Wednesday, November 23, 2011

COLLABORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS FOR RIVER CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND WETLANDS RESTORATION

COLLABORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS
FOR RIVER CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT AND WETLANDS RESTORATION

Prepared for State Wetlands restoration Conference, June 20, 2001 Baton Rogue, LA Glenn Eugster, National Park Service, National Capital Region, Partnerships Program

I. ASSUMPTIONS: YOUR EFFORT IS SUCCESSFUL AND MY COMMENTS ARE AN ATTEMPT TO ADD VALUE TO THE GOOD WORK YOU ARE INVOLVED IN. 

2. COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIPS ARE TOOLS NOT PROGRAMS OR END-POINTS IN THEMSELVES. THERE ARE MANY, MANY PLACE-BASED COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP MODELS. I'LL DRAW HEAVILY FROM EPA WETLANDS OFFICE, CBPO, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION/ POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED AND MODELS I'M STUDYING (I.E. GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL PARK IN CA.) WETLANDS RESTORATION IS PART OF THE OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE. DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN 1999 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IS "THE NETWORK OF OPEN SPACE, AIRSHEDS, WATERSHEDS, WETLANDS, WOODLANDS, WILDLIFE HABITAT, PARKS, AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS THAT PROVIDE MANY VITAL SERVICES THAT SUSTAIN LIFE AND ENRICH THE QUALITY OF LIFE". IDENTITY/ MESSAGING: IN ORDER FOR A STATEWIDE OR ECOSYSTEM-BASED WETLAND-RIVER CORRIDOR RESTORATION EFFORT TO BE EFFECTIVE IT HAS TO BE UNDERSTANDABLE. IF PEOPLE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT; CAN'T EXPLAIN IT; DON'T UNDERSTAND IT; IT WON'T GO A FAR AS YOU WANT IT TO. WHY? YOU NEED TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE PEOPLE CARE. WHY? IN ORDER TO USE COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIPS TO HELP YOU HELP YOURSELF ACCOMPLISH YOUR RESTORATION GOALS YOU HAVE TO MAKE FRIENDS. IN ORDER TO MAKE FRIENDS YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO: HAVE COMMUNICATIONS FROM ONE GROUP TO ANOTHER TOP-OF-THE-MIND CONSCIOUSNESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE EFFORT AND ITS WORK IMPROVE COMMUNICATION TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH COMMUNITIES AND THE INDIVIDUALS, WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE AREA. GOAL: MOVE THE WETLANDS-RIVERS AGENDA TO THE FOREFRONT OF LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL QUALITIES OF LIFE. MESSAGING EXPERT PHIL MUSSELWHITE SAID--YOU CANNOT NOT COMMUNICATE MANY OF THESE EFFORTS ARE STRUGGLING WITH WHAT I CALL THE TYRANNY OF SMALL SOLUTIONS. OFTEN OUR ORIENTATION IS AT A PROJECT LEVEL. SOME OF THE SITE SPECIFIC IDENTITIES ARE STRONG BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE COLLECTIVE IDENTITY OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS WEAK. IN SOME SITUATIONS, WHERE THE STRENGTH OF A RESTORATION EFFORT IS BASED ON STRONG SITES, THEN YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE IDENTITY FROM THE SITES UP, NOT FROM A FALSE OVERLAY DOWN. ELEMENTS: ICON/ SYMBOL. WHAT IS THE CURRENT IDENTITY OF WETLAND OR RESTORATION EFFORT? THINK OF THE AREA AS A PRODUCT. REMEMBER "GOT MILK"? THINK OF GREAT IMAGES--PROMOTE THE AREA IN THE SAME WAY. BOIL EACH AREA/ SITE DOWN TO ITS ICONIC SELF. SIMPLIFY THE IDEA, MAKE IT A BOLD AND SYMBOLIC IMAGE. RAISE AWARENESS THROUGH A POSTER CAMPAIGN TO "BRAND THE AREA". MORE THAN A SHORT-TERM PROMO IMAGE BUT RATHER A PREMANENT IDENTITY. MESSAGE NAME: VAGUE AND CUMBERSOME NAMES DON'T WORK FOR MESSAGING PURPOSES--ALTHOUGH THEY ARE THE LEGAL NAMES. LET'S GO BACK TO THE IDEA THAT WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE PEOPLE CARE. WHY? PEOPLE WON'T GIVE THEIR SUPPORT, TIME OR MONEY TO SOMETHING THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND. NEED TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF WHAT THEY HAVE AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT. WHO IS THE MESSAGE CARRIER? NOT ALL MESSANGERS ARE EQUAL--OR TRUSTED BY LEADERS. ALSO, WHO SPEAKS FOR THESE WETLAND AND RIVER AREAS? BEHIND EVERY GREAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION EFFORT IS A GREAT WRITER. PROCESS MODEL: HOW DO THINGS WORK? WHO ARE YOUR COLLABORATORS AND PARTNERS? PROCESS MODELS ARE A WAY TO ORGANIZE INFORMATION AND YOUR STRATEGY! MY MODEL INCLUDES INFORMATION ON: RESOURCE VALUES {ALL STEPS ARE TIED TO AND WITHIN THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS] GOALS ISSUES ALTERNATIVES ACTIONS MONITOR/ EVALUATE PROGRESS EXAMPLES OF MODELS: Riverwork, Watershed