[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71483-71492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32836]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Record of Decision, General Management Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement, Gettysburg National Military Park, Adams County, PA
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the regulations promulgated by the
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2), the Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, has prepared a Record of Decision on
the Final General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Gettysburg National Military Park, Adams County, Pennsylvania.
DATES: The Regional Director, Northeast Region, approved the Record of
Decision on November 23, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Gettysburg National
Military Park, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325, telephone 717-
334-1124.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
The Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) has
prepared this Record of Decision on the Final General Management Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg National Military
Park (NMP), Pennsylvania. This Record of Decision is a statement of the
background of the project, the decision made, the basis for the
decision, other alternatives considered, the environmentally preferable
alternative, measures to minimize environmental harm, and the public
involvement in the decision making process.
Background of the Project
Park Significance, Legislative Purpose, Mission and Mission Goals
Gettysburg NMP, located in Adams County, Pennsylvania, was
established to preserve the nationally significant resources of the
Battle of Gettysburg, the Soldiers' National Cemetery and the
commemoration and preservation of the battlefield. The battle was the
largest and most costly in human terms to occur on the North American
continent. It lessened the Confederacy's ability to successfully wage
war and contributed to the ultimate preservation of the United States.
The creation of the Soldiers' National Cemetery, and Abraham Lincoln's
Gettysburg Address, heightened Americans' sense of the meaning and
importance of the war. The national park inspired by those who
experienced the Civil War preserved major features of the 1863
battlefield and commemorated the valor and sacrifice of the
participants. These elements make Gettysburg a place where Americans
continue to remember and honor those whose struggle led to a united
nation.
As part of its compliance with the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, NPS developed for each unit of the national park
system a legislative purpose statement, a mission statement and mission
goals. NPS developed these elements in consultation with the
Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer, the Gettysburg
National Military Park Advisory Commission, other interested agencies
and organizations, and the public.
The legislated purposes of Gettysburg NMP are:
To preserve the topographical, natural and cultural
features that were significant to the outcome of the Battle of
Gettysburg.
To mark the lines of battle, and to preserve the monuments
and markers that commemorate the struggle.
To provide opportunities for people to learn about the
Battle of Gettysburg in the full social, political and cultural context
of the Civil War and American History.
To preserve the objects, artifacts and archives that
document the battle, its aftermath and commemoration.
The mission that NPS has established for Gettysburg NMP is: To
preserve and protect the resources associated with the Battle of
Gettysburg and the Soldiers' National Cemetery, and to provide
understanding of the events that occurred here, within the context of
American history.
The four mission goals that NPS established for Gettysburg NMP are:
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.
The Need for a New General Management Plan
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. NPS'
Management Policies require that a park's GMP be reviewed periodically
and revised or amended as necessary to reflect new issues or management
objectives, or when it has exceeded the period for which it was
developed, which is usually 15 years. (NPS Management Policies, Chapter
2:6) The park's last GMP was completed more than 17 years ago, in 1982;
although the plan continues to be used as a general
[[Page 71484]]
guide for operations, it is no longer adequate to address the policy
and operational issues now facing the park's managers.
Since the completion of the 1982 plan, the boundaries of the park
have changed, adding more than one-third to its total acreage. NPS has
determined that the park contains three nationally significant
landscapes, only one of which NPS considered fully in the 1982 GMP.
Some of the most important resources of the park are sustaining damage
from visitors. In other cases, such as at Ziegler's Grove, Culp's Hill,
and the second day's battlefield, changes to the natural and built
environment have obscured the underlying historic landscape of the
battle. NPS surveys of its collections and archives revealed that lack
of adequate, environmentally controlled storage space was causing these
resources to deteriorate. The lack of an appropriately sized and
environmentally controlled gallery for the cyclorama painting, ``Battle
of Gettysburg,'' meant that it, too, was sustaining damage. The park's
increasing visitation, the changing educational needs of its visitors,
and the demands placed on its visitor infrastructure, exceed NPS'
ability to provide necessary services. Therefore, at Gettysburg NMP, a
new GMP/EIS was needed to 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 monument--as well as its
collections and archives. Consequently, the decision was made to begin
a general management plan with an environmental impact statement in
order to reach a decision regarding the specific resource conditions
and visitor experiences that NPS should achieve and maintain at
Gettysburg NMP.
The Planning Process
NPS began the EIS process on May 5, 1997 with the publication in
the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent to prepare a draft EIS.
Scoping meeting were held to identify issues and concerns relating to
the proposed general management plan. NPS published the Notice of
Availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register on August 18,
1998. The comment period on the draft ended October 17, 1998. NPS
responded to substantive comments in the Final GMP/EIS, which was
released on June 18, 1999. The Notice of Availability of the Final GMP/
EIS appeared in the Federal Register on June 25, 1999.
The Final General Management Plan/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 will be tiered from 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's commemoration. In addition, NPS conducted an
extensive assessment to compare present day landscape features to those
that existed at the time of the battle. Through this work, NPS divided
the resources of Gettysburg NMP into five priority and two other
categories. Resources in Priority categories 1, 2, and 3 are essential
to the reasons for which Gettysburg NMP was designated by Congress, and
their preservation and rehabilitation is mandatory if NPS is to meet
its legislative purposes at this park. Resources in Priority categories
4 and 5 include other types of resources, such as non-battle related
wetlands, that NPS must consider according to law or NPS policies.
Other categories included tools, such as visitor centers, and non-
contributing features.
This information was used to delineate resource areas: the Major
Battle Action Area, the Soldiers' National Cemetery and the Battlefield
Commemorative Area. Each of these resource areas contains a
concentration of essential park resources. NPS must protect these
resources in order to maintain unimpaired the values for which Congress
designated the park. NPS used these resource areas to differentiate
actions for the GMP alternatives.
