STATEMENT OF DENIS P. GALVIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, CONCERNING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND VISITOR CENTER PROPOSAL FOR GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK.
February 11, 1999
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the National Park Service’s draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park and the proposal to develop a new park visitor center and museum facility. The proposal is to achieve these objectives in partnership with a non-profit foundation and without construction cost to the taxpayer. While the proposal has evolved in response to public comment, it is consistent with the objectives set forth in the related planning documents and is strongly supported by the National Park Service.
Protection of the resources at Gettysburg has been the driving force behind this proposal and all related planning. We are committed to the protection of those resources. Also of high priority is removal of incompatible development from within the boundary of the park. The National Tower is one of those developments and acquisition and removal of the tower is of paramount importance to this Administration. The President has made this a priority in our FY 2000 budget along with the acquisition of another 93 acres of land within the boundary of the park where there is either incompatible development or plans for inappropriate development.
Gettysburg National Military Park
Gettysburg National Military Park is the nationally significant site of the Civil War Battle of Gettysburg and the Soldier’s National Cemetery. The Battle of Gettysburg lessened the Confederacy’s ability to successfully wage war and contributed to the ultimate preservation of the United States. Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery and heightened Americans’ sense of the meaning and importance of the Civil War. Veterans of the Battle of Gettysburg created the park. They preserved major features of the battlefield and commemorated with monuments, markers and cannon the valor and sacrifice of the battle’s participants.
The park encompasses 5,900 acres of terrain upon which most of the battle occurred. More than 1,700 monuments and cannon were placed by the battle’s survivors to commemorate their comrades who fell in battle. Gettysburg National Military Park also owns collections of 38,000 artifacts and 350,000 printed texts, historic photographs and other archival documents. The largest and one of the most significant objects in the collection is the cyclorama painting, the "Battle of Gettysburg". The giant painting illustrates Pickett’s Charge, the culmination of the three-day battle. The painting, which measures 26 feet by 356 feet, is a national historic object
as designated under the historic sites act of 1935. Together, the land, monuments, archival collection, and the cyclorama painting, represent a remarkable resource that can tell the complete and compelling story of this important time in America’s history.
The National Park Service’s mission at Gettysburg National Military Park is to preserve and protect the resources associated with the Battle of Gettysburg and the Soldier’s National Cemetery, and to provide an understanding of the events that occurred there within the context of American History. Gettysburg NMP, like many other units of the National Park System, is faced with a number of serious issues. First, the current visitor center and museum facilities are inadequate to meet resource conservation and preservation needs. The thousands of archival and curatorial objects in the park’s collections are deteriorating because of the substandard conditions in which they are stored. Storage facilities lack air conditioning, humidity and dust control. Paint is flaking off the cyclorama and the seams are separating. The extreme humidity variations to which the current cyclorama gallery exposes the painting continue to cause damage. There is not enough space in the gallery to hang the painting properly. Second, our visitor facilities, sized for a visitation level of about 450,000 people a year, handle more than 1.2 million people. Third, these facilities are located on some of the most significant land of battle, land that was central to the Battle of Gettysburg at the site of what has been called the high-water mark of the battle. These structures are visible from large portions of the battlefield and intrude on the battlefield’s historic setting. Additionally, the scope of the solution and federal funding limitations effectively have precluded the possibility of improving existing facilities or constructing replacement facilities with government funds in the near term. Accordingly, other funding alternatives have been explored.
When parks face these kinds of problems, several planning tools are available to NPS to solve them. The first is the General Management Plan (GMP), a document that sets forth the basic management philosophy for a park and provides strategies for protecting resources and interpreting them. A second tool NPS uses is the Development Concept Plan. Development Concept Plans are implementation plans that answer specific questions about the location, size and functions of built facilities. Sometimes, because of a Development Concept Plan or other interpretive plan, a GMP may be amended or revised. As in all of its planning, NPS completes required compliance and consultation, including public involvement and comment.
