Gettysburg National Military Park
General Management Plan 1999 History
Gettysburg National Military Park
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
June 1999
This Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) describes four alternatives for the management of Gettysburg National Military Park and the Soldiers' National Cemetery, the environment that would be affected by the alternatives, and the environmental consequences of implementing those alternatives. Four alternatives are presented, including the National Park Service's proposed plan.
Alternative A continues the existing management direction at the park and constitutes the no-action alternative. This alternative represents continued response to visitor use and resource management issues, but no major change in management direction or facilities management. Consistent with this emphasis, Alternative A retains the current Visitor Center and Cyclorama Building. Alternative B proposes rehabilitation to reinstitute the pattern of open fields and wooded areas present in 1863 in the Major Battle Action Area while managing contemporary agricultural uses to protect historic landscapes and resources. This alternative would move most park facilities, including the Visitor Center and Cyclorama, to sites outside the Major Battle Action Area, enabling rehabilitation of the battle landscape at the sites of these facilities. New park facilities would provide necessary services with minimum impact to the historic landscape. The above actions would improve central and park-wide interpretation, while placing the events of Gettysburg in the larger context of the Civil War and the Gettysburg Campaign. This alternative would significantly expand partnerships with the Borough of Gettysburg and other entities. Alternative B would incorporate measures to manage visitor uses and transportation, responding to visitor desires to experience the battlefield while minimizing resource damage. Alternative C, the proposed plan, would incorporate nearly all elements of Alternative B, adding rehabilitation of small scale landscape elements and structures within the Major Battle Action Area that were significant to the outcome of the battle. Alternative D would incorporate most of the measures identified in Alternative C, adding rehabilitation of small scale landscape and man-made elements across the entirety of the park. Additionally, Alternative D would restore original design elements of the commemorative system of avenues, monuments, avenues and monument groups. All the action alternatives (B, C, and D) would rehabilitate the Civil War portion of the Soldiers' National Cemetery to a level consistent with the overall concept of each alternative.
Environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the alternatives are addressed in the document. Impact topics include: cultural and natural resources; visitor interpretation and experience; socioeconomic environment, traffic, parking and transit; and park operations.
The Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement was available for public review from August 14, 1998 through October 17, 1998. Comments and responses on the draft are presented in Volume II of this final GMP/EIS. The Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement has been revised to reflect substantive comments and concerns received during the comment period, and the text and maps have been refined and clarified where necessary. Approximately 30 days after release of the document, a record of decision will be signed identifying the approved plan. Questions should be addressed to: Superintendent, Gettysburg National Military Park, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.
SUMMARY
Gettysburg National Military Park is the site of the American Civil War Battle of Gettysburg, the Soldiers' National Cemetery and the commemoration of the great battle by Civil War veterans. Significant sites on the battlefield began to be preserved almost immediately after the 1863 battle, and the park came under federal ownership in 1895. Administered by the National Park Service (NPS) since 1933, the park now incorporates 5,989 acres of land across which the battle, its aftermath and commemoration occurred.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of a General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) is to set forth a basic management philosophy for a park and to provide a framework for future decision making. At Gettysburg National Military Park (NMP), the GMP/EIS will provide guidance for stewardship and interpretation of the park's three nationally significant landscapes: the site of the Battle of Gettysburg, the Soldiers' National Cemetery, and the commemorative landscape of avenues and monuments.
The current GMP for the park was completed in 1982; although the plan continues to be used as a general guide for operations, it is no longer adequate to address the policy and operational issues now facing the park's managers. The Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg NMP presents and analyzes four alternatives for resource preservation and interpretation at Gettysburg NMP. It responds to the park's mission and its four mission goals. The Environmental impact Statement has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, which requires the evaluation of potential impacts resulting from federal actions. It includes a description of the environment affected by the proposed activities and the environmental consequences of implementing any of the alternatives.
The Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement is a programmatic statement. The proposed action and alternatives consist of a basic management framework for future decision making; therefore, site specific details and recommendations are not always included. Consequently, the statement presents an overview of potential impacts relating to the proposed program for each alternative. In the future, if NPS determines that specific actions called for by the approved plan require additional analysis of impacts, more detailed assessments of impacts may be prepared as part of necessary implementation planning. These documents would be tiered to this environmental impact statement.
