[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29164-29172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13429]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Glen Echo Park, Montgomery County, MD
Action: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction
The Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), has
prepared this Record of Decision on the Final Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement (FMP/EIS) for Glen Echo Park, Montgomery
County, Maryland pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. This
Record of Decision is a statement of the decision made, the background
of the project, other alternatives considered, the basis for the
decision, the environmentally preferable alternative, measures to
minimize environmental harm, and public involvement in the decision
making process.
II. Background of the Project
For over a century, Glen Echo Park has served the region as a
center for education, entertainment and cultural development. This
special site, which has been a National Chautauqua site (1891), an
amusement park site (1899-1968), and an arts and cultural park (1971-
present), is 1.5 miles northwest of Washington, DC and has been a haven
for generations of area residents and visitors. On April 1, 1970 GSA
received title to the 9.3-acre site. The site was acquired through a
land exchange for the Old Emergency Hospital at 1711 New York Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC and was held surplus by the General Services
Administration (GSA). From 1971-1976, the National Park Service (NPS)
operated the park in cooperation with GSA and the park officially
became part of NPS in 1976. When the land was acquired it contained a
number of structures that were in very poor condition. Several were
removed and others received minimal repair. From the very beginning,
the NPS recognized the need to establish a Public/Private Partnership
to both rehabilitate the structures and establish a creative education
program that would reflect the spirit of the Chautauqua Assembly. In
1984, an NPS approved Management Facilities Program outlined a five-
year program incorporating short and long-term goals and a scope of
work for projects to be funded by the Federal government and private
sector. Unfortunately, funds from both groups were limited,
improvements were minor, and park management began to consider historic
leasing. Local citizen opposition to such a proposal led to the
formation of the Glen Echo Park Foundation, which was established in
May 1987 to raise $3 million within five years for rehabilitation of
the structures. The Foundation was unsuccessful in achieving its goal,
and the park structures have continued to deteriorate.
By the mid-1990s, funding to rehabilitate decaying park structures
was still not available and the park's resources were in danger of
being lost. The National Park Service began a process through which a
Management Plan (MP) could be developed. As part of that process, the
NPS examined options for future operation of the park, including
scenarios that assumed existing park resources would eventually be
lost. Since the planning process began, Montgomery County, the State of
Maryland, and the Federal government have all committed funding to
support the stabilization and rehabilitation of the structures at Glen
Echo Park. This funding, however, does not support improvements to the
interior of the buildings, and does not help cover the park's operating
expenses. Furthermore, as the structures continue to age, the
maintenance needs of the park will continue to grow. A management plan
for Glen Echo Park is needed to provide a framework for the continued
management and operation of the park.
III. Decision (Selected Action)
The National Park Service will implement the preferred alternative,
the Modified Public Partnership, identified in the FMP/EIS issued on
March 9, 2001. Figure I illustrates the chosen management structure.
Figure II illustrates the selected management zones for the park. The
selected alternative is also the environmentally preferred alternative
identified in the FMP/EIS. It will improve the visitor experience,
maintain the traditional uses of the park, improve the diversity in its
programs, and enhance the preservation of cultural and historic
resources through an improved revenue structure. It is expected to
create only minor environmental impacts and inconveniences to adjoining
communities. As a part of this decision, the NPS will also implement
measures to minimize adverse impacts to the environment (i.e.
mitigations) (see VIII below).
The NPS has used public partnership arrangements very successfully
at several parks. Based on this experience, along with the analysis of
the potential environmental impacts contained within the FMP/EIS, the
NPS believes the Modified Public Partnership alternative is the best
arrangement for the park, the surrounding communities, and the park's
users. Under the selected alternative, the NPS will enter into
negotiations with Montgomery County, MD, to prepare a long-term
agreement whereby Montgomery County would take over the majority of
management and operations at Glen Echo Park. If the NPS and Montgomery
County were unable to finalize an agreement, the NPS would seek another
similar partner with
[[Page 29165]]
which to negotiate an agreement. Under the agreement, it is anticipated
that Montgomery County would create a non-profit organization or other
such entity to carry out its responsibilities. It is also anticipated
that such an organization would have a Board of Directors (or other
similar Board) that would have the responsibilities of managing and
operating the park on a daily basis, and carrying out fundraising
activities. [Hereafter, when the term ``Board'' is used, it is meant to
include Montgomery County (or other party who enters into agreement
with the NPS), and any such management body or structure, such as a
non-profit corporation) that is used to carry out the terms of the
agreement.]
