Department of the Interior National Parks Service

Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Environmental Assessment for a Fire Management Plan

Gettysburg National Military Park & Eisenhower National Historic Site Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

July 2014

Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Gettysbu. rg National Military Park E S & n E. isenhower Historic Site v D i e r Gettysburg,p Pennsylvania o a n r July, 2014 m t This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates two alternatives for the Fire Managemente Plan at Gettysburg m n National Military Park & Eisenhower Historic eSite. The EA describes the environment andt resources that would be affected by the alternatives and the environmenn tal consequences of implementing thesea alternatives. NPS policy t states that all Parks’ with burnable vegetation are required to have an up-tol-date and accurate Fire

Management Plan. The EA evaluates the no-action (i.e., no change) alternative (alternative 1) and one action o A alternative (alternative 2). The NPS preferredf alternative (alternative 2) is to suppresss all unscheduled ignitions using the most appropriate suppression response, and implement resources management and fuels t reduction projects using mechanical treatment, chemical treatment and initiate a prescribede burning program. h s Three alternatives that proposed wildland efire use, or did not allow for prescribed sfire were considered but rejected because of the lack of large, uninterrupted land mass and generally smallm numbers of firefighters I available in this Parks. e n n t t This document assesses the impacts relatede to the proposed action, which incl ude neg li gibl e, minor, and moderate impacts to air quality, floodplainsr and wetlands, soils, threatened or Fiendangered species, vegetation, water resources, wildlife and fiisheries, historic structures, archeologre ical resources, cultural landscapes, park facilities and operations, ovisitor use and experience, social andM economic environment, r a human health and safety, transportation, anNd utilities. n a a For Further Information Contact: Zacht Bolitho, Chief of Resource Management ge i Gettysburg National Military Park m o e n nt a Note to Reviewers and Respondents: Pl l a If you wish to comment on this EA, you mayP post your comments electronically at http://Parkplanning.nps.gov/GETT or you may mail comments within 30 days to thn e address below. Whether you a r comment on the website or through the mail, if you include your address, phone numbO er, e-mail address, or other k personal identifying information, you should be aware that your entire comment – ctincluding your personal

o identifying information – may be made publiclyS available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to b withhold personal identifying information frome public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. er r , v Superintendent 2 i 0 Gettysburg National Military Park c 1 1195 Baltimore Pike, Suite 100 e 2 Gettysburg, PA 17325 G e t t y s b u r g

N a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n Table. of Contents v D i e r p o Contents a n Purpose and Need ...... r m 1 t Introduction ...... e 1 m n Significant Resources ...... e t 1 n a Goals for Fire Management ...... t l 2

Relation to Establishing and Other Legislationo ...... A 2 f Related Laws, Policies and Plans ...... s 3 s Scoping Issues ...... t e 4 h s Impact Topics ...... e s 5 m Natural Resources ...... I e 5 n Cultural Resources ...... n 6 t t Park Operations and Visitor Experiencee...... 7 r Fi Social and Economic Environment ...... i re 7 o M Impact Topics Considered but not Evaluatedr Further in this EA ...... 7 a N Alternatives ...... n 10 a a Alternatives Analyzed in this EA ...... t ge 10 i m Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppressiono ...... 10 e n nt Alternative 2 – Fire Suppression, Prescribeda Fire, and Non-fire Treatments (NPS Preferred Alternative) ..... 10 Pl Alternatives Considered but not Analyzedl Further in this EA ...... a 11 P n Alternative 3 – Full Suppression and Non-firea Treatments ...... 11 r O Alternative 4 – Fire Suppression, Prescribedk Fire, and Non-Fire Treatments ...... 11 ct

Environmentally Preferable Alternative ...... o 12 S b Affected Environment...... e er 16 r , Natural Resources ...... v 16 2 i Air Quality ...... 0 16 c 1 Floodplains and Wetlands ...... e 2 16 G Water Resources ...... e 17 t Soils ...... t 17 State Threatened and Endangered Speciesy ...... 18 s Vegetation ...... b 18 u Wildlife and Fisheries ...... r 19 Cultural Resources ...... g 20

N

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Historic Structures ...... E 20 S Archeological Resources ...... n 21 . v D Parks Facilities and Operations ...... i 21 e r Visitor Use and Experience ...... p o 21 a n Social and Economic Environment ...... r m 22 t Human Health and Safety ...... e 22 m n Transportation ...... e t 23 n a Environmental Consequences ...... t l 26

Natural Resources ...... o A 28 f Air Quality ...... s 28 s Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Commont to Both Alternatives ...... e 29 h s Floodplains and Wetlands ...... e s 30 m Mitigation ...... I e 32 n Soils ...... n 32 t t Mitigation Measures for Soils Commone to Both Alternatives ...... 33 r Fi State Threatened and Endangered Speciesi ...... re 34 o M Vegetation ...... r 35 a N Water Resources ...... n 38 a a Wildlife and Fisheries ...... t ge 40 i m Cultural Resources ...... o 42 e n nt Historical Structures ...... a 42 Pl Archeological Resources ...... l a 44 P n Cultural Landscapes ...... a 46 r O Parks Facilities and Operations ...... k 47 ct

Visitor Use and Experience ...... o 49 S b Human Health and Safety ...... e er 50 r , Transportation ...... v 52 2 i Utilities ...... 0 53 c 1 Public Involvement, Consultation and Coordinatione ...... 2 55 G Public Involvement ...... e 55 t References and Literature Cited ...... t 56 Appendix 1: Relevant Correspondence…………………………………………………………………………….y 60 s Appendix 2: Figures ...... b 62 u Figure1. Vicinity Map ...... r 62 Figure 2. Fire Management Units ...... g 63

N

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S Figure 3. Soils ...... n 64 . v D Figure 4. Wetlands ...... i 67 e r Figure 5. Vegetation ...... p o 68 a n Figure 6. Sensitive Areas ...... r m 69 t Figure7. Historic Monuments ...... e 70 m n Figure 8. Utilities at GETT and EISE ...... e t 71 n a Figure 9. Roadways through GETT and EISEt ...... l 72

o A f s s t e h s e s m I List of Tables e n n t t e r Table 1. Summary and Comparison of the Alternatives ………………Fi ...... 17 i re o M r Table 2. Summary of the Potential Impacts of the Alternatives. . . . . …a ...... 18 N n a a Table 3. Comparison of Relative Impactst of the Alternatives...... 19 ge i m o Table 4. Traffic Direction of Approach ...... e...... 30 n nt a Pl l a P n a r O k ct

o S b e er r , v 2 i 0 c 1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g

N

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E PurposeS and Need n . v Introduction D i e r The purpose of this federal action is to providep a long-range fire management plan (FMP)o for Gettysburg National Military Park (GETT) and the Eisenhower Nationala Historic Site (EISE) using the benefitsn of natural and prescribed r fire to achieve desired natural resource conditions in accordance with the Federal Wildlandm and Prescribed Fire t e Management Policy (1995, 2001, & 2009). NPm S Director's Order #18, Wildland Fire nManagement (DO-18), requires all Parks units with vegetation capablee of sustaining fire to develop a FMP. At combined FMP was developed for both GETT and EISE because then two Parks are contiguous and they are manageda by the same NPS t staff. For this document, the Parks and GETT/EISE refers to the combined Gettysburg Nationall Military Park and the

