Tuesday, August 2, 2011

GWNP Fund Parks Council Meeting


GWNP Fund Parks Council Meeting
January 31, 2003 at Manassas National Battlefield
Draft Minutes

Attendees: Sutton, Sturm, Hale, Campbell, Lawler, Belin, Cucurullo, Brandt, Calhoun, Line, Eugster

Nancy Sturm indicated that the Council Charter calls for Council Meeting minutes to go to NCR park superintendents following every meeting. She suggested that NPS should prepare these minutes. Bob Sutton agreed to send reports following each meeting and Glenn Eugster agreed to take notes and provide Bob with a draft of the minutes of the meeting.

Karen Cucurullo indicated that she was on a 120-day detail to Central and doing partnership work.

The meeting began with Hedrick Belin of NPF explaining his role with fundraising. Hedrick indicated that he was helping with NPF Place-based activities including Glacier, the African-American, Outside Las Vegas, NY-NJ Harbor and the GWNP Fund. He mentioned that his role is to help, as Jay Vestal did, Nancy Sturm with the GWNP Fund.

Hedrick mentioned that he was involved in helping the Glacier Fund with a three-year plan they have laid out and that expects to be able to help GWNP Fund with lessons learned from other areas. He’d also like to share what we are doing with others.

Nancy Sturm cautioned the group about the transferability of lessons from other areas.

Nancy Sturm presented the group with a report on the GWNP Fund’s activities. She indicated that over the past 5-6 months that she has been focusing on operating funds and getting Trustees appointed. Her goal is to secure $145,000 of operating funds by June 30, 2003. These funds will supplement the LBJ Grove Loan that the Fund received.

Nancy told the group that she sent 35 letters out to corporations, foundations and individuals. She said that she was working on “long-term cultivation” but it was a “different time for fundraising now”. She noted that Trustee Bob Peck was helping with fundraising contacts.

Nancy indicated that she was working with Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Rumsfeld, and Ms. Wexler to identify Trustees for the GWNP Fund. She reinforced that “it takes work to attract them”.

Nancy mentioned that she was talking to folks to get lists to do targeted mailings. She told the group that the GWNP Fund was at the printer and that she was looking for a person in each park to make sure that the material will be displayed and presented. She promised the brochures “next week”.

Karen Cucurullo said that each superintendent needs to identify a point person to help with the display and distribution of the brochures. She suggested that NPF do a presentation at the Region to let people know the importance of this effort. It was mentioned that Nancy and Hedrick were scheduled to talk with the superintendents at their February “Cluster Meeting”.

Nancy indicated that she was also doing targeted mailings to the NPF list. She also noted that George Cook, a Trustee?, introduced her to the CEO of Colonial Parking Co. and they will do a mailing about the fund to their 60,000 customers. There also may be an opportunity to use advertising space on the parking garages to publicize the fund.

Nancy mentioned that she was contacted by the Wolf Trap Foundation, even thought they are not a member of the GWNP Fund. She indicated that Wolf Trap was interested in doing “mutually beneficial efforts” and would share their ticket list. Wolf Trap, according to Ms. Sturm, will talk to Superintendent Crockett about featuring Wolf trap and GWNP Fund literature and linking web-sites.

Nancy indicated that the GWNP Fund logo was approved. She shared a copy of the logo which featured a slogan, “Support National Parks in Your Backyard”. The slogan was used to help Catoctin with a “short-deadline” for a public service announcement for the local Business Gazette. It wasn’t clear from the discussion whether the slogans were approved or not for future or broader use.

Nancy indicated that NPF had assisted NCR Parks with another “random act of kindness”. NPF assisted with a donation of 46 mountain bikes from Ford Motor Co.????. 20 bikes went to C &O, 20 to Rock Creek; 5 to Catoctin; and 1 to the Potomac Heritage Trail.

She mentioned that the “Ranger Registry” debuted within the region. The registry offers donors the opportunity to contribute to NCR park projects in the $400-500 range. The registry is being piloted nationally within NCR.

Nancy indicated that she was disappointed that we had “missed the season” because of review delays. Seven of NCR’s twelve participating parks are pursuing the registry and additional information is available at: www.gwnpf.org


Nancy indicated that the GWNP Fund has received eleven gifts totaling approximately $2,500. One of the gifts was for $1,000. She also indicated that all of the trustees agreed that they will donate to the fund. So far, three have made donations, two at the $1,000 level.

Nancy indicated that the Trustees had met on December 11 and indicated that they “really do want to see the parks”. They indicated that they would like to have a series of “get to know the park events”. One of these events has been scheduled—on February 27 the George Washington Memorial Parkway is sponsoring a park event for the Trustees at the Arlington House.

Other possible events that Nancy mentioned include: something at Manassas, Kenilworth Gardens, Piscataway Park and a possible Skipjack boast ride, and an Anacostia canoe ride.

Nancy explained that these events are a way for the Trustees to get to see the park, invite their close friends and corporate contacts. The intent is “to tantalize and create a kernel in their mind”. The goal of the events is to “cultivate donors and get folks involved before asking them for money”.

Hedrick urged the Council to “find a number of avenues to reach and engage individuals”. As examples he mentioned the website, the Colonial Parking effort, and pro-bono advertisements. He said that the key to fundraising is to build capacity, get more Trustees on board, and build donor base of individuals.

Joe Lawler asked Nancy and Hedrick whether GWNP Fund would be a membership organization? Nancy said that there will be a $35.00 annual membership fee, with increasing fees for better services.

Nancy made a point to share “the other side of things”. She indicated that some times interest in the funds takes a lot of time. She illustrated her point by using an example where the White’s Federal Enviuronmental Manager contacted GWNP Fund and asked for “banking assistance” for the “Recycle Today” event on the National Mall.

Nancy continued her report and told the group that she had talked to a merchandiser about using products to generate revenue. She said she had talked to the company that did the DC “Party Animal” posters and the Cherry Blossom Festival. Nancy mentioned that she will be talking with GSI and Parks & History about these ideas. She thinks that the battlefields will be the first priority for this type of revenue generation.

Kevin brandt reported on the work of the NCR Messaging Team. He said that logos were being developed for other parks and expects “a family of 20 images”.