Protection Approach, Community-Based Environmental Protection, and others. WHAT IS YOUR MODEL? WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PEOPLE AND WETLANDS AND RIVERS? HUMAN ECOLOGY/ CULTURAL ANTHROPOLGY APPROACH EXAMPLE: SOUTH CAROLINA RIVERS. WHAT VALUES ARE MOST COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH SC'S RIVERS AND WATERSHEDS? BECAUSE OUR ORGANIZATIONS ALIGN OURSELVES WITH VALUES, WE NEED TO KNOW, WHAT ARE THE MAJOR PUBLIC AGENCIES AND PRIVATE GROUPS THAT HAVE ADOPTED THESE VALUES? IF YOU COULD ONLY MAKE ONE PHONE CALL, WHO WOULD IT BE? THIS ANALYSIS IS ESSENTIAL--A FOUNDATION FOR YOUR COLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP EFFORTS. COLLABORATION/ PARTNERSHIPS: PUBLIC OUTREACH EQUALS FRIENDSRAISING HOW DOES THE CAUSE RELATE TO PEOPLE'S LIVES? NEED TO INVOLVE PEOPLE--LOOK FOR PEOPLE OF ACHIEVEMENT WHO HAVE A LOVE FOR WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. GIVE GROUPS A PLACE AT THE TABLE SO THEY CAN DEVELOP A SENSE OF OWNERSHIP. GOVERNMENT APPROACHES OF THE PAST: BEWARE TO PROJECTING THE ROLE OF "THE TIN MEN"--SELLING ALUMINUM SIDING IN BALTIMORE, MD. HAVE I GOT A DEAL FOR YOU! STUART COWAN SAYS IN HIS BOOK "ECOLOGICAL DESIGN" EVERYONE IS A PARTICIPANT AND EVERYONE IS A DESIGNER. RECOGNIZE THAT EVERYONE IS AN EXPERT AND THAT COLLABORATION NEEDS TO BE BASED ON DIALGOUE BETWEEN THE INTERESTS. DIALOGUE: TREAT THE OTHERS AS EQUAL IN EVERY RESPECT; WILLING AND ABLE TO LISTEN AND RESPOND EMPATHICALLY; WILLING TO BRING ONE'S OWN AND OTHERS' ASSUMPTIONS INTO THE OPEN WITHOUT JUDGEMENT. LISTEN TO THE WISDOM YOU ARE SEEKING! BRING PEOPLE INTO THE VISION YOU HAVE AND HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THEIR ROLE IN ACHIEVING THE VISION. WHY? IDENTITY EQUALS LOYALTY, COMMITMENT AND SUPPORT V. TASKS: IMPROVE THE IDENTITY OF YOUR WETLANDS AND RIVERS AND THE RESTORATION EFFORT. WORK ON THE ICONS AND NAME. 2. BORROW A PAGE FROM THE GREAT ENGINEERING PROJECTS OF THE USA. WETLANDS AND RIVER RESTORATION PLANS COULD BENEFIT GREATLY FROM THE STRATEGIES USED BY THE HIGHWAY BUILDERS. THE NATIONAL ACADMEY OF ENGINEERING, IN THEIR 1996 REPORT "ENGINEERING WITHIN ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS" SAID THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING AND MAKING ALL ENGINEERS ECOLOGISTS. WHY STOP THERE? ECOLOGISTS WOULD BENEFIT GREATLY BY USING SOME OF THE VISION, DISCIPLINE AND STRATEGIES THAT THE ENGINEERS HAVE USED. FOR EXAMPLE, PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S ROAD BUILDING EFFORT IN THE 1950'S COMBINES ENGINEERING WITH COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIPS. 3. ANALYZE KEY STAKEHOLDERS BY WETLAND AND RIVER VALUES--ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC 4.WHAT DO PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE EFFORT AND YOUR LEADERSHIP GROUP? CONSIDER MARKETING RESEARCH ON VALUES, IMAGE, MESSAGES, AND EFFORT. PERHAPS SOME TYPE OF ATTITUDES SURVEY. CREATE A STRONGER AWARENESS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE AND GROUPS TO BECOME INVOLVED. GO BEYOND MINIMAL TASKS: PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS, KEEP ABREAST, STUDY ISSUES, AND SUPPORT WITH ADEQUATE FUNDING. PERHAPS THINK ABOUT PROJECTS AS ANOTHER WAY TO BECOME INVOLVED AND BE SUPPORTIVE. THINK ABOUT THE IMAGE OF THE KEY PARTNERS AND PRIMARY CONTACTS. DOES YOUR IMAGE TRANSLATE TO GOVERNMENT? NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T CONFUSE WHAT YOUR EFFORT IS ABOUT. IT'S NOT ABOUT GOVERNMENT--ITS ABOUT WETLANDS AND RIVER RESTORATION! FIND A WRITER THAT SPEAKS FOR WETLANDS AND RIVER RESTORATION--BEHIND EVERY SUCCESSFUL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION EFFORT IS A WRITER! MARJORIE STONEHAM DOUGLAS AND THE EVERGLADES; JOHN MCPHEE AND THE NJ PINELANDS AND ALASKA, TOM HORTON AND THE CHESPAEAKE BAY, AND MANY OTHERS! LAY A FRAMEWORK FOR EARNED INCOME: THINK ABOUT PRODUCTS AS A WAY TO GENERATE REVENUE AND REINFORCE THE IMAGE OF THE CAUSE AND YOUR ORGANIZATION. WE WORK WITH THE GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL PARK ASSOCIATION IN CA AND THEY HAVE RAISED $43 MILLION TO SUPPLEMENT GOVERNMENT FUNDS. THEY USE A 12,000 MEMBER FRIENDS GROUP, TOURS-FOR-FEE, AND IMAGE-BASED PRODUCTS TO MAKE FRIENDS AND MONEY FOR THE CAUSE. PREPARE A FRAMEWORK FOR LARGE PHILANTHROPIC GIFTS. PERHAPS START A COOPERATING ASSOCIATION. CONSIDER MARKETING PROJECTS TO SEEK SUPPORT. INCREASINGLY THERE A A NUMBER OF REGIONAL PLACE-BASED PARTNERSHIPS BEING DEVELOPED TO RAISE PRIVATE MONEY. FIND A WAY TO MEASURE SUCCESS AND COMMUNICATE YOUR PROGRESS TO OTHERS. PROTECTION AND RESTORATION INDICATORS ARE ESSENTIAL! QUESTIONS? MAY YOU HAVE CONTINUED SUCCESS IN YOUR WORK!

