Special Resource Study
Mangement Alternatives
Introduction
The final component of the Special Resource Study process explores management alternatives to identify appropriate management systems to protect and interpret nationally significant resources. Resource studies customarily evaluate at least three management alternatives. One alternative is usually the creation of a National Park unit and one alternative is a local action option, which is often described as the status quo or only marginal change from existing conditions. In between those alternatives can be a variety of options ranging from federal technical assistance to a state or local park or some other specially designated or protected area management system.
For this study, the three alternatives are as follows: Alternative A: New Bedford Whaling National Park as a unit of the National Park System; Alternative B: Planning and Interpretive Technical Assistance with funding from the National Park Service for such assistance, and Alternative C: Local Action Option which embodies an approach much like what is now occurring and which does not provide for National Park Service funding.
The study team examined existing National Parks, federally legislated commissions, and other management models to explore their appropriateness for New Bedford. It became clear during the study process that regardless of the management approach, those that appeared to work best had linkages to strong local organizations. These linkages or relationships are often called partnerships. Partnerships can either be informal or formal and usually involve multiple load organizations working together with the National Park unit toward a mutual set of resource protection and interpretive programs. Local partnerships can support the NPS with involvement in educational programs, support of funding requests, production of informational materials, coordination of volunteers, and other activities which enhance the work of NPS staff.
In addition to partnership relationships, the Park Service has successfully worked with individual organizations through cooperative agreements to accomplish specific needed tasks. Cooperative agreements are formal contracts, involve Federal funding, and have specific duration. The organizations provide specific resources or services to the NPS. The management alternatives presented in this section are based on models found in other settings used for resource protection, preservation, and interpretation. The next sections describe the three alternative approaches for New Bedford to consider.
Alternative A: New Bedford Whaling National Park
General Description. This alternative would establish a unit of the National Park System in New Bedford, designated and funded by Congress. The park boundaries would include the National Historic Landmark District and the Schooner ERNESTINA also a National Historic Landmark, berthed on the waterfront. In addition the land between the Landmark District and MacArthur Drive the boundary includes Parcel 19 (so-called) to the north of the Landmark District due to its development potential for support facilities and its proximity to the Landmark District. It is also anticipated that there would be cooperative agreements with five important historical properties which provide important links to the whaling era. They are: The Rotch Jones Duff House and Garden Museum, the Bourne Counting House (also known as Durant Sail Loft), the Wharfinger Building, and the southwest corner of the State Pier, and the existing waterfront park.
The role of the National Park Service in this alternative would involve the following elements. The NPS would act as the lead agency for interpretive planning and work with a partnership of local institutions and individual cooperator agencies; would fund and develop a general management plan for preservation, interpretation, management and maintenance of the Park; would acquire, develop, and manage a visitor orientation center; could enter into cooperative agreements to provide grant funds to specific institutions both for technical assistance in interpretive and educational programs and for preserving important cultural resources; and could provide grant funds for infrastructure improvements to enhance the visitor experience.
The primary theme of the Park would be whaling with the auxiliary maritime themes, immigration as well as African American and Cape Verdean history, and all the themes described in the Statement of Significance. The interpretive concepts, described in the Suitability chapter of this study, would illustrate the wide impact that the whaling era had during its period of primacy both on the City of New Bedford and the country. These themes can best be interpreted in the National Historic Landmark District because of the large number of buildings, the setting, artifacts, and cultural resources evident in that location. However, important links through cooperative agreements to other institutions and facilities must also be established to interpret the theme comprehensively.
From a facilities standpoint, the visitor would have the benefit of a full service visitor orientation center, developed, staffed, and maintained by the National Park Service. The center would provide an overview of the city's history and its resources; and it would interpret the whaling era through displays, interactive educational exhibits, audio-visual presentations and other techniques to present the drama and impact of whaling. The center would also inform visitors about NPS guided walks, museum tours, trolley rides, boat tours and other integrated activities that would comprehensively tell the story of whaling and explain New Bedford's history.
In addition to the visitor center, there could be audio walking tours, exterior exhibits, other interpretive centers illustrating whaling trades, tours of ships (such as ERNESTINA) at the waterfront, boat tours of the harbor, and trolley tours to other historic sites in the city that contribute to an understanding of the whaling era.
The National Park Service could provide funds to develop the interpretive centers (in addition to the visitor orientation center), to expand the interpretive trail being developed, to develop a comprehensive signage system, and to assist in planning and implementing safety improvements to Route 18 so that the National Park site can be linked more effectively to the waterfront.
