DOCSLIB.ORG

Small Parks Management Strategies National Park Service National Capital Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Small Parks Management Strategies National Park Service National Capital Region Small Parks Management Strategies National Park Service National Capital Region FINAL April 2017 National Capital Parks East National Mall and Memorial Parks Rock Creek Park National Capital Planning Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION 03 Overview of the Planning Effort 04 The Value of Small Parks 07 Planning Methodology CHAPTER 2—VISION + GOALS 10 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats 12 Small Parks Vision Statement 12 Vision 13 Goals 13 Supporting Efforts CHAPTER 3—SMALL PARK CHARACTERISTICS 18 Cultural Resources 20 Commemorative Resources 23 Recreation Resources 23 Community Context 24 Encroachment and Unsanctioned Uses 25 Summary of Challenges and Opportunities CHAPTER 4—MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 28 Management Mechanisms 33 Small Park Alignment Score Process CHAPTER 5—ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 6—REFERENCES A compendium of supporting materials developed during the small parks management strategies planning process is included in the Small Parks Management Strategies Supporting Documents and is provided under separate cover. CHAPTER 01INTRODUCTION 2 Chapter 1—IntroduCtIon INTRODUCTION he purpose of this Small Parks Management TStrategies document is to help the National Park Service (NPS) National Capital Region (NCR) develop consistent strategies for improving the approach to the management of small urban parks. The planning effort builds on the parks’ needs for holistic, consistent, and coordinated management and partnership strategies across the small park network. Updated management for parks in the NCR will help the NPS fulfill its agenda for urban parks in the next century. The focus of this effort is on NPS small parks ranging from 0.0045 acres to approximately seven acres in size that represent the most common park type found in the city. These parks serve multiple functions, including national and local commemoration, neighborhood parks, playgrounds, traffic circles, street medians and traffic islands. They include Washington's recognizable circles, squares, and triangles found at intersections and along diagonal streets and contribute to an urban park system that is unique within the broader national park network. While many small parks are a distinct feature of the city’s urban design fabric, their number and distribution creates complex management challenges for NPS due to their diminutive size, wide distribution and physical separation from other park spaces. Small parks support a variety of activities and are an enormous untapped resource for connecting and improving Washington DC's parks and open space network. Many are located in areas devoid of green space and therefore provide the only access to neighborhood open space. Others are maintained by park partners and reflect a high level of community identity and pride. Well-designed and maintained small parks significantly enhance their surrounding neighborhoods. However, despite these positive attributes, small parks often exist in the shadow of the larger, more renowned parks (Capital Space, 2010). High traffic volumes on adjacent streets can pose additional challenges Chevy Chase Circle and can contribute to debris and other undesirable encroachments or activities into small parks. 3 SMALL PARKS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Overview of the Planning Figure 1 Locations of NPS Small Parks Addressed in this Study Effort The history of how Washington DC’s parks and open spaces were planned, acquired and developed is complex and has a direct bearing on how the spaces function and are managed today. Washington DC is rich with an abundance of parks and open space resources, encompassing nearly one quarter of the city’s land area, or 7,617 acres. As a result, Washington DC enjoys one of the highest rankings in overall parkland per capita and every year attracts millions of visitors who use the parks. The overall park network includes a wide variety of park types and sizes and is subject to growing pressures to meet both national and local needs. This pressure is felt most by NPS, which holds jurisdiction over the majority of parks and open space land resources in the city – managing more than 90 percent of the parkland - covering more than 6,700 acres, or 20 percent of the city land area (Capital Space, 2010). While much of this area consists of large parks such as Figure 2 Size Breakdown This effort incorporates Rock Creek Park, the city's small of Small Parks components of other landscapes also make an (292 total parks) planning documents from important contribution to the NPS and the National parks and open space network. > 1 Acre Capital Planning 0.5 to 1 Acre 35 Parks Commission (NCPC), 23 Parks 12% Figure 1 shows the 292 small 8% including the parks under the jurisdiction of Comprehensive Plan for the NPS (dark green) that are the National Capital, Capital subject of this planning effort and Space, the Memorials and Figure 2 shows the size < 0.1 Acre Museums Master Plan (2M breakdown of the parks. These 124 Parks Plan), Play DC Master Plan, 42% parks are a subset of the overall Foundation Plans, General 0.1 to 0.5 Acre NPS portfolio of parks shown in 110 Parks Management Plans, and green. In addition, the District of 38% other recent work Columbia’s Department of Parks addressing park and Recreation (DPR) and the management. 