Craters of the Moon Administrative History

Chapter 8:
INTERPRETATION

THE POST-MISSION 66 ERA

Although many aspects of the interpretive program were in place before Ochsner's arrival, the park naturalist did influence the development of interpretation. In 1960, he helped to reinstate the campfire program. He was one, if not the first, person to suggest interpreting plant succession at Craters and proposed that the monument develop a self-guiding nature trail at Devil's Orchard, where the dominant theme would be ecology.

By the mid-1960s the interpretive program included self-guiding tours via the visitor center, loop drive, and trails; and guided tours in the form of auto caravans, nature trails, and campfire presentations. Craters was still lacking a formal document directing the program, such as an interpretive prospectus. Superintendent Daniel Davis, interested in strengthening the existing interpretive services and their expansion, assigned Chief Park Naturalist Edgar P. Menning to write the monument's first interpretive prospectus. The purpose of the document, drafted by January 1964, was to "incorporate the existing and proposed interpretive media for the monument..." in addition to establishing some conceptual foundation for interpretation. [25] All of this was necessary because the Mission 66 program only established the basics of the interpretive development and a more comprehensive approach was needed. For example, funding limitations prevented the installment of many interpretive and orientation devices in the visitor center; revisions and additions to outdoor media were warranted due to new information on the monument's geology. All told, changing forms of media and concepts in interpretation placed a particular emphasis on audiovisual programs. [26]

While the prospectus validated the interpretive values presented at the monument, its primary concern was to determine the best method of conveying the area's significance to the public. Of particular concern was the individual visitor. The 450,000 annual visitors as projected in the Mission 66 prospectus failed to materialize; the roughly 200,000 annual visitors stayed only a matter of hours, thus confirming that program development should concentrate on self-guidance. Menning determined that the visitor center attracted nearly all visitors, and for this reason, he proposed making the existing eruption film the "primary interpretive media" for relating the complex story of the Great Rift and formation of Craters of the Moon. The three-minute film deserved this emphasis because of its popularity, its informative qualities, and its ability to quickly familiarize the short-term visitor the area. To centerpiece the film, he proposed increasing its length and building an auditorium to house it. The secondary media in the visitor center would be the existing exhibits with some revisions. These would include better illustrations of volcanic activity, would introduce mounted animals to replace ineffective photo panels of the monument's wildlife, and would emphasize the area's plant distribution patterns, habitats, and succession.

As stated in the interpretive prospectus, the visitor center was a critical element to the monument's self-guiding tour. Beyond the visitor center the loop drive constituted another of the monument's main self-guiding interpretive devices and should be viewed, according to Menning, as important since it enabled the normal "transient" visitor to gain some appreciation of the weird landscape and stimulate interest to return. The drive also operated in conjunction with the monument's trail system, which provided access to the exhibits in place. By this time four trails were self-guiding. One of these, the Devil's Orchard, boasted one of the first audio stations in the monument, exemplifying the new shift in media devices. In addition, the prospectus recommended some conducted activities, such as proposing that a permanent campfire circle be built to replace the temporary structure assembled in 1960. It also advised that research was also badly needed to establish a comprehensive program--geology still being the best-known subject.

In January 1967, Superintendent Paul Fritz's administration reviewed the interpretive program in order to bring it up to date. While leaving the major themes intact, the monument's park naturalist, Dennis L. Carter, recommended several changes in the program that diverged from Menning's prospectus. Carter stated that only half of the monument's visitors currently stopped at the visitor center, and therefore, since the facility supplied enough interpretive devices, no efforts would be made toward expansion of the media program. More important for planning, Carter suggested that future attention would have to concentrate on the expanding season, as tourists were arriving in shoulder months of May and September. [27]