Combination of Other Ongoing Planning With the General Management Plan
In 1994, several years before the initiation by NPS of a new GMP
for Gettysburg NMP, NPS had begun a process to consider changes to its
visitor center and museum facilities. The current visitor center and
museum facilities at Gettysburg NMP are located on land that was
central to the Battle of Gettysburg and they are visible from large
portions of the battlefield as contemporary intrusions on the
battlefield's historic setting. In addition, the facilities are greatly
inadequate to meet visitor and curatorial needs. For these reasons,
construction of new museum and visitor center facilities in a more
suitable location has long been an objective of the park. However,
Federal funding limitations have effectively precluded the possibility
of constructing replacement facilities with government funds.
The concept of a public/private cooperative effort to solve some of
the visitor center and curatorial needs was first considered by NPS
when a local developer proposed a new Cyclorama Building paired with a
private IMAX theater on a piece of park-owned land. In order to respond
to the unsolicited offer, NPS held three public workshops and in March
1995 developed a draft plan/environmental assessment to evaluate the
proposal. After a total of 65 days of public and agency review, NPS
decided to look at additional options for the building's configuration
and initiate a nationwide call for cooperators.
Between August 1995 and April 1996, 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: a no action alternative; building a collections
and archival storage facility and leaving the Cyclorama and Visitor
Center as they are now; renovating the existing Visitor Center in place
and building a new Cyclorama Building with collections storage; and
building a new combined facility incorporating all these uses on a site
removed from significant battle action (the preferred option indicated
in the Draft DCP/EA). As a part of the development of this plan, NPS
held a series of workshops, focus group
[[Page 71485]]
meetings, and community presentations for the purpose of understanding
public concerns, writing goals for the facility, and developing
criteria for judging proposals and sites.
After considering public comments on this concept plan, in 1996 NPS
issued a Request for Proposals, Visitor Center and Museum Facilities,
Gettysburg National Military Park (RFP). The RFP solicited specific
proposals from non-Federal sources to enter into a cooperative
agreement with NPS to provide new visitor center and museum facilities
either on park land or on non-park land in the vicinity of the park.
The terms of the RFP invited creative proposals from all possible
sources with few limitations so long as they furthered the NPS goals
for the new facilities. The RFP required that proposals suggest a site
for the facilities within a specific area of consideration (extending
beyond the boundaries of the park). Among other matters, the RFP noted
that a reevaluation of environmental issues would be a part of the
process for entering any agreement, and that depending on the proposal
an amendment to the current General Management Plan might be required.
NPS, as of the RFP closing date of May 16, 1997, received six
proposals. On November 8, 1997, the Director of the National Park
Service announced that it had selected a proposal for negotiation. NPS
selected the proposal because it offered to have a non-profit
corporation provide the facilities sought by NPS on an excellent site
and ultimately would result in the donation of the facilities to
Gettysburg NMP.
Although the proposal was judged as the best overall proposal
received in response to the RFP, NPS pointed out that there were
aspects of the proposal that needed to be negotiated in order to
achieve an acceptable cooperative agreement. As part of this process,
NPS sought public comment on the proposal through environmental and
other public review processes between November 1997 and spring 1998.
Scoping for the park's new General Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement had been initiated in April 1997. Based
on public input received from the DCP, the GMP/EIS and other public
comment, NPS determined that it was desirable to incorporate the issues
of visitor use and interpretation at the visitor center and museum
facilities as an element of its forthcoming draft GMP/EIS.
Relationship of the General Management Plan to Other Plans and
Processes
1990 Boundary Legislation/1993 Land Protection Plan: The GMP/EIS is
based upon the park boundaries defined by Public Law 101-377, An Act to
Revise the Boundary of Gettysburg National Military Park. The
priorities and planned actions for protecting lands within the 1990
boundary are detailed in the park's 1993 Land Protection Plan. The
action alternatives in the GMP/EIS describe several minor boundary
adjustments and other actions needed to address deficiencies in the
1990 legislation and the 1993 Land Protection Plan.
1995 White-Tailed Deer Management Plan /Environmental Impact
Statement: In 1994, NPS released a draft white-tailed deer management
plan and environmental impact statement (white-tailed deer management
plan). This white-tailed deer management plan reviewed alternatives for
managing the population of white-tailed deer at Gettysburg NMP and
Eisenhower NHS. In June 1995, NPS approved the white-tailed deer
management plan and a record of decision was signed. NPS determined in
the white-tailed deer management plan that a deer density of 25 deer
per forested square mile must be maintained at Gettysburg NMP and
Eisenhower National Historic Site. There is nothing in the GMP/EIS for
Gettysburg NMP that will affect this desired deer density, hence the
white-tailed deer management plan is not affected by the GMP/EIS.
Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Park Management
Plan: In 1997, NPS developed a systemwide plan to meet the requirements
of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. As previously
noted, as a part of its compliance with this act, NPS develops for each
unit of the national park system a new significance statement,
legislative purpose statements, mission statement, mission goals and
long term goals to guide management of the park (the Strategic Park
Management Plan). At Gettysburg National Military Park, this plan was
developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer,
the Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission, other
interested agencies and organizations, and the general public. The
action alternatives developed in the GMP/EIS are based upon the
significance, purpose, mission and mission goals outlined in the park's
Strategic Park Management Plan.
Decision (Selected Action)
The National Park Service will implement Alternative C, the
proposed plan, (the selected action), as described in the Final General
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement issued in June 1999.
The intent of the selected action is to rehabilitate the Gettysburg
battlefield so that the features that were significant to the outcome
of the battle and its commemoration more nearly reflect their historic
conditions. The selected action will identify and protect the resources
that contribute to the park's national significance, including its
three nationally significant landscapes: the site of the Battle of
Gettysburg, the Soldiers' National Cemetery, and the commemorative
landscape of avenues and monuments built by the battle's veterans.
