« Previous Agenda (1/21)Minutes from 2007 Spring Meeting (2/21)Budget (3/21)Grants (4/21)Architecture & Engineering (5/21)Archeology & Collections (6/21)Materials Research (7/21)Heritage Education (8/21)Historic Landscapes (9/21)Information Technology (10/21)Training Analysis (11/21)Friends Group (12/21)Strategic Plan (13/21)Wingspread (14/21)Preserve America (15/21)Organizational Chart (16/21)Calendar & Conference Schedule (17/21)Staff List (18/21)Board List (19/21)Director's Order 21 Donations and Fundraising (20/21)Director's Order 32 Cooperating Associations (21/21)View All Next »

Page :« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ALL»

Agenda

Fall 2007 Meeting

Preservation Technology and Training Board

National Park Service

Final Agenda

Caribe Hilton Hotel

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Thursday, November 1, 2007

PTT Board arrives at Caribe Hilton Hotel, San Juan

DINNER – on your own

Friday, November 2, 2007: Conference Room 10, Caribe Hilton

BREAKFAST – on your own
9:00 AM	Call to Order, Welcome, Introduction of Guests, Opening Remarks, Certification of Meeting, Agenda, Logistics, Approval of Minutes Judy Bense, Chair Jon Smith, Designated Federal Official (DFO) Kirk Cordell, Executive Director
9:15 AM	Partners Recognition Aida Belen Rivera Ruiz, PR SHPO Karen González Jensen, Deputy PR SHPO Paul Hartwig, Assoc Director, Cultural & Natural Resources, Partnerships & Interpretation, Southeast Region NPS Aleta Knight, Deputy Superintendent, San Juan NHP Barbara Campagna, President, APT Michael Schuller, Liaison from APT Board
9:30 AM	NPS National Report: Cultural Programs Status, Budget Outlook, Policy Trends Mr. Smith
9:45 AM	State of the National Center Mr. Cordell
10:15 AM	Strategic Plan and Friends Group Update Mr. Cordell
10:30 AM	BREAK – catered
10:45 AM	Heritage Education Mr. Cordell
11:00 AM	FY2007 Budget Update Kevin Ammons, Administrative Officer
11:15 AM	PTT Grants: FY07 Awards, FY08 Application Process Mary F. Striegel, Chief, Materials Research David Morgan, Chief, Archeology & Collections
11:45 AM	Materials Research Program Dr. Striegel
12:15 PM	LUNCH – on your own in a Caribe Hilton restaurant
1:15 PM	Depart for San Juan National Historic Site (SAJU) Meet in lobby for group cabs to El Polvorin, El Morro grounds
1:30 PM	Field Session at SAJU: Restoration of the Walls of Old San Juan – the Revival of Lime Rendering and Plaster Technologies Aleta Knight, Deputy Superintendent, SAJU Edwin Colon, Facility Manager, SAJU
3:30 PM	Return to Caribe Hilton
3:45 PM	BREAK – catered
4:00 PM	Archeology and Collections Program Dr. Morgan
4:30 PM	Architecture and Engineering Program Andy Ferrell, Chief, Architecture & Engineering Program
5:00 PM	Adjourn for day
6:30 PM	DINNER – Dutch treat group dinner; location TBD

Saturday, November 3, 2007: Conference Room 10, Caribe Hilton

	BREAKFAST – on your own
9:00 AM	The Wingspread Conference on Preservation and Sustainability Robert Silman, Chairman Emeritus
10:00 AM	Historic Landscapes Program Debbie Smith, Chief, Historic Landscapes
10:30 AM	BREAK – catered
10:45 AM	Training Program Analysis Dr. Morgan Dr. Striegel
11:00 AM	Preserve America Mr. Cordell
11:15 AM	Wrap-up and Resolutions
12:00 PM	Adjourn; End of Official Board Business
	LUNCH – on your own

Safe Journey Home to those traveling; those staying for APT may tour fortifications of San Cristobal, El Morro, or historic architecture of Old San Juan.

Please sign your travel vouchers before you leave so we can reimburse you more quickly!

Minutes from 2007 Spring Meeting

Grants

The 1992 Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act, Title IV (16 U.S.C. 470x-Section 405) provide that, “The Secretary, in consultation with the Board, shall provide preservation technology and training grants to eligible applicants with a demonstrated institutional capability and commitment to the purposes of the Center, in order to ensure an effective and efficient system of research, information distribution and skills training in all the related historic preservation fields.”

This report details the Preservation Technology and Training Grants program activities between March 16 and Oct. 16, 2007. NCPTTs grants program supports innovative projects in archeology, historic architecture, historic landscapes, and materials conservation. The focus of these projects is preservation technology.

2008 PTT Grants Call for Proposals

This year for the first time NCPTT implemented a pre-proposal application process. Applicants were required to submit a brief one- to two-page abstract through NCPTT’s website that described their research or training idea. The pre-proposal offered applicants an opportunity to get feedback early in the grants process, while simultaneously allowing NCPTT staff to quickly identify proposals that fit with NCPTT’s mission.

NCPTT continued to ask for proposals within the seven established research priorities and/or that addressed a special initiative. The latter declared:

The aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 brought to light a need for further research into mitigation of storm damage to cultural resources. This Special Initiative gives priority to research that develops or advances technologies to preserve storm damaged cultural resources.

The call for pre-proposals was posted on the website by September 15, 2007. A total of 137 were received by Monday, Oct. 15, 2007. Program chiefs reviewed and responded to each of the pre-proposals within five days of its receipt. Chiefs provided specific comments to help strengthen accepted pre-proposals and to provide future guidance for rejected pre-proposals. A total of 78 pre-proposals were accepted to move forward in the grant process.

NCPTT will continue to foster a simple, streamlined approach to the grant process. The pre-proposal process should ensure a better fit between full proposals and the NCPTT mission, so now NCPTT will turn its attention to streamlining the review process in hopes of accelerating the pace of grant selection, award, and project implementation.

NCPTT plans to convene a national review panel on March 5, 2008 in Natchitoches, Louisiana.

2007 PTT Grants

The 2007 Call for Proposals was mailed to over 2,500 potential applicants and organizations active in preservation and conservation. Application instructions were posted to the NCPTT website in September 2006. Dec. 1, 2006 was the deadline for full proposals. In all, NCPTT received 44 complete proposals from applicants requesting a total of approximately $1.9 million.

The 44 proposals were reviewed in three phases. NCPTT staff first reviewed each of the proposals for conformance with proposal requirements. Outside experts in various preservation and conservation disciplines then reviewed the proposals by program area. Finally, the proposals selected by the peer reviewers were subject to a final review by a panel of government preservation experts and a representative of NCPTT’s advisory board. As part of this national panel review, NCPTT staff reviewed all of the competing proposals to ensure they were adequately distributed across the country, between institutions, and among disciplines. NCPTT’s recommendations for awards were then reviewed by a Heritage Preservation Services senior grants administrator for financial and policy matters.

PTT Grant Awards 2007

In 2007 NCPTT awarded 10 grants funds totaling $350,700:

• School of Engineering, University of Vermont, $49,900
  Heritage Preservation Engineering: Curriculum Development
• New Orleans Historic District Landmarks Commission, $49,200
  Adapting Post-Disaster Data for Local Government Use
• Princeton University, $48,900
  Diagnosing and Controlling Hygric Swelling of Stone
• University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, $50,000
  Microbial Detoxification of Mercury Contaminated Museum Collections: Effect of Material Composition on Mercury Removal
• Cornerstones Community Partnerships, $13,700
  An Emergency Flood Mitigation Manual for Earthen Architecture
• City of Aspen, Colorado, $23,100
  Conservation of Wooden Artifacts in Cemeteries
• Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, $14,800
  Aerial Thermal Survey of New Philadelphia, Ill. Town Site
• Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS – $46,100
  Establishing an Elemental Baseline for Sourcing Shell and Shell-Tempered artifacts in the Eastern Woodlands of North America using Laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS)
• University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ – $50,000
  Evaluation of Conservation and Preservation Practices in a Southwest Pottery Collection
• Voyageurs National Park, MN – $5,000
  Stone Wall Repair Training Workshop

Total Funding: $350,700

Conservation Symposium Focuses on PTT Grants

On Nov. 12, 2007 NCPTT and the New York Conservation Foundation will host Progress in Preservation through NCPTT Grants, sessions I and II, at the Eastern Analytical Symposium in Somerset, New Jersey. Twelve past grant recipients will present the results of their work at the sessions. The projects presented will represent the fields of materials conservation, architecture, archeology, and landscapes. Titles range from “Digital Image Analysis for Petrographic Thin Sections of Cultural Materials” to “Investigations of Mechanical Anchor Strength in Stone Masonry.”

Highlights of Recently Received PTT Grant Products

PTT Grant MT-2210-06-NC-11, Vernacular Wooden Church Steeples in the Eastern United States: Form and Restoration, Interim Report and Articles, Will Beemer, Timber Framers Guild. Beemer’s grant is to fund a publication project focused on wooden church steeples. The goal is to identify characteristic forms and their structural systems, delineate them in drawings, and conduct a structural analysis so that the form and dynamics of thousands of other similar steeples will be better understood. Beemer has published two of four proposed articles in Timber Framing (March 2007 and September 2007), with a third article in press for December. See http://tfguild.org/publications/historicsteeples.html. Status Note: in progress.

PTT Grant MT-2210-06-NC-5, Seeing is Believing: Thermography Aids Historic Preservation, Interim Report &Article, Michael G. Spencer, University of Kentucky. Infrared thermography has become an increasingly important tool in assessing historic structures, but creating a meaningful interpretation of raw data has been a challenge. This project sought to correlate detailed physical characteristics of model architectural structures in various environments with the data obtained from them by means of infrared thermography. Results include an article published in the University of Kentucky’s Alumni journal. This work has leveraged additional funds through the purchase of an infrared camera by the University. Status Note: in progress.

PTT Grant MT-2210-06-NC-4, High Definition Documentation of Archaeology, Glenn Hill (Texas Tech University) Principal Investigator, Kacyra Family Foundation, Interim Report and Webinar. The goal of the grant was to disseminate information on three-dimensional laser scanning to decrease the time required to document the built, structural components of archaeological sites. Hill conducted a two-week training workshop, a two-day overview session, and four four-day workshops at Mesa Verde National Park, which resulted in the documentation of one cliff dwelling. A six-hour webinar for Vanishing Treasures parks is planned for November 2007. Other planned deliverables include a real-time walk-through of Fire Temple. Status Note: in progress.

PTT Grant MT-2210-05-NC-12, Testing the Regional Reliability of Spectral Signatures of Archaeological Phenomena, Final Report, Alan Sullivan, University of Cincinnati. Sullivan designed a predictive satellite model for locating small-scale and low-obtrusive archaeological phenomena using as a case study the Upper Basin or northern Arizona. His study predicted the presence and absence of five types of archaeological sites at high rates: 100% and 99.4%, respectively. The drawback is that the pixel resolution—1 m—is so high that it over-predicts sites. In other words, the resolution is so high that it identifies many possible images as sites, which makes it highly successful but entails the downside of also incorrectly identifying many natural phenomena as sites.

PTT Grant MT-2210-05-NC-11, The Digital Archive of the Cultural Landscape in the Upper Tongue River Valley, Final Report and Documentary, Chere Jiusto, Montana Preservation Alliance. Jiusto and her team studied the cultural landscape of the Tongue River Valley to create a geospatially-linked digital archive of historic sites. More than 100 sites were GPS located, mapped, and digitally archived with cross-linked site forms and photographs. Final products include a report (The Cultural Landscape of the Tongue River Valley) and a one-hour documentary video (Stories Long Remembered: The Ranching History of Birney, Montana). The video has aired on Montana Public Television, and copies have been distributed to county libraries. Status Note: The final report will be accepted pending editorial revision by the author for consistency.

MT-2210-05-NC-10, An Evaluation of Supercritical Drying and PEG/Freeze Drying of Waterlogged Archaeological Wood, Final Report, Eric Shindelholz, The Mariner’s Museum. Shindelholz compared the new supercritical drying method for archaeological wood specimens against traditional air and freeze drying with polyethylene glycol. Freeze drying worked well, air drying did not, and supercritical drying proved to be effective only for some types of wood.

PTT Grant MT-2210-05-NC-09, Merging Aerial Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and Satellite Multispectral Data to Inventory Archaeological Sites, Final Report, Douglas C. Comer Principal Investigator, Catalina Island Conservancy. Comer used commercially available aerial/space data to create analytical protocols that identify digital image signatures that correlate with archaeological site locations. Supplementary outside funds created a software prototype that can reduce a 5-hour protocol process to 15 minutes. This could enable land managers to conduct rapid planning-level site inventories over wide areas. Status Note: the final report is under review and acceptance is anticipated, pending receipt of an administrative summary.

PTT Grant MT-2210-05-NC-02, Acoustic Emission and Vibration Correlation, Final Report, David Biggs, PE, Principal Investigator for Fort Ticonderoga Association. Biggs performed testing on four stone-masonry walls to research vibration damage and the feasibility of using acoustic emission technology on historical stone-masonry. The goals of the testing were to assess the correlation of vibration readings to visual structural damage in historical, to determine the feasibility of using acoustic emission technology to detect damage in historical stone-masonry walls, and to determine the feasibility of acoustic emissions to predict signs of distress and sudden failure of historical stone-masonry walls.

PTT Grant 2210-04-NC-13, Evaluation and Monitoring of Culturally Appropriate Treatments for Vandalism at Rock Image Sites, Jeff Van Pelt Principal Investigator, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. This is a report on the results of research carried out under the NCPTT Grant Agreement with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The report details work done to enhance the understanding of Tribal concerns and interests regarding the conservation of rock image cultural heritage sites.

PTT Grant MT-2210-04-NC-11, Lustron On-Line, Interim Report, Jeanne Lambin, National Trust for Historic Preservation. The basic framework for the Lustron website is completed, the content management system for the website has been completed, and much of the text for the content of the website has been produced. It is in the process of being edited and it will be posted in the coming months. The Nominator, Lustron Locator, and Scrapbook are now in their beta form and will be tested in the coming months. Work continues on editing and posting the content for the site. Selected content will be vetted by the Advisory Committee and once all the content of the website is posted, it will be tested in beta-form by the Advisory Committee and selected members of the Lustron Community. A promotional postcard to mail to Lustron owners is in production, as is the press packet to promote the site. Jeanne M. Lambin, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Status Note: in progress.

PTT Grant MT-2210-04-NC-07, Supercritical Fluid Cleaning of Perishable OrganicArtifacts for Non-destructive Radiocarbon Dating, Final Report, Dr. Marvin Rowe, Texas A&M. The goal of this research was to develop a technique for conducting “non-destructive” radiocarbon dating of perishable archaeological artifacts. Preliminary results show that supercritical fluid extraction will very likely provide a non-destructive means of effectively removing humic acid from archaeological artifacts. Combined with plasma-chemical extraction of organic carbon from the artifacts, this could lead to virtually “non-destructive” radiocarbon dating of most perishable, organic archaeological artifacts.

PTT Grant MT-2210-03-NC-08, The Use of Multibeam Swath Bathymetry for the Identification and Assessment of Underwater Archaeological Sites, Dr. Roger D. Flood, Professor, Marine Sciences Research Center Stony Brook University. The project was a two-phase approach to evaluating the use of multibeam swath bathymetry as a new tool for underwater archaeology. The first phase entailed field-work to examine suspected archaeological sites on the bottom of the Hudson River recently identified during the NYS-DEC multibeam survey. The second phase of the proposed project entailed discussing the methods with other workers in the Hudson River and elsewhere in order to review and analyze the study results and to review our experience in the use of multibeam data derived from hydrographic or other surveys to suit archaeological needs.

PTT Grant MT-2210-03-NC-05, Thin-Section Petrography of Cultural Materials: Comprehensive Resource and Training Publication, Dr. Chandra Reedy, University of Delaware, Museum Studies Program. This 639-page book manuscript on the use of thin-section petrography includes and overview of the technology and its context; problems and goals unique to the study of cultural materials; numerous well-illustrated case studies of art, architecture, and archeological objects; and in-depth discussion of innovative approached to digital image analysis and statistical methods for petrographic thin sections.

PTT Grant Number MT-2210-02-NC-02, Video Preservation Website: Migration of Historic Video Tape to Digital Video Files, Tim Vitale Principal Investigator, Bay Area Video Coalition. http://videopreservation.stanford.edu. This thorough website was built and designed as a clearinghouse of information on videotape preservation. In the past, video tapes had to be sent out to a service bureau for preservation where custody was transferred to a non-conservation service provider, and, the expense was relatively high due to a per-item cost that ranged from $200 to 400, or more. This website helps holders of video artifacts to develop their own tools for preserving their video, reducing cash outlay to service providers, eliminating risky shipping of cultural artifacts and ending the loss of intellectual control over the final product.

Architecture & Engineering

NCPTT’s Architecture & Engineering program encourages research and partnerships with organizations and institutions working to advance preservation technology for buildings and other structures.

Projects

US/ICOMOS Cooperative Agreement: Internship and Preservation Technology Research

NCPTT began working through this CA in cooperation with the United States Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (US/ICOMOS) to enhance that organization’s International Exchange Program in historic preservation which provides international advanced training and hands-on experiences for young professionals. The first ICOMOS intern at NCPTT funded through this cooperative agreement was Satish Pandey who worked in the Materials Research Program.

