G23-2526
Meeting of Fort Hancock 21st Century Federal Advisory Committee
4/27/23

CONFIDENTIAL ROUGHLY EDITED REALTIME FILE
Compliments of Birnbaum Interpreting Services

***************************************
This file was created in real time by a Realtime Captioner. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. A consumer should check with the presenter for any clarification of the presentation.

***************************************

Bennett Brooks: To members of the public who are joining, welcome, glad to have you in the mix. We're just a couple minutes before the hour, so we will just sit tight here for a bit. 
   
Welcome, members of the public who are coming in. It's good to have you here. Hope you are hearing me. One way to confirm that, if someone wants to click on the Q&A box at the bottom of your screen, you can type, we can hear you. I will be comforted that you can hear us. 
 We can hear you. Thank you to both of you. Much obliged. This is the audience participation part of the program, until we get to the real part of the audience participation of the program. 
 All right. Co‑chairs, I propose we wait maybe two more minutes and then jump in. 
If folks are not talking, going on mute would be good. Thanks, Dorothy. Thanks, Howie. 
 We now have 11 attendees, and it's three minutes after. I want to suggest that we should start. So, Jen, I think I'm going to quickly hand it off to you and save any of my welcoming till after you and the co‑chairs have a chance to talk. 

Jennifer Nersesian: Okay. Welcome, everybody. Thank you for joining us once again to dive into our leasing program at Fort Hancock at Sandy Hook, New Jersey. We so appreciate your time, your thoughts, your efforts towards helping us accomplish our multifaceted mission of natural resource conservation and a quality visitor experience. 
So, you know, we have a lot go through today, and it's been a little while since we met. I do, before getting into anything else, want to introduce some new members to the committee that are joining us today. 
   So, we have Dorothy Guzzo, Norah Kerr McCurry, and Bill Kastning. And we'll give them some time, just a few seconds, to introduce themselves a little more fully to you. 
   I do also want be to acknowledge and thank a few members who have cycled off the committee. And those are Gerry, Gary, and Kevin. You know, everything that all of you do brings so much value to the park service, to this, you know, really important public good and to the, you know, to the public at large, to the American people. So I want to acknowledge their work on the committee over the past few years and thank them for that service. 
   With that, I think I want to pass it along to Bennett and our co‑chairs for their welcome and then we'll do the pledge to officially kick things off. 

  Bennett Brooks: Okay. So, I think I'm going to hand it off to the co‑chairs first, and then I think maybe invite one of the co‑chairs to lead us in the pledge. So Shawn, why don't we start off with you and then over to Gerry. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Well, it's great to see everybody. It's been too long, I can't wait till we can get back together in person. But all things in good time. 
   One of the things that I wanted to touch here real quickly, Jen, is we have one absent member right now. And I wondered if you wanted to say something about that before I say something and then pass over to Gerry. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Absolutely. Thank you, Shawn. And one of our members who is not able to join us today is Lillian Burry. And we hope to see her back in action soon, but certainly want to acknowledge all that she has brought to the committee, to the park, and to the public. I mean, she has been a real champion in the region for historic preservation. Never mind all of her efforts on major projects like Fort Monmouth and what she has done here at Sandy Hook is just truly remarkable. In addition to her serving on our committee for a decade and not implying that she will continue to serve, she's still part of our committee. She really spearheaded the efforts to partner with the county and the Monmouth County Department of Education to include buildings 23 and 56 as a part of the campus and invest in their historic rehabilitation as a part of their leasing efforts. 
   And coincidently, today on this very day we're holding a ribbon cutting on building 56 to celebrate the rebirth of that historic structure at Fort Hancock that will now serve as part of the facilities for the Mass high school at Sandy Hook. It's a huge milestone and I want to recognize and thank Lillian for her efforts in that. 

   >> Shawn Welch: I spoke with her day before yesterday and she is recovering. It's going to take her a little while. But just to add a little bit in here with Lillian. I first met her on this committee, and you want to talk about a bundle of energy, she is it. What she can make happen is amazing.
She looked at me, one of the first meetings and said, you know we're putting all this money into battery Lewis, I'd like to get a gun. Okay, Lillian, here's how you to it. Really? Two weeks later I get a call from the historic command and says you know Lillian, put a hold on a gun. That's 200 pounds of steel, that's not something simplistic. She's amazing. Monmouth, what she did with Fort Monmouth was amazing.
She made that transfer as seamless as possible. Without her it would have been far harder. 
   I have great respect for her abilities, her capabilities, and working with her in the future. 
   Gerry, you want to add anything? 

   >> Gerry Glaser: There's little to add from what everyone has said so far. Lillian has been a friend and a colleague and a committee member since the first meeting that we had a decade ago. And she's been committed deeply throughout ‑‑ throughout all of our deliberations. One way for all of you to get a better sense for just how important her contributions have been is to go out to the fort and look at the building that's being dedicated today. 
   It's a classic. And Lillian was four square behind that. So we're looking forward to having her back. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yes, great. And Gerry or ‑‑ 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Right before the pledge, I also just want to acknowledge Matt from Councilor Malone's office who's joined us. Welcome, Matt. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Welcome, Matt. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thank you. Gerry or Shawn, do one of you want to lead us in the pledge? 

   >> Gerry Glaser: I'll defer to the colonel. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Here we go. 
[Reciting Pledge of Allegiance]. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thank you very much. 
   All right. Well let's ‑‑ let's shift forward a tiny bit here. For those of you who have joined, my name is Bennett Brooks, I'm with the Consensus Building Institute, I'm joined by Simenesh Semine who is handling all of the technology here, so thank you, Simenesh, for all the work and teaming with Daphne and Karen and others and putting this all together. 
   It has been kind of shockingly I think something like six months since we all got together, so there's been ‑‑ it's been a while and there's been a lot going on and we want to take stock of all that with you. 
   But before we do that, as Jen said, there are a few new members of the committee. I just wanted to hit a little pause here before we walk through the agenda and invite each of our new members just to, you know, a quick intro of yourself, the name, organization, and maybe what inspired you to want to join the committee and if you could maybe take 30 seconds or a minute so that your fellow committee members know who you are, members of the public do. And then after that we'll just invite each committee member just to name and organization. Norah, how about you jump in first, if that's okay. 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: Sure, thank you. 
   Good morning, everyone, my name is Norah Kerr McCurry, I'm the Dean of Business and Social Science at Brookdale Community College, which is the county college of Monmouth. I remember many years ago taking an oceanography class out there and one of the departments in my area is hospitality management. I'm eager to learn and I look forward to working with all of you. 
   Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Fantastic. Thank you, Norah, and welcome. 
   Dorothy, let's go over to you. 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: Good morning, everybody, I'm Dorothy Guzzo, I'm the executive director of the New Jersey Historic Trust. We're the primary funders of NJ Historic sites. My history with Sandy hook here probably predates all of you since I used to serve as the Deputy preservation officer. So thank you very much for having me and I'm looking forward to this. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great, Dorothy, thank you. 
   And Bill Kastning, over to you. 

   >> Bill Kastning: Good morning, everyone. It's quite an honor to be appointed and I appreciate the opportunity to work with all of you. I'm the executive director with Monmouth Conservation Foundation. We're what's known as a land trust. We do land preservation throughout Monmouth County, and of course we've always had a concern here about what's happening on Sandy Hook and specifically for Monmouth. 
   So I look forward to working with everything. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thank you. And then for the other members of the committee, maybe I'll just call your first name and you can just introduce yourself, name and affiliation, again, so our new members know who's joining them here. 
   Linda. You're on mute, Linda. Still not hearing you. There we go, maybe. Nope. Sorry, still not hearing you, Linda. 
   >> Simenesh Semine: I just sent you a request to unmute, so you should... 
   >> Bennett Brooks: I'm going to hop over ‑‑ we got you know. We got you know. 

   >> Linda Cohen: I'm Linda Cohen, I've been involved with Fort Hancock Advisory Committee since its inception, which has been quite a while. I have been involved as an educational component of this organization. I've been working out at Sea Grant in Sandy Hook in various capacities and I'm also on the board of save coastal wildlife, a fledging organization, it's doing a great job and needing and wanting further presence out at the Hook, and Fort Hancock. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Mary Eileen. 
   >> Mary Eileen Fouratt: Good morning. I'm a program officer New Jersey state council of the arts and I'm representing a cultural community. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Perfect, thank you. Michael Holenstein. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: As long as it works, Michael Holenstein. Am I on? Yeah? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yes, we can hear you. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I've been on with Linda and others from the day one of the FACA family, grew up on Sandy Hook and I represent the real estate community, in this case consultant on real estate development community. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. 
   Jim Krauss. 

   >> Jim Krauss: Jim Krauss, environmental commission. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Jim. Michael Walsh. 

   >> Michael Walsh: Hi, I'm Michael Walsh. Lifelong resident of Monmouth County last 30 years in Fair Haven, and have just wrapped up 45-year career in financial services. So representing the community and finance. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thanks. 
   And Howie, I think ‑‑ 

   >> Howie Parish: Yep, I'm here. Howie Parish. I'm the vice chair of the Sea Grant Consortium, and we are housed right on the Hook. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. If folks can mute when they're not talking, that would be great. 
   Thank you again for being here. Welcome to the new folks and just want to spend a few minutes talking about what we hope to be covering today. First, we will start with leasing updates, as well as a brief update on some of the social equity issues that we've been starting to think about and sort of share with you all the approach that Jen and team are thinking about in terms of how to dive into that really important issue. 
   That will be a light touch today, but we want to catch you up to speed on that. And then we will really dive into the conversations that the work group that you all formed to think about different considerations related to leasing at Fort Hancock that has been talking about for the last 20 months or so. I think an early cut of some of the ideas were shared with you before the last meeting. 
   We've now got the next iteration of that, lots of good, important thoughts in there. So, we will spend time diving into those considerations and recommendations. We'll ‑‑ we'll look ‑‑ we'll get a good overview on that, give you all an opportunity for questions, invite working group members who are here to fold in their thoughts as well. And then really open it up for discussion among the Advisory Committee to get a sense of what questions you have, how these recommendations ‑‑ what ideas they trigger for you in terms of recommendations that you all may want to consider making to the park service. 
   It's worth emphasizing here, and we'll do it again, but the work group was ‑‑ was established by you all to inform your conversations. And so, we really want to make sure that you have a good opportunity to understand the kinds of ideas they're putting forward and think about what that tells you about recommendations you may want to make to National Park Service and/or questions or other information needs you may see are important. 
   We will finish up with a few updates. We'll have an update from the National Park Service ethics policy and as well from general updates from Jen on, you know, related to Fort Hancock. We will be finishing up by 2:00 p.m. 
   To members of the public that are here, again, thank you so much for being here. We will have a formal comment period ‑‑ public comment period from 11:30 to 12:00 today so we invite you to share any thoughts you have at that time. We'll have a break at around 10:30, and we'll probably take a stretch, maybe a five‑minute stretch or so right after public comment. 
   I will note that we have a couple of folks on who Jen and team have been reaching out to start thinking about social equity and we'll introduce them in a little bit here. 
   Jen, you've already mentioned that Matt was here, I will also note that we either have or expect to have a couple of members of the media here. So always want people to be aware of that. It's great to have the media here because, obviously, these issues are important to more than those of you who are just on this call. 
   If we can get to the next slide, please. 
   Just to remind committee members and maybe as a first time for the new committee members sort of the discussion protocols that we use as we're all here around the table, virtual or otherwise. First of all, please contribute. We want to hear from everyone. You're on this committee because you have interest, and you have interesting things to say and things that we all need to hear. Please try not to be too shy and weigh in. 
   As always, as you do that, we ask you to be mindful that it's a large group here and sharing time being as succinct as you can in your comments is always helpful and appreciated. And ask questions of one another. If someone's saying something you don't understand, probe, understand where they're coming from, because at the end of the day, the nice thing about a Federal Advisory Committee is you all can give consensus advice to Jen and her staff. That's why one forms a FACA committee. 
   The more you all can develop sort of the shared recommendations, the more powerful it is and the more important message it is. I encourage you to use those tools to get there. 
   To contribute to the discussion, you can just raise your virtual hand at any point. That's at the bottom of your Zoom screen. You can see a hand there. You also have a chat function, which you can ‑‑ you can throw a comment in. I generally recommend the committee members to minimize the chat because if we have too many parallel conversations then we're not really paying attention to each other. But if it's helpful, you can use it. 
   Please be aware that when you use it you can choose between chatting a person, all of the panelists, or the entire group. In general, I would recommend that you, again, limit it to sort of a process question that you might have and chat it to Jen or Daphne or those who might be helpful. Again, because I think it's just distracting for all of us and for members of the public who can't follow a conversation that's not happening in front of them. 
   Just a couple of things. If you can keep your cameras on, committee members, we very much appreciate that. It just makes for more dynamic and humane conversation. If you're in a place where you can't do that, of course we understand. 
   We are recording this meeting, so please be aware of that as well. There is live captioning and you should be able to just click that on if you want to be able to do that. 
   I think that's it. Next slide, please. 
   To members of the public, again, at 11:30 we will be going to public comment. At that time, you'll have a couple of different ways you can weigh in. You can weigh in with a spoken comment, we've had one person sign up. But we'll invite anyone else who's on the call to weigh in at that time. 
   If public speaking's not your thing, you can throw a comment into the Q&A and that's just as valuable because the park service will still hear what you're thinking. 
   And if none of those work, you're always invited to send comments by email afterwards. Take advantage of whatever feels important to you there. Again, being able to hear from you all is really important. 
   With that, I think I'm just going to pause before we go to the leasing update and just see if there are, first of all, co‑chairs, Jen or Simenesh, anything you want to add or any questions from committee members as to the game plan for today? 
   
   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay. Okay. Looks like we're good, then, to push ahead. I want to hand it over to Karen to walk us through the first of two leasing updates. And we've got about 20 minutes for this, so ‑‑ for both parts. Karen, over to you. 

   >> Karen Edelman: Thank you, Bennett. Good morning, everyone, it's nice to see so many of you again. It's been a while. 
   Today's leasing update is broken into two parts. The first part is the usual, what's happening with the leasing front. And the second part is to talk a little bit about lease terms and conditions. I've been getting a lot of questions about those, so just want to provide a broad overview. 
   Here's a recap of the progress we've made to date. We have a number of buildings currently leased or subject to an agreement. Those with MAST are subject to an agreement. And they are in the process or have been rehabilitated and are open for business. 
   And maybe later Jen can talk a little bit about the mule barn if she wants to, but that one is expected to come on line this summer and we're very excited about it. 
   There are a number of buildings still subject to a letter of intent, and I know it seems as though those letters of intent are long, enduring, and they are. But that's because the leasing process requires to us go through the compliance review and we have to ensure that the modifications of the building meet with the secretary of interior standards. That all happens before we sign the lease. That's why the duration. Letter of intent is so long. 
   Then we have 20 buildings subject to general agreement. Those are the buildings that are the subject of this Stillman agreement, and we'll talk more about that as we go on. The Stillman group has joined us today, and they're going to present just a little bit about the progress they've made to date and just to remind everybody the agreement anticipates two phases. The first phase is to address prototypes for buildings 7 and 12. And based on those, we will apply costs and assess the viability to the remaining buildings. 
   So if you look at the screen, you'll see that there are a number of things currently under way that will address the costing, and that's structural engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and other pricing snapshots. 
   And at this minute, I'm going to ask Stillman to join us if they'd like to and just say a few words about it. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Are you there and are you wanting to fold in here? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: He needs to be promoted. 
   >> Bennett Brooks: Promoted?
   >> His hand is up. 
   >> Simenesh Semine: Yeah. 
   >> Bennett Brooks: Simenesh, you seeing that? 
   >> Simenesh Semine: Yeah. You should be able to rejoin as ‑‑ perfect. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. There you go. Floor is yours, Roy. 

   >> Roy Stillman: Thank you for the promotion. 
   I've been on the meeting from its inception today, and I'll be brief to update you that we are making a continual progress. Of course we began with a survey of the existing conditions. We have a team of preservationists that we've assembled, which includes preservationist architect specialist, structural engineer in preservation, and a mechanical engineer. We've had a preliminary presentation to SHPO. We've created preservation guidelines. We have created layouts of the buildings. We have created a highly detailed list of specifications of each and every task that would be a constituent component to the rehabilitation of these two buildings. 
   We have retained the services of an estimating firm, which is charged with the task of producing a detailed line‑by‑line estimate of every subcomponent of building 7 and 12, top to bottom, side to side, to make the ‑‑ each building ready for occupancy. 
   We have transmitted that document to NPS. We expect the results of the estimator's work to be delivered in two or three weeks for our review. And once we've reviewed that, we will, in turn, forward it to NPS. And we've asked the estimator to break the estimate into further ‑‑ to parse it exterior roof, masonry, porch, and everything interior. 
   We would need somebody to help with the triangulation process. I think I'm ready to assist. 
   [Laughter]. 

   >> Shawn Welch: We had a great time. Thanks for coming out. 

   >> Roy Stillman: Thank you. You're very generous. 
   >> Karen Edelman: Thank you. There are two additional topics that we're going to discuss very briefly during the first part of the leasing update. One of them is parking considerations and the other is the use of outdoor space by the lessees. 
   We know we have a parking limitation issue at Sandy Hook, and typically lessees don't have assigned parking unless there's a spot associated with the building. For example, the officers row buildings that have driveways, those are exclusive assigned parking. But the larger buildings don't really have specific parking assigned to them. It's first come, first served. And because we recognize that this is an issue with the park, we've ‑‑ we've ‑‑ we're in the process of obtaining a parking study so that we can ensure the need is met in terms of the buildings with larger scale use, such as the officer's club, the mule barn, and the old YMCA building. 
   And at some point, when we have more information, we will be sharing with this group the results of the traffic study. 
   The other issue that we need to discuss publicly is the use of outdoor space associated with the buildings. Typically the residential buildings are assigned as just the building footprint itself. But there are other buildings that are going to be open to the public for services such as food and beverage or event space that will have open outdoor space associated with their use. 
   The question is whether that use is going to be exclusive to the lessee, it's going to be intermittent or not exclusive at all. For example with the mule barn coming online this summer, there's exclusive use here. If you look at the triangle, this area is associated with the mule barn and that is because at the mule barn they are serving alcohol. 
   You know, outdoor dining is fine, we don't necessarily have to fence off the area for that. But because there's use of alcohol, we want it contained, we want it controlled, and so that area is exclusively under the control of the lessee. 
   So similar considerations going to arise with the YMCA building, building 40, where there's an outdoor concrete pad. That pad is currently in use by McFly's. There are picnic tables out there. But as this building comes online for use by the lessee once it's rehabilitated, there is an ask for outdoor use inside of the building. Again, because there's an expectation that there will be alcohol served, that area will have to be fenced and managed. 
   With respect to the officer's club, that consideration is a little different. You will recall from the last meeting that we shared the slides of the proposed ‑‑ the way the officer's club is going to look when it's done. It was beautiful. 
   There's an addition in the back, and because this is an event space, there's going to be a need for outdoor space to conduct affairs and things such as weddings. We haven't yet determined whether the outdoor space that's going to be associated with this building is going to be exclusive and subject to the operation and management by the lessee or whether it's going to be intermittent, meaning it will be fenced off or somehow secured only when there is an event that requires outdoor space. 
   But these are considerations we need to discuss, because we want to make sure everybody knows that there is an element of having to manage and control an area while there's an event or while there are a lot of people or when there's alcohol being served. 
   I'm going to save questions for the end. 
   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah, you want to save for the end, yeah, let's proceed to Part 2. Go ahead. 