Gettysburg’s General Management Plan was completed in 1982 and by 1994 the plan was out-of-date and did not provide adequate solutions to these key problems. Although Gettysburg had been on the NPS priority list for a new GMP for a number of years, funds did not become available for a new comprehensive planning process until April 1997.
The Development Concept Plan
In the meantime, in December 1994, a local developer proposed a new Cyclorama Center paired with a private IMAX theater on a piece of park-owned land. In order to respond to that unsolicited offer, NPS held three public workshops and produced a draft plan/environmental assessment to evaluate the proposal. After 65 days of public and agency review, NPS decided not to go the route proposed by this unsolicited offer. We heard the public’s concern regarding this proposal, especially the role it would have given to a for-profit commercial enterprise. So we decided to look, instead, at other options for developing a new cyclorama center that would also address the other desperately needed facilities.
NPS decided to take an approach at Gettysburg that was different from that taken in previous partnerships and specific to the conditions at Gettysburg. We wanted more public involvement than is typical so that we could be sure the public was thoroughly informed. We wanted to look at a full range of alternatives for needed facilities and give the public a voice in developing the criteria under which the proposals would be evaluated. We wanted to allow all interested potential partners to submit proposals. The process we developed did all of these things. Given the opportunities presented to NPS, and the conditions and restrictions we faced at Gettysburg, this was the best way we could find to ensure that the public understood and had generous opportunities to comment. We believe that the result was a public process with integrity and one that has provided the public with unprecedented opportunities for meaningful comment.
Throughout this process the National Park Service has been open to public comment. We have made changes at every step of the process to respond to the public’s concerns. We have made revisions and recommended to partners specific changes that we believe have resulted in a stronger program for Gettysburg than has been proposed at various steps throughout the process. Our chief concern has been the protection of the resources entrusted to us at Gettysburg. We believe that the net result will provide the greatest protection for the resources at Gettysburg and will ensure that no one individual or corporation financially benefits, and instead, that all Americans benefit both now and in the years to come.
To provide the public opportunities to comment, between August 1995 and April 1996, NPS prepared a Draft Development Concept Plan / Environmental Assessment (DCP) to explore alternatives for the facilities. The DCP focused on four goals:
The DCP evaluated four alternative concepts to address these goals.
The DCP suggested that NPS look for a private partner to raise funds and construct the needed facilities.
As a part of the DCP process, NPS held a series of public workshops, including a scoping meeting with a 30-day public review of the scoping documents, and a 45-day public review of the draft DCP. Twelve public workshops, focus groups, and Advisory Commission meetings were held by NPS on these proposals. In addition, through the workshops and then in the DCP, NPS gave the public a chance to comment on the criteria it proposed using to evaluate proposals, partners and potential sites.
The Request for Proposal
After considering comments on the draft DCP, NPS decided to continue the process and look for a partner to accomplish the work. To this end, NPS issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on December 11, 1996. The RFP solicited proposals from sources that would enter into an agreement with NPS to provide a new visitor center and museum facilities either on park land or on non-park land in the vicinity of the park. The RFP noted that NPS might undertake additional environmental planning procedures after an evaluation of environmental issues that might result from a proposal selected for negotiation. Among other matters, the RFP specifically noted that the existing 1982 GMP might be considered for amendment through the usual environmental planning procedures. It further noted that no final commitment by NPS to a proposal selected for negotiation would be made until such required environmental planning had been completed and its results considered by the agency.
By the closing date of the RFP, May 16, 1997, NPS received six proposals. On November 8, 1997, NPS announced selection for negotiation of the proposal submitted by Mr. Robert Kinsley on behalf of a new non-profit foundation, the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation (the Foundation). This is a different individual, a different entity, and a different concept than in the December, 1994 proposal for a new Cyclorama Center and IMAX theater.
The proposal selected for negotiation, as originally proposed, would have the non-profit foundation construct for the National Park Service a new Gettysburg NMP Visitor Center and Museum on a privately-owned 45-acre site within the boundaries of the park and located at the intersection of Hunt and Baltimore Avenues. In addition, NPS facilities would include a new Cyclorama Gallery, an orientation theater utilizing the electric map, and the Eastern National Bookstore. Related facilities included a large format cinema for a film about the Gettysburg Campaign to be produced by National Geographic Television, a National Geographic Store, food service, a tour center, a tour center gift shop, and a Civil War Arts and Crafts Gallery. As I explain below, some important elements of this original proposal have been substantially changed.