Eisenhower National Historic Site. The long-rangeo fire management plan would have Aa lifetime of at least 5 to approximately 15 years. f s

s t e Topics covered in the EA include fire suppressionh action plans, uses of prescribed fires to achieve desired natural and cultural resource objectives, and non-firee fuel load management for the two sites. sThe EA analyzes a range of m reasonable long-range fire management programI alternatives and their direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. Two alternatives are analyzed: Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative (i.e., continuatione of current management n n practices); and Alternative 2, a fire managementt program including suppression, prescribedt fire, and non-fire fuel reduction treatments. Alternative 2 is the NPSe preferred alternative. r Fi i re Fire suppression actions and planning at GETTo and EISE have relied on and wouldM continue to rely heavily on r cooperation with other federal, state, and local fire fighting agencies, and adjacenta landowners as the means for N n responding to wildland fires at the Parks anda in protecting the surrounding community. The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources (DCNR) Bureau of Forestry hasa fire suppression and prevention t ge responsibility for much of the lands surroundingi GETT/EISE. Other key contactsm for fire suppression in the Parks o include the fire chiefs of the surrounding fire departments, Pennsylvania State lawe enforcement, and county n nt emergency management officials. a Pl l a P n Significant Resources a r Gettysburg National Military Park is known primarily for the cultural and historicO resources that are protected. k ct The Park includes 5,989 acres of land, 1,830 monuments and cannon, 31 miles of historic avenues and 147 historic buildings (see Figure 7, page 68). The majority of the 5,989 acres in the Park areo agricultural/pasture in nature, S b with woodlots and woodlands accounting fore a total of 1,974 acres, orchards 18 eracres, and 43 linear miles of r historic fences. The Parks averages over 1.2 million visitors per year in its Visitor, Center, and more than 1.7 v 2 million visitors per year in the field. i 0 c 1 Eisenhower National Historic Site consists ofe 690 acres, including the original farm2 purchased and expanded by G President and Mrs. Eisenhower, two adjoining farms (B. Redding and Brandon) purchased by his associate W. e Alton Jones and farmed in partnership with thet President, and an additional adjoining farm (C. Redding) donated to the government to preserve the historic scene.t Improvements include the main house, barn, farm outbuildings, livestock control fencing, and a variety of farmingy equipment. The site is managed to restore and maintain the s cultural and natural resources in their historicb period appearances. The majority of the site is agricultural land with only about 19 acres being classified as woodland,u in addition to the home, barn and outbuildings portion of the site. r g

N 1

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U GETT and EISE are faced with the task of managing. a vast system of historic earthworksE and hundreds of acres of open fields, historic woodlots, and several orchardsS that were the scene of the majorityn of fighting during the Civil . War battle fought here. Prescribed fire could help reduce invasive shrub encroachmentsv and assist in promoting D i the establishment of native grasses on earthworkse and open fields, and thereby reducingr the current demands for mechanical mowing. p o a n r Given the issues and need for action described above, the purpose of taking action at thism time is to establish a Fire t e Management Plan for GETT and EISE that wouldm utilize a range of fire management strategiesn including the appropriate fire suppression, use of prescribede fire, and non-fire fuel reduction treatmentst to assist in n accomplishing natural and cultural resource objectives including restoring natural ecologicala processes and t l managing historically open fields and earthworks, while addressing protection of Parks resources and surrounding land uses. o A f s s t Goals for Fire Management e h s The following are the goals of the fire managemente plan at the Parks: s m  Make firefighter and public safetyI the highest priority of every fire management activity. Suppress all unwanted and undesirable wildland fires, regardless of ignitione source, to protect n n the public, private property, andt natural and cultural resources of the Parks.t  Manage wildland fires in concerte with federal, state, and local air quality regulations. Facilitate reciprocal fire management activitiesr through the development andFi maintenance of cooperative agreements and workingi relationships with pertinent firere management entities. o M  Reduce wildland fire hazards aroundr developed areas and areas adjacent to cultural and a historic sites. N n  Use prescribed fire as a methoda of restoring and maintaining the cultural and natural landscape to meet resource objectives of the Parks. a t ge i m o e n Relation to Establishing and Other Legislation nt a Pl l a Gettysburg National Military Park was initiallyP established as the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association, incorporated by an Act of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania on April 30, 1864:n a …to hold and preserve the battlegrounds of rGettysburg, on which were fought the actions of the first, second and O third days of July, Anno Domini one thousandk eight hundred and sixty-three, with the natural and artificial ct defenses, as they were at the time of said battle, and by such perpetuation, and sucho memorial structures as a generous and patriotic people may aid to erect,S to commemorate the heroic deeds,b the struggles, and the triumphs of their brave defenders. e er r , v On February 11, 1895, the U. S. Congress made Gettysburg the third national Military2 Park in the United States i 0 (28 Stat. 651). Among the purposes of the Parksc was the instruction to: 1 …acquire…such lands in the vicinity of Gettysburg,e Pennsylvania…which were 2occupied y the infantry, cavalry and artillery on the first, second and third daysG of e July, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and other such adjacent lands…necessary to preserve the important t topographical features of the battlefield. t y In 1933, the National Parks Service (NPS) tooks over the management of the battlefield from the War Department. b NPS management of the site was predicated uupon the 1893 and 1895 Federal legislation, and procedures NPS developed especially for the management of rbattlefield Parks. g

N 2

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Like the battlefield, the Soldiers’ National Cemetery. was established first by local citizensE and then by an act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The ActS to Incorporate the Soldiers’ National Cemeteryn was passed by the . Pennsylvania General Assembly on March 25, 1864. The Cemetery was transferred tov the stewardship of the D i Secretary of War of the United States on Maye 1, 1872, and then to the National Parks rService when it became the manager of Gettysburg National Military Park.p o a n r Eisenhower National Historic Site was originally purchased by President and Mrs. Dwightm D. Eisenhower in 1950 t e and used by them as their home during his presidency.m On November 27, 1967, Presidentn and Mrs. Eisenhower donated the Eisenhower Farm to the United Statese Government, reserving a life tenancyt for himself. The designation order states: n a t …the farm of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, thirty-fourth President of the Unites States,l at Gettysburg,

Pennsylvania, is of outstanding historical significanceo to the people of the United StatesA because of its close association with the life and work of Generalf Eisenhower and because of its relation tos the historic battle of

Gettysburg during the Civil Was… s t e h s …the establishment…as a national historic sitee would constitute a fitting and endurings memorial to General Dwight D. Eisenhower and to the events of far-reaching importance which have occurredm on the property. I e n n Following President Eisenhower’s death in 1969,t the NPS assumed management of thet Eisenhower farm, granting use of the home and 14 acres to Mrs. Eisenhowere under special use permit from September 28, 1969 until her r death in November 1, 1979. Fi i re o M r Related Laws, Policies and Plans a N n a NPS Management Policies a The NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a)t is the basic NPS-wide policyg document,e adherence to which is i m mandatory unless specifically waived or modifiedo by the NPS director or certain departmental officials, including e n the U.S. secretary of interior. Actions under this EA are in part guided by these managementnt policies. Sections a which are particularly relevant to this project are as follows: Pl l a General Management Plan P n a Gettysburg National Military Park, General Managementr Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, June 1999 O states that: k ct

 The landscapes, buildings, monuments, structures, archeological sites,o artifacts and archives that are significant to the outcome and Scommemoration of the Battle of Gettysburgb are protected, rehabilitated, and maintained in good condition.e er r ,  Public and private entities understandv the Parks’ mission and act cooperatively to protect and interpret 2 resources related to the Gettysburgi Campaign and its commemoration. 0 c 1 Eisenhower National Historic Site, General Management Plan, February 1987 states that: e 2  Restore and maintain the site’s Gnatural and cultural resources in their historic period appearances. e Resource Management Plan t t There are a number of resource management objectives developed by both Parks. Those most related to the FMP y are listed below: s  Protect historic buildings from bfire.  Providing appropriate environmental,u fire safety and suppression, and security conditions for the protection of collections and archives.r g