4 Chapter 1—IntroduCtIon NPS Mission: The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. District Department of Transportation (DDOT) The NPS mission is supported through management manage other small parks that are not included in policies and planning for the protection of each this effort. park’s fundamental resources and values, often defined in General Management Plans or Foundation NPS small parks are located within three NPS park Documents. These documents describe the park’s units: National Capital Parks-East (NACE), National purpose and significance, its fundamental resources Mall and Memorial Parks (NAMA), and Rock Creek and values, other important considerations, its Park (ROCR). As a result, small parks are managed by interpretive themes, desired visitor experiences, three different park superintendents often through a threats and opportunities to park resources, and the process that utilizes partnerships with other legislation, regulations, and other executive orders agencies and institutions for use and maintenance. that control its management. These documents often provide a broad look at each park unit, without The Value of Small Parks necessarily addressing the specific resources and Small parks come in many forms and shapes —from management requirements for the smaller designed landscapes to neighborhood open spaces components within the overall park landscape, and roadway medians. The condition of the parks, including small parks. In other words, many small resource values, and overall level of improvements parks are not directly addressed in these guiding are often heavily influenced by the conditions of the documents. immediate surrounding area. Commonly recognized small parks, such as Dupont Circle, are well- NPS follows a comprehensive set of guidelines and connected to the community and have a well-defined standards for the management of all parks and their purpose. They have historical and cultural resources. Small parks—even those that contain significance, are located in thriving commercial minor resources—are subject to the same laws, districts, and offer diverse programming through regulations, and policies that govern larger park active and established partnerships. In contrast, units with major resources. However, over time, local other small parks are more isolated or serve as a interests may influence the redevelopment or component of the transportation network with function of individual NPS small parks. Inappropriate limited resource values and limited designed uses or encroachments may have shifted a small landscape elements. park’s historic or intended function out of alignment with standard NPS policies or the specific When viewed individually, small parks may seem foundation plans for each park unit. disconnected from the larger urban open space network. However, together they contribute to the In addition to containing sensitive natural or cultural historic design framework of Washington DC and resources, small parks are critical components of collectively help preserve the landscape setting that the L’Enfant Plan. The strong geometric organization is defined by the L’Enfant and McMillan Plans (see of the city is reflected in the form of many of the following pages). individual small parks that are the focus of this planning effort. Small parks occupy the triangles, squares, ovals, and circles shaped by surrounding 5 SMALL PARKS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SMALL PARKS The City of Washington’s network of parks can be traced back to the historic plan of Washington prepared by Pierre Charles L’Enfant in 1791, and later the McMillan Plan in 1901 that proposed a linked system of parks and open spaces across the city. These plans laid the foundation for the parks and open spaces in the city today. L’Enfant Plan—Designed by Pierre Charles L’Enfant, the country’s new capital was an early American experiment in the use of Baroque urbanism. The newly formed Congress
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The D.C. Freeway Revolt and the Coming of Metro Part 5 After the Court Revolt
    The D.C. Freeway Revolt and the Coming of Metro Part 5 After the Court Revolt Table of Contents Considering the Three Sisters Bridge ............................................................................................. 2 The U.S. Court of Appeals Acts ..................................................................................................... 3 Reaction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Searching For a Way Forward ...................................................................................................... 12 Chairman Natcher’s Views ........................................................................................................... 22 The Kluczynski Hearing ............................................................................................................... 28 Martin Luther King, Jr. ................................................................................................................. 50 Seeking Elusive Compromise ....................................................................................................... 52 A Layman’s Guide ........................................................................................................................ 54 National Capital Planning Commission’s Future ......................................................................... 63 The City’s View ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Managed Properties in the District of Columbia
    United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees April 2005 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Managed Properties in the District of Columbia a GAO-05-378 April 2005 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Managed Properties in the District of Highlights of GAO-05-378, a report to Columbia congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In recent years, several challenges NPS manages 356 federal properties in the District, covering about 6,735 have emerged concerning future acres of land. Most of the properties are what NPS refers to as circles, recreational opportunities in the squares, and triangles, and are less than 1 acre in size. The second largest nation’s capital. These challenges total number of properties are parks and parkways, which represent about include ensuring that an adequate 93 percent of the total acreage for the 356 properties. supply of parkland and open space is available to meet the needs of an increasing resident population and NPS officials reported to GAO that 202 properties it manages in the District the estimated 20 million annual had various recreational facilities such as park benches, outdoor grills, and visitors to the District of picnic tables or shelters. Of the 202 properties, 25 had 205 sports facilities, Columbia’s cultural institutions, such as basketball and tennis courts and baseball and softball fields. historic sites, parks, and open spaces. Most of the properties with sports facilities were in good or fair condition, according to NPS deferred maintenance records, but information on the GAO identified (1) the universe of condition of individual sports facilities is limited.