He noted that Mather and the HFC were interested in using the GWNP Fund graphics style. After some discussion the Council decided that they should not be part of this contract since Soupon was providing us with services at a very reasonable rate.

Bill Line mentioned that there would be a “Media Plan” to unveil all of the logos to the area. He indicated that the Washington Post.com would be a web-partner and publicize each of the parks. Bill said that the editors of the Post were discussing placing articles on park work to position stories and a better understanding of the traditional role of philanthrophy.

Bill also said that he was talking to Wendy Reeger of Channel 4 about her being a volunteer for a week and linking her time to National Parks Week.

Joe Lawler encouraged the Council to “get the GWNP Fund logos on every park website”. It was mentioned by Kevin Brandt that the Messaging Group was developing guidelines that they will bring back to the Council for review. The group has contacted Steve Peddleman about a www.gwnpf.org link to all of the NCR park units.

Glenn Eugster gave the Council a brief report on—insert notes.


Nancy mentioned that there was a proposal coming

WAYS TO MAKE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NPS AND NPF WORK MORE EFFECTIVELY


WAYS TO MAKE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NPS AND NPF WORK MORE EFFECTIVELY
Prepared by Glenn Eugster, NPS-NCR 9-17-02


Ongoing Activities
NPS-NCR has developed a positive and productive relationship with the National Park Foundation (NPF). Past activities that have contributed to our working relationship include:

Regular Dialogue: NCR regularly invites NPF to attend
Superintendent Cluster Meetings to discuss new programs, collaborative work, and topics of interest to NPS.

Collaborative Design: Everyone in the NCR fundraising
process is a participant and a designer. NCR and NPF have collaborated to design and create the Greater Washington National Parks Fund. The Fund provides an excellent framework for communication and collaboration, including:

· Parks Fund Council: The four elected superintendents and the Regional Director serve on the Council. The Council works directly with NPF’s designee, the Executive Director of the Fund, on the overall fundraising effort. Individual parks can continue to work with NPF on specific park fundraising initiatives.

· Consensus-building: Both in the design of the Fund, and while working on specific projects, NPF and NPS use a consensus-based approach to make collaborate and make fundraising decisions. The collaborative processes good ideas that are supported by NPS and NPF.

Training: NPS-NCR, NER and SER have worked with the
National Partnership Office and NPF this year to help share information on the art of partnering and fundraising within the National Park Service. The East Coast In-Park Partnership Seminar, held in May 2002, was used by NPS and NPF to share perspectives from the parks, park-partners, Regional Offices, Headquarters and the Hill on best practices and innovations.

· Park-Specific Fundraising: NCR and NPF are collaborating on park specific fundraising efforts related to the C&O Canal; the Monumental Core; NCR’s Tree & Shrub Replacement Fund; and the Georgetown Waterfront Park.





NPS Partnership Council: NCR and NPF, as well as park
superintendents, partnership coordinators, and national program managers, are working together on the newly created NPS Partnership Council. The 24-member Council, which includes all levels of NPS and NPF, is intended:

· To advise and make recommendations to the Associate Director, Partnerships, Volunteers, and Outdoor Recreation, on a range of issues related to partnerships; and

· To facilitate open communication and dialog among the field, regions, directorate, and the National Park Foundation, other foundations, friends groups and partners.

Specifically the Council is using a consensus-based approach to a variety of partnership activities, including the following key ingredients to fundraising.

· To help better define partnership and fundraising roles and responsibilities. Fundraising and partnerships require a strong role for parks, regions, headquarters and the Foundation;

· To revise Director’s Order #21; and

· To increase and improve communications between all levels of the NPS and NPF to help share success, keep people informed, and provide equal access to opportunities.


New Activities
Future activities that are being planned by NPS and NPF include:

Legal Framework: NCR and NPF are planning to discuss NPS
fundraising authorities and policies with the Department of Interior Solicitor’s Office to improve the overall understanding of NPF fundraising activities, the legal framework we work within, and the needs of the agency.

2. Ways to Help: NPF and NCR are planning to develop a brochure that will describe “10 Ways NPS Can Help NPF Fundraising for National Parks”. The pamphlet will outlines things that NPS can and should do to help NPF with fundraising (i.e. Interpreter’s could point visitors to NPF; update web-sites to improve recognition of NPS-NPF relationship; etc.).

3. Questions and Answers: NPS, regionally and nationally, and NPF have discussed developing a set of Questions and Answer (Q&A) handouts for important fundraising topics including the “Proud Partner Program”. Q&A handout of this type would focus on developing answers to frequently asked questions about current fundraising efforts. The answers in the handouts would be illustrated by examples of successful collaboration. This information, which will be widely shared, is likely to clarify existing policies, improve the overall understanding of current programs, and provide park managers and staff with consistent interpretations of what we can and can’t do with park partners.

National Parks America Tour Concept


National Parks America Tour Concept
DRAFT November 29, 2005
Updated January 23, 2006

National Parks America Tour: a volunteer driven initiative designed to provide National Parks with manpower resources to complete important projects and engage communities in the National Park experience.

I. Concept

Goal
* Do something meaningful in a National Park(s) that engages as many people as possible

Location
* Can be single park or multiple parks

Partners
* NPF
* Unilever
* Wal-Mart
* Take Pride in America
* National Park Service

Schedule: Day/ Month/ Season (From perspective of the Tour partners)
* Saturday events are positive
* Times when children are in school are better
* Partners are flexible—provided we select early enough to secure our proffered date.

Schedule: Day

* Start at 8:00 am
* Catered breakfast, coffee, fruit and bagels
* 9:00 am short program with political people
* Work
* 12:00-12:30 pm Great American Picnic to Salute America’s best—its volunteers. Event includes: Suave, Snuggle, Hellman’s, Wishbone, Lipton tea, Lever 2000, Dove and Breyers products.
* Either call it a day or return to work

Strategy
* Hook-up with radio to get word out. PSA’s run as a hook.
* Leverage branded-side through awareness in stores (i.e. bicycle maps in Wal-Mart Stores)
* Wal-Mart Foundation typically gives park(s) $1,500; Unilever typically gives $3,000 to park (Unilever willing to stretch dollars to more than $3,000)
* Possible donation of recycled wood.
* Volunteers are given tee-shirts, work gloves, etc.
* Showcase end use or products
* Link event(s) to Wal-mart location (website is down, locations unknown)

II. NCR Survey Responses

Participants: Would you and your staff like to participate in the National Parks America Tour in 2006?

