[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