National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior
This report is the sixth in the Conservation and Stewardship Publication

Series produced by the Conservation Study Institute. This series includes

a variety of publications designed to provide information on conservation history and current practice for professionals and the public. The

series editor is Nora J. Mitchell, director of the Conservation Study Institute. The editors of this volume are Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, Nora J. Mitchell,

and Jessica Brown.

This report is based on a workshop convened for the National Park

Service Park Planning and Special Studies Program by the Conservation

Study Institute and QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment. For more

information on these organizations, see descriptions on the inside back

cover of this report.

Recommended citation: Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, Nora J. Mitchell, and Jessica

Brown. Conservation and Collaboration: Lessons Learned from National Park

Service Partnerships in the Western U.S. Conservation and Stewardship Publication No. 6. Woodstock, Vermont: Conservation Study Institute, 2004.

We encourage you to share the information in this publication, and

request only that you give appropriate citations and bibliographic

credits. Photographic images in this document are placed in the public

domain and can be reproduced along with the appropriate photo credit.

See the inside back cover for credit information.

For additional copies, contact:

Conservation Study Institute

54 Elm Street

Woodstock, VT 05091

Tel: (802) 457-3368 / Fax: (802) 457-3405

www.nps.gov/csi

Other publications in the Conservation and Stewardship Publication Series:

No. 1 Landscape Conservation: An International Working Session on the Stewardship of Protected Landscapes, 2001

No. 2 International Concepts in Protected Landscapes: Exploring Their Value for Communities in the Northeast, 2001

No. 3 Collaboration and Conservation: Lessons Learned in Areas Managed through National Park Service Partnerships, 2001

No. 4 Speaking of the Future: A Dialogue on Conservation, 2003

No. 5 A Handbook for Managers of Cultural Landscapes with Natural Resource Values, 2003 (web-based)

All publications are available in PDF format at www.nps.gov/csi.

ON THE COVER: Near Abiquiú, New Mexico. The Abiquiú area has been important in the history of New Mexico—

an 18th century Spanish outpost, a principal stopover on the Old Spanish Trail, and a community of Hispanicized

Indians, the Génizaros, whose plaza is still intact. Abiquiú is one of the Hispanic communities within the proposed

Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area that maintains historic traditions, customs, and practices.

BACKGROUND: Joshua Tree National Park in California 
Collaboration and Conservation

Lessons Learned from 

National Park Service Partnership Areas 

in the Western United States

A Report on a Workshop

March 18–19, 2003 • Santa Fe, New Mexico

The workshop was convened for the

National Park Service

Park Planning and Special Studies Program

by the

Conservation Study Institute and

QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP PUBLICATION NO. 6

Edited by Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, Nora J. Mitchell, and Jessica Brown

Published by the Conservation Study Institute

Woodstock, Vermont

2004
Dear Colleagues,

Partnerships play a growing role in our national system of parks and protected areas and will be

central to its future. As partnerships are integral to the work of both our organizations, we were

pleased to be asked by the National Park Service Park Planning and Special Studies Program to

convene this workshop on “Conservation and Collaboration: Lessons Learned from National Park

Service Partnerships in the Western United States.” The workshop, held in Santa Fe, built on 

the findings of a workshop we had convened in Vermont in 2000. The Santa Fe workshop provided 

an opportunity to explore similar issues in the context of the western United States and to take 

stock of progress in the three years since the first workshop on this topic. 

This workshop and report are timely given recent trends in conservation, which include an increased

interest in partnerships by the public sector and the growing strength and sophistication of the

nonprofit sector. Conservation today encompasses a broad range of values: linking nature and culture,

working at a larger scale across disciplines and political boundaries (including international ones),

valuing local knowledge, and collaborating with a variety of stakeholders. With an emphasis on 

place-based initiatives and stewardship, people and organizations working on conservation are now

engaging communities, respecting their leadership, and recognizing their special places. 

Reflecting the progress that has been made in gaining broad acceptance for partnerships and the

growing experience with this work, the Santa Fe workshop focused on what successful partnerships

look like “on the ground,” teasing out the elements of strong partnerships and exploring how these 

can be replicated. We believe the community-centered focus of this report is key, because ultimately

people take care of what is most meaningful to them. Conservation partnerships that engage 

citizens in the care of their special places will be successful and sustainable over the long term. 

This work is complicated and challenging, and practitioners rarely have a chance to reflect on what

they have learned or have a focused dialogue with their peers. The 2003 Santa Fe workshop, as did the

2000 workshop in Vermont, provided participants with the opportunity to do both. The participants 

in this session brought extensive experience working in diverse partnership settings. It was a great

pleasure for us to work with this group and to learn from their experience with partnerships in the

western United States.

With this publication, we are pleased to share participants’ insights and experiences with a broader

audience of practitioners, land managers, community leaders, and citizens. We hope their

recommendations for creating a sustainable environment for partnerships will stimulate additional

discussions and lead to more successful collaborations for conservation. As always, we welcome 

your thoughts.

Nora J. Mitchell Jessica Brown

Director Vice President, International Programs

Conservation Study Institute QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment
iv

CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

I. Workshop Goals and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Setting the Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A. Cultivating Connections to Land Stewardship

B. Recent Changes within the National Park Service

C. The Partner Landscape Today

D. An International Perspective

III. Capturing the Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. Assessing Partnerships by Partnership Area Type

B. Stories from the Field: Selected Case Studies 

C. Components of Successful Partnership Areas

IV. Envisioning a Sustainable Environment for Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A. A Conceptual Model for Partnerships

B. An Institutional Framework for Sustainable Partnerships

V. Creating a Sustainable Environment for Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

A. Creating Change

B. Developing a Strategic Approach to Sustaining Partnerships

C. Looking Ahead

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A. International Landscape Designations

B. Description of the National Park System and 

Other Nationally Designated Protected Areas

List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Workshop Conveners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
v

The national park system encompasses areas 

with more than 25 different titles including parks,

preserves, reserves, historical parks, seashores,

lakeshores, battlefields, memorials and historic

sites. Visitors pay little attention to the different

designations and often assume that all of these

areas are managed by the National Park Service. 

In fact, the national park system includes a wide

range of different management arrangements

involving partners. 

Partnerships are the focus of considerable attention

in 2004, but the NPS has a long history of working

with others to establish, manage, and protect

national parks and other parts of the nation’s

heritage. Action by state governments and private

philanthropists assembled land for many of our

best known national parks including Acadia, Grand

Teton, Virgin Islands, and Shenandoah. Canyon de

Chelly National Monument, established in 1931, 

is one of the early partnership examples where the

National Park Service shares responsibility for

management with the Navajo Nation, owners of the

land within the park boundaries. Public interests

and recent congressional designations are expanding partnership approaches and creating new

formulas for national recognition and new roles for

the National Park Service. 

While partnering is extremely popular, one of the

biggest challenges facing the NPS is how to most

effectively embrace the dictionary definition of

partnerships as “close cooperation between parties

having specified and joint rights and responsibilities.” This suggests the need to go beyond just

seeking financial support from friends and address

some difficult questions about how to clearly define

relationships and share responsibilities among

several diverse parties. Some partnerships have been

very successful, but there is no standard model 

that fits all and each new partnership requires a

certain amount of craftsmanship. 

From the park planning and special studies perspective, we find many similarities in the challenges

being faced by newly established parks, heritage

areas, wild and scenic rivers, and long distance

trails. In 2000, we asked the Conservation Study

Institute to facilitate a symposium on this topic to

encourage sharing of experience across these programs. A session conducted in Woodstock,

Vermont, which drew primarily on experience in the

East, identified principles that lead to successful

partnerships and the benefits that extend throughout the national park system. The report that

follows, from a second symposium held in Santa Fe

focusing on experience in the West, summarizes

insights and recommendations for creating an institutional framework and processes that will sustain

partnerships over the long term. 

We hope that the results of this workshop will be

part of a continuing discussion about how the

National Park Service can work more effectively in

partnership with others to conserve and protect our

nation’s natural and cultural treasures on either

side of a boundary that designates a park, river,

trail, or heritage area.

Warren Brown

Program Manager

Park Planning and Special Studies

National Park Service

FOREWORD
vi

A wealth of wisdom resides with people who have

put many hours into making conservation partnerships successful on the ground. Successful conservation protects natural and cultural resources, preserves

landscapes that provide meaning to our lives, and

engages diverse organizations and individuals who

have a stake in what happens to those resources.

Collaboration builds the personal relationships that

are critical to sustaining the partnership over the 

long term, shares administration and decisionmaking,

and passes the baton of stewardship to an expanding

network—and a new generation—of citizens.

In March 2003, 27 people with extensive and varied partnership experience from the National Park

Service (NPS) and partner organizations gathered at a

two-day workshop in Santa Fe, New Mexico, to share 

the lessons they had learned about building effective

conservation partnerships and to discuss how to

create a sustainable approach to partnerships that

includes the NPS, other federal agencies, and a wide

range of partner organizations.

This workshop, “Collaboration and Conservation:

Lessons Learned from NPS Partnership Areas in the

Western U.S.,” was designed to build on a similar

workshop held three years earlier in Woodstock,

Vermont (see Tuxill and Mitchell 2001 in Further

Reading). The Woodstock workshop described principles that lead to successful partnerships, and the benefits that extend throughout the national park system

and help the NPS and its partners achieve their conservation mission. Although much of the discussion in

Santa Fe reinforced the dialogue of the Woodstock

workshop, one difference between the two workshops

was striking. Today there is a more supportive environment for conservation partnerships, although significant challenges to creating successful, long-term,

sustainable partnerships remain.

The Santa Fe workshop opened with a series of

presentations that provided the context for partnerships, including a discussion of the challenges and

opportunities that exist in the western U.S. As participants discussed their experience and examined several

case studies more closely, nine characteristics of

successful partnerships emerged:

• A shared vision, created through the full engagement of all partners, agency and non-agency alike;

• Ownership of the partnership throughout each

partner organization;

• A genuine commitment to sharing responsibility in

problem-solving and decisionmaking;

• Strong interpersonal relationships, trust, and

ongoing communication;

• An appreciation and reliance upon one another’s

strengths;

• A flexible administrative environment for the partnership that encourages and rewards creativity,

risk-taking, innovation, and entrepreneurship;

• Sustained leadership at a variety of levels within

each partner organization;

• A strong local “taproot” that grounds the partnership in place, heritage, and traditions; and

• Place-based education initiatives that catalyze

citizen engagement.

Participants envisioned a model for a sustainable

environment for partnerships and an institutional

framework that would facilitate long-lasting relationships. Their community-centered model, with federal

and state agencies and private nongovernmental

organizations working together to facilitate and

support community-level partnerships, is combined

with a feedback process that captures and internalizes

the lessons learned. This feedback loop is transformative, leading to a minimization of administrative

barriers and a supportive authorizing environment

that encourages partnerships. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Partnerships...are a tremendous force for stewardship of the landscape—...

not just landscapes adjacent to parks, national rivers, national trails, and heritage areas, 

but across the street, on the other side of town, and in numerous rural settings.

— Jere Krakow, Superintendent, National Trails System, Intermountain Region, National Park Service
Their institutional framework for creating a positive, enabling environment for partnerships includes

an overall guiding vision for partnerships and the

presence of a strong “partnership culture” within

both agency and non-agency partners. Collaborative leadership skills are valued and encouraged by

all partners, and governing models rely on shared

control and decisionmaking, local engagement,

flexibility, effective communication, and learning

from experience.

Finally, participants developed a set of strategic

recommendations for creating a sustainable

environment for partnerships that included the

following:

• Develop a compelling, inspirational statement

that conveys the vision and message that

partnerships are integral to carrying out the conservation mission of the NPS, and market the

message widely throughout the agency and with

partners;

• Undertake “asset mapping” within the NPS and

other federal agencies in order to build on

current strengths; this would include compiling

success stories that demonstrate best practices,

assessing benefits and beneficiaries, identifying

and addressing gaps in the partnership toolbox,

and identifying capacity-building needs and

opportunities;

• Undertake research and analysis to support partnership development and recommend actions to

enhance the sustainability of partnership work,

including addressing current barriers to partnerships, defining the characteristics of successful

collaborative leadership, and identifying incentives for community-centered partnerships;

• Build the capacity for effective partnerships

within the NPS, other federal agencies, and partner organizations through targeted training,

sharing of lessons learned, and networking and

exchange; and

• Share success stories and celebrate successes

more broadly in order to increase understanding

of and support for partnership work. 

Although this report draws most extensively from

experience with National Park Service partnerships,

participants recognized the applicability to other

federal agencies and the importance of creating a

broader exchange across all federal land managing

agencies and a broad array of partners. They

intended their recommendations to apply to both

agency and partner institutions.

Within the NPS and sister agencies today there is

considerable movement toward partnerships as a

means of accomplishing conservation missions. As

these efforts move forward, it is imperative to

incorporate the lessons learned from successful

community-centered partnerships and put in place

the structure and processes that will sustain partnerships over the long term. It is through partner

relationships cultivated over time that we nurture a

stewardship ethic, achieve an engaged citizenry,

reach new constituencies, and commemorate

stories hitherto overlooked. The ability to conserve

America’s most treasured landscapes and the

natural and cultural heritage they contain will

ultimately rest on our success at creating such

lasting partnerships.

vii

Through partnership areas, parks can share expertise and technical assistance with communities, enhancing

the residents’ ability to preserve the cultural resources and living traditions of the region in which they

live. By doing so, parks can contribute to the long-term survival of the communities and landscapes that

provide important cultural and historical context for parks.

— Nancy Morgan, Executive Director, Cane River National Heritage Area
a.

b.

d.

viii

a. Canyon de Chelly National Monument in Arizona, established 

in 1931, has from its inception been a partnership between the NPS 

and the Navajo Nation, which has continued to own the land. 

Navajos live and farm within the monument today.

b. One of several historic structures at Pacific Springs on the Oregon

and California National Historic Trails, located just west of the

continental divide at South Pass in western Wyoming. South Pass

offered a lower elevation crossing of the Rocky Mountains to Pony

Express riders as well as emigrants on their way to Oregon, Utah, 

and California territories. 

c. Keith Bear of the Mandan Tribe provides 

a Trails & Rails interpretive program on

Amtrak’s Empire Builder train through

North Dakota. Trails & Rails, a national

partnership between the NPS and Amtrak,

offers educational opportunities to passengers

that encourage appreciation of regional

natural and cultural heritage.

d. Crissy Field Center, a program partnership between Golden Gate National

Recreation Area and Golden Gate National

Parks Conservancy, offers people of all ages

and backgrounds opportunities to examine

the intersections of the urban, humancentered world, and the natural world. 

The center is located at Crissy Field, a 100-

acre parcel of restored waterfront parkland

within the national recreation area.

c.
he March 2003 workshop, “Collaboration and

Conservation: Lessons Learned from National

Park Service Partnership Areas in the Western

U.S.,” brought together 27 participants from the

National Park Service (NPS) and partner agencies and

organizations who have extensive experience working in

diverse partnership settings primarily in the western

United States. The charge to participants was not only

to share what they had learned about creating effective

partnerships, but also to reflect more profoundly on

what changes might be needed in the National Park

Service to ensure a genuine commitment to partnerships. The workshop was designed to build on a similar

workshop held three years earlier in Woodstock,

Vermont (see Tuxill and Mitchell 2001 in Further

Reading).

The workshop had the following goals:

• Distill the lessons learned from areas managed

through NPS partnerships, with a focus on western

areas;

• Examine issues and challenges that cut across the

spectrum of partnership areas and the transferability

of approaches;

• Identify ways to enhance the effectiveness of existing

partnership areas and to guide planning for those

under consideration;

• Support NPS Director

Fran Mainella’s partnership initiative and the

work of the NPS

Partnership Council; and

• Continue building the

network of people

involved in partnerships

and strengthen understanding of the tools and

leadership skills essential

to sustaining long-term

partner relationships.

The workshop was structured to encourage reflection

and dialogue through a variety of approaches. Prior to

the meeting, participants responded to a set of questions related to 1) the strengths and successes of partnership areas; 2) the key issues and challenges facing

the NPS and its partners in planning for and managing

partnership areas; 3) the critical factors for successful

and effective planning and management of partnership

areas; and 4) the contribution and role of partnership

areas to conservation of the American landscape both

now and in the future. Participants’ responses helped

frame the workshop agenda and discussions, and

contributed both to the case studies developed for the

workshop and to this report.

Workshop participants had numerous opportunities

during the two days they were together to reflect on

what leads to successful partnership work and share the

insights they have gained. The first day included an

examination by partnership area type (see box on partnership vocabulary on page 5) of what is working well

and why; a closer look at specific cases; and a roundtable dialogue, in which participants built upon each

other’s insights. On the second day, participants were

challenged to think strategically about what a sustainable environment for partnerships would look like—both

on a national scale and at the community level—and

what it would take to achieve this. They were asked to

think expansively and to envision how their organizations could participate.