Through the construction of new museum and collections storage
facilities, the selected action will also provide improved protection
for the cyclorama painting, a National Historic Object, and for the
park's extensive collections and archives. The combination of
rehabilitated historic landscapes and improved museum interpretation in
the new facility will allow visitors to understand the Battle of
Gettysburg, its aftermath and commemoration within the full context of
American history. Because the present Visitor Center and Cyclorama
Building are located virtually on Ziegler's Grove, one of the most
historically significant areas of the battlefield, NPS is compelled to
remove these structures and restore the historic scene. Partnerships
with private entities and local and state governments will permit
increased protection and interpretation of Civil War resources, as well
as of historically significant viewsheds and roads outside of the
park's boundaries. Together, these actions will allow NPS to meet the
legislative purposes of the park.
Specifically, under the selected action, NPS will rehabilitate both
the significant large-scale and small-scale elements of the park's
historic landscape. NPS will reinstitute the pattern of open fields and
wooded areas, and the historic circulation system of lanes, present
during the battle. This will 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. The selected
action also includes within the Battle Action Resource Area the
rehabilitation of those small-scale landscape elements-fences,
woodlots, orchards and other features-that were significant to the
[[Page 71486]]
outcome of the battle. The selected action will enable visitors to
appreciate the obstacles and terrain that confronted individual troops
during the conflict.
The selected action will rehabilitate the major landscape features
and circulation of the Civil War portion of the Soldiers' National
Cemetery, as well as its significant design features. Together these
actions will allow visitors to understand the equality of sacrifice
made by those who lost their life in the battle, as intended by the
designer of the Soldiers' National Cemetery.
The selected action will also restore the major features of the
park's Battlefield Commemorative Area, including monument groups. The
selected action will provide for enhanced protection of these
resources, which are the most threatened by visitor overuse. It will
incorporate coordinated measures to manage visitor use and
transportation, including a shuttle to provide access to park sites and
a link to downtown. This will respond to visitor desires to see the
battlefield while protecting sensitive cultural and natural resources
from damage. The selected action will also revise agricultural
practices in order to protect historic and natural resources through
such means as altering mowing schedules to protect nesting birds,
removing wetlands and streambanks from pastures, utilizing low-till and
no-till methods, and limiting pesticide use. (Historic field patterns
will be recreated by erecting fences or hedgerows in existing historic
crop fields and in newly opened areas.)
The selected action will provide a new museum complex, located at a
site outside the Battle Action Resource Area, where NPS could provide
adequate protection for its archives, collections and the cyclorama
painting and provide necessary visitor services without harming the
historic landscapes of the park. The museum facilities proposed in the
selected action will provide adequate facilities for the protection of
the park's remarkable collections and archives. A new gallery for the
cyclorama painting, ``Battle of Gettysburg,'' will allow the painting
to be properly hung and displayed in an environmentally stable gallery,
which is critical to its preservation. A new facility will greatly
improve museum interpretation at the park, and place the Gettysburg
Battle in its larger context of the Civil War and the Gettysburg
Campaign. The complex will be built by a private foundation at no cost
to the government, and NPS will retain final approval on all decisions
that would affect the complex's design, interpretation or use. The
complex will include necessary and appropriate visitor services that
are entirely consistent with the purposes of the park and NPS policy.
The Visitor Center and Cyclorama Building are currently located on
some of the Battle of Gettysburg's most historically significant land
along Cemetery Ridge, known as Ziegler's Grove. Ziegler's Grove was at
the center of the Union line during the second and third days of the
battle, and was the site where more than 6500 men fought. To achieve
the park's legislative mandate park managers determined to return
Ziegler's Grove to its 1863 appearance by removing the intrusive
Visitor Center and Cyclorama Building. The relocation of visitor
facilities to a new site near their existing location but on land that
was not significant to the outcome of the battle will allow restoration
of Ziegler's Grove, the area that was the center of the Union Line
during the second and third days of the battle.
The selected action will include measures to interpret the role of
both soldiers and noncombatants, and will strengthen the interpretation
of the role of the town of Gettysburg in the battle and its aftermath
and link it to the battlefield. It will expand 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. The approach to rehabilitation incorporated in the
selected action will broaden the scope of overall interpretation and
expand the number of venues that could be well understood by and
interpreted to visitors. In turn, the opening of new sites for
interpretation will provide relief for heavily visited and adversely
impacted sites. The selected action also adopts a previously approved
Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment, which proposed
consolidation of park offices and visitor facilities not included in
the park's museum and visitor center to a site within the Visitor and
Park Services Overlay Area.
Basis for Decision
Alternative C, the proposed plan in the Final GMP/EIS and the
selected action, provides the most desirable combination of resource
preservation, visitor interpretation and experience, and cost-
effectiveness among the alternatives considered for meeting the
legislative purposes and mission of Gettysburg NMP. The selected action
will allow NPS fully to meet both its resource preservation and
interpretive mandates.
The selected action will significantly improve resource protection.
The selected action will preserve and rehabilitate the features that
were significant to the outcome of the battle and allow the restoration
of Ziegler's Grove, the site of some of the most intense and bloodiest
fighting of the war. It will significantly enhance preservation and
rehabilitation of the nationally significant Soldiers' National
Cemetery, the site of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and of the burial of
many Union dead. It will preserve the nationally significant
commemorative corridors of Gettysburg NMP by providing for the
restoration of monument groups (markers, monuments, cannon, etc.) and
by limiting future damage from visitor overuse to sensitive resources
here. Transportation management will further protect sensitive
resources from vehicular damage. New collections storage will provide
adequate conditions for the preservation and curation of the park's
collections and archives. A new, environmentally stable gallery in
which the conserved cyclorama painting will be displayed will allow NPS
to stem further deterioration and adequately preserve this National
Historic Object.