Sunday, November 13, 2011

DRAFT Briefing Statement: Trust for the National Mall


DRAFT Briefing Statement: Trust for the National Mall
Bureau: National Park Service
Issue: Public and Private Partnership Aimed at National Mall/ Monumental Core Parks, District of Columbia
Park Site: National Capital Parks: Central, White House Liaison Office
Date: September 29, 2002
Background: This is a summary of the status of activities related to the proposed partnership between the Trust for the National Mall, the National Park Service, National Capital Region, and the National Park Foundation. The goal of the partnership is prepare a restoration plan for the National Mall/ Monumental Core parks, improve communication with the communities they serve, increase park volunteer efforts, and raise private monies to supplement funds appropriated by Congress.
Current Status:
  • Public Law 90-209, approved by Congress in 1967, established the 
National Park Foundation (NPF) to encourage private gifts of real and personal property for the benefit of the National Park Service.  The National Park Act of 1998 specifically authorized NPF to promote philanthropic programs of support at the individual park unit level.  
  • In 1999 the NPS, National Capital Region (NCR)Superintendent’s 
Cluster identified the impact of budget shortfalls on current and future operations of parks as one of the highest regional priorities.   In addition to creating the Greater Washington National Parks Fund, NCR and NPF have been providing assistance to individual park units and sites to support their efforts to educate and motivate the public to help ensure long-term protection of resources under NPS’s care, and respond to the needs of the Cluster.
     In May 2002 representatives from the Trust for the National Mall (Trust), led by the Chief Operating Officers of Akridge Real Estate Services and Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc., contacted NPS and proposed that NPS and the Trust work together to create a public/ private partnership.  The Trust proposes a public/ private partnership “to harmonize the security needs, the multiple uses, and aesthetic opportunities to transform the Mall into the Nation’s urban “Jewel in the Crown” of the National Park System”. 
The goal of the Trust, a private non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, is to establish the National Mall/ Monumental Core as a world-class urban outdoor space. The Trust seeks “to provide for the restoration of the National Mall/ Monumental Core to it’s historical role as a gracious, vibrant and welcoming space for citizens, residents and visitors as well as a grand natural setting for important ceremonial, educational and recreational activities”. 
In response to the Trust’s interest, a series of meetings were held to further explore alternatives for a private/ public partnership. Discussions have included leaders of the Trust, NPS park superintendents and regional leadership, NPF managers, and leaders of the Greater Washington National Parks Fund.
On September 3, 2002 the Trust, NPS and NPF met and agreed to purse a public/ private partnership.  The creation and implementation of the partnership will be implemented in phases using a consensus-based approach to decision-making.  Phase I of the partnership is focused on an agreement to work together to prepare a Restoration Plan for the National Mall.  The plan is intended to provided agreement on the most important park needs; provide a vision that can be used to engage the public and philantrophic interests, and enable the Trust, NPF and NPS to develop a working relationship.  Key leaders are being interviewed to help design the agreement.
The Agreement will:
  1. Identify goals for collaboration
  2. Identify conditions for success
  3. Determine who the key parties are to be involved; how they will be involved; and when they will be involved
  4. Define plan methodology
  5. Determine boundary area
  6. Schedule for plan preparation 
  7. Determine nature of partnership
The planning process--how we get to a plan, will:
  1. Inventory existing historic and present information
  2. Dissect the area into manageable units
  3. Establish priorities for each unit (scenic, historic, recreational)
  4. Recommend solutions and recommendations (parkwide and individual units)
  5. Describe a scope of work for each unit 
  6. Describe a design process
The next steps for creating the partnership include:
  1. Preparing a draft General Agreement for the review and approval of the Trust, NPS, NPF and the Solicitor’s Office in October 2002.
  2. Briefing NPS, NPF and Trust leaders on the context of the parks, each organization and current management, operations and fundraising activities.
  3. Inventory of existing National Mall/ Monumental Core information.
  4. Raising private money for the Restoration Plan.
  5. Approval of the General Agreement in November 2002.
Contact: 
J. Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director, Partnerships Office, national Park Service, National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW, Room 350, Washington, DC 20242.  By telephone: (202) 619-7492; By fax: (202) 619-7220; By E-mail: glenn_eugster@nps.gov

District of Columbia, Parks & Recreation—National Park Service, National Capital Region DRAFT Meeting Summary


