Clyde's Restaurant Group

To: Colonel Charles Fiala, Jr.

District Engineer

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 1715

10 South Howard Street

Baltimore, MD 21203-1715

Re: CENABOP-RMS (Clyde's Restaurant Group)99-00914

Dear Colonel Fiala:

This responds to a verbal request made on January 5, 2001 by George Harrison of your staff to Glenn Eugster of this office regarding CENAB-OP-RMS (Clyde's Restaurant Group) 99-00914-15. Mr. Harrison requested us to provide you with: 1) additional information on the role of the National Park Service (NPS) in the Potomac American Heritage River (AHR) initiative; and 2) information on whether other floating restaurants will be permitted within or adjacent to the Georgetown Waterfront Park administered by this agency. As you are aware, we have submitted other comments on this project.

First, Mr. Harrison asked us to clarify our leadership responsibilities for the Potomac American Heritage River and our role in relation to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's (USFWS) comments on this proposal.

NPS has been established by the AHR Interagency Committee, in 1997 as the Sponsoring Federal Agency for the Potomac AHR. The AHR Interagency Committee, which was created by the President's Executive Order #13061, is represented by 12 agencies, Councils and Departments, including the Department of the Interior. Both the Department of the Interior and the AHR Interagency Committee approved the NPS leadership role. As such, we coordinate federal agency activities associated with the Potomac AHR.

It is important to note, in terms of the USFWS comments on this proposal that the AHR initiative does not create any new regulatory requirement for the applicant to meet in the Clyde's restaurant application process. There is no basis for your agency or the USFWS to use AHR as a regulatory requirement in this decision-making.

The framework that is used to guide the AHR initiative is found in the President's 1997 State of Union Address; Executive Order #13061; the September 1997 Final Federal Register Notice on AHR; and the various guidance documents approved by the American Heritage Rivers Interagency Committee.

In 1998 we entered into a formal agreement with the Friends of the Potomac, the lead-community partner organization for this initiative, to implement this effort. That agreement specifies that "this initiative will create no new regulatory requirements or rules for property owners or state and local governments". This commitment is consistent with the intent of the AHR initiative and similar language found in the following approved AHR Interagency Committee documents and the Final Federal Register Notice.

"The AHR initiative will create no new regulatory requirements or rules for property owners or state, tribal or local governments". Source: American Heritage Rivers brochure, American Heritage Rivers Interagency Committee.

"There is nothing in the AHR initiative that will alter any obligation of the federal government to comply with NEP or any other statutory or regulatory requirements. Nothing herein shall create or alter any rights duties, obligations, causes of action or defenses, implied or otherwise, of any person or entity". AHR Final Federal Register Notice September 17, 1997

Mr. Harrison also indicated that the U.S. FWS had concern that this proposal, if approved, would set a precedent and he asked us to indicate whether or not other floating restaurants can be approved within the area we administer.

We believe that there is absolutely no danger of other restaurants being proposed or approved for this area because the official NPS plan for the Georgetown Waterfront Park precludes new restaurants other than the one proposed.

Further, it contemplates rowing as the focus activity of the park with several boathouses clustered above Key Bridge. No architecture downstream of the floating restaurant will be permitted in what will be a park designed as a landscaped, strolling garden.

The enclosed plan for the Georgetown Waterfront Park, approved in 1987 by the District of Columbia, the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office, and the National Park Service, describes a land use and land management plan for this shoreline area. The plan does recommend the Clyde's Floating restaurant. However, it does not provide for, or permit, any additional restaurants along the Potomac shoreline or on NPS property.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide you this information for your decision-making. If you have any questions, please contact John C. Parsons, Associate Regional Director for Lands, Resources & Planning at (202) 619-7025.

Sincerely,

Terry R. Carlstrom

Regional Director

National Capital Region

enclosure

NPS Northeast and National Capital Region Agreement

AGREEMENT

Between the

NORTHEAST REGION and the NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

Of the

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

July 2001

I. Preamble

This Agreement provides for cooperation between the National Park Service (NPS) Northeast Region (NER) and National Capital Region (NCR) in carrying out NPS roles in association with the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). It updates and replaces a prior Memorandum between the parties on the same.

