Twelve Things You Should Know About Director's Order # 21: Donations & Fundraising Prepared by Glenn Eugster, Partnerships Office, National Capital Region, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Twelve Things You Should Know 

About Director's Order # 21: Donations & Fundraising 

Prepared by Glenn Eugster, Partnerships Office, National Capital Region, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

September 7, 2004

Foundation Laws and Agreements

 Be sure to look to see if your enabling legislation speaks to donations and fundraising.

 Existing Cooperative, General or Memorandum of Agreements approved by NPS may provide important information that will influence your donations and fundraising activities.

 Don't forget to check NPS Management Policies 2001 for important information on what you can and can't do in your park or with your project.

DO-21 Checklist

1.   All fundraising to the benefit of NPS must be 

authorized in a written agreement (Section 4.2).

1.   When an NPS partner and an NPS manager mutually 

agree that a fundraising campaign is desirable, a formal fundraising agreement will be prepared…. 

The purpose of the fundraising agreement will be to identify:

1. roles and responsibilities of NPS and NPS partner.

1. The project(s)or program(s) to be funded and the 

priority order of funding, if appropriate;

The request for approval will be assessed according to the following criteria:

(c) an assessment of the magnitude of any future requirements on the NPS budget (Section 6.1)

1.     All fundraising campaigns require a fundraising 

plan. (Section 6.3)

1.     While the complexity of the plan (fundraising 

plans) will vary according to the magnitude of the campaign, in general the plan must detail techniques, timing, staff, needs (including the use of paid consultants), strategy, costs, and other components prescribed in the Reference Guide to Donations and Fundraising (Section 6.3).

1.   Single donations of $1 million or more require the

Director's approval. The Director may waive this requirement in the context of an approved fundraising campaign. (Section 3.2.2) 

1.   “The NPS will not accept a direct donation from 

persons or entities . . ." and lists 10 conditions that would make a person or entity a prohibited source. 

The NPS partner must first consult with the Director or Deputy, Regional, or Associate Director prior to soliciting, accepting, and recognizing any such gift that is intended for park purposes. In the consultation process, consideration must be given to how the solicitation, acceptance, and recognition of the donation will reflect on not only the NPS partner and the park/program it supports, but the entire NPS and the Department. " (Section 4.4.2)

1.     Where a source cannot give directly to the NPS, 

extreme caution must be exercised when the contribution is offered to NPS partners. (Section 4.4.2) 

1.   Donations will not be used to begin construction, 

or any phase of construction or other NPS project, where there are not sufficient appropriated and/ or donated funds in hand to complete the work so that it is usable (Section 4.3)

1.   A request for the Director's approval of a proposed 

fundraising campaign must include the following:

(2) the financial goal of the campaign (broken down by major components)

(5) any significant additional annual expenses for operations, maintenance, or staffing, or additional unfunded non-recurring costs that will result, the expected source(s) of funding and whether within current funding levels or proposed future increases (Section 6.1)

1. Feasibility studies, fundraising plans, and other 

requirements of the agreement must be submitted to the Director for approval (Section 6.1)

1. Park managers are strongly encouraged to develop 

a park-specific Donor Recognition Plan, and will be required to have one prior to the final approval of a fundraising campaign by the Director (Section 7.0)

1. The Associate Director for Partnerships,

Interpretation, Education, Volunteers, and Outdoor Recreation (ADPIEVOR) is delegated the functional authority to monitor compliance with the policies, procedures and standards set forth in this Director's Order; to establish those procedures or standards identified in this Director's Order; and to manage the NPS relationship with the National Park Foundation (Section 3.2.1)

NPS Partnership Construction Projects DRAFT SUMMARY SHEET

NPS Partnership Construction Projects

DRAFT SUMMARY SHEET

Prepared by Glenn Eugster, Partnership Office, 

National Capital Region, National Park Service

September 7, 2004 

I. PARK NAME/PROJECT NAME:  

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Short description of the project.

1. ASSESSMENT:  

A.  Status in PMIS and Level of Review: Describe the PMIS #, what is the latest update, and the level of review (park only, region, WASO, DOI)

B.  Summary of Approved Budget Program: Is the project identified in some official NPS budget program such as Line Item Construction?  Planning?  Etc.?  If NPS portion is part of a larger pot of money, then also describe the other partners’ contributions and any conditions that may apply to the use of the money.

C.  Planning & Compliance: Describe the level of planning and compliance completed for the project.

D.  Summary of Development Advisory Board: Describe when the project was considered and approved by DAB.  If DAB required additional work, when was it completed and resubmitted to DAB and approved.  As part of this section, also please provide the estimated gross construction costs.

