of a
central interpretive media center but few feel they can dream of
such a facility for themselves.

All of this made me wonder if we, the interpreters in the developed
countries, could do more to help to organize an effort to generate
useful material for park systems in need, and as a byproduct, feel
more a part of a world community of park people. This is not to
overlook the projects that have been accomplished over the last sev
eral decades, but to suggest that new methods be added to our
repertoire. Could how-to material we already have produced be
adapted in a systematic way for parks in other countries?

Perhaps the next World Congress could be organized around a part
nership initiative. The activities common to all interpretive
programs recruiting and training, program presentation, fund-
ing, developing support and clientele, media production, and so
on could be treated in workshop sessions that were designed to as
sist developing countries. To insure that they were in attendance,
a system of grants and sponsors should be created. The congress
could also be a platform for launching a subsequent program in
which existing guidelines could be selected for reproduction and
translation. At the congress the areas to be covered by such mate-
rial could be selected and a committee appointed. The members
might hold office for the period between congresses. After each
three-year period a report would be made on accomplishments and
a new action program and committee selected.

Some thought should be given to the inherent problems in adapt-
ing our solutions to low tech situations and to insuring that we
were not promoting uniformity. Who wants to travel to an exotic
corner of the world and find the same interpretive approach as
they would encounter at home? Where salary levels are low, popu-
lations high, and a craft tradition still exists, a different tack might
be taken than big investments in formal media presentations.

Another consideration in adapting material to other park systems
would be to concentrate on the general principles, editing out spe-
cific details that were designed to serve a particular budgeting or
other administrative process.

The first congress was held in Canada in 1985; the second in En-
gland in 1988; the third is scheduled for Hawaii in 1991. It doesn't
seem out of line to suggest that the third congress should benefit
the third world.

Beyond the congress, there are other possibilities pairing of
parks, for instance. Parks in developed countries that felt able to
handle it could select a park in the developing world to big brother
(in the benign sense). It could be one with similar resources. To-
gether they could explore ways to share.

Sponsoring congress participants from the third world, producing
written material in various languages, and other initiatives will
cost money. Perhaps we should be looking for new sources of fund-
ing for some of this. Recently, I discovered in Washington a
bookstore that offered titles produced by the World Bank, There
were a number related to tourism, even some specific to natural
and cultural parks, It may be worth exploring joint efforts, espe-

Interpretation

dally in view of the changing direction of some World Bank pro-
grams. Other nontraditional funding sources may be out there
waiting to be tapped. Recently I learned of a program to be funded
by the US Agency for International Development; it is a multi-mil-
lion dollar project to develop an environmental education program
for a Central American country. This, of course, is the ultimate
providing material specific to the needs of a particular country.
Until all developing countries achieve similar programs, perhaps
an ecumenical effort along the lines described above could be spear-
headed under the aegis of the international interpretation
body the World Congress.

In short, the week I spent in Coventry, England, was a thoroughly
enjoyable and educational experience. Among other things, it
stirred me to wonder how we could improve our international part-
nerships, particularly in interpretation.

Marti Leicester

Chief of Interpretation
Golden Gate NRA

Focus On Marketing

The most exciting session of the congress for me was the one pre-
sented by a sociologist, Dr Terence Lee, on structuring interpretive
programs and exhibits to actually produce attitude changes in park
or museum visitors. This has always been my primary interest in
the profession of interpretation, but I had not been successful in
finding much information about this subject. Dr Lee gave a crash
course in the basics of how attitudes are formed, how exhibits in
museums and experiences at an interpretive farm were evaluated
to measure attitude change, and best of all, he provided an exten-
sive bibliography for further study of this subject. The session on
how to develop museum exhibits for maximum educational effec-
tiveness was also useful along these same lines.

I have learned that the field of sociology is the place to conduct fur-
ther research on producing attitude change through interpretation;
that in the private sector this field is called market analysis, and
that I am committed to finding new ways to better evaluate the ef-
fectiveness of interpretive exhibits and programs. To this end, I
have been successful in obtaining a visitor mapping survey for
Golden Gate National Recreation Area for 1989 and I am working
with the GGNRA superintendent on the Marketing Task Force for
the 21st Century Task Force. I am also discussing this concept of
attitude change with university professors and interpretive consul-
tants as I work to institutionalize an approach to this topic that we
can use at the park. In 1989 our test project for interpretation and
attitude change was with biodiversity theme programs.