 Mowing fields and commemorative corridors. N 3

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U  Protecting significant topographical. and natural features of the Battlefield/SiteE from erosion.  To manage natural resources toS support cultural values while protectingn and preserving natural resources in accordance with legislation. and policy; and to provide leadershipv in the conservation of D natural resources contributing to Park values. i e r p o a Director’s Order 18….. n r m The Management Authorities (Director’s Ordert 18, January 2008 and Reference Manuale RM-18, January 2008) are the guiding documentsm for fire management plan implementation.n Service-wide fire e t management policy is expressed in the currentn revisions of the Director’s Orders and attendant Reference Manual for the National Parks Service, “The Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy:a Implementation and t l Reference Guide” (1998), Review and Update of Federal Wildland Fire Policy (2001), Interagency Strategy for the Implementation Federal Wildland Fire Managemento Policy (2003), Interagency PrescribedA Fire Planning and f Implementation Procedures Reference Guide (2006), and Modification to the Interagesncy Strategy for the s Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Managementt Policy (2008), and is incorporatede herein by reference. The Parks’ fire management objectives conform toh the referenced documents. s e s m Director’s Order 18 states, “Wildland fire mayI contribute to or hinder the achievemente of Park management objectives. Therefore, Park fire managementn programs would be designed to meet resourcen management t objectives prescribed for the various areas of the Parks and to ensure that firefighter andt public safety are not e compromised. r Fi i re o M Each Park with vegetation capable of burningr would prepare a fire management plan to guide a fire management a N program that is responsive to the Park natural and cultural resource objective andn to safety considerations for Park a visitors, employees, and developed facilities.” The full range of strategic optionsa is available to managers provided t selected options do not compromise firefighter or public safety, cost-effectiveness,ge resource benefits, or values to i m be protected. o e n nt a Scoping Issues Pl l a The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,P as amended (NEPA) requires Federaln agencies to invite public a involvement prior to making a decision on proposedr actions that may affect the environment. Scoping is the O k process of soliciting input from stakeholders – including NPS staff, the public, andct other agencies – at the outset of an environmental analysis. Not only may the information obtained from interestedo and knowledgeable parties S be of value in and of itself, but the perspectives and opinions as to which issues bmatter the most, and how, indeed e er whether, the agency should proceed with a givenr proposed action are equally important. Input from scoping helps , v shape the direction that analysis takes by helping planners and analysts decide which2 issues merit consideration. i Public input also helps in the development of alternatives to the proposed action,0 which is an integral part of the c environmental impact analysis process. 1 e 2 G Internal scoping for GETT/EISE FMP EA wase informal and took place during interdisciplinary team meetings t with Parks and regional staff, reviews of the tdocuments, and at various other staff meetings. Issues raised during the internal scoping meetings included: y s b o Reduction of wildland fuel hazardu o Concerns with construction ofr hand/tool created firelines during prescribed fire and Wild land fire response g o Use of bulldozers in wildfire suppression N 4

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U o Post-fire rehabilitation and mitigation. measures E o Impacts of wildland and prescribedS fires and fire suppression activities onn a variety of Parks . resources described below under Impact Topics. v D i e r External scoping was conducted through pressp releases, direct mailing to potentially affectedo or interested parties and at the September 2013 aand April 2014 public Advisory Commissionn Meetings. No issues were brought to the Park’s attention. r m t e Impact Topics m n e t

n a Impact topics identified and analyzed in this EA are listed below along with reasons for the selection of each t l impact topic. Each impact topic is further discussed in detail in “Affected Environment” chapter of this document. Potential impacts to resources fromo the proposed alternatives are discussed Ain “Environmental f Consequences.” s s t Impact topics are resources within the study area that could be affected, either beneficiallye or adversely, by the h s range of alternatives presented in this EA. Impe act topics considered in this document weres identified based on the issues raised during scoping, site conditions, federal laws, regulations, Executive Orders,m NPS Management I Policies 2006, Director’s Orders, and staff knowledge of the Parks’ resources. e n n t t Natural Resources e r Fi Air Quality: The Federal 1977 Clean Air Acti and amendments stipulate that Federalre agencies have an affirmative o M responsibility to protect a Park’s air quality fromr adverse air pollution impacts. GETT/EISE is designated as a a Class II air shed under the Clean Air Act. TheN NPS Management Policies 2006 address the need to analyze air n quality during park planning efforts. Implementationa of either of the alternatives proposed could produce a negligible amount of air pollution. All types of fires generate smoke and particulatea matter, which would impinge t ge on air quality in the Parks and surrounding region to some extent. In 1999 the U.S. EPA issued regional haze i m o regulations that are intended to manage and mitigate visibility impairment from ea multitude of regional haze n sources. Wildland and prescribed fires are some of the sources of regional haze ntcovered by the new rules. All of a these considerations recommend the inclusion of impacts to air quality in this analysPl is. l a Floodplains and Wetlands: Presidential ExecutiveP Orders 11988 and 11990 mandaten floodplain management and a protection of wetlands, and Director’s Ordersr 77-1 and 77-2 and the accompanying procedural manuals require O federal agencies to examine project impacts onk floodplains and wetlands. Wetlands and 100-year floodplains ct occur within the both Park boundaries, and some of these areas could be impacted by wildfire suppression activities, prescribed burning, and/or non-fire fuel load reduction activities. For othese reasons, impacts to S b floodplains and wetlands are analyzed in this EA. e er r , v Soils: Soils can potentially be adversely affected by the heat or residence time of2 intense fires, by i suppression activities, and by fire-related removal of vegetation. Therefore, impacts0 to soils are analyzed c in this EA. 1 e 2 G State Threatened or Endangered: The Pennsylvaniae Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) has mapped six CORE areas within the Parks. The CORE areas aret sites containing plant or animal species of concern at the state level, exemplary natural communities, or exceptionalt native diversity. Core habitats delineate essential habitat that cannot absorb significant levels of activity withouty substantial impact to the elements of concern. Since all species s depend on habitat conditions that may be influencedb by fire or fire exclusion, this EA considers the effect of the FMP on state threatened and endangered speciesu known to occur in the Parks. r g Vegetation: Vegetation and wildlife habitat are heavily influenced by fire regimes. Many invasive plant species,