Changes in the management of the park's agricultural program to
enhance surface water quality in the park's streams and ponds, enhance
streambank stabilization and reduce soil erosion will protect watershed
areas considered significant to the Chesapeake Bay. The combination of
removal of non-historic woodlands and changes in the agricultural
tilling, mowing and haying techniques will allow NPS to better protect
the state-listed open-land species that inhabit the park.
In addition, the selected action will encourage partnerships with
private entities and local and regional governments to protect,
preserve and interpret resources that are related to the Battle of
Gettysburg, its aftermath and commemoration that are located outside of
park boundaries. The selected action calls for partnership actions to
preserve resources and interpret the role of the Borough of Gettysburg
in the battle, its aftermath and the ongoing preservation of the
battlefield. It also encourages partnerships with private entities and
local and regional governments to protect the agricultural setting of
the park and major roadways leading to the park, including Taneytown
Road and Baltimore Pike, elements that are important to a visitor's
experience.
[[Page 71487]]
These actions should limit somewhat the amount of significant battle
and Civil Wars sites outside the park boundary lost to commercial and
suburban development.
The selected action also will greatly improve interpretation of the
Battle of Gettysburg, its aftermath and commemoration both through
enhanced museum interpretation as well as through landscape
restoration. New museum exhibits will provide substantially improved
interpretation of the battle in its full context, as required by the
park's legislation. Visitors' experiences in the park will be improved,
both in the museum complex and on the battlefield. Visitors will
receive improved orientation and information about how to use the park.
Rehabilitation of the landscape will allow visitors to understand both
the movements of the armies as well as the impact of the battle on
individual soldiers. Rehabilitation of the Soldiers' National Cemetery
will allow visitors to understand the meaning inherent in its design, a
meaning so eloquently defined by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg
Address.
Implementation of this action will increase visitation and length
of stay at the park, which in turn will increase per capita spending by
10% over current levels. The combination of higher per capita spending
and a moderate increase in visitation means that visitors will spend an
additional $24,278,900 annually in the communities adjacent to the
park, an increase of 21.5% over current spending levels. (Final GMP/
EIS, 91-92, 282-286)
Other Alternatives Considered
The Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
describes four alternatives for management, the environment that will
be affected by those alternatives, and the environmental consequences
of implementing these action alternatives. The major topic areas
covered in each alternative are related to the park's four mission
goals, and include resource protection and rehabilitation, visitor
interpretation, visitor experience, and partnerships. Major impact
topics include impacts to cultural resources, impacts to natural
resources, impacts to visitor interpretation and experience, impacts to
the socio-economic environment, impacts to traffic, parking and
transit, and impacts to park operations.
NPS considered three alternatives in addition to Alternative C, the
proposed plan. They are:
Alternative A: Continuation of Current Management
This alternative assumed continuation of current policies and
associated actions. It provided a baseline for comparison of the other
alternatives and is required by the National Environmental Policy Act
regulations. Alternative A retained the management guidance and
direction of the 1982 General Management Plan and the subsequent
Management Objectives developed in the 1988 Statement for Management.
This alternative retained the management zones defined by the 1982 GMP
and would have continued the management policies articulated in that
document towards the landscape, park facilities, and visitor use
management. Under this management strategy, NPS would have continued to
preserve existing features and resources significant to the battle.
Existing historic cropfields and woodlots would have continued to be
preserved and maintained in their current conditions, using
contemporary agricultural techniques. The Soldiers' National Cemetery
would have continued to be managed to maintain and perpetuate modern
vegetation and changes made for maintenance with modern equipment. In
the commemorative area, individual monuments and monument groups would
have continued to be preserved and restored, and the formal designed
corridor in which the War Department placed them would have been
recalled by mowing of the area. Modern features, such as parking areas,
bollards, paths, fencing or other restraints would have been added as
needed to protect resources from overuse and damage by pedestrians and
vehicles. NPS would have continued to manage Big Round Top as a natural
area. NPS managers rejected this option among other reasons because it
failed to provide adequate protection to the park's three historic
landscapes, did not allow for the restoration of Ziegler's Grove, and
did not provide adequate protection for the park's archives,
collections and the cyclorama painting. For a fuller discussion of the
issues surrounding a continuation of current management policies, see
the discussion of issues considered on pages 10-17 of the Final GMP/
EIS.
Alternative B: Minimum Required Actions
This alternative included the least costly set of actions that
would have responded minimally to the park's mission goals. Alternative
B incorporated rehabilitation of large-scale landscape features in the
Major Battle Action Area and the Soldiers' National Cemetery and
preservation of other 1863 features. It would also have provided a new
museum complex to replace obsolete facilities and meet the park's
interpretive goals. Because the actions included in Alternative B were
considered necessary to meet minimally the park's mission goals, the
actions recommended in this alternative were also incorporated into
Alternative C, the selected action, and Alternative D.
As a part of Alternative B, the rehabilitation of large-scale
landscape features would have reinstated the patterns of open and
wooded areas within the Major Battle Action Area, including restoration
of Ziegler's Grove. Because of this action, NPS would be able to
represent accurately the patterns of open land vs. forested land
present during the battle in the areas where major battle action
occurred. This would allow visitors to visualize and understand the
major movements of the armies and to appreciate tactical decisions made
by its leaders. Alternative B would not, however, have rehabilitated
the small-scale features that were significant to the outcome of the
battle, such as fence lines or orchards.
Alternative B also suggested rehabilitation of the large-scale
landscape and designed features that characterize the Saunders design
for the Soldiers' National Cemetery. Under this alternative, the
cemetery would have remained in its modern condition, except that the
vegetation and circulation in the Civil-War portion of the cemetery
would have been managed so that visitors could understand the ideas of
equality expressed by Saunders in the design. These ideas parallel
those expressed by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address. The
commemorative landscape would have been managed similarly to
Alternative A.