The second most powerful session for me at the congress was pre-
sented by John Broome, CEO of the British theme park, Alton
Towers, a highly profitable amusement park. The key to the suc-
cess of Mr Broome's company is his attention to and reliance on
market research. He has at his fingertips, before planning the pro-
grams that will be scheduled into his amusement centers, the
complete demographics of who the visitors will be, what they like
to do, how much time and money they will be willing to spend, and
what is most effective in terms of facilities and programs. His busi-
ness approach rests on two major principles: provide multiple
layers of experience to insure that people will enjoy their visit (a

Interpretation

goal of interpretive programs as well), and provide a healthy bud-
get for market research.

When I asked Mr Broome how government agencies, who so badly
need market research information, could ever hope to achieve the
data he invested so much to obtain, he looked at me and said
bluntly, "The role of government is to provide the infrastructure
and let the private sector run the services." The room gasped! I'm
still considering what he said; he wasn't just talking about conces-
sions and may have been presenting a future scenario for
interpretation.

Beyond the formal congress sessions, meeting and talking with the
people was the most intangible and yet the most valuable experi-
ence of all. The two most moving conversations I had were on a
bus with a man from Ethiopia and with two of my own country-
women. The man from Ethiopia talked to me for an hour and a
half on the bus ride back from the Peak District about the struggle
to provide interpretation in his country and the pressing need to do
so as part of the effort to save the endangered animal species
there. The conversation with my two countrywomen involved the
art of storytelling and the appropriateness of a non-Native Ameri-
can telling American Indian legends. It was an experience in
cross-cultural communication, On another bus ride I had an excit-
ing and nervous-making conversation with two Irishmen: one
Protestant and the other Catholic. Somehow all managed to keep
the peace.

My overwhelming experience of the week was of how very big the
world is. Attending the congress was an unforgettable experience
and one that I hope will also have as many benefits for interpreta-
tion at Golden Gate NRA as it did for me personally.

lichael D Watson

Ihief, Division of Interpreta-

ion

VASQ

Some Overall Observations

I was honored to be part of the official National Park Service dele-
gation to the Second World Congress. I made several overall obser-
vations about the congress, with implications for partnerships in
interpretation at the national and international levels:

The NFS is recognized, almost revered, as a world leader in inter-
pretation, especially in personal interpretive services, interpretive
training, and interpretive media.

Freeman Tilden has a world following.

Those who have studied NFS Interpretation from other parts of
the world (the Danes in particular), observe that NFS Interpreters
and other NPS Park Managers are the best in knowing about their
resources and in having sound interpretive techniques for commu-
nicating about those resources to the visiting public. However,
they feel that we do not know enough about the communities be-
yond our park boundaries and what parks mean to local commu-
nity groups.

Interpretation as a discipline is being embraced worldwide in the
private sector and money can be made practicing it. The definition
of Interpretation has much broader meaning worldwide than it
commonly does in the NPS.

Participants in the congress felt that most public or governmental
interpretive efforts are not receiving the funding necessary to keep
the quality or quantity at even minimum levels,

Interpretation

The term "Ranger" is well accepted internationally as one who in-
terprets. The term "Interpretation" seems to be well accepted
around the world by the professionals attending the congress.

If you want to learn more about the Second World Congress, look
up the excellent proceedings from the Second World Congress enti-
tled Heritage Interpretation Volume 1 (The Natural and Built Envi-
ronment} and Volume 2 (The Visitor Experience)] edited by David L
Uzzell; Belhaven Press; London and New York; 1989. They are tre-
mendous references for interpreters and contain much to think
about pertaining to interpretive partnerships.

Gary Candelaria

Chief Park Ranger

Sitka National Historical Park

It is interesting that the popular definition of "interpretation",
translation from one language to another, has played a major role
in furthering the field of NFS interpretation. Language interpreta-
tion has been a necessary part of one of the more unusual, if not
unique, recent partnerships in interpretation, between the United
States, represented by the National Park Service, the USSR, and
the Orthodox Church. The focus of much of the Soviet- American
partnership has been, not surprisingly, Alaska, specifically the Be-
ring Strait and Sitka. It is in Sitka, the former capital of colonial
Russian America, that the partnership has, thus far, seen its great-
est flowering.

To look back upon the historic roots of Russo- American interaction
is to look at the history of colonial Russian America. Imperial Rus-
sia was the last European power to enter the colonial scramble in
North America, following Vitus Bering's 1741 sighting of Mt St
Elias. Russia was the last European colonial power to withdraw
from North America, departing on October 18, 1867, some four
months after Great Britain turned British North America over to
the new Dominion of Canada.