Under the selected alternative, the Board would be responsible for
ensuring all actions are consistent with Federal policies, NPS
guidelines, and the terms of the agreement. The Board and the NPS would
share day-to-day building and grounds maintenance responsibilities,
with a limit on the NPS share to be specified in the cooperative
agreement. The Board would be responsible for all life-cycle
maintenance. It would also be responsible for custodial services in the
common areas and non-lease space, negotiating and managing leases or
agreements with cooperators, and carrying out other management tasks.
Under this plan, all existing agreements between the NPS and the
current cooperators would be terminated. The Board would negotiate new
long-term agreements with cooperators and develop programs and
activities consistent with park goals.
The NPS will continue to provide information and interpretive
services for the park, some maintenance, ensure public safety,
administer any NPS concession agreements, provide overall protection of
the park's resources, and ensure compliance with the terms of the
agreement. An operations and maintenance plan is to be a part of the
agreement to ensure operations and maintenance meet NPS standards.
Existing permits between the NPS and entities such as Potomac Electric
and Power Company (PEPCO), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
concessionaires will remain vested in the NPS, and will be renewed as
needed.
It is anticipated that the new structure for generating park
revenue for operational expenses will be based on a resident
cooperator's gross annual revenue, or the gross annual receipts of a
non-resident user (e.g., social dancers). This structure is very
similar to the existing method of park collections; however, revisions
are necessary to increase revenue to the park and to make the system of
collections more equitable for all park users. Final details of the
park's collection structure will be determined by the Board of
Directors and the new Executive Director.
Under the selected alternative, utilization is anticipated to
increase slightly because of the renovation of existing park spaces,
adding additional spaces, and increased marketing efforts. The
Executive Director and staff will work with resident and non-resident
cooperators and other park users to maximize attendance at existing
events and to add activities during non-peak times. In addition, the
Spanish Ballroom will be available for short-term rental and will
continue to support the social dances.
In the short term, structures within the park will be stabilized
and rehabilitated according to the provisions of the ongoing
rehabilitation plan. All structures that are non-contributing
structures to the historic district could potentially be removed as
deemed appropriate by the Board and when approved by the NPS. Any new
development at the park will be permitted provided it is consistent
with the park's management zoning map and park mission goals, and as
long as the total development area does not exceed 40% of the total
park area. The NPS has approval authority over any new development and
the responsibility to prepare appropriate natural and cultural resource
compliance documentation for any new development.
Under the selected alternative, the Board of Directors will be
responsible for fundraising subject to the provisions of its agreement
with the NPS. Montgomery County plans to provide a $100,000 subsidy for
the first four years of operation to the Board.
IV. Other Alternatives Considered
Four other alternatives were considered in the FMP/EIS. These can
be characterized as follows:
A. No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative proposes that the NPS would manage and
operate Glen Echo park at current levels of service. An NPS site
manager would manage both Glen Echo Park and the Clara Barton National
Historic Site (NHS). Under this alternative, no changes would be made
in the management of park resources, the provision of visitor services,
or the upkeep of facilities. Limited funding for park staff would
constrain the time available for staff to organize and promote park
programs and events, thereby limiting implementation of the park's
mission goals.
Under the No Action Alternative, the NPS would negotiate three-year
contracts with the cooperators (resident and non-resident artists) that
would be structured similarly to the existing contracts. The structure
for collecting fees from resident cooperators and other park users also
would be similar to the existing system. Resident cooperators would
reimburse the park for the use of space and providing services by:
contributing a small percentage of their gross annual revenues; paying
a fee for each student enrolled in classes, workshops, and camps; and
setting aside a fixed amount of each ticket sale. Constraints on other
revenue generating methods would prohibit increasing the funding base.
A fundraising organization would be associated with this alternative
but would face the same challenge as the current organization in
raising funds.
NPS would remain responsible for most maintenance efforts under the
No Action Alternative. Building maintenance would be the responsibility
of the NPS except for the interior leased areas that would be the
responsibility of the cooperators. Grounds maintenance and custodial
services for common areas and non-leased spaces would also be the
responsibility of the NPS. Custodial service for leased spaces would be
the responsibility of the tenant. Lifecycle maintenance would be the
responsibility of NPS.