This alternative incorporated the development of a new museum
complex and associated facilities that could provide improved
interpretation and visitor services, located on a site that was not
pivotal to the outcome of the battle. Enhanced programs would have
provided broad, in-depth interpretation of the causes and consequences
of the Gettysburg Campaign, its impact on participants and
noncombatants, and the enduring meaning of the Gettysburg Address.
Strong linkages would have been provided from the park and the proposed
museum complex to historic structures at the center of the Borough of
Gettysburg. NPS would have worked cooperatively with partners to
communicate the role of key in-town
[[Page 71488]]
sites during and after the battle. Based on such agreements, an NPS
presence would have been possible to interpret these topics.
The broad initiatives of this alternative would have improved the
visitors' understanding of the battle landscape by making it possible
for them to understand the movements of the armies--the generals'
perspective--and by providing greatly improved centralized
interpretation of the causes and consequences of the Gettysburg
Campaign. Alternative B also incorporated visitor activity management
policies that would have improved the condition of park resources by
limiting damage from visitor use.
This alternative provided for better protection of the park's
landscape and historic resources than did Alternative A, no action.
However, NPS managers rejected this option because they considered that
the rehabilitation of both the large-scale features and the small-scale
features that were significant to the outcome of the Battle of
Gettysburg, its aftermath and commemoration (as called for in
Alternative C, the selected action) would more fully meet the park's
legislative mandates by preserving and rehabilitating all features that
were significant to the outcome of the battle. In addition, although
Alternative B would have improved interpretation of the battlefield,
especially of the general's perspective, the selected action would
allow visitors to understand not only the general's perspective but
also the impact of the battle upon individual combatants and civilians.
Alternative D: Maximum Park Rehabilitation
This alternative included the resource management, interpretive and
museum facilities actions included in Alternative C. However,
Alternative D expanded on the resource management actions described in
Alternative C by recommending additional rehabilitation and
restoration. Alternative D proposed restoring the entirety of the known
and documented battle landscape in the Major Battle Action area and the
significant elements outside the Major Battle Action area included in
the other resources area. This alternative would have rehabilitated all
identifiable historic features, regardless of their significance to the
outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Rehabilitation of missing features from the commemorative era,
principally along the system of commemorative avenues, would have
allowed visitors to experience the commemorative park built by battle
veterans. Interpretation would have relied heavily on the new museum
complex to provide the context overview, and assumed that visitors
would be able to understand those stories without extensive field
interpretation because NPS had fully restored the battlefield, cemetery
and commemorative landscapes.
Modern wayside signs would have been removed and visitors would
have had to rely on the system of markers placed by the park's veterans
to understand and experience the park. Visitors would have been
encouraged to concentrate their travel along the commemorative avenues,
and alternative means of transport and interpretation would have
encouraged visitors to tour the battlefield with far less reliance on
private vehicles than currently.
Although this alternative provides for better protection of the
park's landscape and historic resources than Alternative A, and for
more extensive rehabilitation than either Alternative B or C, NPS
managers rejected it because the environmental and dollar costs were
much greater than any other alternative because it proposed
rehabilitation of the entire park, including places that were not the
site of major battle action. In addition, NPS managers did not consider
that this alternative could provide significantly improved resource
protection or interpretation.
Other Alternatives Considered
In addition, a number of other alternatives were considered by the
planning team or in public workshops, but not included for further
consideration in the Draft GMP/EIS. These are discussed in detail on
pages 58-60 of the Final GMP/EIS.
Two additional alternatives were proposed and reviewed with the
public in workshops and were presented in GMP newsletters. These
alternatives were called Improve Areas of Most Intensive Use, and
Diversified Visitor Experience. The first recommended traffic free
zones representing each day of the battle, where special
interpretation, resource protection and other actions would occur. The
public generally felt that this approach was too restrictive and placed
too much emphasis on first time visitors. The second alternative placed
its emphasis on innovative interpretation of the battlefield. NPS would
have concentrated its resources on interpretation rather than on
rehabilitation and restoration, although a minimum level of
rehabilitation of the park's landscapes was included. Most participants
liked the idea of expanded interpretation, but believed it should be
combined with the higher levels of rehabilitation and preservation
proposed by the other alternatives.
The GMP team considered two other alternatives, Full Restoration
and Interpretation Only. The first responded to the perception among
some participants in the public process that the battlefield should be
fully restored to its 1863 condition. However, NPS determined that this
was not feasible and would not comply with the Secretary's Standards
for Historic Preservation because of its impact on the park's two
nationally significant post-battle landscapes, the Soldiers' National
Cemetery and the commemoration built by battle veterans. The
Interpretation Only alternative would have included no rehabilitation
and restoration of park features. However, visitor surveys, comment
during scoping, and experience with visitors on the site convinced NPS
managers that this approach could not meet the park's interpretive
goals. In addition, NPS managers believed that this approach would not
allow NPS to meet its legislative purposes. For these reasons, these
four alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.
NPS' consideration of alternatives for its visitor facilities,
through the development of the draft DCP and its RFP process is
discussed in the Background of the Project section of this ROD.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The environmentally preferred alternative is defined as ``the one
that will promote National Environmental Policy as expressed in the
National Environmental Policy Act's, section 101. Ordinarily, this
means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological
and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best
protects, preserves, and enhances the historic, cultural, and natural
resources in the area where the proposed action is to take place.''
(``Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,'' 1981).