   >> Karen Edelman: Part 2 is to give a broad overview of lease terms and conditions and kind of point out how ours are a little bit different. 
   Typical leases terms which are included in ours too. To identify the parties to the lease, the premises to be leased, the type of use authorized, the term of the lease, the rent, increases, whatever costs the lessee is associated for, which in our case is utilities, trash collection, typical things like that. Termination and default, subleases and assignments. Typical lease stuff. 
   Our leases also require a whole bunch of other terms and conditions. The most important one in this case being the secretary of interior's standards for historic structures. And as I explained earlier, that is why it takes us so long to get from a letter of intent to a lease. And that is the basis for the compliance review that is undertaken as part of the lease terms. 
   And compliance review applies throughout the term of the lease, and that's just to make sure that any repairs, maintenance, ongoing improvements are also subject to those standards and that they get properly authorized before they're implemented. 
   Ours are different in that if there's a requirement to pay property taxes, we are exempt from those, but we can't exempt the lessee. Those of you who have been with this committee from the beginning understand this. We've had the tax assessor from Middletown come in and talk to us about this, and these buildings are subject to property taxes. 
   There is a long record on how those are assessed here, and we can share that information with anyone who hasn't seen the prior presentations. 
   Another consideration is that we put the obligation on the lessee to get any other permits or governmental approvals that are required in connection with the lease. And in this instance, Middletown township is responsible for issuing COs for our buildings. We have an agreement with the township to do so. And the lessees have to work with the state to get liquor licenses. It's a little bit different than it is in a typical municipality. They work directly with the state based on the fact that they have a lease with us. 
   Also different here is that the insurance requirements are applicable to all the buildings. Typically, a residential building doesn't have that requirement. But in this case, it's government property and it has to be insured by the lessee. Property insurance, liability insurance, alcohol consumption and sale, typical. 
   An additional requirement that we also have in our leases is the maintenance reserve. And that is the requirement for the lessee to put aside a certain sum of funds to be used to undertake large scale improvements to the facility. These facilities old, they require a lot of care, and we want to make sure that there's funding on hand to take care of projects that are unexpected that come up and need to be addressed. 
   We also have a financial reporting requirement, and that means any business that's being conducted out of the buildings has to provide us with their financial statements. 
   We also have recoverable costs. And this means if your activity in the building ends up resulting in the need for park staff or law enforcement to intervene or assist or provide some sort of support that's outside of their typical daily duties, those costs will be the lessee's obligation. 
   Also, if we have to provide additional services such as excessive trash removal, those costs also will be the lessee's obligation. 
   And again, something that we've talked about before, closures. In the past when we've had government shutdowns, the policy has not been consistent as to whether lessees are able to access the buildings. And that's a risk that you take when you agree to occupy a federally‑owned facility. But in good news we've made some progress in this area where we've recognized that if you are not able to occupy the building that you're leasing, we can talk about a rent abatement for the period of time during which you are prohibited from that access. 
   And the other thing that I get the most questions about is the compendium, not so much the compendium, they want to know are the lessees subject to park hours? How are we going to manage the rules and regulations in terms of occupancy of the building since people are allowed to be there after park hours?
   Every lessee is subject to park rules and regulations. Everyone that comes on to park property is subject to those rules and regulations, whether they know of them or not. 
   So what we're going to do is kind of have a broader effort to make sure people are aware of these rules and regulations so that our lessees can enforce them. 
   One of the ways in which this is going to be manifested is through the operating plan which is an exhibit to the lease. So there are a number of exhibits to the lease, I'm not going to go through all of them, just the ones that are most germane to this. The operating plan will talk about hours of operation, because in some cases those hours will deviate from typical park hours. 
   There's going to be an alcohol management plan which will address surveillance, management and safety considerations, security, the operating plan, for example, will also have to include a provision about how visitors are going to be managed once the park is closed but a facility continues to remain open. 
   And then one more exhibit that is unusual but is required is a preservation maintenance plan. And that's going to address those. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. We have a few moments for questions for Karen if there are things people need to better understand. This might have overlap with work group issues that might come up. But let's create a little space right here right now for a question or two. Bill Kastning, why don't you jump in. 

   >> Bill Kastning: The lease revenue that's obtained, how is it used? Does it say within the fort area? 

   >> Karen Edelman: Something I should mention is that one of the big perks of this program is that the lessee is permitted to offset against the rent they would pay the cost of the improvements. 
   So in many cases there will be no lease revenue in the first number of years of the lease. Because they're getting back the value of their improvement in terms of rent. 
   But the rent we do collect from the leasing program for now stays with the park. Washington hasn't instituted any percentage of take‑back, that's not the right term, but for ease of explanation. Right now 100% of the leasing revenue stays with the park. 
   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I'd just add to that that we anticipate with a lot of the projects out at Fort Hancock, because of the severe state of deterioration of the buildings and the large amount of investment in historic preservation that they need as a result, that many of these leases will wind up for the full term of the lease being rent zero back to the park. 
   It's still a great value for us because it accomplishes that historic preservation mission where we don't have government funds to invest in that right now. 
   And it keeps them maintained throughout the life of the lease, which is a cost that's born by the lessee. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Let me bring in a couple other committee members. I'll just note a question in the Q&A, again, to the extent that we can answer these questions on the fly in the Q&A, we will. If not, we can also pick them up during the public comment. 
   But Howie, why don't you jump in. 

   >> Howie Parish: Yeah, I have a brief question, really. Will visitors to the various establishments be required to pay any kind of entrance fee or parking fee at the gate? And how will they identify themselves as going to the business establishment? 

   >> Karen Edelman: Well, currently if you ride up to the gate and you tell them you're going to Fort Hancock, you don't pay the recreation fee that you'd have to pay if you were going to the beaches. 
   There is no set plan yet to identify any difference in the visitors. We have cueing issues at the gate that we are still trying to resolve. So, there's no black and white answer to that. 

   >> Howie Parish: Okay. It's basically honesty identification? 

   >> Karen Edelman: Yeah. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Howie. 

   >> Howie Parish: Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Dorothy. 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: Thanks. I was curious to know what you expect the density per building to be. Because I haven't seen any floor plans yet. So like are, you know, in terms of the apartment setup. How many people do you think will be residing in each one of these? 

   >> Karen Edelman: I'm going to let Jen take that one. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Sorry, can you repeat the question, Dorothy? 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: I was curious to know how many people would ‑‑ do you anticipate living in each of these buildings? What's the density?
   I haven't seen any floor plans so I don't know what kind of apartments these are that are being planned for the building. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I think that's something that we're still working out and trying to understand. 
   Now, specifically with the officers' row houses we've been talking about four to five apartments each. And if there's that many apartments per building, I don't anticipate that it would be a large number of people per apartment. And so we can extrapolate from there. 
   And in other of the buildings ‑‑ but I should say that we have not come to final consensus or any final decision on those buildings. And with other buildings, you know, it depends from building to building how many people we're talking about. 
   In the larger barracks buildings which are, you know, also under a letter of intent and are far along in the design process, I don't want to misquote this, Karen, you can correct me, but I think there's 12 in one and 14 in another, apartments or units. 

   >> Karen Edelman: It's close to that. It's changing a little bit because of the historic considerations about the interior columns. So they have to be reconfigured a little. But it will be around that number. I mean, I think 11 and 13, but it's still not fixed. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: So these are ‑‑ these are works in progress in terms of what it all adds up to, you know. We've looked at those numbers, hypothetically, because we're still working on what this looks like in previous meetings and we can certainly share those numbers again. I don't have them at my fingertips, but we can take a look. 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: Okay, thanks. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I do also want ‑‑ we're racking up some questions in the chat. Bennett, do you want know quickly touch on those? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Sure, if you ‑‑ if you can. That would be great. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Sure. So there's one about what have we looked at regarding alcohol impacts? I'll say that we looked at this very closely several years back because we used to allow alcohol all over Sandy Hook. Used to be able to be on the beach with alcohol. And that did cause us a lot of challenges in enforcement issues, public safety issues, particularly on the beach. 
   That sign, ocean water, going swimming and drinking alcohol were just a really bad mix. And so we did a really thorough analysis over our enforcement response statistics. 
   And that's how we made the decision to stop allowing alcohol on the beaches at Sandy Hook. 
   Now, we did leave the door open that in certain instances in more controlled areas and on a much smaller scale we would still look at, you know, permitting alcohol. And so this ‑‑ we were discussing the Mule Barn. And we will adapt for those. These are part of the building that's being leased, for instance, like we saw the last Advisory Committee meeting, there is ‑‑ we have proposed an addition on the officer's club to make that rehabilitation viable and functional. But in general, no new construction is allowed for those small pertinences, we look at them on a case‑by‑case basis. 
   And then the examples that Karen discussed of using some pertinent outdoor areas as well for certain structures. 
   And then revenue loss for not contributing entrance fees. I should clarify that legally and technically Sandy Hook doesn't actually charge an entrance fee. We charge an amenity fee, which is essentially a parking fee. It's a different legal categorization, and it's supposed ‑‑ it goes towards the parking in those main beach lots that support most of the activities that ‑‑ that support the activities that most of the visitors come to Sandy Hook go for. It isn't to support all ‑‑ it isn't applicable to our leased structures. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thanks. And I think some of the other issues in that last question will come up as part of the work group discussion as well. 
   Great. Karen, thank you so much for that. I'm going to push us on if I may. And so, we want to spend not quite the work ‑‑ well, we want to talk about the social equity update, and there are a number of social equity considerations that have come up. So we have I think probably originally when the Stillman proposal was put forward, it triggered a number of interesting and very important questions that the park service has been starting to think about, with some input on the working group on who can help us think about it as well. 
   I want to hand it over to Jen to catch the committee up on where things are at. As I've noted, we do have a couple of people on the call who are going to be helping Jen and team think about this. But Jen, over to you.
 
   >> Jennifer Nersesian: So, I'm not going to so much catch you up on where we're at, that's to come. But I do want to just remind everybody or introduce to those of you who haven't joined us before what the working group is, where this came from. 
   The working group, this first arose, it's been a while now. The inception of this was back in 2020 when we first started looking at the Stillman proposal that had come in on the majority of the buildings that were left remaining on our RFP. 
   And you know, at that time, the Congressman as well as a number of major statewide national environmental groups raised concerns with that proposal. And rather than just barreling forward, we really wanted to take a step back and understand those concerns, you know, see ‑‑ dig into them and see if there were, as we came to understand them, ways that we could work together to try and address those concerns. 
   Ideally within the leasing program itself. And so the working group was formed with representatives of those groups that had raised their hands and spoken up to voice those concerns at the time. 
   This working group is working group of the Federal Advisory Committee, which is the advisory body to the National Park Service in this leasing effort. 
   And so over the past year and a half, two years this has been ‑‑ work has been ongoing for a long time. And we've met pretty regularly, have really dived into a lot of topic areas which we'll cover in the upcoming slides to really understand the variety of perspectives on these issues to talk about what are current management policies and strategies and tools are and to look at where there might be things missing or, you know, other ‑‑ other approaches that we may want to consider. 
   So officially, the working group has been really focused on all of this and working through these issues together. And that input then comes to the committee, the full Advisory Committee, all of you, since the working group is under the committee. 
   And ultimately, the hope is that the committee would take these things up and, you know, provide some formal recommendations to the National Park Service based on this work. This working group is your working group. 
   I will say that at the same time I've been sitting on the working group to hear the discussions and our staff members have as well and provided a lot of background information to the working group so they know what our context is in terms of policies, laws, and management approaches currently. 
   And so we're hearing the working group discussion too. So whereas, we want ultimately some formal recommendations and want to get this information to you, the committee, to chew on and talk about in the context of all of our years of work in the leasing program. 
   I want to be fully transparent that at the same time we in the park service are hearing these concerns and aren't just, you know, waiting to see what happens. But as things come up that we need to consider, you know, we're not going to let a good idea ‑‑ certainly we incorporate the thinking into our management of the park as well. 
   And I think that's it. Bennett, did I miss anything? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Well, what I would invite you to talk about before we sort of open up that broader working group conversation is the issues around social equity, which we've ‑‑ 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Did I jump the gun? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I wasn't going to point that out. I was going to give you a graceful bridge back to the social equity. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Okay. I skipped it on the agenda. Thank you. 
   >> Bennett Brooks: If you wouldn't mind. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: The wrong topic that you can all hold on to that intro and I'll give you a brief reminder when we actually do talk about the full working group update. 
   But social equity was one of the issues that came up right away as a concern. You know, and again, when we were looking into the initial proposal and as the working group got together to identify what were the primary areas of consideration that they wanted to focus on. I think it's good that did I all that intro, because now you know what we're talking about. 
   One of the topic areas was social equity. And this ‑‑ this operates at different scales. You know, what precipitated the conversation in this instance was the working group and a look at the leasing program and thinking about, well, who's going to have access to these buildings and, you know, we have ‑‑ we've said all along that, you know, we are leasing buildings, we're not leasing land. You know, the public will still have full access to this area Sandy Hook. That still stands. 
   But there's questions about, well, who gets to, you know, if they're residences, who gets to live there? What is the model? Who is this geared towards?
   And how does social equity inform those decisions?
   And then, you know, this extrapolates out to Sandy Hook as a whole. Who's coming?
Who has access? Who are we serving?
   These are questions that are very important to us in the park service and that we have been grappling with for years with ‑‑ with some success and maybe some not, you know. But want to continue to focus on. 
   And so, I see this as an opportunity not only to look at our leasing program in Sandy Hook and these considerations within that context, but just want to put out that we remain very interested in looking at these issues for Sandy Hook as a whole and Gateway as a whole. 
   And with that, I think I'm going to roll it back to you, Bennett, to talk about where this has landed us. And I especially want to highlight the efforts of your co‑chair Gerry Glaser who has provided such leadership as a champion of this issue and helping to really get some new people to the table and get us organized around this. 
   Because I will say with this as well, the working group, the National Park Service, all of us fully recognize that we did not have the expertise or the variety of perspectives we need involved in this conversation to really help us chart a way forward. 
   So, with that, I'm going to turn it back to you guys. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. I may just say a word, Gerry, I might put you on the spot here too. 
   I think to add to what Jen said, I think it's fair to say that we are all at the very beginning of this conversation. And sort of what we've ‑‑ what's happened so far is, you know, a few conversations of the work group. An ask of who might we reach out to? Who can help us think about these issues?
   We got some ideas that we've followed up on. We have a few folks who have very graciously offered to help us think about these issues. Again, emphasized that this is a start and sort of I think one of the first questions we'll be putting to that group is who else should we be talking to? Because we want to make sure that we're ‑‑ as we step into this conversation, we do it well and thoughtfully and comprehensively. 
   And so that takes a lot of time to care. Gerry, I do want to invite you to just say a word in particular we have two of the three folks or actually two of the folks that we've reached out to on the, you know, sitting in right now. So, if you just want to say a word about who's in the mix, that might be nice for the committee members to hear. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Sure. Jen and Bennett gave a tremendous discussion of why we are where we are now. And I would just add that while we have an extraordinarily distinguished collection of people on the working group, many of whom are interested in and very helpful with the social equity issues, we just felt we needed to focus a bit more deeply on that. 
   Still one of the questions, though, is what do we mean by social equity?
   As Jen pointed out, this discussion began with questions around access to the park. Access to the land, access to the buildings, and so forth. 
   And from that, and I will emphasize that one of the prime directives, if you will, is to ensure that that access continues. So, I'll go back to something that one of our ‑‑ one of our early committee members who was a career [away from mic] with the National Park Service pointed out to me and everyone else, this park belongs to the people. It's everybody's park. We want to be sure that people continue to have access to all the things that it offers. 
   So, what does that seen in what does social equity mean? Not just access, but who has access?
   Where can people go?
   How can we make it clear to everyone that this is a very, very high priority?
   What's the framework for this conversation?
   And with that, I've been very, very lucky to find several individuals who have been willing to help us set that framework and begin the conversation so that we can bring it to the broader working group and to the committee. 
   One of those people is Pamela Pettyjohn who is on the phone. And she's been part of the beautification project. And I say that and want to add quickly what Pamela has done there is way, way more significant than what that name implies. She led an effort which, in effect, revitalized significant portions of the community in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and continues to work deeply with the community to address these issues of diversity and access at a place like Coney Island. 
   She will bring a very important perspective. Another issue that has come up frequently is around housing. What does ‑‑ what does the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse effort mean in terms of access for all people to housing?
   And with that, I have been able to get help from the director of the New Jersey affordable housing alliance. And Randi Moore is that person, is going to help us understand all of the issues around housing and what does housing mean in the context of this adaptive reuse program. 
   Her background and information will be incredibly important to what we're doing. 
   Another individual that I've enlisted is Qwynne. She is one of very few people who have been involved with another major national parks organization called the National Parks Conservation Association, and they created an advisory council which is a special and unique group to them. And the purpose of that group is to bring thoughts and ideas and concepts from, guess what, the next generation to help us understand what the needs and perspectives are from that group. 
   What Qwynne is going to bring to the conversation is her professional expertise. She's ‑‑ she has a doctorate in environmental sciences, but she also is an expert and has chosen a career interest in communications. Communications about these issues with communities. 
   So those are three perspectives that we're going to start with. We're also ‑‑ the park is also engaging the work of a consultant organization who can help bring to bear some other particular issues that we're still sorting out. 
   But as Bennett and Jen said, we're inviting a broad spectrum of ‑‑ of expertise that can help us really develop a framework for what social equity means. And I'll just end it by saying that this means not only access to the buildings that are being rehabilitated, but access to ‑‑ to all other structures there. And not access to, but access by whom. What segments of the population who may not have ready access to a resource like Sandy Hook, what can we do to encourage and support that access?
   So I've probably gone on a bit longer than you would have hoped, Bennett, but there you go. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Not at all. And what I would like to do, Simenesh, you've already promoted ‑‑ we've got two of the folks that Gerry just mentioned, Qwynne and Pamela I think are both on. I see Qwynne. And just Qwynne and Pam, I know we're, you know, we're not ‑‑ we're not asking you to ‑‑ we didn't ask you to prepare anything, but I thought you could come on and take your camera off and at least wave hello and if you want to add, you know, a few words to what Gerry said by way of introduction, invite you to do so. More just tell the committee members, you know, we've got some really good folks coming in to help us think about this stuff. Again, we're just at the start of this conversation, but want to really make you all aware of that. 
   Qwynne, if you want to say a quick word and then Pamela, if you are still on the call, invite you do so too. 

   >> Qwynne: Very happy to be a part of this amazing project, and I'm very excited to work with the working group more specifically just to really drill down to what do you mean by diversity and inclusion and for whom?
   Oftentimes I think there's a big blanket statement that we often do with good intentions, but it prevents us from effectively reaching the communities that we want to engage with the most. I'm hoping to engage in a conversation of that so you all can be very intentional about what you do on the ground and how that will impact committees that you're hoping to work with. 
   Also maybe leading some more conversations about changing perspectives to doing something to create inclusion for communities, but rather doing that with communities. So I think it can be a really positive conversation that can give some very actionable things to take forward. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. And Pamela, are you there? Maybe you can come on camera and say a quick word. 

