Fact-Finding/ Gap Analysis
Prepared by Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director, Partnerships Office, National Capital Region
Final: October 14, 2004
Introduction
On March 9 Director Mainella requested the National Capital Region to assist the National (NPS) Washington Office with an internal review of the fundraising campaigns for a variety of partnership construction projects greater than $5 million. The Fort Mason Center (FMC), Pier 1 Shed Restoration Project, in CA, within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, was one of the projects identified for assessment. This document is a report on NPS's fact-finding/ gap analysis.
Background
NPS had a series of discussions between the National Leadership Council, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the Development Advisory Board, and some of our park and regional offices about the relationship between public and private partnerships, park projects and NPS funding. During these discussions it has become apparent that there are inconsistencies in the way NPS structures, manages, implements and monitors some partnership agreements, including fundraising agreements, plans and campaigns, the relationship between these efforts, priorities for funding park projects, and communication with the Congress.
Specifically NCR was asked to examine the Ft. Mason Center Pier 1 Shed Restoration partnership construction project, identify real and perceived problems and matters of concern, identify options to respond to the problems and concerns, and identify ways that NPS can assist parks and regional offices in building better partnership projects. This information is to be shared with NPS managers to assist them in their decision-making.
The approach used for this fact-finding and analysis involved a review of relevant documents made available by headquarters, the regional office and the park; personal and telephone discussions with key leaders; and analysis of the information collected. It is important to note that the time schedule for this analysis was limited. Further research may reveal different facts and lead to additional or different conclusions.
Individuals that were contacted and provided information to this report include:
Chris Jarvi, Associate Director, Partnerships, etc.
Sue Masica, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities and Lands
Ray Murray, Partnership Coordinator, Pacific West Region(PWR)
Joe Llewellyn, Business Management, GOGA
Jon Jarvis, Regional Director, Pacific West Region
George Turnbull, Superintendent, Ft. Mason Center
Jack Williams, Facility Manager, Pacific West Region
Interviews were requested with Randy Jones, Deputy Director, WASO;
Don Murphy, Deputy Director, WASO; Bruce Sheafer, Office of the Comptroller, WASO; and Dan Wenk, Denver Service Center but these individuals did not respond.
Facts
Park Name: Fort Mason Center, Pier 1 Shed Restoration Project
Project Summary: There are in fact two separate Pier 1
Projects. The first part is the Pier 1 Support Substructure Project which needs a seismic stabilization repair that will be funded through Line Item Construction at a cost of between $13-30 million to be determined based on an analysis of whether a low cost treatment technology can work. It is not a partnership project and will be the sole responsibility of the NPS to fund and complete. The second project is the Pier 1 Shed Restoration Project that will be funded through commercial financing and possibly some fundraising on the order of $14 million and implemented as a partnership project by the Fort Mason Foundation.
NPS proposes to undertake capital improvements for Pier 1 Support Substructure Project necessary to meet seismic, ADA, utility infrastructure replacement and code requirements. Under a proposed lease being negotiated the Fort Mason Foundation (FMF) will assume all responsibility for the maintenance, preservation and capital improvements of the pier with the exception of the seawall and pier support seismic stabilization. Once NPS is able to obtain appropriated funding for the substructure structural seismic upgrades the Fort Mason Foundation will obtain funding to renovate and restore the Pier 1 shed. A long-term lease of the property will relieve NPS of the responsibility for the long-term preservation, maintenance and capital improvements to the pier while enhancing public access, safety and programmatic enjoyment of the park.
Name of Partner: Fort Mason Foundation
PMIS: None for the Pier 1 Shed Restoration Project; # 59855 for the Pier substructure.
Estimated Gross Cost: Preliminary and noted as "speculative". $13 to 30 million
Targeted Completion Date: Uncertain
Breakdown of Funds Needed:
NPS Share: $13 to 30 million (estimated)
Other Federal Funds: None noted.
Private and Donated Funds: To be funded through commercial financing and possibly some fundraising on the order of $14 million.
State and Local Funds: None
Operation Funds Needed: Partner assumes these costs, as per lease.
Cost-Offsets: Funds from leases and revenues anticipated.
Chronology and Status of Planning, Partnership and Fundraising Activities
July 17, 2004 Fort Mason Center Draft Lease
June 2004 Development Advisory Board (DAB) review and approval of the business/preservation and development framework of the pending long-term lease agreement
June 4, 2004 Project Concept Report--GOGA, Fort Mason Center Lease Disposition Development Agreement (Lease)
March 26, 2004 Amendment to Cooperative Agreement Between Fort Mason Foundation and GOGA Approved by Superintendent O'Neill and Executive Director Zwissler
Status: The current Cooperative Agreement, which was due to expire in March 2004 and has been extended through 2009 or until the long-term lease is negotiated, does not cover Pier 1 in its current context. There is no fundraising agreement for Pier 1 because that is not how it will be financed.
Undated Handout--Fort Mason Center: Lease Disposition & Development Agreement (LDDA) and Lease Principal Terms
March 11, 2004 Fort Mason Center Draft Lease Disposition and Development Agreement
March 2004 Meeting between Alex Zwissler, Fort Mason Center; Martin Quinn, Fort Mason Foundation, and House Interior and Other Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee staff about NPS funding.
March 28, 1984 through March 28, 2004 Cooperative Agreement Between President Fort Mason Foundation and Superintendent GOGA
1977 Fort Mason Center opens to the public
1976 NPS and Fort Mason Foundation enter into a Cooperative Agreement
1976 Fort Mason Foundation formed to administer the emerging nonprofit center and a wide variety of nonprofit programs and events, and renovate lower Fort Mason
Background
NPS and the Fort Mason Foundation have had a twenty-seven year partnership for the management and operation of the 330,000 square foot cultural center--which includes three Piers--Pier 1, 2 and 3. The partnership is managed through a Cooperative Agreement. The last agreement, which expired in March 2004, was recently extended until March 2009.
A conditions assessment conducted in 1999 identifies in excess of $60 million in deferred maintenance and capital improvements necessary to meet seismic, ADA, utility infrastructure replacement and code requirements. Under the current agreement NPS is responsible for the major maintenance of structures, infrastructure and capital improvements to the facility.
As a result of the conditions assessment NPS is engaged in a program of phased seismic stabilization of the three historic Fort Mason Piers.
NPS and Ft. Mason Foundation are authorized to negotiate and enter into a long-term lease agreement for the preservation, management and operation of the Fort Mason Center in accordance with all applicable leasing authority of 36 C.F.R. 18.
Under the proposed lease being negotiated, FMF will assume all responsibility for maintenance, preservation and capital improvements of the facility with the exception of the seawall and piers 1, 2 and 3 support structure seismic stabilization.
GOGA is authorized to negotiate and develop the proposed lease with the use of outside consultants. The proposed Lease Disposition and Development Agreement is the precursor agreement to the executed lease agreement and contains all the requirements, "conditions precedent", that FMF must meet prior to NPS entering into a lease for FMC.
The purpose of this agreement is primarily to enable the FMF to secure commercial financing in addition to its philanthropic fundraising for historic preservation, renovation and capital improvements of FMC.
Pier 1: The Pier 1 renovation project will be undertaken by FMF when NPS completes the pier substructure seismic stabilization repairs.
A feasibility study will be done in 2005 to determine if the fiberglass wrap technology can be used for the Pier 1 support structure. Cost estimate range from $30 to $13 million if the wrap technology can be used.
PWR plans to conduct a feasibility study in FY2005 to see if a less-costly repair solution can be used for Pier 1 which has a deeper substructure with taller support columns. If it proves feasible, it could reduce the Pier 1 cost dramatically by one half to one third. This cost reduction would allow the Pier 1 substructure to compete more favorably for Line Item Construction Funds.
Until the repair work is done, Pier 1 cannot be occupied and will continue to remain empty. In the near term, "Save America's Treasure's" grant funds and Fee Demo monies have been used to repair the roof and properly seal up the Pier 1 shed until more substantial needed repairs can be made to the shed. The inability to occupy and have tenants and uses in Pier 1 is a frustration to both NPS and the Fort Mason Center,
Pier 1 will be outside the long-term lease between NPS and FMC until it is repaired with appropriated funds.
The estimate for the Pier 1 shed improvements may be higher. The Pier 1 support structure seismic retrofit has not received a high enough priority for NPS construction funds and the building is vacated.
Pier 2: The support structures under the Pier 2 shed has been going through a seismic strengthening project to repair damage from the Loma Prieta Quake. This effort, initially used FEMA funds and now is being funded by long-term construction funds, is nearing completion.
An alternative less-costly repair solution was worked out for the Pier 2 substructure that was less disruptive of current uses of the Pier 2 shed and less than half the original cat estimate.
The Pier 2 shed structures also needs repairs. The Pier 2 shed project will require $7.2 million for seismic retrofit and structural upgrade of the building. Both the Pier 2 and Pier 1 sheds need substantial structural repairs. There is spalling concrete and exposed re-bar among other problems. The estimate for Pier 2 shed repairs is $14 million.
Pier 3: The Pier 3 shed renovation project will be undertaken after the Pier 1 project is complete.
Performance of the Fort Mason Foundation in raising funds for the shed is contingent on federal funds becoming available for the substructure repairs.
Pier 1 is not part of the lease premises currently but will be added to the lease if there is sufficient term remaining after the substructure repairs are completed and Fort Mason Foundation is fully funded to rehabilitate the Pier 1 shed. It is worth noting in each Pier description that the shed repairs will be 100% funded by the Foundation. In addition, either project could occur at any time as funds become available to rehabilitate the pier substructures. They are part of phases 4 and 5 of the Lease Disposition and Development Agreement as referenced in Appendix E of that document.
Both Pier 1 and 3 projects are at a future date uncertain and no fundraising campaigns have yet been developed or implemented.
PWR/ GOGA have not talked about Pier 3 yet. It has been actively used by the Fort Mason Center for special events similar to Pier 2.
Park Partner: Lower Fort Mason is managed under a Cooperative Agreement by the Fort Mason Center who serves as the master nonprofit tenant with 40 nonprofit subtenants paying rent.
