[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4325-4328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2209]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Rock Creek Tennis Stadium Record of Decision
Summary
Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332 et seq.) and the regulations promulgated by the Council
of Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2), the Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, has prepared a Record of Decision on
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Creek Tennis
Center and Associated Recreation Fields, Washington, D.C., (FES
950286). This Record of Decision is a concise statement of what
decisions were made, what alternatives were considered, the basis for
the decision, and the mitigating measures developed to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
Background
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was to
examine impacts related to the activities at the tennis center and
surrounding fields so those impacts could be considered in making a
decision regarding future management of the Rock Creek Park Tennis
Center and associated recreation fields. Currently, two major
professional tennis tournaments a year may be held at the stadium under
the auspices of the Washington Tennis Foundation. The Washington Tennis
Foundation, as well as other groups and organizations, has asked to use
the tennis center for a variety of activities.
Decision
The National Park Service will implement alternative 2, the
preferred alternative, with two modifications.
Alternative 2 allows for one professional tennis tournament to be
held annually at the tennis center. Amateur and league tennis and
public court use and instruction would continue. This alternative
assumes that the professional tournament would be operated in
accordance with the Interim Operating Plan between the National Park
Service and the Washington Tennis Foundation and existing regulations
(36 CFR 7.96) with regard to limited commercial activities at the
tennis center.
The modifications to alternative 2 are as follows. First, the
National Park Service will retain management authority to consider
allowing a second large-scale tennis event on a case-by-case basis
under certain circumstances (but only when such an event would generate
a significant amount of funding in advance for tennis programs for
youth, seniors and special populations). Second, the National Park
Service will retain management authority to consider allowing parking
on the grass recreational field south of Morrow Drive (the south field)
on a trial basis in varying configurations provided that weather and
field conditions permit and provided that recreational opportunities on
the field remain and can be satisfactorily segregated.
In order to implement this decision, previous agreements with the
Washington Tennis Foundation that allow a second tournament would be
superseded by a new agreement restricting the use of the center to one
annual professional tournament. The Washington Tennis Foundation would
not have any contractual rights to a second tournament. As part of the
new agreement, the National Park Service would seek funding or
reimbursement from the Washington Tennis Foundation for repairs of
structural defects and/or accessibility modifications to the tennis
stadium.
The annual professional tennis tournament would last approximately
20 days--7 days for the setup of equipment and facilities, 8 days of
tournament play, and 5 days for takedown of equipment and facilities.
Attendance would be limited to 7,500 spectators per session.
In addition to restrictions for parking on the fields that were
incorporated into alternative 2, the mitigation measures adopted are
improving uses of remote parking lots and a shuttle bus system,
attempting to restrict on-street parking, and prohibiting concurrent
events at both the Rock Creek Tennis Center and the Carter Barron
Amphitheatre.
Alternatives Considered
Four alternatives were dismissed from further analysis in the EIS.
Changing the jurisdiction of stadium management from the National Park
Service to another governmental entity such as the District of Columbia
and operating all stadium activities under a concession contract were
eliminated because these alternatives would not alter the magnitude of
the impacts. Creating a recreational use zone encompassing the stadium
and fields with distinct operational policies and objectives, and
limiting the attendance levels and duration of stadium activities were
incorporated into the alternatives as mitigation measures, where
appropriate,
[[Page 4326]]
rather than treated as a separate, distinct EIS alternative.
The National Park Service considered six alternatives in the EIS.
The principal difference among them was the type and number of events
that would be allowed at the tennis center. The alternatives may be
summarized as follows:
Alternative 1: Amateur and league tennis events only.
Alternative 2: One professional tennis tournament annually.
Alternative 3: Two professional tennis tournaments annually.
Alternative 4: Two professional tennis tournaments annually with
additional impact mitigation.
Alternative 5: An unlimited number of professional tennis
tournaments annually.
Alternative 6: A variety of events and activities.
