Record of Decision, General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Gettysburg National Military Park, Adams County, PA

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