   >> Pamela: Hi, I'm Pamela. I'm also a Northeast Regional council member of National Parks Conservation Association, and I am very pleased to be of service, if I can, to this committee. And we're hoping that this becomes a year‑round residence for everyone to enjoy. And that's it. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. Thanks, Pam. And I've mentioned to the work group when we introduced Pamela, I've had the pleasure of working with Pamela on an urban forest project in New York City which is all about how do you make sure that the canopy, the urban canopy benefits benefit the entire city and are equitably shared. There's really good important issues here. We're excited about it, excited to have them in the mix and excited to see where this leads. 
   So, I think for now we'll probably just leave this here. And Pam and Qwynne, thank you. You're welcome to stay on the call, but you are busy and probably have other things to do in your day, so we'll leave that up to you. Thank you, folks, and we'll look forward to the conversation. 
   So, with that, we now want to sort of broaden the conversation and really touch more deeply the work group conversations that we've been having. 
   And so, Jen, if you want to just hit the ‑‑ you know, the highlights of that original introduction, which was wonderfully done just to reground us ever so briefly and then I'll pick it up from there. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Hopefully nobody has joined in the few intervening minutes. So, you all got my context and background for what led to the formation of the working group and really what the thinking is behind. Again, you know, we are looking for ‑‑ for the work of the working group to inform the deliberations of the committee that then result in formal recommendations to the National Park Service. 
   And you know, it gives a chance to fold in all the perspectives and spirits of the committee with the work of the working group as well. But as I've said, we've been tracking this closely from the National Park Service and all along and think there's a lot of really rich thinking and conversation that's gone into these that we will continue to benefit from. 
   Hand it back to you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. To situate us in the bulk of the conversation, minus a public comment or quick comment or two at the end, the goal is to catch you up on the work group conversations. And Jim Krauss will be spearheading that in a minute when I hand it off to him. 
   But as Jen said, this group has been meeting for something like 20 months, it has had a number of presentations. It has had a lot of rich conversations. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of perspectives in the group, and the group hasn't been convened to reach consensus, it's been convened to talk about what are the issues that we should be thinking about?
   What are the issues that Jen and her team should be thinking about?
   And they spent a lot of time and have had a lot of meetings over the months to flush that out. And the goal today is really to share their thinking with you and for you all to take the time to understand what these recommendations are saying and why and to think about what does that say to you about the kinds of recommendations you, as the Advisory Committee, might wish to make to the National Park Service?
   Those could be recommendations on actions you think they should take; information you think they need. You know, whatever strikes you as important and necessary. 
   So again, the approach for the time that we're going to spend here is ‑‑ is to invite Jim to provide an overview and context and really sort of walk through the recommendations. You've gotten them a few days ahead of time, hopefully you got to look at them. 
   We'll then ‑‑ after Jim shares his perspective on behalf of the work group, we do have a number of work group members open the ‑‑ on the call. Last I looked at, we have one, two, three, Tim and Herald and Lauren on as attendees and we have two members of the committee who have just been ‑‑ joined the committee who are on work group as work group members. That's Bill Kastning and Dorothy Guzzo as well. 
   To the extent that any of those work group members want to fold in their perspectives at the outset, that would be great. 
   And then open it up for clarifying questions for you, make sure you understand the recommendations, and then really have ‑‑ we set aside a lot of time, an hour or two for you to start talking about these recommendations and really, you know, think about what it says in terms of any recommendations you might want to make now or things you want to start chewing on. 
   Just a couple of last points I want to emphasize before I hand it over to Jim. 
   One is you've not been handed a final report. This is ‑‑ captures ‑‑ the work group has had a lot of conversations, like I said, they've done a lot of thinking, and this captures the ideas discussed to date, the recommendations that various members have put on the table. This is not a consensus document. There are definitely ideas in here that I think everyone broadly supports. There are probably ideas in here that some sort and others maybe don't support or are more lukewarm about. 
   But there's been a very rich conversation about all of these. The ideas are not ranked in any way. We actually talked about the work group, and they chose not to rank them very deliberately. 
   And inevitably, a lot of the topics and some in particular are dynamic. How the world looks today may not be how it looks a year from now or five years, ten years, something like climate change, for example. It's just important to have that context as we think about these. 
   So, I'm going to leave it there and hand it over to you, Jim, to walk through these. And I think we're going to call up the document itself, but we'll hand it over to you, Jim. 

   >> Jim Krauss: Thank you, Bennett. 
   First, I think we just ought to review who was actually ‑‑ who the members of the working group are. I'll say the non‑FACA members, Tim, Eileen, Lauren Cosgrove, National Park Conservation Association, and Herald Zullow, Sierra Club club. 
   Two members during the working group session so far who were not members of the FACA who now are members of the FACA, Bill Kastning from Monmouth Conservation and Dorothy Guzzo from New Jersey historical trust ‑‑ New Jersey historic trust. 
   The FACA members of the working group or the two chairs, Shawn and Gerry, and Tony Mercantante and me. And then the park service employees who attended the meetings were the superintendent Jen Nersesian and Patti Rafferty. 
   With that, just want to ‑‑ the memo that everyone received, the major areas of discussion were the National Park Service management framework, what's currently existing in the laws, regulations, and policies. The ecological impacts of a leasing program. Parking and traffic considerations, capacity, and density considerations. And then climate change considerations. 
   As Bennett mentioned, as we tried to group the recommendations and considerations into priority buckets last week, the ‑‑ the members of the group decided that that was not the proper way to go and instead have grouped them into buckets based on I'll call it topical errors. Topical areas, excuse me. 
   Those being overarching considerations, park management and operational and user issues, environmental impacts, climate vulnerability, and then adaptive reuse, equity, and public access. 
   So, with that, I will ‑‑ I will run through the 33 recommendations and considerations pretty quickly, but everyone should understand that there will be a considerable amount of time after that to discuss items in detail. 
   For the public, this document will be on the website most likely no later than sometime tomorrow. So, with that, if we can go to the slide with the working group recommendations, number one. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Are you able to call that one up? Here we go. I think actually Karen, if we can step back the PowerPoint. 

   >> Karen Edelman: Yes, bear with me for one second, I will bring them up. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: We will happily bear with you. 
[Pause]. 
   There you go. And if we can make... 

   >> Karen Edelman: Are you seeing those? 

   >> Jim Krauss: Yes. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: We are, if you could blow them up a bunch. You can go up to the top, number one, there you go, perfect. Maybe just scroll up a little bit, yeah. 
   Folks able to see that, committee members? Yeah, okay. Good. I think we're large enough. Great. 

   >> Jim Krauss: Okay. The first group overarching which at the moment only has one recommendation, is that there be accepted enforceable legal instruments that articulate the developer's responsibility for the cost of mitigation and adaptive management. 
   If we can roll up to number two. This group is park management, operational, and user issues. And what is mentioned a few times is that there are a number of things primarily in this group that would either need to be in tenant leases or perhaps house rules or park rules. So ‑‑ and I'm just ‑‑ these are fairly straightforward, so I'm going to go through these pretty quickly. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: And Jim, I can step in for one second? I just want to point out to folks that that third column, which we won't talk to the right now because it's just too detailed, but it's intended to speak to what are things that the park service is already doing or has sort of on the books that address this kind of ‑‑ that talk to the particular recommendations. Just want to put that in perspective. 
   Sorry. Go ahead, Jim. 

   >> Jim Krauss: Yes. Thanks, Bennett. I neglected to explain the columns. 
   So number two is management of waste, particularly in regards to the effect on wildlife. 
   Number three is to educate lessees on the impacts of feeding feral cats and wildlife. And in column three we note that feeding of wildlife is already prohibited everywhere on the entire Hook. 
   Number four, manage mowing frequency, particularly in respect to risk to birds. 
   Number five, basically no fires. Right now, it's anticipated that the lessees would not allow fires in the fireplaces. 
   Number six, limit the number of vehicles that lessees can have and not allow big RVs. 
   Number seven, prohibit the use of anticoagulant bait traps for pest control, which is already prohibited as noted in the third column. 
   Number eight talks to fertilizer management. 
   Number nine, management of waste oil disposal from the food establishments. 
   And number ten, to ban PFA‑containing fire extinguishers and firefighting foams. 
   Then we move on to a grouping of the environmental impacts both prevention and mitigation. 
   Number 11, develop and implement adaptive management ‑‑ an adaptive management framework for continued monitoring and evaluation of thresholds for ecological impacts. 
   And the column three, the related park management issue is extremely important here. The Department of the Interior and the National Park Service do have an adaptive management framework. However, there is not a specific adaptive management plan in place for Sandy Hook, at this point in time. 
   Number 12, which is somewhat related to the very first topic, is to make the developer responsible for addressing unavoidable environmental impacts. 
   Number 13 is to require native plantings. Already the National Park Service policies require the use of locally‑sourced native species, and at the current time also planting requires ‑‑ any planting requires park review and approval in advance. 
   Number 14, another fairly significant recommendation is to evaluate the potential impacts of expanded leasing over the entire peninsula. Particularly where it affects endangered species. 
   Number 15, evaluation of the potential impacts of daily activity in the park. There was quite a bit of discussion about nighttime activity and the effect of increased sound and light from the residence and any commercial activities, including restaurants and bars. 
   Number 16, to research and identify the impacts of wildlife due to the leasing program. 
   Number 17, possible need for quiet zones. 
   Number 18, include light restrictions in leases. 
   Number 19, monitoring Avian collisions. 
   Number 20, include noise restrictions in leases. 
   21, protect and manage existing forests. Note here that currently no leasing or development within the natural zone or any sensitivity resource subzone is contemplated. 
   Number 22, adaptive use of vacant buildings may eliminate habitat for some species. Already the park service is installing additional Osprey platforms. 
   Number 23, monitor any air quality effects. 
   Number 24, to evaluate the effect of any increased tenancy on the existing infrastructure, and that's something that I noted the FACA has been addressing for several years. 
   Number 25, manage the Hook to protect native habitats and to prevent and reduce and manage any non‑native invasive species. 
   And that brings us to the next grouping, which is climate vulnerability both prevention and mitigation. 
   Number 26, sea level rise and storm surge needs more examination. And that's particularly true in two areas. One is to consider the effect on any managed retreat plans. And also, it came to the working group's attention last week that there are some new storm surge and slosh maps available, which need to be evaluated going forward. 
   Number 27 is to provide electrical charging ‑‑ electric charging stations for electric vehicles. 
   28 is to evaluate the adequacy of the maintenance of storm water facilities. 
   And the 29, an emergency evacuation plan must be in effect. 
   And the final group, adaptive reuse, equity, and public access, number 30, address social and economic justice concerns as was discussed a little while ago. 
   Number 31 is to look at the possibility of scaling up any public enhancements which will be available due to the leasing program. There might be things that could be ‑‑ make it a better public experience once the buildings are rehabilitated. 
   Number 32, potentially to establish a trust that managed by citizens to monitor how the leasing program operates and the ‑‑ this might be modeled after the Presidio Trust. 
   And finally, number 33, to look at what the effect of any squatters’ rights or renters' rights might have on the National Park Service if a leasing program goes forward. 
   And that is ‑‑ that is the end of the list and I'll turn it back to you, Bennett. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Jim. That was just the right level of detail. As you can see, the work group really covered a lot of territory, and I think ‑‑ actually think the groupings they put together here are towards of the end of this most recent conversation really helpful in terms of sorting this into a couple different categories that may be useful for you all to think about. 
   We are at a break. What I think we should do is maybe just stick with the break for ten minutes, and then we'll come back. I do want to check and see, Tim and Harold, are either of you disappearing in ten minutes? I don't want to lose the potential for work group members to fold in. Maybe you can just type an answer in the Q&A. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Or give us a thumbs up. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Well, yeah, can we see ‑‑ or raise your hand if you can ‑‑ or maybe ‑‑ 
   
   >> Simenesh Semine: They're both raising their hand. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay. So then let's go to break, just so folks can stretch their legs for ten minutes. We'll come back; we'll invite the work group members to fold in any other commentary they might want. And again, we've got work group members who are in both the audience and now on the panel, on the committee, so we'll let all of you just for some brief comments. 
   And then really open it up to committee to ask questions until public comment at 11:30. And then after public comment, we'll really open it up for where do you guys want to take these. 
   Let's go to a ten‑minute break and we'll see you back at 20 of. Thank you. And thanks, Jim, for a great overview. 
[Break]

    >> Bennett Brooks: Okay, for folks want to start getting back to their computers, that will be great. If you turn your cameras on, we'll know you're here. 
   Great. Mary Eileen, Michael Walsh, Linda Cohen, if you could turn your cameras on when you're at your seat so I know you there are. Don't want to jump in before we have everyone in the mix. 
   Hi, Shawn. Thank you. Thanks, Mary Eileen. 

   >> Shawn Welch: I'm still feeding my face, I'll be back. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay. I'm not going to have the opportunity, so I will just be dining a little bit in front of you all. And I encourage you to make me feel better by doing that as well. 
   You know, we used to eat food in front of each other. Even on camera it's okay. 
   Let's jump in. So, I would hope that that presentation triggered a lot of questions and you're reading these before the call today. We want to create a lot of space for that. But first what I want to do, there are more work members on. I would like to invite anyone from the work group to offer any comments. I would ask work group members to keep any kind of comments they have short, because this is a committee meeting, not a work group meeting. But if there's any sort of color commentary or something you'd like to emphasize in particular that you want the committee to hear, I think that would be helpful. 
   So, we, again, have a couple of the ‑‑ I think Lauren Cosgrove is not on the call anymore, but we do have a couple committee members who are attendees and a couple committee members ‑‑ sorry, a couple of work group members who are now on the committee. 
   So let's go to ‑‑ I'll start with the Advisory Committee member ‑‑ sorry, work group member who's not on the panel and sort of bounce back and forth, Tim Dillingham. Let's take you off of mute. Take Tim off of mute. 

   >> Simenesh Semine: Yep, you're allowed to talk, Tim. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Go ahead, Tim. 

   >> Tim Dillingham: Thank you for that permission. 
   Well Bennett and Jen in particular, thanks for the community to discuss. I think you can see the group has had a lot of conversation across a lot of different issues. I appreciate the framing of it initially as being draft or not finalized, because I think there's some more work to be done, particularly around the social equity issues. I think that's one of the really central challenges posed by the leasing program. 
   And then I think the news earlier on that there might be expanded parking and expanded operations I think are going to be things the work group may want to reconsider. 
   There's a lot of concern and discussion around the impacts on birds in particular that might use the park at night and the impact of sound. 
   But I think there's some substantive suggestions for you all to consider for the park service to hopefully integrate into their leasing work. I'm more than happy to answer any questions that I can wrestle with while we're all together. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thank you, Tim, very much. Appreciate it. 
  Harold. Harold Zullow, you there? 

   >> Harold Zullow: I'm here. Can you hear me now? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I can, thank you. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Okay, good. Thanks, Bennett. 
   Yeah, so I would second what Tim said. And including that especially for social equity concerns that it's important that we reference the founding history of the park and how it's founded in social equity concerns and that we also reference the entire history of the park of how social equity concerns have or haven't been integrated since the opening of the park. 
   So that's just one kind of follow‑up to what Tim said. 
   And then secondly, about climate change impacts and I've put this into the Q&A area, that when Roy Stillman spoke, I didn't hear him reference of whether the structural, Mechanical Engineering assessments that are going to be submitted, as well as any other assessments of the building are incorporating the up‑to‑date slosh digital elevation modeling and other necessary kinds of data to assess the future water impacts on these buildings. 
   So, anything that you can provide us today during the FACA meeting about that would be helpful. Or if there is any existing assessment that's been done, then that can be entered into the public record. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks so much. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Bennett, do you want me to respond to that in terms of addressing the climate change? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Please. Please do, Jen. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Certainly, we are not expecting or any of our lessees to speak to that. But the NPS will continue to evaluate the data in terms of our management of the park. And perhaps at the next committee meeting we can agendize a fuller update on where we are at. There's a ‑‑ you know, we can talk about what we are basing our decisions on, you know, what studies, any new information that has come out, as well as other pieces that are relevant to this. 
   For example, you know, we are working on rehabilitating the sea walls at Sandy Hook. There're other components that need to be weighed and looking at what potential impacts are. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Jen. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Are you saying that the NPS has to provide the overall framework for the lessees in terms of the climate change impacts? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: No, I'm not saying that. But that we ‑‑ you know, that is what ‑‑ you know, we use the best available data in our own management of the park, which includes, you know, the leasing program and these are still NPS‑owned resources, even when they're leased. 
   And certainly anything that we have, we are happy to share with our lessees. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Great. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Let me see if other work group members want to weigh in. So we've got two, again, who have just joined the Advisory Committee, but have been sitting in as work group members before they were committee members. 
   So Dorothy or Bill, either one of you want to weigh in or amplify anything that Jim said? 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: I thought they did a really good job at grouping these, because I think they make a lot more sense now that we're sort of looking at them in categories. 
   So I thought they were a lot clearer at this point in terms of what the group has been spending I think almost two years now on talking about. 
   So I was ‑‑ I was glad to see this. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Dorothy. I completely agree. 
   Bill. 

   >> Bill Kastning: The bucketizing of the various ‑‑ the 30 some odd topics made this more readable and understandable. It's ‑‑ and I thank Tim and others for making that happen. 
   This was what? Almost a two‑year process. We boiled it down to this. Obviously there's a lot of detail behind each of these parts. 
   
   There are a lot of details behind the scenes that can be elaborated on through the questions that we get from the participants today. But this was a phenomenal exercise. I was glad I was part of it. And it's interesting now to have been part of the working team and now being part of FACA to move this forward. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. 
   Tim, is that hand re‑raised? And then I'm going to shift to the committee members. Are you there? 