NCR VIP Program: Yes! I think it would be a great opportunity to increase volunteerism in NCR parks.

Monocacy : I don't think Monocacy would be in a position to participate, given that we'll be in the middle of constructing the new visitor center along with several other large projects. Maybe in a future year . . .

National Capital Parks-East: Yes.

Manassas: Yes.

Rock Creek Park. No.

Prince William Forest Park: Yes.

Projects/ Activities: If you would like to partner in 2006, what would you like to use this partnership for?

NCR VIP Program: I would poll the parks and see what their greatest needs are. There are always trail projects, watershed cleanups, buildings or other structures to be painted, etc. We could combine this with Public Lands Day or an annual watershed clean up or.....

PRWI: Cleaning assistance needed to ensure a spring opening of the 4 cabin camps (100+ historic structures) that are available to rent by the public from May - October. The camps are closed throughout the winter months so a thorough sweeping and wiping down of mattresses, along with rehanging the screens is needed before spring opening. Also, smoke detector batteries and burnt bulbs must be replaced in each cabin.

The timeframe for cleaning these cabins is April 10 - April 22. The park could use up to 30 volunteers on any given day(s) during that timeframe. Volunteers would need to be at least 15 years of age and bring along with them brooms and gloves. Other supplies needed would be bleach (we use a 10:1 mix when wiping down mattresses) and dust masks. Light bulbs and smoke detector batteries could be donated as well.

The benefit of this project would be to provide a clean, safe historic
camping experience in one of the park's historic cabin camps for the many groups and families that utilize these camps. Nearly all of the buildings we will be cleaning are listed on the historic register. Come out and help us prepare for another opening of these camps for visitors.

CATO: Trails work and painting projects.

Manassas: Help with a fences.

Schedule/Timing:Is there a good time of the year for this collaborative effort? (For example, in May, around Founder’s Day, before or after Public Lands Day, etc.)

Note: June 17, 2006 is the date of the Tour.
* Coordinate with 2006 Healthy Parks-Healthy Living/ Trails Forever event.
* March, May and September best for CATO. Would like to do something during the week.
* PRWI wants to do this April 10-22, 2005
* There is an annual Potomac Watershed cleanup in April.
* I am not sure of any specific region wide volunteer activities around Founder's Day—In August, would also be a good way to highlight/combine NPS history with a service learning project.
* Public Lands Day is in the Fall.
* There is an international coastal clean up in September that parks get involved with, as well.
* There are projects that could tie in with Bridging the Watershed.
* Manassas can’t do weekends

III. Options

Single-park options(Select one):
a. Prince William Forest Park Cabin Camps clean-up
b. Manassas boardwalk
c. Catoctin trails work and painting.
d. Others?

Muliple-park options (Select one):
a. Cluster 3 or more parks for trail restoration projects
b. Cluster 3 or more parks for Potomac River Clean-up
c. Focus on linear park units—C & O Canal, Potomac Heritage Trail, or George Washington Memorial Parkway bike path.
d. Cluster 3 or more parks for projects as needed.
e. Others?

Multiply and Subdue the Earth



Multiply and Subdue the Earth
Working Notes by J. Glenn Eugster

Ian McHarg once wrote:

The primacy of man today is based more upon his power to destroy than to create.

His religions, philosophies, ethics, and acts have tended to reflect a slave mentality, alternatively submissive or arrogant toward nature.

The origin for this attitude traces back to the Book of Genesis; Chapter 1: 26 which says:

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and the creatures that crawl on the ground.

God blessed many saying, be fertile and multiply: fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion
Over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all living things that move on the earth”.

It seems as if many people took this direction quite literally. However, more recently, in a message on Biodiversity an Element in Efforts Against Hunger (October 15, 2004) Pope John Paul II said:

It is urgently necessary in many areas to revise the strategy which has thus far been followed in order to protect the immense and irreplaceable resources of the planet and to achieve not only sustainable development but, above all, development with solidarity.

Solidarity, properly understood as a model of unity that can inspire the action of individuals, government authority, international organizations and institutions, and all members of civil society, strives for the proper growth of peoples and nations, and its objectives is the good of each and everyone.

Solidarity… safeguards the various ecosystems and their resources, the people who live there and their fundamental rights as individuals and community members.

The mandate that the Creator gave to human beings to have dominion over the earth and to use its fruits (cf Genesis 1:28), considered in the light of the virtue of solidarity, entails respect for the plan of creation through human action that does not imply challenging nature and its laws, even in order to reach new horizons, but on the contrary, preserves resources, guaranteeing their continuity and availability to the generations to come>

Multiobjective river corridor management

Ms. Danielle Nierenberg
National Park Service
Rivers, Trails & Conservation
Assistance Program
Washington, D.C.
August 8, 1995
Dear Danielle,

This is in response to your call of July 24 and your interest in multiobjective river corridor management. I regret not getting back to you sooner. We are in the midst of planning for our 1996 budget and I wasn't able to get to your request when I hoped to.

You indicated an interest in determining: 1) where the multiobjective river corridor management concept originated; and, 2) background information on the origin of the McDade-Udall
Multiobjective Rivers proposed legislation.


Multiobjective Approach

My sense is that locating the exact origins of multiobjective river corridor planning and management is a substantial task. Despite the innovations of the last ten years, my research, indicates that the multiobjective river approach has been around for more than 30 years.

The earliest printed material on the concept of multiobjective river management, which I have found, reflects the environmental corridor work of Phil Lewis at the University of Wisconsin; a regional planning commission greenway effort within the Boston, MA. metropolitan area; the non-structural flood loss reduction work of Rita Barron and the Charles River Watershed Association on the Charles River in MA.; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water resources planning work of the early 1960's; the river corridor and landscape protection work of Charlie Morrison of New York State; and the land advocacy work of Rutherford Platt, then of the Open Lands Project in Illinois.