District of Columbia, Parks & Recreation—National Park Service, National Capital Region DRAFT Meeting Summary
July 10, 2003
Prepared by Glenn Eugster, NPS-NCR 7/29/03
Attendees:  NPS: Davis, Carlstrom, Blumenthal, Syphax, Hazelwood, Parsons (part), Gregerson, Eugster; DC: Albert, Lucy, Pochter, Shinn; Other: Steve Coleman, Washington Parks & People, Jarvis, Outdoor Recreation & Park Services, Inc.; Carl Cole, many affiliations.
Summary
The meeting began with brief remarks from Terry Carlstrom and Glenn Eugster of NPS. Mr. Eugster explained the origin of this collaboration and briefly described the meeting agenda.
Maps: The group reviewed a Geographic Information System map that was prepared by Tammy Stidham of NPS and discussed it.
Joint Ventures Conference: Destry Jarvis noted that he, and others, had been selected to present a panel on “The Future of Parks & Recreation” at the November 2003 Joint Ventures Conference in Los Angeles, CA.  He indicated that a State and City Park Director and a social scientist will join him on the panel.
Glenn Eugster confirmed that a panel that was suggested by DC, NPS, and Washington Parks & People on “Washington-City in the Woods” had been selected for the November conference as well.  The panel will include someone from NPS, DC Parks & Recreation, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and Washington Parks & People.
Carl Cole suggested that the group consider including someone from the business community on the panel.  He said that the business community was interested in green space and that a representative from the Board of trade, Committee of 100, or the Federal City Council would be a good addition.  Carl said that green is the most lucrative landmass of all the open space in the metro region.
Terry Carlstrom suggested that perhaps Carl Cole could be a part of this panel.  Steve Coleman noted that the City is contracting with Bill Morris of UVA to do a whitepaper on parks—or green assets.
Patrick Gregerson asked whether the conference would have poster sessions and suggested it would be good to highlight the work of the Anacostia River.
Regional Vision:John Parsons noted the interest of Patty Gallagher of the National Capital Planning Commission in parks, open space and recreation areas.  He said that 1967 was the last time an Open Space Plan was done for the region and that NCPC has offered to be the official planning forum to do that.  He also noted that DC is doing a Request for Proposals for a new park plan.  Parsons urged the group to look at the whole city to assess parks and needs, to identify what we have and what is missing.
In response to Parsons’ remarks Neil Albert indicated that the NCPC effort would enhance the DC effort. Sally Blumenthal said that NCPC could help with open space beyond NPS and DC lands.  Ted Pochter said that he will look at recreation services and that NCPC could help to erase the boundaries between different jurisdictions.
Destry Jarvis continued the discussion by indicating that the areas outside of DC are important because of the connecting areas or areas that draw from the region.  He suggested that NCPC’s focus would be on DC rather than the region. Carl Cole reaffirmed this point by adding that the broader business community works across boundaries.
John Parsons continued by saying that he wants to promote the regional effort with NCPC.  Patrick Gregerson added that he works with transportation agencies, DC, and MD National Parks & Planning on bicycle connections.
John Parsons urged the group to help by providing his office with comments on the Ft. Circle Parks Plan.  He said that he wants comments as soon as possible and that he would accept comments after the July 15 deadline.
NPS-DC Parks & Recreation Liaison: Carl Cole suggested to the group that there be a permanent liaison relationship between DC and NPS.  Sally Blumenthal indicated that NPS has this arrangement with States, for programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund. She suggested that we also need to look at the Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation that DC gets and try to increase it.  Ted Pochter indicated that the proposed CARA legislation had suggested that more funds be given to DC.
Destry Jarvis noted that Tom Ross of NPS headquarters was doing analysis of the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act Program formula that is being used for cities.  Steve Coleman urged the group to look at other options for funding.  He said we need to use an interagency-private sector effort.
Carl Cole reminded the group that the perception of many is that DC parks are already funded.
Destry Jarvis suggested that we convene a meeting of all park directors to discuss this idea.  He also stressed the need to focus on park, open space and recreation areas on the ground that are real.
Watts Branch: Steve Coleman made some opening remarks about the effort to restore and revitalize watts Branch.  He stressed the importance of this NPS-owned stream valley park and the need to work one step at a time with a hand and glove partnership.  
Gayle Hazelwood said that National Capital Parks-East could help with a joint map and guide.  Gentry Davis indicated that graphic assistance might be available for such a product from Sheperdstown College in WV and pointed to the recent NPS-NCR Annual report as an example of that type of service.
2004 Conference: Glenn Eugster described plans underway to hold 2004 parks, open space, and recreation area conference.  
In response to Mr. Eugster’s remarks, Sally Blumenthal suggested that the forum be similar to the recent Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Conference. Carl Cole urged the group to share expertise for horticultural services and provide advice and counseling services to communities as a way to develop relationships and share expertise.  He also noted discussions that DC was having with Casey trees.
Steve Coleman suggested that there be a joint needs assessment for all DC parks.  In response to Mr. Coleman’s comments Terry Carlstrom noted the “Business Plans” that NPS has developed for Central, C & O Canal and Harpers Ferry.  He noted that NPS-NCR has a needs assessment and that it is available from Ed Duffy. He also urged Ted Pochther to contact Jim Sherald of NPS’s Center for Urban Ecology for more information on needs.
DC Master Plan: Ted Pochter noted that a facility assessment is being done for DC’s parks.  It will include a demand survey and a recreation services delivery analysis.
Follow-up Actions:
  1. Steve Coleman offered to explore options for the group to share a List Server
  2. The next meeting is proposed to be in late September or early October.  The group agreed that we should use the meeting to visit an area and add other DC, NPS and private partners.  Glenn Eugster agreed to facilitate the meeting arrangements and suggestions for a meetign location.
  3. Glenn Eugster agreed to check on a proposed meeting that was to be held between DC, Washington Parks & people and Chris Jarvi and Brian O’Neill of NPS.
  4. Glenn Eugster agreed to arrange a work session for the Washington: A City in the Woods Panel Presentation as soon as NPS headquarters provides the team with more information for the November conference.
  5. Steve Coleman agreed to make a formal request to NPS for the NCR park needs assessment.
  6. Ted Pochter agreed to contact Jim Sherald of NPS to discuss further collaboration with Casey trees.
  7. Gayle Hazelwood agreed to organize a work session on the Watts branch effort.
  8. Sally Blumenthal agreed to work with John Parsons and report on the NCPC Board Retreat.
  9. All the participants agreed to seek and provide comments on the Ft. Circle Parks Plan.
  10. Leslie Shinn and Patrick Gregerson agreed to continue to work on GIS Mapping.
  11. Terry Carlstrom agreed to get back to DC with a person that will serve as the parks, open space and recreation area liaison.
  12. Glenn Eugster agreed to help convene a meeting to discuss the proposed 2004 parks, open space and recreation area conference.
  13. Leslie Shinn will send the group a DC Parks Master Plan Request for Proposal