Although the workshop focused on National Park

Service partnerships, participants agreed that the

insights discussed and the recommendations developed

for creating partnership-supportive environments would

benefit others—including other federal agencies—who

work with partnerships involving communities and public lands. This report attempts to capture participants’

wisdom and strategic thinking, as well as their candor,

in order to produce a document that can inform public

land–community partnerships and help guide all partners toward more effective stewardship of this nation’s

special landscapes.

1

I. Workshop Goals and Design

T
2

a. A partnership approach to planning along the Rio

Grande Wild and Scenic River in Texas led to negotiated

landowner agreements along most of the designated

river’s private reaches, designed to protect the outstanding river values and the critical river put-in and take-out

locations.

b. Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve, located

on Whidbey Island in Washington state, preserves an

historic farming landscape that also includes the

Victorian seaport of Coupeville. The Reserve is managed

through a partnership among the NPS; state, county,

and local governments; and private nonprofit

organizations.

c. Grant-Kohrs National Historic Site in Montana—

“the nation’s ranch”—preserves a working cattle ranch

with more than 125 years of ranching heritage. The

ranch benefits from a formal partnership with Utah

State University through the Tehabi program. Students

work as ranch hands, learning low stress livestock

handling techniques while training cattle to prefer

invasive species as forage, providing the ranch much

needed resource management assistance.

d. Point Reyes National Seashore in California

preserves the natural ecosystems and diverse cultural

resources of a spectacularly beautiful coastal landscape.

The park has identified 12 historic cultural landscapes

within its boundaries and the north district of Golden

Gate National Recreation Area, which it administers.

The single largest of these, the “historic dairy district,”

includes a number of ranches that have been in

continuous operation since the 1860s. 

e. The boundary of Redwood National and State Parks

encompasses three California state parks. The NPS and

California Department of Parks and Recreation jointly

administer this popular destination area. 

f. Death Valley National Park in California contains

ancestral homelands of the  ́Timbisha Shoshone, who

received federal recognition as a tribe in 1983. In 2000 the  ́Timbisha

Shoshone Homeland Act conveyed 314 acres of land within the park

to the  ́Timbisha Tribe; established other special use areas on federal

land, to be co-managed by the NPS, Bureau of Land Management,

and the tribe; and created a tribe-NPS partnership for interpreting the

 ́Timbisha history and culture to park visitors.

a.

c.

b.
3

II. Setting the Context The first “Collaboration and Conservation”

workshop, held in Woodstock, Vermont, in

2000, was one of the first opportunities specifically designed for practitioners to share their experiences of working in National Park Service partnership

areas (see box on partnership vocabulary on page 5)

that extend the traditional NPS management model. At

that workshop, participants described principles that

contribute to successful partnerships and the benefits

that spread from partnership areas throughout the

national park system. Looking to the future, participants in the 2000 workshop recognized the ongoing

need to learn from both the NPS and its partners about

building effective long-term collaborations. They also

identified the importance of creating a broader vision

for the NPS and its partners that includes diverse

partnership models, and of fostering a deeper understanding of partnerships as a potent catalyst for

landscape stewardship (see Tuxill and Mitchell 2001 in

Further Reading).

Three years later, the setting for partnership work

had changed dramatically. Partnership work has

matured and is expanding in many ways. Within partnership areas and within the NPS as a whole there is

increasing commitment to partnerships as a means of

accomplishing common goals. The 2003 Santa Fe workshop opened with four presentations to review these

changes and set the workshop discussions in context. 

What partnerships require is reaching for the best 

in ourselves, reaching for the best in our institutions, 

and reaching for the best of our country’s values––

the values of civic engagement and deep democracy 

that are so fundamental to this nation.

— Greg Moore, Executive Director

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy

e.

d.

f.
4

A. Cultivating Connections 

to Land Stewardship

Karen Wade, then regional director for the NPS

Intermountain Region, reflected on the philosophy

underlying her approach to partnerships and conservation. Drawing from the writings of Aldo Leopold, she

talked of the shift that occurs when people embrace 

a conservation ethic in their approach to managing land

and resources, a shift from viewing their role as conqueror of the land to that of member and citizen of the

land community. This philosophical approach led her 

to a model of joint citizen responsibility, rather than to

the traditional paradigm of agency control of land

management. For Wade this meant, in her former

capacity as superintendent of Great Smoky Mountains

National Park, “turning the people’s park, the Great

Smoky Mountains, back to the people in a way that

truly connected them to their heritage.” 

Wade sees the NPS as a potential force for facilitating a conservation ethic among the broader citizenry,

and views partnerships as creating opportunities for

doing so. “It’s the only way to do business in today’s

world,” she said. In the four years she served as regional

director for the Intermountain Region, she took steps to

put her partnership vision into effect regionwide as a

means of engaging citizens in land stewardship (see

Turley 2003 in Further Reading). Especially in the West,

where there is so much public land and a large government presence, Wade believes the critical relationships

the NPS needs to develop are with the citizens and

communities adjacent to and within public lands. “It is

only in those places where NPS staff have developed

meaningful relationships within the community that we

are having an effect on the way people think and feel

about their responsibilities to the land and to conservation and heritage values.”

In order to better work with communities within the

Intermountain Region, Wade designated a coordinator

for each state. “These coordinators enable us to establish and maintain relationships that are critical for this

network of people interested in preserving America’s

heritage values across the landscape and for enhancing

the agency role in that. And much of that is outside the

boundaries of parks.” Wade also established an award

program to reward people within and outside the

agency for exemplary partnership work.

B. Recent Changes within 

the National Park Service 

Ray Murray, team leader for planning and partnerships, NPS Pacific West Region, discussed specific developments within the NPS over the previous year aimed at

increasing agency capacity for successful partnering.

NPS Director Fran Mainella, who has emphasized the

importance of partnerships to the agency’s mission, has

put into effect several important partnership initiatives

that will provide increasing support and coordination

agency-wide for partnership efforts over the coming

years. In 2002, she established a new associate director

position with responsibility for partnership policy 

and programs across the agency. (In addition to partnerships, this position includes responsibilities for

interpretation and education, volunteers, and outdoor

recreation.) Associate Director Christopher Jarvi also

coordinates partnership efforts with sister natural

resource agencies within and outside the Department 

of Interior.

Director Mainella created a new agency-wide body,

the NPS Partnership Council, in 2002. The council’s role

is to advise her and Associate Director Jarvi on policy

and issues related to partnership programs, and to

facilitate communication and dialogue across the

agency and with the National Park Foundation as well

as other foundations, friends groups, and partners. The

council’s charter states in part, “Partnerships can 

be used to connect people with their parks, ideas, and a

conservation ethic that will sustain our parks forever.

Partnerships are important in both park management

and program administration because they enable us 

to become more effective in our work, to be more

responsive to state, local, tribal, and private sector concerns, and to bring us closer to the public we serve.” 

Murray, who represents the Pacific West Region on

the Partnership Council, spoke of the essential work the

council is doing in “mapping out partnering in the

[National] Park Service” by looking at mission statements and strategic plans, roles and functions, and

capacity-building. He also discussed efforts to address

barriers and to develop additional training support

capacity and means of disseminating information, so

that the wealth of knowledge can be shared and 

people know where to turn to get ideas, inspiration, 

and mentorship.

II. SETTING THE CONTEXT
A Working Vocabulary for NPS Partnerships

Even with veteran partnership practitioners

within the NPS and partner organizations,

there is often confusion about the term

“partnership area.” For the NPS, the term “partnership” is used in several ways:

Within national parks, partnerships are increasingly

important in carrying out basic missions and

mandates. Many national park managers have initiated

collaborations with neighboring communities and

local organizations to create better communications

and work on issues of mutual interest, such as visitor

traffic and adjacent land development. Overall,

partners in the national parks include neighboring

communities, volunteers, friends groups, cooperating

associations, and concession operators, as well as

corporations, foundations, and others who help support park operations. 

In certain congressionally authorized areas, including some national parks, national heritage areas, wild

and scenic rivers, and long distance trails, the authorizing legislation specifies one or more partners to work

with the NPS in planning and managing the designated area. In these partnership areas, the federal government is not the sole landowner, and management

involves sharing responsibility. Partners may include

state and other federal agencies, local governments,

and local business or nonprofit organizations:

• Most national long-distance trails or designated

river corridors cross land that is owned privately

or by another federal agency or state or local

authority, and must be administered jointly with

those landowners. See case studies beginning on

page 14 and page 18.

• National heritage area designation does not imply

additional federal acreage, and generally a local

management entity carries out conservation,

interpretation, and other activities through partnerships among federal, state, and local governments and private nonprofit organizations. In

this situation, the NPS provides technical and

financial assistance to the local managing entity.

See case study on page 16.

• Partnership parks use various formulas for the

NPS to share management responsibilities, with

two or more managers coordinating oversight of

the lands within a boundary. See case studies on

page 17 and page 19.

The term partnership programs refers to programs

that the NPS administers outside of its role as a land

manager. These programs operate from NPS regional

offices and provide technical and financial assistance

to states, local governments, and the private sector for

such activities as historic preservation, river and trail

conservation, urban parks, and recreation.

Adapted from Tuxill and Mitchell 2001

BELOW: Great Sand Dunes National Monument and Preserve in Colorado

is a partnership effort aimed at protecting the tallest dunes in North

America. The NPS works with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land

Management, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and many state and 

private partners to conserve the public and privately-owned 

lands that comprise this remarkable ecosystem. 
C. The Partner Landscape Today

In reflecting on partnership work from the perspective of an organization that partners with the NPS, Greg

Moore, executive director of Golden Gate National

Parks Conservancy, acknowledged a shift in thinking

about partnerships within NPS and the effect this has

had on him as a partner. “What’s new are the degree of

confidence...and the sophistication of thought about

partnerships” that now exist within the agency, he

noted. “‘Partnerships’ as a concept has moved from

something that individuals with creative abilities

practice to something that the full institution is embracing and encouraging and teaching,” a trend that 

Moore finds reassuring and uplifting. In describing the

challenges of partnership work, he said that the promise

and opportunities of partnering keep him going: “We

can turn exhaustion to exhilaration, frustrations to

fulfillment, and inefficiency into productivity.” 

Moore suggests that nonprofit partners bring important values to the public-private partnership: inclusiveness, respect, trust (both individual and institutional),

generosity, public-spiritedness, and social purpose.

These values become part of the “bedrock” of partnership with the NPS, enhancing the partner relationship

and helping to make the collaborative work more relevant to the general public. Over the long term, he sees

the ability to achieve the very core of the NPS mission—

to maintain a sense of place and preserve cultural

heritage and ecological systems—as dependent on partnership work. 

The multiplier effect of partnerships gives Moore the

most hope for the future. “At Golden Gate [National

Recreation Area] it began with one volunteer,” he said.

“We now have 10,000 volunteers who contribute more

than 300,000 hours of time.” Take the first step, Moore

has found, and “great things can happen.” Starting with

an initiative to restore native plants and the concept

that people might care enough about their place to get

involved, the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy

has sparked a coalition of 30 community-based organizations that today are actively engaged in the park.

Through these efforts, the conservancy has inspired

young people of diverse backgrounds to be of service to

their national parks, and also to take the lessons they

have learned back to their own communities and neighborhoods. Moore believes the three principles that

underlie the Conservancy’s partnership work represent

values fundamental to all partnerships: “We will act

with integrity, we will speak with many voices, and we

will value many ways of knowing.”

6

A Historical Perspective 

on Partnership Areas

Although partnerships have been used

to successfully conserve important

resource areas for a number of years,

the evolution of a partnership model gained

momentum with the establishment of Lowell

National Historical Park in Massachusetts in

1978. With Lowell’s successful formula of

mixing public-private investments in downtown heritage preservation with NPS expertise

in visitor services and interpretive facilities,

support grew in Congress to pursue parks

based on collaborations with other public and

private parties. Congressional interest was also

heightened by the increasing desire of communities across the country to draw upon the

services and resources of the NPS. As a result,

in the 1980s and 1990s, many new units of the

national park system were established with

nontraditional formulas.

One partnership designation that has

become very popular is the national heritage

area, where federal, state, and local governments and private interests join together to

provide conservation, interpretation, recreation, and other activities. Each national

heritage area tells the stories of its residents,

past and present, celebrating cultural and

natural heritage and conserving special landscapes. The NPS is often a catalyst among the

partners, providing technical assistance as 

well as financial assistance for a limited

number of years following national heritage

area designation. This recent history depicts

an evolving conservation model that includes

new roles for the NPS and a wide array of

partners. As partnership models continue to

evolve, the concept of a nationwide system of

parks and conservation areas is becoming

clearer. This concept provides an inclusive

national framework for conservation that

encompasses wilderness areas as well as places

close to where people live and work.

Adapted from Tuxill and Mitchell 2001 

II. SETTING THE CONTEXT
D. An International Perspective

Jessica Brown, vice president for international programs at the Quebec-Labrador Foundation/Atlantic

Center for the Environment, presented a global perspective on parks and protected areas. Examining trends in

the U.S. and internationally, she discussed parallels that

exist in the increasing use of partnerships and collaborative management in protected areas worldwide (see

Table 1). Both here and abroad, private land conservation organizations are emerging as important partners

for government agencies. Moreover, government is

working much more closely with local and indigenous

communities, managing protected areas with, and in

some cases turning management over to, local people.

Many protected areas are relying on collaborative

management approaches, in which management

responsibility is shared among stakeholders. The workshop participants discussed how these trends are

reflected in the areas where they are working.

Internationally, there is growing acceptance that protected areas must be managed not as islands but as

part of a network. Within the U.S. National Park

Service, this concept has surfaced most recently in the

vision of a national network of parks and open spaces

across America (see National Park System Advisory

Board 2001 in Further Reading). Thinking along these

lines leads one to look at the gaps in the national

system of protected areas. Echoing earlier comments by

Karen Wade, Brown stated, “So much of what’s

important now with partnerships is not just within the

boundaries of our protected areas but outside of them.”

She noted that there is now recognition of the importance of protected areas that have been created by

indigenous and local communities. These “communityconserved areas” draw on traditional and/or local

knowledge and resource management systems and rely

on stewardship by people living in or near these places.

In general these areas have not experienced the problems that have faced conventional national parks in

many parts of the world. 

One difference in partnership work in other countries

is that protected areas are viewed not just as belonging

to nations and valuable in a community context; they

are also viewed as valuable in a global context. Brown

noted that, while in the U.S. there is increasing recognition of the value of partnership areas to states and

local communities, recognition of their value to the

international community lags behind. She believes it is

important to see our country’s conservation efforts as

connected to the efforts of other countries to protect

the world’s cultural and natural heritage.

7

Table 1. The Shift in Approach to Protected Area Management, 1970 and 2002

As it was: protected areas were... As it is becoming: protected areas are...

Objectives Set aside for conservation Run also with social and economic objectives 

Established mainly for spectacular Often set up for scientific, economic, and cultural reasons

wildlife and scenic protection Managed with local people more in mind

Managed mainly for visitors and tourists Valued for the cultural importance of so-called wilderness

Valued as wilderness Also about restoration and rehabilitation

About protection

Governance Run by central government Run by many partners

Local people Planned and managed against people Run with, for, and in some cases by local people

Managed without regard to local opinions Managed to meet the needs of local people

Wider context Developed separately Planned as part of national, regional, and international systems

Managed as “islands” Developed as “networks” (strictly protected areas, buffered 

and linked by green corridors)

Perceptions Viewed primarily as a national asset Viewed also as a community asset

Viewed only as a national concern Viewed also as an international concern

Management Managed reactively within a short timescale Managed adaptively with a long-term perspective

techniques Managed in a technocratic way Managed with political considerations

Finance Paid for by taxpayers Paid for from many sources

Management Managed by scientists and natural resource experts Managed by multiskilled individuals

skills Expert-led Drawing on local knowledge

From Phillips 2003

II. SETTING THE CONTEXT
T he NPS New Mexico office hosted a field

trip to the proposed Northern Rio Grande

National Heritage Area on the afternoon

before the workshop officially convened. The proposed heritage area, currently under consideration

by Congress, would recognize and celebrate the

rich multicultural heritage of the Rio Grande

region of northern New Mexico (Santa Fe, Rio

Arriba, and Taos Counties). Included would be

eight American Indian pueblos dating back several

centuries and numerous present-day Hispanic

settlements that date back to 1598 (the Spanish

colonial period). The heritage area would be

managed by the Northern Rio Grande National

Heritage Area, Inc., working in partnership with

the National Park Service, participating pueblos,

community organizations, and local, state, and

federal agencies. The mission of this nonprofit

organization is “to celebrate a distinctive landscape where people have made historical, social,

and cultural contributions which represent a

significant part of the multicultural mosaic of the

American people.”