The Fort Mason Foundation, a 501(c)(3), and NPS are currently negotiating up to a 60-year lease for Fort Mason Center. The Foundation has sought the long-term lease with the intent of seeking bank loans to make these repairs and amortize the loans through tenant leases and paid parking revenues.
The Fort Mason Foundation fundraises for Fort Mason Center. The NPS and the Foundation are currently negotiating a long-term 60-year phased lease, which will enable the FMF to take out loans for larger capital improvement work.
This lease will incorporate individual structures, such as the Pier 1 shed, in phases on a structure by structure basis only after the FMC has obtained funds to make needed repairs through loans or other means for those structures. The FMC/FMF will likely fundraise for certain interior improvements. Structural work will be funded by bank loans, which can be retired with rentals and special event fees and parking revenues over time. The loans will be obtained by FMC through Lease Disposition Development Agreements that can assure the lender that FMC will be leased the structure for a sufficient period to repay the loan.
The lease and Lease Development and Disposition Agreement concept was presented to and approved by DAB at their June 2004 meeting.
In past years, the Foundation raised funds for building the Cowell Theater in Pier 2 and some fundraising may be involved in the Pier 1 and 2 shed structure repairs although this is hard to raise funds for. However at this point it has not been determined whether funds will need to be borrowed or whether funds can be raised. Regional office and park leaders believe, "It is premature to draw up or seek approvals and fundraising plans until the 60-year lease is signed, a determination is made of funds needed and whether the funds can be borrowed or raised. These projects will materialize over years and come into a sharper focus and there will be time to vet them as appropriate".
Assumptions
The context for this research includes the following assumptions, identified by NPS park, regional and headquarters leaders, about the fundraising campaign.
Park and regional office leaders stated that "A substructure seismic
stabilization repair is needed for Pier 1". The historic pier is deteriorating and unsafe and unavailable for public use.
The Regional Partnership Coordinator Ray Murray believes that "Lower
Fort Mason is one of the best partnership success stories in the National Park System. This partnership is posted as a national case study on the NPS Partnerships Webpage.
Regional Office leaders believe that "Congress will be fortunate if
the Fort Mason Center is able to relieve the NPS of the financial burden of these project improvements". They noted that "We also need to be mindful that the Center management of Lower Fort Mason Center saves Congress $130 million that it would otherwise have to fund through appropriations".
Park and regional office leaders believe that "Repairs
of the Pier 1 substructure is an NPS, not a partner, financial
responsibility".
Regional Office leaders stated that "Technically the Pier 1
Substructure Repair is not a partnership project in terms of shared funding and fundraising is not involved. The Pier 1 substructure seismic stabilization repair is neither a fundraising nor a partnership project. The repair funding is intended to come from Congressional Appropriations through Line Item Construction. Pier 1 will not be assigned or leased to the Fort Mason Center and will continue to be vacant and unused until the substructure seismic stabilization repair is completed".
Issues
The Pier 1 Shed Restoration Project was identified for NPS
Fact-Finding because of Fort Mason Center's written proposal to Congressional Appropriations staff and inquiry about when NPS repair funding for work on the substructure might be anticipated. A written proposal, provided by leaders from the Foundation and the Center calls for $20-25 million from the DOI Appropriation in FY 06 (subject to the Technical and Detailed Cost Estimate due in 2005) for Pier 1 and $20-25 million from the DOI Appropriation for Pier 3. According to Congressional staff comments, the private leaders indicated that "NPS leaders had promised $ 26 million in FY06 for this project". The project has not been identified as an NPS or Administration priority.
The immediate repairs to the Pier 1 shed roof and windows to seal
the shed were financed through a $341,000 Save America Treasures grant to the Foundation, matched 100% by the Foundation $341,000 and an NPS roof replacement Fee Demo project for $461,000.
PWR/GOGA has sought to obtain funds for this work at Pier 1 through
Line Item Construction funds. Partnership Coordinator Murray stated, "It has yet to compete successfully within the Line Item Construction Program for the next five years. Pier 1 has been red-tagged and is empty despite is prime waterfront location. Since it is empty and there is no risk to occupants it doesn't compete well on public use and safety criteria".
Although studies are underway and considerable study of the Pier 1
Substructure Repair has gone into this project park and regional leaders indicated that, "We have yet to determine the exact cost to do that seismic repair". According to Ray Murray, Superintendent O'Neill indicated that the $26 million cost-figure comes from an assumption that both the Pier 1 and Pier 3 substructure seismic stabilization repairs could be accomplished for $13 million each -- the cost of the Pier 2 substructure repair. At some point in the future PWR/ GOGA will do a similar feasibility assessment and estimate for Pier 3.
All three Piers were damaged in the Loma Prieta Quake but FEMA funds only enabled the Pier 2 repair.
Ray Murray indicated that "We won't know if Pier 1 and Pier 3
repairs can use the lower cost technology applied to Pier 2 until we complete a feasibility study in FY2005. Therefore any estimates prior to that feasibility study are speculative. If we have to use another technology, the costs could be 2-3 times higher. We don't yet know if what the seismic repair will cost. If could be more than $26 million or half of $26 million. When the feasibility study is completed, we'll have a more realistic cost estimate".
Superintendent O'Neill indicated to Mr. Murray that "the immediate repairs to the Pier 1 shed roof and windows to seal the shed were financed through a $300,000 Save America Treasures grant. The estimate for full repair of the Pier 1 shed is $14 million and would not be undertaken until the substructure repair is complete".
The current Cooperative Agreement, which will be replaced by the
almost-completed long term lease, between the NPS and the Fort Mason
Foundation authorizes the Foundation to "seek funding". Article I. (f) of the agreement indicates that "In connection with the support, maintenance, and operation of the facilities, and with respect to appropriate staffing and development of the Foundation's programs, the Foundation agrees, as a matter or policy, that it will seek funding from private foundations, individuals, corporations, as well as from Government departments and agencies.
There is close collaboration between the Foundation and the park on plans that will involve fundraising. The Foundation aspires to, at a later date yet to be determined, undertake an on-going Capital Campaign to assist in funding the phases of preservation and development of the Fort Mason Center as required of them under the Lease Disposition and Development Agreement. The Foundation will cooperate fully with NPS in seeking NPS approval of its fundraising plan in accordance with all NPS processes, procedures and requirements contained in, or in addition to Director's Order #21.
The Cooperative Agreement, as written, authorizes the Foundation to seek funds at all levels of the government, including NPS funding.
Although the Foundation is authorized to seek funding for NPS there does not appear to be an approved fundraising agreement or plan for this project or the Foundation's other activities.
GOGA Lower Fort Mason Pier 1 Seismic Stabilization and Repair:
Partnership Coordinator Murray indicated, "This project will be fully funded by NPS through Line Item Construction when it reaches a high enough priority. There is no partner participation in this project despite the fact that it was discussed by the Fort Mason Center with Debbie Weatherly. The Pier has not been assigned to the Fort Mason Center under the current Cooperative Agreement that will be replaced by the long-term lease currently under negotiation between GOGA and the FMC. Pier 1 will not be added to the lease until after this project is completed and that will be 7-10+ years out".
Options
The following options can and should be taken to address the Ft. Mason Center Pier One fundraising concerns within the identified assumptions.
NPS-GOGA, PWR and headquarters, and the Fort Mason Foundation,
should coordinate communications with the NPS House and Senate Appropriations Committees to avoid confusion over the description and priority of this project, it's readiness for NPS funding, the total cost of the project, and the roles and responsibilities of the partners.
Well-intentioned meetings between park partners and NPS Appropriation's Committee staff often send signals about NPS projects, their priorities and budget requests. Without restricting the ability of nonprofit organizations to speak to elected officials and there staff, NPS and their partners need to work together on all aspects of partnership projects.
NPS should confirm, reconfirm, or establish a policy that it is
logical, permissible, and often desirable to fund major structural repairs and improvements by Congress and the interior improvements and operation and maintenance through the FMC revenues earned income and fundraising.
The partnership work at Fort Mason Center appears to help clarify what an appropriate role is for government and the private sector in working on a partnership construction project. This aspect of the Ft. Mason Center approach may have merit for other projects nationwide.
NPS headquarters should consider a way that construction projects
can be given priority ranking when partnership arrangements add tangible values or dollars to the overall project.
It appears that projects like this one may have difficulty securing federal funding through the NPS process for construction projects and receive no, or little value, for having a fund-producing partnership.
In the event that the Pier 1 Shed Restoration Project requires
fundraising, GOGA and PWR should work with the Fort Mason Foundation to prepare appropriate fundraising agreement and plans, including a Donor Recognition Plan, for this project and Fort Mason Center.
It is anticipated that the Shed Restoration would be primarily funded through commercial loans to be repaid by use fees. It is premature to develop fundraising plans and donor recognition plans until it is determined that fundraising will be involved. DO#21 largely is written for specific fundraising projects. Lower Ft. Mason is atypical in that it very multifaceted and involves different funding and partnership initiatives over a 15 year+ time frame. It may be more realistic and more manageable to submit specific projects and fundraising campaigns for DO#21 and building better partnerships compliance at a later point when they can be defined.
The NPS National Partnership Office should clarify agency policy on
park partners seeking funds to reach a better understanding between partners about appropriate and inappropriate federal fundraising activity.
NPS, at the park level, authorized the Fort Mason Foundation to seek funds from government agencies and departments. This general provision gives NPS partners considerable discretion on seeking federal monies and empowers them to seek NPS money. Clarifying in agreements that authorize fundraising what NPS fundraising activities are appropriate and inappropriate would help to avoid conflicts with approved agency budget and priority setting procedures.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Cooperative Agreement
Cooperative Agreement
between the
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service
and the
Glynwood Center
September 11, 2002
This agreement is made and entered into between Glynwood Center and the United States of America, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Capital Region (NPS).