Management Entities and Funding Sources. Under this alternative, the National Park unit would be managed by the National Park Service with principal funding coming from Federal sources on a long term basis. Some Federal funding might be matched with non-Federal sources. NPS management would primarily focus on those facilities that the Service owned or operated. Management coordination would also be shared with a local partnership and its local member groups to provide a comprehensive interpretive program to the general public. For example, a cooperative agreement could be developed with the Whaling Museum to develop and provide interpretive educational programs. Similarly, the Park Service could enter into a cooperative agreement with one or more of the five entities responsible for the properties outside of the Park to restore historic resources and present them more effectively to the public.
Land Ownership. Land ownership within the National Park will remain largely as it is at the present time. There is likely to be a mixture of private, municipal, and non-profit ownership. The Park Service would likely purchase a building for a full scale visitor orientation center within the Park area. In addition, the Service could also grant funds to local cooperator institutions to purchase and rehabilitate historic structures for interpretive centers. In the final analysis, however, the Park Service would own only a very small percentage of land in the proposed National Park.
Preliminary Cost Estimates. As part of this study, very preliminary cost estimates were developed for acquisition and development of facilities and for on-going operation of the National Park unit. These estimates are defined as Class C estimates which means the most general and thus subject to considerable refinement and modification as the planning process moves along.
| Alternative A: Cost Estimates |
| Capital Expenditures | |
| Visitor Center | |
| Acquisition & Development | $ 4,300,000 |
| Interpretive Exhibit | $ 600,000 |
| Other Interpretive Centers | $ 5,500,000 |
| Sub-Total | $10,400,000 |
| Annual Operating Costs | |
| NPS Staff & Maintenance, Material | $1,700,000 |
| ERNESTINA Support | $ 300,000 |
| Cooperative Agreements | $1,000,000 |
| Sub-Total | $3,000,000 |
The Capital Expenditure costs assume acquisition of an appropriate historic structure(s) for the development of a visitor facility within the structure. The operating costs include salaries and benefits for NPS staff and for program operations and maintenance expressed in 1993 dollars.
Alternative B: Planning and Interpretive Technical Assistance
General Description. This alternative envisions a planning and interpretive technical assistance approach to be funded by the National Park Service usually for a specific period of time. As the name implies, the level of activity by the Park Service focuses on planning and programming and is less comprehensive than a full Park Service presence in a National Park unit. In this alternative, the boundaries are descriptively the same as the National Park described in Alternative A. However, the boundaries are not intended to define a park so much as to create a focus for the planning and interpretive technical assistance effort.
The role of the National Park Service in this alternative would involve the following elements. The NPS would work cooperatively with a local partnership and cooperators to develop a preservation and interpretive plan; would provide funding and staff on site as part of the planning process; would work cooperatively with established local partners to create long term strategies for local groups to preserve, protect, and interpret, significant cultural resources; would provide staff and grants to local organizations to enhance educational and interpretive programs; would provide staff and grants to develop one or more interpretive centers through cooperative agreements; and could provide grants for selected historic building preservation and for infrastructure improvements to improve the visitor experience.
Like the National Park alternative, the primary theme of this alternative would be whaling and the auxiliary maritime themes as described in the Statement of Significance. The planning and interpretive technical assistance might also examine themes such as immigration, African American and Cape Verdean history, and fishing. While whaling would be interpreted in the National Historic Landmark District, other planning and interpretive technical assistance in and near the waterfront and the downtown and elsewhere in the city might be added to broaden the understanding of the primary whaling theme.
In this alternative, there would be no federally funded, developed, and staffed visitor orientation center. However, NPS staff, working with local cooperator institutions, could provide staff and grants to plan and develop one (and perhaps more) interpretive centers, and could provide grants for selected priority preservation projects in the study area. While these centers would be owned by others, the National Park Service could enter into a cooperative agreement to provide programming and interpretive funding for the center(s).
The National Park Service's general role in this alternative would be to provide a planning and interpretive function, to coordinate planning efforts at the local level, and to provide grants to other entities, such as local cooperating institutions, which would allow these entities to carry out more of the ongoing operations in the community. In this alternative, the Federal legislation could require matching funds in order for a project to be eligible for National Park Service staff and grant support.