II. NPS Commitments to the Chesapeake Bay Program

The 2,500 square-mile Chesapeake Bay is one of the nation’s premier ecological and cultural resources and the focus of one of the nation’s largest, oldest and most challenging watershed restoration initiatives. The Chesapeake Bay Program, a multi-state, intergovernmental partnership, coordinates overall policy, strategy, science, information and implementation efforts to restore and protect the water quality and living resources of the Bay and its estuarine system.

The CBP operates under the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-457) and Chesapeake Bay policy agreements signed in 1983, 1987, 1992 and 2000 by the Governors of the State of Maryland and the Commonwealths of Virginia and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The purpose of the CBP is to foster working relationships among local, state and federal government and the private sector to restore the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay.

NPS participates in the CBP through a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III signed in 1993 (as amended 1996) and also carries out its responsibilities under the Federal Agencies’ Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan (FACEUP) signed in 1998. Through each of these agreements and through the legal requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, NPS is committed to a range of specific actions to support and advance implementation of CBP goals.

Through the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-312), NPS is further committed to leading and coordinating development and management of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network in cooperation with the CBP and other partners. The Gateways Network operates as one key approach for implementing CBP goals.

III. The NPS Chesapeake Bay Program Mission

As manager of 61 park units and 286,000 acres in the Chesapeake watershed, as the nation’s primary public conservator of cultural resources and a key conservator of natural resources, as a provider of outdoor recreation opportunities, and as interpreter of America’s stories and special places, NPS brings special expertise and a focused mission to the Chesapeake Bay Program.

The National Park Service manages special places of the Bay watershed at National Parks. In addition, NPS partners with other special places such as Chesapeake Bay Gateways and communities along the Potomac American Heritage River. Together these constitute an extensive and vital system of public recreation and interpretation infrastructure for connecting people with the Bay, its tributaries and stewardship. Through these places, NPS and its partners help tell the Chesapeake story in a compelling way, expand opportunities to experience Bay-related sites and areas, demonstrate exemplary stewardship in the community and help to build involvement in local conservation and watershed restoration. NPS also helps carry the Bay conservation message beyond these places into other communities and landscapes to help broaden involvement in watershed conservation actions.

To achieve this, NPS works with its partners to provide and enhance:

• effective, collaborative and visible Bay interpretation;
• access to Bay related resources–through establishment of water trails, improved access points and more access on federal lands;
• volunteer programs that involve people in particular places and specific stewardship works;
• celebrations of the region’s natural and cultural heritage;
• heritage conservation efforts that help maintain a sense of place in Bay communities and, where appropriate, support their tourism and other economic development efforts;
• publicly accessible examples of successful individual, agency and community stewardship; and,
• collaborative research on issues of urban ecology to advance best management practices on urban federal lands within the Bay watershed through the Center for Urban Ecology and Cooperative Ecosystem Study Unit.

IV. Strategies

A. NPS Chesapeake Bay Program Office

The National Park Service maintains an administratively established Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) within the EPA CBP facilities in Annapolis, MD. The purpose of the NPS CBPO is to:

• represent NPS on the Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation Committee and other CBP committees, subcommittees and work groups;
• coordinate NPS efforts to implement relevant CBP initiatives described in the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement and FACEUP (and as mandated by the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 2000);
• manage and sustain all Network-wide operational aspects of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, in cooperation with the Network Working Group and designated Gateways;
• provide or broker a range of technical assistance services designed to: (a) aid in the development of parks and designated Gateways as models of good conservation stewardship, Bay watershed interpretation, public access and community outreach; (b) assist parks in achieving CBP goals and commitments; and (c) advance citizen-based conservation activities in priority locations focusing on habitat restoration and protection, reducing non-point source pollution, conserving cultural and historical values, and improving land use practices;
• lead, assist with, or coordinate with other NPS planning activities in the Chesapeake Bay area, depending upon project location, skills and availability of staff and dollars, and the most effective management strategy for each planning effort; and
• communicate Chesapeake Bay Program information to parks and offices of the National Park Service and park information to the Chesapeake Bay Program.