N 5

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U some of which are spreading rapidly or are posing. a serious threat to native vegetation,E have been identified in the Parks. Fire may be a tool for control of invasiveS species or burned areas may be more nsusceptible to invasion. . Therefore, this EA will consider the impacts of the proposed FMP alternatives on the vParks vegetation. D i e r Water Resources: NPS policies require protectionp of water resources consistent with theo Federal Clean Water Act. The terrain of the Parks results in many streams,a creeks, and other water bodies. Both nfires and fire suppression r efforts can adversely affect water resources by exposing soils, which can lead to erosionm during storm events and t e subsequent suspended solids and turbidity inm downstream surface waters. Therefore, impactsn to water resources are analyzed in this EA. e t n a t l Wildlife and Fisheries: Fire management has pronounced effects on forested wildlife habitat and thus indirectly on wildlife populations. Fisheries can be indirectlyo impacted by impacts to stream waterA resources. Therefore, f potential impacts of the alternatives are evaluated in this EA. s s t Cultural Resources e h s e s Historic Structures: The Parks contain a number of historic buildings, monuments, andm structures within their I boundaries. Because wildfires and/or prescribed burns could adversely impact historic buildingse and monuments, the n n impact topic of historic structures is retained tfor further analysis in this EA. t e r Fi Cultural Landscapes: According to the NPSi Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management (Director’s Order 28) (NPS2002), a cultural landscape is: re o M r … a reflection of human adaptation and use of natural resources and is often expresseda in the way land is organized N and divided, patterns of settlement, land use, systems of circulation, and the typesn of structures that are built. The a character of a cultural landscape is defined both by physical materials, such as roads,a buildings, walls, and t ge vegetation, and by use reflecting cultural values and traditions. i m o e n The implementation of any of the proposed alternatives would result in impacts tont the Parks cultural landscapes that a are nationally significant and contribute to the story of the battle and its consequencesPl and/or to interpretation of l a the Eisenhower National Historic Site. The designedP landscapes of the national nce metery and of the commemorative national Military Park also area nationally significant because they define the spaces that were r created by the battle veterans to honor the fallen soldiers, to mark the lines of battle,O and to perpetuate the national k ct memory of the event and of the Civil War. Either of the proposed fire management plan alternatives could impact o the cultural landscapes within the Parks. Therefore,S the impact topic of cultural landscapesb is retained for further analysis in this EA. e er r , v 2 Archeological Resources: NPS Managementi Policies 2006 state that archeological resources “will be maintained 0 c and preserved in a stable condition to prevent degradation and loss” (NPS 2006a).1 Archeological resources are the material remains of past human activity (NPSe 2000). Archeological sites within the2 study area are representative of G the broad patterns of human history associatede with the greater Gettysburg area. Identified resources of earliest habitation are few, but some have been foundt to date to the late archaic period (circa 3000-1800 BC). The proposed fire management plan could impact any or allt of these resources. Therefore, the impact topic of archeological resources is retained for further analysis in thisy EA. s b u r g

N 6

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n Park Operations and Visitor Experience. v D i e r Parks Facilities and Operations: Severe firesp can potentially affect park buildings and operations at national parks, especially in more developed sites like visitor centers, administrative and maintenanceo facilities. Fire a n activities have the potential to cause changesr to concessionaire activities, and park visitorm services. Park staff may be prevented from working on scheduled dutiest to respond to a fire or to increased firee danger. Thus, the potential effects of the alternatives on park facilities andm operations will be considered in this EA.n e t Visitor Use and Experience: The 1916 NPS nOrganic Act directs the NPS to provide fora public enjoyment of the t scenery, wildlife, and natural and historic resources of national parks “in such a mannerl and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of ofuture generations.” Fire events may changeA the scheduling and content of interpretive programming and mayf impact what visitors see and can do whens they are visiting the Parks.

Therefore, the potential impacts of the proposed FMP on visitor use and experience ares addressed in this EA. t e h s Social and Economic Environment e s m Human Health and Safety: Fires can be extremelyI hazardous, even life-threatening. Currente federal fire management policies emphasize that firefightern and public safety is the first priority; alln FMPs must reflect this commitment (NIFC 2008). Therefore, impactst to human health and safety are addressedt in this EA. e r Fi Transportation: According to the NPS Managementi Policies 2006, the “location, type, and design of transportation systems” influence the quality of the visitor experience. In addition,re “these systems also affect, to a o M great degree, how and where Parks resourcesr will be impacted.” The NPS advises that management decisions a regarding transportation facilities require a full,N interdisciplinary consideration of alternatives and a full n a understanding of their consequences. Temporary closure of roads is possible duringa fire suppression and prescribed fire activities. In addition, access tto some areas of the Parks by emergencyge vehicles, both NPS and non- NPS, can be difficult because roads are few andi require regular maintenance. Therefore,m this topic is included for o further analysis in this EA. e n nt a Pl Utilities: Several private-company utility linesl occur within the Parks, as do some telecommunications equipment. Heavy smoke from wildland fire has been known to cause arcing from high-tensiona power lines, so this topic is P n included for further consideration in this EA.a r O k ct Impact Topics Considered but not Evaluated Further in this EA o S b The following presents an overview of impact topics that were considered, but ultimately dismissed from further e er r analysis. An impact topic was initially considered but dismissed from further analysis, if it was determined that the v resource is not present in the study area or because any potential impacts would 2be slight but detectable, typically i 0 temporary, and localized. Background informationc used in considering each topic is provided below along with 1 the reasons for dismissing each topic from furthere analysis. 2 G e Federally Threatened and Endangered Species: : No federally-listed species occur within the GETT or EISE t boundaries. No critical habitat, as defined byt 50 CFR 17.95, has been identified in the Parks so the potential for loss of critical habitat was not analyzed. They U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Field Office, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Departments of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Division of Natural Heritage b were consulted in this analysis. There will beu “No Effect” on federally listed species, and therefore this topic was dismissed from further analysis. r g

N 7

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E Prime and Unique Farmland Soils: The CEQS NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) requiren federal agencies to assess the impacts of their actions on soils classified. by the Natural Resources Conservationv Service (NRCS) as D prime or unique farmland soils. According to the NRCS, there are no unique farmlandi soils within the study area, e r although there are prime farmlands located inp the study area (NRCS 2012). No primeo farmland would be irreversibly converted to other uses. Therefore,a the impact topic of prime and unique farmlandn soils is dismissed r from further analysis. m t e m n Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Wild and Scenice Rivers Act establishes a system for thet protection of rivers with outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, ncultural, or historic values. These rivers area to be preserved in free- t flowing condition for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Becausel there are no designated wild and scenic rivers in the study area, the impacto topic of wild and scenic rivers wasA dismissed from further analysis. f s s t Ethnographic Resources: Guidance for identification of ethnographic resources is founde in National Register h s Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documentinge Traditional Cultural Propertiess (NPS 1998). Ethnographic resources are defined by the NPS as a “site, structure, object, landscape,m or natural resource feature I assigned traditional, legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the culturale system of a group n n traditionally associated with it (NPS 1998). Ethnographict resources are equivalent to thet term “Traditional Cultural Property.” A Traditional Cultural Propertye is eligible for inclusion in the National Register, “because of r Fi its association with cultural practices or beliefsi of a living community that are rooted in the community’s history, and which are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community”re (NPS 1998). There are o M r no properties that meet the definition of a Traditional Cultural Property within thea study area. Therefore, the N impact topic of ethnographic resources was dismissed from further analysis. n a a t Indian Sacred Sites: Executive Order 13007 (May 24, 1996), “Indian Sacred Sites,”ge requires managers of federal i m o lands to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of Indian Sacred Sites. Thee Parks are not considered as n sacred sites by the Keeper of the National Register, nor are they an Indian Trust ntresource. Therefore, the impact a Pl topic of Indian Sacred Sites was dismissed froml further analysis. In the unlikely event that human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are discovered aduring construction, provisions P n outlined in the Native American Graves Protectiona and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC3001) would be r followed. O k ct

Indian Trust Resources: Secretarial Order 3175 (November 8, 1993) requires thato any anticipated impacts to S b Indian Trust Resources from a proposed projecte or action by agencies of the Departmenter of the Interior be r explicitly addressed in environmental documents. There are no known Indian Trust, Resources at the Parks. No v 2 land within the Parks is held in trust by the Secretaryi of the Interior for the benefit of Indians due to their status as 0 Indians. Therefore, the impact topic of Indianc Trust Resources was dismissed from further analysis. 1 e 2 Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898G (February 11, 1994), “ Federal Actions to Address Environmental e Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Incomet Populations” requires all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifyingt and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts of their programsy and policies on minorities or low- income populations or s communities as defined in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Revised Draft Environmental b Justice Guidance. Although minority and low-incomeu populations as defined in Executive Order 12898 reside in Adams County, there are no socially or economicallyr disadvantaged populations within the study area. Neither of the alternatives under consideration would resultg in disproportionately high or adverse environmental effects,

