Ronald W. Johnson The Success of Planning Partnerships: Three 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 ), a large totem

80 The George Wright FORUM pole assemblage (Figure 1), and the Southeast 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 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 College or the Uni- futures for the community. versity of Alaska–Southeast. The city To accomplish this, NPS utilized and borough of Sitka could share funding allocated to complete the facilities with the park to benefit gateway plan, which was distributed visitor orientation programs. The

82 The George Wright FORUM park might at some point share staff organized groups. and programs with Alaska State The park will continue its dia- Parks and Recreation or the Sitka logue on a government-to-govern- Historical Society to present inter- ment basis with the Sitka Tribe of pretive programs. These potential Alaska, a federally recognized tribe alliances with other partners who headquartered in town. Regular con- have a vested interest to implement sultation will continue between the new programs pose challenges as park and other local and regional well as opportunities for park man- Alaska Natives regarding visitor agement. services and outreach programs fo- The general management plan cusing on ceremonial, interpretive, also introduced several additional and educational functions. The Sitka partnership possibilities. For exam- Tribe of Alaska and the park have ple, the expansion of a more perma- entered into preliminary discussions nent shuttle system provides a major to determine the scope of the tribe’s opportunity to even the flow of visi- interest in performing components of tors to the park, especially during park operations. peak times. An overwhelming per- The long-term harmonious rela- centage of park visitors arrive by tionship between the park and the large tour boats from mid-May to late Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural August. To make peak demand times Center will continue. Since 1969, the work efficiently, shuttle and tour op- center, a nonprofit organization, has erators would be given up-to-date protected and perpetuated tradi- information on capacity limitations at tional art forms, all of which provide the park, especially the visitor center, substantial enjoyment to park visi- so that they can brief visitors on their tors. The cultural center’s craft vehicles about other worthwhile ex- workers make and sell traditional periences throughout the park or in objects serving as a key aspect of the the community. Collaborative part- park’s interpretive programs. The nerships can develop a more effective cultural center will remain in the and safer physical link along a busy park’s newly enlarged visitor facility, street between the park and the cen- with Native Alaskan artisans demon- tral business district. Another part- strating wood-carving, regalia mak- nership arrangement may be created ing, and silver working—all of which with various public and private orga- provide an interpretive highlight to nizations to establish an integrated visitors and income for local resi- environmental education program in dents. The park will continue con- Sitka. New programs for local and sultations with the Alaska Native regional audiences and for national Brotherhood and Sisterhood, the as well as international visitors could Center Council of the Tlingit and be geared to children, college stu- Haida Indian Tribes, the Shee Atika dents, families, senior citizens, and Corporation, and the Sealaska Cor-

Volume 19 • Number 1 2002 83 poration. The cooperative relationship was In Sitka, several essentials were especially noteworthy in identifying crucial to the success of the gateway transportation links between the and park management plans. Active park’s four scattered units. This and committed participation from topic, while not addressed in the community decision-makers was im- enabling legislation, surfaced as a portant to ensure eventual project long-term need during planning. completion. Interest and support Presently, a successor to the original from park staff and management, and commission coordinates with park interaction between park and com- management. munity representatives provided an Different partners manage the park’s essential component for success. four units. Park Service management Such interaction may be enhanced is legislatively limited to the Wright when the park is small, and values Cycle Shop, the nearby Hoover inside and outside the park bounda- Block, and a small parcel of land ries coincide. Finally, when prepar- between the two properties in West ing a plan or study directly for gen- Dayton. The state of Ohio, through eral distribution, it is important to the Ohio Historical Society, manages include a great deal of preliminary the Paul Laurence Dunbar State graphic design strategies (maps, site Memorial, located about a half-mile drawings, future views) that can pro- from the core NPS facility. Carillon vide effective tools for the public to Historical Park manages the 1905 visualize future possibilities. Wright Flyer III (the first heavier- than-air controllable aircraft) and Wright Hall, in which the National Historic Landmark plane is The Dayton Aviation Heritage displayed. Wright-Patterson Air Commission provided oversight and Force Base controls Huffman Prairie input to the park’s general manage- Flying Field (the first test field). ment plan between 1994-1997. Part- Throughout the park’s planning ner representatives, site managers, process, the planners collaborated and local citizens composed this with these external entities (Figure commission, which was mandated in 2). At each milestone, workshops the 1992 legislation with a stipulated occurred, input was recorded, and “sunset” to coincide with the com- results were circulated quickly pletion of planning. During the plan- among the partners for revision and ning phase, park management devel- follow-up. This generally occurred oped and nurtured an effective in two distinct phases: one with the working relationship with the feder- partners and a second with the com- ally chartered commission, a 13- mission at its regularly scheduled member group that provided worth- meetings. Planners attended numer- while input at various key points. ous commission meetings and held a