NPS-DC Parks, Recreation and Open Space Roundtable Meeting Summary


NPS-DC Parks, Recreation and Open Space Roundtable
Meeting Summary
November 8, 2004
DRAFT
Attendees
Sarah Boasberg (Sally), Green Spaces for DC
Kate Herrod, Community Greens
Gayle Hazelwood, NPS, National Capital Parks-East
Kevin Brandt, NPS, C&O Canal National Historical Park
Karen Cucurullo, NPS, National Mall & Memorial Parks
Joe DiBello, NPS-Northeast Region
Destry Jarvis, Washington Parks & People
Neil Stanley, DC Parks & Recreation
Drew Becher, DC Parks & Recreation
Lucy, Michael, DC Parks & Recreation
Pochter, Ted, DC Parks & Recreation
Tammy Stidham, NPS-NCR
Glenn Eugster, NPS-NCR
Joe Lawler, NPS-NCR
Terry Carlstrom, NPS-NCR
Don Briggs, NPS, Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Mary Rowse, citizen
Kathy Cox, Fort Dupont Ice Arena
Nanine Bilski, America the Beautiful Fund
Darwina Neal, NPS-NCR
Liz Guthrie, Green Spaces for DC
Dan Smith, Casey Trees Endowment Fund
Sally Blumenthal, NPS-NCR
John Parsons, NPS-NCR 
Gentry Davis, NPS-NCR
Adrienne Applewaithe-Coleman, NPS-Rock Creek Park
Leslie Schill, DC Parks & Recreation
Joe Cook, NPS-NCR
Maria Lurie, Department of Interior, Sollicitor's Office
Don Fishman, DC General Council
Susan Boyd, Concern, Inc.
Bill Line, NPS-NCR
Heather Deutch, DC Parks & Rerecreation
Joan Prioriton, GSA and DC Preservation League


I.  Welcome, Opening Remarks and Introductions
Terry Carlstrom and Neil Stanley welcomed the group and made opening remarks.  Neil described the new DPR organization and introduced the managers responsible for various activities.  Glenn Eugster and Ted Pochter, the liaisons for NPS and DC, provided brief comments on the purpose of the Roundtable.
II.  Old Business:
NCPC Parks & Open Space Plan:


John Parsons indicated that in FY 06 there is a plan to look at NPS and DC parks and recreation plans and maintenance.  John suggested that DC, NPS and NCPC should get together to discuss this effort.  He noted that it was further complicated by the GAO Report [which is looking at the recreation use of parklands in DC].  He noted that the DC Comprehensive Plan is on hold and that NCPC doesn’t have the budget to redo the plan.
Sally Boasberg asked about whether there will be funding to maintain lands that are transferred from NPS to DC?  She indicated that she was concerned about DC getting left with maintenance costs.
Drew Becher indicated that DC doesn’t have a goal for open space and they could take it [the plan] down to the neighborhood level.  He said there were no large guidelines in place for parks in the City.
Gentry Davis asked whether the effort will look at schools?  Drew indicated that they are open to other DC properties.
Sally Blumenthal suggested that the Office of Planning, and planning for acquisition, is key to this.
Destry Jervis asked whether DC’s determination has to wait until the NCPC Study?  Drew said that this needs to be done in partnership with NCPC.
Kate Herrod asked whether existing park use is being considered?
Trust for Public Lands City Parks Book
Ted Pochter said that he talked to Peter Harnick of TPL.  TPL will include DC and NPS parklands in the new book and that “bench-marking” is important to DC.
Meridian Hill Park Collaboration
Adrienne Applewaithe-Coleman reported on the discussions between NPS, DC and Washington Parks & People, about Meridian Hill Park.  She said that it was NPS’s understanding that Washington Parks & People were to prepare a proposal for ways to partner.  Destry Jervis indicated that a proposal is coming.
III. New Business
Kenilworth North
John Parsons described the Kenilworth North property and indicated that it had been used as a landfill/dump and in need of cleanup.  John said that the House and Senate proposed to lease the property, the acreage of which is to be determined, to DC. The legislation calls for the lease 90 days from the date the law was approved-- November 11, 2004.
John said that a map is being prepared for external use and that it includes the end of Watts Branch.  He noted that it was ridiculous how quickly the decision-making and legislation for this property moved.  Neil Stanley noted that he was delighted by the action and this was a new opportunity for DCPR.
John Parsons indicated that the project must move through [be reviewed] by NCPC, and the Mayor and City Council.  He was unsure how long that would take.
Gentry Davis asked about how law enforcement would be handled?  Drew Becher noted there might be an opportunity to use the Metro Police Department and the Urban Park Rangers.  Neil noted that DC would attempt to coordinate these two organizations more tightly.
Sherieer Place House: 106 Issues
Ted Pochter said that DC had hired a consultant to look at options for the park.  He said that one concept is to remove the house and open the park to the street to make it more accessible.  He noted that because it is under federal ownership it has to go through the 106 process of the Historic Preservation Act.  He said that an architectural assessment was being completed but that the 106 process, with the DC State Historic Preservation Office, hasn’t started their review.
Ted noted that the house was built in 1925 and that it is eligible as a National Historic register property.  He added that NPS acquired the property in 1958.
Mary Rowse asked whether or not a formal 106 letter has been sent?  Ted indicated that it has not been sent. Joan Prioriton added that the DC Preservation League sent a letter to NPS and DC requesting to be a partner in the 106 process.
Poplar Point Soccer Stadium Proposal