The NER and NCR support the CBPO in the following ways:

1. The NER provides positions, administrative supervision and assistance and overall budgetary management for the CBPO;
2. Based on existing authorities and CBP commitments which create an on-going CBPO operational responsibility, NER and NCR jointly support appropriation of a dedicated base operating budget for the CBPO;
3. On an interim basis, contingent upon available appropriations, NCR contributes funds from regional and national program sources to support one and a half of the CBPO positions, including salary, benefits, travel and staff support, up to $135,000 per year.

B. Annual Priorities Planning

The CBPO, NER and NCR will jointly collaborate to develop an annual plan of NPS strategic Bay watershed priorities designed to coordinate activities between NCR and NER (such as integrating NPS programs, fund-raising and outreach) which address Bay watershed and National Park issues. This plan will attempt to reflect priorities from major NER, NCR and CBPO activities focused on the Chesapeake watershed, including the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, Potomac American Heritage River, Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, Chesapeake Bay Countryside Stewardship Exchange, and Chesapeake Bay Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, recognizing that many of these initiatives have their own leadership groups which set annual program priorities.

In addition, the CBPO will also develop an annual work plan for CBPO activities in collaboration with the NER and NCR directorate and with input from the EPA CBP Director. For CBPO work managing the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, this workplan will incorporate the priorities developed through the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Working Group established by the CBP.

Such plans will be completed prior to the annual allocation of funds and approved by the NER and NCR Regional Directors.

C. Communications Protocol

The parties agree upon the following protocol for communications:

1. To facilitate an optimum level of communication among the parties, the primary point of contact for NCR will be the Assistant Regional Director for Partnerships and the primary point of contact for NER will be ______________.
2. The CBPO will conduct bi-annual briefings on Chesapeake Bay issues for the NER and NCR Regional Directorate, including proposed strategic and work plans and results; bi-annual briefings will be set for April and October, unless otherwise agreed upon.
3. Notwithstanding the protocols described below, assistance requests which are made to NCR parks will be made through the NCR primary point of contact.
4. The CBPO will distribute monthly activity notes and upcoming events to NER and NCR program offices and parks in the Bay watershed, and in addition, CBPO will ensure regular distribution of the EPA CBP Bay Salients to the NCR directorate; and
5. The NER and NCR primary contact and program offices will keep the CBPO informed of projects, planning efforts or other undertakings that might affect Chesapeake Bay watershed issues and/or CBPO activities and will provide appropriate opportunities for consultation or comment. The CBPO will likewise keep NER program offices and the NCR primary point of contact informed of CBPO and EPA CBP activities and provide opportunities for consultation or comment.

D. Chesapeake Bay Special Resource Study

The CBPO is responsible for managing the Chesapeake Bay Special Resource Study (SRS), which will evaluate and recommend whether NPS should manage a Chesapeake Bay park unit or have a physical presence within a public facility. In making such recommendations, the SRS will further define a vision and mission for NPS relative to the Chesapeake Bay. CBPO will collaborate with NER and NCR at key points throughout the SRS planning process and in the development of final recommendations and ensure that the NER and NCR Regional Directorates are updated and briefed on the status of the SRS.

V. Duration

This Agreement becomes effective upon the date of signature by both parties and continues until modified by mutual consent or terminated with 60 days written notice by either party. We agree to report in April 2005 on the progress made in fulfilling the commitments in this agreement, and to consider at that time additional commitments or revisions.

Agreed by:

_____________________________________ ______________

Marie Rust, Regional Director Date

Northeast Region

_____________________________________ ______________

Terry R. Carlstrom, Regional Director Date

National Capital Region

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 15^th 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.

Greater Washington National Parks Strategy

Greater Washington National Parks Strategy

Meeting with Greg Moore

February 5, 2004

Attendees: Cathie Barner; Bob Sutton, Greg Moore; Overman; Cucurullo; Noel; Hale; Hansen; Brandt; LeBel

Cathie Barner:

Worked with Trust for Public Land on Weir Farm; Heritage Partners. Had design and build responsibility.

Doug Overman:

Fundraising background, community volunteer stewardship programs. Worked in Philadelphia and with travel and tourism interests.

Bob Sutton: Need to get GWNP logos protected.

LL Bean maps, seed money and NPS reps noted.