N 8

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U including human health, economic, social, or. environmental impacts on minority or low-incomeE populations residing in Adams County. Therefore, the impactS topic of environmental justice was dismissedn from further . analysis. v D i e r p o Land Use and Urban Quality: The land use aand urban quality of the Parks and surroundingn area would not be r impacted by the proposed project, and land use would remain consistent with the 1999m GMP. Therefore, the t e impact topic of land use and urban quality wasm dismissed from further analysis. n e t n a t l

o A f s s t e h s e s m I e n n t t e r Fi i re o M r a N n a a t ge i m o e n nt a Pl l a P n a r O k ct

o S b e er r , v 2 i 0 c 1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g

N 9

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n . v AlternativesD i e r p o Alternatives Analyzed in this EA a n r m Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppressiont e m n e Under Alternative 1, existing conditions and management practices would continue int accordance with those n a presently occurring. All wildland fires wouldt continue to be suppressed aggressively inl order to minimize the burn area. Prescribed burning would not be utilized in the Parks, and no non-fire fuel reduction treatments would be o planned. Outside firefighting groups would continue to be the primary fire fighting entitiesA at GETT and EISE. f No wildland fire use fires, naturally-ignited fires that are managed for benefits to naturals resources, would be s allowed. Under Alternative 1, no fire managementt unit (FMU) would be established. Thee FMP would not be updated to reflect recent changes in NPS andh Federal wildland fire policy and direction.s The Parks would not e change its fire management strategies. s m I e n n Alternative 2 – Fire Suppression, Prescribedt Fire, and Non-fire Treatmentst (NPS Preferred e Alternative) r Fi i Under Alternative 2, a wildland fire program would be implemented that integratesre wildland fire suppression, o M r prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatment activities to meet resource managementa objectives. Prescribed fire N would be utilized in the battlefield and Eisenhower Site to restore and maintain historicn vistas, reduce Wildland a Urban Interface (WUI) fuel loading, and to return fire to Parks ecosystems. Non-firea treatment projects would be t ge conducted in those areas where fuel reductioni treatment is needed, but because ofm the conditions present, o prescribed fire is not a viable option. Under Alternative 2, the FMP would reflecte recent NPS policy changes. n Federal wildland fire policies in the areas of safety, planning, wildland fire, prescribednt fire, preparedness, a suppression, prevention, protection priorities, interagency cooperation, standardization,Pl economic efficiency, l a wildland/urban interface, and administration Pand employee roles would be incorporatedn into the FMP. The FMP would comply with NPS Director's Order 18,a Wildland Fire Management, and the Federal Wildland Fire r O Management Policy national standards. k ct

o Alternative 2 would establish a FMU (see FigureS 2, page 61). Wildland fires wouldb continue to be suppressed, e er using existing control lines, using natural andr man-made barriers wherever possible. New control lines would , only be built when imminent threat to life or vproperty exists. Prescribed fires would be used in the FMU to 2 i accomplish resource management objectives. Prescribed fires would be planned0 in the FMU units and conducted c according to site-specific objectives, prescriptions, and mitigating measures identified1 in individual prescribed e 2 burn plans submitted and approved prior to implementation.G This schedule is designed to allow for treatment of potentially dangerous arrangements of fuels ande to restore or mimic the role of fire within certain vegetation communities that benefit from the effects of tfire, and to manage the historic scene within the Parks. Prescribed fire would also be used to treat populations of exotict invasive species with or without using other treatments and move y towards restoration of those areas that have beens heavily impacted by these species b Non-fire (primarily mechanical) fuel treatmentu methods would be used to manage hazardous fuels and to aid in r accomplishing vegetation management objectives in areas where safe and effective prescribed fire treatment is g precluded by fuel arrangements or is otherwise not feasible. N 10

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n . All prescribed fires would be carefully monitored according to the GETT/EISE Fire Effectsv Monitoring Plan. All D i prescribed fires, as well as non-fire treatmente projects, would be subject to a compliancer review and cultural resource clearance pursuant to the guidelinesp established in the National Environmentalo Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Sectiona 106 and guidelines set forth by then Pennsylvania State r Historic Preservation Officer. m t e m n Alternatives Considered but not Analyzede Further in this EA t n a t Alternative 3 – Full Suppression and Non-fire Treatments l

Under this alternative, a wildland fire programo would be implemented in which all fires,A regardless of location or ignition source, would be immediately suppressedf using the appropriate management sresponse with emphasis on keeping the fire as small as possible. Non-fire treatment projects would be conducted sin those areas where fuel t treatment is needed. No prescribed fire or wildland fire use would occur. The FMP woulde reflect recent NPS h s policy changes. Federal wildland fire policiese in the areas of safety, planning, wildlands fire, preparedness, suppression, prevention, protection priorities, interagency cooperation, standardization,m economic efficiency, I wildland/urban interface, and administration and employee roles would be incorporatede into the FMP. The FMP n n would comply with NPS Director's Order 18,t Wildland Fire Management, and the Federalt Wildland Fire Management Policy national standards. e r Fi i The purpose of the federal action is to provide a long-range fire management planre and program using the benefits o M r of natural and prescribed fire to achieve desired natural resource conditions as describeda in the Federal Wildland N and Prescribed Fire Management Policy (1995, 2001, & 2009). Fire is and has beenn an important natural process a a in the establishment and maintenance of vegetationt communities in the Parks. Because this alternative excludes the use of fire for resource benefits, it is not consistent with the Federal Wildlandge and Prescribed Fire Management i m o Policy, and does not meet the purpose and need for federal action. Therefore, thise alternative is not analyzed n further in this EA. nt a Pl l a Alternative 4 – Fire Suppression, PrescribedP Fire, and Non-Fire Treatmentsn a r O Under Alternative 4, a wildland fire programk would be implemented that integrates wildland fire suppression, ct prescribed fire to meet management objectives. Fires could be used as a management tool, in concert with o prescribed fire, to restore and maintain ParksS ecosystems. Non-fire treatments wouldb occur. Federal wildland fire policies in the areas of safety, planning, wildlande fire, prescribed fire, preparedness,er suppression, prevention, r , protection priorities, interagency cooperation,v standardization, economic efficiency, wildland/urban interface, and 2 administration and employee roles would be iincorporated into the FMP. The FMP would comply with NPS 0 c Director's Order 18, Wildland Fire Management, and the Federal Wildland Fire Management1 Policy national standards. e 2 G e All unwanted wildland fires would be suppressed.t t y Prescribed fires would be planned in the FMU and conducted according to site-specific objectives, prescriptions, s and mitigating measures identified in individualb prescribed burn plans submitted and approved prior to implementation. This schedule is designed tou allow for treatment of potentially dangerous arrangements of fuels and to restore the role of fire within certain vegetationr communities that benefit from the effects of fire. Prescribed g fire would also be used to treat populations of exotic invasive species and move towards restoration of those areas N 11