84 The George Wright FORUM half-dozen well-publicized work- cooperation with the city of Dayton, shops during all phases of planning. which is currently implementing its Besides federal-level planning, the own successful urban redevelopment state of Ohio created the Wright- plan for the neighborhood. Dunbar State Heritage Commission Within the framework of the part- to tackle grassroots economic and nership outlined in the 1997 general community development issues be- management plan, each site has yond the scope of the park and the maintained organizational and op- commission. The state body had erational autonomy. The non-NPS clearly defined but unrealized re- partners have established goals and sponsibilities, including preparation membership responsibilities and of a management plan for properties convene on a regular basis with park that should be “preserved, restored, management to discuss and resolve developed, maintained, or ac- common issues. As of summer 2001, quired,” emphasizing redevelopment this collaborative approach is work- and revitalization of the Wright- ing effectively in Dayton. –Dunbar West Dayton neighbor- The challenge to NPS is to meld hood. This plan will be prepared in the newer non-traditional parks with

Volume 19 • Number 1 2002 85 the bureau’s more conventional op- tage preservation, economic devel- erational, resource stewardship, and opment, and urban renewal. Aviation outreach policies. While some of the history devotees in Dayton deserve newer historical parks such as Day- recognition for their vigorous advo- ton Aviation have a small land base, cacy for designation and develop- their importance to and impact on ment of a new park, one that tran- their host communities often tran- scends legislated federal-sector con- scends the size of the acreage, annual tributions. operations appropriations, and visi- The process of implementing ac- tation. Non-traditional parks give tive partnerships as outlined in the communities such as Dayton an general management plan has been a overarching sense of local pride. gradual process. Effective partner- Similar to the societal thrust for ur- ships take time to evolve into mature ban areas to attract Fortune 500 relationships. In 1998, the commis- companies who intend to relocate, as sion had helped establish a Main well as footloose major-league sports Street Program for West Third franchises, non-traditional urban- Street, where the park is located. based parks can help bolster a com- Since autumn 2000, the Main Street munity’s identity and sense of grass- Program has acquired six properties roots self-worth by attracting the at- and funding support from the federal tention of local residents, civic orga- government. Meanwhile, the com- nizations, and the media. mission had hired an executive di- Planners and park resource man- rector and with the addition of staff agers must take into account the in- became an effective organizational tricacies of grassroots support and structure. As a result of a boundary interest for this unique type of NPS change, in 2000 Aviation Trail, Inc., endeavor. Local special interests, added its new building to the park. even those with widely differing All these partners are strong advo- agendas, often coalesce around a cates for the park. common mission. For example, a One area where the concepts out- local historical society, Aviation lined in the general management plan Trail, Inc., took the lead to save the have taken a different course has Wright Cycle Company building been in the commission’s develop- from possible demolition. Another ment of a non-profit support group, aviation-related booster group, The the Aviation Heritage Foundation. 2003 Committee (created to plan for Also, the commission has provided the 2003 Centenary of Flight) vigor- draft legislation to the Ohio congres- ously advocated National Park Sys- sional delegation to create a National tem status. Dayton-area private-sec- Aviation Heritage Area that would tor opinion leaders lobbied for des- have a core area in southwestern ignation of a new park for seemingly Ohio with links to aviation sites conflicting motives, including heri- throughout the state. Broadening of

86 The George Wright FORUM the aviation heritage concept has re- historic landmark situated on a nar- ceived large-scale support, with the row spit of land surrounded on three hope of eventual congressional pas- sides by the Tennessee River, adja- sage. cent to a Civil War battlefield. The In the management of nationally study area is rich with highly signifi- significant cultural resources, there is cant prehistoric Native American great deal of buzz about partnerships sites illustrating occupation stretch- that sound useful in principle. Such ing back several thousand years. The partnerships can actually fall short site also contains Civil War-era re- when it is time for partners to fund sources including trench lines, artil- capital-intensive development pro- lery positions, and bivouac sites con- jects directly benefiting resources structed by Federal troops who managed by non-federal owners. fought in the 1863 Chickamauga and The Dayton model—fueled with a Chattanooga campaign. mix of federal, state, city, and private In 1950, Secretary of the Interior dollars—proves what can be accom- Oscar L. Chapman reported to the plished. A partnership works if there chairman of the House Committee is commitment from all partners to on Public Lands that the “Moccasin step forth. In Dayton, local and state Bend lands, which are now chiefly governments as well as semi-private used for agricultural purposes, funders were available up front to get should be added to the Chickamauga the project moving on a timely basis. and Chattanooga National Military New parks do not arrive in full Park for administration and protec- bloom, but require a planning and tion in keeping with general objec- development phase. When this ur- tives of national park administra- ban park’s administrative history is tion....” That same year Congress eventually written, the record will enacted legislation that authorized credit a diverse group of public- and the addition of 1,400 acres of Moc- private-sector individuals and orga- casin Bend to the nearby park. Prop- nizations. Friends of Dayton aviation erty was acquired by state, county, (both paid and volunteer) have spent and city governments but never countless hours to get the new park transferred to NPS. In the late 1990s, fully operational and to implement various local entities reopened the community improvements in the Moccasin Bend issue and by 1998 Wright Brothers’ West Dayton Congress appropriated funding for neighborhood. another study. Currently the tract, officially known as the Moccasin Bend Archeological District National In contrast to the Sitka and Day- Historic Landmark, has several non- ton parks, Moccasin Bend is not cur- federal owners and managers, in- rently a National Park System area. cluding the city of Chattanooga, Moccasin Bend is a 956-acre national Hamilton County, the state of Ten-