ARTICLE I - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
WHEREAS, in recent years improving the quality of life in U.S. cities has been the focus of government policy, the media, non-profit organizations and academics. Traffic congestion in our cities, sprawling development in the surrounding suburbs and poor water quality have made many urban areas unattractive places to live and work. While recent state and local growth management initiatives have raised the public’s awareness about the need and benefit of compact development plans and renewed focus on the impact of water quality on health, there is still much to be done.
Whereas, many European cities have had demonstrable success. In particular, Germany, England, the Netherlands, and France, have demonstrated success in controlling sprawl; using green infrastructure to protect open space and parkland and improve air quality; reducing non point source pollution and improving water quality; and integrating effective land management strategies with innovative building and environmental designs.
Whereas, even with the best advice, successfully addressing and improving urban water quality is extremely difficult. Implementing new policies and practices at the local level requires knowledge of best management practices, but professionals and local leaders must also have the leadership skills, resources and confidence to take action.
Whereas, Glynwood Center helps professionals and communities tackle difficult issues. Glynwood Center programs combine access to effective tools and techniques with building leadership skills. Glynwood Center believes in looking abroad, seeking within our global village practical examples of solutions that address our most pressing challenges.
WHEREAS, the National Park Service recognizes that urban river watershed management approaches can help the agency carry out it’s mission—and park and
program goals, by conserving lands adjacent to existing NPS units through voluntary conservation partnership; reducing stormwater flows onto NPS lands by implementing best management building and land use practices; using green building techniques; creating water quality buffers to reduce air and water-borne nutrients entering the Chesapeake Bay watershed; conserving the scenery from, and to, NPS lands and waters; protecting the habitat of living resources on NPS and other lands; making outdoor recreation lands more accessible to streams and waterfronts and the public through the creation of trails and greenways; conserving the natural values and functions of streams and watersheds that flow into the Chesapeake Bay; educating the public about the values and functions of natural areas, parks, open space and recreation areas through forums and workshops; helping to assist NPS, local governments and private landowners improve park and private lands to maintain a sense of place and environmental quality; and other similar goals.
Whereas, the Agreement will create a program of ongoing reciprocal exchanges that will, over time, create sustained dialogue about watershed issues between professionals from the U.S. and other countries.
WHEREAS, the National Park Service owns and manages substantial acreage within the Potomac River Watershed, and manages programs that support state, local and private sector parks, open space, heritage and recreation areas, and historic preservation.
WHEREAS, Glynwood Center and the National Park Service have demonstrated a commitment to work on a region-wide demonstration project to implement watershed “Best Management Practices” through a collaborative, community-lead, public and private partnership within the Potomac River basin;
WHEREAS, the “Potomac Watershed Exchange” is intended to demonstrate techniques for the ecological and economic regeneration, and the protection and management of park, heritage, recreation and open space land by federal, state and local governments and private groups through the use of voluntary collaborative approaches.
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement mutually wish to:
Engage watershed professionals in the Potomac River watershed and other countries
in a contextual learning process, both at home and abroad.
Foster opportunities for an exchange of knowledge regarding best practices in
watershed management; and application of best practices in the U.S. context.
C. Create opportunities for professional development of U.S. urban watershed, park,
open space, and recreation management practitioners;
Share technical information between NPS staff and various park and program
partners, regarding the application of best practices in the U.S. context. For the following objectives, including but not limited to:
The development and benefits of green infrastructure;
Ecologic and economic regeneration of rivers, streams and waterfronts;
Defining and reinforcing environmentally sensitive development patterns;
The critical nature of determined leadership at the local level;
The power of small projects to reinforce overall policy themes; and
Integrating innovative approaches to stormwater and waste water management into new development.
E. Present the public and government officials with accurate informative,
educational and understandable information on the urban watershed best management practices.
F. Encourage collaboration and coordination among federal, state and local
government agencies in order to minimize inconsistency and duplication, to reduce or eliminate conflicting priorities and programs and to achieve more efficient use of public funds.
G. Further facilitate cooperation with communities in the Potomac River watershed
to work cooperatively with state and federal government agencies and the private
sector.
H. Enter into stand-alone agreements with Glynwood Center when such agreements
will better serve the delivery of Federal assistance to the Potomac Watershed Exchange.
WHEREAS, Glynwood Center and the NPS may work cooperatively on other goals, which are mutually agreeable.
ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS
"Green infrastructure" means our Nation's natural life support system-an interconnected network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas; greenways, parks and other conservation lands; working farms, ranches, and forests of
conservation value; and wilderness and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes, provide recreation opportunities, sustain air and water resources and contribute to the health and quality of life for America's communities and people.
"Potomac Watershed Exchange" means an exchange of people, experiences and information intended to demonstrate best management practices and techniques for ecological and economic regeneration by federal, state and local governments and private groups, within the Potomac River watershed.
"Local Partners" means any local governments, or private non-profit organizations.
“Best Management Practices” means schedule of activities, prohibitions of certain practices, implementation of maintenance procedures or other measures or practices that promote ecological and economic regeneration. Best Management Practices represent a continuum of available options and no single practice represents the entire solution.
“Potomac Urban River Watershed Management Steering Committee” means a committee comprised of agency and non-profit organizations with an interest in urban watershed management in the Potomac River Watershed.
ARTICLE III - AUTHORITY
This Agreement is authorized pursuant or consistent with the Act of August 25, 1916, otherwise referred to as the Organic Act, codified at 16 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.; Section 508 of the 1986 Amendments to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, codified at 16 U.S.C. Section 1282(b)(1); the Outdoor Recreation Programs Act of 1963,particularly 16 U.S.C. Section 4601-1(d), 4601-1(f); the American Heritage River Initiative Executive Order of 1997; and other applicable statutory and regulatory authorities.
ARTICLE IV – STATEMENT OF WORK
NPS and Glynwood Center view this effort as a partnership. Both organizations will work collaboratively on the overall project and consult regularly to insure coordination on individual tasks and activities. Whenever possible, a consensus-based approach will be used to make decisions and reach agreements. Each organization will be sensitive to the mission and responsibilities of the other, and work to be supportive of their role and perspective in this project.
All products and reports will be prepared with input from both organizations, and whenever possible, reflect the point of view and conclusions of each. Public meetings and events will include recognition of this collaborative effort.
Both parties agree to:
A. Hold a forum: Develop, agree, and assist with a Potomac Watershed Lessons
Learned Forum to share information from the spring 2002 Exchange in Germany by eight professionals in the Potomac region and to consider how best to apply successful German watershed management practices to the Potomac River watershed basin.
B. Exchange Best Management Practices: The parties will work with the Potomac
Urban River Watershed Management Regional Steering Committee to participate in the exchange and to develop a series of off-the-shelf "Best Management Practices" for ecological and economic regeneration.
C. Project Development: Provide oversight, travel office and administrative support
for the "Potomac Watershed Exchange" on a day-to-day basis, consistent with this agreement, work plan and budget.
NPS agrees to:
Cooperate with Glynwood Center as a lead international exchange organization
respecting the “Potomac Watershed Exchange” and other such goals upon which the National Park Service and Center may mutually agree;
Provide oversight, travel, office and administrative support for the NPS Project
Manager consistent with the approved strategy, work plan and budget policies of NPS.
C. Assist Glynwood Center with the day-to-day management of the Exchange.
D. Assist the Steering Committee by facilitating and arranging for discussions and input
into the Exchange.
E. Recommend, contact and secure participation on the Steering Committee by other
agencies and organizations;
F. Engage in developing criteria for participant selection and conducting
the nomination process of participants through the Steering Committee;
Assist in the development of a needs assessment to identify the most pressing issues
facing the program participants; Assist in the development of a pre-visit package of
information for participants to educate them on the various parks, heritage, recreation, historic preservation and land use systems, and appropriate environmental regulations and practices of other countries;
Participate in developing the post-visit Exchange meeting including identifying
and securing an appropriate site in the Potomac for the meeting and: assist Glynwood Center in evaluating the program in terms of its impact on professional development and applicability of best management practices.
Glynwood Center Agrees to:
Be the lead organization for the Exchange, working in close cooperation with the
EPA and NPS. Glynwood Center will be responsible for overall coordination of the Exchange.
Be responsible for overall coordination and implementation of the Potomac
Watershed Exchange in collaboration with other partners and the NPS. A consensus-based decision-making approach will be used throughout the effort to carry out major tasks and produce end products.
Work with the NPS, and other partners, to develop and convene a Steering
Committee comprised of governmental and non-governmental organizations with an interest in watershed management in the Potomac River basin;
D. Facilitate a meetings of exchange participants with Glynwood Center and the
Steering Committee to help prepare various reports examining the international
approaches to watershed management and identifying the best practices that may be most
appropriate for U.S. application.
E. Work with the Steering Committee to evaluate the program for its impact on
professional development and the applicability of best management practices. The
program will also be evaluated by participants and staff to determine the potential for and
value of continuing exchanges between various countries and the U. S. to share
watershed management practices.
F. Conduct a needs assessment to identify the most pressing issues facing the
program participants. Through use of a survey and telephone interviews with the six participants of the Exchange, Glynwood Center staff will develop a priority list of issues that will inform and guide development of the itinerary for exchanges between the U.S. and other countries.
G. Identify the sites, professionals and best management practices in other countries
that address the issues identified. Glynwood Center will make all arrangements for the U.S. practitioners to visit those individuals and locations;
H. Compile and distribute briefing materials prior to the trip to educate the U.S.
participants on parks and recreation and land use system and appropriate environmental regulations and practices.
I. Secure arrangements for professionals from the Potomac River watershed to
travel to other countries to learn from their colleagues.
J. Secure arrangements for professionals from other countries to travel to the
Potomac River watershed to learn from their colleagues.
K. Cooperate with the NPS, through the Project Manager, and other appropriate
public agencies and private organizations, to facilitate the exchange of information, dialogue and experiences.
ARTICLE V - TERM OF AGREEMENT
The provisions of this Agreement shall remain in force for five years from the date of execution. The date of execution is the date of the last signature affixed to this Agreement. The Agreement may be automatically renewed at the end of each five-year period if both parties agree, in writing, in advance of the end-date.