Sally Blumenthal noted that when news of the proposal to build a soccer stadium on Poplar Point appeared in the newspaper it was shock to NPS.  She added that it is not in the Anacostia GMP but that DC's Sports and Entertainment Commission and a private developer have approached NPS.  She said that NPS advised both parties that they don’t support this proposal and added that if there is community interest [in the stadium] there should be a study to identify alternatives with public input.  Sally added that the stadium proposal calls for a “Nissan Pavilion-type of operation”.
Joe Lawler said that decisions about Poplar Point should reflect the community planning process and should stay true to the decisions that have been made.  Terry Carlstrom added that the planning documents are already in place for this site and call for the elimination of NPS operation facilities.
Someone asked, who proposed this?  John Parsons indicated that a private developer has proposed it.  Drew Becher noted that the developer owns 3-4 stadiums across the country.
DC Parks & Recreation Urban Park Rangers


Drew Becher noted that DC was looking at what other cities are doing.  Gentry Davis replied by saying that it is important to define the mission of the rangers.  He noted that in the past the have been problems with DC rangers filtering into NPS areas.
Carl Cole noted that the ideas were excellent and that natural resources know no boundaries.  Drew asked if it was possible to have NPS do some natural resources training for the DC urban rangers?  Glenn Eugster agreed to discuss this request with Jim Sherald and report back to the District.
Gayle Hazelwood indicated that interpretive competencies and visitor services training should be added to this.  Drew said that there will be 11 fulltime rangers and that he hoped they would be ready for Memorial Day.  Terry Carlstrom suggested that the training might involve assistance from NCR superintendents.  Tammy Stidham suggested that NPS Intake training might be an appropriate model.  Drew said he wants to sit down with a core group. 
Ft. DuPont Ice Rink Expansion


Don Fishman described a proposal for the Ft. DuPont Ice Rink and said that DC wants NPS input before they go out [with an RFP for design and engineering services].  He noted that this was the only indoor ice rink in DC and that the Friends of Ft. Dupont requested NPS to expand the facility and they said they would raise money to do this.  DC’s role would be to support the project.
Gayle Hazelwood said that the proposal was going through an internal NPS review and that as soon as it is completed, and she hires her Deputy Superintendent, she’ll move on it.
Destry Jervis asked about the footprint of the proposed development.  Fishman indicated that it roughly doubles the size of what is there now.  Carl Cole added that Gayle, John Parsons and Sally Blumenthal were looking at the specifics of the proposal. He noted that the proposal calls for expansion of the facility into a natural resource area.
DC Recreation Summit


Gayle Hazelwood said that following the Wonderful Outdoor World Conference she spoke to Derrick Crandall about the idea of a youth summit modeled after the one done in Portland Oregon lead by Charles Jordan.  She asked the group is there interest in organizing a youth summit?
Neil Stanley and Terry Carlstrom said that they are supportive.
Gayle indicated that the effort needs to be as inclusive as possible.
Someone asked does it have to only be for youth?  What is the timeline?  Gayle responded that the desired audience is youth and that a late spring-early summer 05 would is the target date.
Drew Becher urged the group to stay away from the summer.  Neil Stanley responded by saying, count us in.  He added that DC is trying to expand how they view recreation and are working towards meeting the needs of a more diverse population.  In some situation now we have a golf course and swimming pool side-by-side and we don't communicate or provide access at all.
Nanine Bilski added that this type of approach is happening much more in other cities.  Someone else replied that this seems to have relevance to the GAO study on the use of recreation lands in DC.
Terry Carlstrom, with confirmation from Joe Lawler, said that NPS is willing to help.  
Community Greens


Kate Herrod briefed the group on the work of Community Greens.  She stressed that green space where people live creates a sense of community to help manage the neighborhood.  Kate noted that community greens work better than condominium associations because these areas encourage people to get to know leaders and they create stability in neighborhoods because of their amenity value.  She added that they are also a place for kids to play, they reduce the heat island effect, stormwater, and create bird habitat.
Kate mentioned that her group wants to create a demonstration project in tandem with a legislative effort.  Community Greens is working in Baltimore.  There the City has over 13,000 vacant houses and 14,000 vacant lots.  In Baltimore alleyways aren't assets and people have serious concerns about the use of the alleys for dumping, drugs and prostitution.
Her group went to the MD State Legislature for help and Baltimore now has the authority to gate, close and lease the alleys to a legal entity for $1 per year.  Community Greens is now working with the City, with the support of the Mayor's Office, to develop ordinance support.  Kate said this work might be a model for other cities and that she is talking with leaders in Alexandria and Arlington, VA about applying this approach.
Ted Pochter asked if Community Greens was working with privately owned parks and he noted that there was a 2-acre park in DC that might be appropriate for this approach.
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail--Trail Route Designation
Don Briggs reported that in 1999 the DC Council passed a resolution for trails in the District.  He said he would be talking with DC DOT about a process to recognize a heritage trail network.  He also noted that this thinking was consistent with ideas that are described in the Ft. Circle Plan.  It was noted that copies of the Ft. Circle Plan are available from Sally Blumenthal or Patrick Gregerson of NPS.
Oxon Run Master Plan


Gayle Hazelwood reported that NPS is hoping to do a management plan for Oxon Cove.  They are in the process of hiring a consultant but noted that the US Fish and Wildlife Service did some concept planning for the area.
Gayle told the group that Oxon Cove was once a landfill area and the park has undergone considerable stress.  John Parsons added that it includes a unique Magnolia Bog and the property is a prime piece of real estate that DC and NPS should look at together. He noted that there is an opportunity to link campsites and develop open space here.
Trash and Litter Campaign 