    [Show full text]
  • The Respite Winter 2007
    National Park Service Park News U.S. Department of the Interior The offi cial newspaper of Rock Creek Park The Respite Winter 2007 Winter in Rock Creek Park WINTER IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. MANY PEOPLE TRAVEL TO Welcome from the warmer climates seeking milder temperatures and more sun- shine during the winter months. For the rest of us, winter Superintendent provides an opportunity to appreciate nature in all of her seasonal splendor. In Washington D.C., specifi cally Rock Rock Creek Park is a unique urban oasis in our nation’s capital. It offers Creek Park, winter is a chance to see the landscape around us visitors the opportunity to relax and without the camoufl age of foliage. Nature reveals Rock Creek refl ect. It is a respite from the every- Park’s best kept secrets in the winter. day. Whether you spent your child- hood wandering through these woods When it snows, animal tracks are seen on freshly fallen pre- or this is your fi rst visit to the park, you cipitation. To the exploring spirit, these tracks reveal the path will fi nd something that brings a smile to dens and nests that uncover the homes of park residents to your face and peace to your heart. who are often seen during other seasons. Hiking and biking on the park trails The land in winter is exposed - not a full exposure but a tan- are one of the more popular recre- talizing glint revealing our history and heritage. The Rock Deer at Rock Creek Park near the Nature Center ational activities.
    [Show full text]
  • National Capital Region of the National Park Service US Department of the Interior
    National Capital Region of the National Park Service US Department of the Interior National Capital Region Long Range Transportation Plan Final — December 2018 National Capital Region of the National Park Service US Department of the Interior National Capital Region Long Range Transportation Plan Final — July 2018 Cover Photos (clockwise from top left): Arlington Memorial Bridge; Washington Monument; Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Towpath; Lyndon B Johnson Memorial Grove; Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Back Cover Photo: Park ranger interacting with visitors on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Towpath Page intentionally left blank National Capital Region ii Long Range Transportation Plan This first National Capital Region Long Range Transportation Plan was prepared as a collaborative effort between the Washington Support Office Facilities Planning Branch, National Capital Regional Office, Denver Service Center, and the Federal Highway Administration’s Eastern Federal Lands Highway Divisions and John A Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Following a 30-day stakeholder review period, the final version of the National Capital Region Long Range Transportation Plan is hereby accepted by the National Capital Regional Director as of the date shown below. ACCEPTED Date Robert A. Vogel, Regional Director, National Capital Region NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Page intentionally left blank National Capital Region ii Long Range Transportation Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary x Background . x Purpose of the Plan . xi National Capital Region LRTP Vision . xii. Summary of Findings. xiii . Chapter 1 Planning Framework 1 Transportation in the National Capital Region . 2 Transportation Assets . 3 . The Project Process . 3. Goals and Objectives . 5 . Strategies . 8 Measuring System Performance .
    [Show full text]
  • ATP Performance Measures Database: 1
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE’S ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM: PILOT DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ATATSS-TRANSTRANSPORTATIPORTATION DATA PILOTLOT SURSURVVEYEY PPARKSARKS July 2004 – Februaruary 20200505 Denali Glacier Isle Royale Acadia Yellowstone Mesa Verde Zion Grand Canyon 8 Pilot Survey Parks MARCH 2006 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation NPS-Alternative Transportation Program: Pilot Data Collection Summary and Future Recommendations PREFACE This document is the culmination of three years effort of the Alternative Transportation Program (ATP) Data Needs Working Group. This group was composed of dedicated staff from the National Park Service (NPS), the Federal Highway Federal Lands Division (FHWA-FLD), the Federal Transit Administration Office of Planning and Environment (FTA), and the United States DOT John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center’s (Volpe Center) Office of Surface Transportation Programs. Funding support this endeavor was provided by the NPS Park Facility Management Division – Transportation Program and the FTA Office of Planning and Environment (Sean Libberton, FTA Project Sponsor). Within the NPS Transportation Program, both the Alternative Transportation Section (Lou DeLorme, Team Leader) and the Park Roads and Parkway Section (Mark Hartsoe, Team Leader) provided staff and financial support for the development of this document and the background work. The author of this document is David W. Jackson, Transportation Industry Analyst with the US DOT Volpe Center Planning and Policy Analysis Division (RTV-3B). The Pilot Data Collection Program could have not been possible without the extensive coordination, guidance, and outreach by Susan Grosser, the NPS ATP Data Collection Project Lead.