Beyond the physical improvements to park structures undertaken
during the stabilization/rehabilitation effort, park resources would be
maintained at a minimal level. Additional short-term changes would be
limited to interior tenant fit-outs in renovated spaces at the
cooperator's own expense. The level of maintenance the NPS could
provide would depend on available funds that, under this alternative,
are not anticipated to increase. Available funding from the Federal
government would restrict long-term projects. It is anticipated that,
eventually, park structures would require major capital improvement
that the NPS would not be able to finance. It is possible some
facilities would be closed and eventually removed and it is unlikely
that additional new construction would take place.
B. NPS Management Alternative
The NPS Management Alternative proposes that the NPS would actively
manage and operate Glen Echo Park at a somewhat higher level of service
than the existing condition. An NPS site
[[Page 29166]]
manager would manage both Glen Echo Park and the Clara Barton NHS. The
NPS would modify current staffing at the park by adding a marketing
specialist, clerical/bookkeeping position, and adjusting maintenance
staff assignments. The NPS would continue to work with the individuals
and organizations offering classes and activities at the park, to
produce class schedules and maintain class rosters, and to promote
park's activities.
Under the NPS Management Alternative, the resident cooperators
would assume a greater degree of responsibility for park operations
than they currently possess. They would be responsible for the interior
maintenance of leased spaces. New contracts would be negotiated and a
new system for collecting fees from resident cooperators and short-term
users would be implemented. These fees would vary slightly based on the
type of activity offered, but would include space leases, short-term
rental fees, and collecting a portion of program fees or ticket sales.
The NPS and the individuals would negotiate new contracts that would
reinforce the new management and operations structure of the park.
Restrictions placed on use of these funds by regulations or policy may
limit the effective use of the revenue generated.
NPS would remain responsible for most maintenance efforts, under
the NPS Management Alternative. Building maintenance would be the
responsibility of the NPS except for the interior leased areas that
would be the responsibility of the cooperators. Grounds maintenance and
custodial services for common areas and non-leased spaces would also be
the responsibility of the NPS. Custodial service for leased spaces
would be the responsibility of the tenant. Lifecycle maintenance would
be the responsibility of NPS.
Under the NPS Management Alternative, little physical change is
anticipated beyond the stabilization/rehabilitation effort. Additional
short-term changes would be limited to tenant fit-outs in renovated
spaces. Long-term projects primarily would be restricted to replacing
the maintenance shed, building a small storage facility, redeveloping
the Crystal Pool Plaza, and reconstructing the second floor of the
Caretaker's Cottage. A fundraising organization is also proposed for
this alternative. It would face the same challenges of the current
organization under the No Action Alternative.
C. Public Partnership Alternative
This alternative is the same as the selected alternative, except in
this alternative the NPS would be responsible for life-cycle
maintenance costs. Life-cycle maintenance is unscheduled and non-
routine improvements to a facility that extends its use and improves
its condition over the years that it is in use. Examples of life-cycle
maintenance are replacing roofs, electrical and mechanical systems, and
plumbing, etc.
D. Non-Profit Partnership Alternative
The Non-Profit Partnership proposes a non-profit entity, such as a
private individual, cooperating association, or other non-profit
organization manage and operate Glen Echo Park. The NPS potentially
could be involved in some aspects of park operations; however, the Non-
Profit Partner would reimburse the NPS for their assistance. The NPS
would have oversight over the actions of the Non-Profit Partner to
ensure compliance with Federal policies and regulations and the
agreement. The NPS mission-based activities, such as interpretation and
law enforcement, would continue.
Under the Non-Profit Partnership, all of the existing agreements
between NPS and the cooperators would be terminated. The Non-Profit
Partner would negotiate agreements with artists, performers, and other
resident and non-resident park users for performances and events and be
responsible for the implementation of the park's mission goals.
The structure for generating park revenue under the Non-Profit
Partnership establishes a consistent monthly base fee for all resident
cooperators, and regular user groups, such as the social dancers,
throughout the region. All revenue generated under this alternative
would be consistent with the rules and regulations governing the type
of partnership, i.e., cooperating association, cooperative agreements.
This system creates an incentive for park users to achieve a particular
level of utilization (i.e., number of students enrolled, number of
classes offered, number of attendees) necessary to cover costs. As a
result, overall park utilization is anticipated to increase under this
alternative.