US/ICOMOS and NCPTT will also develop and implement an annual awards program that will serve as an incentive for graduate students to adopt thesis topics related to major needs in the field of historic preservation technology. A&E and US/ICOMOS have had initial discussions as to how best to accomplish this goal.

APT Cooperative Agreement: Preservation Technology Research Cooperative Agreement

Through this CA that was recently finalized, NCPTT will work with APT to develop and disseminate an enhanced preservation technology training program that forwards the missions of both organizations. The first planned activity is to develop a Nondestructive Evaluation Workshop that will be offered twice in 2008. Based on an NDE workshop that APT previously offered, the workshop will be reworked and offered at other venues. It is envisioned that this will be an effective model for developing and offering preservation technology training to a wider audience than typically attends APT or NCPTT workshops. The agreement also makes it possible to formalize the Center’s report of APT’s annual conference.

US/DOCOMOMO Cooperative Agreement

NCPTT is working on a cooperative agreement with the United States committee of the International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO International). The cooperative agreement will provide a framework for cooperation in the development of research and training related to the preservation needs of modern era resources.

LSU Cooperative Agreement: Innovative Documentation Strategies

NCPTT recently entered into a CA with the Louisiana State University School of Architecture to develop and test a methodology to use geospatial digital video documentation technology to efficiently survey historic buildings and landscapes pre- and post- disaster. Developing such technology will enable planners and others to better assess risk to historic resources, plan effective mitigation strategies and improve disaster response.

Sustainable Preservation

Andy Ferrell recently participated in the Sustainable Preservation Research Retreat held by The National Trust for Historic Preservation. The retreat brought together experts representing a number of organizations to discuss the Trust’s role in bringing attention to the essential role of historic and other existing buildings in helping conserve energy and other natural resources. Participants discussed the benefits of reusing existing buildings, and specifically how preservation promotes environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable development. The aim was to develop a joint research and advocacy strategy for integrating the practices and principles of preservation into the green building movement. The organizations currently involved are the American Institute of Architects, the Association for Preservation Technology International, the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.

Trades Training

While NCPTT has been involved with training programs with preservation trades components, the Center is now actively working with partners to determine NCPTT’s role in facilitating trades training. Andy Ferrell is currently working with the New Jersey Institute of Technology to develop a two-week course for administrators and teachers interested in incorporating the preservation high school curriculum developed for the Brooklyn High School for the Preservation Arts. Kirk Cordell has met with trades trainers from Australia and across the United States and discussed the issue with the National Council for Preservation Education. Sarah Jackson has spoken with several organizations involved with trades training during her recent trips. Chris Faith has initiated a cooperative agreement with the Michigan Heritage Preservation Network to hold a preservation trades curriculum summit that could become a national model for integrating such training at the high school level and beyond. There is much interest in this topic and NCPTT will continue to work with partners to address the need for developing resources to improve opportunities for preservation trades training.

Front Street Documentation

NCPTT worked with Barrett Kennedy of Louisiana State University School of Architecture to document Front Street using a high resolution digital camera with an integrated geospatial device. The City provided a hi-lift and a mobile traffic barrier. The purpose of the survey was to document the existing brick patterns in the street and to inform the design of the rehabilitation of Front Street. The resulting high resolution images were given to the City and the Engineering firm that is designing the rehabilitation. The documentation was supported by the Cane River National Heritage Area and Cane River Creole National NHP.

Lee H. Nelson Hall Landscape Plan

NCPTT recently completed the landscape installation at Lee Nelson Hall. After working with Jeffrey Carbo Landscape Architects & Site Planners in Alexandria, La., Yankee Clipper was selected to implement the landscape design. The landscape installation was completed in October. Kirk Cordell, Kevin Ammons and Andy Ferrell worked closely with the contractors to facilitate implementation.

Natchitoches Architectural Survey/Graduate Assistantship

Belinda Diehl has been conducting the Natchitoches Architectural Survey. She began working on the survey in June and, to date, she has completed surveys of structures on six roads in the Natchitoches area. The survey is a GIS-GPS based survey using ArcGIS software and Trimble GPS units to collect data. In June, she participated in the GIS/GPS/Prospection in Depth Workshop held at NCPTT. She presented her work on the Architectural Survey at NCPTT’s annual Preservation in your Community event in August, where she conducted a slideshow presentation and also had a poster presentation.

She is currently working on revising the Natchitoches Architectural Survey Guide. The guide is a comprehensive guide to conducting a survey and serves as a “how-to” guide to surveying in Natchitoches. She is also creating architectural style checklists for the common architectural styles found in Louisiana. These checklists will aid surveyors in quickly identifying the architectural style of a building and will be included in the architectural guide. Belinda has also assisted on site visits to Melrose Plantation in Melrose, La., First Presbyterian Church in Shreveport, La., and The Village of Grand Cane, Louisiana.

Consultations

Limewash

Sarah Jackson has responded to several inquires regarding NCPTT’s Study on the Durability of Traditional and Modified Limewash and its application on historic buildings. Inquires were received from persons associated with National Capital Region, Monticello, and Tybee Lighthouse. Several people have been referred to our office by organizations such as Preservation Trades Network and one of our sister offices, the Historic Preservation Training Center.

Front Street Accessibility

Andy Ferrell and Debbie Smith, Chief of Historic Landscapes, attended a meeting of the Mayor’s Front Street Taskforce to discuss crosswalks and ADA compliant ramps.

Melrose Plantation

NCPTT worked with Eddie Cazayoux to install data recorders at Yucca and African Houses at Melrose plantation in June 2007. Recorder installation was first proposed during NCPTT’s summer institute. The recorders will provide information about temperature, humidity, and building movement. The Association for the Preservation of Historic Natchitoches asked NCPTT to investigate the deterioration of the masonry chimneys at Melrose Plantation. NCPTT staff documented the deterioration and offered advice on how to address the masonry issues. Belinda Diehl, Sarah Jackson and Andy Ferrell also inspected the wood shake roof on Africa House.

First Presbyterian Church

NCPTT continued to collect images and information for the development of a masonry deterioration and preservation web module for NCPTT’s website. Belinda Diehl, Sarah Jackson and Andy Ferrell visited First United Presbyterian Church in Shreveport, La., and toured the facilities to document masonry deterioration and to offer advice on how to repair existing problems and prevent future problems.

Conferences

International Preservation Trades Workshops

Sarah Jackson was asked to be a demonstrator at Preservation Trade Network’s regional and annual workshops in 2007. Her presentation was titled Limewash: the Other White “Paint” and discussed NCPTT’s Study on the Durability of Traditional and Modified Limewash and held a hands-on demonstration.

AIA Louisiana Design Conference

Sarah Jackson presented Limewash: A Traditional Finish with Modern Applications on September 13, 2007 in Lafayette, LA at the AIA Louisiana design conference RR Crossing: Rebuilding Responsibly.

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Andy Ferrell presented the results and aspirations of the LSU Cooperative Agreement: Innovative Documentation Strategies along with Deidre McCarthy at annual conference in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Traditional Building Exhibition and Conference

Sarah Jackson presented Preparation and Application of Limewash on October 20, 2007. She reviewed NCPTT’s study, history, use, and application of limewash. After the presentation a hands-on demonstration was held comparing different types of lime, recipes, materials, and applications. Kirk Cordell made a presentation of NCPTT’s work at the roundtable of the Historic Resources Committee of the American Institute of Architects during the conference.

Publications

Sarah Jackson, Tye Botting and Mary Striegel’s article “Durability of Traditional and Modified Limewashes” was published in APT Bulletin Vol. XXXVII, No. 2-3. On October 18 the authors were informed that the article had won the Oliver Torrey Fuller Award for Technical Excellence and Innovation. The award will be conferred during the Annual Awards Banquet at the Annual APT Conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico on Tuesday, November 4, 2007.

Archeology & Collections

NCPTT’s Archeology & Collections program seeks to enhance the preservation of archeological sites, landscapes, materials, and collections through research, grants, and partnerships.

The April 2007 to October 2007 interval was a productive one for the program. Among the highlights for this period were the completion of grant projects, the hosting of a major training event, and advancement of several research and training agendas.

Training and Outreach

The Archeology & Collections program hosted one event, is planning others, and engaged in a number of outreach efforts:

• Prospection in Depth—In this second year of remote sensing and GIS training NCPTT experimented with the format, shifting from a 3-week to a 2-week schedule. Four instructors trained 10 participants representing state and federal governments, the private sector, and academia. Like last year, an online training component is in development. The course remains innovative in that it partners with a robust academic research project to produce a constructivist pedagogy. Planning for the 2008 course is ongoing, with the Presidio in California as a possible site.
• Remote Site Surveillance—NCPTT also received ca. $40,000 in funds from the Louisiana Army National Guard to host this symposium. It is currently being planned for fiscal year 2008. Coordination continues with major federal land management agencies to bring together a working group of experts in cultural resources and law enforcement. This group will present overviews of each agency’s institutional approach to remote site surveillance, and the planned outcome will be more coordinated access to technical investigative equipment between agencies.
• Technology for Archaeological Interpretation—This is a 1-week workshop focused on exploring current and emergent technologies for use in the interpretation of archaeology. Planned for fiscal year 2008, one instructor has been contracted and are negotiations are underway for a second, with New York and San Francisco as possible host sites.
• Heritage Values—NCPTT furthered its training mission by providing critical funding for Hamline University and NPS’ Southeast Archaeological Center to develop an international preservation policy workshop. The workshop is scheduled for next month at Cumberland Island National Seashore. Expected outcomes include sessions at the World Archaeological Congress and the Society for American Archaeology meetings, as well as the publication of an edited volume.
• Advancing Remote Sensing Technology—The program co-hosted with the Archaeological Preservation Technology Research Consortium a session at the Society for American Archaeology meetings in Austin, Texas. Seven speakers and two discussants presented thoughts and examples of ways in which geophysical prospection is shaping future directions in archaeology. University Press Florida has invited the hosts to co-edit a volume for publication, which is currently underway.
• ICAHM Membership—One of NCPTT’s long range goals is to increase participation in international preservation organizations, and Morgan has joined the ICOMOS International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management as an Expert Member.
• Visibility—NCPTT’s visibility is on the rise. Between April and October Morgan delivered 4 professional papers (two in the United Kingdom), 5 public presentations, co-hosted a conference symposium, and helped devise a new marketing strategy to reach the private sector.

Research

In-house research is integral to NCPTT’s mission. Major ongoing endeavors include:

• Bone Consolidation Techniques—Laura Lilley, NCPTT’s 2007 summer intern, continued the literature review of research on bone consolidation techniques. She has tentatively identified three research topics where NCPTT could make a positive impact:
  1) the efficacy of inorganic consolidants;
  2) a systematic comparison of organic consolidants; and 3) a quantification of the reversibility properties of common consolidants. The literature review will continue with the next student intern. This is a joint venture with the Materials Research program.
• XRF of Colonoware—The Archeology & Collections program and the Materials Research program are exploring a partnership with the St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research (Dutch Antilles) to investigate the utility of portable XRF for ceramic sourcing. A scope of research is currently being detailed that will provide for the shipment from St. Eustatius of ca. 300 colonoware sherds from an 18th century in situ kiln. NCPTT intends to examine intra- and inter-site chemical variability to ascertain whether the presence/absence of elemental data provided by portable XRF is sufficient to distinguish ceramic sources in the absence of comparative standards.

Grants

Two PTT Grant projects under Archeology & Collections administration reached fruition, five other grant projects are underway, and one new 2007 PTT Grant began. An additional PTT Grant project (Mississippi State University) was added to the 2007-year grants when funds became available late in the fiscal year.

Materials Research

NCPTT’s Materials Research Program focuses on understanding how cultural materials deteriorate with time and developing new methods to preserve these materials.

Research

Comparative Study of Commercially Available Cleaners for Use on Federally-issued Headstones

Mary Striegel presented the results of the ongoing research to National Cemetery Administration (NCA) administrators and staff on June 6, 2007 in Washington, D.C. Based on the results of the work, NCA has agreed to provide $31,600 to extend the study for two additional years in two geographically distinct regions. The regrowth of bacteria, algae and fungi will be monitored on headstones previously cleaned with one of five commercially available cleaners. Monitoring will take place in Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery, St. Louis, Mo., and Alexandria National Cemetery, Pineville, La.

New Joint Faculty

Dr. Catherine Situma joins NCPTT’s staff as a joint NCPTT/ NSU faculty member currently working on the determination of sulfur dioxide uptake on treated Salem limestone. Situma is using the environmental exposure facility and ion chromatography. She earned her Bachelor of Science (chemistry) degree at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology in Kenya. Upon completion, she obtained her Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from the Louisiana State University under the supervision of Dr. Steven A. Soper. Her graduate work involved surface functionalization of polymeric substrates such as poly (methylmethacrylate) (PMMA), poly (dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), polycarbonate (PC) among others, for attachment of linear and hairpin DNA. The molecular association events between the surface attached DNA and other biomolecules were extensively studied using fluorescence spectroscopy techniques.

Air pollution deposition studies

Under Situma’s direction, the US/ICOMOS fellow, Satish Pandey, resumed studies of air pollution deposition to consolidated limestone samples. Using NCPTT’s environmental exposure chamber, Situma and Pandey began exposing treated Salem limestones for 10 days under controlled humidity, wind speed, temperature and sulphur dioxide dose. In these studies, sulphur dioxide deposition velocities on Salem limestones that have been consolidated with various treatments such OH-100, Eponex 1510, HCT, and B72, are compared with each other and with untreated stones. The deposition velocity, which is the ratio of deposition flux to concentration, permits the quantitative assessment of the affinity of the Salem limestones to absorb pollutants after they have been treated and exposed to sulphur dioxide pollution. These studies will be very helpful in deciding which treatment/consolidant is best suited to protecting Salem limestones from the effects of air pollution. These studies will be very helpful in deciding which treatment/consolidant is best suited to protecting Salem limestones from the effects of air pollution.

NCPTT and HPTC at Historic Congressional Cemetery

The Historic Preservation Training Center has provided $45,000 to NCPTT for the assessment, repair and conservation of the Arsenal and Macomb Monuments located within Congressional Cemetery. Mary Striegel and Jason Church conducted a thorough condition assessment and documentation of the monuments June 4-7, 2007 and incorporated consultation with Irving Slavid and Norman Weiss of Monument Conservation Collaborative into the project. Testing and evaluation included digital microscopy, color imetry, X-ray Fluorescence analysis, biological analysis and photo-documentation. In the lab, NCPTT is evaluating various cleaning methods after pretreating soiled, sugaring marble with Prosoco’s Hydroxylating Conversion Treatment (HCT). Samples of Lee and Danby marble have been cored and cut to size then immersed in 0.15 M concentration of sulfuric acid for 30 minutes. Next the samples were soiled using lamp black. These samples will be treated with HCT then cleaned with a variety of chemical, mechanical or laser cleaning methods. Cleaning treatments may include D/2 antimicrobial cleaner, World Environmental Group’s Marble & Granite Cleaner, Procoso’s Biowashcleaner, a custom Ammonium carbonate poultice, water, JOS abrasive cleaner, and laser cleaning. Evaluation will include visual comparison, laser profilometry, colorimetry, and adhesion tests, among others.

NCPTT’s Laser Facility

NCPTT worked with consultant Dr. Margaret Abraham to complete the NSU/NCPTT joint laser research facility and undertake safety and operational training. NCPTT is pleased to report that the Neodymium Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Nd YAG) laser is operational and work has begun to optimize laser parameters for removal of graffiti from Colorado Yule marble samples.

Training and Outreach

Materials Research Summer Interns and Fellow

The Materials Research Program hosted four interns this summer including Bianca Garcia (University of Delaware), Stace Miller (Northwestern State University), Satish Pandey (Oxford University), and Lauren Vienne (University of Texas at Austin). Interns began their ten-week tenure at NCPTT starting the week of June 4, 2007 and undertook a variety of projects. Students participated in the Preservation In Your Community Event at Nelson Hall, Natchitoches, La., on Aug. 9, 2007. The two-hour event included two keynote speakers and three short presentations by the summer interns. Results of research and preservation activities were also presented in posters displayed around the auditorium during the event. The public had an opportunity to interact with the interns and ask questions regarding their work.

New video on web and DVD

In August, Jason Church and student intern Bianca Garcia added to NCPTT’s repertoire with the production of a Spanish translation of the recent English-language Cleaning a Headstone Marker and Resetting Headstone Marker DVD. Additionally, NCPTT completed filming and production of a new video about the care and preservation of iron fence work found in cemeteries. This eight-minute video provides basic information for documenting, cleaning, stabilizing and painting iron fences. Copies of this DVD can be ordered through NCPTT and will be available online soon.

Cemetery Basics Workshops

NCPTT recently conducted cemetery workshops in partnership with two SHPOs. Jason Church and Bianca Garcia conducted a Cemetery Monument Conservation Basics workshop June 16, 2007 at City Cemetery No. 1 in San Antonio. Sponsored by the Texas Historic Commission and attended by 40 participants, the event covered documentation, condition assessment, fence repair, and basic cleaning methods. NCPTT and the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program held a Cemetery Preservation Basics Workshop in Hot Springs, Sept. 29, 2007 at Hollywood & Friendship Cemeteries. The workshop focused on cemetery survey and documentation, condition assessments, and basics of cleaning. Both state partners assumed responsibility for cost recovery and travel costs for NCPTT staff.