During the 126-year history of Russian America, Americans, as Brit-
ish colonists and US citizens, were major partners, collaborators,
trouble-makers, and rivals to the Russians. During this tumultuous
period of history, the fledgling United States and autocratic Imperial
Russia were friends, even to the point of being diplomatic allies
against perfidious Great Britain and haughty imperial France.

It is widely held that Russia's support of the Union cause, however
self-serving and shallow it may have been, was instrumental in the
decision of the federal government to accept Russia's offer to sell
Russian America for $7,2 million. Whether this is indeed the case
or not is not important here. What does matter is that the United
States and Russia have had a strong, at times even warm, relation-
ship since the earliest days of the Republic. It has only been in the
last forty years that the two governments have had more differ-
ences than commonalities. And, as is typical of international
squabbles, it is not the peoples of the two nations, the United
States and the Soviet Union, that are at odds, but their competing
political, economic, and military philosophies that threaten world
survival.

Interpretation

For forty years, it has been difficult to exchange information and
visits between the Soviet Union and the United States. For forty
years, a once free and invisible boundary between families and cul-
tures has been closed and closely guarded. For forty years, Alaska,
nee "Russian America", nee "Alakchak", has wondered, like an
adopted child, what information one of its natural parents, the So-
viet Union, formerly Imperial Russia, might hold about its distant
childhood. Now, almost as suddenly as the old partnership and
World War II alliance ended, the curtain is lifting as each side
reaches cautiously across the Bering Strait once again.

A new partnership is being forged between Washington and Mos-
cow. Its effects are being felt, however, far beyond the capitals.
Nowhere has the renewal of old ties been seen more strongly than
in Sitka. Once again Russian is heard where it was once the every-
day language of business and life. Since 1987, more Russians have
visited Sitka than in all the preceding 120 years since the transfer
of Alaska. And, as in the days when Sitka was called New Archan-
gel, they are here as partners, but not to trade for furs, ice, timber,
or fish as of old; this time the exchange is for knowledge, and for a
sharing of the things that tie us together.

The National Park Service, while not the only trading partner in
this revival of Russian/Soviet- American exchange, has been one of
those to benefit. The most immediate beneficiary has been Sitka
National Historical Park. As the only national park system site to
deal with the history of Russian America, Sitka has long been in
need of assistance from the Soviet Union in improving the park's
historical data base and in aiding with the restoration of the 1842
Russian Bishop's House.

The House, one of only four Western Hemisphere structures re-
maining from Russian American times, has been undergoing
restoration for the past 16 years. The task has been greatly compli-
cated by a lack of knowledge about historic Russian construction
techniques, decorative arts, lifestyles, and furnishings. What infor-
mation was available in the west was incomplete or of a secondary
nature, and, most frustrating of all, in Russian (obviously).

Attempts, begun in the early 1970s and continuing through the
1980s, to contact Soviet specialists in log architecture and decora-
tion yielded no results. The cables and letters were either never
received or were ignored. A major difficulty was in knowing whom
to address and how to get in touch with them. Russian America,
though of great significance to Alaska and to our Nation's history,
was a little studied, little known field. Park Service researchers
were breaking new ground in compiling their studies and histories,
and in translating documents found in the US National Archives
and the Library of Congress. What Soviet archives held, where
they were, and how to get to them were questions without easy an-
swers. Legendary Soviet secrecy seemed very effective at repelling
our requests for information.

Our first break came in late 1987. As President Gorbachev's
"glasnost" and "perestroika" policies began to take hold, we found
that avenues of access did exist, one of the best being the EPA's US-
USSR Joint Commission for Cooperation in the Field of
Environmental Protection. As a member in a working group of the
Commission, the NFS contacted Soviet architectural specialists

Interpretation

who agreed to review the Russian Bishop's House draft furnishing
plan, along with other House interpretation and restoration plans
and studies. Initial exchange took place with Harpers Ferry Cen-
ter, WASO, and Alaska Regional Office staff. The Soviet response,
while critical on many points, was encouraging.