Mentioned Hike, Bike, Ride and Paddle trails effort

Sue Hansen: Cooperating Association noted. Mentioned plans to switch from Parks & History to Eastern National.

Sutton: Wants cooperating association to help with fundraising.

Greg Moore: He met with CA leadership early-on to discuss fundraising activities.

Revenue generation—from earned income, helps awareness that leads to volunteers, grant-making and donations.

This is the path of delayed gratification—you need some revenue to build capacity.

The first steps need to be agreed to. Images were done because parks were confusing. Bring family together, create and identity. Build a platform of awareness. When they were eight years old they did a regional survey to decide if the icons worked. Awareness, sense of park family. Need financial fuel to make images visible. Developed a marketing plan for images—interes tin your National Parks. The pitch was for people to give back to your National Parks.

Greg has a campaign write-up which is available.

Cathie

Contain your regions funds in the region. Create a local link to insure local ownership and accountability. Build on that loyalty.

Greg Moore

Friends groups that are sustainable have an operating income. Yosemite—license plates. Golden gate—bookstores, Alcatrz.

You can expect a downward spiral if the park staff support can’t be sustainaed.

Alcatraz—improved existing bookstores and saw an immediate impact.

1^st five years—get the agenda clear, serve the visitor, publish, get revenue generators in place.

Up to their 89^th year revenue was totally from bookstores.

Golden gate did a business plan for Alcatraz in the beginning. They developed a product-line for all tastes related to Alcatraz. Concession-free zone created. Blue & Gold Tours is their concessionarie.

Key ingredient—parks are a part of the quality of life.

Board needs to be from the community. Their volunteer network allows them to get anywhere in the region.

Initial Board—Formed around CA purpose. Expertise-based. These advisors are surrogate staff. President of CHron Books; Curator of the Historical Museum; Advertising and Marketing Exceuctive; etc.

Key question: How do we make our parks resonate with people? How do we create a network of friends?

Bill Line:

How did you communicate with the public?

Greg Moore:

Asked volunteers to take parks as our client. Worked was fueled by Trustees. They used artwork; ads, donated space. They relied on public service and space.

Transit advertising was used—got the corporate Board members to use their networks. Had the Deputy Publicist of the Chronicle on Board. Donated space. They stitched together a way to get the word out. They backed this up with a membership campaign.

2 year campaign to put the parks on the map—key message, without these parks your quality of life wouldn’t be as good as it is. You live in a National Park.

This work starts with a focus on places.

They did a membership organization after 6-7 years. Their approach is open door, grass-roots statement of philosophy. They got exposure through direct mail.

Small donors can surprise you ($15-550). They traded lists with organizations that have like minded members. This has produced a net return of $250,000.

They get one donor out of every 100 from direct mail. It is labort intensive; requires quality control; and requires a huge data bank. They currently have 13,000 members.

In the early years of this effort there was no-net gain, only investment. They have experienced a backlash against direct mail.

Yosemite, in contrast, has donors only. No promises of newsletter, etc. Individual donors are high. 70% and are key to sustainaing the organization.

Greg used Foundations to begin—short-term investment

Doug Overman

Associate members are key to a professional fundraiser.

Greg Moore:

Who are the regular users of the park? (i.e. Robin Williams at GOGA)

Stuffy boards versus Park boards with freshness. Their brand is the outdoor oriented civic cause.

John Hale:

What would you do if you started over again?

Greg Moore:

A bolder volunteer board recruiting. Initially they were hard working but insular. They would do more ambassador work

Cathie Barner:

They would spend more time communicating sites and organization. Look at newer park partners. In the Boston Harbor Islands Cathie helped to hire a firm to inventory all of the business opportunities for their alliance.

Doug Overman:

They would think more broadly, outside of the local area. Tap into people who care locally, regionally, and nationally.

Question: Have you used consultants?

Greg Moore:

Used management consultants as a pro-bono client. 4-6 people for 3 months to do business plans. Bridge Span group evaluated earned income opportunities.

They don’t use fundraising consultants—this is a bad approach. Expensive and not core to the team, can be disingenuous. They did a campaign feasibility study—they paid for it.

They have inhouse capaicyt for product development. Used Board and they have products on their website.