2007 Southeast Cemetery Monument Conservation Workshop.

NCPTT and the University of West Florida hosted the flagship CMC workshop Oct. 23-25, 2007 at St. Michael’s Cemetery in Pensacola. The three-day workshop included a variety of conservation and preservation techniques for cemetery monuments geared for the preservation professional, cemetery management, and maintenance staff. Special emphasis this year was on archeological techniques, including ground penetrating radar. This workshop marked the fifth year for this regional training series.

Consultations

Mary Striegel and Jason Church provided information and recommendations to the National Cemetery Administration regarding (1) the move of the Nashville Arch at Nashville National Cemetery (2) the replication of the Bloedner Monument at Cave Hill National Cemetery, Louisville, Ky., and (3) replacement of the Tomb of the Unknowns.

Jason Church spoke with Maureen Sullivan with the Office of the Secretary of Defense about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Topics included the reliability of grouting and color matching of the existing cracks, the current cleaning methods used by the Army, and what improvements could be made to those methods. Also discussed were various suggestions that have been made to the Army for sealing the monument or modifying it to reduce further cracking.

Jason Church consulted with Jim Richardson of the Frankfort Ky. City Cemetery about cleaning suggestions for the 65 ft tall Carrara marble, State of Kentucky Confederate War Memorial. The state curator of Kentucky wanted to clean the worn and gypsum-encrusted monument by a method of high pressure soda blasting. After the curator cleaned a 3’ by 3’ “test patch,” work was halted until an outside consultation could be made. Jason offered alternative suggestions and recommended background investigation, testing, and a less aggressive method of cleaning.

Mary Striegel provided technical information and plans toward the development of a collections, conservation and curation facility for NCPTT, Cane River Creole National Historical Park, and Northwestern State University.

Meetings

AIC Annual Meeting, Richmond, Va. April 14-21, 2007. Kirk Cordell and Mary Striegel attended the 35th annual meeting of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works as NPS representatives. The topic of the meeting was “Fakes, Forgeries and Fabrications.” NCPTT displayed its technical information as a vendor in the exhibition hall. Mary Striegel also represented NPS at the annual meeting and the AIC board meeting as an AIC board member.

Louisiana Preservation Alliance Annual Meeting, Monroe La., May 5, 2007. Jason Church offered practical advice on the care and preservation of grave-markers in an oral presentation, “Who’s Taking Care of Grandpa’s Grave.”

Rocky Mountain Monument Builders Association Annual Conference, Utah, July 26-28, 2007. Jason Church discussed damages caused by irrigation systems in the western part of the United States in an oral presentation which was followed by a walking tour and field session in the Price City Cemetery.

Publications

Botting, Tye W.; Guidry, James; Stevens, Cole, and Striegel Mary F. “Report and Results on Vitrification of Historic Terrazzo.” APT Bulletin. In Press.

Jackson, Sarah M.; Botting, Tye; and Striegel, Mary F. “Durability of Traditional and Modified Limewashes.” APT Bulletin.Vol. XXXVIII, No. 2-3. 2007, p 19-28.

Dandridge, Debra Elaine, Lichens: The Challenge for Rock Art Conservation, A Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies, Texas A&M University, December 2006. This study investigates the effects that lichens have on rock surfaces in which ancient rock art (petroglyphs and pictographs) may be found. The work was undertaken through a cooperative agreement with the University of Houston. Received June 11, 2007.

Videos

Church, Jason W. and Garcia, Bianca, Iron Fence Repair DVD, Natchitoches, LA: NCPTT, August 2007, 8 min, English Language.

Church, Jason W. and Garcia, Bianca, Cleaning a Headstone Marker and Resetting Headstone Marker DVD, Natchitoches, LA: NCPTT, August 2007, 10 min, Spanish Language Translation.

Heritage Education

NCPTT’s Heritage Education Program uses cultural resources to develop lifelong learning in K-12 students. The program’s products support local curriculum standards, national education standards and the goals of No Child Left Behind. NCPTT’s Heritage Education program partners with National Park Service units, other heritage resources, K-12 schools, and teacher training colleges and universities.

Main Street Curriculum Development

The Heritage Education Program has secured the services of a curriculum development specialist to aid in the creation and dissemination of a Main Street Curriculum for middle school students. The curriculum will be demonstrated and tested in four states. Funded through unused money from the Teacher mini-grants program, the project has access to a remaining balance of $15,310. This leftover money is the result of some teachers being forced to withdraw their grant applications due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Louisiana Division of Archaeology, the state agency responsible for distribution of funds, has received a scope modification to the grant. The consulting team has started work on the project and will move to full-time when the payment schedule has been finalized. This project will provide the opportunity for students to develop an emotional connection and sense of stewardship to the town or city where they live by learning about their local community historic resources through the Main Street program. The program design will allow for nationwide distribution. The project has three primary goals:

• Develop a unit that will include a booklet with background, purpose, materials, activities, handouts, enrichment possibilities, internet and other resources, and standards.
• Develop and test materials by working with Main Street teams across the country.
• Develop materials for the NCPTT website to display curriculum and product results from Main Street teams and for use with the NCPTT Digital Traveling Trunk.

Conversion of Archived NCPTT Heritage Education Lesson Plans

In previous years, the Heritage Education Program developed lesson plans for teachers. These lesson plans exist in a variety of formats, to include hand-drawn diagrams and computer generated Graphic Organizers with no corresponding digital files. In all cases, these educational artifacts did not exist in a digital form. NCPTT’s Heritage Education program has placed priority on converting these artifacts to a digital form for use on the NCPTT website as well as the NCPTT Digital Traveling Trunk. To date, 26 documents have been created to digitize the Agrarian/Plantation Unit. Documents will be posted once final editing, formatting and file conversion has been completed.

NCPTT Digital Traveling Trunk

The Heritage Education Program purchased a classroom set of hand-held computers for dissemination to K-12 students. The set also includes corresponding digital SD cards, four digital cameras, and external hard drive and digital voice recorder. The NCPTT Digital Traveling Trunk will be available to teachers and students across the country. Each hand-held computer will be loaded with NCPTT Heritage Education Lesson Plans, is Wi-Fi ready and can used to document, research, prepare and present information. The digital voice recorder is to be used to document oral histories, ethnographies, podcasts and presentations. In addition, individual teachers may develop their own Heritage Education lesson plans using the NCPTT Digital Traveling Trunk.

Tel Event Course

Heritage Education Lessons for Field Units: Tying Interpretation to Standards While the National Park Service has recognized the critical importance of sparking the imagination of the young, formal learning environments are challenging to create. Providing professional educators with support and incentives will more often bring classes of students into parks. Unfortunately, a communication gap exists between NPS units and professional educators. This course is designed as a short introduction to the challenges faced by professional educators, and how NPS staff can help teachers overcome these obstacles. The broadcast is an hour in length and is scheduled for May 7, 2008.

Heritage Education Web Page

The Heritage Education Program has continued to expand its web presence by adding case studies of NCPTT funded Heritage Education projects. Two projects are currently featured with a third project waiting for final review. These projects serve to demonstrate the never-ending variety of curriculum-supported work opportunities that exist for K-12 learners. Each project features learner-centered, project-oriented learning that takes advantage of technology as a tool for advancing learning.

NCPTT Summer Institute Heritage Education Course

Interpretive Technologies in the Classroom

Three instructors have been selected for the Heritage Education Training event scheduled for July 2008. This three-day course is designed to familiarize teachers and interpreters with technologies to better reach young learners. Additionally, each group will instruct the other with knowledge and information about their particular field.

Michigan Historic Preservation Network (MHPN)

A cooperative agreement between NCPTT and MHPN has been forwarded to the Denver Servicing Center. This cooperative agreement enables NCPTT to support efforts by MHPN to develop a national curriculum model for high school preservation trades vocational programs. MHPN has experience with this work due to their involvement and support of the Randolph School in Detroit, Mich. The Randolph School is a vocational trades school in the Detroit public school system that offers training in preservation trades. The students use historic Ft. Wayne as their laboratory and classroom as they practice preservation skills. The cooperative agreement allows NCPTT to support a curriculum development workshop, in addition to lending staff and expertise to the effort. The final deliverable will be a portable curriculum model that has the potential for national dissemination. Transitioning students out of high school and into two-year trades programs will also be discussed, as well as methods for connecting students to internships and employment opportunities.

Big Thicket National Preserve (BITH)

Christine Faith, NCPTT Heritage Education program coordinator, conducted two site tours of BITH. Faith evaluated the Parks-as-Classrooms and Teacher-to-Ranger-to-Teacher programs at BITH to determine if such programs had applications to heritage education. With some exceptions, traditional uses of the two programs have been environmental education applications. There is evidence that both programs could be used in heritage education. These opportunities will be explored further through follow-up contacts with Teacher-Ranger-Teacher candidates at BITH.

Historic Landscapes

NCPTT’s Historic Landscapes Program encourages research and partnerships to improve the technologies available to practitioners as they undertake the complex tasks of documenting, preserving, and interpreting the historic landscapes significant to a wide variety of people and cultures.

Debbie Smith recently joined NCPTT as the new Chief of the Historic Landscapes Program. She came to NCPTT from the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation where she worked for the past seven years as a historical landscape architect. Prior to OCLP, she taught in the Environmental, Design and Buildings Technology Department at Lansing Community College in Lansing, Mich.; worked as a cultural landscape consultant for Carlisle/Wortman Associates in Ann Arbor, Mich.; and served as an intern with the Michigan State Preservation Office in Lansing, Michigan. Debbie received her Masters of Landscape Architecture degree from the University of Michigan in 1999.

Prototype Electronic Maintenance Management System for Historic Sites

The Historic Landscapes Program and the Materials Research Program are working together to define an electronic maintenance management system that will address a wide-range of landscape features, including cemetery monuments markers. An outline of data base fields and subfields has been created for vegetation, monuments and markers. Work will be further defined and expanded upon in fiscal year 2008.

Front Street Rehabilitation Project: Crosswalks and Curb Cuts

Debbie Smith and Andy Ferrell met with Natchitoches Mayor Wayne McCullen and others to discuss the accessibility of a proposed project to rehabilitate Front Street, the primary commercial road within the Nachitoches National Historic Landmark District. Issues discussed included the planned locations of crosswalks and ramped curb cuts, and the appropriateness of the design within the historic district.

Historic Landscape Web Resources

With the assistance of Louisiana School for Math, Science and the Arts (LSMSA) student Blakey Lawhon, the Historic Landscape Program is assembling a bibliography of web resources related to the preservation of historic landscapes. The bibliography, which will include journal articles and NPS publications, will be added to the NCPTT web site. The bibliography will include links to the online resources.

Lee Nelson Hall Landscape Plan: Installation Documentation

Debbie Smith documented installation of the irrigation system and new plantings associated with the Lee Nelson Hall Landscape Plan. Using repeat photography, Smith was able to record the landscape prior to ground breaking, during installation, and after completion.

Gum Springs Picnic Area

Debbie Smith met with Velicia Berstrom and Lee Stewart, Heritage Resource Program staff at the Kitsatchie National Forest to discuss HALS documentation of the National Register eligible Gum Springs Picnic Area, constructed by the CCC between 1937 and 1940. Site Documentation is one of several mitigation measures required by the Louisiana SHPO in response to an adverse effect caused when a contractor breached an earthen dam associated with a .5 acre CCC-built naturalized swimming pool.

As a result of the site visit and later conversations with the director of the HALS program and staff at the Louisiana SHPO, Smith advised the Forest Service staff to complete draft HABS/HAER Documentation begun in the 1990s, instead of initiating HALS documentation, with the understanding that landscape features typically recorded in HALS will be included in the documentation. The Historic Landscape Program will assist the Forest Service staff to identify these landscape features.

Information Technology

The information management team manages the technical aspects of NCPTT’s grants and projects, website, in-office computer systems and publications distribution.

NCPTT Website

The NCPTT website has been established as an authority for preservation technology research and training. The online product catalog serves as the primary vehicle for disseminating electronic versions of our products to preservation professionals quickly and inexpensively. Our online presence also promotes NCPTT preservation training.

Website Statistics April 1-Oct. 1, 2007

Between April 1 and Oct. 1, NCPTT served 3,553,023 web pages to 60,977 unique visitors. This represents an increase of 7.2 percent in pages served and 53.9 percent in unique visitors.

Bandwidth and Optimization

In August 2007, Northwestern State University substantially increased the bandwidth available both campus-wide and to NCPTT. While the lack of adequate bandwidth has negatively impacted the apparent end-user speed of our site and limited our ability to stream video, this upgrade has been substantially beneficial.

Shortly after the network upgrade we performed aggressive cuts to the size of the HTML pages output by the server, cutting the size of pages served by over 85 percent. This has resulted in a substantial increase in apparent speed for our visitors.

Redesign and Search Engine Optimization

Since the last PTT Board meeting, NCPTT has re-engineered the website to make it more navigable, removing the drop-down menus and adding sidebar navigation, breadcrumb trails, and a new search engine. Throughout this process, search engine optimization techniques have been used to ensure page names and titles are both descriptive and keyword heavy. Feedback from visitors has been very positive, particularly since the increase in bandwidth and HTML optimization.

Future Directions

While the NCPTT website continuously evolves to service the needs of our visitors, we are focusing our efforts in five main areas:

1. Expanding available bandwidth to support more traffic.
2. Frequent addition of content, both new content and conversion of all print product catalog items to HTML.
3. Conversion of all video products to video streaming and podcast formats.
4. Calendar of NCPTT training events with support materials, preservation conferences and preservation-related training opportunities.
5. Syndication of NCPTT content via RSS feeds and other online services.

Statistics

---

Most Popular Sections (Page Views)

Product Catalog	160,896
News	104,744
NCPTT Notes	82,410
Archeology and Collections	47,183
Heritage Education	25,141
Grants	24,726
Contact NCPTT	23,387
Training	20,147
Architecture and Engineering	12,269
Search	11,682

---

Most Popular Print Products (Downloads)

Historic Landscape Resource Manual (2000-18)	2,959
Research into Protective Coating Systems for Outdoor Bronze Sculpture and Ornamentation (1999-29)	2,343
Digital Photography: Recording, Preserving and Disseminating Archaeological Data (1999-18)	2,178
Coordinate Measurement of Ships and Smallcraft (1999-06)	2,040
Timber Framing: No. 71, March 2004 (2004-11)	1,909
Final Report-NCPTT 1996 Grant Program (1997-03)	1,797
Timber Framing: No. 74, December 2004 (2004-14)	1,783
Timber Framing: No. 67, March 2003 (2004-09)	1,735
Draft Code for Historic Buildings (2002-01)	1,726
Museum Lighting Protocols (1998-31)	1,652

---

Most Popular Video Products Downloaded

Walls of Stone: How to Build Drystone Walls and Rock Fences (1996-01)	421
Culture Shock: Fire Protection for Historic and Cultural Property (1995-01)	381
Dry Tortugas: Searching for the Windjammer Avanti (2004-22)	374
Historic Preservation: The Next Step; Public Lecture by James Marston Fitch (1996-12)	357
Building Dry Stone Retaining Walls (2002-06)	344
Retaining America’s Dry Stone Heritage (2002-05)	330
Fire and Ice (2004-19)	324
USS Arizona: Preserving a War Memorial (2004-23)	305
Ferry of Hope: Ellis Island and US Immigration (2004-21)	298
Preserving America’s Landscape (1996-02)	272

In-office Computer Systems

Utilizing current computer technologies facilitates the accomplishment of NCPTT’s mission. Information technology staffers are continually researching and updating the in-office systems to make them as efficient as possible for the staff. The National Center’s IT department faces many of the same challenges that larger IT departments face. Of particular emphasis has been security, data storage and disaster recovery. The IT staff has always strived to stay ahead of the curve in these areas but recent major events nationally and on the state level have caused the National Center’s IT staff to address these issues at greater length. The IT staff is confident that its continued diligence in these areas will continue to safeguard the National Center’s electronic data.

Publication Distribution

One of the major functions of the NCPTT web site is to provide a central location to search for preservation publications. In the last six months, over 50 publication orders were mailed to the public by NCPTT IT staff. Nearly 90% of these orders were submitted via the online product catalog, averaging three products per order.

NCPTT Library

Over the last six months, IT staff acquired over 85 new titles for the library. In addition to this, IT staff was able to catalog 56 books already in the National Center’s library that were previously uncatalogued. A database of all books and periodicals will be posted via the NPS network for other offices and parks to view as a reference. Although not a lending library, it is important to inform the preservation community of the available library resources at NCPTT.

TelNPS

The Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) Network is the mechanism whereby thousands of National Park Service employees receive competency-based training at or near their work site at little or no cost to them. The Network has over 230 receiving stations across the Service spanning five time zones. The highly interactive training allows students immediate access to their instructor. This interactivity is the key component to the success of the broad and varied training opportunities.

From April 1-Sept. 30, nine classes were taken with 38 participants. Some of those participating were staff from the Cane River Creole National Historical Park and the Cane River National Heritage Area Board and CRNHA staff. The Center’s TELNPS system received an equipment upgrade in FY2007.

The installation of the TELNPS station at NCPTT has provided Center employees and NPS employees from the surrounding area with the opportunity to gain high quality training specific to their jobs at a convenient location. The Center is excited to be a part of the NPS’s continued growth of interactive distance learning activities.