In the spring of 1988, the Soviet Union sent a two-member team to
the United States to provide assistance in planning the furnishing
installation and to review the final decoration effort. The Soviets
met with NFS managers, planners, designers, curators, interpret-
ers, architects, and historians in the Russian Bishop's House that
June. For three days the two teams hammered away at the exist-
ing plans, modifying them for accuracy, adding new information,
and giving instructions on finishes, arrangements, and appear-
ances. The Soviets also tore into the finished restoration work,
here giving words of encouragement, there giving lessons and ad-
monitions. By the end of the session, our visitors pronounced
themselves satisfied with the NFS effort, and hinted that a delega-
tion of Soviet dignitaries might attend the dedication of the
Bishop's House that October,

On October 17, 1988, a two member, high-ranking delegation from
Goskomarchitectura, the Moscow-headquartered architectural min-
istry, arrived to take part in the dedication ceremonies at the
Bishop's House. Glasnost "flowed in the streets" of Sitka, as the del-
egation dashed from reception to reception, and added words of
encouragement and congratulation to the formal end of the 16-year
restoration of the Bishop's House.

The building they came to dedicate speaks to visitors in ways that
require few words. The image and drama of the restored House are
due in no small part to the involvement of the Orthodox Church in
America, heir to the 19th century Russian Orthodox Church, in the
restoration. As the third partner in this restoration, the Church
has been deeply involved from the start.

The Church sold the Bishop's House property to the National Park
Service with the intention that the building would be restored. As
the residence of every Orthodox bishop to serve the Alaskan dio-
cese until 1969, the House holds great meaning for the Church.
The significance runs even deeper, since the first resident of the
House, Bishop Innocent, is now St Innocent, Apostle to Alaska and
Enlightener of the Aleuts in the Orthodox calendar of saints.

Many of the major artifacts in the restoration are on loan from the
Orthodox Church in America. Church clergy, including Metropoli-
tan Theodosius and Bishop Gregory of Alaska, linear successor to
Innocent, have personally assisted in the sale, restoration, interpre-
tation, and dedication of the Bishop's House. The second floor
Chapel of the Annunciation has been restored to its appearance
during Innocent's tenure. On October 16, 1988, it was reconse-
crated by Bishop Gregory, and is again a functioning Orthodox
chapel.

Diocese records, liturgical guidance, theological information, P^A
translations from original Church Slavonic documents hav" '
instrumental in bringing the Bishop's House restoration tc
ent state of accuracy and exactness. The very nature of Orti
its unchanging forms and dogmas, has helped make the an t

Interpretation

ment of furniture, chapel contents, icons, and accessories close to
if not exactly like they were during Innocent's time.

This most unusual triumvirate, this "troika" of the Park Service,
the Soviet Union, and the Orthodox Church, continues to bear mar-
velous fruit. In June and July, 1989, a team from the Alaska
Region spent two weeks in Leningrad and Moscow, seeking infor-
mation, ideas, and artifacts, and preparing to designate a
conservation unit that will span the Bering Strait. This past Au-
gust, a Soviet-American team spent three weeks visiting candidate
areas in Siberia and Alaska. Two Soviet architectural students
spent the past summer surveying historic Orthodox churches
throughout Alaska and visiting Russian American colonial sites. Bi-
lateral translation and research projects are on the drawing boards.

And still it goes on. Even now, a year after the formal end to the
Russian Bishop's House restoration, new information from Soviet
specialists and archives and ongoing Church advice and involve-
ment have wrought changes in House interiors and interpretation.
Such changes will, no doubt, continue for years to come, for in the
study of Russian American history, in the restoration of Russian
American buildings, and in international exchange, the mines have
much rich ore yet to be discovered. It is a challenge of international
proportions, one that can only be met by working in harness with
good partners, and good friends.

Al Werking

National Park Service Scout-
ing Coordinator
WASO

Of all the audiences attending the National Park Service, the
Nation's youth, particularly those represented by youth organiza-
tions such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4-H, Camprlre Girls, and
Indian Guides comprise a critical mass.

We have the opportunity to develop within the largest, best known,
and most respected of all the Nation's/World's youth organizations
future citizens who know, understand, and support the Service's
mission and programs. From this group will come many voters and
elected officials who will determine the future of the Service and
the entire conseiTation/preservation/environmental movement.
Many members of Congress speak proudly of their association with
youth organizations and programs. The same is true of leaders at
the state and local levels.

An appreciation for the Boy Scouts' leadership in establishing coop-
erative working relationships with conservation organizations is
obtained by studying their history, objectives, and modus operand!.
Such an understanding is vital to anyone hoping to establish and
manage cooperative working relationships with them.