Workshop participants, along with several

board members of the Northern Rio Grande

National Heritage Area, Inc., and other invited

guests, visited San Juan

Pueblo, Española, the Santa

Cruz de la Cañada Catholic

Church, and the Santuario

de Chimayó. These sites represent the diversity of

the region and provided opportunities for participants to learn about the challenges and opportunities involved in preparing for a designated

national heritage area that seeks to represent multiple cultures and a complex history of interrelationships and coexistence. The field trip provided

a shared context and a real-life point of reference

for participants as they examined partnership lessons over the two days of the workshop. 

8

II. SETTING THE CONTEXT

FIELD•TRIP

Proposed Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area

INSET: Herman Agoyo (center), former governor of San Juan

Pueblo, telling the story of San Gabriel del Yunge Oweenge, the

first European settlement (ca. 1598) among the Indian Pueblos. 

BELOW: El Santuario de Chimayó, a National Historic

Landmark located in the village of Chimayó on the “high road”

to Taos, is one of the most visited sites in the proposed national

heritage area. The sands on which the 19th century adobe chapel

is built are reputed to have miraculous healing powers. 
Western Perspectives 

on Partnerships 

and Partnership Areas

Workshop participants provided some illuminating

observations on how the opportunities and challenges

of partnership areas and partnership work in the western U.S. can differ from those in other parts of the

country. The following is a synthesis of their comments:

The West has large land areas and comparatively small

populations. This situation creates a capacity challenge for

the managers of public lands and for the volunteers who help

carry the partnerships forward.

“Living culture” in the West is different from living culture

elsewhere in the United States. The mechanisms to deal with

those values may be different from one part of the country to

another. Partnerships must relate to the historical contexts.

Attitudes toward federal involvement and the pace of life 

are different. There is a lot more groundwork to do before

you get to a point where you are really talking about a 

partnership.

In applying partnership principles, one must first and foremost be a member of the community and deemed a good

neighbor. This brings a credibility that then begins to define

how the partnership will unfold. Once you establish that

personal relationship, it becomes bedrock.

The West includes vast tracts of public land that are managed by various federal agencies for very different goals or as

multi-use areas. The public is accustomed to having access to

public lands for a variety of purposes, and feels a certain

sense of entitlement. Although recreational interests are

growing, the older economic interests remain and are represented by large constituencies who use the public lands to

make a living directly from extractable resources. This situation calls for a strong partnership ethic among the federal

agencies as well as very close coordination with local governments and communities. It also calls for educational efforts

to help communities better understand current economic

trends, so they can more fully embrace natural history and

cultural heritage as contributors to local economies.

The West’s contribution to American history has been

undervalued. There are people and whole populations who

have a long, long connection to the land—their forebears

created the history, whether 200 years ago or 10,000 years

ago. This history that goes back generations, while it is felt a

little in the East, it is felt more deeply in the West.

The West has many different dimensions. Ninety percent of

the people west of the Rockies live within 15 miles of the

Interstate Highway 5 corridor just inland from the Pacific

coast. The population density in California contrasts greatly

with that of Nevada, which has only a few high growth spots

like Las Vegas and Reno.

The character of a national park as it relates to the community can be different in the West, where the park is a major

destination and is surrounded by very small communities.

In the East many parks are not the major destination but

are part of the community. This influences the public

land–community relationship.

Although national heritage areas are relatively new to the

West, they are attractive to westerners. People feel heritage

areas provide an opportunity to put themselves back in 

the landscape and back in control through the process of

heritage area planning. 

National heritage areas probably haven’t developed earlier

in the West because of the suspicion of federal agency involvement. Heritage areas represent a great opportunity to

reintroduce the federal government to western communities

in a way that is acceptable to the communities and that

empowers federal agencies to do things that people want.

9

II. SETTING THE CONTEXT

Laura Gates, superintendent of Cane River Creole National Historical Park, during one of the workshop’s reflective “assignments.” 
10

a.

d.

a. Creole women on the porch of the historic Badin-Roque House,

now within Cane River National Heritage Area in Louisiana. 

The heritage area and Cane River Creole National Historical Park work together to preserve the region’s unique cultures that are rooted

in a wealth of living traditions based on colonial origins.

b. The “parting of the ways” along the Oregon and California National Historic Trails in western Wyoming, where the right fork led

to Fort Hall and Oregon Territory and the left to 

Fort Bridger and California. 

c. The Yuma Crossing National Historic Landmark, 

the historic center of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage

Area, reflects the area’s confluence of Hispanic, Native

American, and Anglo cultures. Shown here is the Saint

Thomas Mission, an important landmark structure

located on Quechan Indian Nation land overlooking the

Lower Colorado River.

d. As part of a two-year site restoration effort managed by

the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy at

Crissy Field in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, volunteers from schools, corporations, and civic organizations transplanted more than 100,000 native plants to

help restore natural systems. 

e. An historic log acequia flume, along

the high road to Taos in Las Trampas, New Mexico, within the proposed

Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area. Acequia systems, established

centuries ago for communal management of water and crop production, are

a distinctive feature of the region’s

cultural landscape and remain in active

use today.

f. NPS fire and interpretation employees work a prescribed burn in Prairie

Creek Redwoods State Park, one of the

California State Parks units within Redwood National and State Parks. 

g. In 2000, Zion National Park and the

adjacent town of Springdale, Utah,

jointly instituted a free shuttle bus

service that now provides the sole mode

of transportation for most peak season

park visitors. The bus, which serves 

the town, park campgrounds and visitor facilities, and the highly visited river

canyon (seen here), has lessened traffic

congestion and increased visitation in Springdale. 

c.

b.
11

The Santa Fe workshop provided an opportunity

for practitioners to reflect on and discuss with

their peers the insights they have gained

through their partnership work. Understanding of this

work grows as practitioners explore similarities and

differences in their experiences, what they have learned

about successful partnerships, and how to improve the

effectiveness of partnership work. This chapter presents

information gathered through workshop discussions

and case studies presented at the workshop, followed

by a synthesis of components that characterize successful partnership areas.

III. Capturing the

Lessons Learned

Heritage areas extend the reach and impact 

of the NPS far beyond the borders of [national

parks]. Integrating the values of conservation 

and historic preservation into the everyday life of

communities is invaluable.

— Charles Flynn, Executive Director 

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation

No one agency or organization has the full range of

resources needed to accomplish its primary mission

alone. Partnerships provide the most effective avenue

to reach across jurisdictions and organizations to

accomplish broad goals.

— Ken Mabery, then NPS representative, 

Northwest Forest Plan

g.

e.

f.
12

A. Assessing Partnerships by

Partnership Area Type

In order to look more closely at what was happening

on the ground, participants met in discussion groups

based on partnership area type (national heritage areas,

national long-distance trails and national rivers, and

partnership parks). The following discussion represents

a snapshot of participants’ thoughts on what is working

well and why, and the challenges that remain. There was

considerable agreement among the discussion groups.

1. What is working?

Participants generally felt that within agencies and

the general public there was growing understanding and

acceptance of partnerships as a means of protecting

and managing land and heritage values. Partnership

areas of all types are effectively engaging people in connecting with and conserving resources at the landscape

and community level. The potential for increased local

engagement in stewardship of natural and cultural

heritage is large. Using heritage areas as an example, 45

million people across the U.S. live within a national

heritage area. Workshop participants agreed that there

is good communication among many partners and 

that trust and openness in these relationships are

increasing. In one partnership park, the collaboration

has become so institutionalized that the staff “wouldn’t

want to go back to the old way of doing business.”

National heritage areas are engaging people where they

live and work, enabling them to tell their stories and

conserve what they value.

The passion and connection people develop for rivers

and trails can be leveraged into empowerment to act in

other areas as well. They recognize that working together

they can accomplish a higher level of protection.

[In partnership parks] partners bring strengths from

different skills and knowledge bases. This results in better ideas and a richer approach.

Participants believe that because of the partnerships

both resources and visitors are better served. In heritage

areas the dialogue taking place is helping to build

bridges in communities where historically dialogue may

have been difficult and stories contested. Heritage areas

are helping to create a unified community voice and 

are having a positive economic impact at the local level.

Visions are better articulated for individual national

trails and national rivers as well as systemwide, and

more tools are available to achieve the vision. There is

greater flexibility in how national heritage areas form

and are administered and funded. The connections

between national heritage areas and national parks are

growing, as seen in the greater role that park superintendents play in providing support to heritage area staff

and vice versa, even where the park is not within or

contiguous to the heritage area.

2. Why is it working?

There is enthusiasm and commitment from individuals and partner organizations, as well as leadership

by individuals at the local level and by NPS staff. There

is more dialogue taking place at the community level

where people feel they can make a difference. They feel

a sense of pride and ownership in what is happening on

the ground.

Partners tend to capitalize on each other’s strengths,

such as the national image and professionalism of the

National Park Service, and the ability of partner organizations to move quickly and reach out to the community.

[Joint] visioning pulls out elements of people’s passion

for the resources and provides focus and buy-in opportunities, enabling partners to bring their strengths together

to make the vision a reality.

There is an increasing body of experience from which to

draw lessons, a growing partnership toolbox, and an

emerging set of best practices that is being replicated in

different contexts.

Participants believe they are better able to communicate the benefits of partnerships, and can link the

benefits to the missions of partner institutions. The

relationships between partnering institutions are deepening, and the administrative machinery is working

better. With taxpayers demanding efficiency, partnerships have bipartisan appeal and support. Lean

operations magnify the importance of each person’s

contributions to the partnership.

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED
3. What challenges remain? 

With national heritage areas, the grassroots enthusiasm and political support is not yet balanced by

sustained NPS leadership and support. There is inconsistency across NPS regions in how things are done, 

and perceived bureaucratic barriers and lack of commitment from NPS upper-level management. A perception

lingers in some NPS quarters that heritage areas take

funding away from park units at a time when park

needs are dire. On the community side, there is a need

to deal with longstanding mistrust between groups, and

with misperceptions that arise from communicating

across cultures and experiences, both at the community

level and between communities and the NPS.

In national heritage areas, sustaining and building 

nonprofit governing boards over time and finding new

people and preparing them for leadership are 

continuing problems.

The NPS planning process and regulatory requirements

seem complicated and difficult to NPS partners and are

not easily transferable to areas managed through

partnerships.

The administrative machinery is still unable to keep up

with the creativity of partnerships.

There are still challenges for agency staff and nonfederal partners in working together. Agency staff and partners at times are not empowered, and at times act too

independently. Consistent follow-through is difficult due

to staff continuity issues and funding that is low initially

and does not grow. The need to cultivate support for

partnerships remains. Bureaucratic inflexibility still

exists, as well as the fear that partnerships will weaken

the authority of the NPS. There is often a knee-jerk

resistance to partnerships, and it can be difficult to get

federal advisory committees appointed. There is an

ongoing need to manage inclusively and make room for

more partners, and to guard against partner relationships becoming exclusive. There is also a need to identify and deal with hidden agendas to keep them from

undermining trust. Keeping resources and priorities

aligned is a challenge. Funding and staffing tend to be

opportunistic and the mandates for partnerships are

not matched with resources. There is a constant need to

bring new employees up to speed regarding vision,

expectations, and skills, and to guard against a vision

that is too narrow, which can place managers in unintended “boxes.” An overriding focus on the partnership

process can, at times, get in the way of telling success

stories and talking about intangible benefits. 

13

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED

BELOW: Participants in the Santa Fe “Collaboration and

Conservation” workshop met in the Santa Fe room of the La

Fonda Hotel, a national historic landmark. 

FACING PAGE: Rick Sermon (left) and Andy Ringgold (right),

partners in Redwood National and State Parks. 
B. Case Studies

To enhance the opportunities to learn from firsthand

experience, several participants shared stories of their

own work. The following five partnership area case

studies contributed to the discussion of lessons learned.

14

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED

El Camino Real 

de Tierra Adentro 

National Historic Trail

F rom 1598 to 1882, El Camino Real de

Tierra Adentro provided an important

1600-mile link between Mexico City

and Santa Fe. This route aided exploration, colonization, economic development, and subsequent cultural interactions among

Spanish, Anglo, and native peoples. In the decade leading up to the October 2000 congressional designation

of El Camino Real as a national historic trail, both the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the NPS had

been involved in some way with the trail. Shortly after

designation, the BLM New Mexico state director and

the NPS regional director wrote a memo to Interior

Secretary Babbitt suggesting that the new national trail

be jointly administered by the two agencies. Although

the two agencies had previously worked closely together

on national trails, El Camino Real is the first instance

of a jointly administered trail. Education was key to

successfully launching the joint effort, including

acquainting staff with the missions and administrative

procedures of the partner agencies. In the last three

years the BLM and NPS have been carrying out a public

involvement process to develop a vision and a comprehensive management plan. As of this writing, the draft

comprehensive management plan has been reviewed by

the interested public, and CARTA, the Camino Real

Trail Association, has formed to act as a public advocate for the trail.

BELOW: El Camino Real interpretive signage has a unique historical character based on a design from the 1950s. Today, the New

Mexico State Historic Preservation Office is working with federal

and state partners to rehabilitate and update the signs along this

national historic trail.

BOTTOM, LEFT: The historic community of San Elizario provided

safe haven and supplies for travelers along El Camino Real for

centuries. The congregation of the San Elizario mission (seen here)

dates to the late 1600s. The church, the County of El Paso, and the

community of San Elizario work with the BLM and NPS to

interpret this site.

BOTTOM, RIGHT: Boy Scouts lower flag over historic Fort Craig,

on El Camino Real south of Socorro, New Mexico. This 150-yearold fort, a national historic site administered by the BLM, provided

protection for travelers on the old wagon road from Santa Fe to

Chihuahua, Mexico. Today, the fort is “manned” by Scouts on

work/camp weekends, Civil War buffs, and volunteers eager to tell

the story of the trail.
Talk through everything until you are comfortable

with the joint process. Most agency partnerships

begin with a cooperative agreement detailing each

agency’s specific responsibilities. In this case, there

was a commitment at the regional level in both agencies to a true joint process—a commingling of roles

and responsibilities rather than a division of roles

and responsibilities between agencies. 

Understand that our job as managers is to further a

Camino Real mission, not a BLM mission or an NPS

mission.

Find ways to ensure equity between the partners and

to signal the uniqueness of joint administration.

This means careful attention to such things as

vocabulary and titles (there is no “NPS superintendent” of El Camino Real), office space and location,

and the details of decisionmaking and communication (both internal and external).

Communication is our most important product—

between the two lead agency staff, within and

between agencies so they will take time to understand the program, and with the general public 

so they will understand what we are trying to do.

There may be a need to reassure both staff and

constituents regarding the “new” role. 

Understand each other’s stake. Value each partner’s

interest in the resource, respect each other’s history

of involvement, and learn from and use each other’s

strengths and resources. Agree to not let the system

work against the partnership. 

Consciously strive for a working relationship based

on openness, mutual trust, and respect. Work to

institutionalize that relationship so that someone

else coming in has to carry through in the same spirit of cooperation. Trust needs to go higher than just

the on-the-ground partnership. 

Keep an open mind and be flexible—not only at the

local level, but on up the agency line. Flexibility is

paramount in addressing issues and problems; for

instance, does your way of following procedures

really matter or can it be done the way the partner

would prefer? Is this a short-term problem that you

have to worry about right now or will it indeed be

resolved in the future?

Take the time early on to learn about each agency’s

constituent groups (in the general public).

Understand how the agencies are perceived publicly

by these groups, and how the agencies differ in their

approach to working with them. Anticipate what

concerns these constituent groups might have. 

Seek to understand the nature of your grassroots

support and to build a broad base. Open lines of

communication with constituent groups and

establish bridges with stakeholders before having

something on the table.

In administering a partnership area that includes

many different landowners, be aware of other

ongoing efforts and processes that can be incorporated into your own efforts. 

In working with the public and with partners beyond

the primary agencies, share the process with all who

are interested and want to be part of the picture.

Appeal to all cultures; ask them to tell their stories. 

Be patient. Keep the bigger picture in mind—the

partnership is a long-term process and you are here

for the long haul. Keep reaching out all the time, no

matter what stage of the project.

— Harry Myers, NPS lead, and Sarah Schlanger, BLM lead 

El Camino Real National Historic Trail

L ESSONS L EARNED

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED

15

Two historic travel routes can be seen in this photo—historic Route

66 (the dirt road at left center) and El Camino Real de Tierra

Adentro (the faint depression on the flats in the distance). 
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area

Historically, prior to dam-building,

the Colorado River spread miles

wide along what is now the lower

Arizona–California border. Yuma

Crossing was the only place to

cross safely over quicksand. The Yuma Crossing

National Heritage Area was authorized in October 2000

along a five-mile stretch of the river. The heritage area

is grounded in a 30-year-long community desire to

reconnect with the city’s riverfront, and a 1990s broadbased citizen initiative to improve the riverfront and

preserve historic

“old” Yuma. All

this community

ferment ultimately resulted

in the successful

passage by

Congress of

authorizing

legislation for a

national heritage area. The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area

Corporation was incorporated in early 2002 as the

management entity for the heritage area. The 11-

member board reflects a broad cross-section of the

community, including businesses, governments,

historic preservationists, conservationists, communitybased organizations, and the many cultures of the

Yuma region. The Heritage Area Corporation’s five-year

plan includes restoration of historic buildings, development of a riverfront Gateway Park, and an ambitious

restoration of 1,400 acres of wetlands along the river.