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U that have been heavily impacted by these species.. It would be used to manage vegetationE in the historic vistas in the Parks. S n . v D i Naturally-ignited WFU fires would be allowede to burn in the Parks, if they meet the decisionr criteria for the fire management unit in which they occur, in orderp to permit natural ignitions to exert theiro historical influence upon Parks ecosystems at time(s) and place(s) thata are defined by the resource itself. However,n due to the closeness of r homesites and businesses adjacent to the Parks, and the relatively small number of Parkm firefighters, this t e alternative does not meet the purpose and need,m and therefore is not analyzed further inn this EA. e t n a t l Environmentally Preferable Alternative In accordance with the DO-12 Handbook, theo NPS identifies the environmentally preferableA alternative in its NEPA documents for public review and commentf [Sect. 4.5 E(9)]. The environmentallys preferable alternative is the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environments and best protects, preserves, t e and enhances historical, cultural, and naturalh resources. The environmentally preferables alternative is identified upon consideration and weighing by the Responsiblee Official of long-term environmentals impacts against short- term impacts in evaluating what is the best protection of these resources. In some situations,m such as when I e different alternatives impact different resourcesn to different degrees, there may be moren than one environmentally preferable alternative (43 CFR 46.30). t t e r In this case, the NPS Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, Suppression, PrescribedFi Fire, and Non-fire Treatments, i re is the environmentally preferable alternative ofor the Fire Management Plan for GETT/EISEM since it best protects r and preserves natural and cultural resources. Alternative 2 would keep the focusa of fire suppression activities to N n keeping fires as small as possible while minimizinga damage to resources by using existing fire breaks (trails, roads, streams). Summary and Comparison of the Alternatives a t ge

i m o The first goal for the fire management program at GETT/EISE is to protect humane life and property within and n adjacent to Parks boundaries. Alternative 1 would accomplish this by setting safetynt as the highest priority of every a Pl fire management operation. Alternative 2 wouldl accomplish this by setting safety as the highest priority of every fire management operation, in which emphasis would be on keeping fires as smalla as possible. P n a r The second goal for the fire management program at the Parks is to suppress all Ounwanted and undesirable k wildland fires, regardless of ignition source, to protect the public, private property,ct and natural and cultural resources of the Parks. Alternative 1 and 2 would accomplish this by placing suppressiono emphasis on selecting S b an appropriate management response that woulde achieve suppression objectives erwhile minimizing resource r damage and maximizing cost effectiveness. , v 2 i 0 The third goal for the fire management programc at the Parks is to manage wildland fires in concert with federal, 1 state, and local air quality regulations, and thee fourth is to facilitate reciprocal fire2 management activities through the development and maintenance of cooperativeG agreements and working relationships with pertinent fire e management entities. Alternative 2 would accomplisht these goals by ensuring that the FMP is up-to-date with new regulations, and making aware the Parks’ policyt and procedures to neighboring jurisdictions, and by maintaining Memoranda of Understanding cooperative agreementsy with the local counties, and the PA DCNR Bureau of Forestry. s b u r g

N 12

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U The fifth goal for the fire management program. at GETT/EISE is to reduce wildland fireE hazard around developed areas and areas adjacent to cultural and historicS sites. Alternative 2 would accomplishn this goal using fire . prevention programs that incorporate education, engineering, and enforcement. v D i

e r The sixth goal for the fire management programp at the Parks is to use prescribed fire aso a method of restoring and maintaining the cultural and natural landscapea to meet resource objectives of the Parks.n Alternative 2 would r accomplish this goal by including a prescribed fire program in the Parks. m t e m n Table 1. Summary and Comparison of thee Alternatives. t n a Alternative 1 Alternativet 2 Fire Management Unit None 2 FMUs l

(FMU) o A Fire Management f s Strategies s t e Suppression Yes Yesh s e s Prescribed Fire No Yes Non-fire Treatments No Yes m I e

n n t t e Table 2. Potential Impacts of Alternativer 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives Fi i re negligibleo to minor, short- minor toM moderate (due to additional r Air Quality term localized to regional smoke froma prescribed burns), short-term N adverse impacts localizedn to regional adverse impacts a Floodplains negligible negligiblea t minor, short-term, localized, minor, shortge -term, localized, both adverse i m Wetlands both adverseo and beneficial and beneficial impacts e impactsn nt minor,a short-term, localized, minor to moderate (due to additional Pl Soils both adverse and beneficial smoke from prescribed burns), short-term, l a impactsP localized, both adverse and beneficial n a impacts r Threatened negligible negligibleO k /Endangered ct

NATURAL Species o S RESOURCES minor to moderate, short-to minor tob moderate, short to long-term, e er Vegetation long-termr localized to localized to regional, beneficial impacts , regional,v adverse impacts (due to prescribed burns) 2 negligiblei to minor, short- minor to moderate (due to higher potential 0 c Water term, localized to regional, of erosion1 from prescribed burns), short- resources adversee impacts term, localiz2 ed to regional, adverse G impacts Wildlife and minore to moderate, short- to minor to moderate, short- to long-term, t long-term, localized, adverse localized, largely beneficial impacts (due Fisheries t and beneficialy impacts to prescribed burns) negligibles to minor, negligible to minor, permanent, localized, Historic permanent,b localized, both both adverse and beneficial impacts Structures adverseu and beneficial CULTURAL impactsr RESOURCES Archeological minorg to moderate, negligible to minor, permanent,

N 13

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Resources permanent,. localized adverse localized adverseE impacts impactsS n negligible. to minor, negligible to minor,v temporary to long­ Cultural temporaryD to long-term, term, localized,i adverse and beneficial e r Landscapes localized,p adverse and beneficial o a n Facilities and negligibler to minor, minor to moderatem (due to additional staff Operations temporary,t localized adverse work changes eduring prescribe burns and PARKS impactsm non-fire treatmentsn ), temporary, localized OPERATIONS e adverse impactst AND VISITOR n a t EXPERIENCE Visitor Use minor, temporary to short- minor, temporaryl to short-term, localized,

and term, olocalized, both adverse both adverse and beneficial impacts Experience and beneficial impacts A f s Human Health negligible to minor, negligible to moderates (due to additional and Safety temporaryt to short-term, prescribe burnse ), temporary to short-term, localizedh to regional, adverse localized to regionals adverse and beneficial SOCIAL AND impactse s

ECONOMIC Transportation negligible to minor, negligible to minor,m temporary, localized ENVIRONMENT I e temporary,n localized adverse adverse impacts impacts n t t Utilities negligiblee to minor, negligible to minor, temporary, localized, temporary,r localized, adverse adverse impactsFi impactsi re o M r a N n a a Table 3. Comparison of Relative Impacts oft the Alternatives. ge i m o Alternative 1 Alternative 2 e n 0 - ­ nt a Air Quality Pl Floodplainsl and 0 a + + Wetlands P n a 0 - r Soils O k NATURAL RESOURCES ct Threatened and 0 o EndangeredS + Species b e er r 0 + + , v Vegetation 2 i 0 0 - c Water Resources 1 e 0 2 + + G Wildlife ande Fisheries t 0 + Historic Structurest CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeologicaly 0 + Resources s Cultural Landscapesb 0 + u r g Parks Facilities and 0 -