Experienced Scout leaders are familiar with cooperative agree-
ments. Local Scout units enjoy a substantial measure of autonomy;
volunteer leaders have great latitude to interpret much of the pro-'
gram. Therefore, Park officials will find that different leaders have
varied interpretations and levels of understanding of the relation-
ship. This need not be an impediment to Park staffs in their efforts
to work with local Scout leaders and officials. The secret in dealing
with the variations is in understanding their origins.

Interpretation

The major emphasis in the citizenship element of the Scouting pro-
gram is that of Service to others. Each local unit (Scout Troop,
Cub Pack, Explorer Post) is required to include Good Turn pro-
jects in its annual program. Individual Scouts must complete
service projects for each of their rank advancements. The culmina-
tion of these projects is the Eagle project where the Scout initiates,
plans, and supervises the entire activity.

Scouts perform the type of work needed by a cooperating organiza- ^
tion. Park Service properties often provide ideal locations for Scouts'
service activities. With imagination, we can make the opportunity
work for all of us. For example, "The Garrison", Fort Stanwix Na-
tional Monument's Volunteer in the Parks organization sponsors an
Explorer Scout Post whose program specialty is living history inter-
pretation. The members of the Post are VIPS who serve as actors in
the living history presentations and demonstrations at the Fort.

The variety of projects that can be carried out in parks is limited
only by imagination. Several hundred service projects have been
conducted in National Parks over the last few years.

Many of the Scout projects are of the litter pick-up type. One of the
most dramatic projects was the flood debris clean-up of the C&O
Canal in the summer of 1988. By the park's estimates, the Scouts'
clean-up assistance saved the Government more than $750,000.

Scouts camping and/or working on System properties are a captive
audience for our interpretation. Too often we have failed to capture
the opportunity. Too frequently Scouts have left the park unit
knowing little more about the Service's mission and programs than
they did upon arriving. Regrettably, they return home to remem-
ber the Ranger as the person in the Smokey Bear hat who had the
Scouts cleanup other's trash.

Volunteer-ism is something else we will never have to explain to a
Scout leader. Service to others is what Scouting is about. The na-
tional youth programs comprise the largest volunteer group in the
Nation. The Boy Scouts, with 1.1 million members, is, by far, the
largest single group of its kind. These volunteers are dedicated to,
and trained for, public service. Recognizing the current interest in
volunteerism, it is logical for the Service to do everything it can to
capitalize on this force. Many Service employees, particularly those
who are adult Scouters, are of the opinion that the Service has not
begun to tap this potential.

An NPS field unit can sponsor a Scout unit in the same way as can
a church, service club, or other community organization. Participa-
tion in a local Scouting program has proven to be an excellent way
for NPS personnel to work with community leaders. Many doors
are opened to the Service in this way.

It is Scouting's view that it does not increase the demands placed
on the leadership or other resources of their sponsoring organiza-
tions or the communities in which they operate. Rather, Scouting
provides a program of youth education and development. The pro-
gram is offered to any organization that already has the same or
similar goals. When an organization expresses an interest in spon-
soring the program, the Boy Scouts conduct studies to determine
whether sufficient congruence exists between their goals and the
goals of the potential sponsor.

Interpretation

Once satisfied that genuine goal congruence exists, the Scouts offer
to enter into a cooperative agreement. The Scouts agree to provide
the program, leadership training, and various program helps as
well as the management structure and professional staff. Opera-
tion of the local program remains in the hands of the local
community organization. Additionally, the sponsoring organization
agrees to provide a meeting place and adult leaders.

The agreement gives the local organization a charter to use the
Scouting program within rather wide parameters. The charter al-
lows the sponsoring organization to tailor the standard program to
fit its specific needs. These flexibilities result in a substantial mea-
sure of autonomy in local units.

Each Explorer Scout Post builds its program around a primary in-
terest area/specialty. Interest specialties in park-sponsored units
could include search and rescue, fire fighting, trail maintenance,
law enforcement, emergency medical service, backwoods patrol, or
any of several dozen other topics of mutual interest to the youth
and the Service.

From a recruiting and future staffing point of view, sponsoring a
Scout unit is another way for the Service to enlist VIP assistance.
It can also instill youth with the NFS ethic and give us an opportu-
nity to encourage the best of them to consider careers in the
Service. (Many current Park Service employees tell how their inter-
est in the National Park System started with a Scout sponsored
activity in a National Park.)