Each of these individuals, and organizations, appeared to be doing work in the 1960's which reflected the principals of multiobjective river corridor management. Although each of the noted efforts does


not include a comprehensive approach to multiobjective, each initiative clearly illustrates the desire to recognize, protect, and use multiple values and functions of river corridors, watersheds, open spaces, or other landscape systems.

Time doesn't permit me to look within my files for specific references, however, I'm sure most of these efforts are familiar to you and Chris. The U.S. Army Corps document is from 1962 and may
be available from Kyle Schilling, at the Virginia Water Resources Research Office, or from Curtis Clark, formerly of the COE and now at the USEPA Wetlands Office in Washington, D.C.

The work of Phil Lewis is quite widespread and some of his early studies, for specific geographic locations are most interesting. The metro-Boston greenway work, also from the early 1960's, came from some H.U.D. "701 Open Space Planning" work on New England river corridors.

Rita Barron's work on the Charles, and Charlie Morrison's work on the Upper Delaware River in NY and PA, are both pioneering multiobjective efforts which have been well documented. Although both have retired, their work is still available from their former employers.

Each of these efforts, plus others such as Dr. Charles Wharton's "Southern River Swamp", Ian McHarg's work on the Potomac, EPA's early "Emerging Greenway Opportunities", and the greenline parks movement work of Kevin Coyle, Chuck Little and Jon Kusler, helped to shape the approach we developed for river corridor planning and management in Philadelphia in the late 1970's. The "Riverwork Book", eventually published by NPS in the early 1980's reflected a hybrid methodology aimed at the integration of environmental, community and economic values and functions.

Interestingly, since you asked about his role in multiobjective, Jon Kusler's direct participation with the NPS rivers work did not begin until the mid-1980's when Jon and I tried to merge river and wetland protection interests at a conference at Silver Bay, NY. Although Jon's 1976 work with Chuck Little, as part of the National Urban Recreation & Open Space Study, had contributed to our thinking about multiobjective efforts from a landscape protection perspective, it was nearly ten years before the first river corridor collaboration. My sense is that Kusler's multiobjective work may have also been influenced by Lewis and Platt.

While the Riverwork concept was aimed at river corridor protection, we used the multiobjective approach to implement heritage corridors, conduct related-land strategies for NPS units and design greenline park projects as well.



-2-

McDade-Udall Legislation

The McDade-Udall multiobjective river legislation grew out of these members interest in river protection and their perceived desire to do something to advance the National rivers protection movement. Both McDade and Udall had been supporters of wild and scenic river protection work and the Rivers & Trails Program.

Congressman McDade's Upper Delaware River effort incorporated multiobjective concepts into this privately owned, locally managed National Scenic and recreational River. Although an area of great controversy for sometime, the intent of the Upper Delaware effort was to simultaneously protect the environment, be sensitive to community needs and allow people to prosper.

After the successful completion the Upper Delaware River project, using the Rivers & Trails Program, Congressman McDade requested NPS, through Director Bill Mott, to hold workshops with river conservation leaders across the U.S. to discuss ways which the federal government could assist states, local governments, and private groups to protect and revitalize river corridors.

The process which was used, and a documentation of the results of these meetings---including the proposed legislation, should be available from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of NPS. Robert Potter, Mark Apel and Martha Crusius, were three of the staff who assisted with these meetings. I believe Martha and Robert are still with NPS, and should be able to help with some of the background. A draft report summarized the results and process.

Despite strong public support for the McDade-Udall Bill, the proposed legislation was not given any attention by the Chairman of the Authorizing Committee, Bruce Vento. Although a long-standing advocate for federal river protection, Vento was a staunch opponent to the idea of cooperative river protection which attempted to meet multiple objectives. Strongly believing in strict protection, through outright federal and state land acquisition, he commonly referred to these types of efforts as "approaches of political convenience".

Unfortunately, despite the continued interest in this concept, the multiobjective bill was never reintroduced. Congressman McDade turned his interest in multiobjective river management toward the Lackawanna River within his district in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, while Congressman Udall's experienced serious health problems.

I hope these somewhat rusty reflections are helpful to you. Your task is an important one, for there is enough of a history to the



-3-

multiobjective approach to gain some experience for the future. My you be successful in your search.

Sincerely,




J. Glenn Eugster
Associate Director
Ecosystem Management








































-4-

Mesa Verde National Park

Mesa Verde National Park Cultural Center and Visitor Information/ Orientation Facility Fact-Finding/ Gap Analysis
Prepared by Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director, Partnerships Office, National Capital Region

Final Report October 20, 2004

Introduction

On March 9 Director Mainella requested the National Capital Region to assist the NPS Washington Office with an internal review of the fundraising campaigns for a variety of partnership construction projects greater than $5 million. The Mesa Verde Cultural Center partnership construction project in CO, within the Mesa Verde National Park (MEVE), 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 Mesa Verde National Park Cultural Center and Visitor Information/ Orientation Facility fundraising campaign, 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
Chris Niewold, Acting Chief, and Shannon Stone, Partnership Staff, WASO Partnership Office
Superintendent Larry Wiese, MEVE
Beck Debs, Lead, Construction Group, IMR
Betty Janes, Assistant Regional Director, MEVE
Rick Frost, Public Affairs Specialist, IMR
Greg Kendrick, Program Manager, Heritage Partnerships, IMR

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: Mesa Verde National Park

Project Summary: Visitor Information/Orientation Facility and Mesa Verde Cultural Center

The Visitor Information Facility will be located just off State Highway 160, at the base of the Mesa and will be the first point of contact and information about Mesa Verde National Park. The Mesa Verde Foundation (Foundation) will be the primary park partner. The Foundation intends to donate lands upon which the Visitor Information Facility will be constructed and to raise funds for its construction. No additional federally appropriated funds would be sought for planning, construction, operations, or maintenance of this facility. The following functions are being considered for the Visitor Information Facility: restrooms; entrance area with information for tours and ticketing; multipurpose area; exhibit area; Mesa Verde Museum Association sales area, offices and warehouse; general building support; outdoor information/orientation plaza; utilities; parking; and infrastructure. The Visitor Information Facility will be approximately 5,000 square feet or about $6 million gross.