Drew Becher said that DC wants to undertake a clean up and is willing to coordinate a trash and litter campaign.
Green Roof Conference 


Drew Becher provided the group with a handout regarding the May 4-6, 2005 Green Roof Conference in DC.
Oxon Run


Michael Lucy noted that DC was distributing mulch.  If anyone wants it please contact him.
Tree Removal and Recycling


Drew Becher mentioned that the District is talking to a small company to help with the removal and recycling of downed trees.  Gentry Davis asked whether the District would have a place to store downed trees?  Drew indicated that he should be able to report on this at the next meeting.
John Parsons added that the DC Department of Public Works is doing a study to look at the impact of the last ice storm.
Residential Open Space Requirements: Drew Becher reported that the District's Residential Open Space Requirement is being looked at.  He noted that interior spaces are being created and counted as open space now.  He said we need to look at this jointly.
Other Events: Glenn Eugster noted the following NPS-co-sponsored park workshops:
Nov. 10 Watts Branch
Nov. 16 Great Falls, VA
IV.  Next Meeting
Note:  The next meeting, which was scheduled for February 2, 2005, has been postponeed at the request of the District and will be rescheduled as soon as possible.  More information on the location and meeting agenda will be provided.

DC's Parks & Recreation Department and the NPS-National Capital Region Roundtable: Summary


DC's Parks & Recreation Department and the NPS-National Capital Region Roundtable: Summary
Wednesday December 3, 2003 from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. 
3149 16th St. NW in Washington, D.C.
Attendees:  Fawcett, Shill, Goodinson, Pochter, Lucy, Albert, Carlstrom, Parsons, Applewaithe-Coleman, Blumenthal, Hazelwood, Medearis, Briggs, Grant, Stidham, Davis, Line, Koster, Coleman, LeCouteur, Eugster
Welcome and Introductions: Neil Albert and Terry Carlstrom opened the meeting, explained the goals of the Roundtable and welcomed the group.
Old Business: Follow-up Actions
  1. Steve Coleman offered to explore options for the group to share a 
List Server.  Steve reported that he found that YAHOO has a groups list server that is available at low or no cost.  He mentioned that Extranet is available with a cost but that an online library is possible with links to GIS.  Steve said that there is a company in town that provides services that can be linked to calendars, although he wasn’t sure of the cost.  He went on to tell the group that the IOPS firm designs these systems and they can typically handle 5,000 people.  He thought that the cost would be around $40,000 (maximum).  He said that he thought we might be able to get someone to do this service on an inkind basis.
Neil Albert asked about IT perspective and the maximum band requirements.  Steve said he would look into private sector funding, possibly with the National Park Foundation, with Sally Blumenthal, for this effort.
  1. Glenn Eugster agreed to check on a proposed meeting that was to be 
held between DC, Washington Parks & people and Chris Jarvi and Brian O’Neill of NPS. An earlier proposed meeting did not occur as planned.
Glenn explained that Brian O’Neill ended his detail in Washington when Chris Jarvi, the new Associate for Partnerships, began his work.  Gayle Hazelwood indicated that she thought meeting with Chris Jarvi would be useful.  Steve Coleman said that it would be helpful to have Chris talk about other examples from around the country.
Glenn indicated he would look into opportunities for the group to meet with Chris.
  1. Glenn Eugster agreed to arrange a work session for the Washington: 
A City in the Woods Panel Presentation as soon as NPS headquarters provides the team with more information for the November conference.  Glenn reported that he Destry Jarvis, Michael Lucy and Brian LeCouteur made a successful presentation on Green Infrastructure at the JVC in Los Angeles in November 2003.  The presentation was well attended and the response to the presentations on work in the metro-DC area was very positive.
  1. Steve Coleman agreed to make a formal request to NPS for the NCR 
park needs assessment.  Steve reported that no action was taken.  He said that he spoke to Tom Ross of NPS about the idea of “bench-marking” and the concept seemed to be key to the DC Parks & Recreation Master Plan effort.  The discussion focused briefly on the idea of an NPS-NCR Needs Assessment.  Terry Carlstrom noted that this type of assessment typically deals with NPS operations.  Steve agreed to keep the idea in front of the group.
  1. Ted Pochter agreed to contact Jim Sherald of NPS to discuss further 
collaboration with Casey Trees.  Ted said that no action was taken.  He said that DC was awaiting a new horticulturist.  A park tree inventory is likely to be undertaken next summer.  Sally Blumenthal encouraged that the work includes all District trees including schools, traffic circles, etc.  Sally stressed the importance of making the DC Inventory compatible with NPS inventory work.  She indicated that National Capital Parks-Central was not yet finished with their inventory.  Jim Sherald is working on the UFORE model to calibrate the economic value of trees.  Terry Carlstrom expressed interest in the social value of trees.  Sally noted that the IL model shows that trees reduce crime.  Ted noted that DC’s Office of Planning is doing a paper on the value of trees for managing combined sewer overflows.