1. Staffing and Operations Impact Analysis:  Has an analysis of the 

effect of the project on staffing and operations been completed?  Has an OFS increase request been prepared?  What priority does it have at the park and regional level?

F.  Summary of DO #21: Discussion of whether the requirements of Director’s Order #21 have been completed and whether there has been review and approval by both the National Partnership Office and the NPS Director.  Specifically address the following items:

1. Fundraising Agreement
2. Feasibility Study
3. Fundraising Plan

4. Donor Recognition Plan

G.  Legal & Ethics Review: Identify the level of legal and ethics review of the project, elements of DO #21, and agreement.

1. Congressional Review/Approval Process:  In the Appropriations 

Committee Reports, and in budget legislation over the past few years, we have been requested to seek Committee approval on construction projects that are $5 million and greater before we proceed.  Note whether any contact has occurred with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees staff and whether the project has been approved.

IV. OTHER INFORMATION:

1.  History of The Deal: Describe the history of “the deal” and how it morphed, if it did, over time.

2.  Public Awareness Process: What information about the project has been shared with the public?  Who knows about this project and what do they know?

3.  Other:

MESSAGING + FRIENDS-RAISING / PARTNERSHIPS = FUNDRAISING

MESSAGING + FRIENDS-RAISING / PARTNERSHIPS = FUNDRAISING

November 17, 2005

By J. Glenn Eugster

Messaging

WHAT IS IT?  COMPUTER JARGON?  BOUTIQUE HEADQUARTERS PROGRAM? SLICK MARKETING AND ADVERTISING?

SIMPLIST FORM: 

1. COMMUNICATIONS FROM ONE GROUP TO ANOTHER

• TOP-OF-THE-MIND CONSCIOUSNESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE NPS AND ITS WORK IN THE REGION AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY
• IMPROVE COMMUNICATION TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH COMMUNITIES AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE NEAR OR VISIT THE NATIONAL PARKS OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL

2) THE BASIC THEME OR THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOMETHING

• CONNECTING WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF NPS

ATTEMPTS TO GET AT WHO WE ARE AND WHO WE THINK WE ARE?

• PUBLIC DISCONNECT, HERE AND NATIONWIDE
• 379 NATIONAL PARKS OR 5 WESTERN PARKS, NATURAL WONDERS AND VACATION DESTINATIONS
• NO AWARENESS OF PROGRAMS IN AND VALUE TO MANY COMMUNITIES

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

• PUBLICALLY SUPPORTED AGENCY
• MORE THAN VACATION DESTINATIONS (ESSENTIAL VS NICE TO HAVE IF WE HAVE FUNDS)
• PUBLIC SUPPORT AND INVOLVEMENT IMPORTANT TO ACHIEVING OUR MISSION

WHAT IS THE GOAL?:  MOVE THE NATIONAL PARKS OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL TO THE FOREFRONT OF THEIR NEIGHBORS' CONSCIOUSNESS WHEN THEY THINK OF RECREATION, ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP, SUPERIOR EDUCATION, CULTURAL PRESERVATION, STEWARDSHIP, AND DIVERSE NATURAL RESOURCES--THE MYRIAD OF ELEMENTS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO AN EXCELLENT QUALITY OF LIFE.

WHAT IS THE FOCUS

1. OUR MATERIALS--SIGNS, PARK NEWSPAPERS, BUSINESS CARDS, ETC.

1. LOGO--ARROWHEAD USED INCONSISTENTLY

1. THIS PARK FOCUS--RARE CONNECTION TO OTHER PARKS, REGION AS A WHOLE OR NPS SYSTEM.

1. THE WAY WE COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE

WHAT ARE WE BE DOING?

WORKING WITH HEADQUARTERS, NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION TO:

1. UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE ALL MESSAGERS

"YOU CANNOT NOT COMMUNICATE"--PHIL MUSSELWHITE

1. STRESS THE NEED TO EMPHASIZE OUR SPECIAL PLACES; MEANINGFUL EXPERIENCES; AND PROTECTION

" THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CARES FOR SPECIAL PLACES SAVED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SO THAT ALL MAY EXPERIENCE OUR HERITAGE".

1. TEST MESSAGES WITH NCR FOCUS GROUPS

1. DEVELOP CONSISTENT VISUAL IDENTITY

1. INCREASE PUBLIC INFORMATION CAPACITY

1. STYLE GUIDE UNDER DEVELOPMENT.  TOOLS AND TRAINING TO BE PROVIDED

7) LINK TO FUNDRAISING EFFORTS

NOT ABOUT SPENDING MORE TIME OR MONEY BUT RATHER, LEARNING HOW TO DO THINGS WE ALREADY DO MORE EFFECTIVELY.

COMMUNICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR PLACES AND STORIES IN A WAY THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS, FINDS COMPELLING, AND SEES AS AN INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE.

WHERE ARE WE?

CLUSTER STEERING COMMITTEE MET AND DISCUSSED:

 DESIGN A VISION.  BROAD VISION OF WHO ARE AND WHAT WE DO.  CLUSTER STEERING COMMITTEE TO TAKE THE LEAD--DOUG FARIS TO FOLLOW.

ICONS/ LOGOS FOR MESSAGING AND REVENUE GENERATION

 DEVELOPING A STRATEGIC MESSAGE FOR NCR PARKS.

 PARKS TO PURSUE MESSAGING OPPORTUNITIES (I.E. SIGNS, NEWSLETTERS, BROCHURES, ETC.) SHOW SAMPLES OF ADS FOR NCR PARKS AND THE WHITEHOUSE LIASION BROCHURE. 

TRYING TO FUNCTION MORE AS A NETWORKED ORGANIZATION

Groups of companies, NGO's and governments are linking together for a common purpose or cause.  These groups are often referred to as networks, clusters, constellations, virtual corporations, or Networked Organizations (NO's).  These are groups of government or private sector organizations that are joined together in a larger overarching relationship.  Although these networks are being developed in all areas of endeavor, they seem appropriate and especially strong in environmental governance.

 REVISE THE NCR MAP.  HEADQUARTERS HAS PROVIDED US WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF FUNDS.  LL BEAN ASSISTANCE

 TIE NCR PARKS INTERPRETIVE STRATEGY TO MESSAGING EFFORT--FOR LONG-TERM MESSAGING.  

 REVISE THE NCR WEB-SITE.  

 NCF TRAINING CONDUCTED IN JULY

 LINK ALL OF THESE TO NCR FUNDRAISING EFFORT.  GREATER WASHINGTON NATIONAL PARKS FUND.

• CREATION OF FUNDS:  TREES AND TRAILS; UMBRELLA FUND WITH 34 SUB-FUNDS

• PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS:  UNILEVER-LIPTON—HEALTHY PARKS-HEALTHY LIVING; NATIONAL CHERRY BLOSSOM FESTIVAL; US PARK POLICE HORSE MOUNTED UNIT; ETC.

A Woodland Marriage of Sustainability and Preservation: Seeing the Forest and the Trees ROLF DIAMANT

DRAFT

A Woodland Marriage of Sustainability and Preservation: 

Seeing the Forest and the Trees

ROLF DIAMANT 

Superintendent, Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park,

National Park Service

Adjunct Faculty, Vermont Law School

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller 

National Historical Park

54 Elm Street 

Woodstock, Vermont 05091

Phone: (802) 457-3368 x15

Fax:    (802) 457-3405

rolf_diamant@nps.gov

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park’s 550-acre Mount Tom forest is one of the earliest surviving examples of planned and managed reforestation in the United States (Figure 1).  It is a living landscape exhibit that illustrates the evolution of forest stewardship in America, from the earliest scientific silvicultural practices borrowed from 19^th century Europe to contemporary practices of sustainable forest management.  The national park and the forest are a designated national historic landmark, the highest level of recognition in the Unites States for places that have national historic significance.  

Figure 1: Norway Spruce Plantation, Circa 1887 

The Park’s enabling legislation and General Management Plan provide clear direction to the National Park Service to actively managing the Mount Tom forest as a cultural landscape. In remarks appended to the legislation, then NPS Director James Ridenour underscored the importance of ongoing management of the forest: “… active forest management is an important part of not only preserving the resource but of interpreting the cultural importance of the landscape.”  

The overall character of the landscape – that carries the story of this significant forest history – is the result of years of forest stewardship. The remaining historic even-age, single-species (predominately) conifer plantations on Mount Tom provide an example of pioneering reforestation techniques in the 19^th century, and illustrate a continuum of forest management that followed in the 20^th century. These mature plantations have a distinctive, cathedral character that represents a moment in time, along an almost irreversible trajectory of forest succession. Today, all of these stands face strong competition from the natural re-growth of native hardwood trees.