   >> Tim Dillingham: I'm sorry, Bennett, I just forgot to lower it. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay, no worries. Good. 
   Okay. Well thank you, Tim and Harold and Dorothy and Bill for folding in and thank all of you other folks like Eileen and Lauren who couldn't be on this call today for putting in a ton of time. Again, social equity conversations still to come. We've heard a couple of other things that people are thinking about, so ‑‑ but you have a lot in front of you right now. A lot in front of you right now. 
   As Jen said, some of the ideas that have come up in these conversations, you know, the park service is already acting on because they're smart and helpful and good and it makes sense. 
   But where we want to spend some time right now is really getting ‑‑ giving you all a chance, committee members, first of all to make sure you understand what's in front of you. And so I think I want to just sort of pose that question right now to you all and say what questions do you have about the recommendations in front of you? Because before you can work with them and think about how it might inform guidance you want to give Jen and her team, I want to make sure you understand the recommendations, to the extent that you have questions about them, this is the right time to ask them. 
   Let me open it up to the committee and ask for clarifying questions, pieces you want to know more about, dig deeper into. Invite your questions. Of course, please raise your virtual hands here so I know who to bring into the conversation. 
[Pause]. 
   Let me just confirm, did you get a chance to read them ahead of time? I'm hoping.
Okay, not everybody. For those of you that didn't, I appreciate that, Norah, please again encourage you to ask any questions right now that might be helpful to you. 
   So let me go over to Michael Holenstein. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Am I on? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: You are on. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I'm on. Hello, everybody. 
   Obviously a lot of effort goes into producing this ‑‑ this summary. And I understand that there hasn't been an opportunity yet to really dive into this social equity or social and economic justice concerns issues. 
   I know that it's ‑‑ it is ‑‑ it's been around, it's always been around, but it's more of a forefront kind of concern of recent than it has been, perhaps, in the mainstream in the recent ‑‑ in the recent past. 
   So, my thoughts regarding the ‑‑ the search for social equity would begin with a definition of what social equity would constitute in an ideal circumstance, and then what the goals are with respect to an application of that definition to our mission as a FACA and the mission of the park. 
   The Federal Government by its various entities has a great deal of legislation and law and case law that identifies protected classes and provides for access and prohibits discrimination in many, many, many forms. 
   One of the forms of discrimination that is addressed the least, if it's addressed at all, is financial from the standpoint that anyone in the world is a protected class if they want to walk out on to the Sandy Hook peninsula and buy an ice‑cream cone, but the protected class categories and the legislation and the laws don't guarantee that that person is going to have the money to buy the ice‑cream cone. 
   So, you can get to the ice‑cream cone, but you can't buy it. Then I'm not sure that that's necessarily going to be found to be a protected class or part of the social equity goals that are achievable under the circumstances. 
   And this FACA now going on whether it's ten or 11 or however many years it's been, one of the opening comments that was made from the ‑‑ from Jen Nersesian's predecessor was that the FACA was to find adaptive use for the structures at Fort Hancock, but one of the things that we could not count on was going to be the federal assistance taking it over and providing for that work to be done. It was intended that it be found that we, as a FACA try to make recommendations to the department of interior and National Park Service that would facilitate public/private relationships that was going to get this work done. 
   So, I think that if you ‑‑ if you're looking at the concept of social equity in the context of private involvement and private investment in these properties, you have to find a way to ‑‑ to understand that you're placing or are you placing the goal of assure social equity on the private entities that are willing to invest the funds to do the renovation work. So I'll leave it at that, but just to go back to the beginning, I think we need to define what constitutes social equity in the context of the FACA's goals, begin with the definition, and then set forth how we can achieve those goals keeping in mind that there are a lot of legislation of the protected class. And maybe one of the first things to do would be to have somebody from the solicitor's office or attorney general come in and summarize what the laws are in existence already and what constitutes protected classes. 
   That's it. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. And that comment is helpful to feed into the whole social equity conversation to come. So it's timely to have those thoughts shared. 
   Norah, I thought I saw your hand go up before, but maybe ‑‑ no, okay. 
   Other questions, again, from the committee members just wanting to make sure that you are fully understanding the recommendations that have come to you. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Bennett, maybe it would be helpful, because it's a, you know, there's a lot of recommendations. There's a lot of discussion, a lot of topic areas, a lot to take in at once. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: If we ‑‑ the buckets back up on the screen. Maybe go through just general area ‑‑ 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Bucket by bucket. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Without going through each specific line item. If you want to take it topic area by topic area to see if there's any further discussion on these. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Sure. I think what we need to do to do that, Karen, would be to call back up the memo, because that's where those buckets live. 
   Let's give Karen a second, her computer to catch up. 
   If we can go to the first group, which is the overarching, again I think the conversation we want to invite here is what ‑‑ besides the questions might you have? And is seems like you all have mostly gotten to digest these. What does this say to you about either any recommendations this committee might want to be making, or what are information needs associated with this and where might you, as a committee, want to go with this kind of ‑‑ kind of recommendation?
    So the first one is overarching and it's really about, you know, thinking about articulating the developer's responsibility for mitigation and management and making sure that that has some sort of enforceable legal implications behind it. And there's a larger idea of where do these lie and how does the park think about that in terms of the leasing program?
   Invite any questions or discussion or, Jen, if you want to tee that up in any other way, please feel free. 
   Norah. 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: I do apologize, I see that Daphne just sent me the ‑‑ the plan. I appreciate it. But can you just clarify for me a little bit the overarching mission here?
   There's the economic mission, the social justice mission, I was asked to be on this committee, I believe, because we ‑‑ of our hospitality management program and tourism. We're an educational entity. 
   So from what I'm hearing here, this is doing a lot of ‑‑ a lot of different things, right? Where there's going to be private investment that's for the benefit of the public. We want to make sure we're addressing historical needs, am I correct, so that anything that pertains to that ‑‑ that's why it's so complex and you have a committee, and you have the public come out. 
   And certainly, for Brookdale, you know, we have an equity mission as well, we have an educational mission and we're trying to support the community and have students get jobs. 
   So, with the recommendations that I'm looking at here, I would offer up some of the expertise from Brookdale, some of our faculty and the history, philosophy, psychology, hospitality management areas if there's something specific. I wish I could contribute more right now, but I'm just trying to grapple with, you know, what the overarching, overarching. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: No, I think that's a great question, Norah, and I'm going to ask Jen to speak to this, because I think I've heard Jen talk in the past about all the different pieces that have to be balanced within this program. I think you did a good job of teeing up the question. 
   So Jen. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Yeah, I'll just say that it is the charter of the committee to advise the park service on our leasing program at Fort Hancock. And the purpose of that leasing program is to get these buildings preserved before they [away from mic]. And that also has a net positive impact to the visitor experience out there. 
   Now while doing that, I mean, our mission at Sandy Hook is, you know, multifold. It's historic preservation, it's the visitor experience, and it's managing natural resources. So we want to make sure that in addressing one issue we're moving forward in a way that, you know, is ‑‑ still meets our management goals in terms of the others. 
   So, you know, that's where many of these concerns arose from. And so we're trying to find a way with how do we fix these buildings that can get private investment in them so that they don't fall down and we don't fall down on our historic preservation mission under the law and lose this ‑‑ this national good while doing it in a way that is respectful of our natural resources and, you know, takes into account, you know, proactive, thoughtful way of managing the area. 
   Those are all prongs and what we're looking at here. And what you're seeing coming out of the recommendations of the working group, it's not so much how do we accomplish historic preservation, it's what else do we need to be taking into account to get to that goal. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: And then that goes to you all with that sort of, again, broader sort of what does that say to you as an Advisory Committee to Jen and her team about how they might move forward with their leasing program. 
   You're on mute, Norah. I don't know if you want to weigh in with other thoughts. 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: I just said thank you. I just needed that overarching context and I'd like to look at this a little bit more closely before I weigh in. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thanks. Really good question. 
   Other committee members? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: If you scroll down and look at some of the other buckets? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah. Yep. I think we just went racing by a whole bucket. We just need to go back up to number two. So that bucket title seems to have gotten lost, but this ‑‑ this next bucket is what we call park management operational user issues. So it's sort of the nuts and bolts of what are the things that a lessee would need to do or not do or be made aware of, right. 
   So it's ‑‑ it's managing waste, it's feeding wildlife, it's mowing, it's fires, vehicles, bait traps, fertilizer, fire extinguishers, not using PSA. So it's all sorts of things that the work group has said, hey, these are issues of concern. And I think it's actually a really ‑‑ this is a particularly helpful bucket that was created, thank you to Lauren Cosgrove for the suggestion, because it really is a class of recommendations that could be driven right into sort of the kinds of things that Karen Edelman was talking about earlier today. 
   So I think it would be really helpful to get some committee discussion on this on, you know, how do these strike you? You know, are these ‑‑ are there pieces here that make sense? Are these things you want to be thinking about as recommendations?
   Again, I don't know where you're going to feel comfortable going today, but even just starting to have that conversation, understand the questions you have, how you're thinking about it would be helpful. 
      There's again, I think nine specific very targeted pieces in here. 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: If I can. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yes, Dorothy. 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: I just have a question since these to me seem more like the restrictions you would put on the actual people that are leasing the sublessee. Does this go into the lease with the lessee and the leasing program or how do you make it go down to the actual people that have got the keys and showing up every night? So I was just curious to know how that would work. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I'll take that, Bennett. I think it works ‑‑ 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Please. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: ‑‑ in multiple tiers and depending on the specific issue may show up in one tier or multiple places. First, there's our park‑wide compendium, superintendent's compendium which are the rules specific to Gateway and Sandy Hook. 
   And those are actually incorporated into federal regulation. You know, if there are items in here that should apply to all of Sandy Hook, to all of Gateway, apply to all visitors, we can always incorporate those to make them explicit into our superintendent's compendium, if they're not already covered by some other federal law or statute. 
   Then there are certain items which maybe we want to think about incorporating into lease terms. That's another place where they can show up if it's, you know, something that we see enduring for the term of the lease and should be explicit in that kind of document. 
   And then for, you know, anything that's not covered by federal law or statute or in the regulations of the superintendent's compendium or in the lease terms, this is where we've come in with things like plans that give further specifications and make sure we have common expectations on how is it going to be managed. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thanks, Jen. 
   Michael Walsh. 

   >> Michael Walsh: Quickly to follow up on what Jen said, I think it will be useful for lessees to understand what's needed and obviously you can always point to federal regulations, you can point to rules, which you should. But I think to the point that the question was raised, and I forget by whom said, you know, how are we dealing with this with respect to the people with keys in their hand about to go in. 
   So my recommendation would be that the extent that these type of things are operational and day‑to‑day operational, perhaps a handbook would be useful or a cheat sheet of some sort that, you know, all lessees have. If they constantly have to refer to their lease, that's going to be buried in some file somewhere, they need a cheat sheet that they can quickly reference so that they understand exactly what's expected from them and also I would expect that there will be situations where there will be sublessees, thinking about if any of this is built out as apartments, there are going to be sublessees, these should also be available to those sublessees and so that they understand what they're supposed to do. 
   So just in terms of incorporating it into the lease, subleases, incorporating it into a very useful format for the lessee or the people who are actually keys in hand using the facilities. 
   That's it. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: That's great. Thanks, Michael. 
   Bill. 

   >> Bill Kastning: Yeah, this begs the question of enforcement and there are going to be different levels of enforcement first between the lessor and the lessee and then the lessor and the park system. That needs to be clearly defined. It's one thing to have an agreement, a lease agreement, but we all know very well that issues arise that need to be addressed. So that has to be clearly defined on what the enforcement authorities are. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: And Bill, I don't know if there's a question to you or maybe to Jen, but as you think about the recommendation, what is the ‑‑ what would be the recommendation? What are you asking the park service to do specifically in that case, do you think? 

   >> Bill Kastning: Well, the park system has to have an agreement with Stillman, first of all, on, you know, so it's very well identified what the lessor's responsibilities are and how he is ‑‑ that person is held accountable to the park system. 
   And then after that is an agreement that's obviously between the lessor and the lessee. And so, the issue is, the roads of enforcement have to be clearly defined. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. 
   Michael, you wanted to jump back in? 

   >> Michael Walsh: Just quickly following up on Bill's comment. This is really a question. As these leases ‑‑ right now we're focusing on the broader picture, let's get all these buildings lease and restored. Day to day, let's say we have them all restored, is there ‑‑ is there one person in the park service at the Sandy Hook unit that is sort of the landlord? Who is the point of contact? Who will be able to replace keys? Is there somebody in that position? Is it part time for them? Once these buildings are all going, I would expect that's going to be more than a full‑time job. Question is, is somebody like that in place and recommendation. If not, there probably should be. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: And to answer your question, there's not someone like that in place, you know, beyond our existing staff. Pete handles much of that. But there are other things beyond him as well. But you're right, as this gets more active, we will likely need somebody on the ground. 
   We've identified potential leasing officer, but that's ‑‑ that's useful feedback from the perspective of the committee. 

      >> Bennett Brooks: Other comments on this ‑‑ on this block? I'm hearing from those who have spoken so far that this seems to be a chunk of recommendations that makes sense and that, you know, driving this into some sort of accessible handbook, not burying it in sort of page appendix 3‑B that nobody ever sees is really important and then thinking through, you know, in that or something else sort of being really clear about the accountability issue and enforcement and then to this last point, you know, and how does the park service ‑‑ making sure the park service has appropriate, sufficient staffing to really address these issues as they come up. 
   Michael Holenstein. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Mike Holenstein, correct? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yes. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I think kind of like what Michael Walsh said a minute ago, I want to reiterate for Jen in the form of a recommendation that for a facility of this side and the diversity of the kinds of improvements that are out there, having some sort of a management company, and I don't mean hiring a management company, but I don't think having as good as he is, having one guy like a Pete in charge of things like that is going to allow him to do his normal work and still be able to deal with all the things that come up. 
   I would think, in my experience for a facility of this size, that having, you know, multiple people, two, three, four, five people with opportunities for staffing and people to be off to be available to answer questions and handle enforcement, do routine inspections and so on and so forth so people aren't scrambling to find an answer to a question. Or to register a complaint or for activities and enforcement. So, the recommendation is that Sandy Hook plan to staff up for some kind of a management ‑‑ management company within National Park Service at Fort Hancock to handle that ‑‑ to handle that function. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I'd love to hear a little bit of conversation from other committee members. I think the common thread here is this is going to take effort and focus. Is it about designating somebody? Is it about having sort of a larger sort of internal management company? We just welcome any thoughts folks have on that recommendation like that. 
   >> Jennifer Nersesian: You know, I'll add to that too that, you know, I think there's going to need to be staff support for the long-term management of occupied buildings and just with more people out there. 
   As well as during the construction phase, I mean, there may be different kinds of staff we need on ground for, you know, a period of multiple years while we've got a number of buildings in construction. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Mike, your hand is still up. Is that leftover or did you want to comment? 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I just wanted to follow what Jen said. The function of the FACA is to make recommendations to Jen's office that empower her to take ‑‑ to consider actions and to act as a certain amount of horsepower and backup for her to go back to her superiors and seek additional assistance. 
   So, if the FACA says that in our ‑‑ in our wisdom and based on our private world experience that she needs more people to be able to handle this function, then that recommendation from the FACA empowers her, I think it empowers her to go back to her superiors and try to get more support. 
   So, I think that's a function of the FACA that we don't ‑‑ we don't highlight enough. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I'm going to keep going back and forth among the Michaels, but I do want to invite people whose name isn't Michael to come into the conversation. Michael Walsh. 

   >> Michael Walsh: I used to work at a place that had so many Michaels I was once in a meeting that had seven people in it and four of us were Michael. I apologize for all the Michaels speaking so much. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Let me say as a Bennett, this doesn't resonate for me at all. 
   [Laughter]. 
   Michael, go ahead. 

   >> Michael Walsh: I agree with Mike's point of view, we do need to give Jen support. I would recommend that this committee do two things, one, a person or a group of people who will help be ‑‑ help during the construction phase, and that may not be people who have expertise in renting and leases, but people who have expertise in construction. 
   And two, also recommend that as this gets built out and we have leases and we have some leases in place already, but that we ‑‑ that our recommendation is that she has additional support for the ongoing management of these properties from a leasing and operational perspective. 
   So support what Mike said. Thank you, Mike. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Well said. 
   Shawn. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Get my mute off there. 
   >> Bennett Brooks: There you go. 

   >> Shawn Welch: This whole discussion of capacity within the park service to properly manage this, I've actually witnessed some of it, although it's not directly thought of in that way, but I watched it occur. So, what's my example?
   Jen will talk later about a program they've got for building stabilization that's moving. What germane to that discussion is there are people out involved in that program who are engaging the public as that program moves forward. 
   For example, as they deal with issues where wildlife is in the way of work that is to be done, these people are there to, A, do it right. And B, explain to the people who are out there what's happening. 
   Tremendously helpful. And it enlightens folks into the processes that the park service has available to engage in work during periods of time and under circumstances that the average person would say, how do we do this? And there are people out there that can explain it. 
   I believe that the Mike and Mike show, their recommendation here of management and manpower support isn't just helping the lease holders negotiate day‑to‑day operating within the confines of the national park. 
   It is also the ability to engage our citizenry as things change at Fort Hancock. 
   Unlike the army that would just go out there and do it, we don't care what you say, our job is to defend the country. Park service is a completely different animal. You need to explain to people what you're doing with their asset, because this is America's asset. 
   So, I'm on board with those two recommendations. One for helping shepherd through the construction both in terms of coordinating operations and explaining to the public what is happening. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and for those of you who float across Facebook and see the jarringness of some of the comments, this is an important thing. 
   So, I'm on board with your recommendations. 
   I also want to caution the committee as we look at these recommendations, the wideness of capacity that is within interior and the National Park Service, if you are trying to match that to what you would see in DoD, please do not. They are different. The capacities and the authorities are very different. 
   Anyway, thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Shawn. 
   Bill Kastning. 

   >> Bill Kastning: Yeah, back on the, you know, the property taxes that are being paid to Middletown and the county. I don't know what services are going to be offered by those entities, but certainly they can help with the construction oversight, if that's allowed, per the ‑‑ the park service. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Yeah. I will say towards that, that construction oversight may be a little different. But what we do have with Middletown Township is we have an agreement with them where they provide the final inspections and certificate of occupancy for the buildings. That would normally be our responsibility, but we have cut a deal with Middletown to have them to do that for us. 
   Thank you, Middletown. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. 
   So, I'm hearing so far a couple of different potential recommendations. One is ‑‑ and I'm just developing a few words here to try to catch them on the fly and these may or may not land well or may need to be morphed. But the one is this last conversation identify dedicated resources per NPS staff and internal management company, et cetera, to proactively handle issues related to leasing during the construction phase and ongoing management of the properties, operational and leasing. 
   There's a second set of conversations that we've heard in recommendations that are something along the lines of recommend the National Park Service closely review the work group's park management operational/user issue recommendations and report back on how these will be incorporated into the compendium lease terms or operating plans. Additionally, the NPS should develop an easy‑to‑understand handbook that communicates these ‑‑ develop a handbook that communicates these in easy‑to‑understand fashion to lessees and sublessees. Those are the two pieces I've heard so far in addition to the up‑front comment around defining ‑‑ which I think really roll into the next conversation on social equity, which is, you know, define social equity and figure out how that applies to the mission. 
   That feels like more of a when we roll into that conversation, carry that forward. 
   So, if folks want to react to those, I just think as we try to capture these as we go along, that will help us. 
   Gerry. You're on mute, Gerry. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: So sorry. I like the way you captured that last recommendation. The only words that I would try to insert in there in some locations are historic preservation oversight. I mean, it's one thing to manage construction, but another to have someone with competence in the historic preservation issues that the park has to deal with. 

   >> Shawn Welch: That's a good one, Gerry. Maybe they go hand in hand. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: If you can find those skills in one person, that would be super. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Yeah. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Anyway, that's what I wanted to touch on. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay, I have just broadened that to say proactively handle issues related to historic preservation, leasing during construction phase, and ongoing management of the properties. 
   Anyone else want to react to these recommendations? Do they ‑‑ do they capture what we've talked about so far? And are you ‑‑ are they recommendations you want to make? I know several other people who spoke seem to be supportive of it, but other folks?
   Bill Kastning, you're talking but I'm not hearing you. 

   >> Bill Kastning: Yeah, there's one chat question about ‑‑ that's relevant to this discussion. You might want to look at that. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: The ‑‑ will the cost of staff be covered by leasing?

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Quickly address those. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Sure. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Staff being covered from increased rent by private users, the rent will be negotiated in the ‑‑ in the original lease terms. There may be built in periodic rent adjustments, but I want to reiterate that the anticipation is for most of the buildings out at Fort Hancock, because of the extreme deterioration, they require a very high‑level of investment in their historic rehabilitation. And that goes towards offsetting the rent. 
   So, we are not anticipating on seeing much actual cash from these buildings. That money that the rent generates will go into the high bill for historic preservation. So theoretically, some of that funding, if available, could go towards staff to help support the leasing program. But it's unlikely in this instance that we're going to see that kind of revenue. 
   Wildlife getting in the way of construction, Shawn, I'll say up front I think that was unfortunate phrasing. We don't view it as the wildlife are getting in the way. It’s a balance of the multiple parts of our mission. But yes, of course, we, you know, we make sure that the construction follows all laws, regulations, and policies, whether it's permitting, you know, Endangered Species Act or any other concern. 
   And then the question about adaptive management plan, animal species management plan, DEP jurisdiction, those are the kinds of things I don't want to address on the fly off the top of my head, but we can go back and get fuller answers to update everyone on the status of those types of concerns. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Thanks, Jen. In comment to your point about the wording, some people would view it as unfortunate, but it's not because priorities shift and change. An excellent way to put that is when I go to the first paragraph of the Organic Act, it says essentially you have to protect everything. I go to the third paragraph, and it says the secretary has total authority to do whatever he needs to do to make the park work. 
   So those are two extremes, and the challenge that you face every day as a superintendent of a park and your staff as they execute this is managing decision architectures to manage the two extremes that are handed to you in your enabling legislation. 
   So, I could probably pick some better words to say it, but the reality is you are developing or working through decision architectures that are either handed to you or that you must develop in light of guidances that's handed to you from the National Park Service, the interior department and Congress. 
   Frankly, I think you guys are doing a good job and it's important that people recognize that you're doing a decision architecture here. 
   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Some people may view the legs of our mission of setting up a conflict, but I do believe that we can find ways to manage for all these things in complementary fashion, we just need to keep our eyes and focus on all of those obligations and pieces. 
   The one last thing I'll point out is that [away from mic]. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Sorry, my headset just came out. Okay. We are just about at public comment time, but before we go there, I would like to invite Mary Eileen to come into the conversation and then we will shift to public comment. 

   >> Mary Eileen Fouratt: Okay, thanks. Just want to say I support the recommendations. I just wanted to ‑‑ like when you get up to 30, the adaptive reuse equity and public access, if we can, perhaps, add in accessibility in there. And when we're talking about the social equity, a lot of DEI work now is making sure that they include accessibility in there. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: We're not yet at that chunk. After we go to public comment, my plan will be to come back and take up the other remaining chunks and have exactly the conversation we're having now because I think this is a very productive way to go through this. 
   All right. I'll just note there are some comments in the Q&A that folks can be looking at. It is just about 12 seconds shy of 11:30, and I do want to switch to public comment. So Karen, perhaps if you can lower the recommendations sheet for a moment and call back up the ‑‑ the PowerPoint and bring up the public comment slide. 
   In the meantime, let me just start it and saying we have the next up to 30 minutes set aside for public comment. We have one person who has signed up in advance, that is Anthony, and Anthony, I believe you are here. I see your name, so if you raise your hand, great. So we'll take that comment first, and then we will open it up to any other members of the public who are on and wishing to make a comment. 
   We, you know, ask that folks limit their comments to just a minute or two so we have room for everybody. And then we will ‑‑ after we hear from whoever wanted to comment, we'll just go back into our conversation, maybe take a quick five‑minute stretch break. 
   Again, for members of the public who are on, if you prefer to comment in the Q&A, please do so. If you prefer to send an email to the park service, feel free do that as well. 
   The key is share your views. So Jen, Karen, and Pete and the whole team get the benefit of your thinking. So again, for anyone who is on, if you want to give a comment, please just raise a virtual hand right now which you'll find at the bottom of the screen and we'll just dive into public comment. 
   If we could just start, anyone who's commenting, just start with your name and affiliation so the committee knows who is talking to them, would be great. 
   So Anthony, you signed up in advance so let us go to you. And your mic should be open. 