In the process of preparing this GMP/EIS, NPS conducted new research and analysis on the battle and its relationship to the contested terrain. Based on careful study of period documents, NPS delineated those battlefield landscape features that were significant to the outcome of the battle, as well as the locations of combat. NPS also studied the features that characterize the Soldiers' National Cemetery and the battle commemoration. In addition, NPS conducted an extensive assessment to compare present day landscape features to those that existed at the time of the battle. This information was used to delineate resource areas: the Major Battle Action Area, the Soldiers' National Cemetery and the Battlefield Commemorative Area. These resource areas are used to differentiate actions for the GMP alternatives.
Concurrent with the GMP/EIS planning process, NPS has identified needs for its primary museum, collections storage and visitor center complex. Starting in 1995, NPS prepared a Draft Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment (DCP) to explore alternatives for the center. The DCP included four alternative concepts for the new facilities. NPS held a series of workshops, focus group meetings and community presentations to understand public concerns, write goals for the facility and set selection criteria. After considering public involvement on the DCP, NPS issued a Request for Proposals, Visitor Center and Museum Facilities, Gettysburg National Military Park (RFP). As a result of the RFP, NPS selected a private sector partner with whom it is negotiating. Based on public input received on the DCP, during the GMP/EIS planning process and other public comment, NPS determined that it was desirable to incorporate the issues of visitor use and interpretation at the museum complex as an element of this GMP/EIS. The proposed museum complex facility is subject to further revision through NPS' planning process.
Overview of Alternatives
The framework for the GMP/EIS and its four alternatives responds directly to the park's mission goals:
The landscapes, buildings, monuments, structures, archeological sites, artifacts and archives that are significant to the outcome and commemoration of the Battle of Gettysburg are protected, rehabilitated and maintained in good condition.
The public understands and appreciates the significant events associated with the Gettysburg Campaign and its impact upon the development of the nation.
Visitors safely enjoy high quality educational experiences accessible to all segments of the population.
Public and private entities understand the park's mission and act cooperatively to protect and interpret resources related to the Gettysburg Campaign and its commemoration.
Management prescriptions that define the conditions to be attained as a consequence of each alternative have been defined for each mission goal. Four alternatives are described:
Alternative A describes the continuation of the existing management direction at the park, and constitutes the no-action alternative. Under this alternative, NPS would continue to manage the park to preserve cultural resources. As a result of this alternative, NPS would continue to maintain a contemporary agricultural landscape across the majority of the battlefield. This alternative represents continued case-by-case response to visitor use and resource management issues, but no major change in management direction or facilities management. Collections and the cyclorama painting would continue to be stored and displayed in their current conditions. Alternative A retains the current Visitor Center and Cyclorama Center.
Alternative B proposes rehabilitation of the large-scale elements of the park's historic landscape to reinstitute the pattern of open fields and wooded areas present at the time of battle. This would restore within the Battle Action Resource Area the fields of view that prevailed in 1863 and allow visitors to understand how the armies moved across the landscape. Alternative B also proposes rehabilitation of the landscape features and circulation of the Civil War portion of the Soldiers' National Cemetery. It would also manage contemporary agricultural uses to protect landscape and historic resources.
A new museum complex, located at a site outside the Battle Action Resource Area, would provide necessary services with less impact to the historic landscape. It would allow restoration of the Ziegler's Grove and the center of the Union Line on the 3d day of the battle. A new facility would greatly improve museum interpretation at the park, and place the Gettysburg Battle in its larger context of the Civil War and the Gettysburg Campaign. This alternative would include measures to interpret the role of both soldiers and noncombatants, and would strengthen the interpretation of the role of the town of Gettysburg in the battle and its aftermath and link it to the battlefield. This alternative proposes expanding partnerships and cooperative initiatives with entities at all levels, especially those that could protect the historically agricultural character of significant battle and Civil War sites outside the park's boundary, the character of historic road corridors and park gateways, and important park viewsheds.
Alternative B would incorporate coordinated measures to manage visitor use and transportation, including a shuttle to provide access to park sites and a link to downtown. These would respond to visitor desires to see the battlefield while protecting sensitive cultural and natural resources from damage.
Alternative C, the proposed plan, builds on and incorporates most elements of Alternative B. It includes rehabilitation of the large-scale landscape elements present during the battle, and would rehabilitate the major landscape features and circulation of the Soldiers' National Cemetery. Alternative C also includes a new museum complex with greatly improved museum interpretation, and a set of coordinated measures to manage visitor use and transportation. Like Alternative B, this alternative would strengthen interpretation of the role of the town in the Battle and its aftermath, and link it to the battlefield. It would strengthen partnerships at all levels.