In developing a management strategy for the Mount Tom Forest four key questions arose:

• Is it possible to transcend traditional perspectives where natural and cultural systems are not viewed as parallel, distinct resource sets that co-exist but rather imagine landscapes where the historic preservation perspective incorporates the role and influence of natural succession and ecological processes, and the natural resource conservation perspective is informed and shaped by a sense of history and stewardship?

• Can the forest’s historic character and its “readable history” be perpetuated in an environment of dynamic forest growth and change? 

• In what ways can public lands provide a vital and thoughtful venue for facilitating civil dialogue on paths to sustainability and stewardship?

Recognizing that the forest on Mount Tom is a dynamic resource with underlying ecological processes at work – as well as a significant historic resource – was a necessary step. It was decided that the park would adopt a framework that addresses preservation that includes both the broad landscape character influenced by some key features and the processes that shaped that character. Preservation in a living forested cultural landscape, by its nature, has to transcend the traditional concentration on “material integrity” and the focus on perpetuation of individual features. As the forest plantations eventually age and decline over time, management emphasis will shift to renewing broad distinctive historic patterns and characteristics of the forest as a whole, and retain the tradition of forward-thinking forest stewardship. 

Re-establishment of plantations in their existing locations with their even-aged structure would require management techniques such as over-story removal by clear cutting and removal of the existing natural hardwood regeneration through aggressive hand cutting or the use of herbicides. These management options run counter to the natural direction of forest succession, and therefore would be extremely costly and labor intensive and could have adverse ecological impacts.  This approach to preservation could also be considered at variance with a long legacy of progressive forest management. 

As an alternative, a program of selective thinning and harvesting will provide continuity of a traditional activity and be used as a tool to retain the historic character of the forest.  Most importantly, demonstrating sustainable practices creates an opening to forge closer ties between the national park and the forestry and woodworking community.  In particular, two new program initiatives are strengthening this important relationship: 

(1) Third Party Certification: The Forest will remain part of the American

Tree Farm system, continuing a certification tradition started when it was enrolled as Vermont’s first Tree Farm in 1956.  In addition, the park’s forest management will now be third-party certified through the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).  Third party certification is one of the fastest growing new developments in sustainable forestry.  

The purpose of certification programs is to provide market recognition of good forest management through credible, independent verification of best forest practices. Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NHP is the first U.S. national park or national forest to be certified and the very first public or private woodland certification based on preserving cultural as well as natural heritage values. All wood products from the park now carry the FSC label (Figure 2). 

Figure 2: FSC Brand

Continuing assessment of the park’s forest management through these two systems will publicly demonstrate the value of certification in encouraging sustainable management, value-added conservation, and public accountability. With accountability inevitably comes a heightened level of credibility and relevancy.  When it comes to making the often difficult choices associated with sustainability - the park claims no special exemption. The national park is subject to the same high standards of stewardship and transparency as are other certified forest land owners. 

. 

(2) Value-Added Products:  The park will also pursue management activities that

promote “value-added” products that will carry the certification label. These products have added economic value because of their association with place, heritage, sustainable management, local production, and craftsmanship. Management activities that support the creation of value-added products include sustainable timber harvesting, on-site milling and drying of lumber (see figure 3), and supplying local craftspeople and manufacturers with wood. 

Figure 3: Portable Mill

To interpret these important connections, the park is working to commission artist products made from wood harvested in the park including, bowls and pens which are for sale at the visitor center. Value added products produced by regional artisans, such as custom furniture and bowls, will be labeled twice – with a National Park label and with the “SmartWood” trademark of the Forest Stewardship Council (certifying the origin and chain of custody of every product.)  Wood from Mount Tom has already been used for furniture for the visitor center, rehabilitating historic buildings, and other park maintenance projects. Lumber may also be supplied to other NPS sites, state and local government agencies, and nonprofit organizations for unique preservation projects where work on historic structures requires large-dimension beams that are not commercially available.

Sustaining the places like the Mount Tom forest requires a careful balance between continuity and change. Many of the landscapes we cherish most were shaped by 19^th and early 20^th century use practices, which today in many places are no longer economically or socially viable. Landscapes like communities cannot be easily preserved as static artifacts. Consequently, the challenge for sustainability may lie not in recreating the past, but building on that past to craft a future for these important places.  

DELMARVA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FORUM Sustainable Development: Maintaining Regional Competitiveness on the Delmarva Peninsula.

DELMARVA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FORUM

Sustainable Development:  Maintaining Regional Competitiveness on the Delmarva Peninsula.  

Remarks by J. Glenn Eugster, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems & Communities, Washington, D.C.  September 29, 1997  (202)260-2772

I.  Introduction:  How is the Delmarva Peninsula doing, economically,

ecologically and socially ?  You need to think about where you have been, 

are and want to be and what means you will use to get there.  How will you

compete with other areas in your state, other regions of the U.S. ?