   >> Anthony: Hi, guys, can you hear me? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yes, we can, thank you. 
   >> Anthony: Thank you for your time. Also thank you for all the efforts you guys have been doing for in decade and beyond that. 
   Some of you on this committee and on this call know me from previous conversations over the past year. My name's Anthony, I have been looking to try to lease a property out on the Hook for that period of time. So my questions mainly surround building 108. 
   I believe all of us or most of us on this call know that Stillman specially has the majority or all of the buildings out there right now kind of within their queue. So, my question relates to if there's a future phase for building leasing out on the Hook. 
   So, I did send in a letter of intent, an application for building 108, which is a building that's outside of the leasing program at this point in fall of 2022. And my questions pertain to that. 
   Was that application received?
   Has it been reviewed?
   Is there a sort of timeline as to when that could fold into the leasing program?
   That's my spiel. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thank you. I know generally we do these as comment and not so much as a Q&A, but, Jen, I always give you the potential to weigh in if that's helpful and appropriate. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Sure. I'm happy to just address that quickly. And thank you, Anthony, for joining us and for your interest in Sandy Hook and preserving our buildings. 
   You sent us an email either yesterday or the day before with this ‑‑ with a similar comment. We were not aware of your application and so we're trying to track that down. But I will say that building 108, you know, as you note is not on a leasing program, is not listed in the RFP. And right now it is not our intention to include it or put it out for leasing. 
   We have been using that intermittently for park purposes and, you know, have not decided that that is yet extraneous to operational needs. 
   But you know, we will continue to reevaluate other structures and, you know, there may be other things that come out for leasing, may not be, but we will continue to share any changes in thinking with the committee for full, you know, public deliberation as we look at any adjustments to the, you know, what's included in the leasing opportunities. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Jen. 
   Thank you, Anthony, for taking the time to be here today. Appreciate it. 
   Let's see if our other public comments. Lauren Cosgrove, I notice you are back in the meeting and you ‑‑ after Jim Krauss had walked through the work group recommendations, we invited any of the work group members to fold in any sort of color commentary perspective. So I don't think you were on at the time, so if you care to share anything, I would invite you just to raise your hand and we'll scooch you into the conversation now. 
   Harold, I see your hand is up. Are you wanting to get back in the conversation here, the public comment? I should have said, it's great if people who are making comments can turn on their cameras so we all have the ability to see each other, if you can. I recognize people are sometimes not in places where they can do that. 
   Harold. Is that a leftover hand? 
   >> Harold Zullow: Can you hear me now, Bennett? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yes, I can. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Hi, I'm not in a location where I can, you know, turn on my video. 
   So the ‑‑ so the questions and concerns I've been raising, I'm wondering if Karen would be the person to answer this. And for example, whether CGPs have already been obtained from the EPA in compliance with the ESA for construction that's already been done, construction that's ongoing, as well as upcoming construction. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: And what were you ‑‑ I'm sorry I missed the very beginning of it. What had been obtained? 

   >> Harold Zullow: The construction general permits. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: General permits, got it. 

   >> Harold Zullow: From the EPA under the ESA. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I'll say that Karen is not the right person to answer that, and I don't know that we have staff on the call that are. But we can get you more information on that subsequent to this call. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Who's the ‑‑ who's the person who is in charge of the CGPs? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: We have various staff involved in that and I'll go back and talk to our staff about it. 

   >> Harold Zullow: So you already have the permits and the information on them, Jen? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I don't know on the top of my head. I am certainly not hands‑on with all of the pieces of that, but I'll talk to our staff and get you the information. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Okay, thanks. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yep, okay, great. Thanks. 
   Any other public commenters? Okay. I do not see any other public comment at this time. 
   All right. Then let's push back on here, and let's go to the second ‑‑ it's the third group ‑‑ let me just double‑check, was there anyone else who had anything to say about park management operational issues?
   Sounds like some of the folks we heard from had a lot of support for the two different recommendations that came up in that conversation. And then we'll come back and, you know, obviously revisit these towards the end. 
   Let's go to the next chunk, which is environmental impacts, prevention, and mitigation. And that's recommendations 11 through 25. So there's 14 different recommendations there. And these really get to sort of understanding, addressing, accounting for, preventing, mitigating different impacts, things like from the very first and broadly developed and implemented adaptive management framework, continuing monitoring and evaluation of thresholds for ecological impacts, to next one again sort of fairly high‑level recommendation which is ‑‑ calls on the developer responsible for addressing unavoidable environmental impacts. 
   And then a number of specific pieces around requiring native plantings, providing tenants with a list of approved species and I was going to say if Lauren was here and she is here, she would say 13 could be under that last list as well, it really does fit under user pieces as well. 
   Talks about potential impacts of expanded leasing should be considered over the entire Sandy Hook unit. Thinking about diurnal living in the park. Understanding and impacts on wildlife. Making sure that we're looking at scientific literature and talking to experts around the need for quiet zones, lighting restrictions, potential for Avian collisions, thinking about noise restrictions, things like helicopter use or water aircrafts. 
   Making sure that the existing forest is protected and managed. Thinking about the fact that an accounting for the adaptive use is vacant buildings may eliminate habitat for some species. Air quality considerations. Ensuring that increased tenancy can be supported by increased infrastructure. 
   And then managing Sandy Hook to protect native habitats and prevent reduced managed nonnative species. 
   A pretty wide category, batch of recommendations that go from very specific things that the work group felt was important for the park service to be paying attention to and looking to and understanding and accounting for, and then some ‑‑ a couple of general ones right at the outset around developer responsibility. 
   So again, let's open it up to comments from the committee that at this point, you know, are these pieces in here or ways that you want to capture this today as a recommendation to the park service? Again, I don't ‑‑ Jenn, you correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think this is jour last bite at any of them. The committee will meet more and the committee can always take recommendations. 
   But I think the ask is, today, are there pieces in here that you want to elevate and amplify as a recommendation from you, the committee, to the park service because you're the formal body to give the recommendations. 
   Folks want to take a minute to think about it, works too. 

   >> Patti Rafferty: Bennett, this is Patti. If we have a moment, I'd be happy to address the questions regarding the Endangered Species Act. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Sure. People seem to be chewing on the question I just asked. Why don't you go ahead, Patti. 

   >> Patti Rafferty: I wanted to let everyone know that the Endangered Species Act is something that we have to comply with. And for every project there's a determination that would affect or may affect a federally listed species, we consult with U.S. fish and wildlife for land‑based and fresh water species or with the national oceanic for me marine species. The particular section that's being referenced in terms of Section 9 only comes into play if there is proposed take. 
   And we ‑‑ in the seven years that I have been at Gateway, and all of the consultations that we've done, we've never had any project rise to the level of take. We try to the greatest extent that we can to have it be no effect. That's not always possible with every project. 
   We use conservation measures, such as seasonal restrictions regarding activities. And generally, for consideration of endangered species, it's for ‑‑ depending on the species, it depends on the type of activity. For example, projects that occur within 500 feet of potential nesting habitat would then be consulted on. So the historic buildings that we're talking about are not within the 500 feet of that. 
   Now changes in visitor use could be. So the section with regard to other species we have species of bats, marine mammals, other species, but we do consult. But the Section 9 only gets to where there's a level of take. And in any consultation that we've done, and it's, we make the recommendation, we find ‑‑ in the park we have a finding with regard if we think there will be no effect or if it may affect but it is not likely to affect or if it will affect. 
   But it is the federally designated organization, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the national ‑‑ or oceanic and atmospheric administration that then has to review our information, and they ultimately then make the finding of whether they agree with what we have stated in our consultation or not. 
   And we have not had ‑‑ I'm not aware even beyond in the last 20 years because I regularly go back and review other projects because we want to make sure we're handling things consistently, that Gateway has every engaged in any activity with take that would call into play Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, which is what the question was about, I think. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: That was super helpful, Patti, thank you. Great. 
   Okay. Again, for this section, are there any questions and then there are any recommendations that you would want to carry forward to the park service at this time? 
   Michael Walsh. 

   >> Michael Walsh: So, I don't really have any recommendations. I guess in reading these, to me they came across as things that are general to the park and not specific to the Fort Hancock area that we're responsible for. And you know, I didn't see much in this list that was something that would directly impact the lessee other than as a reference to their obligation to follow the rules of the park. 
   When I see the comment about plantings, for the most part I don't think that they're going to be responsible for plantings. I think we already a year or two ago had a presentation on plantings around, for example, the officer's houses. So, I guess the question is, is this section too general, too generic, too larger scope than when this committee should be considering? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: That's a great question. I have a quick reaction, which is I think ‑‑ I think the ‑‑ unlike that first section, which is really written with the lessees in mind, these recommendations are more of a flavor of not to the lessee, but hey, National Park Service, we've been asked to say to you, what concerns us. What impacts are we thinking about. What issues do we worry about that could be tied to leasing. 
   And as the work group thought about that issue, these were a number of issues that came up that ‑‑ that the work group was saying, again, whether this is all work group, some members, you know, I don't want to split that hair. But it was more saying these are issues that we think are really important for the park service to look at carefully and understand and take. 
   So, I can imagine if you all wanted, you know, your, you know, something that could come from this that would, you know, would be more along the flavor of, you know, asking ‑‑ asking the park service to look ‑‑ look at these recommendations and come back to the committee with are these adequately covered through what the park service already does?
   Are there any gaps?
   I don't know. But it seems to me that this is a park service level set of recommendations. Jen, Patti, any thoughts on that, and then we'll go to the queue. Jen or Patti. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Let's go to the queue. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Let's go to Jim and then Michael Holenstein. 

   >> Jim Krauss: Just to add to what Bennett said, the committee said you can have a number of people out there, I don't know what the number is, but let's say it's a hundred people. That will have some effect on the park. And I think maybe one of the best examples of that is number 15, that you're going to have people out there at night that you don't have now. 
   But right now you have some fishermen who have fishing permits that are out there maybe eight months a year. But if the leasing program gets through, you're going to have people 365 days a year in the residences, and you're going to have people in the evenings going to the bars and restaurants. 
   So, there will be some general effects. So hopefully maybe that answers Michael's ‑‑ helps to answer Michael's question. 
   Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Jim, that's helpful. 
   Michael Holenstein. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I took this in the next section as almost the net result is like it's a [?] section for the ‑‑ for the park service and the restrictions and things that are already in place so that the committee identifies a number of concerns through ‑‑ referring to the committee and to myself collectively as the lay persons who are dealing with the National Park Service entity, that these were concerns, and that you look over to the right and you find out that many of these things are already dealt with and covered by existing rules and regulations. 
   So this section, it strikes me that something like this document would be the kind of thing I would expect to see inside the management office where someone wants to come in and say, you know, just peruse things in general and see that you've talked about environmental impacts and then you find out that 15 less ‑‑ item 15 lessees are subject to the same access restrictions as other visitors, and so on and so forth. 
   So, it's more like a Q&A for a lot of stuff that's already in effect. The questions are legitimate concerns of lay persons, but the answers are found in somewhat difficult to find perhaps under normal circumstances without the resource. 
   So, if this were to become a resource, then the recommendation would be that these Q&A questions that are already custody by ‑‑ by existing rules and regulations be part of the ‑‑ part of the desktop resource or whatever if something like that's going to be created in the management office. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay. Yeah, and I'll just ‑‑ I'll just note as I look at this, I think what you said applies to many of the recommendations that are here, and I'm relying particularly on the ‑‑ that third column related current park management where there are many comments there. 
   There are some pieces in this section that are not covered or don't have any notation there. The adaptive management piece, it's noted that DOI and NPS have an adaptive management framework but there's not currently a specific adaptive matching plan in place for Sandy Hook. 
   There's ‑‑ there's the recommendation around making developers responsible for addressing unavoidable environmental impacts is one that there doesn't seem to be anything in the list. Avian collisions, ensuring that the increased tenancy can be supported by infrastructure. And managing Sandy Hook to protect native habitats and protect nonnative invasive species, that last one probably just hasn't caught up with Patti's pen, I'm going to guess. 
   So again, you all, for you all do what you want to do, I think, Mike, what you said is probably true for a lot of steps there. 
   Gerry, why don't you come on in. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: I wanted to react to Mike's point, you're exactly right. The dilemma, as I was observing the working group's efforts, a lot of these arose from a lack of understanding about the level of the park's concern and actions to deal with it. 
   So, you're absolutely right on the one hand, that they are in some respects obvious, but then for many people not obvious. 
   So, I think it would be useful for us to continue to consider ways to ‑‑ to put it in a different way, restate the obvious so that there's a broader understanding that these issues are being addressed. 
   But Mike, thanks for bringing that up. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Gerry, is that an element of a recommendation around sort of park service redoubling its effort to kind of make known the issues, its approach, that kind of thing? 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Yeah, I think so. And I think it has to go beyond just a compendium in the leasing office or in some other vocation. 
   It may be part of a broader information campaign if you will. I don't know how implementing that, what I'm thinking about is tricky, but I think that since these emerged from a lack of awareness about what's going on I think, yes, I would put it in the form of a recommendation. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Mike, do you want to jump back in, Holenstein. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Yeah. For those that haven't made a recent visit to the ‑‑ to the website, great strides are made. And one of the things that we benefit from in today's technology is the ability to shop words and find answers. 
   And so if it isn't already, and I don't know the answer, getting some of this more technical stuff in a library of documents or a list of authorities as a drop‑down menu, a list of authorities and a drop‑down menu that can be searched, someone can come in and say, you know, type in certain things and get some kind of a response or a reference which would be helpful. 
   Now, if that's within the ‑‑ within the park's ability to expand in that way, again, assuming that they haven't already, then that could be a useful means of accomplishing that mission. 
   So, I would suggest that in the form of a recommendation. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Mike, is that one ‑‑ so basically if I followed on what Gerry just said where I have park service should double its effort to make pup aware of efforts in place to track and address environmental concerns tied to leasing activity, I should put there, maybe that could be followed by one possibility could be to provide these ‑‑ a listing of these measures in some sort ‑‑ in an online, easy‑to‑use online format? Is that the essence of your recommendation, Mike? 

   >> Michael Holenstein: That is the essence. It sounds like a simple idea. It's unbelievably complicated. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I'm sure. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: To get everything all together and we hate to give them ideas or demands or recommendations that they would be unable to meet even under the best of circumstances. 
   So, if it's narrowly defined in the categories that we're in right now, it perhaps is a more reasonable recommendation and a more reasonable to respond. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: And I would just say that some things that take more work up front may save a lot of work in the long run. Yeah, it is complicated and pulling all this together takes staff time and investment and, you know, it will take us time to work through it. But I think the benefits of having a clarity of information out there, having people know the rules, have access to that information will make our management much better if not easier in the long run. 
   >> Daphne Yun: And just quickly, I added the link to the superintendent's compendium on the web page where all the other meeting notes are. And just so that again everyone knows, we have a new website with, it's no longer FortHancock21.org, it's on the Gateway's website, nps.gov/gate and it's all the way at the bottom. I'll send out links to everyone who's participating in today's call. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Daphne. 
   Gerry, you wanted to come back in. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Just one last thing I want to use this occasion to thank the park for helping inform me about all the things they do along these lines. And I will call out Patti Rafferty as one who spent weeks giving the park volumes of information that supports any one of these numbered recommendations. 
   So, the ‑‑ the level of information that lies underneath all of these is stunning. And the park's done a great job of call that out for us. 
   Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. So, I have a potential recommendation here based on this conversation of park service ‑‑ excuse me, park service should be double its effort to make the public aware of measures in place to track and address the kinds of environmental concerns by policing activity as identified in the environmental impact section. 
   One possibility would be to provide a list of these measures in a proactive, easy to use, online format. 
   How does that land for folks? Does that capture that conversation? And for those of you we haven't heard from, how does that strike you? 
   And we'll come back and review all these before the end of the meeting, but that working? Seeing some heads nodding. Mary Eileen yes. Norah, Linda, Dorothy, okay. Okay. Great. 
   All right. I'm not hearing a giant hunger right now to pick up any of the other recommendations there right now. 
   Linda, did you want to jump in? No, okay. 
   Okay. So again, I just ‑‑ I will emphasize there's a lot in here to digest. I think it has certainly been in the committee's ‑‑ I think our working assumption is ‑‑ was coming into this there would be pieces we'd wanted to move forward as recommendations. I think it's also reasonable to think that there are some pieces in here that we may not be ready to have ‑‑ you may not have anything to say today, and that's ‑‑ that's okay. It's just obviously encourage the committee to continue thinking about these issues as you go forward. 
   Let me just pause here and invite Tim and Harold both want to get into this conversation here. I'm going to sort of use my facilitator prerogative as work group members to bring them into the mix even though we're in the committee part. Obviously they have ‑‑ work group members have been contributing a lot. Let me bring in Harold and then Tim. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Thanks, Bennett. Can you hear me okay? 
   >> Bennett Brooks: Yes, thank you. 

   >> Harold Zullow: I wanted to respond to Michael Holenstein and Gerry's comments. I'm not sure I would agree with Gerry that there's a lack of awareness within the working group. 
   So regarding the issue of takes that would activate Section 9 of the ESA, because the adaptive management plan and an updated and comprehensive species management plan and the monitoring associated with those are really the guardrails that help to inform and activate Section 9 and to really make an adequate assessment about takes and the risk of takes, that I think that the working group can be really legitimately concerned about whether we need to revisit this issue of takes and the consultation process with the FWS. 
   And I'm not sure what the public's role is or can be in that Section 9 activation. But I think that the working group is trying to be sensitive to [?] unless we have the guardrails of the management plan and the updated comprehensive species plan and the monitoring that goes along with that, that I think we all need to just be concerned about how that evaluation and activation of Section 9 takes place or hasn't taken place. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. I don't know if Jen or Patti want to have any reaction to that, but if not, I think I'm invite Tim in in the meantime. 
   Thanks, Harold. 
   Tim. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Sure. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Are you there? 

   >> Tim Dillingham: There we go, okay. Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Gotcha. 

   >> Tim Dillingham: And first off, I want to say I don't consider myself to be representing the entire work group, even though I really was the one that started the conversation today. 
   I think the recommendations that the work group offered you were informed, and they were informed by active interaction with Jen and Patti and the workforce. I don't think they come out of ignorance or lack of understanding. In fact, there are indeed recommendations in there where the park service has acknowledged that they're not doing something like the creation of the adaptive management plan. 
   You may not think that's necessary, but I think the response that, you know, we've got all this in hand just really diminishes the work that the work group ‑‑ that the working group has done. I think that's unfortunate. 
   You know, I think the other thing is that the recommendations, I think, were seen as a template or set of benchmarks against the Park Service’s application of their own rules and in their review of this development and this redevelopment. 
   So, you know, I don't think public's perception is we got here, the whole creation of the work group was in response to the public's perception that not everything is being covered. People try ‑‑ they gave a lot of their time to provide you with information, and I don't think that despite the fact that the park service is doing things, and they probably do need to be more transparent in what they do, I don't think everything was covered. 
   So, I wouldn't dismiss these out of hand. Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Bennett, can I also clarify, you mentioned in that last comment on the last column on the right was to capture what is the park service already doing. 
   It is not meant to suggest we've already got this all custody or that we're doing everything or that this is sufficient. And I think the space between those two things is a really valuable area for the working group to be operating in and passing along, you know, recommendations to the National Park Service and certainly the Advisory Committee. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah. And again, to flag that there are ‑‑ there are ‑‑ there are blank space there's too. And I just ‑‑ I do wonder whether there is a piece to value up here on that, about the park service looking for carefully at ‑‑ sort of reporting back to you all as to what it sees, what are it thinks, what are gaps, what are needs. Because I think Tim and Harold's comments are on point in terms of the amount of time and effort and smarts that the work group brought to this process. 
   Shawn. 