Under the Non-Profit Partnership, the renovation of park
structures, creation of additional space, and increased marketing
efforts would also contribute to increased utilization. The Non-Profit
Partner would likely work with the resident and non-resident
cooperators and other park users to maximize attendance at existing
events and to add activities during non-peak times.
Building maintenance and life cycle costs would be the
responsibility of Non-Profit Partner except for the interior leased
areas that would be the responsibility of the cooperators. Grounds
maintenance and custodial services for the common areas would be the
responsibility of Non-Profit Partner. The Non-Profit might be required
to reimburse Montgomery County and the State of Maryland for their $12
million investment in the rehabilitation of structures. If this were to
occur the Non-Profit Partner would be unable to generate sufficient
revenues to reimburse the state and local governments. The Non-Profit
Partner would also conduct fundraising to supplement park income.
In the short term, structures within the park would be stabilized
and rehabilitated according to the provisions of the rehabilitation
plan. Under this alternative, all structures that are non-contributing
structures to the historic district potentially could be removed as
deemed appropriate by the Non-Profit Partner and when approved by the
NPS. New development at the park would be permitted, provided it is
consistent with the park's management zoning map and park mission
goals, and as long as the total development area does not exceed 40% of
the total park area. The NPS would have approval authority for any new
development and would prepare appropriate natural and cultural resource
compliance documentation.
V. Basis for Decision
After careful consideration of public comments received throughout
the planning process, including comments on the Draft Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement, the Modified Public Partnership
Alternative has been selected by the National Park Service. This
alternative will best preserve the valuable cultural and environmental
resources at Glen Echo Park while continuing the park's mission as a
cultural and educational center in the region.
The No-Action Alternative eventually would result in the
deterioration or loss of significant cultural and historic resources.
Under this alternative, no changes would be made in the management of
park resources, the provision of visitor services, or the upkeep of
facilities. Limited funding for park staff would constrain the time
available for staff to organize and promote park programs and events or
perform needed maintenance.
All of the alternatives have some adverse environmental impacts, as
[[Page 29167]]
identified in the FMP/EIS. The No Action alternative has the least
impact on the natural environment and the surrounding area due to the
smaller number of visitors anticipated. However, it has by far the
greatest impact to cultural and historic resources. The other
alternatives have slightly higher impacts to the natural environmental,
but each is considered environmentally acceptable and not likely to
cause substantial adverse impacts. However, the other alternatives do
vary substantially in terms of their impacts to socio-economic and
cultural resources.
In the NPS Management Alternative, there is some risk that cultural
resources would deteriorate because all management responsibilities are
placed on one public entity. Dependent upon Federal funding, the NPS
may not be able to support necessary physical improvements.
Consequently, a negative impact on cultural resources could result.
Already, inadequate rehabilitation funding has caused the deterioration
of resources, such as the Arcade Building. Although the NPS Management
Alternative would ensure that the park's resources are protected, an
increasing need for rehabilitation funding makes dependence on Federal
funding risky.
The Non-Profit Partnership Alternative also presents significant
risk to the protection of Glen Echo Park. Although the alternative
would likely lead to the greatest increase of park utilization, there
is considerable risk that the increased activity would lead to adverse
impacts on the park's natural and cultural resources and on the
surrounding community. The Non-Profit Partnership would be the least
likely of the alternatives to mitigate impacts, such as traffic and
parking from increased visitation, or to invest in long-term lifecycle
maintenance improvements. Additionally, it is possible that the
diversity of users would decline in this alternative as programming
decisions prioritize those events with the greatest potential for
positive economic returns over those that serve the public's interest.
The potential for paying back the State and County governments for
rehabilitation costs may also contribute to the decline of cultural
resources and a diversity of uses.
The Public Partnership and the Modified Public Partnership offer
distinct advantages over the other alternatives. By engaging local
government in the management of the park, these alternatives should
result in the greatest diversity of users and programs while protecting
the park's resources. In addition, if a non-profit entity is used it
can actively fundraise to supplement the park operations. Mitigation of
transportation impacts is most likely under these alternatives because
of the partnership between the two governments. Additional funding from
Montgomery County for the first four years would also assist in the
start-up of the management and operations.
The only difference between the Public Partnership and Modified
Public Partnership is the responsibility of lifecycle maintenance
costs. The Modified Public Partnership Alternative assumes the costs
are the Board of Director's responsibility while the Public Partnership
Alternative assumes major NPS responsibility. Since resource protection
is more likely to occur if the park is not totally dependent upon
Federal funding, the Modified Public Partnership Alternative has an
advantage over the Public Partnership Alternative. Financial
projections have also shown that the Modified Public Partnership could
assume these costs over time without adversely affecting its financial
status.