Within the Battle Action Resource Area, Alternative C also proposes the rehabilitation of those small scale landscape elements - fences, woodlots, orchards and other features - that were significant to the outcome of the battle. This alternative would enable visitors to appreciate the obstacles and terrain that confronted troops during the battle. Alternative C also calls for rehabilitation of the significant design features of the Civil War portion of the Soldiers' National Cemetery and the Battlefield Commemorative Resource Area. Its approach to rehabilitation would broaden the scope of overall interpretation and expand the number of venues that could be well understood by and interpreted to visitors, providing relief for heavily visited and adversely impacted sites.
Alternative C also proposes relocation of park offices and some visitor facilities to the Visitor and Park Services Overlay Area and away from the Major Battle Action Resource Area.
Alternative D builds on and would incorporate nearly all the measures identified in Alternatives B and C, including restoration of the features that were significant to the outcome of the battle and to the development of the Soldiers' National Cemetery and the commemorative areas of the park. It includes a new museum complex, actions to manage visitor use and transportation, and partnership initiatives with the Borough of Gettysburg and elsewhere.
In addition, Alternative D proposes rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction of all of the features present in 1863 that can be adequately identified and documented, across the entirety of the park. Alternative D would restore original design elements of the commemorative landscape system of monuments, avenues, and monument groups. In keeping with the restoration effort, it would emphasize the use of the commemorative avenues and monuments as the primary interpretation of the park and would eliminate modern interpretive measures, such as wayside exhibits.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative A would result in continued deterioration of the park's natural and historic resources. The retention of current agricultural leasehold practices would continue impacts on water quality, soil erosion, archeological resources, historic features and the landscape of the battleground. The archives and collections of the park would continue to deteriorate, with further damage likely to them and to the cyclorama painting. Lack of museum interpretation and continued visitor overuse at key sites would continue, to the detriment of the park's resources and with continued diminishment of the quality of the visitor experience. Parking will continue to be limited and traffic congestion will continue to occur on many weekends and most summer days at highly visited park sites.
The lack of reinvestment in the park would eventually erode visitation, which in turn would result in a slight decrease in visitor expenditures and tax generation in the local community. This would result in a loss of $3,763,100 by year 2007, a reduction of 3.3% from current levels. That would mean that all sectors of the tourist economy would experience a minor decrease in visitor spending.
The setting of the park and its gateways, and historically important views from the park, would gradually shift from its historic agricultural character to a more suburban and commercial character.
Alternatives B, C, and D share many resource protection elements and so have generally similar impacts.
Alternative B would result in generally improved protection of cultural resources. It would improve the historic setting of the battle, and would result in the rehabilitation of the historic features of the field of Pickett's Charge. The historic setting of the Soldiers' National Cemetery would be partially rehabilitated. The new museum complex would greatly improve the conditions for storage and preservation of the park's collection and archives, and would provide for the adequate preservation of the cyclorama painting.
Removal of non-historic vegetation would reduce habitat for some forested species but increase habitat for open land species. It would have negligible effect on water temperature and quality, and although short term impacts from soil erosion are possible, they can be mitigated and long term impacts would be negligible. Gradual transition to low or no-till methods of farming and removal of cattle from wetland areas will improve soil and water conditions, and actions to limit visitor impacts will reduce adverse impacts from soil compaction. The development of a new museum complex would impact about 15-18 acres of land, including 10 acres of prime farmland, and would impact up to two acres of small wetlands. However, moving the museum facility would allow about 22 acres to be restored to its historic agricultural condition.
The visitors' experiences would be improved, both in the museum and on the battlefield. New museum exhibits would provide substantially improved interpretation of the battle in its full context. Visitors will receive improved orientation and information about how to use the park. Rehabilitation of the landscape would allow visitors to understand the movement of the armies and the meaning inherent in the design of the Soldiers' National Cemetery and the commemoration of the park. Expanded partnerships with the Borough of Gettysburg would improve interpretation of the town and its role in the battle and its aftermath. These actions would cause a slight rise in visitation and would increase visitor spending. Parking availability, traffic congestion and pedestrian access would be improved through actions to manage traffic and parking.