  1. Gayle Hazelwood agreed to organize a work session on the Watts 
Branch effort.  Gayle reported that NPS and Washington Parks & People organized a meeting to discuss the Watts Branch effort.  She said there needed to be follow-up with the Student Conservation Association.  Steve Coleman indicated that there were "exciting elements in the community" and that a large NPS-UPARR grant had been provided.
  1. Sally Blumenthal agreed to work with John Parsons and report on the 
NCPC Board Retreat.  John Parsons reported that NCPC's Comprehensive plan for DC parks was last done in 1967.  He said that the plan revisited what the federal, state, local parks are.  He indicated that the Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan is pending.  Julia Koster said that a number of park and open lands pieces were coming to NCPC including a symposium, greenspace inventory, federal land inventory, etc.  She said that NCPC was looking at how to assemble that package.  Sally Blumenthal asked, which DC agency is responsible for what properties?  Sally also said that NPS might be the best source of that information.
Tammy Stidham said that property in DC is being mapped and cataloged but that the work is difficult.  She said that NCPC has a lot of the federal land information and that everyone needs to keep asking DC for information.
Steve Coleman said that he wants information on the Watts Branch disconnected federal properties.  He said it is a challenge to track down all the pieces of information.  Steve asked, what happened to all the records when Home Rule took place?  Tammy said that the NPS Lands Office is working on scanning all the records.  Sally Blumenthal said that the land records were turned over to DC in the 1970's.  Ted Pochter added that DC has the records and the historic file with all the transaction information--the original plates.
  1. All the participants agreed to seek and provide comments on the Ft. 
Circle Parks Plan: John Parsons said that the comments he received on the Ft. Circle Plan were done well.  He noted that the two alternatives shown in the draft plan were combined.  He mentioned that Loretta Nuemann became a chief advocate for the effort and that a "popular document" had been prepared.  He promised the document in the spring of 2004.
Neil Albert noted that the Escarpment Hike was a way to raise awareness about the draft Master Plan.
John said that Loretta was proposing to make it a unit of NPS.  Evidently NCPC had acquired these sites and Congress never acted on the lands.  John said that Loretta wants to give it an identity and superintendent of its own.  John said that NPS's policy is to oppose new units due to budget constraints.
  1. Leslie Shinn and Patrick Gregerson agreed to continue to work on 
GIS Mapping.  Leslie said that she is working with Tammy on GIS Maps.  They are working with 16 data sets and there are issues about parks, sites, etc.  Terry Carlstrom asked if the records are there?  Leslie said yes, for recreation purposes but we still have sketchy areas.
Steve Colemen mentioned that lands were purchased for transportation but never used for roads.  Parks and recreation are working to have them made parkland, said Steve.  He asked, do these lands need to go back to NPS?
Sally Blumenthal responded by saying, It depends.  A retransfer involving DC and NPS is possible and it could be done as a group transaction.  Sally said that we should share where these situations occur.
Tammy said that we need to check deed restrictions if the lands are not used for transportation, highways, recreation or school uses.  She believes that there are approximately 320 instances of this occurring and that we should pursue a consolidated approach.
  1. Terry Carlstrom agreed to get back to DC with a person that will 
serve as the parks, open space and recreation area liaison. Terry indicated that Glenn Eugster would serve as the interim NPS Liaison for DC.  DC indicated that Ted Pochter would serve as the DC Liaison for NPS.
  1. Glenn Eugster agreed to help convene a meeting to discuss the 
proposed 2004 parks, open space and recreation area conference. Glenn provided the group with handouts on the proposed Green Infrastructure Conference.
  1. Leslie Shinn will send the group a DC Parks Master Plan Request for
Proposal:  Leslie noted that the RFP for the DC Parks Master Plan had gone out and that 15 firms showed interest.  Terry Carlstrom noted that NPS had an indefinite quantities contract for 75 firms that might be useful.  Tom McConnel, within NPS, is the contact.
  1. New Business
  1. Meridian Hill, Steve Coleman and Destry Jarvis, Washington Parks & 
People  Steve suggested that a sidebar meeting be set up to discuss his interest and frustration with Meridian Hill Park.  He said that he'd like to find a way to get the park back on track as a national model.  He wants to set up a mechanism and wants to explore a new type of partnership with Washington Parks & People, NPS and DC.  He also wants to see a facility next to the park to serve as a visitor center.  Steve said he feels a sense of urgency.  Crime is increasing and wants us to get back to a community approach.
Neil Albert said that there are opportunities for connection between Meridian Hill and useable lands and abandoned buildings.  He wants to link programs between Meridan Hill and the Community Center, and Girard Street Playground.  He said we need a better education campaign and that there are recreation opportunities around the park.
Adrienne Applewaithe-Coleman said that we support cooperative recreation planning and that we'd love to be cooperating with you.
Terry Carlstrom said that this is a great idea and the sooner we have this meeting the better.  He suggested that Neil, Adrienne, John, Steve and other community leaders meet.  He noted that the infrastructure work was underway and that and that would help improve the park.
Neil Albert agreed to set up a meeting.
Adrienne noted that she and Neil would be signing an agreement to create a new ball field at Ft. Reno Park and that there may be a signing ceremony.
  1. Green Infrastructure Map, Brian LeCouteur, Metropolitan Washington 
Council of Governments Brian noted that the Green Infrastructure Map for the metropolitan Washington region has been completed and is now available from his office.   He noted that they were also doing maps for the Annacostia watershed and Holmes Run in VA.
  1. National Capital Planning Commission’s “Open Space Project”, Julia
Koster, National Capital Planning Commission Julia noted that NCPC continues to be interested and supportive of park and open space work in DC.  She said they want to help prioritize projects and staff-up to assist.  She said that she is looking at the Green Infrastructure Conference/ Symposium as a way to help them sort this out.  Julia said that NCPC was now working on a new GIS trails map.
  1. Other items of interest?
Steve Coleman noted that the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail was seeking request for the designation of local trails.  Don Briggs noted that he could return at the next meeting to discuss this.
IV.  Next Meeting
The group agreed that the next meeting would be April 19, from 1:00 to 3:00 pm, at the National Park Service, National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW, 2nd Floor Conference Room, Washington, DC.