Training Analysis

Cost Summary of Recent Training Activities

Program	Description[1]	NCPTT Costs	No. of Participants	Cost Recovery	NCPTT Cost Per Participant
MRP: 2007	Essentials for Cemetery Monument Care, NPS Tel Course	$7,127.80	100+	None	$71.28
MRP: 2007	Video clips for cemetery preservation training	$5,365.60	260+	None	$20.64
MRP: 2007	Cemetery Monument Conservation Basics – San Antonio	$1,163.80	40	Texas Historical Commission covered most costs	$29.10
MRP: 2007	2007 Cemetery Monument Conservation Basics – Hot Springs	$464.80	50	Arkansas Heritage Preservation covered most costs	$9.30
MRP: 2007	Cemetery Monument Conservation Workshop – Pensacola	$29,039.26	25	Registration $695 per person, $17,375. est.	$466.57
A&C: 2007	Prospection in Depth 2007	$12,658.74	10	Registration $399; offered promotional discounts; total: $2394	$1026.47
A&E: 2006	Engineering for Older & Historic Buildings	$19,000	16	Registration $695, $150 for students; total: $8,045	$684.69

Description of Recent Training Activities

MRP: 2007 Essentials for Cemetery Monument Care, NPS Tel Course. This three-hour televised course was NCPTT’s first foray into satellite broadcast training. The course emphasized sound maintenance techniques for cemetery and commemorative monuments that are sustainable, cyclic, non-invasive, and do no harm. The course aired on January 30, 2007 and included more than 94 registered participants from more than 50 NPS units. The evaluations were some of the highest scores ever received from a Tel course.

MRP: Video clips for cemetery preservation training. NCPTT produced two five-minute video clips on proper techniques for cleaning and resetting cemetery headstones. The video segments were aired on the Essentials in Cemetery Care course and were placed on NCPTT’s website. A Spanish language version also has been made available. An additional video clip on iron fence repair has been produced and is currently in distribution. There have been over 260 requests for DVDs in the first month since their release.

MRP: 2007 Cemetery Monument Conservation Basics – San Antonio. NCPTT partnered with the Texas Historical Commission and the City Cemetery to hold a four-hour workshop in San Antonio, Texas that focused on condition assessment, materials identification, basic cleaning techniques, and simple repairs. The workshop targeted a general audience and hosted 40 participants.

MRP: 2007 Cemetery Monument Conservation Basics – Hot Springs. NCPTT partnered with the Arkansas Heritage Preservation Commission to hold a six-hour workshop in Hot Springs, Arkansas that targeted a general audience and included condition assessment, materials identification, basic cleaning techniques, and simple repairs. Emphasis was placed on African American cemeteries. The workshop reached 50 participants.

MRP: 2007 Cemetery Monument Conservation Workshop – Pensacola. Originally scheduled for September 2007, this training event was pushed back to Oct. 23-25, 2007 based on instructor availability and weather considerations. All plans for the workshop, including site visits, instructor contracts, and logics were completed in FY 2007. NCPTT expects an enrollment of 25 to 32 participants for the course.

A&C: Prospection in Depth 2007—Natchitoches. Prospection in Depth 2007 is the second iteration of a workshop promoting the integration of advanced GIS, GPS, and archaeological geophysics as a non-intrusive way of locating and exploring sites. It represents an innovative pedagogy because of its constructivist approach, wherein the participants conduct legitimate research as part of an ongoing academic research project on creolization. Four instructors taught 10 participants for two weeks. The participants represented state and federal governments, the private sector, and academia. A videographer documented the course, so that video clips could be excerpted for the website.

A&E: Engineering for Older and Historic Buildings 2006—Natchitoches. Architecture & Engineering offered two weeks of courses that introduced the issues and technical challenges encountered in older and historic buildings, and emphasized the subtle shifts in perspective and problem-solving methods that are necessary when working with these resources. Topics covered were Materials and Building Pathology followed by Diagnostics Methodology & Treatment Strategies. A total of 16 students attended.

Friends Group

The Center has an immediate need for a Friends group that can provide us with flexibility and support in conducting our programs. While a capital campaign, as discussed below, would be very beneficial to the Center, it will take years to bear fruit. We need a non-profit partner right now that can assist us, particularly with our training and publications activities. I envision something like an NCPTT Institute that will serve as a partner in all of our training efforts. The Institute could take on the administrative functions, receiving tuition, paying outside instructors, arranging food service, handling credit card payments, and generally helping us with the parts of our work that are so challenging to do within the government. Our staff (and others we bring in) would serve as faculty and design and manage the content of the courses, but the Institute would make the money off of them, using the profit (if any) to seed the next course(s). Procurement would be simplified, services enhanced, and if the training program grows as I hope it will, the Institute could even hire a part-time person to handle some of the administrative work (we would have to do whatever it was legal to do until they could take the work in-house; it would be well to associate the Institute with a community foundation, the NSU Alumni Foundation or a similar entity to facilitate administrative matters in the early period.) We could use similar assistance with the printing and distribution of publications. Right now we distribute Xerox copies for free, but a non-profit partner could help us print and sell more substantial and professional versions.

501 (c) 3 DISCUSSION PAPER – NORMAN KOONCE, PTT BOARD:

IS THERE A COMPELLING NEED FOR A NCPTT CAPITAL CAMPAIGN?

(Identify and define specific needs and/or opportunities of NCPTT that could only be accommodated by the center through the proceeds of a future capital campaign.)

• Examples of needs may include expanded grant capacity, creation of training programs, securing testing equipment, conducting heritage education, development of products, new publications, etc.
• Successful campaigns must be based on worthy, well defined, justifiable needs for which the campaign proceeds will be dedicated.
• There must be a clear and compelling logic that these needs can and should be met only (or most appropriately) by NCPTT.
• When should such a campaign be conducted; in the near future, or is later OK?
• The above issues should be clearly defined in a “case for support” that establishes and defines in a compelling manner that:
  • There is significant need for and benefit from the proposed initiatives,
  • The most logical source for providing these outcomes is the NCPTT, and
  • The NCPTT will have the resources and intent to deliver those benefits.

WHAT SCOPE OF CAMPAIGN WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET IDENTIFIED NEEDS?

(Responding to this question will require establishing a goal, plan, budget, and timeline. Consider all resources necessary to achieve the desired success. Include the expense of conducting the campaign and operating the required not-for-profit corporation.)

What amount of funding would be needed for:

• Establishing and sustaining the required not-for-profit corporation
• Achieving 501(c)(3) status for the corporation from the Internal Revenue Service to allow tax-deductibility of personal contributions
• Conducting a study among prospective donors to gauge the potential for success of a campaign
• Covering the direct campaign expenses of consulting, organizing, printing, communicating, traveling, promoting, managing, acknowledging, etc.
• Fulfillment, performance, and/or delivery of the products, programs, etc. for which the campaign is launched

How much of the funding received could be placed in an endowment to provide a future stream of revenue for continuing delivery of the products, programs etc.?

OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME WILL VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE CAMPAIGN OCCUR?

(Consider the period of time during which a campaign could be designed, implemented, and conducted, and the number of years during which pledges would be collected.)

Following a decision to formally explore opportunities for conducting a capital campaign, the first three to six months would be consumed by finalizing the “case for support” of intended products or programs, engaging interested individuals to organize and manage the campaign, engaging a qualified firm to conduct a study of representative potential donors to gauge the probability for success, establishing a not-for-profit corporation, filing a request for the corporationÕs 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service, and preparing an overall budget and plan for the campaign and future use of the funds raised.

Nine to 12 months should be allocated for active fundraising, including cultivation, solicitation, follow-up, finalizing pledges, and stewardship. It is essential to keep in mind that major gift requests should be made in person rather than by letter or telephone.

The campaign will yield greater results if pledges can be paid by the donors over a three to five year period rather than expecting pledges to be paid at the outset in a lump sum. This, of course, will require continuing management and donor stewardship responsibilities on the part of the not-for-profit corporation to invoice, receive, manage, account for, and disburse the funds received.

FROM WHAT SOURCES WILL CAMPAIGN FUNDS BE GENERATED?

(Identify potential sources of funding for meeting the campaign goal, including, but not limited to, the following. Consider why donors would want to give. What would constitute a “return on investment” for businesses, manufacturers, and trade groups? What donor groups might be in a position to set an inspiring example for others through their giving?)

Members of the Advisory Board and NCPTT staff (if not legally precluded from doing so) and individuals responsible for the not-for-profit corporation could be those who set an inspiring example through unanimous participation. Others include:

• Corporations that manufacture products for preservation work,
• Organizations that promote and/or provide training for preservation,
• Professional and trade group members who are involved in preservation,
• Foundations that make grants for preservation initiatives,
• Philanthropists who own and/or have an interest in historic properties,
• Governmental agencies, and
• Others.

GENERAL COMMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

Seed money would be required to organize and conduct the campaign. There will be costs for establishing the new corporation, securing its tax deductibility benefit, conducting a feasibility survey, and covering the direct operational expenses noted above. Some money from a previous campaign is apparently being held for NCPTT by Northwestern State University. The amount of that corpus and its availability for this use should be explored.

It was stated in a recent Advisory Board meeting that NCPTT staff and Advisory Board members are legally precluded from participation in such a capital campaign, perhaps except for personal pledges that they might make. Thought must be given to who can be depended upon to organize, conduct, and manage the campaign and its proceeds into the future. Keep in mind that the IRS generally requires that decisions regarding the disbursement of any funds raised by a 501(c)(3) corporation are made at the sole discretion of the governing board of the corporation. That governing board would, in all likelihood, not include members of the staff or Advisory Board of the NCPTT.

Highly qualified professional assistance is available to conduct a study and evaluation of the potential donor base as well as to advise or even to lead in the campaign operation itself. Expertise beyond that of local or state fundraisers is generally required for a campaign with a national appeal, which this should be. An introduction can be arranged by request for the NCPTT Staff and Board to meet with a firm that provides the type of competent leadership and advice needed.

Local attorneys have volunteered to offer assistance in establishing the not-for-profit corporation and in applying for the 501(c)(3) status from the IRS as noted during the last Board meeting. They, with other community leaders, would likely consent to a continuing role with the campaign and with future management of the corporation, based on recent conversations with them.

Consideration should be given to deciding in which State the not-for-profit corporation should logically be based. There could be a requirement for payment of fees on funds raised in other states under certain circumstances.

During your deliberation, keep in mind that there are four essentials for campaign success: The first essential is PEOPLE – those who provide the leadership. Next is a compelling “CASE FOR SUPPORT” – one that excites and inspires. Then follows the need for a well-drawn CAMPAIGN PLAN – evidence that this is a feasible undertaking. Finally, there must be PROSPECTS for giving – those who will provide, from their wealth, the dollars necessary to ensure success.

Conducting a campaign is seldom a one-time event when there are compelling reasons for it being instigated. Those who consider this possibility, therefore, should keep in mind the logic that this campaign (should it occur) could spawn an ongoing development initiative for the NCPTT. Remember, the best prospect for giving is the one who most recently gave for your cause.

CHAIRMAN̥S RESPONSE РROBERT SILMAN, PTT BOARD CHAIR:

I echo Kirk’s sentiments (sent to you in an earlier e-mail) about the thoughtfulness and comprehensiveness of your proposal [above]. My only worry is that we may be faced with a large initial expense in hiring a firm that specializes in establishing 501(c)3′s to do our investigation and feasibility work. It reminds me of the firm that we hired to do a business plan for us. We spent a lot of money and have not utilized any of their suggestions. Perhaps that is our fault, of course.

My feeling is that we will only be able to raise money for very specific projects. No donor is going to want to contribute to the US Govt. (even indirectly) to establish something like an endowment or a general fund. As Kirk expressed in his e-mail of last week, he can foresee an immediate need to establish an ‘Institute’. I had a couple of other projects in mind, e.g. funding the Wingspread Conference, giving the heritage education program a big kick start, etc. I am sure there are many other projects we could think up.

Given this as a working premise, do you think that a research company would be necessary to evaluate our chances of success in raising money? What sort of research do they actually perform that we could not do ourselves? (Of course time is the big problem, I realize.)

Strategic Plan

DRAFT Outline

October 16, 2007

1. Background of NCPTT
   1. Founding of the Center
      1. OTA report
      2. 1992 Amendments
      3. Location in Natchitoches
      4. Report to the Associate Director of Cultural Resources following the 2001 Forum
   2. Who We Are
      1. Within the US Department of the Interior, NCPTT is part of the Washington, DC Office of the National Park Service, under the direction of the Associate Director for Cultural Resources
   3. Purposes of the Center
      1. Develop and distribute preservation and conservation skills and technologies for the identification, evaluation, conservation, and interpretation of cultural resources
      2. Develop and facilitate training for Federal, State, and local resource preservation professionals, cultural resource managers, maintenance personnel, and others working in the preservation field
      3. Take steps to apply preservation technology benefits from ongoing research by other agencies and institutions
      4. Facilitate the transfer of preservation technology among Federal agencies, State and local governments, universities, international organizations, and the private sector
      5. Cooperate with related international organizations including but not limited to The International Council on Monuments and Sites, the International Center for the study and Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Properties, and the International Council on Museums.
   4. Forum Recommendations
      1. Research Priorities
      2. Serving as Convener
      3. Knowledge Center
      4. Integrate Training into Research
2. Legislative Authority
   1. 16 U.S.C. Part B
3. Mission Statement: NCPTT advances the application of science and technology to historic preservation. Working in the fields of archeology, architecture, landscape architecture and materials conservation, the Center accomplishes its mission through training, education, research, technology transfer and partnerships.
4. Stakeholders
   1. NCPTT serves a broad audience of individuals, institutions and organizations that preserve cultural resources.
   2. Work of NCPTT directly benefits practicing professionals in fields of architecture, landscape architecture, heritage education, archaeology and materials conservation
5. Strategic Goals/Objectives/Tasks
   1. Advance the use of science and technology in historic preservation
      1. Research
         1. Establish and maintain relevant research priorities
         2. Maintain well equipped research facilities
         3. Establish program for visiting scholars
      2. Training
         1. Develop 5-7 Tel courses per year
         2. Increase training programs by 25%
         3. Develop Scholarship Program for NCPTT workshops
         4. Facilitate Preservation Trades training
         5. Start Fellowship program
      3. Dissemination
         1. Develop Technology Briefs
         2. Develop Learning Modules
         3. Integrate heritage education into primary functions of NCPTT
   2. Improve access to information on preservation technology
      1. Create NCPTT Preservation Technology National Conference
      2. Create NCPTT Publication Series
      3. Increase web content by 60%
      4. Host sessions at professional meetings
      5. Create documents on preservation issues for state and government decision makers
      6. Create wiki for preservation technology
      7. Publish an E-newsletter
   3. Increase awareness of NCPTT’s Services/Resources
      1. Increase presence within NPS
         1. Build stronger partnerships with the Parks
         2. Develop NPS specific brochures
         3. Increase partnerships with NPS training centers
      2. Increase presence among preservation professionals
      3. Increase presence in underserved populations
      4. Increase presence in general media: create online newsroom
      5. Develop an NCPTT alumni program
   4. Effective administration of NCPTT’s programs and activities
      1. Explore strategies to create a greener office
         1. Develop a ‘green team’
         2. Seek consultation with energy efficiency experts
      2. Assess cost effective alternatives to travel
         1. Investigate alternatives to face-to-face professional meetings/trainings
         2. Evaluate alternatives to biannual PTT board meetings
      3. Develop a team to devise an IT strategic plan
      4. Improve administration
         1. Facilitate inter-programmatic cooperation
         2. Increase training for NCPTT staff
      5. Improve PTT Grants
         1. Streamline PTT Grants
         2. Review research priorities
      6. Support the development of a Cooperative Association
         1. Make staff available
         2. Identify areas of contribution from cooperating association

Wingspread

October 4, 2006

Boyd H. Gibbons III, President
The Johnson Foundation
33 East Four Mile Road
Racine, Wisconsin 53402

Dear Boyd Gibbons:

Over the past couple of years I had been in communication with Steve Branca of the Foundation
concerning a proposed conference that I have been trying to organize. I understand that Steve
has left his post at the Johnson Foundation and in talking with Wendy Butler today, she
suggested that I write directly to you.

Almost a year ago Steve replied to my original request with positive encouragement. I have a
feeling that he may have even shown you our proposal. At the risk of repetition, I am enclosing
an updated form of the original proposal below.

Let me begin by saying that I am the Chairman of the Advisory Board of the National Center for
Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT), an interdisciplinary program of the National
Park Service located in Natchitoches, LA. NCPTT’s mission, as its name implies, is to promote
the preservation of historic and prehistoric resources through the advancement and dissemination
of preservation training and technology. We reach both the preservation community and the
public at large. NCPTT was established by act of Congress only some fourteen years ago, so
that we are only now beginning to see the results of the early years of planning and nurturing.

We have decided to organize a national conference of experts in our various program areas in
order to focus on the topic of sustainability. NCPTT feels very strongly that the preservation of
the environment, both built and natural, is one of the most appropriate ways of achieving our oftstated
national goals of preserving our heritage. In all of the political rhetoric of these recent
days, we hear nothing but proclamations from both sides about the importance of preserving this
heritage – that is the stated purpose of our national actions, whatever they may be. Our built
environment is an accurate reflection of our culture; its preservation must receive the highest
priority. The preservation of the built environment is one of the single largest steps we can take
in the realm of sustainability because it advocates the use of existing facilities, rather than
construction of new.