This latter initiative, the East Wetlands Restoration

Project, brings together 28 stakeholders, including

federal and state agencies, local governments, farmers,

and the Quechan Indian Nation, which owns 40

percent of the land. The Heritage Area Corporation has

used community support and the heritage area

designation to leverage significant dollars for these

efforts, and has achieved partnerships where there has

been no history of collaboration.

L ESSONS L EARNED

Strong grassroots support—and a local government

entity willing to commit resources and credibility to

the effort—can be key to navigating the bureaucratic

process and raising needed funds.

To gain support from key stakeholders, you must

first view the project from their points of view. Unless

you demonstrate that you are putting their concerns

first, stakeholders will not take the first step toward

consensus. Listen to what people want, understand

what they most fear, and make sure that the project

meets these concerns and needs.

Building buy-in and consensus among key local

stakeholders takes time, patience, and persistence.

With the local entities unified, it is easier to

approach federal and state agencies.

To build consensus requires a neutral and trusted

body. An improving relationship is only as strong as

the most recent evidence that trust has been earned.

Assume that your relationships are fragile and operate that way.

Once trust has been nurtured among stakeholders,

the working relationships established in this atmosphere of partnership can extend to new venues.

Success in one venue can change the course of the

partnership and change partners’ perspectives in

ways not initially envisioned.

Make sure that your plan advances the goals and

meets the mission of the various governmental partners. Give these agencies the opportunity to take

advantage of your private sector entrepreneurship

and ability to get projects done quickly.

Flexibility and a “lighter bureaucratic NPS hand,” as

well as a trust in the local process and players, is

essential to maintaining the enthusiasm and initiative that help drive the local engine. This is true at

both the regional level as well as with NPS staff

assigned on the ground (e.g., NPS staff who provide

early technical assistance).

Having an understanding and supportive NPS partner (in the case of Yuma Crossing, this is the superintendent of Organ Pipe National Monument) on

the heritage area team is invaluable in helping move

through the administrative requirements and in

expediting funds.

— Charles Flynn, Executive Director

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation 

16

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED

The Colorado River at Yuma, Arizona,

prior to dam-building.
17

Ebey’s Landing 

National Historical Reserve

Ebey’s Landing National Historical

Reserve, located on Whidbey Island in

Washington’s Puget Sound, was established in 1978 to protect a cultural

landscape that was threatened by the

pressures of development. Unlike the more traditional

units of the national park system, people live and work

within this landscape, much like national parks in the

U.K. There was very little NPS involvement in the establishment of Ebey’s Landing; citizen initiative was the

driving force. The strong local voice featured as well in

determining the role laid out for the agency. A multiparty agreement among federal, state, county, and local

partners established a joint administrative board with

the mission of managing the reserve. Ebey’s Landing

became the first unit of the national park system to be

managed by a “trust board” of individuals representing

the NPS and state, county, and local government. Since

the reserve’s establishment, the land, farms, and structures have remained largely in private ownership. To

fulfill the management goal of preserving the historic

landscape of open space, farmland, and settlements,

partners have relied on such land conservation tools as

purchase or exchange of development rights, purchase

of scenic easements, land donations, tax incentives, zoning, and local design review. The challenge of this partnership lies in guiding and managing change in a way

that respects the cultural values and historic landscape. 

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED

L ESSONS L EARNED

The trend within the NPS toward increased complexity

of management creates strains on small partnership

parks like Ebey’s Landing. It is beneficial to establish a

close working relationship with someone within the

agency’s leadership who understands collaboration and

is comfortable with sharing control. 

Having NPS leadership that is strong and flexible

enough to accept and work with a different park model

has been essential to the effectiveness of Ebey’s

Landing.

In a consensus process each partner needs to understand that no one partner is in charge and to accept

that no one will get everything they want. With trust

board management (joint administration), each board

member has to take off her “representative of” coat

and put on a “trust board” coat.

In a partnership, a mission statement agreed to by all

partners is critical to resolving issues. Be prepared to

use it a lot and keep talking.

With joint management, expect to spend a lot of time

discussing standards (whose and what) and vocabulary. 

In the early stages, continuity is key to successfully

charting the course. In later stages, continuity is still

important, but a change in board members can be

helpful, especially in a changing environment like

Ebey’s Landing.

Try not to be too dependent on or too identified with

any one partner; get contributions from all. In carrying

out projects, use the strengths of each partner. At

Ebey’s Landing, the key partner in assuring quality,

continuity, and professionalism has been the NPS.

Work with fiscal cycles and the ebb and flow in partners’ strengths, especially the more local partners, even

to the extent of changing the work plan if necessary.

This takes flexibility.

Maintaining strong local support is critical. This

requires meaningful opportunities for local involvement and constant education and outreach addressing

the concerns of people who live and work in the landscape.

Little beginnings can grow into big successes.

Successful projects (even small ones) can help build

relationships and carry over into new projects and new

partners.

— Rob Harbour, Reserve Manager

Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve
18

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED

Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River

T he Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River is

located along the Texas–Mexico border,

where the river forms the international

boundary, starting in Big Bend National

Park and running downstream 200 miles.

The designation is only on the U.S. side to the center of

the river, which complicates river management. Of the

designated shoreline, 51 percent is privately owned and

49 percent is in public ownership. At the time of

designation in 1978, there was no local support; in fact

every landowner group in the area opposed it. A draft

management plan that was drawn up by the NPS soon

after designation went nowhere. A hostile standoff of

sorts existed for almost 20 years, with the big issues

being fear of federal use

of condemnation

authority and disagreement over proposed

management boundaries. In 1999 planning

began again in earnest

on a general management plan (GMP) for the

river. A partnership team

approach was proposed

to oversee the planning and public comment process,

and a Rio Grande partnership team was formed, representing a wide range of river stakeholders. In the initial

public meetings that followed, deauthorization of the

river was pushed heavily by landowner groups. Careful

relationship-building with a key partnership team

member, however, shifted the dynamic and ultimately

led to a calmer environment in which a framework for

landowner agreements—a foundation for the GMP—

was negotiated. In May 2003 the first landowner

agreement was signed and six more are now pending

signature. These landowner agreements, which protect

most of the private reaches and the critical river 

put-in and take-out locations, will demonstrate

protection of the river in the yet-to-be-released draft

GMP. A record of decision is anticipated in May 2004.

L ESSONS L EARNED

If you are working toward a certain project future,

you must understand and acknowledge the past.

“Bring in thine enemies.” Seek ways to bring in key

stakeholders who question NPS motives, and help

them see what you are working toward. Keep the

process transparent and above board, and keep

everyone working through the process. This takes

constant communication.

Develop personal relationships with individual

players.

Look for someone well connected to local interests

who is willing to champion the cause. The NPS can

promote the value of partnership efforts, but until

community representatives and other partners see

the benefits, we are spinning our wheels.

Partnership efforts help level the playing field. If the

land management agency comes to the table as an

equal, there will be a better chance for success.

“Don’t come in on a power trip.”

Seek areas of common ground and work from there.

With the Rio Grande, everyone wanted to retain the

wild nature of the river and the canyons—the “outstandingly remarkable values.” 

Open, neutral decisionmaking is important; use the

same neutral facilitator throughout the process.

Understand the perspectives and stakes of each

player. Be clear on the most important aspects of

your project and what is most important for local

interests, then stay flexible in seeking agreement.

Flexibility in working with private landowners is

essential, including within the planning process.

Problems are guaranteed in management if the

administrative land manager cannot let go of citing

federal regulations.

Flexibility at levels up the NPS chain of command is

critical, as is the ability to work in gray areas. 

Recognize that building relationships takes a

tremendous amount of time, and that effective partnership planning rarely happens on bureaucratic

timelines.

— Attila Bality, Outdoor Recreation Planner

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

NPS Sante Fe Office
Redwood

National and State Parks

When Congress created Redwood

National Park in 1968, including

in its boundaries three California

state parks dating to the 1920s, 

it envisioned single-agency

management by the National Park Service. Over the

years, various proposals were considered to convey management or fee ownership of the state parks from the

California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR)

to the NPS, but no transfer occurred. A 1994 report by

the California Coordinating Committee on Operational

Efficiencies explored joint

operations and cost savings at three NPS/CDPR

park clusters, including

Redwood. The report,

adopted by the two agencies, recommended that

the four units within

Redwood National Park

be designated Redwood

National and State Parks

(RNSP) and managed

under a joint agreement.

It also advised that a state park liaison superintendent

with day-to-day operational authority over the three

state parks be “duty-stationed” at national park headquarters. Over the next two years, considerable energy

went into defining the new relationship, including a

facilitated team-building process that led to a common

mission, vision, and guiding principles through which

everyone could understand the meaning of the partnership, and from which flowed efforts to mesh operations

and eliminate duplication. In 2000 the two agencies

completed a joint general management plan for RNSP

that set a future management direction for the four

parks. A 2001 accomplishments report stated that the

partnership was well established and “now permeates

all major programs and operations.” 

L ESSONS L EARNED

Locating key partner staff in the same office

enhances partnership effectiveness and success due

to more frequent communications and interactions.

A successful, productive partnership requires considerable time and energy and continuous work.

Build a partnership identity early on with all employees; buy-in is important, including from employee

unions. Use employee meetings to build and

strengthen the partnership.

Develop a joint vision early on. An established,

agreed-upon purpose is essential if disagreement,

challenge, or stress occurs, and can help refocus

direction and realign priorities if necessary.

View the partnership as a means toward jointly

accomplishing bigger, longer-range objectives, not a

goal or an end to itself. 

Partners should be considered equal in resolving

issues related to the partnership and its mission.

Achieving equality and trust between partners often

requires overcoming individual and organizational

egos and relinquishing control.

A positive partnership evolution depends heavily on

the creativity and motivation of key staff.

Partnerships ultimately succeed or fail because of the

attitudes, energies, and relationships of individuals,

not the organizational relationships.

The management and administrative framework for

the partnership must provide sufficient flexibility

and discretion to pursue various routes to success.

Rigid guidelines and sideboards constrain creativity,

experimentation, and adaptive management.

Having partners with similar missions enhances the

potential for success. Even with closely aligned

missions, challenges can come from different agency

methods and cultures. Partners should seek relief

from policy or legal constraints that inhibit the

ability to achieve common goals. 

Recruit and hire people who thrive in nontraditional

organizations and partnerships.

Joint projects developed by field staff show the

message is permeating; reward those who “get it.”

Partners starting the relationship from scratch may

have better success initially than those who have

coexisted with a history that includes conflict or

other baggage that must be processed.

Joint planning efforts provide partnership-building

opportunities and can be a key element to success.

— Andy Ringgold, then NPS Superintendent

and Rick Sermon, State Parks Superintendent, 

Redwood National and State Parks

19

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED
C. Components of Successful

Partnership Areas

The discussion that follows is a distillation drawn

from various sources: the case studies prepared for the

workshop, participants’ responses to pre-workshop

questions, and the workshop dialogue from both the

large group and smaller working groups. These points,

many of them interconnected, surfaced repeatedly as

important components in successful partnership areas.

1. A shared vision is created through the full

engagement of all partners.

A shared vision helps “assure that the partnership

serves as a means to an agreed-upon end and is not

viewed as an end unto itself,” observed Andy Ringgold,

then NPS superintendent of Redwood National and

State Parks. Several participants noted that having a

common vision and agreement on goals helped overcome tendencies to protect turf, and during times of

difficulty and stress can help to refocus direction and

realign priorities if necessary. Ray Murray, planning and

partnerships team leader in the NPS Pacific West

Region, suggested that the shared vision can grow as

the partnership evolves and should be revisited and

refreshed periodically. The vision must include a longterm view, according to Ken Mabery, then NPS representative on the Northwest Forest Plan, and its strategic

plans must outlive changes in personnel, said Sharon

Brown, then interpretive specialist with the Santa Fe

office of the National Trails System.

2. Ownership of the partnership is felt throughout

each partner organization.

David Welch, past president of the Oregon–

California Trails Association, said that partnerships do

not work unless the partners are committed to a real

partnership. Tracy Fortmann, superintendent of Fort

Clatsop National Memorial, said all partners must “fully

embrace the goals and mission of the partnership” as

well as the roles and responsibilities of each partner.

Karen Wade, then regional director of the NPS

Intermountain Region, observed that when a partnership is strong and successful, “partnership culture and

vision permeate all entities, not just the executive or

champion.” Wade went further, saying that partners

who are successful “understand and respect the institutional culture of each other but find a new operating

culture that fosters a strong partnership ethic.” 

3. There is a genuine commitment to sharing

responsibility in problem-solving and

decisionmaking.

Many participants stressed the fundamental importance of sharing responsibility. Ray Murray stated that

“from the start the NPS in [partnership] situations

needs to be a catalyst and empower others and share

responsibility rather than be in control.” Sharing control

is linked to the sense that both partners share in

resolving problems and making decisions. As Welch

said, “It is not a partnership if one side is making all the

decisions.” This equal stake was expressed clearly by

Redwood National and State Parks partners Andy

Ringgold and Rick Sermon, State Parks Superintendent.

“Partners, regardless of their respective capabilities or

20

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED

Principles for Forging 

Long-Term Partnerships 

Participants in the first “Collaboration and

Conservation” workshop held in 2000 in

Vermont described principles for building

long-term partnerships:

Listen and be responsive to the needs of others.

Build relationships and sustain trust.

Work openly and inclusively in ways that build a

partnership team.

Be flexible and responsive to changing

circumstances.

Be willing to share control, and work together in

ways that empower the partners.

Have a realistic understanding of each partner’s

mission and perspective, and seek to resolve issues

in ways satisfactory to all parties.

Build a common understanding and vision.

Tell the stories of people and place, providing

accurate, well-focused information.

Maintain continuity and transfer knowledge.

Develop ways to continually share experience and

understanding.

Celebrate successes.

From Tuxill and Mitchell 2001 
contributions to the partnership, should be considered

equal in resolving issues related to the partnership and

its mission. Achieving equality and trust between partners often requires burying individual and organizational egos and giving up control.” Attila Bality, outdoor

recreation planner for the Rivers, Trails, and

Conservation Assistance Program in the NPS Santa Fe

office, believes that a sense of partner equality increases

chances for success and that partnership efforts help

level the playing field. 

4. Strong interpersonal relationships, trust, and

ongoing communications exist among partners.

Participants acknowledged over and over again the

central importance of building relationships, citing the

ongoing need for communication and education within

partner institutions. Harry Myers, NPS lead for El

Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail,

said that the mindset must be, first and foremost, to

“work with partners to maintain an excellent working

relationship.” Wade suggested that in successful partnerships “partners have solid, multiple communication

mechanisms in place that foster strong ongoing dialogue among the parties.” The steps to building successful partner relationships and trust are openness, a

commitment to no surprises, mutual respect, common

courtesy, civility, diplomacy, sincerity, honesty, and

integrity. These characteristics are also critical in

engaging potential community partners, according to

Ernest Ortega, New Mexico state director for the NPS,

who stressed the importance of sincerity on the part 

of “not just individuals within the organization but the

organization itself...” Wade went on to highlight the

interdependent dynamic of partner relationships in

saying, “There is a common understanding that any

partner will grow as far in the partnership as the other

partner is willing to help or allow.”

5. Partners appreciate and rely on each other’s

strengths. 

Successful partners realize that they can accomplish

more working together than each can alone. Each partner brings different skills, attributes, experience, contacts, and resources. A successful partnership capitalizes

on these, using strengths and resources in complementary fashion. The resulting partnership is more than just

additive, since synergy arises from the creativity and

diversity that characterize successful partnerships.

Nancy Morgan, executive director for the Cane River

National Heritage Area, described the impact of partnering with the Cane River National Historical Park as

“helping to extend the reach of the park’s resources and

expertise into the community and helping to increase

community interest and involvement in the park.” 

21

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED

Workshop participants Howard Levitt, David Welch, Sharon

Brown, and Harry Myers (left to right) during an activity of

reflection in the historic Santa Fe Room of the La Fonda Hotel.
6. The administrative environment for the partnership is flexible, and encourages and rewards

creativity, risk-taking, innovation, and

entrepreneurship.

A successful partnership is characterized by openness

to experimentation, new ideas, and change from the

outside. Since the path to achieving goals may not be

clear at the beginning, partners need the freedom and

the time to explore new avenues for meeting goals,

building relationships with potential new constituencies,

and reaching agreement among stakeholders. Wade

talked of the value of “going slow to go fast” (i.e., taking the time to build a firm foundation for the partnership), and of providing an environment that includes a

“willingness to risk failure in order to succeed.” 