The Regional Office also supports adaptive reuse of the Far View Visitor Center to serve as a Cultural Center. Current building conditions, ADA accessibility and antiquated mechanical and electrical systems will be addressed as part of this project. The Cultural Center is proposed to acquaint visitors with the history, archeology, cultural and natural resources of Mesa Verde and the Four Corners Region. Anticipated new functions at this site would include a museum and tribal exhibit, Foundation office space, and outdoor plaza and staging areas. Funding for the Cultural Center would also be solely through partnership donations from the Mesa Verde Foundation and approximately $3 million gross. No additional federally appropriated funds would be sought for planning, construction, operations or maintenance of this facility.

A memorandum of intent for the design and construction of the Visitor Information Facility and the adaptive reuse of the Far View Visitor Center as a Cultural Center has not been prepared for either project. Neither proposal has been formally approved by the Regional Office nor reviewed by the Development Advisory Board (DAB). Once IMR, MEVE and the Foundation leaders have developed defined project proposals, the June 2004 Director's guidance for partnership construction projects will be followed. During the initial phase of this process, MEVE and the Foundation will sign a Memorandum of Intent, which will be reviewed and approved by the Regional Office. The DAB will likely review the concept in 2005.

A complimentary but separate building, the Curatorial Facility, is to be funded by the NPS through Line Item Construction (LIC) with a current estimate of $11 million in FY2010. Initial planning is being funded through a FY2004 planning earmark of $600,000 from Congress. Part of the planning will include development of a master plan, which will identify other functions and related structures, in addition to the Curatorial Facility, to be located at the base of the Mesa.


Name of Partner: Mesa Verde Foundation, established in 1997.

PMIS: # To be updated pending regional director's approval.

Estimated Gross Cost: Estimated total costs to plan, design, and construct, and adaptively reuse facilities, and to create an endowment for the Cultural Center and Visitor Information Facility are estimated to be $10 million.

Targeted Completion Date: To be determined. The Cultural Center and Visitor Information Facility will be started only when all public and private funds have been secured.

Breakdown of Funds Needed:
Private and Donated Funds: TBD. Estimated at $9 million for both
projects, excluding the endowment. The precise costs and whether there will be one or two fundraising campaigns for these projects will be determined through a fundraising plan being developed with the assistance of the Ketchum Group. All fund-raising agreements must contain the provision that the Foundation will not seek congressionally appropriated funds for the project.
State and local funds: TBD
Operations Funds Needed: TBD. Once the project is clearly defined
and agreed upon, future operational needs, if any, will be calculated.
Cost-Offsets: TBD. All possibilities will be explored once the
project is defined. An endowment for O&M estimated at $1 million will also be raised by the Foundation


Chronology

1920’s Superintendent J. Fewkes – Determines the need for an
information orientation facility at the entrance to the park.
1952 Master Plan Outline calls for information, administration
facility at the entrance to the park.
1957 Mission 66 Development Plan – Calls for facility at the
entrance to include a Visitor Center, Headquarters and Administration
1979 General Management Plan – Calls for multiple components at
the entrance to include a Visitor Center, Headquarters and Curation
1987 Tony Anella provides a design concept for a campus approach
to all needed facilities at the entrance to Superintendent Robert Heyder.
1988 Development Concept Plan – Lays out potential placement of a
Visitor Center, Headquarters and Curation at the entrance authored by Michael Snyder.
1993 Deb Frye, Rocky Mountain Region, provides a design concept
for a Visitor Center under Acting Superintendent Terry Gess.
August 12, 1993 National Park Foundation passed a resolution
supporting a critical need for Visitor Center Facility at entrance in order to better inform and disperse visitors.
1994 Tribal Involvement and consultation – Continuing with design
ideas provided by 24 tribes
1995 Agreement signed by Director Roger Kennedy, Regional Director
John Cook, Superintendent Wiese, President of Mesa Verde Museum Association to help develop mission statement, vision, model, concept design for the entrance facility, and creation of Foundation Board to assist with fundraising.
1995 Nationally and Internationally known designer Murray Gelberg
helped to redesign a downsized facility and keep needed elements, and create initial models. Work was completed pro-bono and reduced the size to 130,000 s.f.
April 1996 On-site meeting held at Mesa Verde with Regional
Director Cook; Deputy Regional Director Bob Reynolds; Rick West, Director of the Museum of Native Americans/ Smithsonian; Steve Wilson and Tim Kelly of National Geographic; Boyd Evison, Destination Cinema; Michael Musgrave, O’Brien Kreitzburg; Larry Martinez, Bigelow and company. Regional Director continues support and recommends moving ahead with planning and review of funding options.
1997 Mesa Verde Foundation Created.
December 7, 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between Mesa Verde
National Park and Mesa Verde Foundation. The agreement notes that specific work projects or activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, property, or specific fundraising campaigns and activities between the parties to this MOU will require the execution of separate agreements, contingent upon the availability of funds appropriate by Congress or available from funding from the Foundation. The Memorandum, which was approved by MEVE and the Foundation, expired on November 22, 2003 and was renewed in August 2004.
1999 Curatorial Facility placed in Line Item
2000 National Curators’ Report indicates no opportunities for
placement of three million object collection in regional proximity of park. Should be held at park. Twenty-four tribes vote to hold collection at Mesa Verde.
2000 National Renewable Energy Labs involvement starts with project
and continues to present.
2000 Value Analysis completed with support of Rick Turk, Denver
Service Center, Intermountain Region, Park, Tribal representation.
2000 J. Crockett Design Concept provided from Value Analysis still
recommends visitor center, curatorial, administration.
2001 Curatorial Facility removed from Line Item
2002 Concept Plan/EA/FONSI – Recommends retaining and
consolidating the Visitor Center and Curation at the entrance and a partnership with Mesa Verde Foundation to fund and build on Mesa Verde Foundation and National Park Service land.
2002 Intermountain Region suggests: Phase to compete for Line
Item funds. MEVE responded with 3 components and all 3 were submitted separately in PMIS.
2002 Curatorial Storage proposed for funding in Line Item.
2002 WASO construction responds, no Line Item funding until land is transferred
March 12, 2003 Letter from John W. Low, Chairman of the Mesa Verde
Foundation to the IMR Regional Director indicating that they own 37 acres of property in the County of Montezuma, CO and that "Mesa Verde Foundation is willing to convey the Property to the Mesa Verde National Park at such time as the NPS has received funds for the planning, design and construction of a curatorial center on the Property and has committed such funds for those purposes".
2003 IMR and MEVE sign a Project Agreement
June 2003 All Indian Pueblo Council (19 Pueblos) passes resolution
supporting construction of Mesa Verde Research and Museum Collection Facility and Cultural Center at entrance to Mesa Verde National Park.
2003 Curatorial Storage–Component is funded in Line Item for 2009
–later changed to construction date of 2010.
2003-2004 Initial Workshops: During 2003 and 2004, six detailed
workshops were held with Intermountain Region, Denver Service Center, Mesa Verde National Park, Mesa Verde Foundation, AJC, representatives from City, County, State, Federal, Tribal and academic organizations. Reports were produced on each workshop.
July 2003 Visioning and Programming Workshop
August 2003 Site Master Planning and Sustainability
September 2003 Selected Preferred Site Plan and Developed Design
Guidelines
January 2004 Meeting with Regional Director Steve Martin, Regional
and Denver Service Center staff, the Foundation members, MEVE staff to discuss reducing scope and costs for project.
February 2004 Life Cycle Cost Analysis with National Renewable
Energy Labs
March 2004 Mesa Verde Cultural Center--Project Definition. Program,
Master Plan, Design Guidelines, and Life Cycle Cost Analysis, prepared by AJC Architects
April 2004 MEVE reduces and reprogram project elements
May 5, 2004 Data Sheet submitted to NPS WASO
June 2004 Meeting with Regional Director and staff, the Foundation,
and MEVE to reduce size, scope, and cost of project and to discuss next steps.
July 15, 2004 Draft Fundraising Analysis for MEVE. The Mesa Verde
Foundation has received the results of their Feasibility Study from Ketchum. The Foundation, MEVE Park Staff and Regional Directorate met on June 17, 2004 to discuss the capital project to be accomplished and begin preparation of partnership agreement documents.
August 2004 Memorandum of Agreement between MEVE and Foundation renewed.
September 2004 Tribal Consultation Workshop Design Vocabulary
September 2004 4th Annual Mesa Verde Foundation “Soukinii” Fundraiser event.
September 2004 Draft Memorandum of Intent to Conduct a Partnering Program
October 2004 Meeting with Regional and Deputy Regional Director to
include the adaptive reuse of the Far View Visitor Center to include certain functional components of the originally proposed Cultural Center, including museum and tribal exhibits, Foundation office space, and an outdoor plaza and staging area.