    [Show full text]
  • Ward 3 Heritage Guide
    WARD 3 HERITAGE GUIDE A Discussion of Ward 3 Cultural and Heritage Resources District of Columbia Office of Planning Ward 3 Heritage Guide Produced by the DC Historic Preservation Office Published 2020 Unless stated otherwise, photographs and images are from the DC Office of Planning collection. This project has been funded in part by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund grant funds, administered by the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Office. The contents and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This program has received Federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the District of Columbia. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its Federally assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Next page: View looking Southeast along Conduit Road (today’s MacArthur Boulevard), ca. 1890, Washington Aqueduct TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................. 1 Ward 3 Overview........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rock Creek Park Foundation Document Overview
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Rock Creek Park District of Columbia Contact Information For more information about the Rock Creek Park Foundation Document, contact: [email protected] or (202) 895-6000 or write to: Superintendent, Rock Creek Park, 43545 Williamsburg Lane, NW, Washington, DC 20008 Description Rock Creek Park administers 2,749 acres within the District of Columbia and is both an individual unit of the national park system as well as an administrative unit that oversees numerous park sites and resources beyond the original core of Rock Creek Park (US Reservation 339) addressed in the enabling legislation. The park administers a total of 99 additional areas, which include the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, the Old Stone House, part of the Civil Brief Description of Rock Creek Park and Associated Sites War Defenses of Washington (CWDW), Dumbarton Oaks Rock Creek Park. Rock Creek Park itself was first established Park, Meridian Hill Park, and Glover Archbold Park. These in 1890 to protect the natural and historical landscape of the sites were not included in the original enabling legislation of the park but were authorized for their own unique qualities Rock Creek Valley in Washington, DC. Stretching from the (see appendix A for enabling legislation and a list of sites and Maryland state line to the National Zoo, Rock Creek Park resources managed by Rock Creek Park). This document exists as a green oasis amidst the dense urban development contains analysis with specific guidance for planning and of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. The park was management of Rock Creek Park and its administrative park one of the first designated federal park units, and among sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Stewardship Strategy Summary
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY SUMMARY ROCK CREEK PARK DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEPTEMBER 2018 CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview .................................................................................................................. 1 Rock Creek Park .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Legislated Park Unit Managed by Rock Creek Park ............................................................................................................... 1 Associated Park Sites Managed by Rock Creek Park ............................................................................................................. 1 Brief Description of Rock Creek Park and Associated Sites .................................................................................................... 2 Park Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Park Significance .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Resource Stewardship Strategy Overview ......................................................................................................... 8 Relationship with Other Park Plans ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Consequences General Methodology for Assessing Impacts
    United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE National Capital Region Rock Creek Park 3545 Williamsburg Lane, N.W. Washington, DC 20008-1207 January 28, 2015 From: Nicholas Bartolomeo, Chief of Resource Management Re: Memo to File, AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Facility Colocation, PEPC Project 35769 This memo to file documents changes as of this date to the compliance of PEPC Project 35769, AT&T WTF Colocation, in Rock Creek Park. The site plan for AT&T’s facility colocation at the Verizon Wireless Colorado Avenue-Rock Creek Tennis Center monopole location was revised following the completion of NEPA and NHPA compliance by the National Park Service, Rock Creek Park in 2014. The site plan as submitted on December 4, 2014 to the National Capital Planning Commission for review reflects the current plan for this portion of the project. Specifically, the plan calls for the installation of 12 antenna on the existing Verizon monopole at the site, directly below the existing Verizon antenna. Ground equipment will be hosted in a 12’ x 22’ cabinet located due east of the monopole, directly adjacent to the existing tennis court facility and connected to the monopole by an underground cable conduit. National Park Service staff have reviewed these revised plan and concluded that impacts to natural and cultural resources to the site, as described in the approved project Environmental Screening Form and Assessment of Effects documentation, has not changed. Therefore, the approved project compliance documents will not be revised. This memo to file also documents changes to the proposed implementation of the project by AT&T.
    [Show full text]