ARTICLE VI - KEY OFFICIALS
The personnel specified below are considered to be essential to ensure coordination and communication between the parties in the Agreement for the work to be performed. Upon written notice, and agreement by both NPS and the Council, either party may designate an alternate to act in the place of the designated key official, in an emergency or other short time period.
A. For NPS:
J. Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director
National Park Service, National Capital Region
Partnerships Office, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW, Room 350
Washington, DC 20242
(202) 619-7492 telephone
(202) 619-7220 fax
glenn_eugster@nps.gov
B. For Glynwood Center:
Jayne E. Daly
Director of Programs
Glynwood Center
Box 157
Cold Spring, New York 10516
(845) 265-3338
Fax: (845) 265-3391
jdaly@glynwood.org
ARTICLE VI - AWARD AND PAYMENT
General – The commitment of funds in furtherance of this Agreement will be authorized by individual Task Agreements that are subject to the terms of this Cooperative Agreement and identify each project or group of projects, amount of financial assistance, and any other special term or condition applicable to that project.
Ensure that this Agreement will include a specific Task Agreement detailing the goals, objectives, and methodology of the project, the contributions of each party, a full explanation of the substantial involvement of each party, a project schedule, and a description of any work products to be delivered.
B. Payment/Invoices
1. Requests for Reimbursement and Advance of Funds (SF-270) will be submitted to the NPS Key Official noted in Article V. Payment will be made no more frequently than monthly and will be paid by Electronic Funds Transfer.
2. Any award is subject to availability of funds.
ARTICLE VIII - PRIOR APPROVAL
A. Prior to reassigning any Key Official for NPS funded projects identified in this Cooperative Agreement or any Task Agreement to any other Glynwood Center programs, Glynwood Center shall notify the NPS Key Official reasonably in advance and shall submit a justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the program. No substitution will be made without the written consent of the NPS Key Official.
B. Upon the request of Glynwood Center, NPS may re-budget funds approved by this agreement. Re-budgeting, if approved, shall be done consistent with all appropriate laws, regulations and policies. However, post-award changes in budgets and projects shall require the prior written approval of the NPS Key Official as follows:
1. Any revision of the scope or objective of the project.
2. Any revision involving specific costs for which OMB Circular A-122 requires prior written approval.
3. The absence of either the approved principal or additional investigator if any is specified in this Agreement, for more than three months or reduction in time devoted to the project by twenty-five percent or more.
4. Increases in direct costs requiring transfer of amounts budgeted for indirect costs, or vice versa.
ARTICLE IX - REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES
For all activities specified in this Agreement or any Task Agreement as modified, amended or supplemented, Glynwood Center shall notify the NPS of any difficulties or delays that materially impair Glynwood Center’s ability to meet the objectives of this Agreement or any Task Agreement. In notifying the NPS, Glynwood Center will describe what action Glynwood Center has taken, or is considering taking, to address the situation and what assistance Glynwood Center needs in so doing.
A. Glynwood Center shall submit as appropriate the following financial reports to the NPS Key Official:
1. Standard Form SF-269 or SF-269a, financial status report, due no later than ninety (90) calendar days after the end of each calendar year during the term of this Agreement, and 90 days after the end of this Agreement, and
2. Standard Form SF-272, Report of Federal Cash Transactions, due fifteen (15) calendar days following the end of each quarter during the term of this Agreement.
B. Glynwood Center shall submit final reports on projects to the NPS Key Official within 90 days after completion of the project, including an accounting of matching funds and services.
ARTICLE X - PROPERTY UTILIZATION
The use, disposition, and/or acquisition of new or existing property shall be in accordance with the rules set forth at 43 CFR § 12.933 through 12.935, as amended.
ARTICLE XI - MODIFICATIONS AND TERMINATIONS
A. This Agreement may be modified only by a written instrument executed by the parties.
B. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing the other party with sixty (60) days advance written notice. In the event that one party provides the other party with notice of its intention to terminate, the parties will meet promptly to discuss the reasons for the notice and to try to resolve their differences. If agreement cannot be reached, at a minimum Glynwood Center shall return any unexpended funds, property and work completed to date.
C. In the case of termination, the NPS shall not be liable for any anticipatory profits. Costs of Glynwood Center resulting from obligations incurred by Glynwood Center after termination are not allowable unless the NPS expressly authorizes them in the notice of termination or subsequently. Other Glynwood Center costs after termination which are necessary and not reasonably avoidable are allowable if:
1. The costs result from obligations that were properly incurred before the effective date of termination, are not in anticipation of it, and are noncancellable, and
2. The costs would be allowable if the award expired normally at the end of the funding period in which the termination takes effect.
ARTICLE XII - GENERAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS
A. General Provisions
1. OMB Circulars and other Regulations - The following OMB Circulars and other regulations are incorporated by reference into this Agreement:
(a) OMB Circular A-110, as codified by 43 CFR Part 12, Subpart F, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-Profit Organizations.”
(b) OMB Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations
(c) OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.”
(d) 43 CFR Part 12, Subpart D, “Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).”
(e) 43 CFR Part 12, Subpart E, “Buy American Requirements for Assistance Programs.”
(f) FAR Clause 52.203-12, Paragraphs (a) and (b), “Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions.”
2. Non-Discrimination - All activities pursuant this Agreement shall be in compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 11246; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.); Title V, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (87 Stat. 394; 29 U.S.C. §794); the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (89 Stat. 728; 42 U.S.C. §§ 6101 et seq.); and with all other federal laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination on grounds of race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, disabilities, religion, age, or sex.
3. Lobbying Prohibition - 18 U.S.C. § 1913, Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys- No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.
4. Anti-Deficiency Act - 31 U.S.C. § 1341 - Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as binding the NPS to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress for the purposes of this Agreement for that fiscal year, or other obligation for the further expenditure of money in excess of such appropriations.
5. Minority Business Enterprise Development - Executive Order 12432 - It is national policy to award a fair share of contracts to small and minority firms. The NPS is strongly committed to the objectives of this policy and encourages all recipients of its Cooperative Agreements to take affirmative steps to ensure such fairness by ensuring procurement procedures are carried out in accordance with 43 CFR § 12.944 for Institutions of Higher Education; Hospitals and other Non-Profit Organizations, and 43 CFR § 12.76 for State and Local Governments.
Liability
Glynwood Center shall be fully responsible for the acts and omissions of its
representatives, employees, contractors and subcontractors connected with the
performance of this Agreement and shall indemnify, save and hold harmless,
and defend the United States against all fines, claims, damages, judgments, and
expenses arising out of, or from, any omission or activity of such persons or
entities.
(b) Glynwood Center shall procure public and employee liability insurance from a responsible company or companies with a minimum limitation of one million dollars ($1,000,000), per person for any one claim and an aggregate limitation of three million dollars ($3,000,000) for any number of claims arising from any one incident. The policies shall name the United States as an additional insured, shall specify that the insured shall have no right of subrogation against the United States for payments of any premiums or deductibles due thereunder, and shall specify that the insurance shall be assumed by, be for the account of, and be at the insurer's sole risk. Prior to beginning the work authorized herein, Glynwood shall provide the NPS with confirmation of such insurance coverage.
(c) Glynwood Center shall pay the United States the full value for all damages to the lands or other property of the United States caused by such person or organization, its representative, or employees.
B. Special Provisions
1. Public Information
(a) Glynwood Center will not publicize, or otherwise circulate, promotional material (such as advertisements, sales brochures, press releases, speeches, pictures, movies, articles, manuscripts or other publications) which states or implies Governmental, Departmental, bureau, or Government employee endorsement of a product, service, or position which Glynwood Center represents. No release of information relating to this Agreement may state or imply that the Government approves of the work product of Glynwood Center or considers Glynwood Center’s work product to be superior to other products or services.
(b) Glynwood Center will ensure that all information submitted for publication or other public releases of information regarding this project will carry the following disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government.
(c) Glynwood Center will obtain prior NPS approval from the NPS Public Affairs Office before releasing for any public information which refers to the Department of the Interior, any bureau or employee (by name or title), or to this Agreement. The specific text, layout, photographs, etc., of the proposed release must be submitted to the Public Affairs Office along with the request for approval.
(d) Glynwood Center further agrees to include the above provisions in any sub-award to any sub-recipient, except for a sub-award to a state government, a local government, or to a federally recognized Indian tribal government.
2. Publications of results of studies
No party will unilaterally publish a joint publication without consulting the other party. This restriction does not apply to popular publication of previously published technical matter. Publications pursuant to this Agreement may be produced independently or in collaboration with others; however, in all cases proper credit will be given to the efforts of those parties’ contribution to the publication. In the event no agreement is reached concerning the manner of publication or interpretation of results, either party may publish data after due notice and submission of the proposed manuscripts to the other. In such instances, the party publishing the data will give due credit to the cooperation but assume full responsibility for any statements on which there is a difference of opinion.
C. Certifications - The following form(s) are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. These certifications are required in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement:
DI-2010, U.S. Department of the Interior Certification Regarding Department, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters, Drug-Free Workplace Requirement and Lobbying.
D. This Agreement is subject to all laws, regulations and policies governing NPS property, and cooperative or partnership agreements, and all other applicable laws and regulations, and policies whether now in force or hereafter enacted or promulgated. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as in any way impairing the general powers of the NPS for supervision, regulation, and control of its property under any such applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
E. Severability - If any term or provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or illegal, such term or provision shall not impact the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions.
ARTICLE XIII - ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES
In addition to the attachments previously specified in this Agreement, the following documents, provided by Glynwood Center are attached to or incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement:
A. Form SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance (incorporated by reference).
C. Form SF-424A, Budget Information (incorporated by reference).
ARTICLE XIV - SIGNATURES
IN WITNESS HERETO, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s) set forth below:
FOR GLYNWOOD CENTER
______________________________________ ____________________
Judith M. LaBelle, President Date
Glynwood Center
Box 157
Cold Spring, New York 10516
(845) 265-3338
Fax: (845) 265-3391
jml@glynwood.org
FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
___________________________________________ ____________________
Terry Carlstrom, Regional Director Date
National Capital Region
National Park Service
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington DC 20242
202-619-7000
____________________________________________ ___________________
Thomas M. McConnell, Contracting Officer Date
National Capital Region
National Park Service
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington DC 20242
202-619-6366 voice
202-485-9720 fax
tom_mcconnell@nps.gov
between the
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service
and the
Glynwood Center
September 11, 2002
This agreement is made and entered into between Glynwood Center and the United States of America, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Capital Region (NPS).
