[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