The environmentally preferred alternative is Alternative C, the
selected action. Alternative C best protects, preserves and enhances
the historic, cultural and natural resources of Gettysburg NMP. In
particular, the selected action: increases the ability of the park to
protect, preserve and enhance the historic and cultural resources of
the park and meet its
[[Page 71489]]
legislative mandate; minimizes the loss of forest cover while achieving
the park's critical cultural resource goals; improves the capability of
the park's natural environment to support the state-listed open land
species; and allows NPS to meet more fully the requirements of the
Chesapeake Bay Program. As noted above, the selected action improves
the ability of NPS to protect the essential resources of Gettysburg
NMP. Through this proposal, NPS could: preserve and rehabilitate the
resources considered significant to the outcome of the battle; protect
the cyclorama painting, collections, and archives; and preserve and
rehabilitate the significant features of the Soldiers' National
Cemetery and commemorative landscapes of the park. The selected action
allows NPS fully to meet the requirements of Gettysburg NMP's
legislation at the least cost to the environment, park visitors and the
Federal budget. The provision of new museum facilities on a site
removed from the park's most important resources means that NPS could
restore these significant areas.
Although the new construction needed to consolidate the park's
museum and visitor facilities would permanently remove 18 acres of
land, including up to 2 acres of wetlands, at the new site as wildlife
habitat, NPS will be able to restore about 38 acres of meadow, orchard
and woodlands that were very significant to the outcome of the battle
at the sites of the current facilities. The selected action proposes
the removal of only as much non-historic forest as is needed to meet
the park's legislative purposes and mission goals. In addition, under
the selected action, NPS will maintain as historic woodlots the number
of acres needed in order to meet the park's legislative purpose. The
gradual removal of some non-historic forest will increase the total
acreage of open land in the park, because those areas will be
reestablished as open grasslands, pastures, or orchards. The increased
area of open grassland will improve and expand the habitat needed to
support the sensitive state-listed species that occur within the park,
almost all of which are open land species. NPS will more fully meet the
requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Program by protecting sensitive
watersheds from cattle and other agricultural damage. NPS will
institute changes in its management of the park's agricultural permits
to enhance surface water quality in the park's streams and ponds,
enhance streambank stabilization, and reduce soil erosion. In addition,
these changes will mean that up to 100 acres of wetlands eliminated by
draining for agricultural purpose since the time of the battle will
eventually be rehabilitated. Alternative A, as described in the Final
General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, does not
provide adequate protection for the park's three historic landscapes,
its cultural and natural resources, or its collections, archives and
the cyclorama painting and therefore does not meet the park's
legislative mandate.
Alternative B, as described in the Final General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement, would provide many of the same cultural
and natural resource benefits as described in the selected action. Both
alternatives would include the rehabilitation of the pattern of open
vs. closed areas present during the battle, actions to preserve
resources in the Soldiers' National Cemetery and the commemorative
Resource Area, reformulation of the park's agriculture program, and
provision of new visitor facilities. However, Alternative C, the
selected action, more fully meets NPS' legislative purposes because it
provides for the protection and, where needed, the rehabilitation, of
all features that were significant to the outcome of the Battle of
Gettysburg, its aftermath and commemoration. Alternative B merely
provides for the rehabilitation of a subset of those resources during
the period of the plan.
Alternative D, as described in the Final General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement provides for maximum rehabilitation of
the park's landscapes, including all features that could be documented.
This would provide for rehabilitation of landscapes and features beyond
that called for by the park's legislative purposes. Although this could
provide a more complete experience of the conditions prevalent in 1863,
the environmental costs would be concomitantly greater. Because park
managers do not consider that additional restoration would
significantly improve interpretation or protection of essential
resources, the additional environmental costs would not be warranted.
The selected action provides the appropriate balance between
protection and rehabilitation of the park's significant cultural and
natural resources and environmental costs.
Measures to Minimize Environmental Harm
NPS has identified and incorporated into the selected action all
practical measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts that
could result from its implementation. These measures are presented in
detail in the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement.
Rehabilitation of the features that were significant to the outcome
of the Battle of Gettysburg, its aftermath and commemoration has the
potential to cause environmental harm. NPS will take the following
actions to avoid or minimize harm resulting from these actions:
Impacts to known and unknown archeological resources due
to tree removal will be mitigated and minimized by implementing Section
106 of NHPA, through the use of best management practices, and through
appropriate design that will allow for little ground disturbance.
Use of best management practices will minimize impacts to
topography due to tree removal and existing roads and lanes will be
used so that no new roads will need to be constructed.
Short-term impacts to soils due to tree removal will be
minimized using best management practices.
Tree removal may have an impact to roosting and nesting
areas of black vultures in the park. These actions will be mitigated by
leaving the white-pine trees typically used by vultures and by leaving
small clumps and mature trees around known nesting areas.
Tree removal may have an impact on certain species of the
fauna of the park. None of these species are rare or of special
concern. However, NPS will minimize these impacts by using best
practices and by monitoring of specific taxa.
Localized steam water temperature will increase in some
sub-watersheds from loss of forest cover; however, this can be
minimized by planting low growing woody vegetation along stream
corridors.
Tree removal and conversion of the area into an actively
managed woodlot could have an impact on one state-listed plant specie.
However, using best management practices for tree removal and
protecting individual plants could minimize this. Maintaining the area
as a woodlot will benefit the plant by opening the canopy.
Rehabilitation of Ziegler's Grove and the center of the Union's
battle line along Cemetery Ridge necessitates the removal of the
Cyclorama Building, which is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. In December 1998, NPS began consultations with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Pennsylvania Historic
Preservation Officer, and interested
[[Page 71490]]
parties and individuals regarding the removal of the structure. On May
14, 1999, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concurred with
the draft GMP/EIS' proposed restoration of the park's historic
landscapes and the cyclorama painting, and the removal of the Cyclorama
Building, finding that ``The rehabilitation of this key battlefield
site so that the battlefield can properly be interpreted must be
regarded as a historic mission of the highest order.'' A history of
related actions is included on page 241 of the Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement; the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Finding is included as Appendix 11. After that decision,
NPS consulted with the Advisory Council, the Pennsylvania State
Preservation Officer and interested parties to develop appropriate
mitigation policies with regard to the removal of the Cyclorama
Building and in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement dated July
29, 1999.