Scout meetings have program requirements that provide numerous
opportunities for NPS interpretation. From Troop, Pack and Post
meetings; to leaders' roundtables; to boy/girl and adult leader train-
ing courses; to operating committee and District meetings; to
sessions of the Council Executive Board, Scouting officials are look-
ing for folks to present programs directly related to cultural and
natural resource conservation and preservation issues.

The above discussion makes a strong case for developing the clos-
est possible cooperative working relationship with the Boy Scouts
of America and the other youth service organizations.

NPCA and the NPS:

A Seventy- Year Partnership

Vnnie Brittin
3ruce Craig
National Parks and
Conservation Association

As the National Parks and Conservation Association enters its 71st
year, the partnership between the National Park Service and
NPCA continues to grow stronger. Throughout the history and
growth of the national park system, NPCA and the Park Service
have shared common goals and organizational ties in the defense
of America's national park system.

On August 25, 1916, Congress passed that all too familiar "Organic
Act," legislation giving birth to the National Park Service. The
new bureau was charged: "to conserve the scenery and the natural
and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

Interpretation

In order to promote national parks and monuments and to encour-
age the expansion of the National Park System, Stephen Mather,
the first director of NFS, along with his good friend Robert Sterling
Yard, organized a small group of men into the National Parks Edu-
cational Committee. Included in NPEC were the presidents of
major conservation organizations, civic associations, scientists, and
scholars including Theodore Roosevelt. In 1919, the National
Parks Association sprouted from NPEC. It was this organization
founded "to defend the National Parks and Monuments fearlessly
against assaults of private interests and aggressive commercial-
ism" that evolved into the National Parks and Conservation
Association.

Since the inception of the Association, public "education" has been a
primary objective of NPCA. As early as 1919 Association literature de-
scribed the national parks as "universities" with more than a half
million students coming to class each year. Mather noted though that
class was often being held without teachers. As a consequence,
Mather envisioned that a National Park Association could assist in
"informing and educating" those who visited the parks.

Robert Sterling Yard, a colleague of Mather on the New York Sun
newspaper (and the individual Mather had selected to serve as the
Park Service's first public information officer), resigned from Fed-
eral service and became the first Executive Secretary of the new
National Park Association. Mather told Yard, "with you working
outside the government and with me working inside, together we
ought to make the National Park System very useful to the country."

Mather believed the restrictions of a big governmental office Mm -
ited him. He wanted groups on the outside to help him in his
work, particularly on matters upon which a public official could not
take a positive stand. The Association, he stated "would be wholly
non-partisan and independent." Mather believed the Association
should have no official connection with government, but would
work in harmony with the National Park Service. The Association
became and today is just that the only national, non-profit, mem-
bership organization that focuses exclusively on defending,
promoting, and improving the country's National Park System,
while educating the public about parks.

Throughout the 1920s, Yard called upon a variety of organizations
to support the NPA. The National Federation of Business and Pro-
fessional Women and the US Railroad Administration, to name but
two, helped NPA to protect the integrity of the parks. The Associa-
tion came to be known as the organizer of coalitions to fight
inappropriate park development schemes, a role NPCA continues
to play today. For example, NPCA initiated the Everglades Coali-
tion, a organization to defend and promote the preservation of the
Everglades ecosystem.

During its first decade NPA's priorities primarily focused on fight-
ing to maintain the integrity of individual park units. Later, NPA
expanded its attention to establishing "a sound national policy for
the perfection of the system." To this end, a joint NPA/NPS commit-
tee was appointed to study ways to preserve the primeval elements
of the Park System while still making them accessible to visitors.
The committee advanced criteria recommendations of what a na-
tional park ought to be. Included was a necessity for

Interpretation

primitiveness, a "lofty degree of beauty," and national significance.
Together the NPA and NFS began building a program to imple-
ment the committee's vision for the national parks.

About this time, "education" began to hold a greater importance as
a park "use" than recreation. The "interpretive" profession was
born as naturalists and, later, historians began educating the pub-
lic about parks in parks. Although the committee
recommendations envisioned recreation as a legitimate secondary
park use realizing that recreation could be used as a vehicle "to
bring the spirit of the visitor into accord with the beauty and inspi-
ration of nature" strict policies were suggested to prohibit the
exploitation of the National Parks. Park concessionaires began to
come under closer public scrutiny. Railroad and airplane termi-
nals would no longer be promoted in parks. And new roads and
new buildings would be built only "when the educational and inspi-
rational efficiency of the park shall defmably be served by such
extension...."