Implementation of this alternative would result in increased visitation along with a 5% increase in per capita visitor spending over current levels. This means that visitors would spend an additional $10,918,600 within the local communities. This represents an increase of 9.7% over current spending levels, and would mean that spending in all sectors of the tourist economy would stay stable or increase, except for amusements, which might decrease. The direct contribution of the park to the local economy is likely to grow, and tax effects of all types would grow or remain stable. Changes in visitor spending patterns could have indirect effects on area development. An emphasis on partnership protection of important viewsheds and historic road corridors, including Baltimore Pike and Taneytown Road, would limit somewhat the amount of significant battle and Civil War sites outside the park's boundary lost to commercial and suburban development.
Alternative C, the proposed plan, would provide the most desirable combination of resource preservation, cost-effectiveness, visitor experience, and environmental impact. Like Alternative B, it results in improved protection of cultural landscapes, and the actions improve the readability and understandability of the park's nationally significant landscapes. Like Alternative B, Alternative C greatly improves the conditions in which the collections and the cyclorama painting are maintained.
The environmental impacts of Alternative C are similar to those of Alternative B. Removal of non-historic vegetation have generally the same effects as those described for Alternative B. The impacts of the new museum complex on natural resources are the same as in Alternative B.
Alternative C would improve visitors' experiences in the park, both in the museum and on the battlefield. Like Alternative B, new museum exhibits would provide substantially improved interpretation of the battle, in its full context. Visitors would receive improved orientation and information about how to use the park. Rehabilitation of the small scale features of the landscape would mean that visitors could understand not only the movement of armies but also how individual soldiers were affected during the battle. Expanded partnerships with the Borough of Gettysburg would improve interpretation of the town and its role in the battle and its aftermath. Like Alternative B, the actions to manage parking and traffic would improve these conditions in the park. New facilities for park staff would improve their operational efficiency and would allow non-historic uses to be removed from the park's major battle action resource area.
Implementation of this alternative would result in increased visitation along with a 10% increase in per capita visitor spending over current levels. This means that visitors would spend an additional $24,278,900 within the local communities. This represents an increase of 21.5% over current spending levels, and would mean that spending in all sectors of the tourist economy would stay stable or increase. The direct contribution of the park to the local economy is likely to grow, and tax effects of all types would grow or remain stable. Changes in visitor spending patterns could have indirect effects on area development. An emphasis on partnership protection of important viewsheds and historic road corridors, including Baltimore Pike and Taneytown Road, would limit somewhat the amount of significant battle and Civil War sites outside the park's boundary lost to commercial and suburban development.
Alternative D, like Alternatives B and C, would result in improved protection of cultural landscapes, and would improve the readability and understandability of the park's nationally significant landscapes. Like Alternative B, Alternative D greatly improves the conditions in which the collections and the cyclorama painting are maintained.
The environmental impacts of Alternative D are similar to those of Alternatives B and C. Removal of non-historic vegetation have generally the same effects as those described for Alternatives B and C, but more areas are cleared of non-historic vegetation. The impacts of the new museum complex on natural resources are the same.
Alternative D is similar to Alternative C in its impact on visitor experience. Alternative D would improve visitors' experiences in the park, both in the museum and on the battlefield. Like Alternatives B and C, new museum exhibits would provide substantially improved interpretation of the battle, in its full context. Visitors would receive improved orientation and information about how to use the park. Like Alternative C, rehabilitation of the small-scale features of the landscape would mean that visitors could understand not only the movement of armies but also how individual soldiers were affected during the battle. Expanded partnerships with the Borough of Gettysburg would improve interpretation of the town and its role in the battle and its aftermath. Like Alternative B, the actions to manage parking and traffic would improve these conditions in the park. New facilities for park staff would improve their operational efficiency and would allow non-historic uses to be removed from the park's major battle action resource area.
Like Alternative C, implementation of this alternative would result in increased visitation along with a 10% increase in per capita visitor spending over current levels. This means that visitors would spend an additional $24,278,99 within the local communities. This represents an increase of 21.5% over current spending levels, and would mean that spending in all sectors of the tourist economy would stay stable or increase. The direct contribution of the park to the local economy is likely to grow, and tax effects of all types would grow or remain stable. Changes in visitor spending patterns could have indirect effects on area development. An emphasis on partnership protection of important viewsheds and historic road corridors, including Baltimore Pike and Taneytown Road, would limit somewhat the amount of significant battle and Civil War sites outside the park's boundary lost to commercial and suburban development.
1999 General Management Plan History
National Park Service
Gettysburg National Military Park
97 Taneytown Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325