[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43181-43182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21132]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts
Action: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
National Park Service (NPS) policy and Public Law 95-42 require the
preparation of a general management plan for every unit of the National
Park System. A Draft General Management Plan/Development Concept Plans/
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Wolf Trap Farm Park for the
Performing Arts was released to the public in January 1997. In order to
avoid incurring the unnecessary cost of reproducing the entire DEIS to
issue a final environmental impact statement (FEIS), when only minor
changes were necessary, an abbreviated FEIS was issued. This FEIS
consisted of errata sheets which did not alter the analysis contained
in the DEIS and NPS responses to public and agency comments. This
abbreviated format is permitted by the Council on Environmental Quality
regulation 40 CFR 1503.4(c). The FEIS became available in May 1997.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the
Council on Environmental Quality regulation (40 CFR 1505.2) the NPS has
prepared this Record of Decision to document the outcome of this
planning process. Prior to and while formulating a range of management
concepts, the planning team in conjunction with park and regional staff
conducted several public meetings and published a newsletter which
provided updates on the planning process. The DEIS analyzed four
alternatives for management and use of the performing arts park. All
four concepts shared the objective of promoting the performing arts at
Wolf Trap, maintaining and/or improving the high quality of the patron
experience, and ensuring that the park is a good neighbor to the
surrounding community all in an environmentally sound manner.
Decision
The NPS selected Alternative 4 (provide sufficient parking for all
patrons within the park boundaries without substantial additional
paving or structures, and improve patron services and facilities) as
the proposed action and will endeavor to implement this plan as
described below, and in the draft and final environmental impact
statement (released on May 22, 1997, and published in the Federal
Register
[[Page 43182]]
on May 30, 1997) for Wolf Trap Farm Park.
Proposed Action
In this action proposed by the National Park Service, sufficient
parking would be provided for all visitors within the park boundaries
without substantial additional paving or structures. To achieve
adequate parking space, approximately 3 acres of forested area (4% of
the existing wooded area in the park) would be cleared and a portion of
the adjacent grass parking areas regraded. Along the eastern and
northeastern edges of the park, meadows are being allowed to revert to
forested areas through natural succession (approximately 4 acres). The
existing paved parking areas would be repaved and striped to allow for
maximum capacity. All grass parking would be enhanced with lighted
walkways for safe and orderly pedestrian passage. The pedestrian
circulation of the park would be redesigned to allow for a more
organized approach to the Filene Center and associated areas. The
existing box office building and ancillary buildings at the plaza would
be removed and replaced with a single-story structure that would
consolidate all patron and visitor focused functions. A development
concept plan for the box office plaza building and the circle drive
area has been included as part of alternative 4. Although this
alternative requires the reduction of some trees and regrading hills,
steps would be taken to retain the rural feel and country character of
the site.
Summary of Other Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1 (No Action)
The continuation of current management practices, or no action,
alternative would continue to provide the best possible performance
experience within the existing infrastructure. No major modifications
to structures or parking and circulation facilities would be made.
Improvements in safety, security, and routine maintenance would be
undertaken as funding became available. The park would, however,
continue to experience parking and circulation problems, and
frustrations would continue because not all cars arriving at many
performances could be accommodated.
Alternative 2
Under this alternative, most parking impacts would be absorbed on
paved lots within the park boundaries. Many additional level areas with
good access to existing roads within the park would be paved and
striped for parking. Grass areas currently used for parking would be
paved and striped for safe and orderly parking. A remote parking area
and shuttle bus system would also be implemented for up to 350 cars.
Some areas of the park's country character would be sacrificed to
improve patron convenience, services, and safety, and to minimize
parking impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
Alternative 3
Under this alternative, vehicles and pedestrians would be
accommodated in safe, separate areas, and support facilities would be
upgraded to be more in concert with the Filene Center performing arts
complex. A four story parking structure would be built onsite, and
existing paved parking lots would be improved to absorb all
performance-generated parking impacts. Grass parking would be
eliminated, and a more dramatic approach to the Filene Center would be
created. The box office plaza area would be redesigned for patron and
visitor services, safety, and appreciation and understanding of the
performing arts. The intent would be to separate vehicular traffic from
pedestrians, to capitalize on the country setting and the ambience, and
to reduce the visual interference of support facilities.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The environmentally preferable alternative is Alternative 4, the
proposed action. Environmentally preferable is defined as, ``the
alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as
expressed in NEPA's section 101'' (P.L. 91-190, as amended). Generally,
this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the
biological and physical environment. This term also indicates the
alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic,
cultural, and natural resources.
The main components of Alternative 4 are accommodating all patron
parking needs inside the park while retaining the natural surfaces in
the park, and upgrading patron support and interpretation services.
These improvements will allow natural percolation of rainfall, protect
water quality, maintain the country setting, remove parking impacts to
the neighborhood, provide an increased level of safety for patrons, and
enrich the patron experience. In selecting the environmentally
preferable alternative and the proposed action, decision makers often
must balance one environmental value against another and make difficult
choices. Finally, the agency has to determine if its decision is in
accordance with the Congressional policies of NEPA.
Rationale for Decision
Alternative 3 provides for the construction of a four story parking
structure to concentrate vehicular impacts to a smaller portion of the
park. It also called for a redesigned plaza and approach. Because the
impacts in this alternative are concentrated and easy to mitigate this
option may appear to be the alternative which would most thoroughly
protect park resources and the patron experience. However, it is
improbable that funding for these improvements would be available.
Also, the scale and appearance of a parking structure at this location
may diminish the country setting of the neighborhood. Thus, Alternative
3 would not be preferable to the proposed action. Alternative 2 would
cause detrimental environmental impacts. Alternative 1 would not
effectively resolve the parking impacts, patron services, and safety
issues raised during the study.
Public comment and input from agencies and the Wolf Trap Foundation
assisted in the decision to select Alternative 4. Careful consideration
and comparison of the alternatives by the planning team led the team to
conclude that Alternative 4 best defines a strategy to meet the park
objectives of promoting high quality performing arts experiences, land
stewardship, and interpretation to enhance performing arts
appreciation, while protecting the environment and causing minimal
impact.
Conclusion
The planning and decision making process which resulted in
selection of the proposed action, as identified and detailed in the
draft and final EIS for this project and described above, was conducted
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Council on
Environmental Quality regulations. The proposed action is accepted and
approved.
Dated: July 29, 1997.
Terry R. Carlstrom,
Regional Director, National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 97-21132 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