ARTICLE I - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
WHEREAS, in recent years improving the quality of life in U.S. cities has been the focus of government policy, the media, non-profit organizations and academics. Traffic congestion in our cities, sprawling development in the surrounding suburbs and poor water quality have made many urban areas unattractive places to live and work. While recent state and local growth management initiatives have raised the public’s awareness about the need and benefit of compact development plans and renewed focus on the impact of water quality on health, there is still much to be done.
Whereas, many European cities have had demonstrable success. In particular, Germany, England, the Netherlands, and France, have demonstrated success in controlling sprawl; using green infrastructure to protect open space and parkland and improve air quality; reducing non point source pollution and improving water quality; and integrating effective land management strategies with innovative building and environmental designs.
Whereas, even with the best advice, successfully addressing and improving urban water quality is extremely difficult. Implementing new policies and practices at the local level requires knowledge of best management practices, but professionals and local leaders must also have the leadership skills, resources and confidence to take action.
Whereas, Glynwood Center helps professionals and communities tackle difficult issues. Glynwood Center programs combine access to effective tools and techniques with building leadership skills. Glynwood Center believes in looking abroad, seeking within our global village practical examples of solutions that address our most pressing challenges.
WHEREAS, the National Park Service recognizes that urban river watershed management approaches can help the agency carry out it’s mission—and park and
program goals, by conserving lands adjacent to existing NPS units through voluntary conservation partnership; reducing stormwater flows onto NPS lands by implementing best management building and land use practices; using green building techniques; creating water quality buffers to reduce air and water-borne nutrients entering the Chesapeake Bay watershed; conserving the scenery from, and to, NPS lands and waters; protecting the habitat of living resources on NPS and other lands; making outdoor recreation lands more accessible to streams and waterfronts and the public through the creation of trails and greenways; conserving the natural values and functions of streams and watersheds that flow into the Chesapeake Bay; educating the public about the values and functions of natural areas, parks, open space and recreation areas through forums and workshops; helping to assist NPS, local governments and private landowners improve park and private lands to maintain a sense of place and environmental quality; and other similar goals.
Whereas, the Agreement will create a program of ongoing reciprocal exchanges that will, over time, create sustained dialogue about watershed issues between professionals from the U.S. and other countries.
WHEREAS, the National Park Service owns and manages substantial acreage within the Potomac River Watershed, and manages programs that support state, local and private sector parks, open space, heritage and recreation areas, and historic preservation.
WHEREAS, Glynwood Center and the National Park Service have demonstrated a commitment to work on a region-wide demonstration project to implement watershed “Best Management Practices” through a collaborative, community-lead, public and private partnership within the Potomac River basin;
WHEREAS, the “Potomac Watershed Exchange” is intended to demonstrate techniques for the ecological and economic regeneration, and the protection and management of park, heritage, recreation and open space land by federal, state and local governments and private groups through the use of voluntary collaborative approaches.
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement mutually wish to:
Engage watershed professionals in the Potomac River watershed and other countries
in a contextual learning process, both at home and abroad.
Foster opportunities for an exchange of knowledge regarding best practices in
watershed management; and application of best practices in the U.S. context.
C. Create opportunities for professional development of U.S. urban watershed, park,
open space, and recreation management practitioners;
Share technical information between NPS staff and various park and program
partners, regarding the application of best practices in the U.S. context. For the following objectives, including but not limited to:
The development and benefits of green infrastructure;
Ecologic and economic regeneration of rivers, streams and waterfronts;
Defining and reinforcing environmentally sensitive development patterns;
The critical nature of determined leadership at the local level;
The power of small projects to reinforce overall policy themes; and
Integrating innovative approaches to stormwater and waste water management into new development.
E. Present the public and government officials with accurate informative,
educational and understandable information on the urban watershed best management practices.
F. Encourage collaboration and coordination among federal, state and local
government agencies in order to minimize inconsistency and duplication, to reduce or eliminate conflicting priorities and programs and to achieve more efficient use of public funds.
G. Further facilitate cooperation with communities in the Potomac River watershed
to work cooperatively with state and federal government agencies and the private
sector.
H. Enter into stand-alone agreements with Glynwood Center when such agreements
will better serve the delivery of Federal assistance to the Potomac Watershed Exchange.
WHEREAS, Glynwood Center and the NPS may work cooperatively on other goals, which are mutually agreeable.
ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS
"Green infrastructure" means our Nation's natural life support system-an interconnected network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas; greenways, parks and other conservation lands; working farms, ranches, and forests of
conservation value; and wilderness and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes, provide recreation opportunities, sustain air and water resources and contribute to the health and quality of life for America's communities and people.
"Potomac Watershed Exchange" means an exchange of people, experiences and information intended to demonstrate best management practices and techniques for ecological and economic regeneration by federal, state and local governments and private groups, within the Potomac River watershed.
"Local Partners" means any local governments, or private non-profit organizations.
“Best Management Practices” means schedule of activities, prohibitions of certain practices, implementation of maintenance procedures or other measures or practices that promote ecological and economic regeneration. Best Management Practices represent a continuum of available options and no single practice represents the entire solution.
“Potomac Urban River Watershed Management Steering Committee” means a committee comprised of agency and non-profit organizations with an interest in urban watershed management in the Potomac River Watershed.
ARTICLE III - AUTHORITY
This Agreement is authorized pursuant or consistent with the Act of August 25, 1916, otherwise referred to as the Organic Act, codified at 16 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.; Section 508 of the 1986 Amendments to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, codified at 16 U.S.C. Section 1282(b)(1); the Outdoor Recreation Programs Act of 1963,particularly 16 U.S.C. Section 4601-1(d), 4601-1(f); the American Heritage River Initiative Executive Order of 1997; and other applicable statutory and regulatory authorities.
ARTICLE IV – STATEMENT OF WORK
NPS and Glynwood Center view this effort as a partnership. Both organizations will work collaboratively on the overall project and consult regularly to insure coordination on individual tasks and activities. Whenever possible, a consensus-based approach will be used to make decisions and reach agreements. Each organization will be sensitive to the mission and responsibilities of the other, and work to be supportive of their role and perspective in this project.
All products and reports will be prepared with input from both organizations, and whenever possible, reflect the point of view and conclusions of each. Public meetings and events will include recognition of this collaborative effort.
Both parties agree to:
A. Hold a forum: Develop, agree, and assist with a Potomac Watershed Lessons
Learned Forum to share information from the spring 2002 Exchange in Germany by eight professionals in the Potomac region and to consider how best to apply successful German watershed management practices to the Potomac River watershed basin.
B. Exchange Best Management Practices: The parties will work with the Potomac
Urban River Watershed Management Regional Steering Committee to participate in the exchange and to develop a series of off-the-shelf "Best Management Practices" for ecological and economic regeneration.
C. Project Development: Provide oversight, travel office and administrative support
for the "Potomac Watershed Exchange" on a day-to-day basis, consistent with this agreement, work plan and budget.
NPS agrees to:
Cooperate with Glynwood Center as a lead international exchange organization
respecting the “Potomac Watershed Exchange” and other such goals upon which the National Park Service and Center may mutually agree;
Provide oversight, travel, office and administrative support for the NPS Project
Manager consistent with the approved strategy, work plan and budget policies of NPS.
C. Assist Glynwood Center with the day-to-day management of the Exchange.
D. Assist the Steering Committee by facilitating and arranging for discussions and input
into the Exchange.
E. Recommend, contact and secure participation on the Steering Committee by other
agencies and organizations;
F. Engage in developing criteria for participant selection and conducting
the nomination process of participants through the Steering Committee;
Assist in the development of a needs assessment to identify the most pressing issues
facing the program participants; Assist in the development of a pre-visit package of
information for participants to educate them on the various parks, heritage, recreation, historic preservation and land use systems, and appropriate environmental regulations and practices of other countries;
Participate in developing the post-visit Exchange meeting including identifying
and securing an appropriate site in the Potomac for the meeting and: assist Glynwood Center in evaluating the program in terms of its impact on professional development and applicability of best management practices.
Glynwood Center Agrees to:
Be the lead organization for the Exchange, working in close cooperation with the
EPA and NPS. Glynwood Center will be responsible for overall coordination of the Exchange.
Be responsible for overall coordination and implementation of the Potomac
Watershed Exchange in collaboration with other partners and the NPS. A consensus-based decision-making approach will be used throughout the effort to carry out major tasks and produce end products.
Work with the NPS, and other partners, to develop and convene a Steering
Committee comprised of governmental and non-governmental organizations with an interest in watershed management in the Potomac River basin;
D. Facilitate a meetings of exchange participants with Glynwood Center and the
Steering Committee to help prepare various reports examining the international
approaches to watershed management and identifying the best practices that may be most
appropriate for U.S. application.
E. Work with the Steering Committee to evaluate the program for its impact on
professional development and the applicability of best management practices. The
program will also be evaluated by participants and staff to determine the potential for and
value of continuing exchanges between various countries and the U. S. to share
watershed management practices.
F. Conduct a needs assessment to identify the most pressing issues facing the
program participants. Through use of a survey and telephone interviews with the six participants of the Exchange, Glynwood Center staff will develop a priority list of issues that will inform and guide development of the itinerary for exchanges between the U.S. and other countries.
G. Identify the sites, professionals and best management practices in other countries
that address the issues identified. Glynwood Center will make all arrangements for the U.S. practitioners to visit those individuals and locations;
H. Compile and distribute briefing materials prior to the trip to educate the U.S.
participants on parks and recreation and land use system and appropriate environmental regulations and practices.
I. Secure arrangements for professionals from the Potomac River watershed to
travel to other countries to learn from their colleagues.