The non-profit foundation would raise funds to build and then operate and manage the new visitor center and museum. The $40.4 million needed to acquire the land and build the facility would come from a combination of grants, non-profit fundraising, and commercial loans. The proposal suggested that approximately $22 million would be raised through grants and non-profit fundraising to cover the costs of most of the NPS facilities, but not including land and soft costs i.e., costs of planning, design, financing, etc. The Foundation planned to raise the balance needed to cover land, soft costs and building costs for related facilities through non-recourse commercial loans.
The proposal did not require that a fee be charged to visitors for entrance to the Visitor Center and Museum facilities. Revenue would be generated through a continuation of the park’s current interpretive fees, and new fees for the film to be shown in the National Geographic Theater, revenues from the tour center, food service and other retail facilities, and a parking fee. The proposal suggested that the institutional financing would be guaranteed through the leasing of space to long-term tenants. NPS would be responsible for a pro-rata share of operating costs related to use of its portion of the facilities. Eastern National would pay rent, along with other tenants, on the spaces it operated for NPS.
This proposal was judged to provide the best opportunity for negotiation that could make it possible for Gettysburg NMP to achieve its principal objectives. However, there were aspects of the original proposal selected for negotiation that needed further consideration. As a part of this process, NPS sought comments on the proposal through a public review process. Between November 1997 and March 1998, we held six public workshops and three open houses and mailed a newsletter to 3,800 people to acquaint the public with the proposal selected for negotiation and to continue the environmental assessment process begun with the DCP.
During this review, NPS received over 3,200 sets of written comments from the public. Of those, more than 85% of respondents favored the proposal; 11.5% opposed the proposal, and 2.7% were undecided. Of those in favor of the proposal, most noted that the facilities were needed, and that the proposal offered a way to build them without reliance upon federal funds. Others favored the restoration of the sites of the current visitor and cyclorama center.
Of all comments, both favorable and unfavorable, 29% were concerned with the level of commercial development in the proposal. Many people did not like the idea or the building size required by an IMAX film. Others were concerned about the food service or retail components of the project. Site issues were the concern of 17% of the comments; many people found the site acceptable if it could be shielded from view and if artillery sites along the eastern edge of the property could be avoided. Others were concerned about traffic, others wanted to be sure the program included enough museum space, and others disapproved of parking fees. Some people were opposed to public/private ventures on principle and wanted full federal funding for the park. A few wanted the park to stay as it is.
Local concerns were expressed at public workshops and meetings of the park’s advisory commission and the Gettysburg Borough Council. Merchants from the Steinwehr Avenue business community expressed concerns about moving the facility from its current location on Steinwehr Avenue because of perceived impacts on their businesses. Other downtown business owners wanted more involvement on the part of NPS in the development and interpretation of the historic downtown.
On a national level, other concerns and questions were noted. Ensuring that the site was appropriate for development from the perspective of historical significance and finding mechanisms to protect Baltimore Pike from unsuitable development were important issues to many. Observers wanted to ensure that all related facilities would be necessary and appropriate, and would meet the requirements of the RFP and of NPS’ management policies. National partners wanted to ensure that the proposal would result in a quality designed building and site. Also noted were questions regarding the mechanisms that NPS would use to manage the project over the long term to ensure a quality facility and operation of such. One organization was concerned that fundraising for a Gettysburg project might reduce the funds it was able to raise for its land purchases.