I suggest that you take a close look at sustainable development as a way to maintain 

regional competitiveness.

 So what does Sustainable Development mean?  

-- Is it a trendy term or evolution of a concept?  Is it something we do already--- an set of old 

ideas with new covers? Or is it a destination we are all headed?

II.  Convergence of Thinking: Sustainabile development reflects a convergence of thinking among and between our agencies and organizations.  It is an evolution of our thinking about how environmental, community and economic activity fits together.  More and more we find that we agree that economic development, and environmental protection, needs to:

 Base goals and actions on science

 Emphasize community-level decision-making consensus

 Target place-based development and management strategies and actions 

 Help communities take action to help them selves preserve and prosper

 Achieve environmental, community & economic goals and objectives simultaneously 

Sustainable Development Definitions:  

a)  Sustainable development: “To meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

b)  Multi-objective concept:   “Recognize all legitimate beneficial public and private uses which have the least adverse impact on environmental, community and economic resources and reflect a high degree of public involvement and consensus at all stages of decision-making”.         

III.  Project Specific Perspective: Many ongoing initiatives on, or nearby, the Peninsula offer

insights to how this approach can help communities protect and prosper.

1)  Case Study:   Waste Equals Energy---- Cape Charles, VA Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park.   Northampton County, 16404 Courthouse Road, P.O. Box 66, Eastville, VA.  23347.   Tom Harris, Copunty Administrator (757) 678-0440.  Also The Nature Conservancy’s Virginia Eastern Shore .........is developing compatible sustainable economies.

2)  Case Study: Rethinking the Small Decisions of Development----Practical Watershed Protection/ Site Planning Guidelines--The Watershed Center, Silver Springs, MD.  Tom Schuler 

                             

3)  Case Study: GREEN INDUSTRIES TO COMPLIMENT AGRICULTURE AND SEAFOOD--Dorchester County Heritage Tourism, Cambridge, MD Jeff Powell, County Commissioner

4)  Case Study:  WATER QUALITY RESTORATION IS A SMALL BUSINESS INDUSTRY--SW Pennsylvania:  Allegheny Mountain Heritage Development Corporation, Randy Colley, Hollidaysburg, PA.

IV.  Sources of Information & Assistance:

 Community-Based Environmental Protection Approach 

*     Region III Green Communities Handbook

 EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program 

 University of VA Sustainable Design:  Bill McDonough, Planet Neighborhood, PBS Special Broadcast

V.  Closing Summary:

 Local incubators are the best way to define/ demonstrate what sustainable development is--a great deal of activity within the region

 Context is terribly important--think one size larger than the project you are working on.

 Combine the lessons of the past and present with those of the future.  Not a new idea, but rather a new arrangement of ideas.

 Integrated approach is important--- 1) Ecological, community and economic values and functions; 2) Decision-making.

 Measures of progress:  How are we doing?  Are we doing the right thing?

I wish you continued success in your work!

Centennial Initiative: Telconference call November 29, 2007

Centennial Initiative: Telconference call

November 29, 2007  

Prepared by Glenn Eugster

Jennifer Mummart opened the call at 4:44 pm

Lindi in a meeting with the Secretary’s Office.  Not sure she can make the call this week.  They will try to reschedule for next week.

Dec. 5, 2007 at 3:00 pm.

Lindi and Bomar met with the Hill this week.  Not news.  Not a peep on the budget.  Doesn’t have many specifics to offer.

Sterkel—state partners working on Rahall language—rumor is that the bill will be heard after the first of the year.  In-kind language in the bill is being discussed.  

Mummart we likely need to move quickly in 08.  Doesn’t want to go out for another call for 09 without knowing until legislation is passed and the requirements are set.

Murray—steps toward staffing?  Mummart.  Working on the PD for permanent coordinator.  At one point they discussed advertising the postion.  Unsure that Lindi wants to compete.

Crowley—issue of what constituets a seasonal has come up.  You can use STEP authority but have to hire seasonals.  TERMS are not seasonals.  SKEP Students arrangement unclear.

Kevin—Confusion about hiring authority versus counting employees.  View, the more liberal you can be for deciding what can be a seasonal the better.  Law Enforcement, Subject to Furlough okay.  How about Maintenance and Interp workers? Are they okay, or not?  Mummart to check and get back.

Adjounred at 4:55 pm.

AGREEMENT Between the NORTHEAST REGION and the NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Of the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

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