J. Secure arrangements for professionals from other countries to travel to the
Potomac River watershed to learn from their colleagues.
K. Cooperate with the NPS, through the Project Manager, and other appropriate
public agencies and private organizations, to facilitate the exchange of information, dialogue and experiences.
ARTICLE V - TERM OF AGREEMENT
The provisions of this Agreement shall remain in force for five years from the date of execution. The date of execution is the date of the last signature affixed to this Agreement. The Agreement may be automatically renewed at the end of each five-year period if both parties agree, in writing, in advance of the end-date.
ARTICLE VI - KEY OFFICIALS
The personnel specified below are considered to be essential to ensure coordination and communication between the parties in the Agreement for the work to be performed. Upon written notice, and agreement by both NPS and the Council, either party may designate an alternate to act in the place of the designated key official, in an emergency or other short time period.
A. For NPS:
J. Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director
National Park Service, National Capital Region
Partnerships Office, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW, Room 350
Washington, DC 20242
(202) 619-7492 telephone
(202) 619-7220 fax
glenn_eugster@nps.gov
B. For Glynwood Center:
Jayne E. Daly
Director of Programs
Glynwood Center
Box 157
Cold Spring, New York 10516
(845) 265-3338
Fax: (845) 265-3391
jdaly@glynwood.org
ARTICLE VI - AWARD AND PAYMENT
General – The commitment of funds in furtherance of this Agreement will be authorized by individual Task Agreements that are subject to the terms of this Cooperative Agreement and identify each project or group of projects, amount of financial assistance, and any other special term or condition applicable to that project.
Ensure that this Agreement will include a specific Task Agreement detailing the goals, objectives, and methodology of the project, the contributions of each party, a full explanation of the substantial involvement of each party, a project schedule, and a description of any work products to be delivered.
B. Payment/Invoices
1. Requests for Reimbursement and Advance of Funds (SF-270) will be submitted to the NPS Key Official noted in Article V. Payment will be made no more frequently than monthly and will be paid by Electronic Funds Transfer.
2. Any award is subject to availability of funds.
ARTICLE VIII - PRIOR APPROVAL
A. Prior to reassigning any Key Official for NPS funded projects identified in this Cooperative Agreement or any Task Agreement to any other Glynwood Center programs, Glynwood Center shall notify the NPS Key Official reasonably in advance and shall submit a justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the program. No substitution will be made without the written consent of the NPS Key Official.
B. Upon the request of Glynwood Center, NPS may re-budget funds approved by this agreement. Re-budgeting, if approved, shall be done consistent with all appropriate laws, regulations and policies. However, post-award changes in budgets and projects shall require the prior written approval of the NPS Key Official as follows:
1. Any revision of the scope or objective of the project.
2. Any revision involving specific costs for which OMB Circular A-122 requires prior written approval.
3. The absence of either the approved principal or additional investigator if any is specified in this Agreement, for more than three months or reduction in time devoted to the project by twenty-five percent or more.
4. Increases in direct costs requiring transfer of amounts budgeted for indirect costs, or vice versa.
ARTICLE IX - REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES
For all activities specified in this Agreement or any Task Agreement as modified, amended or supplemented, Glynwood Center shall notify the NPS of any difficulties or delays that materially impair Glynwood Center’s ability to meet the objectives of this Agreement or any Task Agreement. In notifying the NPS, Glynwood Center will describe what action Glynwood Center has taken, or is considering taking, to address the situation and what assistance Glynwood Center needs in so doing.
A. Glynwood Center shall submit as appropriate the following financial reports to the NPS Key Official:
1. Standard Form SF-269 or SF-269a, financial status report, due no later than ninety (90) calendar days after the end of each calendar year during the term of this Agreement, and 90 days after the end of this Agreement, and
2. Standard Form SF-272, Report of Federal Cash Transactions, due fifteen (15) calendar days following the end of each quarter during the term of this Agreement.
B. Glynwood Center shall submit final reports on projects to the NPS Key Official within 90 days after completion of the project, including an accounting of matching funds and services.
ARTICLE X - PROPERTY UTILIZATION
The use, disposition, and/or acquisition of new or existing property shall be in accordance with the rules set forth at 43 CFR § 12.933 through 12.935, as amended.
ARTICLE XI - MODIFICATIONS AND TERMINATIONS
A. This Agreement may be modified only by a written instrument executed by the parties.
B. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing the other party with sixty (60) days advance written notice. In the event that one party provides the other party with notice of its intention to terminate, the parties will meet promptly to discuss the reasons for the notice and to try to resolve their differences. If agreement cannot be reached, at a minimum Glynwood Center shall return any unexpended funds, property and work completed to date.
C. In the case of termination, the NPS shall not be liable for any anticipatory profits. Costs of Glynwood Center resulting from obligations incurred by Glynwood Center after termination are not allowable unless the NPS expressly authorizes them in the notice of termination or subsequently. Other Glynwood Center costs after termination which are necessary and not reasonably avoidable are allowable if:
1. The costs result from obligations that were properly incurred before the effective date of termination, are not in anticipation of it, and are noncancellable, and
2. The costs would be allowable if the award expired normally at the end of the funding period in which the termination takes effect.
ARTICLE XII - GENERAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS
A. General Provisions
1. OMB Circulars and other Regulations - The following OMB Circulars and other regulations are incorporated by reference into this Agreement:
(a) OMB Circular A-110, as codified by 43 CFR Part 12, Subpart F, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-Profit Organizations.”
(b) OMB Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations
(c) OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.”
(d) 43 CFR Part 12, Subpart D, “Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).”
(e) 43 CFR Part 12, Subpart E, “Buy American Requirements for Assistance Programs.”
(f) FAR Clause 52.203-12, Paragraphs (a) and (b), “Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions.”
2. Non-Discrimination - All activities pursuant this Agreement shall be in compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 11246; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.); Title V, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (87 Stat. 394; 29 U.S.C. §794); the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (89 Stat. 728; 42 U.S.C. §§ 6101 et seq.); and with all other federal laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination on grounds of race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, disabilities, religion, age, or sex.
3. Lobbying Prohibition - 18 U.S.C. § 1913, Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys- No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.
4. Anti-Deficiency Act - 31 U.S.C. § 1341 - Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as binding the NPS to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress for the purposes of this Agreement for that fiscal year, or other obligation for the further expenditure of money in excess of such appropriations.
5. Minority Business Enterprise Development - Executive Order 12432 - It is national policy to award a fair share of contracts to small and minority firms. The NPS is strongly committed to the objectives of this policy and encourages all recipients of its Cooperative Agreements to take affirmative steps to ensure such fairness by ensuring procurement procedures are carried out in accordance with 43 CFR § 12.944 for Institutions of Higher Education; Hospitals and other Non-Profit Organizations, and 43 CFR § 12.76 for State and Local Governments.
Liability
Glynwood Center shall be fully responsible for the acts and omissions of its
representatives, employees, contractors and subcontractors connected with the
performance of this Agreement and shall indemnify, save and hold harmless,
and defend the United States against all fines, claims, damages, judgments, and
expenses arising out of, or from, any omission or activity of such persons or
entities.
(b) Glynwood Center shall procure public and employee liability insurance from a responsible company or companies with a minimum limitation of one million dollars ($1,000,000), per person for any one claim and an aggregate limitation of three million dollars ($3,000,000) for any number of claims arising from any one incident. The policies shall name the United States as an additional insured, shall specify that the insured shall have no right of subrogation against the United States for payments of any premiums or deductibles due thereunder, and shall specify that the insurance shall be assumed by, be for the account of, and be at the insurer's sole risk. Prior to beginning the work authorized herein, Glynwood shall provide the NPS with confirmation of such insurance coverage.
(c) Glynwood Center shall pay the United States the full value for all damages to the lands or other property of the United States caused by such person or organization, its representative, or employees.
B. Special Provisions
1. Public Information
(a) Glynwood Center will not publicize, or otherwise circulate, promotional material (such as advertisements, sales brochures, press releases, speeches, pictures, movies, articles, manuscripts or other publications) which states or implies Governmental, Departmental, bureau, or Government employee endorsement of a product, service, or position which Glynwood Center represents. No release of information relating to this Agreement may state or imply that the Government approves of the work product of Glynwood Center or considers Glynwood Center’s work product to be superior to other products or services.
(b) Glynwood Center will ensure that all information submitted for publication or other public releases of information regarding this project will carry the following disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government.
(c) Glynwood Center will obtain prior NPS approval from the NPS Public Affairs Office before releasing for any public information which refers to the Department of the Interior, any bureau or employee (by name or title), or to this Agreement. The specific text, layout, photographs, etc., of the proposed release must be submitted to the Public Affairs Office along with the request for approval.
(d) Glynwood Center further agrees to include the above provisions in any sub-award to any sub-recipient, except for a sub-award to a state government, a local government, or to a federally recognized Indian tribal government.
2. Publications of results of studies
No party will unilaterally publish a joint publication without consulting the other party. This restriction does not apply to popular publication of previously published technical matter. Publications pursuant to this Agreement may be produced independently or in collaboration with others; however, in all cases proper credit will be given to the efforts of those parties’ contribution to the publication. In the event no agreement is reached concerning the manner of publication or interpretation of results, either party may publish data after due notice and submission of the proposed manuscripts to the other. In such instances, the party publishing the data will give due credit to the cooperation but assume full responsibility for any statements on which there is a difference of opinion.
C. Certifications - The following form(s) are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. These certifications are required in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement:
DI-2010, U.S. Department of the Interior Certification Regarding Department, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters, Drug-Free Workplace Requirement and Lobbying.
D. This Agreement is subject to all laws, regulations and policies governing NPS property, and cooperative or partnership agreements, and all other applicable laws and regulations, and policies whether now in force or hereafter enacted or promulgated. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as in any way impairing the general powers of the NPS for supervision, regulation, and control of its property under any such applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
E. Severability - If any term or provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or illegal, such term or provision shall not impact the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions.