Because the issue of the appropriateness of the site was of concern to many, NPS undertook a comprehensive review of the site. That review determined that although an artillery battery had operated from a ridge that crossed the eastern edge of the property and continued through several residences located on the Baltimore Pike, no significant battle action had occurred on the balance of the tract. NPS determined that this ridge would continue to be protected. The Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission asked a panel of independent Civil War historians to review NPS’ work and their own sources of information to determine if any significant battle action occurred on this site. This independent panel agreed that no significant activity occurred there. A phase I archeological study of the site was undertaken and found seven small prehistoric lithic scatters, three historic quarries and approximately 73 Civil War artifacts, consisting of artillery shell fragments, minie balls, and unidentified impacted rounds. The Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission has concurred that none of the locations are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
After public comments on the proposal selected for negotiation were received, changes to respond to public concerns and questions were made in the original proposal selected for negotiation.
The refinements included two additions to the NPS requirements. The foundation suggested a 1,700-square-foot public library and research center. It also proposed expanding the Eastern National Bookstore to sell reproductions of items in the park’s collection including maps, prints and other objects. Such a shop would be similar to the museum store operated by Eastern National for NPS at the Jamestown Visitor Center, Colonial National Historical Park. Returns from this operation would be used to benefit resource preservation at the park.
The foundation also suggested other changes to reduce or eliminate the commercial aspects of the project. These included reducing the theater size and using a conventional, non-IMAX format for the film. In addition, the theater would be operated by Eastern National or the foundation as a non-profit venture. Proceeds from the theater interpretive fee would be used to pay off the commercial loan or to benefit the park. The for-profit Civil War Arts and Crafts Gallery, the National Geographic Store and the tour center gift shop would be eliminated. The proposed tour center would be open to different types of tours using Licensed Battlefield Guides, including antique vehicles, bicycle tours, horse tours, etc. The foundation also agreed to reduce by at least 50% the size of the family-oriented cafeteria.
The net result of these proposed changes was to eliminate all for-profit commercial elements of the original proposal, except for the cafeteria, which itself might be operated by a for-profit entity or by the foundation, and the licensed battlefield guide tours, who currently operate in the park. The parking fee was also eliminated.
Letter of Intent
After consideration of public comments and at the conclusion of the RFP process, on July 10, 1998, the National Park Service issued a Letter of Intent to the foundation. The Letter of Intent records the changes proposed for the visitor center/museum facility by the foundation, the objectives of the project, the general responsibilities of the foundation, and the actions NPS will undertake to support the project. Specific terms and conditions for fundraising and design and construction guidelines are also included. The Letter of Intent was signed by both NPS and the foundation.
The proposal outlined in the Letter of Intent is subject to further revision through the NPS planning process. If the planning process does not result in an acceptable proposal, the proposed visitor center facility will not go forward. Final execution of a binding agreement for the new facilities is subject to the successful completion of all required planning, consideration of further public comment on the proposal, and adoption of any further changes that may result from the planning process and additional public comment.
The General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
In April 1997, NPS began the planning for a new General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) to replace the park’s outdated 1982 GMP. Because the RFP was underway, NPS announced that it would defer consideration of new facilities as a part of the GMP until proposals were received and evaluated. The proposal selected for negotiation in response to the RFP would be incorporated into the GMP/EIS. Working with the public, NPS established goals for the GMP. Those are:
As a part of the process, NPS held public scoping meetings, workshops and focus group meetings; prepared and presented new mapping and resource work to explain the 1863 battle landscape and the changes it had undergone; and evaluated 5 preliminary concepts. Because of public comment, a sixth combined concept was developed. This combined concept eventually became NPS’ preferred alternative.
NPS determined that the best way to complete needed environmental planning for the proposal selected for negotiation was to terminate the environmental assessment process for the collections storage, museum and visitor center facilities DCP and incorporate the proposal selected for negotiation into the ongoing park-wide GMP/EIS. NPS incorporated the issues resulting from the DCP environmental assessment into the draft GMP/EIS as well as the changes suggested during the extensive public review of the proposal selected for negotiation.
In August 1998, Gettysburg National Military Park released a draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement presenting four alternatives for future management of the Gettysburg battlefield, and setting the basic philosophy and broad guidance for management decisions that affect the park’s resources and the visitor’s experience. The draft GMP/EIS included a preferred alternative derived from public comments on the preliminary concepts.