   >> Shawn Welch: I wanted to thank Tim for his follow‑up points there. I think it's ‑‑ as I have watched the working group conduct business, and I mostly watched, I kept my mouth shut and let things move. There was a lot of good back and forth that went on. And then they had a separate meeting where the co‑chairs did not participate and the product that's come out of this, I do see is useful for the park service. It is a good checklist. The areas that are related park management and don't have anything, yeah, it's going to be good to see well what ultimately goes in there?
   What does the park service actually put there?
   I see this as a very beneficial process because not everybody sees the light going through the prism the same way. 
   Everybody's looking at the prism from a different angle. Tim, I appreciate your approach to this. Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Michael Holenstein. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I just want to make perfectly clear that far be it for me to ‑‑ to underscore, underestimate or not give credit where credit is due. I've been sitting on the committee since day one and we all do our best. And the idea that this is done in a certain way and is out there, if ‑‑ to put it in the form of a recommendation is to take what's there and say, here's what we thought was important, here's what then if that's going to be the change to the recommendation, here's what the park service is supposedly doing and how they're handling it and addressing it. 
   And that it's evident based on our investigation that this is not being done correctly or not being followed through as much as we think it should be, and we'd like you to get back there and revisit it and provide some assurance that this ‑‑ that these rules and regulations of the ‑‑ of Gateway and National Park Service are being followed. 
   So, it comes in the form of a modification to the ‑‑ to the earlier recommendation that it just be searchable information. If the action is to have park service pay more attention to it, then that's the recommendation. I'm happy to do that. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Mike, I'm just trying to ‑‑ actually Jim Krauss, why don't you come in first. 

   >> Jim Krauss: Yeah. And I just want to add to what Michael said and what ‑‑ what Shawn said and kind of reemphasize what I said before. The park service is doing certain things, and has done certain things, and they've worked out pretty well. 
   But we're looking at a ‑‑ a major change in a section of the park, and that ‑‑ the working group was looking at how that would affect what the ‑‑ what the park is doing and should be doing. 
   So you know, I think it should be looked at in that way. It's not criticizing what the park is doing, the working group was making suggestions. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: So, I'm wondering if ‑‑ just trying to take these different ideas. I'm trying to write out something quickly and haven't finished it. But if it's something along the lines that the committee recognizes that the park service has a number of rules to ensure the park is being managed adequately to address, you know, address potential environmental impacts, or something like that. Given ‑‑ I don't know what the language is, but sort of given the magnitude of potential leasing activity, the committee asks the park service to report back on the extent to which existing rules cover the kinds of concerns raised by the work group. 
   Is that sort of along the lines of what you're seeing, Mike and others? 

   >> Shawn Welch: I think you just got a thumbs up. 
   >> Bennett Brooks: I certainly see a hands up. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: It's a touch and trigger finger there on the hands‑up thing. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: If the recommendation ‑‑ the problem ‑‑ a problem that we've had with the FACA and the operation of the FACA since Day 1 has been to talk about things a lot and then to ‑‑ if we've had a criticism that could be levied would be that we've fallen down when it came to the recommendations and the policing or the lifespan of the recommendations after the FACA's made them. 
   So if this goes to your issue a moment ago, we're asking the park to take a look at these items and comment back to us at the next meeting, that's perfectly legitimate and reasonable recommendation, I would stand behind that. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Dorothy. 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: So I think what we're doing is asking the park service to tell us how they're addressing these concerns within the leasing program. 
   To me, this is all things that we've raised as concerns, so we want to make sure that the park service is aware of the concerns, but also that they're incorporating this into the leasing program. I think we're asking them to tell us how they're doing that. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I think that sounds right. And I guess the question I would ask is, yes, and are you also asking them to identify places ‑‑ if there are places where they are not, to call that out as well. 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: That's good too. That's good too.
 
   >> Bennett Brooks: Editing as you all are talking. Let me try this and see if this holds in the last bit of pieces here. Recognizes that the National Park Service has a number of rules and authorities to ensure the park is being managed adequately to address potential environmental impacts. Given the magnitude of potential leasing activity, the committee asks the NPS to report back through it at its next meeting per Michael Holenstein's recommendation on the extent to which the issues of concern and the impact section are adequately covered by NPS rules and authorities and, if not, recommend strategies to address or if not flag. And if not, what would come after that? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I want to just point out that I don't think what's being asked is first to comment on whether these things are being adequately covered. I think ‑‑ 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I think it's that we are at a point of transition as the leasing program moves forward, our management of these things needs to change. Because the level and types of uses will change. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Right. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I think what's being talked about is how we will manage these things under the leasing program. Both to mind, it's thinking about both how we incorporate certain things into leasing instruments as requirements. It's, you know, what we were discussing before about having a user's manual for the park for our lessees, and it incorporates potential changes in our on the ground [away from mic]. I want to make sure we're not talking about what are we doing is now, but it's how are we thinking about changing for the future. 
   >> Bennett Brooks: I see Jim Krauss putting a thumb up there. How is that aligning with other people? Is that speaking to what you're covering here? I see another couple thumbs up here. 
   So, is this language for consistent with that? The committee recognizes that the NPS has a number of rules and authorities to ensure the park is being managed adequately to address potential environmental impacts. Given the magnitude of the potential leasing committee, new leasing activity, the committee asks the park service to report back to it at its next meeting on how these issues will be addressed in the leasing program. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Yes. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: That's the more proactive piece. 
   Is that what you all are trying to communicate here? I'm looking at other ‑‑ let's see, Bill, Mary Eileen, Norah, Linda, yeah? Okay. Okay. 
   Again, we'll come back and do it. So, for this section, we've got two recommendations. Park service ‑‑ park service should double its effort to make the public aware of projects in place tied to leasing activity as identified in the environmental impact section. One possibility is to provide a listing of these measures in a proactive, easy‑to‑use, online format. Second recommendation is the committee recognizes that the NPS has a number of rules and authorities to ensure the park is being managed adequately to address potential environmental impacts. Given the magnitude of potential new leasing activity, the committee asks the park service to report back to it at its next meeting on how these issues will be addressed in the leasing program. Okay. 
   All right. The next section is climate vulnerability prevention and mitigation. And there are one, two, three, four different recommendations there. The first is really broadly about sea level rise and storm surge needs more examination. 
   Second is around providing electric charging stations to encourage electric vehicles and the third is about evaluate the adequacy of current and future storm water facilities given climate change. And the last is make sure lessees and lessors prepare emergency evacuation plan. 
   The first and the third one are sort of fairly broad. The first one's really around, you know, make sure you're really understanding this issue and all of its potential impacts given the activity that will be happening there. 
   That third one is, and make sure, you know, that the ‑‑ that the infrastructure and pieces are all kind of in the right shape for what's happening. 
   Second and fourth are more targeted electric charging stations and emergency evacuation plans. 
   And again, there are ‑‑ there are related current park management comments there for two of the four. 
   So let me open it up to comment discussion and of course park service if you have anything you want to fold in here to inform the conversation, please do. 
   Jim Krauss. 

   >> Jim Krauss: Yeah, I have a request at this point that ‑‑ and it just so happens that I was not at the ‑‑ was unable to attend the working group session when we discussed some of this. And the third bullet point under number 26, if somebody could expand on that and explain what's being discussed or recommended. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah. I think I can. I was going to ask you do it, but since you're asking that question, I gotta take it on. 
   But I think the point there is that given ‑‑ given the uncertainties around climate change and what does sea level rise look like and how that may play out, we know what we know today but we don't know what we'll know in ten years, 20 years, or 30 years, might it make sense instead to come up with activity in that area that is more flexible. That is maybe less of a hard investment in the ground and so it can be easily adapted as projections and realities, more specifically, realities might change. 
   And so, you know, for example, camps. This was a place where we suggested maybe camps that can benefit disadvantaged communities. So you're sort of dealing ‑‑ the thought there is you deal with the uncertainty of climate change and maybe that's a way to deal with some of the social equity issues. 
   So, I think I got that right, but if someone else wants to weigh in and correct, feel free. 
   That help, Jim? 

   >> Jim Krauss: Actually, no. 
   [Laughter]. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. 
   I'm tapped out there. But Jen, Gerry, there's a bunch of other people here who weighed in on that. 
   Harold, that recommendation came from you, I believe. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Yeah. Can you hear me? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah, if you could quickly amplify for benefit of Jim and committee members. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Sure. Sure. 
   So, the current science on this is very strong, I feel. And that it is imperative, you know, that we can all be up to date as needed on that current science. 
   So, the digital elevation modelling as the most currently accepted state of the art way at the micro level to see what the impacts will ‑‑ are or will be on infrastructure, buildings of sea level rise, storm surge, inundation, extreme precipitation events and so on. 
   So being familiar with that, you know, we can look at what the maps are, the slosh maps, and you can overlay that over the construction footprint, the leasing footprint to see, you know, what the impacts are on all of the leasing program. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks. 
   So again, to the ‑‑ to the committee, I think the question is among this set of recommendations, is there something you would like to elevate, amplify in a recommendation to Jen and her team?
   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I did offer earlier on the call that I could come back. Our park service team could come back at a future meeting just to update the working group ‑‑ sorry, the Advisory Committee open our climate change adaptation planning and, you know, what information you looked at most recently and how that informs our management strategies. We're still happy to do that. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Committee members. 

   >> Harold Zullow: Bennett. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Harold, I'm going to put you on hold here because I do want to have this conversation piece around the committee, if I may. 
   Any work group members who are committee members, I should say, you know, I know these are things ‑‑ conversations you've been part of longer than others on this group. Is there something that ‑‑ anything there that you would want your fellow committee members to be thinking about or considering? 
   Michael Holenstein. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: It might be helpful for persons considering leasing to understand what their future holds for them and what their rights are in the event that the property that they're leasing is lost to elevated ‑‑ elevated sea levels. 
   And that doesn't come to me right out of the blue, I'm doing work for National Park Service right now in Cape Hatteras where they've got houses falling into the water. So in the form of a recommendation, I've had the same reaction to this on these columns as I've had on some of the other ones, is that the committee and the subcommittee obviously feels that it should be a great concern that sea level rise and the impact of climate change and stuff like that should be an issue, a strong issue, and yet National Park Service is ‑‑ is addressing that. They've been addressing it to the extent that over time there have been any number of persons that came and spoke to the committee talked about, you know, the remapping for flood levels and there has been some discussion about climate change. 
   But if the ‑‑ if the recommendation is that the process of ‑‑ of rehabilitating the Fort Hancock facilities should be placed on the table for reconsideration due to climate change, then that would be a recommendation. 
   Whereas, you know, all I want to do is follow up with the teeth to what's been observed and what the comments are to put it in the form of a recommendation. So I don't know how to do that personally, but I think it might be helpful if ‑‑ if National Park Service were to add to the repertoire in talking to leasing or in their leases a section that deals with the impact of rising sea levels. If it's not already in there. 
   So if I could put that in the form of a recommendation, it would be that the leases that are being drafted address the issue of climate control and the potential impacts. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Bennett, I can jump in as well? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Of course. 
   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Mike, you're right, we have, you know, looked at climate change as a group before, the working group has been focusing on it. We've talked about it in multiple meetings with the Advisory Committee. You've seen much of the information that we've considered in making the decision to lease out these buildings. We had the three associate directors from the National Park Service at the national level come on our meeting about a year ago to talk about these issues and how we're making these decisions. And there's support for moving forward and really using Sandy Hook as a model for how we think about planet adaptation and what we invest in and what we don't. 
   And to remind people that, you know, there are historic structures out at Fort Hancock that under the evaluations of all the data that we looked at, we said these are highly vulnerable and holding that up with a level of investment they need, the impact of the historic integrity, despite the fact that they are historic buildings, they are too vulnerable and those are buildings that ultimately we demolished. 
   So, we have crossed the threshold of making some very tough decisions in the face of climate change. And we'll continue to evaluate our management with the best available science and information of what impacts we can readily anticipate. 
   And you know, until we see that we're crossing that threshold, we're going to continue to push to fulfill our mission in terms of historic preservation, natural resource protection, and again, the visitor experience. 
   But with eyes wide open and with a total willingness to look at new information, to consider the impacts, and do that in a very public and transparent way with all of you and other members of the public. 
   Michael, yes, you're right, we have been talking about this and, you know, if there is a recommendation that we shouldn't be leasing these buildings out, you know, that's something we should get on the table. That's a very different, you know, direction than what we've been taking. 
   But again, we are continuing to look at the science and not keep forging ahead blindly, but making sure what we're doing makes sense and that these investments make sense. 
   And to your question about, you know, sharing information with the lessees, what's ‑‑ you know, who's responsibility for what, our lessees are required to get flood insurance if that's available, and it is only available up to a certain cap. But the lease terms do specify that, you know, in the event that a building is taken out by natural causes, that is on the lessee. 
   We saw after Hurricane Sandy some of the difficulties that that poses in reality. But you know, if there are ways that we can strengthen or clarify our leases and our expectations between the National Park Service and our lessees, it's certainly something we can look at as well. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I would like to thank you, Jen, for that. Because your summary is, to my recollection, completely consistent with the activities that have been undertaken in the past on these topics. And it ‑‑ sometimes things just need to be resaid. 
   So again, to put it in the form of a recommendation, is all I'm asking ‑‑ all I'm searching for, asking for is progress to be made by moving to a recommendation. So, any recommendation can come out of this that someone else sees. My recommendation would be that if you don't already have it, that you provide something in your leases that identifies the results of a loss due to rising sea level. 
   And the reason for that, yes, I know that the leases require flood insurance and I know that your lessees are aware of that. But they may not be aware of what will occur if are the structures are lost to rising sea levels. 
   So, my recommendation is that you consider providing that information with a determination from the secretary or whomever and let them know what's going to happen if that occurs. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: So, I've got two folks in the queue and then I'm playing around with language that I don't have quite right yet. Shawn. 

   >> Shawn Welch: I see these as useful to hold on to, I think the Park Service’s statements on there on current park management are useful. 
   I'm not certain what kind of action you actually take on this, because I believe we know enough to realize that the likelihood of loss of facilities that are currently in the program within the life of the leases due to sea level rise or rather let's call it what it is, tidal changes is low. And we've had a number of entities tell us that both inside the park service and out. 
   However, I don't think that that reduces the utility of keeping those three bullets there as kind of reminders of another view. 
   So, it just ‑‑ I think they're answers for now by what the park service has written and what we've known through the years that we have had these meetings, we've been advised, we've been told things by the park service, by outside entities. I'm comfortable enough leaving them there and not using them as a bludgeon on the program. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Michael Walsh. 

   >> Michael Walsh: Thank you. I guess I agree with all this, but I guess first thing I want to say is, Jen, all the information I know now, I do not recommend that we stop the leasing program. So first and foremost, I want to put that out there. I would not support that kind of recommendation at this point. 
   I do think that the park service has done a yeoman's job in terms of providing information on the risk of ‑‑ risk to these buildings based on climate change or a tidal change. We all know that Sandy Hook in its entirety is at risk, but it's ‑‑ from the information that's been provided, it's a long‑term risk. Not an immediate risk. Who can tell tomorrow we could have a huge storm and all Sandy Hook will be flood and all those buildings wiped out. The likelihood of that, I believe, is low in the relatively short‑term. 
   And in terms of the term that we're talking about for these leases, these leases go out at most at 60 years, and what we're hope doing is getting people in and renovate these buildings in a relatively short‑term and they will have ‑‑ they will likely have a reasonable run of enjoyment of those properties. And I think this is just a risk that I think the park service has identified and I think they, in their discussions with the lessees, potential lessees, they've addressed this with the potential lessees. If they feel that there's a lack of information given other than these are on a barrier island or barrier beach and they are at risk for destruction by storms, anybody who builds, go ask anybody down the shore, these buildings are at potential risk. 
   It's just a risk. If you want to invest and you got a beautiful place on a beautiful location, that's ‑‑ owning those or leasing those, the climate risk is a risk that they have made the decision to take on. I think that the information provided through this committee and I assume all that information's provided to potential lessees, they should have more than enough information to understand they are taking a risk by investing in these buildings. 
   And so I don't have a specific recommendation other than, you know, unless the park service believes they're not providing enough information about this potential risk, you know, you have lots of information that I think is readily accessible to any potential lessee. If you for some reason don't feel it's available, make it available, but I don't see that there's much that needs to be recommended beyond what the park service is already doing with respect to this. 
   And if anybody lessee claims, hey, I didn't know that there's a potential risk factor, I question their sanity. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Michael. 
   I have based on the comments prior to yours, Michael, put together a little bit of language from what I was hearing from Michael and couple others. The committee believes the National Park Service should continue careful considering this issue relative to the leasing program as it has been doing on an ongoing basis. We further recommend NPS include in leases if not already there section that articulates the social risks associated with climate change impacts. Those are the two things I've heard so far. Don't know if that captures it or not, but let's go to you, Gerry. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Yeah. Michael reminded us a little while ago that the committee has always had a difficult time coming can up with cogent recommendations. Wording them, phrasing them, presenting them. And from the first day that's been a struggle. 
   And I'm just reminded about that during this conversation. Here's the issue that I think is unusual about this climate discussion. 
   And that is that as Jen just pointed out, we heard at our meeting a year ago that Sandy Hook is a part of a national test bed for learning how to do an adaptive reuse leasing program in the context of climate change. 
   So, while we are struggling to make recommendations for how to do it, Sandy Hook is a part of the process for crafting the model for how to make that happen. So as I'm trying to figure out how to incorporate recommendations into this section, I've butt up against the fact that we are a part of the solution and I don't know how to ‑‑ how to emphasize that. 
   I can't craft it as a recommendation because we're already there. It's just an observation. 
   I don't know, Bennett, if there's a way to emphasize that in the context of what we're saying here. I think it's ‑‑ it's never been done before. Never. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Well, I think it could be added, I mean, in that first sentence, as we've been doing on an ongoing basis, and is being further studied, blah, blah, blah, whatever that is. I need Jen or someone to tell me how to properly refer to that. Michael Holenstein, were you wanting to come back in or is that a leftover hand? 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I'm sorry. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Leftover, no worries. That is a small error. 
   I guess I've heard a couple of comments that could be made into a recommendation. I'm not ‑‑ I'm not ‑‑ it's not clear to me whether there is ‑‑ around the table for or appetite for recommendation on this at this time. 
   You want to jump in? 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: What you wrote seemed to me to capture what people were talking about. I mean, I must say, you know, at one point when you start to use this type of language, I always ‑‑ I started thinking of the political, you know, is this ‑‑ you're not making political statements here, you're making scientific statements, you're making statements from a perspective of trying to try something new while maintaining something that exists. Again, I was not going to speak up at all because I don't have the information and I'm brand‑new here. 
   But I think the language that you just talked about with sea level rise and I don't remember who it was, but I agreed with them, it might have been Gerry or Jim that said anybody who's going to be leasing and doesn't know that there's a risk shouldn't be, you know, risking their money to do so. Of course there is. And that's generally understood. 
   But I do think in any language that you use to be politically neutral is the word that comes to my mind in that, that's not the purpose here to say, you know, the world sending or the world is not. 
   The fact remains this is ‑‑ there's a sea level rise, we want to have the leases, they need to be aware of it. But beyond that, I don't see what necessarily benefit comes from a recommendation of this nature, except just broad language, if I'm understanding the purpose. 
   Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I think you're understanding the purpose and I think your message is there are recommendations to give a message to the park service and there are ones that can be more broadly. Maybe this is more in the latter category than the former, if I'm hearing you right. 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: Yeah. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Looking to you all whether or not you want to pick up what I captured based on that conversation or whether this is just not an area where you want to step in. And I can reread what I had if that's helpful, but this is, you know, is yours and I'm sensing a little less energy here than in the earlier sections. So I want to try to be responsive to where you guys are at. 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: Can you just reread it? 
   >> Bennett Brooks: I can reread it and maybe we'll get a sense as to whether you have an appetite for this. What I've captured, it's two concepts which is sort of acknowledging the stuff that is already ongoing, and then a recommendation around let lessees know what's going on. So the Advisory Committee recognizes the risks associated with sea level rise and climate change and believes the National Park Service should continue carefully considering this issue relative to the leasing program as it has been doing on an ongoing basis, parens, and is currently being further evaluated as part of Sandy Hook's included in the National Park Service pilot program. I don't think I got that language quite right there, but I think that's the intents of what you were saying, Gerry. We further recommend NPS include in leases if it's not already there a section that articulates the potential risks associated with possible climate change impacts. 
   Those seem to be the two pieces that have come up. You may be on mute. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Thank you. I would put something in here specifically that says, under no circumstances should this be taken as a message to pause what the park service is currently undertaking with regard to all of the lease holders and other instrumentalities that are moving within this leasing program. 
   This is advisory, these are areas we need to look at, but in no way does this say stop what you're doing. I think we need some wording like that as a standalone recommendation. 

