The Success of Planning Partnerships: Three National Park Service Case Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ronald W. Johnson The Success of Planning Partnerships: Three National Park Service Case Studies he benefits of federal, state, local, and private partnerships that support National Park Service (NPS) planning have evolved rapidly in recent decades. For instance, park planning has been opened up to comprehensive public participation. This has not always been the case; historically Congress often designated new Tfederal parks without eliciting much public comment. A more inclusive approach to park planning has developed from a host of diverse in- fluences. Societal expectations that stemmed from of the tumultuous 1960s demands for participatory democracy prompted enactment of legislation to direct federal agencies and bureaus, including NPS, to encourage a host of external parties to involve themselves in the planning process. Park planning became interdisciplinary, driven by environmental compliance that dictates comprehensive public participation. The Park Service has an informal cadre of public involvement specialists who have developed a range of useful tools to assist the planning teams. Contemporary park and central-office managers have assumed a more supportive posture towards public participation duties mandated by Congress. Legislation such as the National Environmental Pol- icy Act has been translated and codified at the departmental, agency, and bu- reau level into public policy. For example, NPS’s 1988 Management Policies defined public involvement requirements: During the past two decades, NPS professionals have touched base with a variety of external parties to make The revised planning policy, Di- sure the planning process provides a rector’s Order no. 2 on park plan- useful and beneficial result to all ning (1999), further describes the stakeholders. Contemporary NPS partnership approach: planning documents provide a valu- able record of partnerships that have been nurtured and enhanced from a project’s start through completion. Volume 19 • Number 1 2002 79 This paper will illustrate the value of constructing a solid foundation for the partnership approach to planning community buy-in at the approval by examining three case studies stage. When it comes to public in- whose success was influenced by the volvement, there is no “one size fits inclusion of external entities and all” cookie-cutter approach. Re- augmented by continuing involve- garding Dayton and Sitka, the ap- ment throughout each project’s life- proved general management plans cycle. The first two case studies deal provide blueprints for the manage- with traditional National Park Sys- ment, interpretation, development, tem units. The first, Sitka National and preservation of the parks’ re- Historical Park, was designated by sources for a 10-15 year interval. As President Benjamin Harrison as a for the Chattanooga study, the U.S. public park in 1890; it then received Congress will either consider or set national monument status in 1910 aside the comprehensive manage- and was enlarged several times dur- ment plan’s proposals. ing the 20th century. The second, As its contribution to a partner- Dayton Aviation Heritage National ship relationship, an NPS interdisci- Historical Park, earned its congres- plinary team brings a respected ca- sional blessing in 1992. The final chet of interpretive, preservation, case study describes the approach and resource management planning taken for a comprehensive manage- experience to the affected communi- ment and development plan for ties. Veteran professionals have Moccasin Bend, a tract of land origi- honed a wealth of park planning ex- nally considered for addition to perience gained from challenging Chickamauga and Chattanooga Na- assignments throughout the United tional Military Park some 50 years States. Recent generations of well- ago. trained planners have been intro- In each of the three projects, ex- duced to public involvement meth- ternal groups, local residents, and ods and techniques in collegiate and commissions or advisory groups ac- graduate school planning programs. tively participated in the Park Serv- These enthusiastic but less-experi- ice’s planning scheme. This personal enced planners have eagerly put and professional commitment en- planning theory to work in the fol- hanced the usefulness of the product. lowing case studies. Planners devised public outreach and participation strategies tailored Between 1996 and 1998, planners to the individual needs of each pro- completed a general management ject to generate the greatest amount plan for Sitka National Historical of local involvement. This was ac- Park. This 106-acre urban park cele- complished to make certain that the brates the rich culture and heritage of widest range of input was elicited to the Northwest Pacific coastal Native create an effective plan as well as Alaskans (the Tlingit), a large totem 80 The George Wright FORUM pole assemblage (Figure 1), and the Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural Center. NPS made a concurrent pledge to assist the city and borough of Sitka with gateway planning that linked the park to the city (not a dif- ficult thing to undertake since the park is located just a half-mile from the central business district). This pilot project had been mandated through NPS’s gateway community planning initiative, where selected parks collaborate with adjacent communities to address and resolve common issues. In Sitka, Park Serv- ice staff had the good fortune to work with an existing community entity created to take a fresh look at local planning—the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Team (ComIT). Part of the initial process to launch this collaborative effort involved the approval of a memorandum of un- derstanding with the municipal gov- ernment to codify what NPS would do in concert with the ComIT. This September caused primarily by congruent planning and design proc- cruise ship passengers. ess began in March 1996 and was · Coordinating planning of the completed by April 1997. As part of types and locations of Sitka visi- the gateway planning agreement, tor-use facilities, such as: orienta- NPS pledged to assist the Sitka tion, interpretation, gift and book community with the following grass- sales, restrooms, food service, roots issues (among others): emergency services, and trans- • Assisting in planning for the pres- portation. ervation of the visual and envi- · Providing assistance in designing ronmental quality of the park and and locating orientation signs. · those community components · Planning an orchestrated system shared with the park. of access and circulation, includ- • Addressing visitor distribution, ing auto, bicycle, and pedestrian particularly related to over- traffic routes and linkages. crowding during the high visitor- · Working with Alaska Natives to use period from mid-May to mid- convey their cultural connections Volume 19 • Number 1 2002 81 to the park, including tourism, in the late summer of 1997. Almost subsistence, and cultural center simultaneously, and perhaps coinci- activities. dentally, positive results occurred, Workshops with Sitka area resi- including placement of uniform di- dents in 1995 and 1996 had identi- rectional and interpretive signage in fied numerous locally significant Sitka, improved local interpretative community attributes to be cele- programs, and support for a com- brated, issues to be addressed, and munity-sponsored shuttle bus system potential solutions that provided operating during periods of high valuable input for the gateway plan- visitation. Indirect benefits also de- ning process. In August 1996, NPS veloped including more community sponsored a week-long planning and awareness of the park’s mission and design charette, an intensive and goodwill for the Park Service. collaborative idea-generating exer- Sitka National Historical Park cise that challenged planners, de- management will continue its in- signers, and community representa- volvement with partnerships. In the tives to analyze Sitka’s needs and face of limited or declining appro- develop a range of alternatives to ad- priations, and because recent federal dress the issues identified above. budget surpluses that have not been The study document, entitled Gate- translated into vast new pools of ap- way Community Planning Assis- propriations for NPS, viable partner- tance—Design Workshop Recommen- ships have provided an effective dations—Range of Alternatives, il- method to achieve park objectives lustrated ideas, values, and concerns congruent with local aspirations. In expressed by Sitka residents, and the future, the park may partner with provided additional recommenda- private or corporate entities or with tions from the objective viewpoint of Alaska Native groups (such as the planners and designers. The gateway Sitka Tribe of Alaska). The park plan was an attractively packaged could also develop and present in- document overflowing with maps, terpretive programs in concert with illustrations, and graphics displaying the other National Park System units recommendations for future consid- in Southeast Alaska, Glacier Bay Na- eration by Sitka residents. Imple- tional Park and Preserve and Klon- mentation of this cooperative effort dike Gold Rush National Historical will require the city and borough of Park. The park may establish natural Sitka, local interests, and other in- and cultural education programs volved entities to reach consensus on with local institutions such as the more thorny issues of desired Sheldon Jackson College or the Uni- futures for the community. versity of Alaska–Southeast.