Alternative 7: Provided for the relocation of professional
tournaments in conjunction with removal of the stadium.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s)
The environmentally preferred alternatives are alternative 1 and
alternative 7. These alternatives best protect, preserve, and enhance
the historic, cultural, and natural resources in the area because all
of their impacts except those to Washington Tennis Foundation programs
benefiting youth, seniors and special populations are beneficial or
negligible to minors. This is illustrated by Table 1 in the EIS.
Basis for Decision
Alternative 1, amateur and league tennis events only, and
alternative 7, relocation of professional tournaments, were rejected
for the same several reasons. Both these alternatives would eliminate
the Washington Tennis Foundation's ability to have any professional
tennis tournament in the tennis stadium. As described in the EIS, this
would have, potentially, a very significant effect upon the Washington
Tennis Foundation's programs, which provide recreational tennis
opportunities and other benefits to youth and special populations.
There is a very high demand for new tennis recreational facilities
in the District of Columbia and most of the total demand is unmet (See
Figures 2 and 3 in EIS). The Brightwood area where the tennis center is
located has been consistently used to provide for various passive and
participatory recreational activities since at least 1904, when a
summer camp for underprivileged children began operating using some of
the farm buildings that existed within the park at that time. There is
also a long history of providing tennis facilities for recreational and
professional use within Rock Creek Park. In 1922, eight clay courts
were built at the intersection of Morrow Drive and present-day Stage
Road. In 1924, four additional courts were built and at least two of
the original courts were converted to hard courts. An annual
professional tennis tournament has occurred at the tennis center since
1969 when the Washington Star International Tennis Championships (later
the Sovran Tennis Classic) was held here under the auspices of the
Washington Tennis Foundation.
In addition, eliminating the Washington Tennis Foundation's
contractual right would have an impact upon the Department's existing
contractual agreement with the Washington Tennis Foundation, which
could be costly financially. It was decided not to unnecessarily
squander the $12 million dollar investment made in the stadium by the
Washington Tennis Foundation and to allow at least one professional
tennis tournament to occur, to help support the Washington Tennis
Foundation's programs, if the environmental impacts were determined to
be acceptable. Alternatives 2 and 3 were found acceptable.
Alternative 5 (unlimited number of professional tennis tournaments
annually) and 6 (variety of events and activities) were rejected
because they would have potentially significant adverse impacts upon
noise and land uses/character that could not be mitigated, and because
of their potentially significant impact upon park operations. These
were considered unacceptable impacts.
Alternative 4, two professional tennis tournaments annually with
impact mitigation, was rejected because it consisted merely of analysis
of the several different possible mitigation measures as applied to
alternative 3. Several of these mitigation measures were mutually
exclusive. For example, there would be no need to construct both an
onsite parking annex lot and a parking garage. Furthermore, the
mitigation measures could also be applied to other alternatives, such
as alternative 2. Thus, it made more sense to consider alternative 3
and other alternatives and then consider the mitigation measures
analyzed under alternative 4.
The impacts of alternatives 2 and 3 were considered acceptable
given the public benefits resulting from allowing a professional tennis
tournament to take place at the stadium (see discussion of alternatives
1 and 7 above). Alternative 2 was the preferred alternative because the
impacts would be less severe. Both alternatives 2 and 3 were ultimately
rejected as too limiting of management flexibility in the future.
Alternative 2 limits use to one large-scale professional tennis
tournament while under Alternative 3 the Washington Tennis Foundation
retains a right to hold two professional tennis tournaments.
Instead, the National Park Service decided to retain management
authority to consider allowing a second large-scale tennis event during
a year on a case-by-case basis under certain special circumstances. In
order for the National Park Service to consider allowing a second
large-scale tennis event, the Washington Tennis Foundation will have to
submit details of their proposed event and evidence that the event will
provide a significant sum certain in advance to be applied to the
direct benefit of Washington Tennis Foundation programs for youth,
seniors and special populations. The National Park Service will then
decide whether the public benefit warrants allowing the proposed event
to occur given the likely impacts of the event.