Construction activities related to the relocation of the park's
museum complex, visitor facilities and administrative facilities to a
site removed from its prime resources have the potential to cause
environmental harm. NPS will take the following actions to avoid or
minimize harm resulting from these actions:
Implementation of appropriate erosion control and
revegetation measures will minimize short- and long-term disturbance
and vegetation loss from construction activities for the new visitor
facilities, administrative facilities, burial of utility lines, and
other actions.
Unknown archeological resources may be impacted by
development activities and, if significant, the facilities will be
relocated or the archeological resources could be excavated to salvage
the artifacts. In addition, a monitoring and preservation program will
allow archeologists to determine the nature of cumulative impacts, and
devise avoidance or mitigation methods.
Two small areas of historic rock walls may be destroyed to
accommodate entrances to the new museum complex. NPS will consult with
the Advisory Council and the State Historic Preservation Officer to
develop appropriate mitigation policies with regard to the removal of
these two sections of wall.
Design of the new visitor or administrative facilities
will seek to minimize topographic changes and keep as much of the new
site in a natural condition as possible.
Approximately 10 acres of prime farmland may be impacted
by development; a Farm Conversion Impact Rating and Land Evaluation
System Report will be completed before any work begins. Approximately
38 acres of meadow, orchard, and woodlands will be re-established at
the sites of the old visitor centers to mitigate the removal of
approximately 21-26 acres of hay and 8 acres of woods at the new museum
and visitor center site.
Up to 2 acres of wetlands could be impacted due to
construction; however, a Wetlands Statement of Findings as required by
Directors Order 77.1, will be completed prior to the initiation of
work. In addition, up 100 acres of wetlands will be restored as a
result of changes to the agriculture program and the removal of field
drains in agricultural fields.
Construction activities could temporarily displace or kill
some individual wildlife or flora around the new visitor and
administrative facilities. This will be mitigated through the park's
inventorying and monitoring program to assure no sensitive species are
being affected.
Visitors might be temporarily inconvenienced by
construction and relocation activities; however, construction and
relocation will be scheduled to avoid the peak visitation periods.
Although overall visitor spending will increase due to the new
museum complex, redistribution of visitor spending may occur because of
the relocation of the museum complex. The anticipated increases in
visitation, the increase in length of stay, the limitation of the menu
and of the serving times in the food service facility, the routing of
the park auto tour route through the Borough of Gettysburg, and the
continued availability of information about community visitor
facilities in the museum by the Visitor and Convention Bureau should
help mitigate these impacts. To minimize development of new tourism
related private development near the new museum site, NPS, either
directly or through its various partners, will protect through easement
or acquisition, lands that were significant to the outcome of the
Battle.
Public and Interagency Involvement
NPS officially began the EIS process on May 5, 1997 with the
publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent to prepare a
draft EIS. Scoping meetings were held to identify issues and concerns
relating to the proposed general management plan. As a part of its
scoping for the EIS, Gettysburg NMP requested public and agency review
the park's legislative purposes, mission, and mission goals, developed
as a part of NPS' compliance with the Government Performance and
Results Act. NPS also held meetings to discuss its analysis of park
resources, concepts for the park, and alternatives for the park. After
NPS selected a proposal for negotiation for new museum and visitor
facilities (as a result of the Draft Development Concept Plan and
Environmental Assessment for Collections Storage, Museum and Visitor
Facilities and subsequent RFP), it held additional meetings to review
the details of the proposed facilities and their possible environmental
consequences with the public. During Spring, 1998, NPS determined as a
result of these meetings and other agency and public comment to combine
the Draft Development Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment for
Collections Storage, Museum and Visitor Facilities with the ongoing
GMP/EIS process. During this period, NPS also prepared and mailed five
newsletters to interested agencies, organizations, and individuals. A
Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement was
developed and released to the public on August 14, 1998. Almost 3,800
copies of the Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement were distributed to agencies, organizations and the public.
The Notice of Availability of the draft EIS was published in the
Federal Register on August 18, 1998. Nine public meetings were held
during the public comment period. Two workshops provided an overview of
the entire GMP. Four workshops concentrated on a particular aspect of
the plan, including resource preservation and rehabilitation,
socioeconomic impacts, partnership issues including traffic, and
interpretation and education. One meeting held by the Gettysburg NMP
Advisory Commission, incorporated discussion on the GMP and the museum
complex proposal. All seven of these meetings included question and
answer sessions. NPS also held two formal public hearings to allow the
public to comment on the plan. A listing of meetings, public workshops
and hearings, and consultation activities is included in the Final
General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement beginning on
page 306.
The comment period on the draft ended October 17, 1998. Between
October 1998 and May 1999 NPS met with local governments, members of
Congress and representatives of state and local agencies and
organizations to
[[Page 71491]]
ensure that their comments and concerns had been properly understood.
Comments received through January 20, 1999 were included in the Final
GMP/EIS.
NPS received over 500 oral or written comments on the draft GMP/
EIS. Some comments concerned the relocation of the park's visitor
centers to a nearby site. Some commentors, representing descendents of
the more than 6500 men who fought where the Visitor Center and
Cyclorama Building are now located, contended that appropriate
restoration of the Ziegler's Grove area is necessary because of the
approximately 970 soldiers who became casualties of the Battle of
Gettysburg at that location. Others, many of whom operate businesses in
close proximity to the park's visitor centers, are concerned that NPS'
relocation of its visitor facilities would impact their businesses,
either by changing pedestrian patterns or by removing parking from near
their businesses.
NPS acknowledged in the draft GMP/EIS that despite the overall
positive economic impact resulting from Alternative C, the selected
action, the relocation of park visitor facilities might change visitor
spending patterns and create indirect effects on area development or
individual businesses. Because of comments received during scoping, NPS
had included actions to mitigate possible effects in the draft GMP/EIS.