With that as background, we would plan a conference by inviting one or two nationally known
experts in each of our program areas – historic and cultural landscapes, materials research,
preservation architecture and engineering, archaeology and collections. We would also possibly
have an outside moderator, though at this time we are also considering that role being filled by
an NCPTT Board or staff member. Building on the theme of sustainability, we would convene a
two day session with these invited outside experts first meeting in individual groups, each
teamed with one staff member and one or two Board member from NCPTT. On the second day,
in the morning the groups would be scrambled and then in the afternoon all of the groups would
meet together in a single session, pooling the ideas from many different areas of expertise in
order to arrive at our summary statement. Of course there would be assignments prior to arrival
so that we had a body of information and knowledge to work with even before gathering
together.

We intend the results of this Wingspread conference to be the development of preservation and
sustainability strategies and doctrines, policy decisions if you will, that are derived from the
experience of expert practitioners in their fields. These would not be doctrinaire statements or
political espousals, but rather really practical techniques for achieving maximal end results with
minimal expenditure of resources. The proceedings would form a manual for action in each of
the program areas, hopefully looking at new ideas, not retreading the old. The summary
statements would be useful as policy tools for decision-makers in the realm of sustainability. As
the new science of sustainability becomes more established, we need a “second generation” of
thinking in order to accomplish the goals set forth by the first generation. We feel that now is the
opportune time to set forth these tactics. We expect that our outcome would be published as
“The Wingspread Charter.”

We would like to apply to the Johnson Foundation for support for holding such a conference.
The imprimatur of a Wingspread conference lends so much more importance and weight to its
findings and outcome. We realize that most of the funding for travel and lodging would have to
be provided by NCPTT or a co-sponsor that we might find for the conference.

Being able to meet in the environment of Wingspread would mean a great deal to us. After all it
is one of the great historic homes of America. Meeting in a Frank Lloyd Wright setting is so
appropriate for an agency of the National Park Service that is dedicated to the advancement of
preservation technology. The guidelines for preservation of landmark buildings are, of course,
written by our parent, the Department of the Interior through its Secretary. Our firm were the
structural engineers that designed the high tech repairs to the roofs of Wingspread using carbon
fiber thin shells, some nine years ago. I revisited the house several years ago while in Wisconsin
to deliver the Monona Terrace Lecture in Madison, talking about Frank Lloyd Wright and the
need for structural repairs in his buildings. Lois Berg was kind enough to show my wife and me
around the house, so I could do a post-construction inspection. I am sorry that I missed you that
day. We are also monitoring some of the problems at the Research Tower at the S.C. Johnson
office site in downtown Racine and the Guggenheim Museum in New York.

We hope that you might endorse this application, recalling perhaps some fond memories of your
days as a Deputy Under Secretary in the Department of the Interior and retaining some sympathy
for that Department’s activities and needs.

I have personally had a good deal of experience in developing new ideas in the realm of
sustainable design. I formed the original Working Commission on Sustainable Engineering for
the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), a Zurich- based
organization of more than 4,000 structural engineers from 100 countries. I was also awarded the
Anton Tedesko Medal by IABSE in recognition of my work in leading them in sustainable
causes and securing passage of a statement of ethics regarding members participating in projects
only if they promote sustainable principles. I also developed the original course in sustainable
design for the Graduate School of Architecture at Columbia University and, in addition, served
as a charter member of the committee that wrote the Guidelines for Environmentally Responsible
Capital Projects for New York City, one of the first municipal strategies of its kind.

We think that this may be an opportune time to offer policy suggestions. The White House has
recently announced an initiative called Preserve America and Laura Bush has invited a group of
preservationists, including the Executive Director of NCPTT (Kirk Cordell), myself and two
other NCPTT Board members to join about 100 others at the Preserve America Summit in New
Orleans on October 19 and 20, 2006. We have been working hard all summer in preparation for
this event that mandates the revisiting of the entire spectrum of historic preservation in the US as
we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966. All
areas are open for examination and discussion and I must tell you that there a good many radical
ideas being suggested. In many of the recommendations of the panels that have prepared
material for this summit, the role of NCPTT is significantly expanded.

We would like to organize this Wingspread conference in October 2007 if possible. Our Board
is scheduled to meet in Yellowstone Park on October 16 and 17, just two weeks away. Is there
some way that we could get an indication of continuing interest on the part of the Johnson
Foundation before our Board meeting so that we can continue our planning in earnest? Our
planning efforts were significantly disrupted by Hurricane Katrina because much of the Center’s
staff was assigned to temporary duty in New Orleans. But we are back on track now.

You can learn more about the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training at our
website: www.ncptt.nps.gov I can be reached by e-mail at: {redacted}

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Silman
Chairman, Advisory Board,
National Center for Preservation Technology and Training

---

Wingspread Conference Outline
Preservation and Sustainability – An Examination of Policy
GOALS:
To discuss and examine the parallel tracks of preservation of the built environment
(including buildings, monuments, landscapes, archaeology and artifacts) and
sustainability (as we currently broadly define it: Development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Mrs.
Brundtland). To see where these two issues intersect and where they reinforce each other.
To determine and recommend measures by which a more formal statement of policy
might be drafted so that the broadest community may understand this symbiotic
relationship and the need to foster it. Further to recommend that those engaged in the
work of preservation be encouraged or even required to follow certain procedures that
will guarantee the furtherance of the principles of sustainability in their practice.
EXPECTED OUTCOME:
A formal declaration or “charter” that announces principles of sustainability that should
or must be practiced by the preservation community.
CONFERENCE FORMAT:
A two day conference is envisioned, with preparatory work being undertaken by
participants prior to arrival. The first half day will be devoted to introduction,
overarching principles that apply to all facets of preservation and sustainability; perhaps a
keynote speaker will lead this session. The second part of the first day will be devoted to
break-out groups of sub-specialists, discussing their own particular aspects of the issues.
The morning of the second day will be a scramble of break-out groups where multidisciplines
will be mixed together. The afternoon of the second day will be devoted to
drafting a statement or charter that will be the publicly disseminated outcome of the
conference.
PARTICIPANTS:
All Board members who wish will participate, each being assigned to a specialist group
in their area of expertise. Selected staff members from the Center will also be asked to
join. Invited guests will be specialists, ideally having keen insights into the issues of both
sustainability and preservation. In some cases, these specialists may have experience
weighing more heavily on one side or the other. There will be a moderator or leader who
will direct the proceedings and keep the conference to schedule and purpose.
The total numbers of participants may therefore look something like the following:
Board members 8
Staff 4
Invited guests 16
Moderator/leader 1
Total 29
According to the staff at Wingspread, this number is feasible, but may even be a little
large for our purposes.
PROPOSED PROGRAM:
Day 0
Board and Staff members arrive at Milwaukee Airport in late afternoon. Check into
motel near Airport and have dinner together that evening.
Day 1
a. All-day Board meeting at venue in Milwaukee; possibly in hotel meeting room.
b. Guests and Moderator arrive at Milwaukee Airport in afternoon. All are picked
up by Wingspread at Milwaukee for transportation to Racine.
c. All check in to Wingspread Conference Center and attend welcoming dinner at
Center.
Day 2
a. Morning – Breakfast together at Center. Introduction by Moderator. Procedures,
methodology, intent. Keynote address. Establishment of break-out groups.
b. Late morning – Tour of FLW Wingspread House and Grounds.
c. Lunch at Center
d. Afternoon – Breakout groups meet, discuss and establish priorities for their input
to final statement. At end of afternoon, have each break-out group list their
priorities.
e. Cocktail hour social
f. Dinner at Center. After dinner entertainment ?
Day 3
a. Morning – Breakfast together at Center. Scramble break-out groups to mix the
disciplines. Examine and question the priorities from the day before. At end of
morning, have each break-out group discuss any revisions to their priorities.
b. Lunch at Center.
c. Afternoon – Develop draft of statement or “Wingspread Charter” on Preservation
and Sustainability.”
d. Dinner at Center.
e. Leave time after dinner if there is any unfinished ‘work’.
Day 4
a. Breakfast together at Center. Farewells.
b. Morning – Transportation to Milwaukee Airport provided by

Dear Fellow Board Members,

I would like to propose a new type of activity for the NCPTT Board. To my knowledge, we have never undertaken a purely Board-organized initiative, independent of the normal staff activities of the Center. Instead of meeting twice a year and limiting ourselves to reacting to reports from the NPS cultural affairs directors, the CenterÕs Exec. Dir. and the staff, why canÕt we perform some meaningful work on our own that would enhance the image of the Center and compliment the fine work being done by the staff. We, the Board, have a tremendous collective capability, covering the entire spectrum of preservation.

Toward this end, I would like to propose a small but high-level conference of preservation specialists from all of our respective fields (and other areas that we may not encompass) to focus on the question of Sustainability in Preservation. Sustainability practices have become a favorite rallying point in all of our areas of expertise within the past 10 or 15 years. Following these practices is a formal requirement in all NPS work as well as in most other governmental and institutional projects. But just where and what is the interface between sustainability and preservation? Are we ready to formalize such a relationship, to point out the natural symbiosis, to advocate specific rules and requirements regarding sustainable practices in preservation?

Obviously I think so. Sustainable design in engineering practice has been an abiding interest for me since the mid-1970Õs. How does the rest of the Board feel?

My specific proposal for a conference would be to hold it under the sponsorship of the Johnson Foundation (JF) at Wingspread in Racine, Wisconsin. This was Frank Lloyd WrightÕs largest house, now being used as a conference center. The JF has built a beautiful adjacent building to house participants during the conference. Meetings are held either in the Wingspread house or other buildings on the property. The JF does not provide funding Ð we would have to pay for travel and lodging costs (you pay to stay at Wingspread, but it is relatively affordable considering how nice it is). They do provide the venue as well as a tremendous amount of prestige. We can discuss costs and funding sources at the Board meeting. I have sent them a preliminary letter of inquiry which is attached. Their response was, on an informal basis, favorable. However this by no means guarantees their final acceptance of our proposal. For more information on the JF, see their websiste at www.johnsonfdn.org

After you have read the proposal, could you please come back to the following questions that they asked. I have not yet replied because I would first like to see if there is interest in this proposal from the Board. If so, I would like the response to the questions to be from the Board as a whole. Also, please make suggestions for any changes to the proposal. We should discuss this at the Board meeting rather than starting a whole train of e-mails.

1. How will we spend the time at the conference? How much will be developed at Wingspread? Specific guidelines? What is our vision of the final product (e.g. a 2 page summary or a 300 page spec.)? How the conference fits in to the whole process will prove its worthiness to the evaluating committee.
2. They have a constant concern about conferences trying to do too much. We should pick a tight focus and hone in on it. To them, having all disciplines represented sounded like it might be too ambitious for a 2-3 day conference.
3. What will be the level of authority for the end product? Will it be the same level as the SecretaryÕs standards?
4. How will our end product be disseminated?
5. Thanks for reviewing this before you get to the meeting. Looking forward to seeing you all in New York, Sunday-Tuesday, Oct. 17-19.

Bob Silman

Preserve America

The Preserve America Summit Executive Summary

Charting a Future Course for the National Historic Preservation Program

Findings and Recommendations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

August 2007

Preserving America’s Heritage
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 803 · Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-606-8503 · Fax: 202-606-8647
www.achp.gov

Promote innovation by creating a clearinghouse through the National Park Service National Center for Preservation Technology and Training to disseminate information on innovative technologies and encourage their use.

The Fostering Innovation panel focused in part on the importance of using innovative technologies to enhance historic property stewardship. A key element for fostering innovation is the exchange of information, but there are currently few channels for cross-pollination of ideas. To fill that void, the panel suggested creating a national clearinghouse for information exchange to highlight model technologies and applications. The panel recommended establishing the clearinghouse at the existing National Park Service National Center for Preservation Technology and Training. Created by amendment of the NHPA in 1992, the Center’s mission is to develop and distribute skills and technologies that enhance the preservation, conservation, and interpretation of historic resources.

Suggested lead agency: National Park Service

Promote Innovation

This ‘after the fire’ view of the Mill City Museum in Minneapolis, Minnesota, incorporating the ruins of the National Historic Landmark Washburn A Mill with a contemporary structure serving multiple purposes, is an analogy in steel, glass, and stone of how the best of the present can both improve and build upon while incorporating important remnants of the past. The old mill itself was considered the technological cutting edge of the flour-milling industry when it was built in the 19th century.
(Photo Credit: Preserve America)

Organizational Chart

Calendar & Conference Schedule

Special Days in FY2008

October 2007 October 2-6, 2007, National Trust Annual Meeting, St. Paul, MN October 4, 2007, Shmini Atzeret / Simchat Torah October 5-9, 2007, ASLA Annual Meeting and Expo, San Francisco, CA October 8, 2007, Columbus Day Holiday October 11-13, IPTW 2007: “Coming Home”, Frederick, Maryland October 17-20, 2007, Traditional Building Exhibition and Conference, New Orleans, LA October 22-26, 2007, CMC Workshop, Pensacola, FL October 31 – November 3, 2007, Southeastern Archeological Conference, Annual Meeting, Knoxville, TN

November 2007 October 31 – November 3, 2007, Southeastern Archeological Conference, Annual Meeting, Knoxville, TN November 1-4, 2007, NCPTT Fall Board Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico November 1-2, 2007, From Gray Areas to Green Areas, Austin, TX November 3-7, 2007, Association for Preservation Technology, Intl., Annual Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico November 5-8, 2007, Maintaining Urban Historic Parks, Washington DC November 12, 2007, Veterans Day Holiday November 12-15, 2007, Eastern Analytical Symposium, Somerset, NJ November 22, 2007, Thanksgiving Holiday November 28-December 2, 2007, American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. November 30-December 2, 2007, NCSS Annual Conference, San Diego, CA

December 2007 November 30-December 2, 2007, NCSS Annual Conference, San Diego, CA December 4-12, 2007, Chanukah December 25, 2007, Christmas Holiday

January 2008 January 1, 2008, New Years Holiday January 16, 2008, Essentials for Cemetery Monument Care Tel Course January (?), Basics for Iron Fence Repair Tel course January 21, 2008, Martin Luther King Holiday January 9-13, 2008, Society for Historical Archeology, Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, NM January 11-13, 2008, Monument Builders of North America, Baltimore, MD January 22, 2008, Tu B’Shevat

February 2008 Feb (?) Environmental Adaptations in Design, Natchitoches La. February 4-5, 2008, NPSB Mardi Gras Holiday February 6, 2008, Ash Wednesday February 6-8, 2008, Colorado Preservation, Saving Places Conference, Denver, CO February 8-10, 2008, Louisiana Archaeological Society, Metairie, Louisiana February 18, 2008 Washington’s Birthday (Presidents’ Day) Holiday February 29–March 1, 2008, Historic Preservation Symposium, College Station, TX

March 2008 March (?), 2008, PTT Grants National Panel March 6–8, 2008, Sixth Annual Forum on Historic Preservation Practice, Goucher College, Baltimore, MD March 12-15, 2008, Traditional Building Exhibition and Conference, Boston, MA March 16, 2008, Palm Sunday March 21, 2008, Good Friday March 21-28, 2008, NPSB Spring Break Holiday March 21, 2008, Purim March 23, 2008, Easter Sunday March 26-29, 2008, International Cemetery, Cremation, and Funeral Association, San Diego, CA March 26-30, 2008, Society for American Archeology, Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC March 30–April 2, 2008, National Main Streets Conference, Philadelphia, PA

April 2008 April (?), Basics for Limewash Application April 20, 2008, Passover April 21-24, 2008, American Institute for Conservation, Annual Meeting, Denver, CO April 22-25, 2008: Catholic Cemeteries of the West Convention & Annual Meeting, Stevenson, WA

May 2008 May 2, 2008, Yom Hashoah May 2, 2008, Yom Haatzmaut May (?), International Preservation Trades Network May (?), Heritage Education Lessons for Field Units: Tying Interpretation to Standards May (?), Before the Storm: Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery May (?), Cemetery Monument Conservation Basics May 15-17, 2008, American Institute of Architects, Annual Meeting, Boston, MA May 20-22, 2008, Designing the Parks, Part 1: The History of Park Planning and Design, Charlottesville, VA May 23, 2008, Lag B’Omer May 26, 2008, Memorial Day Holiday May 29–31, 2008, US/ICOMOS International Symposium, Washington, D.C.