Background

Director Roger Kennedy, Regional Director John Cook, Superintendent Wiese, President of Mesa Verde Museum Association signed a written agreement in 1995 to help develop mission statement, vision, model, concept design, and creation of Foundation Board to assist with fund raising. This agreement did not specify the square footage of the Center.

In 1995, nationally and internationally known designer Murray Gelberg was asked to design a downsized set of facilities, including the Cultural Center, Park Headquarters, and the Curatorial Facility, and keep needed elements and create initial models. Work was completed pro-bono and reduced the size of the project to 130,000 s.f. (interior and exterior spaces). Many of these functional elements and associated spaces have now been eliminated in order to reduce project size and cost.

During April 2003, Regional Director Karen Wade and Superintendent Wiese signed the project agreement for the Curatorial Facility.

Additionally in 2003 and 2004, using the services of AJC Architects, a full-service architectural firm, through an Indefinite Quantities (IDIQ) from DSC, a series of design charrettes were held to help decide plans for the center. A "life cycle charrette" was used to look at the design, construction and operation of the center holistically. This approach, noted as unique by Superintendent Wiese, received "good partnership support" from National Renewable Energy Labs who helped to pay for the charrette.

The Superintendent indicated that the approach used to design the Cultural Center and Curatorial Facility was based on the needs of the park, community and Tribes. Designers spent time with all of the staff, the Tribes, and input from other community groups as well. Rick Cronenberger, IMR Historical Architect, and Jim Crockett, a DSC architect, were assigned to assist with reducing the footprint to realistically address user and operational needs, using their service-wide experience.

In 1997, the Mesa Verde Foundation incorporated as a, a 501(c) (3) non-profit to help the park raise funds to construct the Cultural Center and to acquire lands upon which the Cultural Center would be located. The Foundation purchased 37 acres of land at the base of the Mesa, just off Highway 160, for a proposed Mesa Verde Cultural Center construction area as one of its first efforts, with the concurrence of the Regional Director.

As the park, region, and Foundation continued to work together, they came to a common understanding regarding the size and scope of the project. A meeting was held with the Regional Director’s staff, the park, and the Foundation to review the project in light of the new Partnership Construction Process, to discuss downsizing the cost and size, and to establish parameters.

The Foundation agreed to raise private and donated funds to assist NPS with specific phases of the plan. With continued assistance from AJC architects and the NPS, the Foundation has successfully reduced the size and cost of the Cultural Center while preserving the original intent of the project. The design process for the Cultural Center has identified critical elements, which could become smaller as the concept moves into the construction process. The current estimates are $9 million for the Cultural Center and Visitor Information Facility, including exhibits as well as $1 million for operations and maintenance account.

Ketchum, a recognized leader in the fundraising and donor stewardship industry, has prepared a Fundraising Feasibility Study for the Foundation. The Ketchum consultants think that it will take 3-5 years to raise private funds for the projects and that the Foundation will be able to raise the targeted $10 million for the project. The fundraising campaign would like to focus its efforts on 2006, which is the 100th Anniversary of Mesa Verde National Park.

On October 8, 2004, the Superintendent of MEVE met with the Regional and Deputy Regional Directors to re-define the development package to incorporate the adaptive reuse of the Far View Visitor Center as a Cultural Center. The need for clear project definition with careful focus on functions was emphasized. The meeting defined project components to include three separate but related facilities: A Curatorial and Research Facility; a Visitor Information and Orientation Facility; and to adaptively reuse Far View Visitor Center as a new Cultural Center. The meeting also established functional components for each site and set clear size and cost targets for the three separate facilities.