Given these facts and the finding that the Modified Public
Partnership Alternative is also the ``environmentally preferable''
alternative (see VIII below), the National Park Service has therefore
selected the Modified Public Partnership Alternative to implement. The
selected alternative will improve the visitor experience, maintain the
traditional uses of the park, improve the diversity in its programs,
and enhance the preservation of cultural and historic resources through
an improved revenue structure, with only minor environmental impacts
and inconveniences to adjoining communities.
VI. Findings on Impairment of Park Resources and Values
The National Park Service has determined that the implementation of
the Modified Public Partnership Alternative will not constitute
impairment to Glen Echo Park's resources and values. This conclusion is
based on a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts described in
the FMP/EIS, the public comments received, and the application of the
provisions in NPS Management Policies 2001. While the plan has some
minor negative impacts, these impacts only result from actions to
preserve and restore other park resources and values. Overall, the
Final Management Plan results in major benefits to park resources and
values, opportunities for their enjoyment, and does not result in their
impairment.
In determining whether impairment may occur, park managers consider
the duration, severity, and magnitude of the impact; the resources and
values affected; and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the
action. According to National Park Service Policy, ``An impact would be
more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it affects a
resource or value whose conservation is: (a) Necessary to fulfill
specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or
proclamation of the park; (b) Key to the natural or cultural integrity
of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (c)
Identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other
relevant National Park Service planning documents.'' (Director's Order
55)
This policy does not prohibit impacts to park resources and values.
The National Park Service has the discretion to allow impacts to park
resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the
purposes of a park, so long as the impacts do not constitute
impairment. Moreover, an impact is less likely to constitute impairment
if it is an unavoidable result of an action necessary to preserve or
restore the integrity of park resources or values.
The actions comprising the Modified Public Partnership Alternative
will achieve the goals of the Final Management Plan in a comprehensive,
integrated manner that takes into account the interplay between
resource protection and visitor use. Actions implemented under the
selected alternative that will cause overall negligible adverse
impacts, minor adverse impacts, short-term impacts, and beneficial
impacts to park resources and values, as described in the Final MP/EIS
will not constitute impairment. This is because these impacts have
limited severity and/or duration and will not result in appreciable
irreversible commitments of resources. Beneficial impacts identified in
the Final MP/EIS include effects related to restoring and protecting
park resources and values. Thus, the National Park Service has
determined that the implementation of the Modified Public Partnership
Alternative will not result in any impairment of resources and values
at Glen Echo Park.
VII. Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The environmentally preferable alternative is defined as `` the
alternative that will promote the National environmental policy as
expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act's Section 101.
Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage
[[Page 29168]]
to the biological and physical environment; it also means the
alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic,
cultural, and natural resources'' (``Forty Most Asked Questions
Concerning Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations,'' 1981). As indicated above, the
selected alternative should result in the greatest diversity of users
and programs while protecting the park's mission as a public resource.
Further resource protection is most likely to occur under the selected
alternative. Thus, the environmentally preferred alternative has been
determined to be the Modified Public Partnership Alternative.
VIII. Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm
Measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts that could
result from the implementation of the selected alternative have been
identified and incorporated into the selected action. These mitigation
measures are presented in detail in the FMP/EIS. Mitigation measures
are summarized by category below. Note: Where ``NPS'' is used in this
section it is intended to mean either the NPS, the board, or agents of
these, as appropriate.
A. Physical/Biological Resources:
Surface Hydrology: The NPS will require an erosion and
sedimentation control plan prior to any new construction activities at
the park. This will minimize adverse effects to the park and
surrounding areas. This plan will include measures to reduce or
eliminate erosion of cleared areas and the transport of soil and
sediment in surface runoff to drainage areas. This plan will also
address measures to control stormwater runoff and prevent the discharge
of pollutants into the storm sewer system.
Vegetation and Wildlife: Prior to the construction of any
new park structures not addressed in the FMP/EIS appropriate studies of
potentially impacted vegetation and wildlife will be conducted.
Mitigation for any loss of vegetation and wildlife associated with the
proposed development would need to be approved by the NPS.