Management Entities and Funding Sources. In this alternative, the management approach would be more diverse than in Alternative A. The National Park Service would assign staff to New Bedford to provide planning, interpretive, educational, and management technical assistance to local cooperator institutions and local partnership of institutions. This staff could be assigned to New Bedford for several years or for an even longer period of time depending on the language of the enabling legislation. The staff could also administer Federal grants designed to assist local cooperator institutions both in development of projects and in the operation of interpretive and educational programs.
Funding from the Federal government would be subject to annual appropriations and could be terminated at any time. Other ongoing funding would be provided by local cooperator agencies and partnership entities.
Ownership. In this alternative, the National Park Service would not likely purchase, develop, and maintain ownership of a visitor orientation center or other property within focus area. Nevertheless, it could provide grants of Federal funds to local organizations to coordinate the purchase, development, and/or use of one or more interpretive centers, and for other specifically designated facilities (such as fishing boat for touring). Otherwise, the property in the study area would remain in the same ownership patterns as exist today.
Preliminary Cost Estimates. As in the case of Alternative A, very preliminary cost estimates were developed for this alternative. In this alternative the capital costs are lower. They are defined as Class C by the National Park Service because of their level of generality.
| Alternative B: Cost Estimates |
| Capital Expenditures | |
| Building Acquisition and Improvements | $2,200,000 |
| Interpretive Exhibit | $ 500,000 |
| Sub-Total | $2,700,000 |
| Annual Operating Costs | |
| NPS Staff | $350,000 |
| Program Budget | $100,000 |
| ERNESTINA Support | $250,000 |
| Cooperative Agreements | $300,000 |
| Sub-Total | $1,000,000 |
The Capital Expenditure costs assume acquisition of an appropriate historic structure(s) for the development of a visitor facility within the structure. The operating costs include salaries and benefits for NPS staff and for program operations and maintenance expressed in 1993 dollars.
The Capital Expenditure costs assume acquisition of existing building(s) for one or two interpretive centers using matching federal funds. This category also provides some grant support for local programming/interpretation and possibly limited capital improvements.
Alternative C: Local Action Option
General Description. This alternative is the status quo condition with the local organizations continuing in roles the same as or similar to those they play at the present time. Local historic and cultural organizations would function at their current funding levels or perhaps at reduced funding levels if current trends continue. There would be no specific boundary definition since no defined "park" is being created under this alternative.
It is possible that the local Partnership could be incorporated as an entity to provide a more formal vehicle for planning, resource protection, and interpretation. In that case, the Partnership could act as the lead agency to coordinate planning, resource protection, and interpretive activities.
The existing visitor orientation center, staffed by volunteers, would continue to provide information about what was available for a visitor to do in New Bedford. Any and all existing offerings could be mentioned as sources of activities. A volunteer staffed guided walking tour is currently functioning in the downtown. A new state funded interpretive trail with wayside exhibits funded by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management is being developed as a complementary resource to the volunteer walking tours.
Preservation and interpretation of certain key components of the city's resources may be at risk under this alternative. For example, ERNESTINA has not been able to support itself at its present location. Without increased funding, it may very well deteriorate and have to be moved to a location where it can support itself or receive additional financial support. Other resources may experience the fate of the Glass Museum without adequate visitation and financial support.
Key historic properties in the waterfront area will likely experience deterioration and possible endangerment. The Partnership, WHALE and/or other entities may have to monitor this process and take action on a case by case basis when a crisis emerges. However, their response would occur in an environment of declining philanthropy and government support.
Management Entities and Funding Sources. In this alternative, there is no central management entity. Formation of a partnership could provide a coordinated, albeit, voluntary management process. Nevertheless, no existing entity would be bound to follow the management recommendations of the Partnership.
Funding would be received essentially from the same sources providing it today. Those sources include private charitable donations and memberships, foundation and government grants, and charges for services and products.
Ownership. All properties would continue in the same ownership pattern as exists today. Buying, selling, and leasing would be carried out by any willing private, nonprofit, and/or governmental entity.
Cost Estimates. In this alternative there are no costs to Federal government because they would not be involved in New Bedford. Costs of capital investment and operations would be borne by the local agencies and institutions as is the situation today. Expenditures by these entities would be governed by need and the availability of funds from multiple sources. In this Alternative funding is likely to continue at present levels or even decline due to economic conditions and the lack of governmental support.
Back to Publications Page | Resource Study Contents | Previous Page | Next Page
|
