[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:

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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