29164 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

highway vehicles. Concerns over the

effects of off-highway vehicle use in

Surprise Canyon on environmental

quality and natural resources have been

raised in a lawsuit filed against the

BLM, and these concerns need to be

addressed through the processes

required by the National Environmental

Policy Act and the California Desert

Conservation Area Plan.

The canyon riparian zone currently

does not meet the BLM’s minimum

standards for a properly functioning

riparian system due to soil erosion and

streambed alterations caused by offhighway vehicle use. The Surprise

Canyon ACEC supports several

California BLM and California State

sensitive plant and animal species that

are dependant on a properly functioning

riparian system.

The canyon will remain open for

human use that does not entail the use

of a motorized vehicle within the area

closed by this order. Maps showing the

affected area are available by contacting

the Ridgecrest Field Office, California

Desert Conservation Area, Ridgecrest,

CA. A gate will be erected at the closure

points and the affected area will be

posted with public notices and standard

motorized vehicle closure signs. The

BLM will issue a final decision on

allowable methods of public access in

Surprise Canyon following completion

of public scoping, and a National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

compliance document. The NEPA

compliance document will evaluate a

full range of options for management of

human access to Surprise Canyon

within the area affected by the interim

closure.

Authority for this closure is found in

43 CFR 8364.1. Violations of this order

may be subject to the penalties provided

according to 43 CFR 8360.0–7.

Dated: May 23, 2001.

Gail Acheson,

Acting Deputy State Director for Resources.

[FR Doc. 01–13538 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P

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 longterm 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 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 nonleased 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

29166 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

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 nonleased 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 shortterm 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 nonresident 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 NonProfit 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 noncontributing 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 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 longterm 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 startup 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

29168 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

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 leadbased 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 noncontributing 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 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

29170 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 29171

29172 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

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