These included: NPS partnership in the development of the Wills House;
an NPS ranger presence in downtown; partnerships to strengthen the
historic pathways pedestrian environment; expansion of NPS' auto tour
to include resources within the Borough of Gettysburg; inclusion of a
downtown/park shuttle; protecting sites within the park boundary and
the Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District from inappropriate
development; and continued promotion of local visitor services by the
Visitor and Convention Bureau in the park visitor center. As a result
of comments received on the draft GMP/EIS, NPS enhanced its discussion
of the protection of Taneytown Road and Baltimore Pike, and included
capital costs for the shuttle, which had inadvertently been left out of
the draft GMP/EIS. Finally, NPS decided to provide parking to serve the
Soldiers' National Cemetery near the existing parking lots and included
this in the Final GMP/EIS.
Other commentors were concerned that the inclusion of a cafeteria-
style restaurant, arts and crafts store and other retail activities
originally proposed for inclusion in the museum complex would compete
unfairly with local businesses. One of NPS' goals was to improve
visitors' experiences in the museum complex by providing necessary and
appropriate facilities that would enable them to extend their stay in
the facility and properly use and enjoy the facility. During GMP
scoping, NPS evaluated the proposal in relation to this goal, and
determined what was necessary and appropriate to allow visitors to
extend their stay in the facility and therefore in the community.
Because of this scoping process, NPS reduced the size of the cafeteria-
style restaurant and eliminated the arts and crafts store and other
retail activities in the proposed new museum complex. These changes
were described in the draft GMP/EIS.
However, even after making these changes in the draft GMP/EIS, NPS
received comments about the food service facility during the public
review of that document. After a review of the comments received on the
draft GMP/EIS, NPS reevaluated its needs again and determined that it
could further reduce the scope of the food service to be included in
the facility and still meet its goal. NPS determined that limited food
service would allow visitors to extend their stay and properly use and
enjoy the facilities. Therefore, NPS decided to change the cafeteria-
style restaurant to a limited food service facility, operating with a
warming kitchen and providing snacks and light meals only. An economic
assessment performed on this limited food service option found that
food service expenditures within the park would decrease by 34% from
the level predicted in the draft GMP/EIS, and that visitor expenditures
outside the park would therefore increase by an estimated additional
$495,000 per year, to a total of $24,278,900 annually. This represents
an increase in visitor spending of 21.5% over current spending levels
(Final GMP/EIS, pages 91-92, 282-286).
Some commentors feared that the new museum complex would
commercialize the battlefield. However, NPS considers that the proposed
collections storage, museum and visitor facilities do not commercialize
the battlefield, but provide necessary and appropriate services to
visitors that enhance the visitor experience and are entirely
consistent with NPS policies, regulations and statutes. The existing
visitor facilities at Gettysburg NMP include collections storage, a
museum, a visitor center, the electric map, the cyclorama painting, a
conventional theater in which NPS presents an education film, a
licensed battlefield guide tour center, and the park's book and museum
store. The new facility will continue these uses, providing enough
space to make these operations more efficient. The new facility will
also provide limited food service. The new facilities will allow NPS to
provide superior orientation and interpretation, adequate protection
for its collections, archives and the cyclorama painting, and will
remove modern intrusions from the historic core of the battlefield.
Others were concerned that the inclusion of the museum proposal as
a part of the GMP/EIS violated NPS policy or NEPA. However, after
considering public and agency comment on the issue, NPS determined that
it was in the public interest to combine the two ongoing public
processes into the GMP/EIS. NPS considers that the environmental review
procedures followed in this matter, including consideration of public
comment as a part of the process, complied with NEPA.
Finally, some commentors are concerned that net removal of 576
acres of non-historic woodlands would create environmental impacts on
local plant and animal communities and that rehabilitation of the
battlefield was not necessary for proper interpretation of the
battlefield. NPS determined that it could best meet its legislated
purposes and mission, and provide a more meaningful visitor experience,
by rehabilitating the battlefield in the manner described in the
selected action. NPS acknowledged that removal of non-historic
woodlands would have an impact on some forest species. However, with
the exception of the black vulture, these species are widespread and
the removal of non-historic woodlands would not affect their abundance
or distribution. NPS considers that impacts upon the state-listed black
vulture could be mitigated by the activities noted in the previous
section. As noted above, the concomitant increase in meadow and pasture
land will increase and improve open-land habitat and therefore the
sensitive state-listed species that depend upon that habitat.
NPS responded to substantive comments in the final EIS, which was
released to the public on June 18, 1999. NPS mailed approximately 586
copies of the two-volume document to agency, organizational and
individual commentors. The Notice of Availability of the final EIS
appeared in the Federal Register on June 25, 1999, and the Final
General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement was made
available for a 30-day no action period starting on that date.
In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement among the National
Park
[[Page 71492]]
Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers executed July 17,
1995, NPS has completed the consultation review steps related to
general management planning (VI. C., D., and E.). NPS, the Pennsylvania
State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation have negotiated and on July 28, 1999 signed a
Programmatic Agreement. Implementation of this agreement will fulfill
the NPS' responsibilities under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Letters received from the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory
of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are included as Appendix 7 of
the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. These
letters identified threatened, rare and endangered species and species
of special concern protected by the respective agencies. There are no
known Federal threatened, rare and endangered species within the park.
Impacts to state listed species are either positive, or can be
mitigated, as noted above.
The public and agency comments contained in the two volumes of the
Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and
additional information available in the files at Gettysburg NMP
headquarters provides valuable background for the context in which the
proposed plan has been developed. All comments received on the Draft
and Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement are on
file at Gettysburg NMP headquarters in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
Dated: November 23, 1999.
John A. Latschun,
Regional Director, Northeast Regional Office.
[FR Doc. 99-32836 Filed 12-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