The National Park Service has also decided to modify alternative 2
in one other respect. In addition to allowing parking on the north
field (as has been occurring for the past few years under an interim
operating plan), the National Park Service has decided to retain
management flexibility to consider allowing some parking on parts of
the south field, on a trial basis. However, as discussed in the
Mitigation section below, the National Park Service has decided to
limit the conditions for parking on the south field by specifying that
it be of varying configurations, on a trial basis, weather and field
conditions permitting, and provided that recreational opportunities on
the field remain and are segregated from the parking. In considering
such experiments on a year-to-year basis, the National Park Service
will consult with the community concerning tradeoffs between parking
impacts and recreational use of the south field under various trial
configurations.
This change to alternative 2 is consistent with the EIS.
Alternative 2 in the EIS provides for the professional tennis
tournament to be operated only in accordance with the Interim Operating
Plan, which allows parking on the north field, subject to field
conditions. However, the EIS examines the impact of allowing parking on
the south field in addition to the north field in great detail under
this alternative.
[[Page 4327]]
The south field is no less suited for parking than the north field.
In fact, parking on the south field would result in less runoff and
erosion and contribute lower sedimentation loads to drainage ways that
eventually lead to Rock Creek. However, as evident in the EIS, the
impacts of parking on both fields would be cumulative.
The restrictions placed on allowing parking on the south field
(e.g., the requirement that recreational opportunities remain) means
that the entire south field will never be filled to capacity with
vehicles. It also means that the National Park Service could mitigate
against damage to the south field by rotating the portions of the field
that was used for parking, or by rotating use of the north and south
fields in alternate years. The EIS analyzes the impact of parking on
the entirety of both the north and south fields at the maximum capacity
of those fields, weather and field conditions permitting. If only one
professional tennis tournament were held in each year, the impacts that
would result from the Selected Action would be less severe than those
discussed in the EIS for the preferred alternative. Under a worst case
scenario, such as the National Park Service allowing the Washington
Tennis Foundation a second large-scale tennis event with some parking
on the south field several years in a row, the long-term impacts would
approach those resulting from implementation of alternative 3 in the
EIS.
Mitigation
Mitigation measures were considered mostly for events with higher
attendance levels (between 5,000 and 7,500 spectators) because the
majority of potentially significant impacts occur at this level. The
mitigation measures examined under alternative 2 were constructing an
onsite parking annex lot, limiting the scale and timing of tournament
sessions, improving remote parking and shuttle systems, and eliminating
field parking and improving field conditions. In addition, the EIS
discussed several other mitigation measures, such as constructing a
parking garage, installing berms and plant materials to buffer the
visual aspects of the structures, closing the Colorado Avenue exit,
eliminating tennis event parking in all other areas of the park, and
restricting on-street parking in the surrounding neighborhoods to
residents.
The Preferred Mitigation Strategy developed for the EIS calls for
restricting all onsite tennis event parking to the paved parking lots
adjacent to the Stadium (Lots A, B, and C). Tennis event parking would
be completely restricted in all areas of the park. Parking would not be
allowed on any turf areas within the Park including the north and south
fields adjacent to the stadium. On-street parking in the surrounding
neighborhoods would be restricted to residents only. Patrons not
parking onsite would have to park in designated remote parking areas
and arrive via a shuttle bus system.
The measures in the Preferred Mitigation Strategy being adopted are
improving remote parking and shuttle systems, and attempting to
restrict on-street parking to residents only. Improving remote parking
and shuttle systems includes providing one or more remote parking areas
that are safe, easy to find and access, and are efficient with respect
to the operation of the shuttle service. It also includes providing a
reliable, safe, and efficient shuttle service between the remote
parking areas and the tennis center. The National Park Service's
ability to restrict on-street parking to residents through the use of
barricades depends upon the willingness of the District of Columbia to
allow and enforce these restrictions. Residents are free to establish a
residential parking zone that would restrict on-street parking on event
days to residents only.
The implementation plan for these mitigation measures as set forth
in the EIS is not adopted. It was meant more as an example of how to
implement the Preferred Mitigation Strategy and is based on a scenario
where there is no parking on the fields or elsewhere within Rock Creek
Park. Also, the National Park Service does not find it appropriate to
dictate marketing and incentive strategies (see Appendix A of the EIS)
to the Washington Tennis Foundation.