Assumptions

MEVE and IMR are supportive of the proposed stand-alone Curatorial Facility. The park has received a Congressional funding earmark for planning and they are going ahead with initial planning. This is being done in concert with IMR, DSC, AJC Architects, MVF and park staff.
The re-defined project has not yet been vetted through the affiliated tribes, and has not yet received written endorsement from the Foundation. However, it is anticipated that both entities will fully support the described program.
The NPS Curatorial Facility is scheduled in the Line Item program for 2010. However, if it can be funded sooner, MEVE and IMR are supportive and prepared to move ahead.
The Foundation has agreed to turn over land to the NPS through a minor boundary adjustment.
The Foundation is looking at the development plans for the Curatorial Facility as a way to help and act as a springboard for their fund-raising campaign. The Federal commitment for the Curatorial Facility is a cornerstone of private fundraising support.
The Foundation is continuing with the friend-raising and fundraising for operational expenses and expects to establish an endowment to help cover operational and maintenance costs of the partnership projects.


Issues and Concerns

Size and Scope of Proposed Buildings
Over the history of this project NPS headquarter, park and regional
office and Congressional leaders have had different perceptions and concerns about the size and cost of the proposed Cultural Center.

NPS Washington leaders believe that the park and regional office managers haven't run the buildings proposed for Mesa Verde Cultural Center through the NPS models to determine whether the size and the scope of the proposed facilities is appropriate.

In 2003, Mesa Verde and IMR applied the new NPS architectural models to
ensure the size of each component was in keeping with curatorial storage, visitor center and administrative facility sizes. Additionally, they were the test case for the national curatorial model. The application helped to reduce the size and cost of the construction projects.


MEVE and IMR, in collaboration with the Foundation, have gone to
considerable lengths to reduce the size of the building program while maintaining the concept and the functions of the Cultural Center and Visitor Information Facility.

Perception of phasing and details of development:
Interviews with NPS-WASO and park managers revealed that there were
different perceptions about the relationship between, and sequencing for, the three separate construction projects: the Curatorial Facility, Cultural center, and Visitor Information and Orientation Facility. Although everyone agrees that the three projects are inter-related but separate projects, more planning needs to be done to clarify the functional relationship. NPS headquarters leaders indicated that "There is no single document describing the proposals or the words that describe elements--the terminology". The lack of access to this basic information makes communication between the park, region, headquarters and Congress difficult and sometimes confusing.

Information About the Project Proposal:
Leaders from NPS headquarters indicated that at times they have been
surprised by news about this project. According to Associate Director Masica, "Two years ago Senator Campbell was going to hold a hearing to purchase land for the project. No one in WASO knew what this was about."

Superintendent Wiese agreed that information about the project is
sometimes problematic. He said, "When there are five links in the communication-chain it changes the message. Often NPS people that aren't involved in this project are providing leaders with incorrect information". Superintendent Wiese went further to say, "There has to be one person that distributes information. There needs to be a single voice for all entities to speak with. Typically that is the superintendent. It should be the superintendent that disseminates info to all key parties".

Partnership and Fundraising
NPS and the Foundation do not have a approved a Fundraising Agreement
and Plan and have not developed a Donor Recognition Plan.

Despite the 1998 Memorandum of Agreement between MEVE and the Mesa Verde Foundation private fundraising for this project has not been authorized by NPS, as per the requirements of DO-#21.

Leaders from the park and the region are concerned about the consistency of guidance that they receive from headquarters about fundraising and partnerships. "DO-21 is flexible but not certain, said one regional leader". The Superintendent said, "It seems as if guidance from Washington is constantly changing and it makes it harder for our work to be consistent with policy".

As an example, the Superintendent expressed concern about the uncertainty of NPS guidance for "Donor Recognition". He said "John Lowe Foundation, Vice President wanted to know if there are naming opportunities? The Regional Office would approve this idea but it is not clear whether it would be approved at the WASO level".

The Superintendent noted that "the news of the Oneida Donation was filtering to other Tribes. What happened at VAFO recently has Stirred controversy and could impact Tribes who are considering donations to other parks such as Mesa Verde".

Headquarters officials indicated that Mesa Verde fundraising
proposals have been inconsistent. The total cost of what NPS and private funds are needed has varied and basic documents have not undergone headquarters review and approval.

The Superintendent agrees with this statement, but suggests that they have not initiated this information, but rather have responded with information known at the time. Because the size of the Visitor Information Facility and Cultural Center continue to be reduced, costs and support funds will also continue to change until we have a final agreed upon plan. Until that time, the two projects are still in its conceptual phase.

Park and regional leaders indicate that the Mesa Verde Foundation
has received the results of their Fundraising Feasibility Study from Ketchum. The study supports the Foundation’s ability to raise the targeted $10 million needed. The Foundation, MEVE staff and the Regional Directorate met on June 17, 2004, to discuss the capital project to be accomplished and begin preparation of partnership agreement documents.

The Superintendent said that there are plans this fall (November 7-8, 2004) for a NPS-Foundation Retreat, which was recommended in the Mesa Verde Fundraising Feasibility Study. Ketchum will be doing a pro-bono workshop for Foundation and park leadership to help organize the campaign and communications, and to develop a strategy to approach donors. They will also discuss how to establish and add to the Foundation's Board of Directors and members and develop a fundraising plan for NPS approval.

Superintendent Wiese said, "We want to look at this together, decide how everyone will be involved and describe the monetary commitment. This campaign requires a collective understanding, time requirement and commitment to tasks. We want to bring the Foundation Board together as a team." Once this is complete, they will follow the June 2004 Director's guidance for partnership construction projects and Director's Order # 21 for fundraising and donations.

Sustainable Design
The two partnership projects incorporate concepts and designs that
will reflect environmental responsibility and energy efficiency, as well as NPS’ ethic to lie lightly on the land, be visually compatible with natural surroundings, and relate to both the prehistoric and historic architecture. The adaptive reuse of the Far View Visitor Center, a potentially eligible historic structure, is in keeping with the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act as well as Director’s Order 28. Recent meetings and charrettes have proven very positive involving the National Renewable Energy Labs, MEVE staff, Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde Foundation, Regional, and DSC personnel, including financial support for charrettes by the Labs.