By 1936 a "system" of Parks was beginning to take shape out of a
patchwork of District of Columbia parks, memorial parkways, his-
toric and military sites, and of course, the national parks and
monuments. After World War II, as the park system expanded,
the Association also began to expand it's interests into areas not al-
ways directly associated with the National Park System. NPA's
expanded scope included addressing such issues as the Army Corps
of Engineers' proposal to build a series of dams on the Potomac
River; damming of the Moose River in Adirondacks and the protec-
tion of wildlife throughout the nation.

Along with the increased concerns with "external" park protection is-
sues, the NPA became increasingly concerned about internal park
deterioration. With the dramatic increase in park visitation in the
late 1940s and 50s, the idea of regional planning was raised by the As-
sociation. How could the needs of visitors to primitive areas be
balanced with purely recreational needs of the visiting public without
effective planning? The NPA also began advocating positions not
wholly endorsed by the Park Service, for example advancing the posi-
tion that motor boating, skiing, and pleasure driving should be, in
some cases, diverted to lands other than National Parks.

With the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act (an undertaking in
which NPCA took a leading role), the Historic Preservation Act in
1966 and the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969, by the
late 60s, the NPA's programs had continued to expand to a point
where the Association was actively involved in protecting the parks
from ever increasing air, noise, and water pollution. The Associa-
tion often took provocative positions advocating land-use reforms,
rural preservation, and lobbied for increased protection of National
Parks from visitor overuse. Then in 1970, to reflect the Association's
expanded programmatic interests, NPA, sister of NFS, changed its
name to the National Parks and Conservation Association.

Today, NPCA stands committed to preserving parks, historic prop-
erties, and unspoiled wilderness areas and seeks to insure that the
National Park Service balances the System's preservation needs
with the Service's legislative mandate to provide for visitor use, As
the NPS's best ally (and occasionally its constructive critic), NPCA
focuses its activities on maintaining the integrity of the entire

Interpretation

Park System. The Association operates a land trust, conducts re-
search on park issues, produces publications, operates a park
education center, and, through citizen action, lobbies for legislation
in order better to protect, improve, and preserve the national
parks. Efforts on Capitol Hill focus not only on promoting new
areas to round out the system (for example, NPCA was a leader in
the long battle to establish 47 million acres of Alaskan parklands),
but also focuses on influencing the Federal appropriations process
to advance Park Service programs; NPCA works to see to it that
parks receive an ever increasing share of the Federal budget.

A Partnership into the Future The well-being and continued ex-
pansion of the National Park idea resides in the efforts of citizen
organizations such as NPCA. As partners in this endeavor the As-
sociation and the Park Service will continue to make the public
aware of the history, mission, and importance of parks. The quest
to build a strong citizen organization supportive of our National
Parks is a never ending effort a partnership between National
Parks and Conservation Association and the National Park Service.

Interpretation

About This Issue

Interpretation is a combined effort of the Washington Division of In-
terpretation and the Regional Chiefs of Interpretation. The publica-
tion is edited and designed by the staff of the Interpretive Design
Center at Harpers Ferry:
General Editor; Julia Holmaas
Technical Editor: J Scott Harmon
Designer: Phillip Musselwhite

Contributing Editor

John Beck, Staff Park Ranger, Southeast Region
Fred Doyle, Park Ranger, National Capital Region

Forthcoming Issues

Summer 1990: Education: Role of Interpretation
Autumn 1990: Interpreting Native American Culture
Winter 1991: Interpreting the Cultural and Built Landscapes

Editor's Note

In order to make Interpretation more truly a forum for the exchange
of ideas among interpreters, we will include a selection of re-
sponses to articles in the form of Letters to the Editors. Please sub-
mit all letters to:
Editor, Interpretation

% Washington Office, Division of Interpretation
Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013-7127

38

th Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic

Denver

D interpretive partnerships involv-
arks in this region in which Interpre-

i readers maybe interested.

II NHP and Lowell Heritage State
a unit of Massachusetts Department
vironmental Management, snare re-
fibility for interpreting one of Amer-
irst planned industrial cities.

m NHP helps preserve and interpret
sroua sites on Boston's famed Free-
Trail throughco operative agreements
the owners of these sites. NPS part-
include the City of Boston, the United
a Navy, the Old South Association,
aul Revere Memorial Association,
he Freedom Trail Foundation.