In addition to deciding to improve remote parking and shuttle
systems and attempting to restrict on-street parking to residents, the
National Park Service has decided to restrict parking on both fields
depending on weather and soil conditions and to further restrict
parking on the south field. This falls far short of eliminating field
parking altogether, which was adopted as part of the Preferred
Mitigation Strategy in the EIS.
Parking on the fields has impacts on natural resources, recreation,
and the community. The impacts to natural resources and recreation stem
from damage to the grass and soil of the fields causing erosion that
leads to increased sedimentation loads to drainage ways and compaction
of soils leading to a moderate to potentially significant decrease to
the water quantity of Rock Creek. Damage to the grass and soil of the
fields also affects recreational uses because the community may be
unable to use a field while it is recovering from these impacts. Other
impacts to the community from parking on the fields include traffic
congestion and noise.
The National Park Service decided to restrict onfield parking
rather than eliminate it entirely because most of the impacts to
natural resources and recreation can be reduced significantly without
eliminating parking entirely. The turfgrasses and soil structure of the
fields are most susceptible to damage when vehicular traffic occurs
during wet soil conditions and/or the soil is already at or near its
field capacity. The bulk of the damage can be avoided by prohibiting
parking on the field during such conditions.
The National Park Service has also chosen to restrict parking on
the south field, but to allow for experimentation with some limited
parking there on a trial basis, in varying configurations, and provided
that recreational use remain and be segregated from the parking. This
will further reduce damage to the grass and soil of the south field
even if parking were allowed on the south field during each large-scale
tennis event. In addition, the National Park Service is not obligating
itself to allow any parking on the south field in any given year; the
decision would be a discretionary one. The National Park Service
expects to allow some level of parking on the south field, weather and
field conditions permitting, during the next few years in order to
implement the ``trial basis.'' This trial basis period will end when
the National Park Service determines it has gathered sufficient
information on different parking configurations.
Eliminating all field parking would remove the natural resource and
recreation impacts from parking vehicles on the field. It would,
however, increase the impacts from traffic and congestion (e.g., noise)
on the surrounding neighborhoods because some tennis event patrons
would choose to look for parking in the residential areas even if the
shuttle service were excellent and well marketed.
Another parking measure analyzed as part of the Preferred
Mitigation Strategy was the elimination of parking at other areas
within Rock Creek Park such as the picnic groves, maintenance facility
and nature center parking areas. This measure was ultimately rejected.
Parking in these areas does not measurably add to impacts on the
environment of the community.
The mitigation measures that were not parts of the Preferred
Mitigation
[[Page 4328]]
Strategy were also considered further. The National Park Service has
decided to continue to prohibit concurrent events at both the tennis
center and Carter Barron Amphitheatre.
The remaining measures were rejected as impractical. The parking
annex and onsite parking annex lot were eliminated because they would
be very costly, would only be necessary for those few days per year
when there were tournament events with more than 5,000 spectators,
would not mitigate noise impacts, would require removal of vegetation,
and would contribute to natural resource impacts. Limiting the scale of
tournament sessions (e.g., to fewer spectators) or the days of events
(e.g., 6 days of play instead of 12) were rejected because it would
probably render a professional tennis tournament untenable. Limiting
the timing of tournament would eliminate the ability to adjust to
differing conditions such as weather. Closing the Colorado Avenue exit
from lot C within the tennis center was not determined to be feasible
because it would cause gridlock, and would limit access by emergency
vehicles such as fire trucks or ambulances.
Additional Information
Additional copies of the approved Record of Decision may be
obtained from the Superintendent, Rock Creek Park, 3545 Williamsburg
Lane, NW., Washington, DC 20008. The officials responsible for
implementing the selected action are the Field Director, National
Capital Area, and the Superintendent, Rock Creek Park.
Dated: December 26, 1996.
Robert Stanton,
Field Director, National Capital Area.
[FR Doc. 97-2209 Filed 1-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M