Volume 19 • Number 1 2002 87 nessee, and Star City Development and discuss issues with the planners. Corporation; one parcel contains a At two well-attended workshops held private residence. The federal gov- at the Chattanooga-Hamilton County ernment owns no land at Moccasin Convention and Trade Center, ap- Bend. proximately 100 individuals shared To fulfill the congressional man- ideas and suggestions. A public date, new planning for Moccasin meeting held at the Tennessee Bend was conducted by establishing Aquarium provided planners with an an interagency team comprising rep- opportunity to describe the purpose resentatives from the Chattanooga- and background of the study process Hamilton County Planning Agency, while presenting the audience with a the state of Tennessee, and NPS. platform to articulate comments and The team quickly developed working concerns about the future of Mocca- relationships with American Indian sin Bend. Thirty representatives of groups, the Friends of Moccasin federally recognized tribes attended Bend, local, state, and federal offi- two meetings in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in cials, the academic community, and July and November 1998. The Park the public—all of whom supported Service recorded 50 responses to and endorsed some sort of future two newsletters sent out in February preservation. Planners initially elic- and April 1998, and another 43 ited input from the city, Hamilton comment sheets and letters on the County, the local congressman, the draft document in October 1998. governor’s office, the state buildings NPS also received approximately authority, and local organizations 3,000 signatures collected by the and groups. American Indian Friends of Moccasin Bend support- groups, including tribal members ing the creation of a Moccasin Bend and elected representatives aug- unit of the National Park System. mented by contemporary non-native Additionally, NPS received ap- supporters of the Five Civilized Na- proximately 1,500 signatures de- tions whose traditional heritage was manding that the Moccasin Bend golf linked to Moccasin Bend before their course be excluded from a possible forced removal to Oklahoma during new park. Thus, the planning work the Trail of Tears, provided note- attracted a mixed reaction regarding worthy contributions. the future status of the site from a Public involvement included a se- committed and diverse clientele. ries of meetings, open houses, and Park Service planners completed workshops that attracted approxi- a comprehensive management plan mately 500 individuals in February, during a thirteen-month span from April, and October 1998. Informal mid-January 1998 to early February settings at the initial open houses 1999. Planners who evaluated the provided a comfortable venue for site validated its national significance interested parties to raise questions as well as its suitability and feasibility

88 The George Wright FORUM for inclusion in the National Park petitions to oppose the elimination of System, principally because of the a favorite, low-cost, conveniently site’s American Indian history and located public course. The local relationship to the Civil War. The congressman, an “on-the-record” study recommended that Moccasin supporter of the initiative, was not Bend be added to Chickamauga and prepared to get too far out in front of Chattanooga National Military Park. divided public opinion to advocate Although there was much support designation of Moccasin Bend. Fi- for such action in Chattanooga, as of nally, the new Bush administration spring 2001 local boosters and po- has already signaled that it may not litical forces have not resolved future be too keen on adding new units to disposition of a state-run mental the National Park System. These un- health hospital and the golf course at resolved issues have delayed adding Moccasin Bend (Figure 3). Tennes- the site to the nearby park. Legisla- see apparently is not ready to raze tion to create Moccasin Bend Na- the hospital. A replacement else- tional Historic Site (H.R. 980) was where would saddle the state with a passed in the House of Representa- multi-million-dollar capital develop- tives in late 2001, but no action has ment project. If the state de-institu- parks are not created by the Park tionalizes the Moccasin Bend facility, Service’s merely conducting a plan- then perhaps the hospital will be re- ning study, notwithstanding a tech located to a more central location. As nically proficient document, a solid noted above, 1,500 golfers signed record of effective partnering, and an