ARTICLE XIII - ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES
In addition to the attachments previously specified in this Agreement, the following documents, provided by Glynwood Center are attached to or incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement:
A. Form SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance (incorporated by reference).
C. Form SF-424A, Budget Information (incorporated by reference).
ARTICLE XIV - SIGNATURES
IN WITNESS HERETO, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s) set forth below:
FOR GLYNWOOD CENTER
______________________________________ ____________________
Judith M. LaBelle, President Date
Glynwood Center
Box 157
Cold Spring, New York 10516
(845) 265-3338
Fax: (845) 265-3391
jml@glynwood.org
FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
___________________________________________ ____________________
Terry Carlstrom, Regional Director Date
National Capital Region
National Park Service
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington DC 20242
202-619-7000
____________________________________________ ___________________
Thomas M. McConnell, Contracting Officer Date
National Capital Region
National Park Service
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington DC 20242
202-619-6366 voice
202-485-9720 fax
tom_mcconnell@nps.gov
Battery Kemble Park Partnership
DRAFT: Battery Kemble Park Partnership
April 30, 2004
Assets
Battery Kemble Park is popular with residents and visitors
Adjacent landowners appreciate and enjoy the park and know a great deal about its past.
Community leaders want to help NPS improve management of the park
Battery Kemble is a good place for sledding, sitting to read or eat lunch, walk dogs, hike, or appreciate nature and culture.
Community has a tradition of and experience with volunteerism, advocacy, fundraising and civic engagement.
Community has experience with other park projects including Capital Crescent Trail and Whitehaven.
Issues and matters of concern
Late afternoons, weekends and holidays the parking area is jammed.
Gate is sometimes locked half the day on weekends.
Hurricane Isabelle did damage. Citizens are concerned about wind and lightning damage to trees.
Park trails, in certain locations, are blocked by brush. Brush is placed to the side and becomes a fire hazard.
There is a perception that Battery Kemble is treated like a big park. Some leaders feel that NPS should not let fallen trees rot.
Years ago poor topsoil and rubble placed on hillside and the debris created safety concerns.
In the past the hillside was bare and needed seeding.
Water is needed for trees and shrubs.
Concerns about damage to trees from wind, vines and bugs.
Community leaders believe that Congress should provide more funds to Rock Creek Park, especially for damage from hurricane Isabelle.
Goal: Local leaders and NPS will work in partnership to raise public and private funds to manage, plant and maintain trees, shrubs and flowers in Battery Kemble Park.
Objectives:
Create more community advocacy for Battery Kemble Park and Rock Creek Park.
Remove trees that are in the wrong place
Work together to find ways to thin, feed and spray trees and remove non-native plants.
Use private donations to leverage federal dollars to replace and plant trees and shrubs.
Use volunteers to cleanup area to make the trails safe and reduce fire hazards.
Explore a maintenance endowment for future park management
Actions
Landscape Plan
The community should look at the NPS Landscape Plan before they begin fundraising.
Superintendent Applewaithe Coleman will prepare an inventory and cost estimate of the park.
NPS should do a cost estimate for implementing the Landscape Plan
NPS could do a cost estimate for maintenance of Battery Kemble Park.
NPS and the community could consider an endowment fund for managing, planting and maintaining Battery Kemble Park.
Community Engagement
The community wants to hold a function May. Consider having parties with neighbors where NPS could present plans and community leaders could ask for donations.
NPS should do a presentation to the Citizen's Association on Battery Kemble Park, partnerships and the Landscape Plan
The community wants to help with an inventory of trees in Battery Kemble Park.
The community wants to hold a cleanup
Use of Battery Kemble Park
1. The community should contact Superintendent Applewaithe Coleman
if there is a problem with the US Park Police opening the gate on schedule contact.
Donations
The community indicates that some sort of token annual gift for Battery Kemble Park is likely.
The community wants donations to be used to replace trees and plant more shrubs and bulbs.
NPS suggests that the community use the existing Rock Creek Park donation account for Battery Kemble donations.
The community wants NPS to provide written guidelines on public/
private partnerships--a template for a partnership.
Other Funding
Glenn Eugster will identify sources of assistance for tree planting (i.e. NPS Tree & Shrub Replacement Fund, COG, Forest Service, Casey Trees, Ranger Registry, etc.)
April 30, 2004
Assets
Battery Kemble Park is popular with residents and visitors
Adjacent landowners appreciate and enjoy the park and know a great deal about its past.
Community leaders want to help NPS improve management of the park
Battery Kemble is a good place for sledding, sitting to read or eat lunch, walk dogs, hike, or appreciate nature and culture.
Community has a tradition of and experience with volunteerism, advocacy, fundraising and civic engagement.
Community has experience with other park projects including Capital Crescent Trail and Whitehaven.
Issues and matters of concern
Late afternoons, weekends and holidays the parking area is jammed.
Gate is sometimes locked half the day on weekends.
Hurricane Isabelle did damage. Citizens are concerned about wind and lightning damage to trees.
Park trails, in certain locations, are blocked by brush. Brush is placed to the side and becomes a fire hazard.
There is a perception that Battery Kemble is treated like a big park. Some leaders feel that NPS should not let fallen trees rot.
Years ago poor topsoil and rubble placed on hillside and the debris created safety concerns.
In the past the hillside was bare and needed seeding.
Water is needed for trees and shrubs.
Concerns about damage to trees from wind, vines and bugs.
Community leaders believe that Congress should provide more funds to Rock Creek Park, especially for damage from hurricane Isabelle.
Goal: Local leaders and NPS will work in partnership to raise public and private funds to manage, plant and maintain trees, shrubs and flowers in Battery Kemble Park.
Objectives:
Create more community advocacy for Battery Kemble Park and Rock Creek Park.
Remove trees that are in the wrong place
Work together to find ways to thin, feed and spray trees and remove non-native plants.
Use private donations to leverage federal dollars to replace and plant trees and shrubs.
Use volunteers to cleanup area to make the trails safe and reduce fire hazards.
Explore a maintenance endowment for future park management
Actions
Landscape Plan
The community should look at the NPS Landscape Plan before they begin fundraising.
Superintendent Applewaithe Coleman will prepare an inventory and cost estimate of the park.
NPS should do a cost estimate for implementing the Landscape Plan
NPS could do a cost estimate for maintenance of Battery Kemble Park.
NPS and the community could consider an endowment fund for managing, planting and maintaining Battery Kemble Park.
Community Engagement
The community wants to hold a function May. Consider having parties with neighbors where NPS could present plans and community leaders could ask for donations.
NPS should do a presentation to the Citizen's Association on Battery Kemble Park, partnerships and the Landscape Plan
The community wants to help with an inventory of trees in Battery Kemble Park.
The community wants to hold a cleanup
Use of Battery Kemble Park
1. The community should contact Superintendent Applewaithe Coleman
if there is a problem with the US Park Police opening the gate on schedule contact.
Donations
The community indicates that some sort of token annual gift for Battery Kemble Park is likely.
The community wants donations to be used to replace trees and plant more shrubs and bulbs.
NPS suggests that the community use the existing Rock Creek Park donation account for Battery Kemble donations.
The community wants NPS to provide written guidelines on public/
private partnerships--a template for a partnership.
Other Funding
Glenn Eugster will identify sources of assistance for tree planting (i.e. NPS Tree & Shrub Replacement Fund, COG, Forest Service, Casey Trees, Ranger Registry, etc.)
Alliance of National Heritage Areas
Meeting with John Cosgrove, ANHA
Glenn Eugster, NPS-NCR
January 18, 2006
Goal: Inform the strategic future of Alliance of National Heritage Areas and the heritage area movement
Focus:
1. Heritage area movement today
2. Directions for the future
Trends:
* Public embrace of heritage
* Heritage area activity at all levels of the government and in the private sector
* Number of National Heritage Area designations
Issues/ Matters of Concern:
* Disconnect between NHA’s and heritage area movement
* The deal versus the reality (6-year self-help efforts versus designations forever). Backdoor forever designations.
* NHA quality assurance
* Capacity building: helping people help themselves protect and prosper
* Impact on NPS funding
* Goal of NPS heritage areas—what does success look like?
Options:
1. Articulate/ clarify/ reach agreement on the goal of NPS heritage areas/ movement
a. Link heritage areas movement not just NHA’s.
Link seemingly independent NPS heritage areas through enabling and
Empowering leadership, communication and coordination.
Although the focus of the heritage areas program seems to be on coordinating the Congressionally funded heritage areas, it would be useful for your office to work across NPS offices to link together other heritage area efforts. For example, in NCR it would be useful if your office could share information between heritage areas and the NPS-lead Potomac American Heritage River Initiative, and other non-traditional NPS units--such as the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail.
Expanding communication, through periodic newsletters, topical
Teleconference calls, and perhaps periodic forums, to include these other heritage areas NPS could increase the insights, experiences and best management practices available to all of us to conserve these special places.
b. Assess heritage areas as an alternative way for NPS to preserve, enjoy, conserve and interpret natural, cultural and recreational values.
Heritage areas were originally proposed as an alternative to traditional NPS park, and other, designations. Advocates stressed how this approach would ultimately save money, reduce land federal acquisition, leverage non-federal dollars, and be more effective overall.
As the number of heritage areas, and the funding they require, continues to increase, it seems to be an appropriate time for NPS to assess the effectiveness of this approach. Is this an effective designation for NPS to use? Has the experience of some of the older heritage areas achieved the expectations that advocates and NPS leaders had for this approach when it was created? What are the tangible benefits, to NPS, of heritage areas versus other types of NPS
designations and management arrangements?
Since many of the NPS heritage areas have been operating for a considerable period of time, there is a depth and breadth of experience that would be useful to tap. Such experience might be useful in shaping future NPS or Congressional initiatives and priorities for heritage areas.
c. Implement the results of the amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act Public Law 96-515, Section 506.
This little known provision was included in the amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1980. The amendment said, “The Secretary shall undertake a comprehensive study and formulate recommendations for a coordinated system of cultural parks and historic conservation districts that provide for the preservation, interpretation, development and use by public and private entities of the prehistoric, historic, architectural, cultural, and recreational resources found in definable urban areas throughout the Nation”. Most importantly the legislation called for recommendations for funding by public and private entities and management by various levels of government. The report was to go to President and Congress within two years.