Many people mentioned the importance of formal

and flexible agreements that define responsibilities,

expectations, and accountability between partners. “The

administrative framework upon which the partnership is

built must provide sufficient flexibility and discretion for

staff to be able to explore and pursue a wide variety of

options to achieve ‘success,’” said Ringgold. “Rigid

guidelines and sideboards...constrain creativity, experimentation, and adaptive management.” Providing such

flexibility can be a challenge for agencies accustomed to

consistency and top-down management. Administering

a partnership area successfully means “meeting the

needs of local, national, and international interests,” as

noted by Sarah Schlanger, BLM lead for El Camino Real

National Historic Trail. Flexibility, therefore, is essential. 

Recognizing and rewarding partnership success helps

to sustain the commitment of all partners as it validates

the collaboration and hard work. “Partners need to be

recognized at all levels of the NPS for their contributions,” according to Jere Krakow, superintendent of the

National Trails System, NPS Intermountain Region.

“Start simple (not necessarily small) and celebrate the

little successes,” advised Mabery. “Showcase unexpected

partnerships,” suggested Bality. “Reward those who ‘get

it,’” said Sermon.

7. Sustained leadership is present at various levels 

in both agency and non-agency partners.

Leadership is necessary not only on the ground where

the day-to-day work of partnerships takes place, but

also at the management levels that create a supportive

partnership environment. Welch expressed the belief

that “the partnership must be...promoted at the working level, not just with the leadership.” Murray observed

that personal commitment at the top manager level,

however, is critical to success. “The manager sets the

pace and attitude for the behaviors of the rest of the

organization,” he said, “...and predisposes the staff to

how they will function toward the partner.” Dealing

with the policies and or bureaucracies of partner organizations and agencies, and getting “higher-ups” to agree

to a strategy or action— identified as challenges by

Sharon Brown—are leadership tasks critical to partnership success. Having the right people involved is important, and accounts for 75 percent of the success of

partnerships, according to

Murray. John Shepard, associate director of the Sonoran

Institute, identified as a key

factor having “leaders who

have credibility among potential partners.” At the same time

partnerships can’t be dependent upon the individuals

involved. “There [must be]

sustained leadership even if the

leaders change,” said Wade.

22

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED

Nora Mitchell, Jere Krakow, and Sarah

Schlanger (left to right) brainstorming

strategy in a workshop breakout session.
8. A strong local “taproot” grounds the

partnership in place and traditions.

The local connection to place and heritage can be a

powerful force for conservation, representing a significant doorway to partnership area success. Local

partners are key in helping tap into the “passionate

commitment” of local people (Shepard’s term) and the

resources that are available locally. According to Charles

Flynn, executive director of Yuma Crossing National

Heritage Area Corporation, the “combination of strong

grassroots support and a local government entity that

committed resources and credibility to the project” led

to success for Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area.

Moreover, these local connections have broader conservation benefit. Successful partnerships “build additional

constituencies for parks and other public lands through

the partners,” suggested Ringgold. Partnership areas

provide the means for diverse local interests “to become

involved in conserving and sharing significant aspects of

their history and environment,” observed Nancy

Morgan, which adds authenticity to the stories told.

Furthermore, noted Morgan, “[This] personal investment helps ensure long-term commitment to the success of those areas...[and] enhances the community relevance of NPS projects.”

9. Place-based education initiatives provide a catalyst for citizen engagement in partnership areas. 

Place-based approaches to education and interpretation have a powerful ability to connect people of all

ages with the natural and cultural heritage in their local

communities and to instill stewardship values. Placebased “education” can encompass a range of initiatives,

involving teachers and students in formal education settings as well as providing informal learning environments for people of all ages. The NPS partnership areas

are extremely well-suited for this role because of the

community connections and array of local partners. 

Workshop participants recognized the human need

to relate to physical place, and shared many stories of

how they use education to further partnership work. For

some it is a way to raise general awareness about a

partnership area. Brenda Barrett, national coordinator

for heritage areas for the NPS, discovered when visiting

many of the 24 national heritage areas that they were

doing heritage education. “They were telling me they

were doing economic development...or tourism. But

when I got there, they were doing...amazing, innovative,

regional place-based education....Obviously they knew

that was a critical piece that had to be done first. And

they found so much power through intergenerational

education.” Educational projects can build bridges to

local communities and keep them engaged. Rob

Harbour, reserve manager at Ebey’s Landing National

Historical Reserve, said that if he does a historic

resources study, “it doesn’t come out as a historic

resources study, it comes out as ‘how Coupeville grew,’

and a copy is sent to every resident in the community.”

Harry Myers and Sarah Schlanger used El Camino 

Real public scoping sessions as opportunities to interpret the trail’s culture and heritage to the public at 

large and create in the communities along the trail a

sense of shared heritage that embraces the diverse

cultures present. 

23

The Benefits of 

Place-Based Education

Place-based education, whether formal or

informal, benefits partnership areas by:

Investing communities in stewardship by strengthening local connections to heritage and landscape;

Bringing local stories to the surface and telling them

more authentically;

Building understanding between different local

cultures;

Encouraging integrative thinking;

Building local pride and cohesion;

Engaging younger generations in stewardship; 

Building trust between the local community and

federal partners.

III. CAPTURING THE LESSONS LEARNED
24

a.

b. a. Plume Rock in Wyoming, one of many landmarks used by

emigrants as they traveled west on the Oregon Trail. 

b. Saguaro National Park has a unique partnership with the

Rincon Institute, which was formed in 1990 through negotiations

that modified a major development adjacent to Saguaro’s park

district east of Tucson. By agreement, Rincon Institute manages

natural areas on the development, conducts long-term ecological

research, advises on environmentally sensitive development

strategies, and conducts environmental education in partnership

with the NPS. As part of the agreement, the park acquired

additional wildlife habitat on adjacent ranch lands. 

c. Redwood National and State Parks visitor center co-staffed by

NPS and California Department of Parks and Recreation rangers.

d. National parks increasingly are building

partnerships with communities adjacent to the

park to address common concerns and issues

related to shared resources and public

visitation. Mount Rainier National Park in

Washington state has a community planner 

on staff whose job is to work with adjacent

communities on these “gateway” issues. 

e. Oakland Plantation, one of two plantations

within Cane River Creole National Historical

Park in Louisiana. The park and the Cane

River National Heritage Area cooperate 

in telling the stories of plantation owners and

workers, both free and enslaved, and the

unique multicultural history of the region.

f. NPS partnership areas that involve little

public ownership require management flexibility in order to deal with a diverse array of

challenges. Farmers living and working within

Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve 

in Washington state—a farming landscape

centuries old—are experiencing the same

difficulties as small farmers elsewhere in the

U.S., adding to the complexity of management

at Ebey’s Landing. c.
As a first step toward imagining a sustainable environment for partnerships,

workshop participants reflected on the

larger picture of how partnerships operate. They then

described a conceptual model for sustaining partnerships, including the roles of the NPS and partner

organizations within it. Finally, they discussed the institutional elements needed for partnerships to flourish. 

A. A Conceptual Model 

for Partnerships 

This model grew out of small- and then large-group

discussions at the Santa Fe workshop, and was later

presented at the November 2003 conference, “Joint Ventures: Partners in Stewardship,” during a session on

“Building a Strategy for Sustainable Conservation

Partnerships” (see www.partnerships2003.org). The

session audience, which represented various federal

agencies and partner organizations, provided feedback,

leading to further refinement of the model.

A sustainable environment for partnerships results

from a diverse array of communities, agencies, institutions, and organizations working together, all with a

common belief in the benefits of conserving natural and

cultural heritage and recreational resources. This model

is place-based and community-centered, with federal

land part of a larger mosaic of landscape and communities. Its vision for sustaining partnerships is inclusive

and welcoming—large enough for everyone who is

interested to be involved and encouraging to those who

have yet to become engaged. 

The model for sustainable partnerships (see Figure 1

on page 27) has four “nested” circles, with action that

affects partnerships taking place at all levels. Working

outward, the circles represent the following: • Community-centered, place-based conservation

partnerships are at the center of the partnership

model, which assumes community concern about

stewardship of local landscapes and heritage values.

Citizen-centered, inclusive, and culturally diverse, the

25

IV. Envisioning 

a Sustainable 

Environment for

Partnerships 

d.

f.

e.
26

IV. ENVISIONING A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PARTNERSHIPS

The Role of the NGO Partner: 

A Critical Link to Local

Communities and Values, and 

a Bridge to Federal Agencies

T he NGO partner provides an important

link to local communities and values

and plays a critical role in successfully

engaging local communities. Partner organizations can promote the uniqueness of the park

or partnership area to local citizens and help

generate a local consensus that is powerful. The

NGO partners bring important core values to

the partnership (e.g., inclusiveness, publicspiritedness, generosity) that are often locally

rooted, and a sense of social purpose that both

complements the agency’s purpose and softens

the bureaucratic “edges.” Partners help ensure

the local relevancy of the park’s vision and management plan, and they can be the means by

which the “stewardship baton” is extended

from the NPS to a much wider array of local

groups and volunteers. In these ways partners

bring a multiplier effect to the agency’s stewardship efforts that is important in helping to

ensure a lasting legacy. Some specific thoughts

from participants:

We need to stay current on new approaches and

develop our staff skills for partnering.

We need flexibility of financial management so

that in our institutions we are looking at partnerships as an array of opportunities, not just as

contractual relationships.

We can celebrate “small victories” every year. This

energizes volunteers, brings a little joy, and

reminds the community that all this persistence,

sweat, and frustration is actually worthwhile.

The Role of the National Park Service:

Convener, Catalyst, Enabler of Action

T he role of the NPS in this partnership model is to 

1) engage people and listen; 2) tap into and

enhance the existing stewardship ethic, drawing

on indigenous and local knowledge and management

approaches; 3) seek to understand different cultures and

perspectives; 4) catalyze learning at all levels of the 

model, linking to local natural and cultural heritage; and 

5) create governance structures that are appropriate to 

the local community and that include communities in

meaningful decisionmaking. 

The NPS can play a fundamental role in heritage areas,

rivers and trails, parks, and partnerships in general by

providing information that fosters, both within and outside the agency, a greater understanding of partnerships

(including the range of partnership approaches) and of

local cultures and communities. The NPS can also

facilitate connections globally by helping to share local

experience and foster understanding of our common

heritage. For the NPS to excel at the critical catalytic role

envisioned requires an organization that values, instills,

supports, expects, and rewards collaboration at all 

levels of the agency. Participants offered the following

specific thoughts:

I see the NPS as a catalyst for meetings that connect people

through dialogue and exchange. We can also use web-based

technologies and learning to bring people together. 

Facilitation and support has to do with convening, bringing

together existing and potential partners, bringing together

resources, building capacity, providing a public education

function.

There is a lot to be said for a decentralized approach, and

communicating and sharing best practices and learning

opportunities across that very decentralized system.

We need to encourage and assist people in telling their own 

stories about a place.

We can assist in developing a consensus around the values

that are reflected in place. 

It is incumbent on us to reach outside our own communities 

to those who may not totally buy in to partnerships, to educate them on what partnerships are and what they can do.

We can act as partnership mentors and connectors—

“partnership coaches”—to provide guidance on how to create

sustainable partnerships.
partnership model taps into local knowledge, love of

place, and stewardship ethic, involving individuals

and communities in telling their stories. For governance, communities are at the table, sharing in the

decisionmaking and problem-solving. In this model,

communities are both custodians and beneficiaries

of the stewardship of their heritage and special

places.

• Surrounding this local action base is a circle of facilitation and partnership support, made up of the NPS

and other federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) at all levels

(local, regional, and national), who are working in

partnership with communities.

• The next level, moving outward, is the authorizing

environment, which involves the NPS and other land

management agencies and their legal authorities,

along with funders and the legislative process and

players.

• The final circle is actually a process of learning, feedback, and transformation that connects with and

permeates all the preceding levels. The feedback

process operates as an ongoing exchange of ideas

and experience among communities and practitioners at all levels, from local to international. This

process loop enriches and expands understanding of

governance models and best practices, builds partnership capacity and skills, facilitates an understanding of partnerships at all levels, and fosters an

atmosphere that allows new leadership to emerge. 

The partnership model as described is dynamic.

Figure 1 to a certain extent reflects the current situation,

with the authorizing environment presenting barriers

(e.g., certain agency procedures, a lack of understanding) and the partnership support function relatively

modest. As the process of feedback and transformation

grows, the institutional barriers should shrink and facilitation and support for partnerships on the ground

should grow (see Figure 2).

In the course of the discussion, Angela West from the

National Recreation Group, Bureau of Land Management, offered some assumptions regarding sustainability of the partnership model, including the following:

• The partnership process requires honesty and

openness, a commitment to change, and an action

mindset;

• Human beings must be a part of the ecological

context;

• A commitment to risk is necessary to build trust; and

• Partnership requires significant organizational

maturity.

27

IV. ENVISIONING A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PARTNERSHIPS

Figure 1 Figure 2
B. An Institutional Framework 

for Sustainable Partnerships

The institutional framework and policies that are in

place are critical to partnership work. A lot of people

play a role in partnership success, and the administrative environment can either encourage and support

partnership work or hinder and undercut good work on

the ground. The discussion that follows, which applies

to federal agencies as well as partner organizations,

describes a framework and process that can make possible partnership success. This institutional framework

does not exist as described. It is a composite of the situation that exists to varying degrees in some areas; participants’ understanding of what has nurtured the most

successful partnerships; and the institutional support

they have found most helpful in their partnership work. 

1. Enabling framework: foundational elements

The first elements that contribute to this ideal

enabling framework are so central that they are named

foundational elements. They are a) a guiding vision on

partnerships; b) the presence of a strong “partnership

culture” within agencies and partner organizations; and

c) collaborative leadership skills. With these foundational elements in place, it becomes easier to enable and

support certain key partnership processes. 

a. An overall guiding vision on partnerships 

A guiding vision on partnerships sets forth a

“map” of what a partnership world looks like: how

partners work together, the roles they play, and how

they can be effective collectively in reaching common

goals. Such a guiding vision “needs to be compelling

and substantive,” stated Greg Moore. “It should connect the dots and create a common architecture for

people and for community stewardship organizations

to all fit into the picture. One of the best roles for

leadership is helping people place themselves [within]

a bigger picture and feel a connection among colleagues toward a common vision.” Reinforcing this

thought, Warren Brown, program manager, NPS

Park Planning and Special Studies, said that every

park, heritage area, trail, or other partnership area

needs to have a vision of its role in providing opportunities for visitor and community enjoyment within

the broader network of protected places. Jere Krakow

suggested that there are many different ways of

reaching the broader partnership vision.

b. A strong partnership culture within the federal

agencies and partner organizations

Moore remarked that we need to understand

more than just how to foster partnerships, we need

to better understand the culture of partnerships and

to integrate that understanding throughout the NPS

and partner institutions. Better integrating partnership culture into the day-to-day functioning would

bring broader understanding of partnerships and a

greater institutional investment, as well as an openness to new models of governance, all of which

would encourage the environments and the leadership that allow partnerships to flourish. People

would begin to see partnerships as a way of doing

business and, as Andy Ringgold stated, “a means

toward jointly accomplishing bigger, longer-range

objectives.” The NPS must “value and respect partnerships, and understand how critical they are to

survival,” observed Laura Gates, superintendent of

Cane River Creole National Historical Park, “not only

survival of the agency and the resources we are protecting, but really a bigger survival issue... Partnering

and collaboration [must become] second nature to

our thinking.”

In addition to understanding the strengths of

partnerships, it is also important to understand the

vulnerabilities and provide protection from those

threats. Commenting on the vulnerability of partnership work, Moore noted that even in an instance of

long-established trust and joint accomplishment, the

wrong person in a leadership position of either

partner institution can jeopardize years of hard work. 

Part of understanding partnership culture is to

appreciate the range of challenges encountered by

those who administer partnership areas. These challenges, in fact, reflect the complexity of society

today—understandably so, as partnership areas are

connected with the local communities in and around

them. An example of this is Ebey’s Landing National

Historical Reserve, a centuries-old farming landscape

located in Washington state. The difficulties encountered today by small farmers across the country exist

within Ebey’s Landing as well. Rob Harbour, reserve

manager, is dealing with a set of challenges that does

not fit within the traditional park management

model.

28

IV. ENVISIONING A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PARTNERSHIPS
29

What Is a Partnership Culture?

As interest in conservation partnerships grows,

the question arises of what constitutes a partnership culture. Some thoughts from workshop

participants include:

The value of partnerships is understood and acknowledged through a deeper commitment to them throughout the NPS and its partners, from the ground up.

A partnership message and mission is incorporated into

all aspects of the organization and its development,

including attitudes and approaches, and the training of

staff both new and existing.