June 2008 June 9, 2008, Shavuot June (?), Prospection in Depth June 19-22, 2008, Association of Gravestone Studies, Amherst, MA June 24-27, 2008: New England Cemetery Association Annual Convention, Sturbridge, MA June 29-July 2, 2008: International Society for Technology in Education Annual Conference, San Antonio June 29-July 4, 2008, World Archaeological Congress, Dublin, Ireland

July 2008 July 4, 2008, Independence Day July (?), 2008, Rocky Mountain Monument Builders Annual Meeting July (?), Emerging Technologies in Heritage Site Management and Interpretation Summer(?), Remote Site Surveillance and Monitoring Technologies Symposium July (?),Applying Technology and Heritage Education to k-12 Learning Environments

August 2008 August (?), 2008, Cemetery Operations and Maintenance Conference August 10, 2008, Tisha B’Av

September 2008 September (?), 2008, American Association for State and Local History, Annual Meeting September(?), New England Cemetery Monument Conservation Workshop September 18-20, 2008, Traditional Building Exhibition and Conference, Boston, MA September 30, 2008, Rosh Hashanah

Staff List

National Center for Preservation Technology and Training
645 University Parkway
Natchitoches, LA 71457

(318) 356-7444 main phone
(318) 356-9119 facsimile

Kevin Ammons Administrative Officer (318) 356-7444 ext. 263	Mary Bistodeau Receptionist (318) 356-7444 ext. 221
Anna Breaux Information Technology Intern (318)356-7444 ext. 239	Jason Church Materials Conservator (318) 356-7444 ext. 236
Sean Clifford Web Developer (318) 356-7444 ext. 240	Kirk A. Cordell Executive Director (318) 356-7444 ext. 222
Lance Ellis Information Technology Administrator (318) 356-7444 ext. 241	Christine Faith Heritage Education Coordinator (318) 356-7444 ext. 262
Andy Ferrell Chief, Architecture & Engineering Program (318) 356-7444 ext. 256	Jeffery Guin Marketing Manager (318) 356-7444 ext. 246
Sarah Jackson Architectural Conservator (318) 356-7444 ext. 255	David Morgan, Ph.D Chief, Archeology & Collections (318) 356-7444 ext. 256
Mary Ellen Servello Executive Secretary (318) 356-7444 ext. 238	Catherine Situma Joint-Faculty Researcher (318) 356-7444 ext. 237
Deborah Dietrich Smith Chief, Landscape Architecture (318) 356-7444 ext. 259	Mary F. Striegel, Ph.D. Chief, Materials Research Program (318) 356-7444 ext. 224

Board List

Judith A. Bense, Ph.D. Chair, Dept. of Anthropology Director, Archeology Institute, University of West Florida	Horace H. Foxall, Jr. Program Manager Center of Expertise for Preservation of Historic Structures U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
James W. Garrison State Historic Preservation Officer State of Arizona	Roy E. Graham, FAIA Director, College Programs in Historic Preservation School of Architecture, College of Design, Construction & Planning, University of Florida
Norman L. Koonce, FAIA National Co-Chairman The Campaign for the American Center of Architecture	Suzanne Lewis Secretary of Interior’s Designee, PTT Board Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park
Robert G.H. Pahl, AIA, NCARB President, Pahl Architecture P.C.	Frank Preusser, Ph.D. Frank Preusser & Associates
Robert Silman, PE (Bob) Robert Silman Associates, P.C.	Jonathan Spodek Associate Professor, Department of Architecure Ball State University
Suzanne L. Turner, FASLA Professor Emerita of Landscape Architecture Louisiana State University	Norman Weiss, FAPT Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning & Preservation

---

Jon Smith
Designated Federal Officer
Asst. Assoc. Director, Heritage Preservation Assistance Programs, NPS

Director’s Order 21 Donations and Fundraising

1.0 Background and Purpose

1.1 Background. The National Park Service (NPS) recognizes private philanthropy as both a noble tradition for national parks and a vital element of the success of today’s National Park System. Some national parks exist only because motivated citizens contributed time, talent and funds to create them. Gifts of land or easements have enlarged many parks. Donated artifacts are found in visitor centers and museums across the nation. The NPS actively engages the help of park-oriented philanthropies and supporters and enthusiastically welcomes them as partners in the stewardship of the properties entrusted to our care.

Donations come to the NPS from individuals, families, organizations, foundations, corporations, businesses, and other entities purely as expressions of support, as a result of a donor’s awareness of needs, or in response to an organized fundraising campaign by others. Donations are used to enhance NPS programs and to help achieve excellence. Donations are not to be used as offsets to appropriated funds or to meet recurring operational requirements. The NPS appreciates the generosity of those who donate directly, and those who work through authorized non-profit organizations which raise funds for the benefit of the park units and programs. For the purposes of this Director’s Order, these organizations, individuals and entities are collectively referred to as “NPS partners.”

The policies and procedures in this Director’s Order are intended to serve as the framework for NPS employees’ conduct in relation to donation activities and fundraising campaigns which benefit the NPS. Through their application, the NPS seeks to ensure the integrity and appropriateness of donations and fundraising activities. While the NPS does not regulate fundraising or the donation activities of third parties, fundraising conducted in its name is appropriate only when consistent with the mission of the NPS and the standards included in this Director’s Order.

1.2 Purpose. The purpose of this Director’s Order is to:

· Set forth the Director’s delegation of authority regarding donations and fundraising;

· Establish roles and responsibilities for NPS employees who work with donors, fundraising partners, and potential donors;

· Identify plans and agreements relating to philanthropic activities and explain when they are required to be used;

· Establish criteria for consideration in accepting of donations; and

· Provide general guidance on appropriate forms of donor recognition.

This Director’s Order is to be used by NPS employees in tandem with the Reference Guide to Donations and Fundraising (Reference Guide).

The NPS recognizes that each park and partner is unique and that a “one size fits all” approach does not work. This Director’s Order is intended to provide the needed flexibility in working with our partners from the start up organizations to those with years of demonstrated success. Any questions about the interpretation of the provisions of this Director’s Order may be addressed through the Regional Partnership Coordinators and National Partnership Office as appropriate.

This Director’s Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the NPS. It is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

1.3 Related Sources of Guidance. Related sources of guidance are identified in the Reference Guide

1.4 Activities not Subject to this Director’s Order. The following activities are not subject to this Director’s Order:

(a) Services of individual volunteers or groups of volunteers, e.g., a Girl Scout troop, under the NPS Volunteer-In-Parks program, authorized by the Volunteers in the Parks Act of 1969 (16 USC 18g – 18j);

(b) A person’s or an entity’s share of costs where there is independent authority for such cost sharing, e.g., challenge cost-share programs where the partner does not engage in public fundraising;

(c) Moneys received as fees for services;

(d) Reports or analyses prepared or paid by outside parties, or funds received by the NPS for such purposes, pursuant to appropriate authorities, e.g. a NEPA analysis funded by an applicant;

(e) Donations of official travel covered by 31 U.S.C. § 1353 for attendance at a meeting or similar function;

(f) Donations associated with the exercise of NPS regulatory authorities, such as where mitigation measures involve the donation of interests in land to be used by the NPS for conservation purposes;

(g) Gifts to individual employees that are separately governed by the Government-wide Standards of Ethical Conduct at 5 CFR Part 2635; and

(h) Commercial services including sales of items inside a park.

2.0 Authorities and Constraints

2.1 NPS Authority to Accept Donations. The authority for issuing this Director’s Order is contained in the NPS Organic Act (16 U.S.C. §§1-4). General authority to accept donations is found in 16 U.S.C. § 6, which expressly authorizes NPS to accept donations for purposes of the National Park System. Various additional authorities to accept donations exist and may, for example be contained in a Park’s authorizing legislation. The Partnership Legal Primer (www.doi.gov/partnerships/partnership_legal_framework.html) identifies many of the additional NPS authorities to accept donations. For purposes of this Director’s Order, the term “donation” includes “gifts” and refers to something of value (cash or in-kind goods or services) received from an outside source without consideration or an exchange of value. Funds or other items received as a result of a competitively awarded grant from a foundation are also covered by the term “donation.”

The NPS may accept donations from individuals, families, organizations, foundations, corporations, businesses, associations and other entities. Generally, NPS may accept donations of funds, securities (common stocks, preferred stocks, bonds), real property (land and improvements), or interests in real property (easements), facilities, and in-kind goods or services. For information on whether a particular donation should be accepted or for further information on authorities and constraints see Section 6.1 of this Director’s Order and Section 1.3 of the Reference Guide.

2.2 No Solicitation of Donations. It is NPS policy that its employees not solicit donations. The term “solicit” means any request by an NPS employee to a non-federal entity, group or individual for donations to be made directly or indirectly to the NPS in support of its programs. There are, however, a broad range of appropriate activities that NPS employees may undertake in relation to authorized fundraising by park partners as well as, for example, in responding to inquiries from park visitors, see Section 5.1.

2.3 Employee Representations. Employees are not to portray Congress, the Department, or NPS as having failed to meet their responsibilities. Furthermore, consistent with anti-lobbying provisions such as 18 U.S.C. § 1913 and applicable appropriations acts, employees shall not engage in lobbying activities.

2.4 Congressionally Authorized Fundraising Organization. Congress occasionally charters non-profit partners or recognizes the role of an existing non-profit partner through legislation. In 1967, Congress, in the National Park Foundation Act, chartered the National Park Foundation as the official national, non-profit fundraising partner of the NPS to encourage private gifts for the benefit of the NPS and thereby to further the conservation of natural, scenic, historic, scientific, educational, inspirational or recreational resources for future generations. In addition to the National Park Foundation, Congress has authorized several other entities as fundraising organizations for specific units or programs of the National Park System. Unless otherwise specified herein, the provisions of this Director’s Order apply equally to NPS’ dealings with all of its partners regardless of how they were created.

3.0 Policies and Considerations

3.1 Ethical Considerations. NPS employees are also subject to ethics regulations which generally prohibit federal employees from using their official title, position, or any authority associated with their public office to endorse products, services or enterprises. However, this does not prohibit an NPS employee from expressing support for the authorized fundraising efforts of non-profit support groups, including friends groups and cooperating associations. See the Reference Guide for additional information and examples.

Unless specifically authorized by law, an NPS employee may not serve on the board, either as a voting member or non-voting member, including as an ex-officio member, or as an officer of a cooperating association, friends group, or other NPS partner organization that is authorized to raise funds for the benefit of the NPS. However, NPS employees may serve as liaisons to partner organizations as part of their official duties, see Section 5.1.r. Liaisons should consult with bureau ethics officials in order to ensure compliance with ethics requirements.

The NPS will not accept funds donated from organizations in which an NPS employee is an officer, director (including ex-officio positions), or is otherwise engaged in a leadership role with the organization, unless the arrangement has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the Solicitor, including the Departmental Ethics Office.

3.2 Matching Funds/Challenges. The NPS may be able to use donated or appropriated funds, subject to conditions imposed on the use of the funds by the donor or Congress, as a match for donations from outside sources. Under written agreements approved by the Solicitor’s Office, NPS may approve the use of such funds as the basis for a “challenge” issued by a non-profit fundraising partner to its donors. All literature associated with this match must also be approved, as appropriate by the NPS Regional Director, superintendent or program manager.

The NPS will not accept donations that impose a fundraising “challenge” to the NPS to match the donation, or that would obligate donated or appropriated funds in advance of their receipt.

3.3 Accountability for Donations. All monetary donations received directly by the NPS must be deposited in a donation account and accounted for and disbursed using the same standards and procedures for appropriated funds. The individual park’s administrative officer, the regional office or NPS comptroller can provide additional guidance.

All non-monetary donations accepted by the park, unit, or program must also be accounted for under the same standards and procedures used to account for other similar government property (see Director’s Order #44 on Personal Property Management or Director’s Order #25 on Land Acquisition). The donor is generally responsible for establishing the value of the item.

3.4 Annual Reporting Requirements. Each NPS unit or program that receives donations must submit an annual report, through the appropriate Deputy, Associate or Regional Director to the National Partnership Office, detailing the cash amount or description of any in-kind donations received directly by the unit or program. At a minimum, for any donation exceeding $1,000 — whether cash or in-kind — such reporting must identify the source, the date and the amount of the donation. Additional details and guidance on the content, format, timing and requirements for this report will be provided by the National Partnership Office.

4.0 Delegations of Authority

4.1 Functional Management and Day-to-Day Implementation. The authority for the implementation and oversight of this Director’s Order is delegated to the Associate Director for Partnerships, Interpretation and Education, Volunteers, Outdoor Recreation who is designated as the Senior Manager for matters related to donations and fundraising in the NPS. This authority includes:

(a) Establishing and implementing necessary policies, procedures and standards as specified in this Director’s Order;

(b) Managing, on a day-to-day basis, the NPS relationship with the National Park Foundation; and

(c) Monitoring compliance with this Director’s Order.

Unless specifically addressed elsewhere in this Director’s Order, the day-to-day responsibility for implementation of the policies and standards set forth in this Director’s Order is further delegated to the Chief of the National Partnership Office.

4.2 Reservations and Delegations of Authority to Accept Donations. The following reservations and delegations relate to the acceptance of donations (See Section 6.1 and Section 4.3). For purposes of this section, these limits relate to either single donations or a series of related donations from a single entity, i.e. a pledge paid in installments. All such donations of $2,500 or more must be reviewed in accordance with Section 6.1.2 of this Director’s Order.

(a) The Director reserves the authority to accept, or authorize the acceptance of, donations of $1 million or more offered to a park either directly, or through a park partner when the donation is to be subsequently granted to a park by the NPS partner.

(b) The Deputy Directors, Associate Directors, and the Comptroller are delegated the authority to accept or authorize the acceptance of donations offered directly to NPS, or offered to an authorized partner for the benefit of the NPS, that are under $1 million and are offered to NPS through its directorates (such as Cultural or Natural Resources), to program areas or offices within their organizations (such as the National Center for Cultural Resources). The above officials may re-delegate this authority to approve and accept the donation to senior program or office managers within their organization.

(c) Regional Directors are delegated the authority to accept or authorize the acceptance of donations under $1 million offered directly to the NPS, or offered to an authorized NPS partner for the benefit of NPS. The Regional Director may re-delegate this or more limited authority to accept such donations to park superintendents or regional program managers.

Subsequent references to “authorized employees” in this Director’s Order refer to those employees who have been delegated the authority to accept donations.

4.3 Reservations and Delegations of Authority to Authorize Fundraising and Corporate Campaign Activities. The following reservations and delegations relate to the authorization of fundraising and corporate campaign activities see Section 6.1 and Section 7.

(a) The Director reserves the authority to authorize agreements relating to fundraising activities by NPS partners that will benefit the NPS if the activities either:

i. Have a goal or $1 million or more;

ii. Involve national or international solicitations;

iii. Involve construction projects where costs are estimated to exceed $1 million; or

iv. Involve corporate campaigns of national or international significance.

Fundraising agreements which meet the threshold for Director’s approval must be submitted with a donor recognition plan, a feasibility study, a fundraising plan as described in Section 8 and a written description of the partner’s donation review process as described in Section 8.5 .

(b) Deputy Directors, Associate Directors and Regional Directors are delegated the authority to authorize agreements relating to fundraising activities that are expected to fall below $1 million to benefit the NPS and corporate campaigns with a partner as described in Section 7 that are below this level and not of national or international significance. If the fundraising or corporate campaign is likely to generate controversy, the delegated official shall consult with the Director prior to approving the campaign. The Regional Director may delegate the authority to authorize fundraising activities to superintendents for campaigns planned to raise $100,000 or less.

5.0 Roles and Responsibilities

Fundraising to support parks is typically undertaken by long-standing, park support groups such as friends groups. Friends groups are non-profit organizations that are generally formed under state law and must comply with state and federal requirements for charitable fundraising as well as standards of professional conduct (see Section 5.2 of the Reference Guide for additional information). Individuals, businesses, or groups such as local service organizations, clubs, and schools may also, from time to time, be authorized to undertake fundraising activities for the benefit of the NPS.

The NPS values the commitment of its non-profit partners and their many contributions to the NPS and the National Park System. NPS employees are expected to develop and maintain professional relationships with these partners based on mutual understanding of the goals and functions of both parties and, when required, appropriate written agreements. Written agreements are required prior to fundraising that explicitly states or implies that the fundraising is authorized by or for the benefit of the NPS as detailed in Section 8. Absent such an agreement, NPS will not accept any resulting donations without the approval of the Associate Director for Partnerships, Interpretation and Education, Volunteers and Outdoor Recreation.

5.1 National Park Service. In general, NPS employees who have been appropriately authorized:

(a) May identify projects, programs, or objectives that are appropriate for private sector support and may describe NPS needs or how donations will be used to potential donors and the public;

(b) May allow the non-intrusive display and distribution of materials in parks to educate visitors about an authorized fundraising partnership or activity;

(c) May provide information, where appropriate, regarding their ability to accept donations in support of their programs;

(d) May develop lists of programs or activities that the NPS could undertake with donated support, and discuss these in interactions with others;

(e) May enter into written agreements with specific NPS partners regarding fundraising for the benefit of a park or project consistent with Section 4.3;

(f) May work or participate with authorized nonprofit support groups to solicit to benefit the NPS (e.g. attend events and accompany a partner on visits to prospective donors) subject to any specific limitations contained in this Director’s Order;

(g) May work with organizations and local businesses in co-sponsoring events;

(h) May accept offers to support park activities through co-sponsorship of events by concessioners and others;

(i) Must recognize donors consistent with Section 10;

(j) Must respond in a timely manner to all offers of donations, either accepting or declining the donation consistent with Section 6.1;

(k) Must review and approve all informational materials relating to the partnership with the NPS prior to their distribution;

(l) Must ensure accountability for donations received by the NPS;

(m) Must ensure that fundraising proposed for construction projects is in compliance with the Partnership Construction Process (see Section 9 of the Director’s Order as well as the Reference Guide and www.nps.gov/partnerships/capital_campaigns.htm for additional information), as well as all applicable laws and regulations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act;

(n) Must consider, in advance of entering into a fundraising agreement for a project or accepting a donation for a project for a particular use, the costs and any other operational implications of that project that would result;

(o) May apply for competitively awarded grants from foundations and for grants or similar assistance from non-federal governmental entities, in response to a grant application solicitation, in the regularly scheduled grant cycle, or to an organization that accepts unsolicited grant applications or proposals subject to Section 6.1.1;

(p) May support or encourage the efforts of third parties to create park support groups such as “friends” groups whose purposes include raising funds for the benefit of the NPS (see Reference Guide for additional discussion);

(q) May work with non-profit organizations and others to receive donations of in-holdings as well as or other property (e.g. artifacts);

(r) May serve as a liaison to cooperating associations, friends groups, or other partner organizations authorized to raise funds for the benefit of the NPS; and

(s) Must ensure that fundraising agreements comply with NPS goals, policies and plans.