Hazardous Materials: The park will continue to implement
the NPS lead-based paint action plan. As a part of this plan, if future
actions at the park require soil-disturbing activities, the NPS will
identify and remedy any lead based paint issues associated with such
activities. The NPS will also continue to be responsible for managing
wastes with hazardous materials at Glen Echo Park and will not be able
to transfer that responsibility to another management entity.
Noise: All special events will comply with the NPS
regulations regarding auditory disturbances or Montgomery County
Guidelines, whichever are more stringent.
B. Socio-Cultural Resources
Land Use: Construction of future park structures will
occur only in the appropriate development areas as delineated in the
park's management zoning diagram (Figure II). Once Bowdoin Avenue is
relocated, the NPS will also allow public use of the land immediately
west of the relocated Bowdoin Avenue.
Historic Resources: The NPS will continue to consult with
the Maryland State Historic Preservation Office on all activities that
have the potential to affect the historic district. Demolition of
historic structures contributing to the Glen Echo Park Historic
District is not anticipated under the selected alternative. Demolition
of any non-contributing structures within the district will need to be
approved by the NPS, and will be subject to the requirements of the
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process.
Archaeological Resources: In the event of new
construction, the NPS will undertake a survey to determine the
likelihood of archaeological remains on the project site.
Visual Resources: Any proposal for new development will be
required to demonstrate that it would not adversely affect the existing
visual environment of Glen Echo Park or infringe on the natural visual
condition of the Potomac Palisades.
C. Transportation
Signage: During events, the NPS will improve temporary
signs leading visitors to remote and on-site parking to mitigate
traffic congestion. The signs will have the standard white lettering on
a brown background to further identify it with the park. Messages will
indicate whether the on-site parking area is full and will include the
appropriate direction to the remote parking area. Signs will be placed
well in advance of the decision-making point at locations such as:
MacArthur Boulevard southeast of the Sangamore Road intersection;
MacArthur Boulevard northwest of the single lane bridge; Clara Barton
Parkway Access Road south of the MacArthur Boulevard intersection;
Goldsboro Road west of the Massachusetts Avenue intersection;
Massachusetts Avenue southeast of the Sangamore Road intersection; and
two signs at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Goldsboro
Road. These signs will be equipped with a hinged panel stating ``Lot
Full,'' which will indicate that the on-site parking area has reached
capacity, and thereby direct motorists to a remote lot.
The NPS will also install permanent park directional signs on River
Road and Wilson Lane to help redirect some park traffic to these
routes. This should help disperse the traffic demand on the routes in
the immediate vicinity of the park. Permanent signs will also be
provided to direct visitors from the public transit bus stop(s).
Transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies: The
NPS will consult with Montgomery County and the Washington Metropolitan
Transit Authority to improve Ride-On and Metrobus programs to better
serve Glen Echo Park. In its advertisements, the NPS will publicize all
available transit options and highly encourage all park users to use
them every time they come to the park.
In addition to working to improve transit service and awareness,
the NPS will further implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies that encourage visitors to use other alternative forms of
transportation, such as walking, bicycles, carpooling, and ridesharing.
During prime events, parking areas within the park will be reserved
for visitors who carpool or arrive with four or more people per
vehicle. During events, visitors who cannot use transit or carpool will
be highly encouraged to use a remote parking lot and ride a shuttle to
the park. In addition, the NPS will work to improve advance notice to
motorists regarding the traffic and parking conditions associated with
major events and highly attended dances. This will reduce the need for
motorists to search for a parking space, thereby reducing traffic.
When event information is distributed in advance of an event, the
above transit and TDM information will be included in the materials.
Parking: During special events, to prevent parking and
congestion on residential streets, the NPS will place temporary signs
and barricades at entrances to residential streets in the vicinity of
the park. This is similar to what is done on the Town of Glen Echo
streets to help reduce parking impacts on these streets.
During special events the NPS will also enforce existing
parking restrictions along MacArthur Boulevard to prohibit roadside
parking and direct all off-site parking to the remote parking area(s).
One such area that the NPS is pursuing
[[Page 29169]]
for additional use for this purpose is the National Imagery and Mapping
Agency parking area on Sangamore Road. This parking area has
historically been utilized for the Folk Festival, through arrangements
made by the Washington Folklore Society.
D. Utilities
Stormwater: Future construction projects not addressed in the FMP/
EIS will require appropriate environmental compliance procedures and
documentation.