Division of Interpretation has pro-
basic interpretive skills training
jgh the Interpretive Training Insti-
This is a collaboration of our office,
Insaachusetts Department of Environ-
al Management, Metropolitan pis-
Commission, and the Appalachian
itain Club.

Several unique partnerships exist at
MAR parks: ALPO with Amtrak where
rangers interpret an historic train tour;
and with Bethlehem Steel Corporation
where rangers conduct tours through an
historic iron works; COLO with Eastern
National's funding of glasshouse demon-
strations; DEWA with Pocono Environ-
mental Education Center where
participants partake of education and rec-
reation programs; FRHI with Bureau of
Mines to mitigate acid mine drainage at
the park; INDE with the University of
the Arts' Communication Workshop offer-
ing free design assistance for publica-
tions projects; NERI with Neighbors
Program where weekly discussions of his-
tory of the area, from personal experi-
ences, take place; and VAFO with
Duportail House donated to the park,
providing an important interpretive link
in park's history and
activities.

The City of Rocks National Reserve lies
in south central Idaho within ten miles of
the Utah border. A new area to the sys-
tem, the reserve features spectacular
rock formations. A major segment of the
historic California Trail passes through
the park, and many of the rocks have the
names or westward immigrants.

While the NPS owns the reserve, the leg-
islation directs that it eventually be man-
aged by the State of Idaho. The Denver
Service Center currently is developing a
Comprehensive Management Plan for
the park. Planning team members in-
clude two representatives from the Idaho
Department of Parks and Recreation,
four private citizens from surrounding
communities, and Reserve Superinten-
dent Dave Pugh, former Chief of Interpre-
tation of the Pacific Northwest Region,
Among the team's charges are the devel-
opment of interpretive themes and objec-
tives, and the final plan will include
elements of an Interpretive Plan.

itheast

National
Capital

Harpers
Ferry

r underestimate the potential of
I towns in the Southeast Region, es-
lly KoHciusko, Mississippi! Under
inaction of the Kosciusko Heritage
dation, this community of 8000
d more than $250,000 for the con-
tion of a welcome center on the
hoz Trace Parkway. One of many
drives collected better than 99% of
I's pledged, a remarkable feat by any
raising standard. Then they se-
1 400 volunteers to staff it every day
Jt Christmas. Soon the foundation
aiae thousands more for a perma-
exhibit,

s opening in November 1984, the cen-
as served the needs of almost
)00 visitors and built a strong, long-
bond between the parkway and its
ibors. All of this at virtually no cost
3 National Park Service. What a
lership!

NCR maintains dozens of "pocket parks"
scattered throughout the Nation's Capital.
Some of these parks may only be a few
hundred square feet. Dwindling resources
make it increasingly difficult to maintain
these parks at standards acceptable to the
National Park Service and the local com-
munity.

Development of older neighborhoods and
commercial areas in Washington, DC, is
booming and Jeff Knoedler of the Re-
gional Office of Land Use Coordination
has given Adopt-A-Park a new twist. In
the course of coordinating land use is-
sues, developers are encouraged to Take
Pride In America and adopt pocket parks
bordering their projects by establishing
an endowment fund to maintain the
parks in perpetuity. Funds are managed
by the National Park Foundation with
25% of the annual interest being re-
turned to the principal to cover future
cost increases. The remainder of the inter-
est goes to maintain the park. To date.
two developers have set up pocket park
endowments totalling $85,000.

Director Ridenour said: "In ... an inter-
dependent global environment, sharing ,..
information before it is too late is one ex-
ample of why I so strongly advocate inter-
national communication and cooperation
.... We have the honor and the obligation to
share our expertise with other countries
...." He was writing about environmental
protection, but the words apply equally
well to interpretation.

At Harpers Ferry Center there is a con-
stant parade of visitors. They come be-
cause of an interest in the NPS's center for
interpretive media design, one of the few
such installations in the world. A partial
list of guests during the past year gives a
flavor of the widespread sharing that oc-
curs at this one NPS facility. We hosted a
delegation from Poland; the Visitor Ser-
vices Supervisor from the Ministry of Nat-
ural Resources, Toronto, Canada: the
Senior Vice President, National Audubon
Society; Peace Corps volunteers to Malawi;
and a delegation from the Royal Forest De-
partment, National Parks and Wildlife^
Conservation Divisions, Bangkok, Thai-
land.