      >> Norah Kerr McCurry: Or you have an overarching before the recommendation, these statements are designed to support the forward movement of the program or something like that. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Yeah, I like that. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Bill, let me bring you in. 

   >> Bill Kastning: Your statement was about climate change whereas, you may have storm surge has nothing to do with climate change. So, I would keep both sea level rise and storm surge as opposed to just climate change. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: You know, we've been talking about them as coastal hazards or vulnerabilities, because some of it may change over time as a result of climate change and some of those things are hazards no matter what. 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: These the depoliticization of language, that's great. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: I think you said it just right, Norah, actually. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: That is the word, you got it. 
   Okay. So folks want that coastal hazards language and Advisory Committee recognizes the risks associated with coastal hazards, E.G., sea level rise, climate change, et cetera, and believes the National Park Service should continue carefully considering this issue as it's doing on an ongoing basis and ‑‑ we further recommend NPS include in leases if it's not already there a section that encompasses association of coastal hazards. I'm having trouble engaging the group on this. Could folks give a real thumbs up if you want to include this as a recommendation? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I don't think we have thumbs up icon. Maybe just on video. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Then please use your actual thumb, which if you have the ability to do that, you take your thumb and you hold it like that. I know we're losing some of our skills. 
[Multiple conversations]. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: So yes, I'm seeing Jim, Bill Kastning, Gerry, Dorothy, Mike. Anybody not ‑‑ I think I'm seeing most ‑‑ anybody not supportive of this? Howie, where are you at on this? Howie. 
   >> He's trying to get unmuted. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: We'll wait for him. 

   >> Shawn Welch: You're still muted, Howie. 

   >> Howie Parish: I'm in, not a problem. 

   >> Shawn Welch: We don't see your thumb up in the air, Howie. All right, we're good. 

   >> Howie Parish: I had to find my camera. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Could you repeat the language that you said the park is using. I don't think it included the word climate change. You talked about coastal hazards. What was the description that was ‑‑ 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Sea level rise ‑‑ 

   >> Gerry Glaser: It sounded more neutral. I thought ‑‑ I could be wrong. Trying to get away from including climate change as a descriptor rather than ‑‑ rather to talk about ‑‑ 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Understood. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: ‑‑ hazards, et cetera, et cetera. 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: I mean, it's climate change seriously debated anymore? I don't know. You could then say such as climate change. 
   >> Gerry Glaser: Yeah, I just want to be consistent with the language that the park is ‑‑ 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: Right. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Yeah, like I said, we talk about coastal hazards and vulnerabilities, acknowledging that climate change is going to exacerbate those. Even without that, we still have those vulnerabilities. 
   >> Thank you. 

   >> Jim Krauss: In your E.G., I think you had sea level rise and climate change, but I think you should also put in storm surge. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Storm surge, yeah. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Flooding. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Flooding, yeah. I briefly thought you said plague. 
   [Laughter]. 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: Locust. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: All right. Last section here, we're doing okay on time. Is the adaptive reuse equity and public access section. 
   This has four recommendations. The first one, and then the largest one is around social and economic justice concerns. This is obviously something that has been of great importance and you all have talked about ‑‑ and it's just beginning, right? So really barely stepped into this conversation, as you heard earlier. 
   That was the first recommendation. The second was evaluate the opportunity to scale up public enhancement to the park associated with the redevelopment. For example, paying to update NPS museum exhibits, funding new signage or self‑guided walking tour. But basically saying leasing activity may have an opportunity ‑‑ create an opportunity to improve some public enhancements. 
   The next one was exploring the potential to establish a trust or other mechanisms that can provide oversight structures and funding to support leasing activity and help balance public and private interests. 
   These efforts should explore the potential to reintroduce citizen and oversight structures in the past, look at Presidio trust as a model. 
   And then lastly, similar to discussion, the working group had about liability for natural disasters, we recommend that FACA and NPS pull in legal experts and real estate experts to look at the squatter's rights and renter's rights and how NPS may be held liable. 
   So four different pieces there. Social and economic justice concerns, public enhancements, potential to establish a trust, and squatter's rights and renter's rights. 
   So again, the question here is, is there something you all want to say to the park service on any or all of these? 
   >> Jim Krauss: Again, another question. If ‑‑ is there ‑‑ on number 32, the trust ‑‑ is anybody familiar with the details of how the Presidio Trust works and what the pros and cons might be? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I will say that, yes we looked at this in the past with folks from Golden Gate over the years to learn what they're doing for our model. The Presidio Trust was formed by federal legislation, and came with funding to rehabilitate [away from mic] and lease them out. It had a big jump start in that regard that we do not have the funding for. 
   Now, it was also given a charge that you need to become self‑sustaining and I think it was a period of ten years, otherwise the trust dissolves. But they did achieve that. And you know, there are other members of the committee that have been on long enough to have looked at that model as well. 
   John Reynolds who used to be the co‑chair of our Advisory Committee before Shawn came on as co‑chair is actually on the ‑‑ I don't know if he still is on the board in the Presidio Trust. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Jim, you got more? You're on mute now. 

   >> Jim Krauss: No, but I guess what I was looking for more is, you know, whether ‑‑ the question of ‑‑ of say a citizen's review board type of oversight after ‑‑ let's assume that the leasing program is successful, we end up with a community out there. Whether there should be some kind of ‑‑ of ‑‑ of, I guess, separate oversight of this and, you know, maybe the answer is that the tenants form their own group. Or the FACA continues to exist in some form or fashion. 
   And I'm just throwing that out as whether that's something that the group wants to consider. Out of this particular working group comment. 

   >> Shawn Welch: I think what I would say ‑‑ 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Shawn. 

   >> Shawn Welch: I think would what I would say when it comes to the Presidio Trust in comparison for Hancock is in addition to the legislation and the money, we have like 5 million square feet of facilities, many of which were already under some form of instrumentality generating revenue that went into the Presidio Trust. 5 million square feet. 
   Jen, how many million square feet is Gateway? 2.7? That's all of Gateway. 
   What is the square footage out here at Fort Hancock, about 750,000. 
   How many square feet are we talking about in the leasing program? Roughly 140,000. 
   The economies of scale for that kind of a program don't exist. It's worth having it there as a constant check back to make sure that everybody understands asmeth and why we got there. But the realities are they won't generate enough revenue to pay any of the bills, let alone all of the bills. So, FYI. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Other committee members want to weigh in on this point? Any strong leanings one way or the other on this?
   Mike. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Pardon me, but I'm confused as to which bulleted item we're sort of going after at the moment. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: The one ‑‑ the one that they're talking about right now is item number 32. Maybe I can scroll that a little bit down or up, Karen, it's a little bit off right now. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Thank you. I apologize. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: No, no worries. 
   While folks are chewing on that one ‑‑ sorry, go ahead. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: I'm still not able to read all of 32 at one time. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Karen, just ‑‑ 32 spans two pages. Yeah. There you go. 
   As people are looking at that, I do want to flag the recommendation 30 as well, which is, you know, one on the ‑‑ on the social and equity considerations. And the recommendation there is, A, noting that they haven't had a chance to engage the issue and will be starting. 
   And then in the meantime several preliminary recommendations, putting in place a wide outreach process to ensure that, you know, a broad set of voices brought into this conversation. 
   And then conduct a comprehensive cost benefit analysis on any proposed leasing activities. And then assess the economic viability of projects under different scenarios, different user types, social equity, social justice, et cetera. 
   I guess the question to you all is what, if anything, would you like to say on the issue of equity and social equity to the park? Knowing that they're moving forward with this, again, so it's not ‑‑ it's not unlike some of these other recommendations that you've talked about where park service is moving in a direction already, already doing something. 
   But Mary Eileen and then over to Michael Holenstein. 

   >> Mary Eileen Fouratt: Just what I said earlier, just to include accessibility in terms of people with disabilities. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thank you. 
   Mike. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Insofar as this topic is ‑‑ I'm going to use the term new topic and is something that the committee has indicated ‑‑ the subcommittee's indicated they're going to be talking to a panel of experts, it would be ‑‑ I think it's sufficiently important as a topic, a new topic, that it be something that might be brought before the entire committee at a future meeting. Hopefully a meeting that we would have in person, you know, at the chapel or something like that, to have that presentation done there. That would be my thought regarding the presentation of information. 
   And then the other thing is, is that I wanted to go back to one of Jen's opening comments that talked about the mission of the park and creating the FACA and the directive from the secretary, Department of Interior to find a way to ‑‑ to ‑‑ find a way to meet the historic preservation obligations and that the direction was ‑‑ or the directive was to go out into the public and find private investment. 
   So I think that we ‑‑ we need to keep in mind when we're thinking about social justice and that sort of thing, that we are following a directive from the secretary in that we are supposed to meet a mission, specific mission, and that we're to meet the mission by going out into the public and finding private investment to help preserve these structures. 
   So that should be in the back of our minds at all times, and then as far as meeting the ‑‑ meeting the obligations of a participating agency such as National Park Service with a property that they are in control of in the context of protected ‑‑ protected persons, that is without a doubt something that we need to always consider and to the best of my knowledge and ability, have always tried our best to consider. 
   So, highlighting the needs of protected persons and protected classes of persons is ‑‑ if there's going to be a presentation made on those kinds of issues, I think it should be done to the whole committee. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Mary Eileen, did you want to get back in the conversation or is that a left overhand?
   Okay. Gerry. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: I agree, this is a conversation that the whole committee should engage in. Given that we will probably not have an opportunity to meet either virtually or in person for some time, what I've been the process to be is this initial group that I've asked to help us with could at least begin to develop a framework for how to even look at this topic. 
   So, I would hope that we can ‑‑ before we have a chance to meet with the full committee, at least develop some of the parameters that we would look at and maybe come up with some thoughts about how we could approach that. 
   The issue of protected groups and so forth is also very important, but one of the things that drove this conversation, as you know from the very, very beginning, was that the generic discussion of access, meaning access under a leased program out of existence of leased buildings out there, that access by the public to the park would be somehow restrictive. 
   So that was one of the first things that we started talking about in terms of how to address social equity in terms of the opportunities that people have to continue to access the park. 
   And I think that it's rightly beginning to explore other ways to consider those social equity topics. And what are they and what does it mean?
   So I'm not sure that that's fully formed yet, but I would just ‑‑ I would just suggest that the park and the working group have an opportunity to at least begin to sort out how that ‑‑ that issue can be meaningfully discussed. And of course bring it to the full committee when we have it moved along a little bit more. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Others want to weigh in on this?
   I have a question. What I heard so far is sort of a call to center ‑‑ I'm not sure I'm hearing this quite right, but the Advisory Committee wants to be really central to this conversation. And that presentation should ‑‑ you want to get presentation, is that ‑‑ is that recommendation sort of in addition to having conversations elsewhere or are you saying this is where we want this conversation to happen? I'm not clear on that point. 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: Well, you heard two people arguing for ‑‑ one arguing one way, one arguing for other one saying should be everybody and one saying, at least what I heard, you need to have this started, it can't stop in a subcommittee, you would be able to move more quickly. The other saying this is of interest to everyone. 
   So, I mean, to me, you know, in the educational community we're struggling with, you know, justice language all the time. What does equity mean. Access to opportunity, access to outcomes. Is it economic? Is it ‑‑ you know, all of these other kinds of things. So I think, you know, the notion of at least knowing what we're talking about by the language that we use and being consistent in it is certainly an important first step. Whether that's accomplished by a subcommittee or the whole committee, I don't know because I don't know the workings of the committee. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Right. Thanks. Mike. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I can respond to Norah, Bennett? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Of course. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I think that the way that Norah just said what she said goes to what I'm really getting at. And I'm sure started the meeting with this, but that we need to define the social equity, whatever it is, because it's a term that was used glibly. And so like a lot of terms. And words have meanings, and so I think that in order for the committee or the subcommittee not to waste time and everybody has, you know, that goal in mind, that we should begin the discussion by identifying what we're going to call social equity and the goals as it pertains to this ‑‑ the FACA and the goals and the duty of the FACA. 
   So if all we do is just define social equity and then send it off to the group, at least then they'll be working on something that ‑‑ that we all agree is an appropriate direction to go. 
   Words have meanings. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Mike, I think I'm suggesting the same thing you were, just trying to come up with what those words mean and then at the next full meeting have a discussion on what we discovered. When I started with the smaller group to look at how do we even begin to approach it, the kinds of things you just raised are front and center. 
   And how do we define these things in the context of what we're trying to do? Which is an adaptive reuse program. 
   So, I'm ‑‑ I think I'm saying the same thing you, are but stop me if you ‑‑ if you disagree with that. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Well, address social economic justice concerns, it suggests to me that someone is bringing a concern. And when you bring a concern, responding to those concerns would start, in my mind, with the structure of what social justice is or economic and social justice, whatever we're defining here. 
   And I really think that we can go to the preamble of our FACA and the secretary of the interior have already decided that fixing these buildings up and maintaining these historic structures is in the federal ‑‑ is of national interest. 
   So that has already been decided. And that fixing up the structures has to be done in accordance with all applicable laws. It's already been decided. 
   And that the Federal Government doesn't have any money to do that, we were told that in the first meeting, and that the net result is that we're going out into the public to find protest investment and with private investment comes certain ‑‑ certain expectations of economic benefit and loss of public access. 
   So that very quickly and narrowly defines the area of our discussion and where we have room to comment about ‑‑ and to bring the matter forward. We don't have to address the whole issue of social justice. We only need to address whether or not our little piece of the puzzle is being handled appropriately by a recommendation of the park. That's my concern is that we don't take on a huge white elephant and try to understand social justice because of what it means to different people. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: So, I'm taking us ‑‑ I'll take a stab. I'll have this boiled down to something, see if this lands or not. 
   Given the importance of social equity issues, the Advisory Committee recommends that the National Park Service center discussion of presentations on this topic at the committee level. It further asks the discussions of this topic be informed by a clear definition of social equity and associated goals relative to the National Park Services charge. Finally, the NPS should conclude consideration of accessibility in disability when discussing this issue. We recognize there may be value in starting this conversation with a smaller group to collect ideas for Advisory Committee discussion. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Well done. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Except, Bennett, if I may. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Please. 
   >> Jennifer Nersesian: You needed the definition of social equity which meets the NPS's charge. Our charge in the National Park Service is much more broad and encompassing than the charge ‑‑ 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah. Thank you. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Which Michael, is what I heard you say. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I did what? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: What Bennett said was we needed a definition of social equity that met the NPS charge. I was saying that is much more broad than the charge of the Advisory Committee which is what I thought I heard you, Michael Holenstein, saying. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Right. We have covered far and wide many things in ways that were interesting but crept outside of our charter and our duties and goals as a FACA. I just think we are best served and most productive when we stick to the basics of our charter or both. 
   So if that needs more clearly defined ‑‑ go ahead, I'm sorry. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: No, no, I appreciate the edit. As I was reading it, I was like, I think that's too wide. Thank you for catching that. Folks want to hear that again? Yes, I'm seeing at least a couple heads nod. Given the importance of social equity issues, the Advisory Committee recommends that the National Park Service center discussion of and presentations on this topic at the committee level. It further asks that discussions of this topic be informed by a clear definition of social equity and associated goals relative to the Advisory Committee's charge. Finally, the NPS should include consideration of accessibility in terms of disabilities when discussing this issue. The Advisory Committee recognize there's may be value in starting this conversation with a smaller group to flush out ideas for subsequent Advisory Committee discussion. 
   Changes needed? 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Works for me. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: You did such a good job last time, should we see if they're still working? Put a thumb up if you're supportive and a thumb down not or sideways if you're uncertain. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: One sideways, Bennett, by smaller group, that would include the working group or are you ‑‑ 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah. Yeah. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Okay. But it's smaller group. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Just change it to working group, because it's the working group that you're talking about. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I can change that to the working group. We actually do the work group. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: You get a full thumb now. 
   >> Bennett Brooks: Perfect. Good. 
   Okay. Are there any other recommendations that the group wants to consider based on what the work group put forward in this section?
   Mike, I see your hand up. I just want to note for folks who have put stuff in the Q&A and have a hands up, we are in the committee portion of the discussion, so I would invite anyone who has a thought to share, non-committee member, just to please include your comment in the Q&A and then as we can, with any remaining time, we still have a couple topics we have to cover, and we need to switch to that shortly, we'll try to address them. 
   But Mike, go ahead. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: I just wanted to say that I think that the document that was presented today should be kept, if it wasn't already going to be kept, it should be kept in the record for at face value to reflect the efforts and the progress made by the subcommittee. And that it should be in its intact and original form, if there's subsequent iterations, fine. But I think it should be kept as a document to memorialize the progress that's been made for the subcommittee. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah. That's a nontrivial point you just raised, Mike, so thank you for raising it. And I think we need to acknowledge it as sort of a state of play, right? So we should state it for what it is, and sort of characterize it in that way. 
   I would recommend that Daphne connect with you afterwards and I can post this. 

   >> Daphne Yun: It's already posted. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: It's already posted, okay. We might don't want ‑‑ let's connect. I want to make sure that whoever that is labeled, it's clear for people who see. But this is, you know, it's not the final work product. 

   >> Daphne Yun: Yes. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I don't know what would come next, but we want to be careful and clear. 

   >> Daphne Yun: Right no, I have it as working group presentation but I can change that as necessary. 

   >> Bill Kastning: Date stamp so we know. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Date stamp, exactly. Exactly. Okay. 
   At this point, we've sort of taken these recommendations one by one. Would you like me to read through all of them and then just do a final how do we feel about it sense of the group? That's some serious nonresponse. I've never seen heads so still. 
   Let me just say I will ‑‑ based on earlier comment, I think all of this would be preceded by the Advisory Committee affirms the merits of continuing with the leasing program. With that in mind, the committee puts forward the following recommendations, and then into the recommendations. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Sounds good. I think you've got the ‑‑ you've got the individual votes certainly on the last several that were done. I don't think you need to read them. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Anyone wanting to revisit any of them or hear them again? I want to make sure folks are comfortable, because this is your recommendations to the park service. I don't want to ‑‑ I don't want to rush past this. But if folks are okay, can you do a thumb up if you're okay?
   Yeah, Linda. 

   >> Linda Cohen: I'm concerned and very involved with the social equity aspect. The idea of our park being ‑‑ ensuring that everyone in our community has access to the same opportunities and outcomes as everyone else. And we started the meeting today by saying the park is for people. I think it's a crucial issue that I would like to definitely be on a subcommittee for that. 
   I was wondering, in a sense there are sounds a little wild, if we should have ‑‑ as we have an Advisory Committee, if we should have a lessee Advisory Committee to help people ‑‑ to help the lessees become more equitable as they move forward. Maybe that's a wild idea, but I can't help ‑‑ I would like to express it. 
   In other words to try to, you know, get the lessees to understand what social equity is and how they could, in some way, open up their ‑‑ their positions to the public as well as being, you know, a private endeavor. It might involve an art gallery or something that pursues someone's interests. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Linda, one thought that occurs to me is, you know, we have had Advisory Committee members sitting in on the work group meetings. Generally they are ‑‑ they are in a listen and learning mode because the conversation really is centered on the folks who are not already committee members. 
   But to the extent that the work group is going to start moving into social equity considerations, perhaps you'd want to be in the mix on that. 

   >> Linda Cohen: Yes, I would. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay. 

