Home  •   Search  •   Newsletter/Archive  •   Contact Us   

May 8, 2002

Chairman John V. Cogbill, III
Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission
401 9th Street, NW
North Lobby, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20576


Dear Chairman Cogbill:

We are writing to ask to meet with you and staff about our serious concerns regarding the Programmatic Agreement (PA) and the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the National Park Service's (NPS) Washington Monument project.

We are quite concerned that officials of the NPS are making inaccurate statements to the effect that the National Coalition to Save Our Mall is prepared to sign the Programmatic Agreement for NPS's Washington Monument project. We need to set the record straight.

After the March 26 consultation meeting, we were indeed hopeful that many of our concerns were being addressed in the revised PA. The "Final Draft" sent to us on April 2, however, included a new and quite unacceptable clause at #11 stating that NPS could withhold documents "on a document by document basis." The wording in the PA in Chapter 10 of the EA is that "NPS may, at its discretion, withhold documents relating to this Undertaking." We would like to know if these changes were made before or after your signature? We were informed by NCPC staff that "the Chairman considered the views of staff, fellow Commission members, consulting parties, and others." But was there any attempt to consult with the public parties to the process?

The "withholding" clause is particularly troubling because before April 2 we had already been unsuccessful in our attempts to receive from the NPS a number of documents and reports. For instance, since February we have repeatedly requested the Scope of Services for the contracts already let - the NPS officials stated at the February Section 106 meeting that Design/Build contracts had been signed in December - so that we could understand what work had already been authorized. After failing to receive any replies to our emails, letters, and phone messages, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Last week that request was denied and we are now appealing. Why would NPS be unwilling to allow parties to the Section 106 process see the standard Scope of Services (NPS's task items) information?

Since February, when the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation first asked Sally Blumenthal for a written copy of the NPS' policy for peer review, we have been waiting to see that document. We agree with Commissioner Friedman who, at one NCPC meeting, noted the utmost importance of securing second opinions for engineering and architectural projects. In addition, we asked at the March consultation meeting to see the geotechnical studies and cultural landscape reports, which Sally Blumenthal assured us would be completed by early April. To date, we have received none of these essential documents. This means that NCPC, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the public have inadequate information with which to evaluate the EA.

ANC Commissioner Dorothy Miller, who testified at the last NCPC hearing, is also concerned by the lack of communication from NPS and of information that would enable her to inform her commission so that members can take a position on the PA and the EA at the regularly scheduled monthly public meeting on May 15. She was puzzled to see your signature on the PA after hearing the discourse at NCPC on the vote. She questions why the PA faxed to her only yesterday does not show a signature by the Commission of Fine Arts.

Moreover, we would like to know why the "principals" all signed the PA before the public was asked to do so. John Parsons informed us only this morning that the public parties to the agreement will now be asked to sign. How did the government agencies know what the public thought of the PA? As we have indicated to you, we have serious reservations about signing it as it was amended after March 26, the date of our last public consultation.

We understand that the NCPC is playing a leading role in the Section 106 process. We are disturbed, however, that the principal parties are not proceeding in good faith. At the April NCPC meeting, you clearly indicated that alternatives, such as the visitor screening plan proposed by Don Hawkins of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, would be considered, but the EA mentions only two alternatives and makes no mention of Mr. Hawkins' idea. NCPC staff reviewed the EA prior to its release, but there are serious gaps in the information it provides, as we mentioned in our email to Gene Keller (attached). Therefore, we respectfully request a meeting with you and staff to discuss our concerns. This needs to happen as soon as possible.

Time is short, as the EA review ends on May 23. More important, the NPS is asking for "preliminary design" approval from the Commission of Fine Arts on May 16. Preliminary approval should not, however, be sought until the environmental review is complete, since there may be substantial changes to the design as a result of that review.

We appreciate your timely reply to our request for a meeting.

Sincerely,

Judy Scott Feldman, Chairman

Attachment

cc. All NCPC Commissioners, Patricia Gallagher, Director Fran Mainella (NPS), Bryan Mitchell, Arnold Goldstein, Chairman John Nau (ACHP), John Fowler, Martha Catlin, Chairman J. Carter Brown (CFA), Charles Atherton, Frederick Lindstrum, Dorothy Miller (ANC-2A), Gregory McCarthy (DCHPO), Don Hawkins (Committee of 100), James Symington (Wash.Mon. Society), T. David Bell (DCPL), Richard Moe (National Trust), Marcia Argust (ASLA), Maureen Cyron (Guild of Prof. Tour Guides), Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton

Attachment

May 7, 2002

To: gene.keller@ncpc.gov
From: "Judy S. Feldman"
Subject: RE: Response to Question Concerning Washington Monument Environmental Assessment Preliminary Review
Cc: bill.dowd@ncpc.gov, wayne.costa@ncpc.gov, nancy.witherell@ncpc.gov, ash.jain@ncpc.gov, Martha Catlin, jfowler@achp.gov

Dear Mr. Keller:

Thank you for the reply. You state that the EA "constitutes the information and analysis on which to base a decision". However, the EA does not include the full data, and that is our primary concern. The EA is the National Park Service's interpretation of certain, selected data. How can NCPC or the public review and evaluate the NPS's interpretation if we do not have full access to the same scientific and cultural data upon which they based their conclusions? That is the basis of our question to NCPC regarding your review of the EA before it was released.

For example, the EA mentions the water table level and soils without actually providing the geotechnical report from which that information was taken. But that data is needed so that NCPC and the public can evaluate the EA's conclusions. Last month, the National Coalition mailed to NCPC the geotechnical reports done in 1933, 1966, 1973, and 1984. This is all public information. The data those earlier studies contain about the Monument's historically unstable soils and water table level are the basis of our concerns and, we believe, are among the reasons that the NPS rescinded, on February 6, its January finding of "no adverse effect". The EA's discussion of soil and water conditions, however, is simply inadequate compared to the 1933 and other reports. It is alarming to us that the EA proposes more dramatic changes to the Washington Monument than some of the earlier proposals, and yet it provides less information and shows less caution with regard to potential harm to this preeminent cultural resource. More data, more information is needed.

Another example is the limited discussion of cultural resources. The EA mentions that the Cultural Landscape is still in preparation. However, at the Section 106 meeting on March 26, Sally Blumenthal assured us more than once, and quite insistently, that both the EA and the Cultural Landscape Report would be completed and in our hands "by early April". Certainly, the full report is needed before NCPC or the public can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the NPS's conclusions in the EA. In my quick first reading of the EA, for instance, I found no mention of the historic Jefferson Pier. If this is true, it would appear, then, that the cultural property was not fully identified, and that the effect of the bermed walls on this historic resource has not been addressed. We depend on the historians to help us understand the full historic and cultural value BEFORE we evaluate the effect of changes.

The process is only as good as the participants make it. The EA is only as good as the data upon which its conclusions are based. Since no one wants to harm the Monument, that should mean that full public and open discussion of all the scientific and cultural information is the goal. We believe that the Washington Monument project must receive only the most careful and cautious public review. We are in communication with you because the NCPC is an important link in assuring that happens.

Judy Feldman
National Coalition to Save Our Mall

Back to the top

Copyright © 2008 National Coalition to Save Our Mall Inc. All Rights Reserved