People throughout agency and partner institutions

understand how their jobs contribute to successful

partnerships.

At all organizational levels, collaborative perspectives

and skills are instilled, valued, respected, and rewarded, and partnerships are seen as part of everyone’s job.

People are comfortable with sharing control.

Room is made within budgetary and staffing systems to

support sustained interpersonal relationships.

Success is redefined to include contributing to community stability, understanding local cultures, and

building long-term partner relationships that may not

come to fruition for quite some time.

Partnership areas are viewed not as unique situations

but rather as situations where collaboration at all

organizational levels has achieved certain successes,

and the successes are not the partnerships but the

outcomes of those partnerships.

The agency displays cultural sensitivity and awareness,

and engages partners with a true sense of commonality

of interests and concerns and a shared purpose.

The agency is continually mentoring and bringing new

people into partnerships in order to transfer a partnership perspective to the next generation.

Ideas for Encouraging a Partnership

Culture within the NPS and its

Partner Institutions

Develop a compelling, substantive vision of partnership

that can be communicated with all federal agencies and

their partners.

Provide the freedom and ability to make mistakes and

learn from them. Partners need to have the ability to

build on their own, to work, to form that partnership as

something different, to be free to innovate.

Honor the leaders and the partners who are modeling a

partnership culture.

Look at how we can become more diverse in our

thinking and more inclusive.

Provide context, capacity, and the connections to

establish partnerships.

Work for demonstrated leadership commitment to partnerships at all organizational levels in the NPS and its

partners.

Utilize an evaluation and promotion system that values

partner skills.

National and state park maintenance staff work together on

an historic structure at Redwood National and State Parks. 
c. Collaborative leadership skills, understood and encouraged throughout agency and partner organizations

Collaborative leadership involves a mindset and a

set of skills and guiding values that can differ from

the leadership employed with more unilateral land

management. Collaborative leadership relies on

building and maintaining interpersonal relationships

over the long term. In the experience of those at the

workshop, the successful collaborative leader: 

• Operates from an integrative mindset that sees the

interconnections and interdependencies 

• Thinks in terms of “we” instead of “I”

• Is visionary and able to articulate that vision with

different audiences

• Thinks strategically and long term, putting shortterm actions within that context

• Displays a mindset that is expansive rather than

limiting 

• Speaks from both the mind and the heart

• Is sincere and genuine in working with others

• Is entrepreneurial and willing to take risks

• Understands that creativity needs space and

flexibility to flourish

• Provides a buffer from bureaucracy to allow for

experimentation

• Does not seek control, but enables and inspires

others to act

• Creates a learning environment

• Works inclusively and celebrates diversity

• Values collaboration and shared effort

• Seeks a shared vision and a big “umbrella”

• Works across disciplinary and jurisdictional

boundaries

Although these characteristics are to some extent

personal traits that may be present to varying degrees

in everyone, they can be encouraged or discouraged

by different work environments. For partnerships to

flourish, it is important to first recognize these

special skills, and then to seek people who display

promise in this regard, provide training, and create

work environments that enhance, support, and

reward these skills.

2. Enabling framework: partnership processes

With the above-mentioned foundational elements in

place, process is important to facilitating partnership

success on the ground. Key process elements include a)

exploring new models of governance, b) sharing responsibilities, c) providing a flexible environment, d) learning

from experience, e) integrating this knowledge and

practice both vertically and horizontally throughout the

organization, and f) communicating effectively about

partnerships.

a. Exploring new models of governance

The complex challenges of managing protected

areas through partnerships require new ways of

working together and new models of governance.

Jessica Brown observed that as management of protected areas moves toward more inclusive approaches, new governance models are emerging all over the

world, and we can learn from this experience. 

Governance of protected areas is currently the

focus of much discussion and debate. According to

one typology presented at the 2003 World Parks

Congress, there are four main types of governance

involving protected areas. These are community management, in which the actors include indigenous peoples and local communities; government management, in which management is by central,

state/provincial, and/or municipal agencies; private

or delegated management, involving management by

NGOs, businesses, private landowners, and others;

and multistakeholder management, involving joint

management and collaborative management (see

Borrini-Feyerabend 2003 in Further Reading).

Stakeholder participation in collaborative management models can be viewed along a continuum

according to the extent to which authority and management responsibility are shared.

Exploring new models of governance raises questions that may challenge our conventional notions of

parks and protected areas. These include: Whose

protected area is it? Who is making the management

decisions? Who is bearing the consequences of these

decisions? Who are the managers? As governance

moves beyond the model of one central management

authority, the definition of “protected area manager”

moves beyond that of professional parks staff to

include local people and an array of other partners.

30

IV. ENVISIONING A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PARTNERSHIPS
b. Sharing responsibilities

Successful partnership areas rely on a paradigm of

shared control and local engagement. Local support

is essential to making partnership areas work, and

sharing control is key to effectively engaging the local

public. Sharing control works best when there are

good working relationships. In some partnership

areas, such as Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area

and Ebey’s Landing, an engaged local community

existed prior to designation, but this is not always the

case. With El Camino Real National Historical Trail,

a good portion of the early work following its

designation involved building that local support. 

Many NPS partnership areas are designed to

engage and work with local communities and

partners from the outset, and there is now considerable understanding about what works and what

doesn’t. Andy Ringgold believes a partnership area

model enhances the ability to achieve symbiosis on a

local level. “Redwood National Park was established

to protect values and provide opportunities that were

inconsistent with [how] the local communities were

using those lands prior to establishment,” he said.

“So the ability through time to develop meaningful

and mutually supportive relationships with individuals, local organizations, and the communities

themselves was much more difficult than if the initial

framework had been set up to [encourage] identifying values of mutual interest and community

interests and promoting those.”

The most important element of a partnership is

sharing control, according to Cassie Thomas, outdoor recreation planner for the Rivers, Trails, and

Conservation Assistance Program in the Anchorage

office of the NPS. “You cannot ‘do’ a partnership if

you don’t have the fundamental philosophy that you

are...facilitating, not directing” the joint effort. “We

need to find people who are very comfortable with

sharing control,” Thomas said. Howard Levitt, chief

of interpretation and education at Golden Gate

National Recreation Area, reinforced this point, saying, “If you imagine your point of view is the one that

needs to predominate, the partnership is sunk.” 

Even in places where the NPS has traditionally

exercised a top-down approach to management,

however, issues of control are pertinent. Karen Wade

believes that sharing control is central to all national

parks, traditional and partnership models alike.

Drawing from her previous experience as superintendent of Great Smoky Mountains National Park,

she stated, “We have problems where our employees

31

Ideas for Expanding the

Understanding of Successful

Partnerships

Bring park staff into Rivers, Trails, and

Conservation Assistance projects on details for a

year or two before they undertake a general

management plan so they can better understand

and build community relationships.

Provide “thinking partners” who can talk

periodically by phone or email to share thoughts

and advice on projects.

Provide for cross-training, e.g., detail people from

within a park administration to work on a partnership project from start or finish (could be on an

intermittent basis).

Instead of annual superintendents’ conferences that

only include superintendents in the region, hold

conferences that include all park partners.

In addition to financial support for heritage areas

and other partners, have deputy directors and

regional directors hold partnership meetings and

attend heritage area commission meetings every

one or two years.

Make use of case studies to communicate lessons

learned and provide guidance as to how we practice

sustainability.

Hold international exchanges with others doing 

this work to learn from experience from other

countries.

IV. ENVISIONING A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PARTNERSHIPS

Golden Gate bridge, a landmark of the Golden Gate

National Recreation Area (foreground).
believe that it’s their responsibility to control everything and that they can actually fix everything....You

learn that you really can’t control much of anything

[but] that in concert with others, you can make

meaning together and create an environment that

allows you to work with others to solve problems.”

c. Providing a flexible administrative environment

If close attention to partner relationships is the

key to sustaining a partnership over the long haul, a

flexible administrative environment is key to creating

a successful partnership in the first place. The presence of greater administrative flexibility, like sharing

control, is directly related to a broader understanding of partnerships, and is part of a strong partnership culture. Success in creating and sustaining partnerships requires creativity, time, and “maneuvering”

room—all of which can run counter to agency

bureaucracy and timelines. With Congress designating more and more areas to be managed through

partnerships, there is a critical need for agencies to

better understand how partnerships operate and

provide greater flexibility in administrative procedures. “There needs to be the freedom and ability to

make mistakes and learn from them,” stated Harry

Myers. He said a partnership approach should not

be institutionalized in a hard and fast manner,

because practitioners need to be able to “build on

their own, work to form the partnership as something different, and be free to innovate and [craft]

something that is perhaps unique.”

d. Learning from experience

A considerable body of knowledge exists among

the many partnership areas that have been established in the past several decades and the practitioners who have been involved in creating successful

partnerships. A learning organization gleans insights

and techniques from successful projects and applies

this knowledge in other places and situations.

Opportunities for dialogue around partnership areas

and partnership needs can expand the scope of ideas

and enhance understanding of various governance

models and partnership tools. Moreover, practitioners need opportunities to interact with their peers to

obtain reinforcement and support, counter the

uncertainty and loneliness of working in an evolving

field, and learn from others doing similar work.

Exchange and networking opportunities can enrich

the strategic thinking and future direction of partner

agencies and institutions, and expand the understanding of and support for partnership work

throughout the federal agencies and their partners. 

e. Integrating partnerships, horizontally 

and vertically 

As diverse models for governance of partnerships

evolve, better integration of partnership information

and process among all players (existing partners and

potential partners, federal agencies and state and

local governments, tribal governments, and private

sector players) and at all levels of the model can

enhance understanding and local engagement and

build more effective partnership relationships. This

need for more integration was cited by several workshop participants. Ernest Ortega told of working to

build a broad base of support for the proposed

Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in

northeastern New Mexico. National heritage areas

are relatively new to the western U.S., and in early

conversations with diverse cultures and communities

and other federal agencies about the proposed heritage area, he encountered some initial resistance.

Ortega has been able to work through these concerns by bringing local expertise into the collaboration and working with individual managers or individuals in communities, while also creating opportunities for those people to interact with regional NPS

leaders. The Intermountain Region’s state offices

have played an important integrative function among

partners and constituent groups and also within the

regional structure.

Similarly, Myers and Schlanger have had to pay

attention to information flow within their agencies

about their unique El Camino Real partnership while

concurrently holding public and community needs

meetings and talking with agencies and populations

that had concerns. Myers said that the public meeting approach has helped a lot in “involving communities, individuals, interest groups, non-interest

groups, and pretty much the whole community up

and down that corridor.” Greg Moore described San

Francisco’s Golden Gate region as an example of successful horizontal and vertical integration. “The

region today is collectively managed by NGOs, local

governments, the state, and federal agencies,” he

said. A full-fledged alliance deals with common

issues and future visions for protected lands in the

Bay Area, advocates when necessary, and creates

joint strategies. He describes the alliance as an

“effective tool in bringing a community base” to the

collaboration.

32
f. Communicating effectively

Effective communication is critical to facilitating

the flow of information throughout the model, to the

functioning of the learning and feedback loop, to

reaching new audiences and potential partners, and

to telling the stories of successful partnerships.

Communicating effectively with communities involves

having a basic message that is meaningful at the

local level so people can relate to it. Warren Brown

noted these points in expressing the importance of

reaching out beyond just the true believers of partnerships. “We very often communicate in ways that

celebrate what we consider successes but what other

people consider to be failures,” he said. Brown suggested that success in effectively conveying information about partnerships to new audiences is linked to

inclusive visioning at the park or heritage area level

that considers the community role. As a result, local

people relate to and better understand the vision. 

Important to effective communication is using terminology that is meaningful and accessible to nonagency partners. Harbour mentioned the need for a

common language on partnerships that facilitates

collaborations with communities, nonprofit groups,

and other constituencies and cultures. Workshop

participants noted that agency terminology rooted in

traditional management can sometimes cause difficulties in partnership areas. “Manage” is one such

term, which can be problematic in a partnership area

that contains a lot of privately owned land. Harry

Myers said, “National historic trails don’t really manage anything. Sarah and I aren’t going to manage;

we’re going to administer.” Schlanger talked of trying

to communicate the vision of a national historic trail

to communities, and then realizing that they were

presenting El Camino Real as a “visitor experience”

to communities, rather than talking about the community experience along the trail. “We’re creating a

boundary,” she said. Nora Mitchell, director of the

NPS Conservation Study Institute, added to this

observation. “Our parks are really set up to welcome

people from afar. In a partnership area setting, it’s

not only the park that’s inviting the visitors, it’s the

whole landscape, and the community and families

become part of that process.” 

Participants also noted the importance of articulating the benefits of partnerships, both generally

and for specific constituencies (see box on benefits).

They recognized the importance of telling the stories

of partnerships—both the successes and the failures—

and the lessons learned. They also stressed the

importance of developing an inspiring message for

marketing purposes, and offered one sample: 

Partnerships are a means of helping the American 

people protect parks and other special places.

33

The Benefits of Partnerships

Partnerships:

Foster a stewardship effort among the general public;

Provide opportunities for civic engagement;

Enhance public support for conservation;

Contribute to the development of civil society;

Leverage additional financial and technical resources;

Increase volunteerism;

Promote intergenerational equity;

Create opportunities for greater inclusiveness;

Encourage greater diversity in conservation and heritage

preservation;

Share valuable lessons that can be applied in other settings;

Expand the range of strategies for conserving natural and

cultural heritage.

IV. ENVISIONING A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PARTNERSHIPS
34

c.

a. Donner Lake in California, just below

the summit of Donner Pass on the east side

of the Sierra Mountains. More than 200,000

gold-seekers and farmers followed the

California Trail to the gold fields and rich

farmlands of California during the 1840s

and 1850s. The ill-fated Donner-Reed party,

in trying to cross the Sierras, was stopped by

an unusually heavy, early snowfall and

spent the winter in hastily-built shelters near

the lake. Nearly half the party of 87 perished

over the winter.

b. The proposed Northern Rio

Grande National Heritage area

encompasses many historical structures and long-standing traditions.

The Abiquiú Morada, the adobe

structure shown here, is a “chapter

house” of the lay Hermanos

Penitentes in Abiquiú, New Mexico. 

c. One of several crossing sites on

the Blue River in northeastern

Kansas used by emigrants heading

west to Oregon and California. 

In the early spring, emigrants often

had to wait for days for the Blue

River to recede so they could ford

their wagons. Their travel route took

them into Nebraska territory, 

where they followed the Great Platte

River route into Wyoming. 

d. Restoring wetlands on the Lower

Colorado River is a challenge. An

early success for Yuma Crossing

National Heritage Area in Arizona

was the East Wetlands Restoration

Plan. The Heritage Area served as a neutral, trusted body

in building consensus among the 28 stakeholders (including the major landowner, the Quechan Indian Nation)

who agreed to the 1,400-acre plan along five miles of the

Colorado River.

e. A historic "candellia camp" (ca. 1918) on the

Seminole Trail, within the boundary of the Rio Grande

Wild and Scenic River in Texas. At one time part of a

major industry, candellia camps that processed the

ubiquitous wax-covered candellia plant were once common along the Texas and Mexico sides of the Rio Grande.

Many such historical features within the wild and scenic

river boundary will be cooperatively protected through

landowner agreements.

b.

a.
V. Creating a Sustainable

Environment for

Partnerships

This chapter opens with a section on creating

change, looking first at some strategic considerations and then discussing the process of

change. This is followed by a presentation of the strategy put together by workshop participants for creating a

sustainable environment for partnerships. The final section presents concluding thoughts.

A. Creating Change 

1. Approaching change strategically

Before participants began brainstorming a strategy

for achieving sustainable partnerships, they considered

the elements of a strategic approach, as presented by

Karen Wade. The first step in approaching change

strategically is to create a vision (usually arising out of a

perceived need for action) for what you want to achieve.

The next step involves developing an assessment of the

need, which drives the research phase that follows.

Research is necessary in order to focus your actions—to

ensure that you are on the right path and using

resources wisely—and, in this case, sustainable conservation has to be an important part of that process. After

the research phase comes integration, in which the

action steps you will be taking are integrated into existing programs. This phase includes developing the scope

and dimension of what you want to do. In the case of

sustainable conservation partnerships, Wade suggested

a broad-scale, “big tent” vision with plenty of opportunities for interested citizens and organizations to be

involved. She recommended bringing in others as early

as possible “because you want the partners to have

heart and soul in it.” Next comes developing a foundation for joint decisionmaking, which requires clarifying

roles and responsibilities. The last step is action. In

many cases we spend all our time on actions, according

to Wade, without gaining the needed context that

comes from the preceding steps. “Our thinking [today]

should be on the front end of this process,” she said,

“...and maybe we can provide some sharper focus on

two or three strategies that could push us into a new

dimension in terms of leadership for partnership areas.”