   >> Linda Cohen: Thank you. Thank you. That'd be great. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yep. 
  Michael Holenstein, your hand's raised again and then I'm going to need to push us on. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Sorry. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: No, okay. 
   Okay. We will ‑‑ I'll work with Gerry and Shawn to get these recommendations out to you all after the meeting, so you will have those. Is there any last comment on any of the recommendations?
   Okay. If not, just want to thank the work group for all of the hard work it has done to date. I'll echo what whoever said earlier, I really think besides being very thoughtful recommendations and considerations, I think the way it was organized at the end there into those buckets which was a bit of a brainchild of Tim Dillingham with the helpful assist from Lauren really helps. I think it really helped focus sort of the conversation and their thinking as a way of communicating it to you all and thanks to the committee for having a good conversation here and I think putting forward a handful of important recommendations. 
   Again, this issue isn't done. We will talk more about it, the social equity piece is still to be talked about at any point if there are recommendations in here that you all want to be coming back to and picking up, that is obviously within your purview. 
   So, I think we should all look at this as an ongoing and living conversation. 
   With that, I want to shift, again to any members of the public who are on, again, thank you for being in the mix. We've got another half hour, we are going to shift, but we will pick up any of the questions in the chat and make sure that those get furthered into the park service staff, if there's any of those ‑‑ any of the topics in the Q&A that can be answered live now, I'd invite you do so. 
   With that, I want to shift to the next topic, which is a couple of updates. Do we have Daphne Butler on yet? Daphne Butler is part of the special government employee program, and she's going to talk to us, just give us a quick update on park service ethics and I just want to flag, I know this is an issue that's had some, you know, in‑depth conversations in the past, and that may be something you all will want to do again. I'm just going to flag that today is just kind of an initial presentation. We don't really have the time to dive into today, but if there is interest, let us know and we'll make time at the next committee call to really dive into this. 
   So with that, Daphne Butler, thank you for being here and I'll hand it off to you. 

   >> Daphne Butler: Thank you very much. I'm Daphne, I'm from the ethics office serving the National Park Service and my colleague Darren Harden is here with me as well. And we're just going to give a brief overview of the ethics duties to the representatives on this committee. There are two keep documents for you all to think of when you think of your ethics duties. 
   First is the charter that was reissued by Secretary Haaland last year. It contains the ethics requirements for the representatives. And then also for each of the representatives, your appointment letter. Each of you is appointed to represent a particular bias or point of view of a particular group of people that have an interest in the subject matter of the committee. 
   So you can look to your appointment letter to confirm the point of view that you are to represent. And with that, I'll turn it over to Darren who will talk about the charter and the ethics duty that is spelled out in the charter and how that also relates to your ‑‑ to the group you're supposed to represent as set out in the appointment letter. 

   >> Darren Harden: Thank you, Daphne. 
   So I'd like to start off by reading from the charter, the committee charter's paragraph 13, ethics, responsibilities of members. This where your ethics responsibility is found. 
   No committee member or subcommittee member will participate in any committee or subcommittee, deliberations, votes relating to a specific party matter before the department or its bureaus and offices, including lease, licensed permit, contract grant claim, agreement, or litigation in which the member or the entity the member represents has a direct financial interest. 
   I'd like to quickly go over some of the terms, the meaning of the terms. The first one is specific party matter. Specific party matter are things like what was just enumerated. Grant application, enforcement actions, very specific actions that have a very definable party. 
   That's in contrast to matters of general applicability. Those include rulemaking, legislation, any kind of general policy or standards, things like that that don't have a specific party involved but apply to a bunch of people. 
   So specific party matters is what we're talking about, not matters of general applicability. 
   The next is financial interest. Financial interest is anything that can arise from a salary, it could be indebtedness, a job offer, ownership and financial interest instruments like stocks, bonds, things like that. And then a direct financial interest means one that goes directly to yourself or to the entity that you represent. 
   So, either one of those two, if there's a financial interest held by you or the entity you represent, that's what we're talking about. 
   Also, direct and predictable effect is another key term to keep in mind. And direct means there's a close causal link between whatever action you make and either your or the entity you represents financial interest. So that's the direct. 
   And the predictable is that it's not speculative. You know, or it's not dependent on other outside actions occurring before that happens. So there's ‑‑ so it can be predictable. 
   And then the last thing I'd like to point out here is this ethics requirement applies to you while you're acting in your capacity as a committee member. It does not apply to you when you're ‑‑ in the rest of your daily life or, you know. So if you run a business, this does not apply. It's only when you're in committee, when you're voting, things like that. 
   And then with all of that together, hopefully that clarifies what your ethics responsibilities is according to the charter. 
   Daphne. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Daphne, you're on mute. 

   >> Daphne Butler: Thank you very much for that, I'm sorry. So, if you find yourself in a position where there's something happening in front of the committee, a specific party matter in front of the committee that would directly and particularly affect your financial interest or those of the group that you are supposed to represent, you should connect with the DFO and recuse yourself. That means basically that you do not participate in that matter in accordance with your ethics obligations. 
   If you have any questions, our office is open to help you suss out whether this is something in your personal interest or that of the entity you're representing. We are available as a resource to help you stay compliant with your ethics obligation. 
   With that, I'll say please don't let an ethical issue or the appearance of an ethical issue derail the committee's efforts. You know, I can tell from joining in a few minutes early that you all have put a lot of thought and effort into your recommendations to the NPS, so please don't taint those with ‑‑ with any ethical lapse or the appearance of an ethical lapse. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thank you. Jen. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Thank you, Daphne and Darren for presenting to our committee. 
   Do you have any written materials that you can leave with us that we can share with committee members just so that they have this handy and on record, something to refer back to in the future when questions arise? 

   >> Daphne Butler: So we have a larger handout about the ethical duties of representatives, and I can send those ‑‑ I've been dealing with the other Daphne, so I can send those to her and she can, I hope, get those to the representatives who need those. And of course we'll be happy to come back if there are any questions. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Perfect. Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thank you so much. 
   Great. I'm going to refer to Daphne Yun as other Daphne from now on. I like that. 
   >> Daphne Butler: I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate that. 

   >> Daphne Yun: It would be the first time that will ever happened. Just like Bennett, you were saying, never been in a meeting with another Bennett.

   >> Bennett Brooks: Exactly. I can relate. I can relate. 
   Well thank you both for being here, Daphne and Darren. 
   At this point I think, Jen, I want to hand it back to you for some general updates before we shift to around the table comments and closing. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: Okay. Our park updates. First of all, I want to update you about me. Just to let everyone know in case you're not seeing me around the park or I'm not available, I am actually not working in the park right now, I am on a developmental rotational assignment to another bureau within the Department of Interior. It's time limited, I will be back in the park with both feet in July. 
   But in the meantime, our Deputy Superintendent Minka [Sendich] is our acting superintendent. Am still shepherding a few things, as this is my regular day job, including our Advisory Committee and I'm still involved in our leasing efforts at Sandy Hook. 
   So if you need me, I'm here, but just know that I'm also off elsewhere doing other things in the interim. 
   In terms of things going on in the park, you know, we are gearing up for summer season, Memorial Day is our unofficial opening for prime season. We'll have lifeguards on the beaches by then. Memorial Day we'll be opening the public campground and ferry service will start back up. McFly's are on the Hook, some of you are familiar with this, one of our leasing successes has opened for the season and is currently open Friday through Sunday. 
   We've awarded a lease for the beach plaza former concession building for food and nonalcoholic beverage service. That will open this summer replace thing the food trucks that have been out at that location. 
   And as of Saturday, we started celebrating National Park Service week, and we've got lots of special programming. You know, we started this past weekend and that will continue. 
   And you know, it's sort of a kickoff with special events season. We've got a number of walks and runs happening on the weekends. You can find the exhaustive list of all of the fun opportunities that are taking place on our website. But I do want to call out on May 21st we have Ocean Fun day. One of our partners are involved in that as well. And then later that day we have the Sandy Hook Foundation spring soiree at the light saving station. 
   And the good ‑‑ share the good news that we currently have two plover and oyster catcher nests. We're very active in the endangered species program out there. 
   Projects going on. One of the most exciting projects I think for this group is the roof replacement and stabilization project that we've been talking about for way too long is finally under construction for officers' row and hopefully a couple of other buildings that are getting added in there. 
   You know, originally it was just going to be repairing holes in the roofs and buttoning them up. But you know, as they got in there, they realized, no surprise, there's a lot of deterioration, so there's been replacement of roof rafters and some stabilization has taken place to be able to do the work. Roof sheathing. This is building ‑‑ 12 buildings along officer's row, installing now underlayment and roofing material on top. We're in negotiations to throw a few other things in that contract too to try to make the work go further and get a couple more buildings in. 
   So if you go out there and you take a look at the work that's going on and you see it in the pictures here, we finally have work under way that will help stem some of the ongoing deterioration. 
   Other projects, you've heard me refer to some of these before but as a refresh and update on where we're at. We have the Fort Hancock water and wastewater rehabilitation project. That's where we're redoing those underground lines, all the pipes either repairing or replacing them is needed. That's about a $14 million project funded through the Great American Outdoors Act. 
   We've awarded the contract just about a week ago for this, the design build contract, and we anticipate project completion in February of '25. 
   The two sea walls, the officer's row seawall and chapel seawall together these are about a $28 million investment, also funded by the Great American Outdoors Act. 
   These are being managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and are in design. Once we get further in the design, we'll have a better sense ‑‑ we'll start to get a better sense of construction schedules. 
   One more Great American Outdoors Act project, this is about 8 or $9 million project, we are upgrading the electrical lines at Sandy Hook. Our goal is to get them underground because they're in sore need of repair and to make them more resilient by having them underground for the future. 
   Got about $4 million project that went for six as a design build contract from a little over a year ago. The design is almost complete, and construction's is pending on that, that should be completed in about a year from now, construction that is. 
   We have resurfacing the MUP. We're expecting to get this contracted by May‑ish, but that's a moving target until we get the contract signed. But that is in the works. That's about a $1.5 million project. 
   We have a project that's going to go into contracting for repairing critical systems on five or six buildings. Administrative buildings and the chapel out at Fort Hancock. Like I said, that's moving into contracting now. 
   And then a couple of other smaller projects, but small, under 400,000. But still significant to us. So there's a lot going on, we're going to have, you know, between all of these major projects we have moving forward in this area of the park and the lease projects that we are hoping to see move into construction over the next couple of years, there's going to be a lot of work on the ground happening at once. 
   Which is exciting, but we also have our eyes wide open to the need to, you know, make sure we're doing a lot of preplanning and coordination, communication so that not only are all these projects aware of each other and that it's thought out holistically, but that visitors are aware, lessees are aware of what's going on, and you know, can anticipate and plan for that. 
   But overall, a lot of exciting progress. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thank you, Jen, very much. 
   Okay. We are at the point where we have about ten or 15 minutes for around the table comments, and for those of you who are new to the committee, the committee has had a sort of tradition of trying to save some time at the end of each of the meetings to go around the table and give each of you a chance, as you could like, you don't have to, but if there's any reflections, observations, you want to fold in for the good of anyone in the mix here, we'd really like to create that space. It's something that the committee has valued. I think we missed it once or twice and we got a very strong please put that back on the agenda. So, it is back on the agenda. 
   So, I want to open up, and again it's not a must do for any of you, but we really want to create an opportunity for any ‑‑ any comments any of you might have. 
   So, I'll just look to you all to raise your virtual hand or your actual hand and invite any comments. I see an actual hand and then I see a hand trying to make a virtual hand. 

   >> Linda Cohen: That's an actual hand. I want to thank the committee for their extensive work. It's really impressive and I'm proud to be on this committee for all these years and see this kind of work evolving. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thank you, Linda. 
   Jim Krauss. 
   You're on mute, Jim. 

   >> Jim Krauss: I thought I had clicked. 
   As the environmental representative on the committee, I want to say that I am, I guess, satisfied with the work that the working group has done to advise the FACA and the park service of what the working group members thought was ‑‑ would be the economic ‑‑ sorry, the environmental impacts and ecological impacts of the potential leasing program. That's put the park service in a position to evaluate what it might have ‑‑ what it might have to add to any management programs to either prevent or mitigate wherever possible those ‑‑ those impacts and still continue to rehabilitate the buildings and move forward with this public/private leasing program. 
   Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Jim. 
   Gerry. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Just wanted to, again, welcome the people who are new, new, and who we have worked with on the working group. I think it's terrific to have additional perspectives around the table. I wish we had a real table to go around and, Mike, I think you mentioned earlier that we would hopefully can meet in person sometime soon. I think we're all hopeful for that. 
   I'll tell you one reason why I'm hopeful, because Jen's update about the progress of the park reminds me, I'm lucky, I can get up there fairly often. And for years when you made the turn and started driving in front of officers row, all you saw were wrecked porches and roofs with holes in it. 
   Now you make that turn and, wow, you see seven or eight buildings with brand‑new porches and it's a sign of attention and progress that's really inviting. 
   Then when you go a little bit beyond that and see what they will have done at the Mule Barn and what Barney has done with his building, it's really heartening to see progress. And yes, we're measuring it in small steps, but I think the park deserves a great big congratulations for getting us this far. 
   Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Gerry. 
   Any other committee members? New or long standing, any final comments or observations? 

   >> Shawn Welch: I want to go last, but Mary Eileen, Mike? 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Dorothy's in there. Go ahead, Dorothy. 

   >> Dorothy Guzzo: I just wanted to echo what's just said. I was glad to see the photographs going on of the roofs on the building, that was so great after all this time. Kudos, Jen, to you and your staff for getting that under way. That was a great end to the meeting for me anyway. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Michael Holenstein. 

   >> Michael Holenstein: Just ‑‑ just appreciate the professional staff and efforts that are done by National Park Service and it's a pleasure to be on committee. We'll do our best to be of assistance. 
   Thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Mike. 
   Bill Kastning. 

   >> Bill Kastning: I think the working group, the leasing working group needs to reevaluate its role going forward, since it's accomplished so much and I understand what the remaining things to do are on the list. And when we talk about groups here, let's be clear that there's this leasing working group, there's the FACA committee, and now there's this other working group addressing social responsibility. 
   I think that we have to be very important when we're talking to the public that we have distinct groups doing distinct things. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I'm not sure at the moment whether we have two different groups there, Bill. Jen, would you like to weigh in on that? 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: No, I think the committee needs to clarify whether it's the same group or different groups. I don't know that I'm totally clear on it. It came out of the working group, working group members, you know, are still participating, but other people have been added. I don't know. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Yeah, I mean, my ‑‑ I think that's what you said, Jen, is going on. There's ‑‑ it grew out of the work group conversation; the work group has said loud and clear that they don't have the full expertise or people or perspective there. So that process of broadening has happened. But in your earlier recommendation, it was to ‑‑ to talk about this conversation. But anyway, that's going to morph. I think that sort of ‑‑ those pieces need some discussion and thought offline. But I agree that whatever is the approach needs to be very clear and clearly communicated. 
   Shawn, we may be at you. 

   >> Shawn Welch: I need to be last. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Okay. Mary Eileen. 

   >> Mary Eileen Fouratt: Yeah, just thank you to the working group for everything that they've done in between the meetings. Really appreciate it. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Indeed. 
   Norah or Michael Walsh? 

   >> Norah Kerr McCurry: Just thank you for welcoming me to be a part of this. On the social equity piece from there's room on that committee, I'd be happy to help and in any other way. So, thank you. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Thanks, Norah. I captured earlier you're making Brookdale services available. 
   
   >> Bill Kastning: I just had a thought. The members who have left the FACA, should they or are they getting thank you letters?

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: I will say that I did call them all to thank them. I mean, officially you all are appointed by the secretary of interior. You're supposed to get a letter from the Secretary of the Interior saying I think it would be nice when people were leaving or no longer on they got a letter from the secretary thanking them for their service. I have no visibility over whether that happens or not. I'm going to guess maybe not. 
   But I think it's a point well taken and so we'll try and find out if that does happen or has happened and, if not, we will send them something from the park. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: I don't think ‑‑ Michael Walsh is not at his computer, so Shawn, you're up. 

   >> Shawn Welch: Okay. Well first, a big thank you to everybody who made the meeting today. Welcome Dorothy, Norah, Bill, we're ecstatic to have you. 
   I asked everybody have some kind thoughts or Lillian and give her a couple prayers. I don't think her work is done. She pulled my ear on a few things a couple days ago, so I know she's itching to get back in the fight. 
   Professional NPS employees, Jen, you and the entire crew, Daphne, Patti, Pete, Karen, everything that you guys do spinning this up, giving us info, helping us think through things, all the work that you do, outstanding. Very much appreciate all the work that you guys have done. 
   And I see you guys through a different hat with army ground forces and all of our projects. You balance a lot and you make a lot happen. 
   Thank you. 
   Regarding committee, our Federal Advisory Committee formal organization and the leasing working group, yes, they are two different entities. We have some committee members that are on that, and then we have members of the public who are on that committee. They're definitively two separate entities. 
   I see continued work with the leasing working group. We already know it's teeing up to have the discussion of social justice, social equity. There's going to be more on that. So we'll get probably another update and another set of recommendations. 
   Shameless plug time, okay. Ocean Fun Days, Coast days, 21, May. This coming month, please come out to Fort Hancock, park service has a lot going on. The New Jersey Sea Grant has got multiple things for families to see and this is our first really big ocean fun days since prior to the start of the pandemic. There's been a lot of changes for Army Ground Forces. Battery Gunnison does not look like it did in 2018. It is very different. We are crossing into a different world with that battery because so much of it now functions, as opposed to just static junk or completely missing.
If you have the time to come out, enjoy everything that Sea Grant has got put on and pay us a visit at the gun battery because there isn't anything else like this at the U.S. and a big tip of the hat to the park service, because without you, it wouldn't be possible. 
   So y'all have a wonderful weekend and hope to see you in a couple weeks. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thank you, Shawn. 
   So last thing I want to do is just hit a couple of quick next steps. In terms of future meetings, we don't have a date for that yet and I'm not going to forecast when that is, but we'll ‑‑ I'm sure Daphne's already started to think about it. There were a couple possible topics that were mentioned for that. Obviously, any updates that there may be from the Stillman folks on where they're at. The parking study, if that's ripe and ready to bring. 
   Jen, you mentioned any updates on sort of adaptation planning, so I think those are all possible candidates and anything that's coming out of the social equity discussion as far as getting a couple things out and about. 
   Daphne is going to post a link to the compendium, so that is available, and we will, again, be ‑‑ I think they're already up but the work group recommendations, we're mail sure they're properly characterized for today. 
   We've had a couple folks on the committee raise their hands as interested in being involved in the social equity discussion as that goes forward, so that was Linda and Norah, as well as Norah offering to, again, provide whatever resources that Brookdale has that might be useful to that conversation. 
   Jen, I have down that you are going to follow up on the general construction permits question. 
   And I think those are all the to‑dos that I had, other than what I had, which is to get out the list of recommendations that you all discussed and agreed to on this call. 
   So, I'll just say thank you, everybody, for very, very focused participation. It was a long conversation, you all stayed very focused and very present, I really appreciate all the hard work and hard thinking. 
   Jen, I think I'm going to give you the last word before we let folks go. 

   >> Jennifer Nersesian: And I don't have much of one other than to say thank you, everybody, for your continued investment of time, thought, of work into Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook and helping us to advance our historic preservation mission while striking the right balance with natural resources and always considering the visitor experience. 
   This is not easy work. I mean, even the meeting led today sitting in front of a Zoom call for six hours ‑‑ five hours, I can't even do math at this point. I mean, it's no small thing to ask. And you all are doing it voluntarily. And so I just can't reiterate enough how much I appreciate that from the advisory committee members to the working group members and all the members of the public who join us for this. 
   Thank you. And you know, fortunately, we're at a point where we don't seem to be able to get more than two or three meetings a year on the calendar due to the way things work right now with approvals and scheduling and getting things published in the federal register. 
   But we will keep pushing to, you know, get meetings on as quickly as we're able to get them scheduled and start really looking forward to reconvening with you all again. 
   In the meantime, I wish you a great end to spring and beginning of summer. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Great. Thanks, Jen. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, members of the public, and we'll look forward to our next conversation. Thanks, everybody. 

   >> Gerry Glaser: Thank you. Bye. 

   >> Bennett Brooks: Bye.