5.2 Fundraising Partners In general, an NPS fundraising partner:

(a) May work with a park or other organizational unit to engage the public in philanthropy to benefit NPS programs;

(b) Must ensure that fundraising for the benefit of the NPS is conducted in accordance with appropriate written fundraising agreements (see Section 8.1);

(c) May describe NPS identified needs to potential donors and the public;

(d) May hold and manage an endowment for the benefit of park programs when authorized consistent with Section 8.7 of this Director’s Order;

(e) Must send all fundraising and other informational materials referring to the NPS and or the approved fundraising project to the NPS for advance review and approval;

(f) Must work with NPS to ensure that fundraising proposed for construction projects is consistent with Section 9 of the Director’s Order. See the Reference Guide for additional information;

(g) Should work with the park unit to develop and implement an appropriate donor recognition program consistent with Section 10 of this Director’s Order.

(h) Should work with NPS to implement the requirements of Section 8.5.

6.0 Donations

6.1 Considering Donations. A donation may be offered either directly to a park, unit, or program or indirectly to the partner for the benefit of a park, unit or program. This section provides guidance on the consideration of donations offered directly to the NPS. Section 8 provides guidance for partner review of donations they receive.

Direct donations must be accepted in a legally and ethically appropriate manner. Authorized employees must consider all relevant factors when determining whether to accept a donation, including the value and purposes of the donation, and the nature and interests of the donor. The authorized employee should weigh the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts. Examples of relevant factors to be considered are identified in Section 6.1.1 below.

Furthermore, it is NPS policy to decline direct donations from a company which holds or is seeking a concessions contract or which would identify the NPS with alcohol or tobacco products.

6.1.1 Maintaining the Integrity and Impartiality of, and Public Confidence, in NPS and the Department of the Interior. Before accepting, utilizing or recognizing direct donations an authorized employee must determine that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the potential donation:

(a) Maintains the integrity of NPS and the Department of the Interior’s programs and operations:

i. The donation is not, or does not appear (such as by its size or circumstances) to be, an attempt to influence the exercise of any regulatory or other authority of NPS or the Department with respect to the donor.

ii. The donation meets an actual need of the NPS and would not require NPS to assume funding commitments it is unprepared or unable to accept.

iii. The donation and any conditions or restrictions on it are consistent with, and do not otherwise circumvent, law, regulation, NPS policy, authorized park purposes or applicable park plans.

iv. The NPS is able to properly and effectively utilize or manage any donated real or personal property consistent with policy, programmatic, and management goals.

v. The donation will not be used by the donor to state or imply NPS endorsement of the donor or the donor’s product, service or enterprise.

vi. If the donation involves temporary or term personnel or provides funding to hire temporary or term personnel, such personal services or funds may be accepted provided that such personnel are not responsible for permitting or other regulatory or policy decisions.

(b) Maintains the impartiality, and appearance of impartiality, of NPS, the Department of the Interior, and their employees:

i. The proposed donation is made to a program or made in an amount that would not influence or appear to influence any significant pending NPS or Departmental decision or action involving the donor’s interests.

ii. There is neither an actual nor an implied commitment to take an action favorable to the donor in exchange for the donation.

iii. The donor will not obtain or appear to obtain special treatment in dealing with the NPS, the Department, or any of its other bureaus.

(c) Maintains public confidence in the NPS, the Department and their programs and employees.

i. Acceptance would not likely result in public controversy.

ii. The donation comes only with conditions that are consistent with the NPS’ program and policy goals.

iii. The donation consists of only goods or services needed by NPS.

iv. The proposed donor has no known significant recent history of violations revealed by an Internet search as described in Section 6.1.2. Reviewing Potential Donors).

6.1.2 Reviewing Direct Donations. These minimum requirements shall be met as part of the review process to assure that donations to the NPS are properly evaluated:

(a) For any donation valued at $2,500 or more, the authorized employee must perform a thorough internet search to determine whether publicly available information exists that raises concerns about the propriety of acceptance. See the Reference Guide for additional information

(b) For donations valued at $100,000 or more, the authorized employee shall also refer the proposed donation to the National Partnership Office for coordination with the Office of the Solicitor and the review points of contact for other bureaus. The following information is collected as part of the review process:

i. Whether the donor is involved in litigation or other disputes with the NPS, the Department, or any of its other bureaus;

ii. Whether the donor is currently engaged in or seeking a business relationship with the NPS;

iii. Whether the donor has been debarred or suspended from contracting with the Federal Government;

iv. Whether the donor has a recent public history of violations, whether criminal or civil in nature, as disclosed by an Internet search, for which acceptance of the donation could lead to public controversy;

v. Whether the donor is regulated by or is seeking a permit from the NPS.

(c) For any donation valued at $250,000 or more, the National Partnership Office will also seek the assistance of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the purpose of review through its existing information systems.

(d) All proposed donations of land must be referred to the National Partnership Office for coordination with the Land Resources Division.

6.1.3 Director’s Approval. Additionally, the following potential donations must be reviewed by the Chief of the National Partnership Office before subsequent referral to the Director for approval:

(a) Single donations or a series of planned donations, i.e. a pledge paid in installments by the same donor, valued at over $1 million;

(b) Donations that raise significant concerns based on the criteria identified Section 6.1.1;

(c) Corporate donations that are tied to national or international marketing promotions.

The National Partnership Office will coordinate with the Office of Solicitor and NPS or Departmental ethics officials as appropriate.

6.1.4 Acceptance of Donations from Donors Involved in Litigation. The NPS generally will not accept a gift from a donor involved in litigation with the Department or its bureaus in order to avoid any appearance that the donation is intended to influence the handling or outcome of the litigation. There may be circumstances, however, in which the litigation is sufficiently removed from the context of the proposed donation as to not create the appearance of an attempt to influence the litigation. These circumstances, for example, may exist when a donor proposes a donation to the NPS that is clearly unrelated to the litigation with another bureau or in an amount that does not suggest it is intended to influence the handling of the litigation. Accordingly, all donations offered by a donor involved in litigation must also be approved by the Associate Director for Partnerships, Interpretation and Education, Volunteers, and Outdoor Recreation.

6.2 Use of Donations. Donations may be used to fund any NPS activity for which appropriated funds could normally be used, subject to the following:

(a) Donations for employee salaries may be made only directly to the NPS (not to the employee) and may only fund salaries of:

i. Term or temporary NPS employees;

ii. Permanent NPS employees who are directly engaged in a capital improvement project that is funded with donations. This applies only to employees who normally charge their time to project accounts, such as planners, architects, landscape architects, exhibit specialists, and construction supervisors; and

iii. Other permanent NPS employees when through an NPS approved project endowment from which the payment of such salaries is a stated purpose.

(b) Donations will not be used to begin construction, or a phase of construction or other projects or programs, unless there are sufficient appropriated and donated funds in hand to insure completion of the work to a degree that has independent utility. Donated funds may, however, be used to advance project design work.

(c) Donated funds and/or services may pay (or offset) the cost of NPS-conducted or authorized plans or studies provided that standard planning/study procedures, the requirements of the Partnership Construction Process (Section 9), and other applicable policies are followed. Research projects, books, mapping, exhibits, films and all other projects funded with donations must receive the same reviews and approvals do projects that use only appropriated funds.

6.3 In-Park Friend-raising. This section provides information on how the NPS may assist park visitors who seek information on how to make a donation to the park, a park partner, or the NPS. Visitors who have expressed no interest in such information must not be asked for donations by anyone. Direct personal solicitation of in-park visitors is not permitted. Unless visitors have specifically provided authorization (e.g. though an opt-in check box), visitor names from sources such as permit applications, backcountry or campground registrations may not be given to park partners nor may they be disclosed to any third party except as provided under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Visitors may also specifically request the NPS to provide them with additional information about the NPS, the park, and/or its needs.

6.3.1 Donation Boxes. Donation boxes may be installed on park property by either the NPS or by an authorized NPS fundraising partner provided that 100% of the donations or collections go to the NPS.

Donation boxes must clearly advise the public how the park will use the money. Without this information, moneys collected in a donation box must be considered miscellaneous receipts to the U.S. Treasury.

NPS donation boxes may be placed only on NPS property or on property jointly administered by, or for the benefit of, the NPS. Funds received from NPS donation boxes on jointly administered property (for example, joint visitor centers, heritage areas, or leased facilities outside of parks) must be accounted for in the same manner as those located on NPS-controlled property, see Section 3.4 for additional information. The proceeds from such joint donation boxes will be allocated based on a formula agreed to by those entities in written agreements.

NPS may authorize the placement of an authorized fundraising partner’s (i.e. a friends group or other non-profit park support group) donation box within the park through a written agreement. See the Reference Guide for an example. Such donation boxes may recognize the role of an NPS partner in maintaining the box under its agreement with the park.

6.3.2 Displays and Fundraising Activity Information. Park managers may allow the non-intrusive display or distribution of materials in parks to educate visitors about an authorized fundraising partnership or activity. The material must identify the NPS fundraising partner and inform visitors how they may receive additional information. Materials may include donation envelopes, architectural drawings, models, graphics, newsletters or other similar information.

It is permissible to authorize links from park websites to partner websites that provide opportunities to make electronic donations provided that such linkages conform to Departmental information technology management and security policies, including those pertaining to websites, and are authorized by written agreement between the park and partner.

6.3.3 In-Park Events. Requests from NPS partners to use park facilities for authorized fundraising activities or donor cultivation events are subject to the same review and approval procedures applicable to any other non-NPS user as well as applicable provisions of this Director’s Order. (See also 36 CFR, 2.50-2.51, Section 10.7 of this Director’s Order, and DO #53).

6.3.4 Guest Donation Program. The Guest Donation Program initially authorized national park lodging concessioners to offer guests the opportunity to make donations through the National Park Foundation of $1 or more per day to support the national park they were visiting. The Guest Donation Program has since been expanded to non-lodging activities. Guidance on the program can be found in the Reference Guide.

6.4 Donations of Land. The NPS often receives offers of donations of interests in lands and buildings. Fundraising agreements are required where a non-profit entity, including a land trust, engages in public fundraising campaigns for the express purpose of acquiring specific properties to be donated to the NPS. Fundraising agreements are ­not­ required for the general fundraising activities of these entities or for their private fundraising activities.

7.0 Corporate Campaigns

Corporations and businesses generally offer two primary forms of donations: philanthropic donations or donations tied to advertising— the latter are referred to in this Director’s Order as corporate campaigns. The primary difference between the two forms of support is the use of advertising and marketing in corporate campaigns to promote a donation and a relationship between the business and the NPS or an NPS partner. The NPS may accept and recognize philanthropic donations from corporations and businesses under the guidelines set forth in Sections 6 and 10. The NPS may only enter into corporate campaigns under the guidelines set forth in this section.

All corporate campaigns authorized by NPS are subject to the following:

(a) The corporate campaign must generate a clear benefit for the NPS and be consistent with the purpose, mission and goals of the NPS as well as applicable laws, regulations and policies;

(b) Marketing or advertising activities associated with a corporate campaign may not state or imply an endorsement by NPS of any business, product, service or enterprise;

(c) A written agreement between the NPS, a park support organization (when applicable) and a corporate partner must be executed prior to initiation of corporate campaign activities (see the Reference Guide for additional information);

(d) All corporate campaign agreements must be reviewed by the Office of the Solicitor before execution;

(e) The authority to approve corporate campaign agreements is delegated as described in Section 4.3;

(f) Advertising or solicitation for corporate campaigns involving the promotion of specific brands, products, services or enterprises of a corporate partner or associated entity may not be conducted within national park units in order to maintain the long-standing policy of the NPS that parks not be commercialized.

(g) The NPS will not allow the Arrowhead symbol or an NPS employee or any part of the uniform to be featured in any advertisement that promotes a corporate brand, service, product, or enterprise; and

(h) NPS must review and approve all campaign related informational materials prior to their distribution (regional/national campaign material requires National Partnership Office approval; local requires Regional Office review).

Corporate campaigns must be conducted with high standards that maintain the integrity of the NPS and its partners. Corporate campaigns which identify the NPS with alcohol or tobacco products will not be authorized.

7.1 Corporate Campaign Agreements Undertaken in Association with the National Park Foundation. The Director and the National Park Foundation (Foundation) have entered into the Corporate Campaign Agreement which authorizes the Foundation to enter into corporate campaigns generally, and provides the terms and conditions that now govern the “Proud Partners of America’s National Parks” program. This agreement is included in the Reference Guide.

Proud Partners are a special category of corporate partners who have joined with the Foundation and the NPS to connect national parks to all Americans. Proud Partners have the opportunity to inform the public through national marketing activities that they are assisting the Foundation and the NPS in meeting the needs of the National Park System and to invite the public to add their support. The Foundation and NPS have developed a Proud Partner branding logo for use by Proud Partner corporations in their marketing materials.

7.1.2 Proud Partner Marketing Exclusivity. A Proud Partner agreement affords a corporate Proud Partner industry “exclusivity” at the national marketing level for a product or service category. This means that once a Proud Partner agreement is executed, no other nationwide corporate campaign agreements may be executed in the specified Proud Partner’s product or service category. NPS only offers exclusivity through a Proud Partner relationship.

Upon execution of a Proud Partner Agreement, the Director will notify park managers of the new Proud Partner, the purposes set forth in the Proud Partner agreement, the category for which marketing exclusivity is being granted and the effective dates of the agreement. In the event a new Proud Partner is engaged in a business, product or service category occupied by another partner under a regional or national corporate campaign agreement entered prior to the effective date of the new Proud Partner agreement, that the pre-existing corporate campaign may continue only until the end of the existing term of that agreement or as agreed to by the NPS and the President of the National Park Foundation. Local campaigns may continue unaffected.

If a corporate partner’s business involves a product or service for which exclusivity has been afforded to a Proud Partner, NPS will not execute a corporate campaign agreement authorizing national, state, or regional press events or promotions, including web-based promotions.

7.2 Park-Based Corporate Campaigns. When individual park units are approached with a corporate campaign proposal, the National Partnership Office must be contacted to determine if the proposed campaign is permissible. The Reference Guide contains a list of questions to help determine whether an offer of corporate support is philanthropy or a corporate campaign. The following guidance is used by the National Partnership Office to assess whether proposed corporate campaigns activities may be authorized:

(a) Single area marketing and advertising: Individual parks, NPS partners, and a corporate partner may enter into corporate campaigns either within or outside of the Proud Partner marketing exclusivity categories as long as all resulting marketing or advertising remains within the single local market area. Thus, web-based promotions are not allowed. A single local market is the metropolitan area immediately surrounding or adjacent to the park unit. If there is no such metropolitan area (e.g. the area surrounding the park unit is sparsely populated), the superintendent must consult further with the National Partnership Office to identify the applicable marketing area.

(b) State, Regional, or National Area Marketing and Advertising Outside Proud Partner Categories: After consultation with the President of the National Park Foundation, the Director may authorize a corporate partner to engage in the use of paid media activities directed at a state, regional, or national market to inform the public of their support of a park or program. Requests should be submitted through the National Partnership Office and contain the information identified in the Reference Guide.

Approved corporate campaign activities must be consistent with the specific requirements of Section 7.0(a-h) and other applicable provisions of this Director’s Order, such as those relating to fundraising agreements and donor recognition.

8. Fundraising by Outside Entities

While the NPS does not regulate the conduct of fundraising partners, fundraising activities that may result in donations to the NPS are only appropriate when consistent with law and the mission, goals and policies of NPS and the Department of the Interior. To ensure such consistency, in most cases NPS only accepts donations from fundraising campaigns for its benefit that have been conducted pursuant to written agreements with its fundraising partners. Where a written agreement is required but has not been executed, the NPS will not accept the donations without the approval of the Associate Director for Partnerships, Interpretation, Education and Outdoor Recreation. There are two types of agreements that are used to address partner fundraising, general agreements and fundraising agreements.

General agreements establish long-term relationships between NPS and its partners. General agreements may, in part, be used to authorize fundraising to support ongoing NPS needs. General agreements may also address many aspects of the relationship between NPS and its partner. A general agreement may address, for example, partner fundraising for educational materials, fundraising to support interpretive services provided by the partner and the partner’s use of NPS facilities.

When fundraising efforts are designed to support specific projects, e.g., the planning and implementation of a new park program, the construction of park facilities, the fabrication of park exhibits, the restoration of historic sites, etc., fundraising must be addressed in a fundraising agreement. Where a general agreement between NPS and a partner already exists, fundraising agreements may “tier off” the general agreement as frequently as is needed.

Fundraising activities are not to be authorized in other forms of NPS agreements, e.g., cooperating association agreements, cooperative agreements, or grant agreements.

8.1 Thresholds and Agreements. The goal and complexity of a fundraising effort will determine how it would be authorized:

(a) Small-scale fundraising efforts or events that raise funds for the NPS do not require written fundraising agreements. These include efforts or events that are local or community based, locally publicized and are not expected to exceed $2,500 in donations.