Water/Sanitary Sewer: NPS will consult with Montgomery County
regarding any proposed modifications to service lines in the park.
Solid Waste: The NPS will encourage the park's recycling
program, work with concessionaires to reduce packaging and waste, and
work with cooperators to reduce solid waste generation.
IX. Public and Interagency Involvement
There has been extensive public and interagency involvement
throughout the development of the Draft and Final MP/EIS for Glen Echo.
The initial five alternatives were presented to the public during a
scoping meeting held on February 3, 1998, at Clara Barton Community
Center. Press releases were sent to all of the local and metropolitan
newspapers regarding the scoping meeting, and a Federal Register Notice
was issued on January 15, 1998, for the February 3 meeting. In
addition, two newsletters were prepared by the park in January and
March 1998 and sent to 3,000 individuals and organizations listed on
the mailing list. The purpose of the public scoping meeting was to
solicit comments on the five proposed scenarios and to inform the
public about the planning process for the MP/EIS for Glen Echo Park.
Approximately 600 people attended the February 3rd meeting. In
addition, the NPS received more than 1,000 written comments following
the meeting. Due to the overwhelming response to the public scoping
meeting and at the request of a Congressional Representative, the NPS
decided that the comment period would be extended from March 3, 1998
(the standard 30 day period) to September 1, 1998. Extending the
comment period would allow various groups and individuals to carefully
review the five proposed management scenarios and to present additional
scenarios for future consideration.
The enormous response to the public scoping meeting prompted
Montgomery County Executive Douglas Duncan to convene a working group.
The working group was comprised of representatives from a range of
interests in the park including park users, the artist cooperators, the
State of Maryland, Montgomery County, congressional staff members, and
the NPS (as an information resource). The charge of this group was to
explore and then make recommendations regarding a possible role for the
County in the future management of Glen Echo Park.
County Executive Duncan held public meetings in March and August
1998 at Pyle Middle School in Bethesda, Maryland, to discuss a proposal
that the County would submit to the NPS under the Public Partnership
for the MP. Several hundred people attended each meeting. The County
government offices publicized these meetings on the radio, through the
Internet, and in local newspapers and fliers.
In August 1998, Executive Duncan presented the NPS with a proposed
management scenario that recommended a partnership between Montgomery
County and the NPS to rehabilitate and manage Glen Echo Park. The State
of Maryland was identified as a partner to provide financial assistance
for the rehabilitation efforts. These proposals called for the creation
of a non-profit entity that would be charged with managing the day-to-
day operations of the park as well as undertaking fundraising efforts
to financially support park needs. A second public meeting was called
by Montgomery County and held on August 3, 1998 with over 100 people in
attendance. At this meeting, the ``Duncan Proposal'' was presented to
the public for review and comment.
To foster additional public participation, the Draft MP/EIS was
available for 60 days to the public and reviewing agencies. Notice of
its availability was published August 15, 2000, and in the Federal
Register, in local and regional newspapers, and on the World Wide Web.
In addition, approximately 4,000 individuals and organizations were
notified by mail. On September 7, 2000, the NPS also held a final
public meeting on the Draft MP/EIS. Written comments on the Draft MP/
EIS were received from a variety of public agencies, organizations, and
individuals during the 60-day public review period that began August
15, 2000, and ended October 13, 2000. Oral comments on the Draft MP/EIS
were received and transcribed during a public meeting held September 7,
2000, at the Glen Echo Park Spanish Ballroom. All comments received or
postmarked within the review period were reviewed and all relevant
comments were addressed in the Final MP/EIS.
The Final MP/EIS was published on March 9, 2001. It was distributed
to applicable review agencies, organizations and interested citizens.
In addition, it was available at local libraries and on the Internet at
http:www.nps.gov/glec.
X. Conclusion
The Modified Public Partnership Alternative provides the most
comprehensive and effective method among the alternatives considered
for meeting the National Park Service's purposes, goals, and criteria
for managing Glen Echo Park and for meeting national environmental
policy goals. The selection of the Modified Public Partnership
Alternative, as reflected in the analysis contained in the
environmental impact statement, would not result in the impairment of
park resources and would allow the National Park Service to conserve
park resources and provide for their enjoyment by visitors.
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
[[Page 29170]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29MY01.006
[[Page 29171]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29MY01.007
[[Page 29172]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29MY01.008
Dated: April 25, 2001.
Terry R. Carlstrom,
Regional Director, National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 01-13429 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-C