35

d.

e.
2. A theory of change

One model of a change process is presented here to

provoke thinking and dialogue (see Table 2). This particular model (there are others in the literature) has

emerged from studies of health-related change, which

found a continuum of behavioral modification leading

to change in individuals. Accompanying each level of

change are possible strategic actions that can be taken

to move people to the next level of behavior. Choosing

actions appropriate to the existing level of change

maximizes the effectiveness of the action. Change within

an organization will be more complex than the model

presented here, and may well have additional steps

within each level.

Movement can take place in both directions between

levels two and four, so it is important to reinforce the

desired behavior. Some of the causes of backward

movement can include crisis, fear, or new players affecting the process. Training, experience, and the presence

of a strong vision can moderate the backward movement. 

B. Developing a Strategic

Approach to Sustaining

Partnerships

The recommendations that follow are offered as a

pathway toward the vision of sustainable partnerships

presented in Chapter IV. They address the following

objectives that participants believe essential in attaining

the vision:

• Encourage and instill a partnership culture within

federal agencies and partner organizations;

• Encourage, instill, and reward collaborative

leadership; and

• Continue to develop the understanding of partnership success and the tools and techniques for

achieving and sustaining success.

Workshop participants recognized that developing

and implementing a strategy for sustaining partnerships

would by necessity involve more time and many more

people, and that what emerged from this workshop was

the beginning of a longer process. Although the workshop focus was on NPS partnerships, participants

acknowledged that the recommendations can also apply

36

V. CREATING A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PARTNERSHIPS

Table 2. A Model for Change

Levels of Change Possible Actions

— Adapted from Cabanero-Verzosa, Cecilia. 1996. Communication for Behavior Change. P. 4, Fig. 2. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.

Raise awareness of the need for change.

Recommend change.

1 — Unaware

2 — Aware, concerned, considering

3 — Planning for change

4 — Implementing change

5 — Sustaining change

Provide logistical information and encouragement by 

emphasizing benefits. 

Use peer groups to motivate.

Provide information and encouragement by emphasizing benefits.

Reduce barriers through problem-solving. 

Build skills; provide social support.

Provide information on benefits of changed situation.

Assure of ability to sustain change.

Provide social support.

Identify perceived barriers and benefits to change.

➠ ➠➠➠

➠

➠
to other federal agencies working in a community–

public land setting. With this in mind, they offer the

following recommendations to the NPS and other

federal agencies in order to create a sustainable environment for conservation partnerships.

1. Develop a compelling, inspirational statement conveying the vision and message that partnerships are

integral to carrying out the mission of the National

Park Service, and disseminate the message throughout

the agency. The message can demonstrate the relationship between partnership work and current national

priorities within the agency (e.g., the NPS seamless

network of parks and protected places).

• Engage people at all levels in the agency so that they

realize their role in and feel ownership of the partnership successes. 

• Identify and cultivate champions for this message

both within the agency and among partners.

• Develop a marketing strategy for promoting the

message widely within and outside the agency.

2. Identify the assets and resources that exist within

the NPS and other federal agencies to build on current

strengths. 

• Identify the 10 most exciting partnership stories

throughout the agency that demonstrate best

practices.

• Compile lessons learned; assess benefits and

beneficiaries.

• Assess current tools in the partnership toolbox; identify gaps and develop strategies for filling the gaps.

• Identify connections to place-based education.

• Identify organizations and programs that support

capacity-building and assess current programs and

gaps.

3. Undertake research and analysis to support partnership development and, based on the research

results, recommend actions to enhance the

sustainability of partnership work.

• Assess needs at the ground level for partnership work

(e.g., need for greater sustainability, growth capacity,

connectivity, resources, new leadership skills) and

identify which ones are most critical.

• Assess the barriers to partnerships (e.g., lack of

rewards to people who take risks, staff continuity,

sense of isolation, certain agency planning and

administrative processes) and recommend actions for

addressing the barriers.

• Assess the benefits of partnerships, both tangible and

intangible.

• Define the various models of governance and what

works in the way of partnership infrastructure.

• Define the characteristics of successful leadership in

working with partners.

• Examine issues of economic sustainability in the

“living landscapes” of partnership areas, especially

the role of innovation and entrepreneurial activity.

• Identify incentives for community-based partnerships.

• Identify “growth enhancers” and ways to create an

environment where partnerships can grow.

4. Build capacity within the NPS, other federal agencies, and partner organizations. Potential “capacity”

topics that can improve skills and understanding include

organizational development, board development, communication, volunteer development, fundraising, strategic planning, and cultural awareness and sensitivity.

• Identify key audiences.

• Identify methods to build capacity (e.g., crosstraining, short-term job exchange, “thinking partners,” long-term details, national and international

exchange programs).

• Share widely the successes and lessons learned,

through websites and other electronic means and

through publications, workshops, mentoring,

coaching, networking, etc.

• Include partners in the annual NPS superintendents’

conferences.

• Undertake networking to create an ongoing exchange

of experience and lessons learned, share best

practices, and reduce the isolation of this work. 

• Convene a meeting of agencies and partner organizations whose mission is to support on-the-ground

partnership work as a first step toward building a

comprehensive interagency partnership strategy and

network.

5. Share success stories and celebrate successes in

order to increase understanding of partnership work

among a broader array of people.

• Meet with and brief key leaders.

• Create a comprehensive, interactive, interagency

website that is available to agency staff and partners

and that enhances partnership networking through

such means as success stories, skills training opportunities, and links to other websites and sources of

information (e.g., the NPS Intermountain Region’s

document, The Power of Partnerships; see Further

Reading).

37

V. CREATING A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PARTNERSHIPS
C. Looking Ahead

A wealth of partnership wisdom resides with people

who have put many hours into making conservation

partnerships successful on the ground. The practitioners

who participated in the Santa Fe workshop understand

that success happens—whether in a national park or

partnership area or on other public lands—because of

the hard work of many people at all levels within the

federal agency and partner organizations. Together they

create a supportive environment for building relationships at the community level.

At this workshop, participants identified components

of successful conservation partnerships, which can

guide others doing similar work. They also described an

inclusive model for sustaining these partnerships over

time, and the institutional framework and policies that

would lead to a sustainable environment for partnerships. Finally, participants developed recommendations

that would put this model and framework in place,

engaging all levels of the National Park Service, sister

agencies, and a wide range of partners. This report

places these findings and recommendations before a

larger audience, including the NPS and others, who can

act on these recommendations. 

Within the NPS and sister agencies there is considerable movement today toward embracing partnerships as

a means of accomplishing conservation goals. Within

the NPS, the Partnership Council is helping to define an

agency-wide vision of partnerships and identify strategies for achieving the vision. Similar attention is being

paid to partnerships among other federal land managing agencies, as evidenced by “Joint Ventures: Partners

in Stewardship,” the national conference convened in

November 2003 by seven federal agencies (National

Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of

Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, USDA

Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers). Within the Department of the

Interior, the “Four Cs Partnership and Collaboration

Team” is leading department-wide efforts to put in

place a partnership and collaboration culture, applying

the “4C principles” of cooperation, communication,

and consultation in service to conservation.

As all of these efforts move forward, it is imperative

to continually capitalize on the insights gained from

experience in order to craft the structure and processes

that will sustain partnerships over the long term. It is

attention to the sustainability of partnerships that

breathes life into the community-centered model presented in this report. Ultimately, creating vibrant, longstanding partnerships at the community level is the

most effective way to “pass the conservation baton.”

For it is through partner relationships cultivated over

time that we can nurture a stewardship ethic, reach new

constituencies, commemorate stories hitherto overlooked, and achieve an engaged citizenry in conserving

the cherished landscapes and heritage of the American

people.

38

V. CREATING A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PARTNERSHIPS

Rio Grande in northeastern New Mexico within the proposed

Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area. 
39

APPENDICES
40

1. IUCN Categories of Protected Areas (from IUCN’s Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, 1994)

In 1994, IUCN–The World Conservation Union defined “protected area” as “[a]n area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural

resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.” 

The seven categories of protected areas recognized by the IUCN and their management objectives are as follows:

Ia Strict Nature Reserve — A protected area managed mainly for scientific research and monitoring; an area

of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological

features, and/or species.

Ib Wilderness Area — A protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection; a large area of unmodified

or slightly modified land and/or sea retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or

significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition.

II National Park — A protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation; a natural area

of land and/or sea designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present

and future generations; (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of

the area; and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.

III Natural Monument — A protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features; an

area containing one or more specific natural or natural/cultural features that is of outstanding or unique

value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities, or cultural significance.

IV Habitat/Species Management Area — A protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention; an area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes

so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species.

V Protected Landscape/Seascape — A protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation

and recreation; an area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and

nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological, and/or

cultural value, and often with high biological diversity.

VI Managed Resource Protected Area — A protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural

ecosystems. These areas contain predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long-term

protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while also providing a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs.

APPENDIX A

International Landscape Designations
41

2. UNESCO Categories of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes (adapted from UNESCO, Operational

Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO, 1996)

Cultural landscapes represent the “combined works of nature and of [humans]” described in Article One of the

World Heritage Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time,

under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and

of successive social, economic, and cultural forces, both external and internal (UNESCO, 1996, section 36). 

“The term ‘cultural landscape’ embraces a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and

its natural environment” (section 37).

Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land use relative to the characteristics and

limits of the natural environment in which they are established, as well as a specific spiritual relationship to

nature. Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques 

of sustainable land use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued existence of

traditional forms of land use supports biological diversity in many 

regions of the world. The protection of traditional cultural landscapes is therefore helpful in maintaining biological diversity (section 38).

Section 39 of UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines provides a description of cultural landscape categories:

Cultural Landscape Category

Section 39 Descriptions

(i) Most easily identifiable, the clearly defined landscape is designed and created intentionally by [humans].

This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons, which are often (but not

always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles.

(ii) The organically evolved landscape results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious

imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features. They fall

into two sub-categories:

• a relict (or fossil) landscape in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past,

either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are...still visible in material form.

• a continuing landscape which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated

with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same

time, it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.

(iii) The associative cultural landscape derives its significance from the powerful religious, artistic, or cultural

associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or

even absent.

— Table from Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation. World Heritage Papers 7. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage

Centre, 2003; originally adapted from UNESCO, Operational Guidelines, 1996.
42

APPENDIX B

Description of the National Park System 

and other NPS Designations

The National Parks: Index 2001–2003, the “official index of the National Park Service,” lists the congressionally

designated properties for which the NPS has responsibilities. The index contains the following descriptions:

The national park system is defined as comprising those 388 areas owned and managed by the NPS. The

designations for units include: national parks, national monuments, national lakeshores, national seashores,

national rivers and wild and scenic riverways*, national scenic trails*, national historic sites, national historical

parks, national recreation areas, national preserves, national reserves, national memorials, national parkways,

and four designations for areas associated with U. S. military history.

Besides the national park system, four other categories of nationally important areas exist: national heritage

areas, wild and scenic rivers, national trails, and affiliated areas. These areas, all congressionally designated, are

closely linked in importance and purpose to the national park areas managed by the NPS. Although most are not

currently defined as units of the national park system, these related areas conserve important segments of the

nation’s heritage. Many are managed through partners working in cooperation with the NPS.

1. National heritage areas include entire communities or regions in which residents, businesses, and local

governments have come together to conserve special landscapes and their own heritage. There are 24

congressionally designated areas, and more than a dozen proposed national heritage areas. Conservation,

interpretation, and other activities are managed by a designated local management entity through partnerships among federal, state, and local governments and private nonprofit organizations. The NPS does not

acquire new land in these areas, but provides technical and financial assistance for a limited period.

2. Rivers within the national wild and scenic rivers system are classified as wild, scenic, or recreational

according to the degree of development within the boundary, and may include only a segment of a river.

The system includes 163 rivers designated by Congress or by the Secretary of Interior (in this case, they

must first have been protected at the state level). While some designated rivers are managed directly by the

NPS and thus are units of the national park system, 10 are now administered through partnership

arrangements between the NPS and other entities.

3. The national trails system includes national scenic trails, national historic trails, national recreation trails,

and side and connecting trails. Since the National Trails System Act of 1968, 23 national scenic trails and

national historic trails (collectively referred to as long-distance trails) have been designated. The NPS

administers 17 of them, and two more jointly with the Bureau of Land Management. These trails cross or

touch 47 of the 50 states. The federal government has also recognized almost 900 national recreation trails

totaling 10,000 miles in length; some of these are on federal lands, some are state or local trails, and some

are on private lands.

4. Affiliated areas include a variety of significant properties with high historic or scientific value. These areas,

congressionally designated, are eligible for NPS technical and financial assistance but are neither federally

owned nor administered by the NPS. 

* Note, however, that not all designated rivers or trails are units of the national park system.
43

Attila Bality

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation 

Assistance Program

National Park Service

P.O. Box 728 

Santa Fe, NM 87504

Phone: (505) 988-6092

attila_bality@nps.gov 

Brenda Barrett

National Coordinator for 

Heritage Areas

National Park Service

1201 Eye Street, NW, Floor 8

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 354-2222

brenda_barrett@nps.gov

Jessica Brown

Vice President for International 

Programs

QLF/Atlantic Center for the 

Environment

55 South Main Street

Ipswich, MA 01938

Phone: (978) 356-0038

jbrown@qlf.org

Sharon A. Brown

Park Ranger/Interpretive Specialist

National Trails System—

Intermountain Region

National Park Service

c/o Fort Vancouver National 

Historic Site

612 East Reserve Street

Vancouver, WA 98661

Phone: (360) 696-7655 x 27

sharon_brown@nps.gov

Warren Brown

Program Manager

Park Planning and Special Studies

National Park Service

1201 Eye Street, NW, Floor 9 

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 354-6972

warren_brown@nps.gov

Delia Clark 

(workshop facilitator)

Director of Community Engagement

NPS Conservation Study Institute

P.O. Box 45

Taftsville, VT 05073

Phone: (802) 457-2075

deliaclark@adelphia.net

Charles Flynn

Executive Director 

Yuma Crossing National Heritage

Area Corporation

180 West First Street, Suite E

Yuma, AZ 85364

Phone: (928) 373-5192

charles.flynn@ci.yuma.az.us

Laura Gates

Superintendent

Cane River Creole National 

Historical Park

400 Rapides Drive

Natchitoches, LA 71457

Phone: (318) 352-0383

laura_gates@nps.gov

Rob Harbour

Reserve Manager

Ebey’s Landing National 

Historical Reserve

P.O. Box 774

Coupeville, WA 98239-0774

Phone: (360) 678-6084

rob_harbour@partner.nps.gov

Jere L. Krakow

Superintendent, National Trails 

System

Intermountain Region

National Park Service

P.O. Box 45155

Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155

Phone: (801) 539-4094

jere_krakow@nps.gov

Howard Levitt

Chief, Division of Interpretation 

and Education

Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area

Fort Mason, Building 201

San Francisco, CA 94123-1308

Phone: (415) 561-4759

howard_levitt@nps.gov

Ken Mabery

Superintendent 

Fort Necessity National Battlefield

Friendship Hill National Historic Site

1 Washington Parkway 

Farmington, PA 15437 

Phone: (724) 329-5802

ken_mabery@nps.gov

Nora Mitchell

Director

NPS Conservation Study Institute

53 Elm Street

Woodstock, VT 05091

Phone: (802) 457-3368 x 17

nora_mitchell@nps.gov

Greg Moore

Executive Director 

Golden Gate National Parks 

Conservancy

Building 201, Fort Mason 

San Francisco, CA 94123

Phone: (415) 561-3000

gmoore@parksconservancy.org

Nancy I. M. Morgan

Executive Director 

Cane River National Heritage Area

P.O. Box 1201

Natchitoches, LA 71458

Phone: (318) 356-5555

nmorgan@caneriverheritage.org

Ray Murray

Team Leader, Planning and 

Partnerships

National Park Service

1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700

Oakland, CA 94607

Phone: (510) 817-1439

ray_murray@nps.gov

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 
44

Harry C. Myers

NPS Project Coordinator 

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro

National Historic Trail

National Park Service 

P.O. Box 728 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0728

Phone: (505) 988-6717

harry_myers@nps.gov

Ernest Ortega

New Mexico State Director

National Park Service

P.O. Box 728

Santa Fe, NM 87504-0728

Phone: (505) 988-6004

ernest_ortega@nps.gov

Andy Ringgold

NPS Superintendent (now retired)

Redwood National and State Parks 

Sarah Schlanger

BLM Team Lead

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro

National Historic Trail

New Mexico Bureau of Land 

Management

P.O. Box 27115 

Santa Fe, NM 87502-0115

Phone: (505) 438-7454

sarah_schlanger@blm.gov

Rick Sermon

State Parks Superintendent

Redwood National and State Parks

1111 Second Street

Crescent City, CA 95531

Phone: (707) 464-6101 x 5100

richard_sermon@partner.nps.gov

John Shepard

Associate Director

Sonoran Institute

7650 East Broadway 

Boulevard, #203

Tucson, AZ 85710

Phone: (520) 290-0828

john@sonoran.org

Cassie Thomas

Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation 

Assistance Program

National Park Service—

Alaska Regional Office

240 West Fifth Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99501

Phone: (907) 644-3590

cassie_thomas@nps.gov

Jacquelyn L. Tuxill

(workshop coordinator)

Director of Partnership Programs 

NPS Conservation Study Institute

1490 Elder Hill Road

Lincoln, VT 05443

Phone: (802) 453-5401

jtuxill@gmavt.net

Karen P. Wade

Regional Director (now retired)

Intermountain Region

National Park Service

David J. Welch

National Preservation Officer

Oregon-California Trails Association

102 Chinook Lane

Steilacoom, WA 98388

Phone: (253) 584-0332

welchdj@attbi.com

Angela West

National Lead for Travel, Tourism,

and Community

Bureau of Land Management

333 Broadway SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

Phone: (505) 842-3444

awest@blm.gov

People who were unable to attend but 

submitted written contributions:

J. Glenn Eugster

Assistant Regional Director

National Capital Region

National Park Service

1100 Ohio Drive, SW, Room 350

Washington, DC 20242

Phone: (202) 619-7492

glenn_eugster@nps.gov

Tracy A. Fortmann

Superintendent 

Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

612 East Reserve Street 

Vancouver, WA 98661

Phone: (360) 696-7655

tracy_fortmann@nps.gov
45

The workshop organizers gratefully acknowledge the

early advice and guidance provided by Warren Brown,

Brenda Barrett, Keith Dunbar, Steve Elkinton, Glenn

Eugster, Peggy Halderman, John Haubert, Diana

Maxwell, and Ray Murray. We thank the workshop

participants (and several others who were unable to

attend) who contributed substantial written comments

in advance of the workshop. We are indebted to every

participant for sharing insights from their partnership

work and for their thoughtful and, at times, provocative discussions during the workshop sessions. We are

especially grateful to Karen Wade, Greg Moore, Ray

Murray, and Jessica Brown for their informative

presentations that helped set the stage, and to Attila

Bality, Charles Flynn, Rob Harbour, Harry Myers,

Sarah Schlanger, Andy Ringgold, and Rick Sermon for

working with us to develop the case studies. Special

thanks go to Delia Clark for her superb facilitation of

the workshop and to Karen Wade for challenging us to

think more deeply in envisioning a sustainable environment for partnerships.