The preferred alternative in the draft GMP/EIS includes a suite of actions to improve resource protection and interpretation at the park. In the battle action areas of the park, the preferred alternative would include rehabilitation of the large-scale landscape elements present during the battle – the pattern of woods and open fields, and the system of lanes over which troops traveled. It also proposes the rehabilitation of small-scale landscape elements – fences, woodlots, orchards and other features – that were significant to the outcome of the battle. The preferred alternative would provide for the rehabilitation of the major historic features and circulation at the Soldiers’ National Cemetery. This approach to rehabilitation, coupled with the new museum facility, would broaden the scope of interpretation and expand the places at the park that could be well understood by visitors. The alternative also included other resource protection and visitor use measures. In addition to the measures within the park, the preferred alternative proposed many measures to partner with local communities, particularly the Borough of Gettysburg, to improve resource protection and interpretation of battlefield-related resources outside of the park’s boundary.
As a part of the Draft GMP/EIS, impacts, including the economic impact of the proposal and of the GMP alternatives, were evaluated. The results of the economic impacts assessment has been of particular interest to the Borough of Gettysburg and others in the local communities. The economic evaluation, conducted by an independent contractor on behalf of NPS, indicates that the impact of the preferred alternative of the GMP is positive. Expenditures in the community – excluding expenditures in the park – are expected to increase by $23.7 million, or more than 21%, with stable or increased visitor expenditures in each of the lodging, food, transportation, and retail and amusement sectors of the local tourist economy. The Draft GMP/EIS notes that although some individual businesses may be affected by the proposal, the overall positive economic impact should be a benefit to the local community.
The Borough of Gettysburg has expressed concerns over the possible reduction of its tax base. However, these concerns consider only the relocation of the visitor center and museum and not the overall proposal. The action alternatives of the draft GMP/EIS include a number of actions to integrate the interpretation of the community into the battlefield. Many of these actions are very significant and should increase the positive impact of the GMP on downtown. They include:
To accomplish these actions, NPS has begun work with a local and state steering committee to plan for these improvements. In addition, economic research suggests that the complete proposal will have beneficial tax effects for the entire area, including Cumberland Township (where the majority of the park is located) as well as the Borough of Gettysburg.
As a part of the GMP process, NPS held 30 public workshops, focus groups meetings and Advisory Commission meetings. These included seven workshops held during the 60-day public comment period, as well as two oral hearings, where testimony was recorded. During the GMP public comment period more than 500 comments were received, almost 75% of which supported the NPS preferred alternative.
The draft GMP/EIS incorporated the environmental issues that resulted from the proposal selected for negotiation, and NPS is considering all comments received from the public on this issue.
Conclusion
NPS has undertaken an exhaustive process of public involvement and review in developing its draft GMP/EIS. Between the GMP process and its predecessor DCP process, we have held 50 public meetings and have received and considered 4,600 public comments. The public has been involved in every step of this process and has had the opportunity to comment at every stage. The public comment has been effective. We have heard and responded to the voice of the public.
Because of public and agency concern expressed before the issuance of the draft GMP/EIS, we have removed commercial facilities from the proposed visitor center; cut the size of the restaurant facility by more than half; turned the restaurant into a family cafeteria; and decided that the theater would be operated by the park’s non-profit cooperating association or the foundation, with the proceeds from the operation to benefit NPS’ resource protection activities.
If the preferred alternative is adopted with the inclusion of appropriate changes resulting from public comments received, the result would be a very strong proposal, one that would guide appropriate rehabilitation of the battlefield so that it could convey, in meaningful ways, the landscape of the great Civil War battle. The Museum proposal would allow us to preserve the park’s archives, collections and the colossal cyclorama painting. Gettysburg NMP would be able to provide much improved interpretation of the causes, course and consequences of the Gettysburg Campaign. Moreover, thanks to the generosity and entrepreneurial spirit of private-sector partners, NPS could accomplish this at no cost to the taxpayers. However, it is important to note that a final decision on the draft GMP/EIS has not been made and that a final preferred alternative has not been selected.