N 14

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U PARKS OPERATIONS Operations . E AND VISITOR Visitor Use Sand 0 n - Experience. v D i Human Healthe and 0 - SOCIAL AND Safety r p o ECONOMIC Transportation 0 0 a n ENVIRONMENT Utilities r 0 m0 Alternative1 is assigned a value of zero (0) t e Alternative 2 is rated based on how the comparem to Alternative 1: n 0 indicates impacts are similar e t n + indicates impacts that are more beneficial a t l ++ indicates impacts that are much more beneficial - indicates impacts that are more adverse o A - - indicates impacts that are much more adversef s s t e h s e s m I e n n t t e r Fi i re o M r a N n a a t ge i m o e n nt a Pl l a P n a r O k ct

o S b e er r , v 2 i 0 c 1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g

N 15

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E AffectedS Environment n . v D i e r This chapter describes existing environmentalp conditions in areas potentially affected oby the proposed actions. Generally, the actions would occur within Gettysburga National Military Park and/or Eisenhowern National Historic r Park, in the surrounding community of Gettysburg, or in Cumberland Township. GETTm comprises approximately t 5,989 acres and the adjacent EISE is 189 acres. General information about the resourcese that could potentially be m n impacted by the EA alternatives is discussede for the two Park area. t n a Natural Resources t l

o A Air Quality f s s The 1963 Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USCt 7401 et seq.) requires that federal land emanagers protect air quality. The NPS Management Policies 2006 addressh the need to analyze air quality during Parkss planning. The Adams e County metropolitan area, in which Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhowers National Historic site are m located, is designated as a “maintenance area”I for the 1997 eight-hour National Ambiente Air Quality Standards for ozone. The Parks do occasionally experiencen relatively high concentrations of ozone nduring the summer. High t ozone levels are associated with hot, stable air masses and usually occur during the summert months. Ozone levels e are particularly important because they are used to define overall air quality ratings and “alerts” posted daily r Fi during the summer months. Automobile andi other vehicular emissions of nitrogenre oxides and volatile organic compounds are primary air pollution sourceso affecting the ambient air quality ofM the Parks and surrounding r a community. N n a a Floodplains and Wetlands t ge i m o There are numerous creeks and associated floodplains as well as wetlands withine the two Parks. A total of 178 n nt acres of wetlands occur here with 160 acres ata GETT and 18 acres at EISE. A map showing wetland locations in the two Parks is shown in Figure 3 (page 62). All of these creeks drain into the PlMonocacy River which is part of l a the Potomac River watershed. Streams in theP Parks generally have good sustainedn flows. a r O Floodplains adjacent to streams in the two Parksk are often forested and typically include pin oak (Pinus palustris), ct swamp white oak(Quercus michauxii), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica), sycamore (Platanus americana), and black walnut (Juglans nigra) are frequent ono the wetter S b floodplain soils, with understories includinge spicebush (Lindera benzoin), violetser (Viola spp.), nettles (Urtica r dioica), cut-leaved coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), golden alexanders (Zizea aurea, ) and other wildflowers. v Several species of special concern are found on the wooded floodplains. 2 i 0 c Wetlands include vegetation types important for the area, providing essential habitat1 for e 2 many plant and animal species. The type of wetlandG depends on soil type, disturbance, and length and duration of flooding. Many of the wetlandse in the two parks are associated with streams and include floodplain forests as described above,t forested swamps such as those in the South Mountain area, shrub swamps, and graminoid marshes.t Many of the wetlands in the Parks are seepage swamps, which are relatively small forested yor shrub-dominated wetlands found on lower slopes where water emerges at the surface in a diffuses flow. These wetlands may be dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) with hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) andb yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) as associates, and an understory of rhododendron (Rhododendron uspp.) , swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and/or highbush blueberry (Vacciniumr corymbosum). Common wetland herbs include skunk cabbage g (Symplocarpus foetidus), violets (Viola spp.), manna grasses (Glyceria spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and ferns.

N 16

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Wetlands are important refugia for plants as .well as important habitat for nesting and Emigrating birds. Many other animals such as amphibians, turtles, dragonflies,S and damselflies also depend on specificn wetland habitats for all or a portion of their life cycles. . v D i Water Resources e r p Surface waters are common in the two Parks. Several streams and ponds dissect the Parkso including Rock Creek, a n Marsh Creek and Spanglers Spring in GETTr and Willoughby Creek along EISE. Largerm creeks and smaller drainages locally called “runs” are common throughoutt the Parks. In the northwest sectione of the Gettysburg m National Military Park, Pitzer’s Run and Spangler’s Run drain into Willoughby Run. Then main branch of e t Willoughby Run flows through Eisenhower Nationaln Historic Site and then joins Marsha Creek. A short stretch of the main branch of Marsh Creek also flows throught the western border of Eisenhowerl National Historic Site. On the east side of Gettysburg National Military Park numerous small drainages, including Blocher’s Run, Stevens o Run, Culp Run, Winebrenner’s Run, Jones Bridge Run, Spangler’s Spring Run, GuinnA Run, and Wright Avenue f s Run, drain into Rock Creek. Sections of the main branch of Rock Creek also flow throughs the Parks. In the south- central portion of Gettysburg National Militaryt Parks, Heagy’s Woods Run joins Plume Run, which is the h prominent stream in that area. Plum Run eventually joins Rock Creek outside the Parkss boundary. In the East e s Cavalry Field Unit of Gettysburg National Military Park, Plum Run (a different streamm than the Plum Run mentioned above) joins White Run, which eventuallyI flows into Rock Creek outside thee Parks boundaries. Water quality depends on the chemical content of bothn underground and surface waters and then degree of contamination t from residential and industrial development. t e r Fi Soils i re The soils within and around the Parks are classifiedo into 45 different soil types varyingM in bedrock, texture, depth, r a and slope (see Figure 3, page 62). Diabase, Shale,N sandstone, limestone, and silty mudstone of Triassic ages n dominate bedrock of the Parks area. The Battlefielda and Historic Site generally contain deep, well-drained silty a loam soils with clayey or loamy subsoil. Thet most abundant soil in the Parks isge the Lehigh series, moderately well-drained to somewhat poorly drained silti loams that occur in the gently slopingm uplands. Lehigh soils can be o e very stony and can contain a few exposed bouldersn at the surface. The second most common soil series in the nt a rolling lowlands is the Penn series that consist of deep, well-drained silt loams. OtherPl common soils in the rolling lowlands are the Abottstown, Klinesville, Readington,l Reaville, and Brecknock aseries. In general, these series P contain shallow to deep, well-drained to somewhat poorly drained silt loams. n a r O k The ridges throughout the Parks are typically underlain with dibase bedrock. Thect most common soil over the diabase intrusions is the Neshaminy series, which contains deep, well-drained, veryo stony, channery silt loams. S The soils that occur over the diabase intrusions tend to be very stony and mineral-rich,b and often support diverse e er herbaceous flora and several rare plant species.r LeGorge and Mount Lucas series are other common soils. They , v are moderately deep to deep, somewhat poorly drained to well-drained channery2 silt loams that developed in i material weathered from diabase. Stones and boulders can be common on the surface.0 Drainages over the diabase c intrusions typically contain the Watchung series, deep, poorly-drained silty clay 1loams with occasional large e 2 diabase boulders (Speir 1967). G e The Croton series occurs in depressions, drainaget ways, and other level areas in the lowlands and contains deep, t poorly drained silt loams. Within the floodplainsy of the larger creeks and streams in the Parks, Hatboro, Bowansville, and Rowland series are common.s These series contain moderately well drained to poorly drained silt loam, gravelly loam, and sandy loam (Speir 1967).b u