(b) Fundraising efforts or activities that are intended to raise over $2,500 are to be authorized in a written agreement. The Reference Guide contains two model fundraising agreements: the Basic Fundraising Agreement (BFA) and Comprehensive Fundraising Agreement (CFA). The BFA may be used to authorize relatively low dollar value fundraising activities that are not authorized by an existing general agreement between the partner and NPS. The CFA should be used to authorize all other project specific fundraising efforts.

8.2 Contents of Fundraising Agreements. Fundraising Agreements contain appropriate provisions that identify or establish, for example:

(a) Goals and objectives associated with a fundraising effort;

(b) Prioritized project(s) or program(s) to be funded;

(c) Procedures governing construction;

(d) Terms and conditions of any endowments when applicable;

(e) Accountability requirements for all funds raised and, when appropriate, for the security of funds invested by the partner related to a fundraising campaign;

(f) The applicable review process for prospective contributions; and

(g) Requirements that fundraising partners not lobby Congress to fund elements of a project that are contemplated in the fundraising agreement to be raised through private donations.

The model Basic and Comprehensive Fundraising Agreements (see Section 8.1 of the Reference Guide) contain additional clauses and provisions to include in the Fundraising Agreement. The National Partnership Office and the Solicitor’s Office can provide additional advice and guidance on Fundraising Agreements.

8.3 Determination of Feasibility for Fundraising Success. Feasibility studies are a standard tool used by fundraising professionals for assessing the likelihood that a fundraising effort or campaign will be successful. Feasibility studies are required for projects that require the Director’s approval. The park and region may request this requirement not be applied in appropriate circumstances. The request should be submitted to the Director through the National Partnership Office. Assessment of the request will be based on the experience of the partner in fundraising efforts of the magnitude proposed and the experience of the superintendent and park staff in executing the type of project contemplated. The Reference Guide contains additional information on feasibility studies.

8.4 Fundraising Plans. All fundraising which requires a written agreement also requires a fundraising plan. While the complexity of the plan will vary according to the magnitude of the endeavor, in general the plan should detail techniques, timing, staff needs (including use of paid consultants), strategy, costs, and other components identified in the Reference Guide. Fundraising plans are reviewed by the NPS during the review of the fundraising agreement.

8.5 Review of Contributions. In many cases, donors contribute directly to a non-profit partner of the NPS, with the partner subsequently making the donation to NPS. The DOI has established departmental policy governing the review of donations both directly and indirectly to the NPS. Most non-profit partners also have their own professional standards under which donations are screened. Donor review is required of partners engaged in fundraising for the benefit of the NPS and the process and thresholds for donor review are to be set out in the fundraising agreement between the NPS and the partner. The model CFA, included in Section 8.1 of the Reference Guide provides details on the donor review requirements to be included in a Comprehensive Fundraising Agreement.

8.6 Fundraising Costs. All costs associated with a fundraising effort, including required plans and studies, are the responsibility of the fundraising partner. To maintain the integrity of fundraising efforts associated with the NPS and the interests of donors, the NPS will not authorize fundraising that anticipates fundraising costs in excess of 20%. Fundraising costs associated with a specific fundraising effort must be accounted for separately from other activities, expenses and donations. Any fundraising consultants and staff, if compensated, are to be paid a salary or flat fee. The NPS will not approve fundraising plans/agreements where payments are made as commissions or as a percentage of the funds raised.

8.7 Endowments. The establishment of an endowment should be considered for inclusion in any major fundraising campaign to provide for future operations, maintenance and repair costs associated with capital improvements. Endowments may also be used to establish or expand park programs. The NPS and its fundraising partner should agree in advance on general categories for which funds will be expended and ensure that NPS has sufficient discretion for the use of the funds to meet its day to day needs, consistent with the purposes for which the endowment was created.

Factors that should be considered in authorizing the creation of an endowment are:

(a) How and by whom the endowment will be administered;

(b) How endowment funds are to be used;

(c) Process of authorizing expenditures;

(d) Investment policy for the endowment funds;

(e) Funds accountability;

(f) Circumstances, if any under which the corpus may be used; and

(g) Contingencies for the disposition of the endowment in the event of the dissolution of the partner or the endowment.

9. Construction – Partnership Construction Projects

Construction of facilities in the National Park System is primarily accomplished with appropriated funds. However, various construction projects throughout the system have been built at least in part utilizing donated funds. Construction projects undertaken with donations are considered “Partnership Construction Projects” and are further described in Section 9 of the Reference Guide and on the NPS Partnership web site: (www.nps.gov/ partnerships/capital_campaigns.htm) which reflect the generally applicable requirements for all construction within parks.

Partnership construction projects are evaluated using the same criteria as those used for appropriated funds. They must:

(a) Be for a previously identified priority, consistent with park planning documents;

(b) Be included in the NPS five-year capital plan if any appropriated funds are to be used for the project;

(c) Be sustainable over time in terms of maintenance and operations.

The Partnership Construction Process set forth in Section 9 of the Reference Guide provides valuable guidance for all partnership construction projects irrespective of their dollar value. The process is mandatory for all such projects with an estimated cost of $500,000 or more.

The Partnership Construction Process is intended to create common expectations between the NPS and its partner and ensure that projects are properly scoped, meet critical mission needs, and can be operationally sustained. Regional Directors are responsible for ensuring that partnership construction projects in their respective regions follow the phases of the Partnership Construction Process. See also, the model CFA in Section 8.1 of the Reference Guide.

10. Donor Recognition

Recognizing the support of donors is important. The NPS is appreciative of private sector contributions that aid in the accomplishment of its mission and will thank all donors in an appropriate fashion. Consistent with the policies expressed in this section, specific forms of donor recognition may include letters of acceptance and appreciation, press releases, public events, mementos, certificates, and other items that commemorate the gift. All types of recognition should be agreed to in writing with fundraising partners in advance of the acceptance of the donation.

The NPS will, at minimum, acknowledge all direct donations in writing through a letter of acceptance which will note the amount of the cash donation and will serve as a record the donor may use to verify their charitable contribution.

Most donors view a donation to a group fundraising for the benefit of the NPS as a donation to the NPS. It therefore is appropriate that both the partner and the NPS express appreciation consistent with NPS policy.

10.1 Off-Site Donor Recognition. Most donor recognition should occur outside parks, through letters of appreciation, press releases, mementos, certificates, and other items that commemorate a donation.

(a) Thank you letters – All donors should promptly receive a letter of appreciation. The thank you letter can be used as the required NPS letter of acceptance of the gift and to acknowledge or articulate any condition that might apply to, as well as to express appreciation for, the donation. It should acknowledge the gift, the donor, date of acceptance and, if cash, the dollar amount. It should also fairly describe in-kind gifts. Except in certain cases for donations of land, the letter should not attempt to value non-cash gifts.

(b) Awards – Nomination for an award may be appropriate for some donations. Parks and regions may establish and use their own appropriate awards. National award nomination calls may be publicized through InsideNPS as well as other sources. When appropriate, NPS units and programs may also consider nominating a donor for non-NPS awards.

(c) Publicity (unpaid media) – Press releases to newspapers, magazines, web, radio, and television media, articles in park and NPS newsletters, and articles in the donor’s media (e.g., corporate employee newsletter, annual report) are a few of the ways that NPS may publicly recognize donors through unpaid media.

(d) Park Newspaper – An article in the park newspaper or newsletter is another way to recognize donors as well as to highlight the contributions of a park friends group or other partners.

(e) Events – Media events, press announcements, photo opportunities, ground breakings, ribbon cuttings, meal functions or other recognition events, and other activities or forums in which the donor is involved (e.g., annual meeting/convention of non-profit organizations) can be used to provide high-profile donor recognition. Some of these events may be held on-site in accordance with NPS guidelines.

(f) Mementos – A book, park lapel pin, or other park- or project-related memento might be appropriate as an expression of appreciation. These may also be presented in conjunction with other forms of recognition depending on the nature and significance of the donation. These kinds of items might be sent to the donor, presented in a simple ceremony, or tied into media events or other activities.

(g) Park Websites – Parks may set up a page on their websites to function as a donor recognition board. See the Section 10.2.3 for additional guidance.

10.2 In-Park Recognition. In some cases a gift may warrant in-park recognition. This section describes the in-park donor recognition options available to park managers. This form of donor recognition will likely occur in the park’s visitor center or other similar facility or developed area.

In-park recognition is typically provided in the form of a credit line or statement of appreciation by a park. A credit line is a short, discrete, unobtrusive statement expressing appreciation typically found at the end of the material or item, or on a donor recognition plaque.

To maintain NPS policy that parks be free of commercialism, advertising and marketing slogans and taglines may not appear under any circumstances. Donor recognition is not allowed on motor vehicles or on bricks, benches or other park furnishings.

Donor recognition should not be proposed in park areas if it would compete for attention with, or attract attention away from, the purpose for which the park was created.

Other opportunities for donor recognition include donor books which may be kept on display, computer terminals with searchable donor lists, articles or displays of donor names in park newsletters.

Recognition for donations to the development of websites is generally permitted. The National Partnership Office and the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) will work on additional guidance as new web standards are developed. In the interim, any request for recognition on a park or program website should be submitted to the National Partnership Office to be coordinated with the OCIO for review.

Recognition on signs is described below and illustrated in the Reference Guide. Recognition would generally not be included on park regulatory or safety signs.

10.2.1 Credit line including logos or name script. Sometimes a corporate or business donor will request that its name script or logo be included as a part of its recognition. This may be appropriate when the recognition will appear as part of a credit line on printed or electronic material, audio/video/film products and temporary construction/restoration signs. The Reference Guide will include examples of each kind of recognition.

Brochure or other printed material: The credit line on a park brochure may state: “This brochure was made possible through the contribution of _<logo, name script, or name>______”.

Electronic material (video/film/etc): The donor recognition may appear either at the beginning of the presentation or at the end. However, the use of digital on-screen graphics or “bugs” are not permissible forms of donor recognition. In the case of computerized information kiosks or other electronic displays to be placed in visitor service areas, the credit line containing the donor name script or logo may appear either at the beginning of the presentation or at the end. The recognition may not appear on the kiosk casing itself.

Temporary construction/restoration signs: A temporary restoration or construction sign may recognize donors’ contributions to the project. The sign should be informational, of appropriate design and scale, and express clearly that the NPS is recognizing the donation. It should inform visitors about the nature of the project and the support of the donor. The sign may remain in place for the duration of the work and should be removed shortly after the work has been completed. The Reference Guide will include examples.

10.2.2 Credit line. Recognition for all other donated or donor funded items, including interpretive waysides, recreation equipment and other items that remain in the park, may include a short, discrete, unobtrusive credit line using the donor’s name (but not name script or logo).

Additional information about the use of corporate logos and name script can be found in Section 10.4.

10.2.3 Donor Boards and Walls. Donor recognition boards or walls may be permitted in visitor centers and other appropriate visitor facilities. These boards or walls should utilize a format that allows recognition of donors by the placement of name plates or other markers that can be added and removed with relative ease. Electronic donor recognition boards are a new trend in this area.

A park’s Donor Recognition Plan should establish criteria for any donor boards or walls, including minimum thresholds for recognition and duration. The period of recognition should be commensurate with the level of the gift and life cycle of the facility. Short-term displays may be appropriate during the life of a fundraising effort, while longer-term displays may be appropriate for significant donations. The names of corporate or business donors will appear in the same fashion as any other names, but corporate name scripts and logos will not be used on donor boards and walls.

Donor Boards and Walls, either electronic or traditional, should be integrated into the design of facilities.

10.2.4 Recognition of Corporate Donations. Corporate donors may receive recognition on the same basis as other donors. However, government ethics regulations prevent NPS employees from using their Government positions, titles, or any associated authorities to endorse, expressly or impliedly, any products, services or enterprises except in furtherance of specific statutory authority authorizing such endorsement.

10.2.5 Recognition within Interpretive Programs. Where a donation is integrally related to the park, to the existence of the park, or to what is being interpreted, interpretive programs may identify the donor and how the donation was used.

10.2.6 In-Park Displays, Name Plaques and Plates. When in-park displays are deemed appropriate, tasteful and unobtrusive signs, plaques or other treatments may be used. The duration of this form of recognition may vary depending on the project, donation and location. See section 10.3 for additional discussion.

Plaques are not to be affixed to the “historic fabric” of structures nor should they, or any other donor recognition treatment, be placed in natural zones or cultural zones where they would intrude on the character of the area.

Plaques acknowledging the contribution of a donor to the restoration or rehabilitation of a room or facility are allowed. Such a plaque may state, for example:

“The renovation of this room (or facility) was made possible through the generous donation of (fill in the name).

The naming of rooms, features, or park facilities will not be used to recognize monetary or in-kind donations to a park or the NPS.

10.3 Donor Recognition Plan. A Donor Recognition Plan sets out the basic philosophy to guide donor recognition activities. It provides a framework for donor recognition in a park or by a program, ensuring that recognition is commensurate with the level of the gift, while allowing a measure of flexibility to meet the needs of individual donors. The plan also helps fundraising partners understand the means and levels of recognition that the NPS can provide.

A Donor Recognition Plan is required for all parks and programs that receive or are likely to receive donations. While these plans will vary from park to park and program to program, there are several fundamental policies that control all such plans.

Donor Recognition Plans should include, at a minimum, the following elements:

(a) A statement of the basic philosophy of donor recognition opportunities consistent with park mission, purposes, and plans;

(b) Procedures for acknowledging/thanking donors;

(c) Hierarchy of donor levels and associated recognition;

(d) The range of allowable forms of in-park recognition, as well as the appropriate locations, consistent with this section;

(e) Criteria for donor boards or walls, if any, including the location, minimum thresholds for recognition and length of time the recognition is in place;

(f) Conditions under which donors/donations to partners will be recognized by NPS consistent with Section 6.1.1.

Donor Recognition Plans for parks that receive minimal donations (less than $50,000 annually) may simply be a memo stating that the park will send a thank you note in response to any donation over $100.

Donor Recognition Plans are developed and approved at the park and program level with the concurrence of the appropriate Regional or Associate Director. Consistent with this section:

· Regional Directors may establish common recognition standards that apply to multiple parks within a region;

· Associate Directors may establish common recognition standards that apply to multiple programs within a directorate.

Park partner donor recognition plans should complement a park or program plan with respect to the donor recognition provided by NPS. Park partner donor recognition plans should be reviewed and approved by the superintendent if they include in-park recognition and to generally ensure consistence with the park’s plan. This will ensure that a fundraising partner will not inadvertently lead a prospective donor to expect a level of recognition that the NPS cannot, or will not, fulfill.

The Reference Guide will include additional information as examples become available.

10.4 Special Events. The primary guidance for holding special events (or “special park uses”) is found in Director’s Order #53 on Special Park Uses and in Special Directive 95-11. Director’s Order #21 applies to NPS donor or partner recognition at such events.

Special events fall into two categories: non-NPS events allowed under special park use permit, and events wholly or partially sponsored by the NPS (see 10.7.1, below). In either case, they may recognize corporate sponsors by limited use of corporate logos and name script on event facilities, signs and literature at all such special events provided that the size, scale, scope and location of corporate logos and name script does not dominate the event facilities or area. This is intended to ensure that there is not commercialization of parks.

10.4.1. NPS Sponsored and Co-sponsored Events. For officially-sponsored NPS events, the NPS may provide appropriate recognition provided that corporate names are not used in a way that would imply or suggest NPS endorsement of a product or company, or be construed as commercial solicitation or advertising. The purpose of such recognition is simply to acknowledge the sponsor. To ensure against the appearance of endorsement, the pre-event written agreements must spell out the responsibilities of the parties and any conditions on the offering or acceptance of the gift and should include provisions specifying the amount, type, and size of sponsor recognition signs. These provisions may be included in a special park use permit, an exchange of letters or other written documentation.

On-site notices (e.g. banners) must be appropriate to the character and scale of the event. The park manager may display such notices for a period of time in advance of the event to encourage public attendance. Sponsors may be permitted to establish a temporary hospitality area for sponsored special events.

Distribution of free or sample products is permitted at events co-sponsored by NPS only if the item directly relates to the purpose of the event (e.g. plastic bags for a clean-up day) or is consumable at the event. The items may be imprinted with the name of the event and recognize sponsors by name (using name script if desired), logo and website address.

Additional requirements may exist at specific areas of the National Park System.

10.4.2 Non-NPS Events. Guidance on this topic is found in Director’s Order #53 on Special Park Uses. Notices on temporary displays directly associated with the event containing sponsors’ names or logos or name script may be placed in close proximity to the event in both time and location.

Distribution of free products or sample products to park visitors is not permitted at non-NPS events.

Additional requirements may exist at specific areas of the National Park System.

———-End of Director’s Order———-

Director’s Order 32 Cooperating Associations

Approved: /s/ Fran P. Mainella, Director

Effective Date: December 31, 2003

Sunset Date: December 31, 2004

—————–End of Director’s Order—————

« Previous Agenda (1/21)Minutes from 2007 Spring Meeting (2/21)Budget (3/21)Grants (4/21)Architecture & Engineering (5/21)Archeology & Collections (6/21)Materials Research (7/21)Heritage Education (8/21)Historic Landscapes (9/21)Information Technology (10/21)Training Analysis (11/21)Friends Group (12/21)Strategic Plan (13/21)Wingspread (14/21)Preserve America (15/21)Organizational Chart (16/21)Calendar & Conference Schedule (17/21)Staff List (18/21)Board List (19/21)Director's Order 21 Donations and Fundraising (20/21)Director's Order 32 Cooperating Associations (21/21)View All Next »

Page :« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ALL»

pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21