Carter was expressing a central factor in the monument's interpretive program: the balance between guided and self-guided services. Most often, as suggested by the naturalist's analysis, decisions weighed in favor of the latter, since the combination of visitors, funds, staffing, and physical landscape dictated such an approach. It was the impetus behind Superintendent Roger Contor's decision to end auto tours in 1966. Although self-guidance formed a major interpretive activity, Carter believed that some guided activities were requisite because there were limits to self-guidance. Conducted hikes, then still in the experimental stage, exemplified a viable and efficient interpretive activity. [28]

One of the main administrative changes proposed at this time was to combine the interpretation division with the resource management division. A May 1968 management appraisal team suggested this action, reasoning that, while the divisions functioned well individually, they overlapped in "research programs and proposals and visitor services." Due to the close interrelationship between the two divisions, "they are functioning essentially as a combined I and RM organization." [29] Superintendent Paul Fritz concurred with the team's findings, but noted that no action would take effect until a chief of I and RM was classified, possibly allowing for decreasing the grade of either the ranger or naturalist positions. Available records do not indicate when this change took place, but by at least 1972, both interpretation and resource management had been officially merged into one division, with the monument ranger functioning as chief of I and RM. [30] By 1978, the situation had come full circle when Superintendent Robert Hentges abolished the single division and reestablished two divisions. This move reflected his own view that separate divisions offered more administrative efficiency in spite of the overlap, and also reflected a Park Service directive to this effect, around since 1974. [31]

Besides the separation of divisions, the most notable administrative change impacting interpretation during the 1970s transpired in 1978 when Hentges hired David Clark as the monument's chief interpreter. Clark's tenure has spanned more than fifteen years, and his long tenure and vigorous leadership are responsible for the area's current interpretive program and development. This most recent era in interpretation has its roots in the 1979 interpretive prospectus which Clark prepared. This document expressed the need to revise the program to match visitor use to personal and nonpersonal services, in order to provide the most effective interpretive programs. [32] That Clark believed a major revision was necessary does not mean that his predecessors were negligent. It is more a commentary on the frequent turnover in the chief interpreter's position, causing a lack of unity in the entire program. [33] Furthermore, the program has benefited from better research, improved funding, and professionally trained staff, mostly unavailable to past managers. In all of these areas, traditional problems persist, the significant highlights being a more organized and well run natural history association helping to fund programs, and the establishment of the first permanent park ranger (interpreter) position in 1989. [34]

The principal philosophy guiding the program since Clark's arrival has been to provide the visitor with a more complete understanding of the volcanic landscape by furnishing a variety of interpretive themes, based largely on the most recent and extensive research conducted at the monument. [35] The comprehensive approach to interpretation--covering natural and cultural resources, as well as objectives relating visitor safety and Park Service information--was set down in the 1981 statement for interpretation. The document listed five specific themes and objectives for interpretation:

1) To encourage the understanding and appreciation of the geological, biological and ecological influences which make up Craters of the Moon. To stimulate an increasing awareness and interest in the visitor concerning all natural processes occurring in the monument and elsewhere. 2) To encourage understanding the role preservation plays in the maintenance and management of natural areas. 3) To instill in the visitor a sense of caution when confronted with unfamiliar safety hazards. 4) To give the visitor a better understanding of monument regulations and policies. 5) To create an understanding and interest in the role that past human influences have had upon the monument and our culture. [36]

Ten years later the only changes were some clarifications and revisions that reflected a broader perspective. The first was to emphasize that the geological processes at the monument were part of those that created the Snake River Plain; second to recognize the Park Service's concern for issues affecting the natural world; and the third to educate the visitor about resource management issues, in order to relate the concept of preservation and "the role it plays in the management and maintenance of natural areas." [37]

As these goals suggest, interpreting resource management issues has evolved as one of the most significant philosophic changes in the program. It departs from conveying information about the monument's resources and attempts to actively involve the visitor in their protection. Another theme that has become increasingly more relevant has been cultural history. As research progresses, the interaction between nature and humans in the monument's volcanic environment sheds light on how the harsh landscape influenced human activity. And finally, the program also hopes to complete the interpretation of all the monument's representative geologic features by including Big Sink, its importance brought to light by new research. [38]