The Mesa Verde Foundation has completed a Fundraising Feasibility
Study. The Mesa Verde Foundation received a response on their fundraising feasibility study for the Mesa Verde Cultural & Visitor Center in March 2004. They are using this information to work with the Park and finalize the project, then will work on each of the agreements and documents identified. The Board has approved the results of the study report that indicates that "Mesa Verde Foundation can successfully conduct a major capital campaign with the objective in the range of $10-15 million in private funds". The fundraising study views a commitment of $11 million from the Federal government as a cornerstone of the campaign.


Options:
The following options can and should be taken to address the Mesa Verde National Park and Cultural Center and Visitor Information/ Orientation Facility fundraising issues and concerns within the identified assumptions.

1. Description of Project
a The Superintendent of MEVE, in cooperation with the Mesa Verde
Foundation, should prepare a Concept Report and Project summary.

2. Review and Approvals of Agreements and Plans
a. NPS headquarters should request IMR and MEVE to bring the Mesa Verde Cultural Center and Visitor Information/ Orientation Facility fundraising campaign into compliance with DO-21.
As soon as possible IMR and MEVE should prepare a NPS Fundraising Plan and Donor Recognition Plan.

b. IMR and MEVE should continue to comply with the provisions of the
June 2004 Director's Guidance for Partnership Construction Projects and DO-21 prior to any actions or NPS approvals.

3. Communications within NPS
NPS headquarters, IMR and MEVE should establish officials and central
points of communication, and a Communications Plan, for activities and distribution of information related to the two partnership projects and that the region and the park need to operate closely as the project moves forward.

The Superintendent of MEVE and the Regional Office believe that "there needs to be a central person in each region that distributes information to WASO".

The region and the Superintendent agree that "the superintendent needs to be the focal point for discussion regarding the partnership projects". MEVE and the Foundation, with direction from the National Partnership Office, should develop a Communications Plan, which addresses all aspects of communication with the public and establishes protocol for internal communication within NPS, the Department of Interior and Congress. The plan, as required by the Director's June 2004 guidelines for partnership construction Projects, should also address external communication with communities, partner organizations and the public.


NPS headquarters should require the Superintendent of MEVE, and all
other superintendents of partnership construction projects, to complete and regularly update on a regular basis (to be determined) a Project Data Sheet. NPS headquarters should "design and implement a computer program to provide for an easy way for superintendents to communicate with WASO about their projects".

The data sheet would describe where the project is in terms of design and planning, compliance with NEPA, fundraising, civic engagement, etc.

Superintendent Wiese suggested that WASO have a distribution link to others and that it should be kept fairly controlled. He encouraged the use of a single statement/ format that is understandable.

c. The National Partnership Office should consider ways to communicate with NPS parks and park-partners to avoid incorrect information about fundraising and donation projects and issues (i.e. Oneida donation).

National Guidance & Park Assistance
a. The National Partnership Office should complete the revisions to DO-
21 and the DO-21 Reference Guide and make that information available to NPS parks, regional offices and partner organizations. The guide should provide parks with approved examples of appropriate "Donor Recognition" alternatives.

The NPS Office of Park Planning, Facilities and Lands should identify
people that can help with the thought-process for designing sustainable buildings and facilities. NPS could have a subcontractor develop a list of people, within and outside NPS that are credible that managers can use to query on sustainable design.

Meridian Hill Park

DRAFT Summary of April 16, 2004 Meeting between Adrienne Applewaithe-Coleman, Neil Albert, Michael Lucy and Steve Coleman re: Meridian Hill Park









Neil proposed a three-way partnership for Meridian Hill to help accomplish what is envisioned for the park.

Adrienne noted that $ 4.2 million in FY 2004 was going to the site and $1-2 million in FY 2005 was possible.

Steve said that Washington Parks and People sought a partnership to make Meridian Hill come alive, sustain the site, provide programs and make the park vital. He quoted Terry Carlstrom and said "we should get the eraser out and achieve a seamless system".

Steve suggested a 3-way partnership to boost stewardship and investment

Adrienne indicated that due to the construction the park will be a construction zone that will limit what can be done over the next two years.

Adrienne suggested that Steve submit a proposal to us that would describe the partnership he envisions.

Neil said that he hoped we would work together to have staff in the park and program activities with other facilities at 15th and Girard--a city park. He hoped that we could direct people between the two parks.

Steve said that he hoped that the partnership would sustain the park. Specifically he wants to:
Increase volunteers
Access resources at the Visitor Center
Access resources of BID
Program activities in parts of the park that aren't under construction.
Create a place that is vital, appreciated--to avoid gang activity, and discourages graffiti.
He wants a mechanism for volunteers

Neil said that he was interested in information on our construction plans. He also said that he wants to jointly provide summer entertainment and wants to work with NPS on Carter Barron. He said that we should look at all of our properties and think about the seamless system idea.

Additional discussion drifted to:
Ft. Circle Parks and ways we can work together
A visit to DC/ NPS parks by Director Mainella and Chris Jarvi
Donated funds for Meridian Hill that Steve is still "sitting on".

The funds that Steve has for Meridian Hill evidently are for: the visitors center; play area; and the Joan of Arc Statute.


My sense of what I hear was that:

Meridan Hill will be a construction zone for the next two years and increased collaboration will be difficult if not impossible.
Adrienne and her staff don't want to do an agreement with Washington Parks & People because of past conflicts and current concerns about what Steve and Destry are saying about NPS.
Neil Albert does want to work with NPS and link some of our sites in various ways using information and collaboration. Neil is also interested in ways to work on performances with us at Carter Barron.
There are a number of things that the Rock Creek Park staff is doing now with Washington Parks & people. This collaboration can continue without an agreement.
Information seems to be of interest to everyone. Perhaps Rock Creek Park could make more information available to Neil and Steve about the work underway at Meridian Hill so that accurate information will get out to people.
A visit by the Director, or Jarvi would serve us well if it was focused on the DC-NPS partnership rather than just a small portion of it.
Washington Parks & People should provide NPS with the funds it is holding for Meridian Hill before anything further is considered.