Your bookstores are the way to show the valley. Purchases are site specific.

They have a environmentally sustainable store. 80% of organic food sold. Two cafes, not a concession issue. Some concessions, ie. Muir Woods and Cliff House.

Greg contrasted the Warming Hut versus the Visitor Center for local outreach. They will share all best seller products.

The Warming Hut revenue goes into a Community Center.

JGE Question: What are some of the things that our 13 superintendents can do to create a synergy that would support our fundraising?

Greg Moore: Establish mutual priorities; staff ownership to support fundraising; long-term commitment for mutual benefitr. Otherwise a non-profit won’t get traction if the supers aren’t supportive.

The logos are a great signal.

Cathie Burner: It is important to have the same message.

Greg Moore: trails are a great choice. They modeled theirs after Acadia. It is a common asset.

They use targeted funds. For example, help grow Crissy Field, Edcuation Fund (Landmark and Habitat Funds). Make the funds broad enough to secure unrestricted funds.

Sue Hansen: How do we reach the users?

Greg Moore:

Most important assets are the icons. You have two audiences: outside visitors drawn to park assets; and local and regional audience—important part of the community, feels some ownership, opportunities for personal connections.

Many themes can be used (i.e. historic preservation, patriotic sentiment—right now, emblematic.

Sue Hansen:

Local visitation numbers are up outside of the beltway.

Greg Moore:

We have not created a national following for sites.

Doug Oberman:

National focus is the foundation with various themes (i.e. Pew-Youth, Civic Engagement; National Sceince Foundation (science-based education). Look at community foundation board.

Q: What about projects and quality control?

Greg Moore:

With your help we can hit a higher standard. You need to be known as a philanthrophic entity.

Greg Moore:

Early money: Earnerd income stream—critical piece for GOGA.

A predictable and durable income flow is required.

Don’t ask donors to pay for infrastructure

Community Foundation investments were used to help GOGA with start-ups.

Also used opportunity driven donors. These are worth considering because it could be important for establishing a relationship (i.e. a $15,000 donation turned into a $100,000 campaign for Civil War fortifications)

Cathie Barner:

You need a highly visible project within reach which demonstrates a partnership. Show-off the project, get it done, and establish a track-record.

Greg Moore:

Trails work is a great opportunity. It recognizes other partners and brings collective credit.

Park trails staff share accomplishments.

Recognize project as part of the campaign.

Cathie Barner:

The goals for the GOGA Trails Forever effort include: a volunteer program; good signage; picking one-site for construction and ribbon-cutting.

It is important to get the right team together. They recruited the right public and private people.

Greg Moore:

Ken Olsen at Acadia used a fee program to restore the trails and communicate to the users that we are sustainaing trails. What priority will you make the trails?

Cathie Barner:

Trails Forever at GOGA moved other trail projects

Greg Moore: It claimed credit for ongoing initiatives.

Sue Hansen:

What communications do you use to buy-in staff?

Greg Moore:

Initiative has a name; share credit; and show mutual benefit.

Cathie Barner:

Project managers and support staff form the core team from the key groups—look at disciplines needed. Extended team includes everybody. SWAT teams for specific tasks.

Use kick-off event (i.e. Trails Forever Tatoos). Don’t overwhelm yourselves. Keep it simple.

What are the engines that make the core team work. Bring in representatives for that engine. Communication representative needs a team to get work done—organize a workgroup.

Develop a logo for the initiative. A Rabbit was an alternative to trail user symbols. Use branding programs and iniatives. GOGA brought on three new people for this effort.

Bob Sutton:

Perhaps we could connect Ft. Circle plans?

Sue Hansen:

Perhaps we could re-direct YCC funds?

Greg Moore:

GOGA is doing innovative GIS work.

Bob Sutton:

What about Friends groups?

Moore

Many nonprofits called park-partners. Tentative relationships.

“When there are so many players and it gets confusing, I throw it i8n a bucket and call it a coalition”.

We are protective of our philantrophic indentity.

We need to communication, inform, give heads-up, before we engage in fundraising.

Small groups can help with volunteerism, small-scale fundraising.

SF is a highly coordinated philantrhophic community.