The WPA received a follow-up email on January 16, 2003 from Dr. Michael Doyle of Ball State University. Dr. Doyle was contracted to author the Statement of Significance of the Woodstock Site in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Gerry Foundation. Dr. Doyle’s initial letter supporting with the WPA’s preservation position is found in Appendix 1(B). The follow-up email, which is attached to this addendum, concerns a clarification of what he considers to be the "Festival Stage Area" (FSA) in the DEIS. He is clear that he believes it to mean the natural amphitheatre "bowl" in addition to the upper plateau of the site. Essentially, the entire 37.5 acre Woodstock site.

Dr. Doyle, who is a supporter of the preservation of the site, goes on to point out that the extreme modifications to the Woodstock site - the planned construction of Core Activities buildings on the top plateau, the need for constructing infrastructure (e.g. pathways, etc.) across the site, and extensive landscaping - is altering the site in a profound and unacceptable manner. These modifications are illustrated in the referred-to sections of the DEIS attached to this addendum (sections 6-17 through 6-20, 7-10 through 7-11).

Where we see the National Historic Trust as being of great value is through assisting the WPA in following up on a statement that is found in section 6-23 (Dr. Doyle makes an error in his email citing section 6-22). The passage from this section is as follows:

It is known from the SEQRA (New York State Environmental Quality Review Act) document that the Gerry foundation states its intention to register the Woodstock Site with the National Registry in the upcoming years. Through the WPA’s experience over the past two years, it can be said that groups or individuals who question and oppose the plans of the Gerry Foundation have been effectively shut out of any dialogue with this developer. Although the GF have complied with setting "periods for public comment", they have yet to accept the request from the WPA for a meeting. We would like to know whether the Gerry Foundation has the intentions of attempting to file with the National Registry knowing that it has violated its own statement of consulting interested parties prior to development. And in essence, stonewalling all opposition and contrary feedback.

We desire that the National Historic Trust assist through guidance to build a case as well, at a State level, that the site is eligible for State registration. If eligibility is confirmed at both the state and national level, the National Trust would be able to support the WPA in obtaining “public professional preservationist” assistance to aid the WPA in creating dialogue with the Gerry Foundation to seek viable alternatives, prior to extensive, irreversible damage to the site.

The WPA is concerned that given the go-ahead for initial development in the Spring 2003, and that the Gerry Foundation refuses to grant the WPA a meeting to discuss our concerns, GF may have never intended on seeking National and State Registration. Either way, seeking registrations in violation of their own EIS statement, or by abiding by the EIS statement (in 6-23), and not applying for registration at all, leads to the impression that the Gerry Foundation either does not care about preserving the site, or wishes to preserve the site on its own terms, without stakeholder feedback and involvement.

We believe, that such obvious barriers to preservation set up by corporate profiteers is exactly what the National Historic Trust was set up to assist with. The WPA truly hopes that the Trust will be able help us establish accountability with the Gerry Foundation before it is too late.