Volume 19 • Number 1 2002 89 extensive public involvement pro- dividends. The planners must de- gram. Planners evaluate such re- velop innovative methods to conduct sources as Moccasin Bend at the be- traditional business or responsibili- hest of Congress. Once the planners ties. Even the inclusion of small items complete their project, it is the re- in a draft plan can serve as a symbolic sponsibility of the local community victory to a partner with a specific to lobby the state’s congressional agenda. This buy-in proves useful at delegation for further federal action. the review and revision stage. Plan- ners must make every effort to get a complete draft plan on the street be- Planners learned a number of fore too much time passes—the pub- valuable lessons from the three pro- lic generally loses interest when not jects. Although each general man- given a product quickly. Once a agement plan or special study dealt product is ready for review, the local with specific issues in three widely community should receive credit for differing geographic and resource its participation, whether supportive circumstances, some common obser- or critical. People like to be acknowl- vations emerged. Planners cannot edged as having assisted the plan- expect or demand that local commu- ners, who in actuality served as con- nities allocate much personal or sultants to the community. Meetings, professional time to a bureaucratic workshops, and other special events process. While the three planning must be well publicized through projects had a great deal of involve- various media in a community; yet ment during the initial steps of the despite these efforts, small turnouts process, it was NPS planners who at public meetings and open houses wrote and revised the documents. do occur. Planners should expect Representatives from local organiza- that only a small number of mail-back tions and planning agencies best response sheets might be returned. If serve the process by opening doors a project has gone well and is not to local constituencies, providing controversial, responses may be technical support, participating in quite limited. On the other hand, if, the review function by vetting draft for whatever reason, the project documents, and providing a suppor- blows up, the feedback numbers in- tive presence at public involvement crease exponentially. Of great im- milestones. Planners should not be portance, funding at some level al- reluctant to incorporate local input in ways fosters implementation. Studies planning documents. This indirect should indicate that a useful level of endorsement by an external entity of financial support is appropriate for locally generated ideas, proposals, NPS to assume in conjunction with and alternatives is the essence of its partners—all the better if Con- public involvement and partnership gress is favorably disposed at some relationships and often pays large point. Further, there is always an

90 The George Wright FORUM expectation of future dollars in the occasions those on the train at the pipeline through congressional ap- beginning of the journey may, for propriations during a plan’s life span one reason or another, step off or for an existing park unit. A plan head in another direction. This is not should indicate this good news in something to dread; it is a realistic general terms, knowing full well the aspect. The most successful projects vagaries of congressional funding. manage to keep a majority of the pas- Some observations about partner- sengers on board until the journey ships in the planning process as well ends. It is critical for the planning as in the eventual implementation team to exert strenuous efforts to phases are appropriate. Partners of- complete the project in a timely (and ten include local citizens and gov- cost-effective) manner and, thereby ernments, trade associations such as keep the constituents enthusiastic the Chamber of Commerce, newspa- (and on board). What many people pers, cultural and historical organi- outside of government fail to realize zations, grassroots and state history is that the federal bureaucracy really societies, as well as federally recog- grinds onward at a glacial pace; occa- nized Native American tribes and sionally other entities, especially in their allies, and federal agencies such the private sector get out in front, as the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. change the direction and intent of a Air Force. Other external influences project, and charge ahead. In a busy, include congressional, state, and lo- media- and market-driven society, cal officials. During the average life of the National Park Service is not the a planning project, alliances con- only game in town. stantly shift and evolve. On many

Blake, Lawrence. 2002. Personal communication to author, 9 March. Johnson, Ronald W. 1999. Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park—a non-traditional park takes off. CRM 22:5, 26-29. National Park Service. 1997a. Dayton Aviation Heritage General Management Plan Interpretive Plan. November. Denver: NPS Denver Service Center. ———. 1997b. Sitka Gateway Community Assistance Design Workshop Recommendations Range of Alternatives. Denver: NPS Denver Service Center. ———. 1998a. Planning Beyond Park Boundaries: Summary of the Gateway Community Initiatives Pilot Projects. Washington, D.C.: NPS. ———. 1998b. Sitka National Historical Park Alaska General Management Plan. November. Denver: NPS Denver Service Center. ———. 1999. Moccasin Bend Tennessee Cooperative Management Plan Environmental Assessment. February. Denver: NPS Denver Service Center. Reed, Patrick H. 2000. Partnership planning: involving partners in meaningful ways. CRM 23:7, 26-28. ———. 2002. Personal communication to author, 12 March.

Ronald W. Johnson, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225-0287

Volume 19 • Number 1 2002 91