Gettysburg National Military Park
General Management Plan 1999 History

Gettysburg National Military Park
Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
Plan Summary
June 17, 1998

The Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (GMP) for Gettysburg NMP presents and analyzes four alternatives for the draft GMP at Gettysburg National Military Park. The GMP responds to the park’s mission and its four mission goals, and includes management prescriptions, or statements regarding the conditions to be attained and appropriate actions to attain them, for each alternative.

In the process of preparing the draft GMP, new research and analysis was conducted on the battle and its relationship to the contested terrain. Based on careful study of period documents, an area within the park has been delineated which was the location of the most intense combat. This area, characterized as the major battle action area, has been used to differentiate actions for the GMP alternatives. In addition, an extensive assessment was conducted to compare present day landscape features to those that existed at the time of the battle, and to identify those features that were significant to the outcome of the battle.

The framework for the draft GMP and its four alternatives responds directly to the park’s mission goals, defined above. Management prescriptions for each alternative, representing conditions to be attained as a consequence of the alternative, have been defined in relationship to each mission goal. Four GMP alternatives are described and their impacts are assessed.

Alternative A describes the continuation of the existing management direction at the park, and constitutes the no-action alternative. It retains a contemporary agricultural landscape across the majority of the battlefield. This represents continued response to visitor use and resource management issues, but no major change in management direction or facilities management. Alternative A retains the current Visitor Centers.

Alternative B proposes rehabilitation of the large-scale elements of the park’s historic landscape to re-institute the pattern of open fields and wooded areas at the time of battle. This would restore within the Battle Action Resource Area the fields of view that prevailed in 1863. 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. This alternative would include a new Visitor Center, located at a site outside the Battle Action Resource Area, enabling restoration of the Ziegler’s Grove and the end of the Union Line on the 3^rd 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 non-combatants, and to interpret the relationships between the Borough of Gettysburg and the battlefield, expanding partnerships and cooperative initiatives with entities at all levels. Additionally, Alternative B would incorporate measures to manage visitor use and transportation to both respond to visitor desires to see portions of the battlefield and to protect against resource damage.

Alternative C, which is the park proposal, incorporates nearly all elements of Alternative B, including a new Visitor Center. Within the Battle Action Resource Area, it also adds 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 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 D would incorporate nearly all the measures identified in Alternative C, including a new Visitor Center, 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 landscape system of monuments, avenues, and monument groups, emphasizing the use of the commemorative avenue system as a primary point of orientation to the park.

Alternative A would result in continued deterioration of the park’s natural and historic resources, adversely affecting visitation levels and causing modest negative economic impacts to the surrounding area. The retention of current agricultural leasehold practices would continue impacts on water quality, soil erosion, archeological resources, and historic features and landscape of the battleground. The archives and collections of the park would continue to deteriorate, with further likely damage to the Cyclorama painting. Limitations on interpretive content and continued visitor over-use at key sites would continue, to the detriment of the park’s resources and with continued diminishment of the quality of the visitor experience.

Alternatives B, C, and D have generally similar impacts. All three would result in significantly improved resource protection and visitor experiences in the park, as well as overall increased economic impacts in the community because of increased visitation levels. All three alternatives would greatly improve the historic setting of the battle, and would result in the removal of a significant intrusion on the field of Pickett's Charge. Expansion of partnerships to achieve higher levels of cooperation include interpretation of key resources within the Borough of Gettysburg. These actions would enhance the potential of any of the action alternatives to positively impact the local economy. Any of the Action alternatives may result in some adverse effect on individual animals and plants, due to the removal of woodlands necessary to reestablish the battlefield views characteristic of the 1863 period, and may cause some potential for adverse impact to archeological resources and existing site vegetation. The above impacts can be mitigated through pro-active measures to identify archeological resources and best practices for erosion control and re-vegetation. Of the Action alternatives, Alternative C, the park’s proposal, would provide the most desirable combination of resource preservation, cost-effectiveness, visitor experience, and positive environmental impact. It concentrates the most significant landscape improvements in the major battle action area, enabling improved interpretation and management of visitor demand.

1999 General Management Plan History

Park Planning

National Park Service
Gettysburg National Military Park
97 Taneytown Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325