It appears that the legislation may not have been acted on. If it wasn’t one option is to make an effort to get it implemented.
d. Work with Congress to create a Heritage Lottery, or other, Fund to give grants to a wide range of projects involving the local, state, regional and national heritage of the U.S.
The Heritage Lottery Fund of the United Kingdom was created by Parliament in 1994 to distribute a share of the money raised by the National Lottery for Good Causes. To date the Fund has awarded 3 billion pounds to more than 15,000 projects across the UK.
Glenn Eugster, NPS-NCR
January 18, 2006
Goal: Inform the strategic future of Alliance of National Heritage Areas and the heritage area movement
Focus:
1. Heritage area movement today
2. Directions for the future
Trends:
* Public embrace of heritage
* Heritage area activity at all levels of the government and in the private sector
* Number of National Heritage Area designations
Issues/ Matters of Concern:
* Disconnect between NHA’s and heritage area movement
* The deal versus the reality (6-year self-help efforts versus designations forever). Backdoor forever designations.
* NHA quality assurance
* Capacity building: helping people help themselves protect and prosper
* Impact on NPS funding
* Goal of NPS heritage areas—what does success look like?
Options:
1. Articulate/ clarify/ reach agreement on the goal of NPS heritage areas/ movement
a. Link heritage areas movement not just NHA’s.
Link seemingly independent NPS heritage areas through enabling and
Empowering leadership, communication and coordination.
Although the focus of the heritage areas program seems to be on coordinating the Congressionally funded heritage areas, it would be useful for your office to work across NPS offices to link together other heritage area efforts. For example, in NCR it would be useful if your office could share information between heritage areas and the NPS-lead Potomac American Heritage River Initiative, and other non-traditional NPS units--such as the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail.
Expanding communication, through periodic newsletters, topical
Teleconference calls, and perhaps periodic forums, to include these other heritage areas NPS could increase the insights, experiences and best management practices available to all of us to conserve these special places.
b. Assess heritage areas as an alternative way for NPS to preserve, enjoy, conserve and interpret natural, cultural and recreational values.
Heritage areas were originally proposed as an alternative to traditional NPS park, and other, designations. Advocates stressed how this approach would ultimately save money, reduce land federal acquisition, leverage non-federal dollars, and be more effective overall.
As the number of heritage areas, and the funding they require, continues to increase, it seems to be an appropriate time for NPS to assess the effectiveness of this approach. Is this an effective designation for NPS to use? Has the experience of some of the older heritage areas achieved the expectations that advocates and NPS leaders had for this approach when it was created? What are the tangible benefits, to NPS, of heritage areas versus other types of NPS
designations and management arrangements?
Since many of the NPS heritage areas have been operating for a considerable period of time, there is a depth and breadth of experience that would be useful to tap. Such experience might be useful in shaping future NPS or Congressional initiatives and priorities for heritage areas.
c. Implement the results of the amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act Public Law 96-515, Section 506.
This little known provision was included in the amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1980. The amendment said, “The Secretary shall undertake a comprehensive study and formulate recommendations for a coordinated system of cultural parks and historic conservation districts that provide for the preservation, interpretation, development and use by public and private entities of the prehistoric, historic, architectural, cultural, and recreational resources found in definable urban areas throughout the Nation”. Most importantly the legislation called for recommendations for funding by public and private entities and management by various levels of government. The report was to go to President and Congress within two years.
It appears that the legislation may not have been acted on. If it wasn’t one option is to make an effort to get it implemented.
d. Work with Congress to create a Heritage Lottery, or other, Fund to give grants to a wide range of projects involving the local, state, regional and national heritage of the U.S.
The Heritage Lottery Fund of the United Kingdom was created by Parliament in 1994 to distribute a share of the money raised by the National Lottery for Good Causes. To date the Fund has awarded 3 billion pounds to more than 15,000 projects across the UK.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Trust for the National Mall
Briefing Statement: Trust for the National Mall
Bureau: National Park Service
Issue: Public and Private Partnership Aimed at National Mall Parks, District of Columbia
Park Site: National Capital Parks: Central, White House Liaison Office
Date: November 3, 2003
Background: This is a summary of the status of activities related to the 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 to restore, revitalize and maintain the National Mall parks (see attached boundary map), improve communication with the communities they serve, increase park volunteer efforts, and raise private monies to supplement funds appropriated by Congress.
· 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 proposed 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 as a world-class urban outdoor space. The Trust seeks “to provide for the restoration of the National Mall 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 focused on the development of a General Agreement to work together to create an endowment for the National Mall. The vision for the endowment will be described in an illustrative presentation that will assist individuals in visualizing and understanding the benefits of implementing approved or future plans by the NPS. It is intended to include 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 from each of the organizations met on May 1, 2003 and signed the General Agreement which outlines:
goals for collaboration
conditions for success
key parties are to be involved; how they will be involved; and when they will be involved
the boundary area
the nature of partnership
Current Status:
Since May 1 NPS, the Trust, and the Greater Washington National Parks Fund, Parks Council have been preparing a Fundraising Agreement and Plan for a
$200 million fundraising campaign. The National Park Foundation is no longer willing to assist this effort since they feel that it will compete with their NPS fundraising.
The agreement is under final review by the Solicitor’s Office and is expected to be ready for approval on, or before, November 18, 2003.
The Fundraising Plan identifies a number of short-term actions to be taken by the Trust and NPS including:
1. Fundraising for the illustrative presentation; the pool at Constitution Gardens; the reflecting Basin adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial; and the processional entry from the reflecting Pool to the Lincoln Memorial.
2. Public announcement of the fundraising agreement with NPS, before the Trust for the National Mall’s Board Meeting on Nov. 18, 2003, or whenever the agreements are signed.
Informal notification of key contacts on the Hill prior to any announcement of this effort.
In addition, the Trust has indicated that they will be meeting with Ann Heiligenstein of the White House on November 6 to request that Mrs. Bush serve as the honorary Chair of the Trust for the National Mall fundraising campaign.
Finally, the National Coalition to Save Our Mall has requested the Trust and NPS to co-sponsor a December 11 forum, at the National Press Club, on “A Conservancy for the National Mall”. The Trust and NPS agreed that the idea of co-sponsoring a forum on other conservancy models is not appropriate at this time.
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 and Recreation—National Park Service, National Capital Region DRAFT Meeting Summary
July 10, 2003
Prepared by Glenn Eugster, NPS-NCR 7/29/03
Attendees: NPS: Gentry Davis, Terry Carlstrom, Sally Blumenthal, Steve Syphax, Gayle Hazelwood, John Parsons (part), Patrick Gregerson, Glenn Eugster; DC: Neil Albert, Michael Lucy, Ted Pochter, Leslie Shinn; Other: Steve Coleman, Washington Parks & People, Destry 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:
Steve Coleman offered to explore options for the group to share a List Server
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.
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.
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.
Steve Coleman agreed to make a formal request to NPS for the NCR park needs assessment.
Ted Pochter agreed to contact Jim Sherald of NPS to discuss further collaboration with Casey trees.
Gayle Hazelwood agreed to organize a work session on the Watts branch effort.
Sally Blumenthal agreed to work with John Parsons and report on the NCPC Board Retreat.
All the participants agreed to seek and provide comments on the Ft. Circle Parks Plan.
Leslie Shinn and Patrick Gregerson agreed to continue to work on GIS Mapping.
Terry Carlstrom agreed to get back to DC with a person that will serve as the parks, open space and recreation area liaison.
Glenn Eugster agreed to help convene a meeting to discuss the proposed 2004 parks, open space and recreation area conference.
Leslie Shinn will send the group a DC Parks Master Plan Request for Proposal
Seamless System of Parks in Washington, D.C.
A Draft Proposal to Create a Seamless System of Parks in Washington, D.C.
Prepared by J. Glenn Eugster, NPS-NCR
April 4, 2003
On March 4, 2003 Terry Carlstrom, Glenn Eugster, and Patrick Gregerson of NPS met with Neil Allen of the District, Steve Coleman of Washington Parks & People and Destry Jarvis of Outdoor Recreation & Park Services, to discuss current and future collaboration between the District and the NPS for the planning, management and use of City and National parks within the District. Following the meeting, additional discussions were held, with input from Michael Lucy of the District, to further develop this draft proposal.
The goals of the proposed partnership include:
Improve efficiency and quality of management of our operations.
Improve quality of services to the residents/ visitors.
Improve communication.
Demonstrate the seamless system approach to parks, open space and recreation areas.
The proposed priority tasks proposed for future collaboration include:
Make Watts Branch a “Seamless Park System Demonstration Project”
The project would be a partnership between DC, NPS and Washington Parks & People. It’s purpose is to demonstrate ways to erase park boundary-lines in order to improve park and recreation management and engage community leaders and residents in restoration, maintenance, volunteerism, friends-raising, fundraising, and stewardship.
Apply to joint presentation at the National Partnership Conference in Los Angeles, CA in November 2003.
The presentation would feature a panel on Watts Branch, Casey Trees, Geographic Information Systems, the Greater Washington National Parks Fund, and other park, open space and recreation area efforts within the District of Columbia at the National Partnership Conference.
Regularly exchange information, reports and studies.
Agree to routinely share various reports, studies and other information between NPS, the District and Washington Parks & People.
4. Use Geographic Information System (GIS) information to assess opportunities for collaboration.
Use existing NPS and DC GIS information to overlay DC and NPS parks to identify and assess opportunities to collaborate.
Discuss Casey Trees inventory.
Discuss current and future tree inventory, maintenance and planting efforts.
Communicate regularly with each other and the DC community.
Hold periodic “ Washington, D.C. Park Forum”, brown-bag
lunch meetings, to share relevant information, discuss issues and opportunities, and discuss the status of this effort.
Jointly work together on periodic events to build
awareness of park resources and programs, and engage a broad cross section of the community, and outside volunteers, in park activities.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)