We thank Ernest Ortega and Cecelia Matic of the

Santa Fe Office of the National Park Service for being

such gracious hosts for the Santa Fe region and for

helping in innumerable ways, both substantive and

logistical, with the workshop. We especially thank

them for organizing the field trip to the proposed

Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, which

was invaluable in setting the stage for the workshop

and conveying to us the multicultural richness and the

complexities of this special area. Countless times during our discussions people referred back to this shared

experience. We are particularly grateful to the six area

residents who acted as our guides during the field trip:

Ernest Ortega, Kathy Cordova, Mary Mascareñas,

Willie Atencio, and Sam Delgado, all board members

of the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area

Corporation; and Herman Agoyo, former governor of

San Juan Pueblo. They displayed such warm hospitality

in welcoming us to the northern Rio Grande region,

and they shared with us their sense of place and their

hopes for the future of their home landscape. Special

thanks go to those people who shared with us the

informative and inspiring stories of their special places

during the field trip: Herman Agoyo, sharing the

stories of San Juan Pueblo, site of the first Spanish

capital; Sam Delgado, telling of the heritage area’s

plans for Misión y Convento in Española; Willie

Atencio, relaying the long history of Santa Cruz de la

Cañada Catholic Church; and Father Casimiro Roca,

pastor of El Santuario de Chimayó, who led us on a

tour of the chapel and captivated us with his stories of

El Santuario’s history. It was a very special afternoon. 

The report editors, Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, Nora J. Mitchell,

and Jessica Brown, are most grateful to Warren Brown,

Karen Wade, Ernest Ortega, Nancy Morgan, Brenda

Barrett, and Cassie Thomas for their comments and

contributions to this report. We also express our

appreciation to Attila Bality, Brenda Barrett, Charles

Flynn, Laura Gates, Rob Harbour, Lynne Mager, Chuck

Milliken, Greg Moore, Nancy Morgan, Harry Myers,

Ernest Ortega, and Sarah Schlanger for providing photos and captions for the report, and to Bryan Bowden,

Rolf Diamant, Howard Levitt, Jeff Roberts, and Laura

Rotegard for assistance with photo captions. We

thank Tom Guthrie, a “volunteer-in-parks” with the

National Park Service in Santa Fe, for taking photos of

the workshop itself. Special thanks go to Leslie

Hudson for her copyediting expertise and to Deb

Jones, Leslie Shahi, and Barbara Slaiby for their able

assistance in numerous ways with this report.

Finally, we give special recognition to Warren Brown

for his leadership in raising awareness of the benefits

of partnerships and for the many ways that he supports partnerships within the National Park Service. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
46

Avrami, Erica, and Randall Mason,

eds. Values and Heritage

Conservation. Los Angeles: The

Getty Conservation Institute,

2000.

Barrett, Brenda, guest ed., and

Elizabeth Byrd Wood, ed.

"Regional Heritage Areas: Connecting People to Places and

History." Special issue, Forum

Journal 17, no. 4 (2003). Published

by the Center for Preservation

Leadership at the National Trust

for Historic Preservation.

Barrett, Brenda, and Nora Mitchell,

eds. “Stewardship in Heritage

Areas.” Special issue, The George

Wright Forum 20, no. 2 (June

2003). http://www.george

wright.org/

Beresford, Michael, ed. “Category V

Protected Landscapes.” Special

issue, Parks 13, no. 2 (2003).

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia. “Indigenous and Local Communities:

Rethinking the Relationship,” in

“Local Communities and

Protected Areas,” Jessica Brown,

Ashish Kothari, and Manju

Menon, eds. Special issue, Parks

12, no. 2 (2002): 5–15.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia. Collaborative Management of Protected Areas:

Tailoring the Approach to the Context.

Gland, Switzerland: IUCN–The

World Conservation Union, 1996.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, with

Dianne Buchan. Beyond Fences:

Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. Vol. 1: A Process Companion. Vol. 2: A Resource Book.

Gland, Switzerland: IUCN–The

World Conservation Union, 1997.

Brick, Philip, Donald Snow, and

Sarah Van de Wetering. Across the

Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the American

West. Washington, DC: Island

Press, 2000.

Brown, Jessica, Ashish Kothari, and

Manju Menon, eds. “Local

Communities and Protected

Areas.” Special issue, Parks 12, 

no. 2 (2002).

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and

Fausto Sarmiento, eds.

“Landscape Stewardship: New

Directions in Conservation of

Nature and Culture.” Special

issue, The George Wright Forum 17,

no. 1 (2000). http://www.george

wright.org/

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and

Jacquelyn Tuxill. “Partnerships and

Lived-In Landscapes: An Evolving

U.S. System of Parks and

Protected Areas.” Parks 13, no. 2

(2003): 31–41.

Cestero, Barb. Beyond the Hundredth

Meeting: A Field Guide to Collaborative Conservation on the West’s Public

Lands. Tucson: The Sonoran

Institute, 1999.

Conservation Study Institute,

IUCN–The World Conservation

Union, and QLF/Atlantic Center

for the Environment. International

Concepts in Protected Landscapes:

Exploring Their Value for Communities

in the Northeast. Woodstock, VT:

Conservation Study Institute,

2001.

Conservation Study Institute,

IUCN–The World Conservation

Union, and QLF/Atlantic Center

for the Environment. Landscape

Conservation: An International

Working Session on the Stewardship of

Protected Landscapes. Woodstock,

VT: Conservation Study Institute,

2001.

Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of

Conservation. World Heritage

Papers 7. Paris: UNESCO World

Heritage Centre, 2003.

Degen, Paula A. Branching Out:

Approaches in National Park Stewardship. Fort Washington, PA: Eastern

National, 2003.

Diamant, Rolf. “From Management

to Stewardship: The Making and

Remaking of the U.S. National

Park System.” The George Wright

Forum 17, no. 2 (2000): 31-45.

http://www.georgewright.org/

Fowler, P.J. World Heritage Cultural

Landscapes 1992–2002. World

Heritage Papers 6. Paris: UNESCO

World Heritage Centre, 2003.

Howe, Jim, Ed McMahon, and Luther

Propst. Balancing Nature and

Commerce in Gateway Communities.

Washington, DC: Island Press,

1997.

IUCN. Guidelines for Protected Area

Management Categories. Cambridge,

UK: IUCN–The World Conservation Union, 1994.

Johnson, Barbara. Forging a West that

Works: An Invitation to the Radical

Center. Santa Fe: The Quivira

Coalition, 2003.

Knight, Richard L., and Peter B.

Landres, eds. Stewardship across

Boundaries. Washington, DC:

Island Press, 2002.

Levitt, James N., ed. Conservation in 

the Internet Age: Threats and

Opportunities. Washington, DC:

Island Press, 2002.

Linden, Russ. “The Discipline of

Collaboration.” Leader to Leader

(Summer 2003): 41–47.

Lucas, P.H.C. Protected Landscapes: 

A Guide for Policy-Makers and

Planners. London: Chapman and

Hall, 1992.

Minteer, Ben. A., and Robert E.

Manning, eds. Reconstructing

Conservation: Finding Common

Ground. Washington, DC: Island

Press, 2003.

Mitchell, Nora J., Leslie J. Hudson,

and Deb Jones, eds. Speaking of the

Future: A Dialogue on Conservation.

Woodstock, VT: Conservation

Study Institute, 2003. http://www.

nps.gov/csi/pdf/Speaking.pdf

FURTHER READING
47

Mitchell, Nora, Barbara Slaiby, and

Mark Benedict. “Local Community Partnerships: Building

Partnerships for Conservation in

North America.” Parks 12, no. 2

(2002): 55–66.

National Park System Advisory

Board. Rethinking the National Parks

for the Twenty-first Century: National Park System Advisory Board Report,

2001. Washington, DC: National

Geographic Society, 2001.

Phillips, Adrian. “Turning Ideas on

Their Head: A New Paradigm for

Protected Areas.” The George Wright Forum 20, no. 2 (2003):

8–32. http://www.george

wright.org/

Phillips, Adrian. Management Guidelines

for IUCN Category V Protected Areas:

Protected Landscapes/Seascapes.

Washington, DC: Island Press,

2002.

Pritchard, Paul. “Challenges Facing

State Parks.” The George Wright

Forum 17, no. 3 (2000): 60–61.

http://www.georgewright.org/

Propst, Luther, and Liz Rosan. National Parks and Their Neighbors:

Lessons from the Field on Building

Partnerships with Local Communities.

Tucson: The Sonoran Institute,

1997.

Stolton, Sue, and Nigel Dudley, eds.

Partnerships for Protection: New

Strategies for Planning and Management of Protected Areas. London:

Earthscan Publications, Ltd.,

1999.

Turley, Patricia. The Power of Partnerships: Working Shoulder-to-Shoulder to

Preserve America’s Heritage Resources.

Denver: National Park Service

Intermountain Region, 2003.

Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., ed. The Landscape

of Conservation Stewardship: The

Report of the Stewardship Initiative

Feasibility Study. Woodstock, VT:

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park, The Woodstock

Foundation, Inc., and Conservation Study Institute, 2000.

http://www.nps.gov/csi/pdf/ feasibility.pdf

Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., and Nora J.

Mitchell, eds. Collaboration and

Conservation: Lessons Learned in Areas

Managed through National Park

Service Partnerships.Woodstock,

VT: Conservation Study Institute,

2001. http://www.nps.gov/csi/

pdf/collaboration.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service. The National Parks: Shaping the System. Washington, DC: National Park Service,

1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service. The National Parks: Index 2001–2003. Washington, DC: National Park Service,

2001.

Wondolleck, Julia M., and Steven L.

Yaffee. Making Collaboration Work:

Lessons from Innovation in Natural

Resource Management. Washington,

DC: Island Press, 2000.

Yaffee, Steven L., and Julia M. Wondolleck. “Making Collaboration Work.” Conservation Biology in

Practice 1, no. 1 (2000).

http://conbio.rice.edu/scb/
Conservation Study 

Institute

54 Elm Street

Woodstock, VT 05091

Phone: (802) 457-3368

Fax: (802) 457-3405

www.nps.gov/csi

Contact: Nora Mitchell, Director

The Conservation Study Institute

(CSI) was established by the

National Park Service (NPS) to

enhance leadership in the field of

conservation. In collaboration

with the NPS and academic and

nonprofit partners, the Institute

provides a forum for the conservation community to discuss conservation history, contemporary

issues and practice, and future

directions for the field. The

Institute’s vision of conservation is

inclusive and interdisciplinary,

encompassing natural and cultural

heritage in defining sense of place,

and emphasizes the role of people

in stewardship. Reflecting this

vision, the Institute’s approach is

founded on collaborative leadership and community-based conservation involving cooperation

and partnerships. A key role of the

Institute is to stay informed of

new developments in the field of

conservation and promote an

active exchange of ideas among

the academic community, practitioners, and the general public.

Through its programs, the

Institute contributes to enhanced

understanding, involvement, and

commitment from a broad spectrum of people, which is critical to

the success of conservation today.

Quebec-Labrador

Foundation/Atlantic Center 

for the Environment

55 South Main Street

Ipswich, MA 01938

Phone: (978) 356-0058

Fax: (978) 356-7322

www.qlf.org

Contact: Jessica Brown, Vice President 

for International Programs

The Quebec-Labrador Foundation/Atlantic Center for the

Environment (QLF) is a private

nonprofit organization whose

mission is to support the rural

communities and environment of

eastern Canada and New England,

and to create models for stewardship of natural resources and

cultural heritage that can be

applied worldwide. Incorporated

in the United States and Canada,

QLF has more than 35 years of

experience working in rural communities of the Atlantic region. Its

international programs extend to

the countries of Central Europe,

the Middle East, Latin America,

and the Caribbean. QLF has a

long history of cooperative work

with the National Park Service on

stewardship projects, public education, and leadership development training. QLF is a founding

partner of the Conservation Study

Institute.

National Park Service 

Park Planning and 

Special Studies Program

1201 Eye Street, NW, Floor 9

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 354-6972

Contact: Warren Brown, 

Program Manager

The Park Planning and Special

Studies Program in the Washington office coordinates policy,

guidelines, and funding for preparation of general management

plans for existing NPS units. These

plans provide a framework for

decisions about resource protection, visitor facilities, carrying

capacity, and boundary adjustments. The program also coordinates congressionally authorized

studies of potential new parks,

wild and scenic rivers, and national trail system units. The program

office in Washington accomplishes

its mission by providing guidance

on individual planning and study

projects, developing training

programs and materials, and

updating guidelines for the work

done by planning staff in the

Denver Service Center and regional

offices.

48

WORKSHOP CONVENERS
The Conservation Study Institute thanks the following for 

the photographic contributions to this report:

Robert W. Baker, National Park Service: 24-b 

Attila Bality, National Park Service: 18, 35-e

Jack Boucher, National Park Service/HABS: 25-e

Jessica Brown: viii-a

Sharon Brown, National Park Service: 14 (bottom left), 15

Mike Casler, National Park Service: viii-c

Cammie G. Henry Research Center, Northwestern State University of Louisiana: 10-a

Sam Delgado: 38

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy: viii-d, 10-d, 23, 26, 33

Rob Harbour, Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve: 2-b, 17, 25-f 

Michael Larson, National Park Service: 25-d

Nora J. Mitchell: cover, 8

National Park Service: inside front cover, viii-b, 2-a, 2-c, 3-d, 3-e, 3-f, 5, 9, 10-b, 10-c, 

11-f, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 24-a, 24-c, 29, 31, 34-a, 34-c, inside back cover, back cover

Ernest Ortega, National Park Service: 8 inset, 11-e, 34-b

Fred Phillips Consulting: 35-d

Sarah Schlanger, Bureau of Land Management: 14 (top left)

Jacquelyn L. Tuxill: 11-g

United States Bureau of Reclamation: 16

Brenda Wilkinson, Bureau of Land Management: 14 (right)

Design: Brian P. Graphic Arts

Printed in the U.S.A. on recycled paper.

BACK COVER: The “Golden Gate,” where San Francisco Bay meets the Pacific Ocean,

lends its name to both the bridge that spans its strait and the Golden Gate National

Recreation Area (foreground). With a total park area that exceeds 75,000 acres, this is

one of the largest urban national parks in the world. Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the nonprofit Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy have forged a

highly successful partnership that works through educational and stewardship programs to strengthen the park’s relevance to a diverse urban community and engage the

public in a wide array of conservation initiatives.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Conservation Study Institute

54 Elm Street / Woodstock, Vermont 05091

Tel: (802) 457-3368 / Fax: (802) 457-3405

Web: www.nps.gov/csi