r g

N 17

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U State Threatened and Endangered Species. E No federally endangered or threatened speciesS occur within the two Park boundaries. nThe Pennsylvania Natural . Diversity Inventory (PNHP) has listed 23 plants as endangered, threatened or species vof special concern within the D i two Parks. PNHP has mapped six CORE arease within the Parks which are sites containingr plant or animal species of concern at the state level, exemplary naturalp communities, or exceptional native diversityo (see Figure 6, a page 67). Core habitats delineate essential habitat that cannot absorb significant levelsn of activity without r m substantial impact to the elements of concern.t e m n e t Vegetation n a t Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site comprise a mosaicl of pastoral landscapes and forested knolls, with pockets oof dispersed wetland and intermittent streams.A Over 2,300 acres of the Parks’ landscape are planted in crops, pasture,f or meadows providing the visitor withs a glimpse of the local agrarian lifestyle. Over 1,600 acres of woodlots and forested habitat comprise several ssuccessional communities, t from mature oak/hickory to early scrub-shrub. Over 550 species of vascular plants havee been inventoried within h s the Parks, 410 of which are native species (Nationae l Parks Service 2005a). s m I A vegetation study at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historice Site identified 15 n n vegetation associations: Chestnut Oak Forest,t Dry Oak – Mixed Hardwood Forest, Tuliptreet Forest, Modified Successional Forest, Conifer Plantation, Virginiae Pine Successional Forest Sycamore – Mixed Hardwood r Fi Floodplain Forest, Bottomland Mixed Hardwoodi Forest, Palustrine Shrub Thicket, Successional Old Field, Agricultural Field, Pasture, Orchard, Wet Meadow, and Reed Canary Grass Riverinere Grassland (NPS 2006b). A o M r map of the vegetation types is shown in Figure 5 (page 66).These vegetation typesa are strongly influenced by the N varied environmental settings of the Parks and the mandate to preserve the topographic,n landscape, and cultural a a features as they were in 1863 such that visitorst and historians can fully understand and appreciate the Battle of Gettysburg. ge i m o e n One of the most influential environmental factors on the Parks’ vegetation is thent Gettysburg Sill, the large diabase a intrusion that runs southwest to northeast through Gettysburg National Military PlPark. The sill forms l a topographically high areas that are resistant toP weathering and support very stonyn soils. These areas are mostly forested because the stony hills are inhospitablea to row crop agriculture. Dry Oak – Mixed Hardwood Forest is the r most abundant forest association in the Parks that primarily occurs on the forestedO sill areas of Big Round Top, k ct Little Round Top, Powers Hill, and Culp’s Hill. Due to the mineral-rich soils weathered from the diabase, several o plant species of special concern are associatedS with Dry Oak – Mixed Hardwoodb Forest. These species include: Adam and Eve (Aplectrum hyemale), Short’se sedge (Carex shortiana), hoary puccooner (Lithospermum canescens), r , greater yellow lady's slipper (Cypripedium pubescensv var.pubescens), downy phlox (Phlox pilosa), cankerweed 2 (Prenanthes serpentaria), eastern smoothbeardtonguei (Penstemon laevigatus), Shumard’s oak (Quercus 0 c shumardii), and Missouri gooseberry (Ribes missouriense). The Dry Oak – Mixed1 Hardwood Forest also occurs in the historic woodlots scattered throughout thee rest of Gettysburg National Military2 Park. Missouri gooseberry and G cankerweed also occur in Dry Oak – Mixed Hardwoode Forest woodlots that do not occur over diabase. t The Chestnut Oak Forest, the rarest forest typet in the Parks, covering just 3.1 ha (7.7 ac), also occurs over the Gettysburg Sill. This association is rare withiny the Parks because it is restricted to rocky soil and upper elevations s that are found only on the upper slopes and summitb of Big Round Top. Another occasional forest association found on the sill is Tuliptree Forest, occurringu on rocky upland slopes dominated by tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera). r g

N 18

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Another environmental setting in which forested. areas persists is the low areas surroundingE drainages and creeks. Sycamore – Mixed Hardwood Floodplain ForestS is typical of the low terrace floodplainsn of the larger tributaries . such as Marsh Creek and Rock Creek. Bottomland Mixed Hardwood Forest can occurv on the floodplain of these D i larger tributaries as well as on the topographicallye low areas surrounding smaller drainages.r Forest stands adjacent the smaller drainages are usually surroundedp by agricultural land and are therefore veryo fragmented and disturbed. Canopy species composition of these bottomlanda forests is variable and the understoryn is often dominated by r invasive exotic species and weedy native species. m t e m n Open fields and field edges boast a diverse mixturee of vegetation for both the visitor tot observe and for wildlife to n utilize as either cover or feed. The 2,300 acres of pasturelands and farmlands in the Parksa provide an open-upland t l habitat. Currently the Parks is transitioning portions of agricultural lands into warm season grasses to encourage a more diverse plant community for open-uplando bird species. A f s

Vegetation management is an important responsibility of the Parks’ natural resource staff.s The primary goals of t e Natural Resource Planning at Gettysburg andh Eisenhower are to (1) restore and perpetuates the battlefield as it appeared at the time of the Battle of Gettysburge in July 1863 and to (2) preserve residents fauna and flora that are compatible with the goal of historic accuracy. With these goals, Parks personnel conductm floral inventories, I e monitor seedling recruitment, and map vegetativen cover types. Vegetation managementn is also a critical part of the Parks’ landscape rehabilitation plan. t t e

r Fi National Parks Service staff also work to combat several invasive plant species such as the multifloral rose (Rosa i re multiflora), Japanese barberry (Berberis japonicuso ), alianthus (Alianthus altissimaM ), and mile-a-minute (Persicaria r perfoliata). Six weeks each year, staff with the help of the Mid-Atlantic Plant Managementa Team treats these N n exotic species by chemical methods, mechanicala methods, hand pulling and sprays. a t ge Wildlife and Fisheries i m o The landscape of Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historice Site is a mixture of n agricultural fields, pastures, grasslands, woodlots, and forests. This landscape providesnt habitat for 187 bird, 34 a mammal, 17 reptile, and 15 amphibian species that have been documented withinPl the Parks. l a P n The interspersion of vegetative types providesa habitats for a wide variety of wildlife in the Parks. The Parks r currently has on record twenty eight species of mammals, forty-two species of fish,O one hundred twenty-five k ct species of bird, and fifty-six species of reptiles and amphibians. Gettysburg NMP and Eisenhower NHS large size and diverse habitats allow many species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibianso to call the Parks home. The S b 1,900 acres of maturing woodlands and woodlotse provide habitat for a variety ofer species. Woodland wildlife r includes white-tailed deer, gray squirrels, raccoon, opossum, wild turkey, ruffed, grouse, woodpeckers and v 2 warblers. Wetland wildlife includes beaver, imink, muskrat, ducks, geese, and other water birds that live along 0 c streams, in ponds, marshes, and swamps. There is also a wide variety of reptiles1 and amphibians including the spotted turtle and northern two-lined salamander.e 2 G

e Open land wildlife includes rabbits, groundhogs,t red fox, quail, mourning dove, hawks, owls, field sparrows and several other bird species normally found in tcropland, pasture, and meadows. The open landscapes host many of the same species found in the forested areas, yhowever the open fields provide a specialized niche for many birds s and insects such as the red-winged blackbirdsb and butterflies such as the monarch and the painted lady drifting from flower to flower feeding on nectar plants.u An important predator found in open fields is the red fox. Through studies conducted in cooperation with the Pennsylvaniar State University, a complete inventory of amphibian and reptile species has been documented. g

N 19

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E Fishing pressure is mainly on pond species –S bass, bluegill, and catfish. There are no nlisted fish species known to . exist in Parks waters. v D i e r Cultural Resources p o a n Historic Structures r m t Historic structures have been evaluated and listed by National Register of Historic Places.e They are constructed m n works that serve some form of human activitye and are generally immovable. They includet buildings and monuments, dams, millraces and canals, nauticaln vessels, bridges, tunnels, and roads, arailroad locomotives, rolling t stock and track, stockades and fences, defensive works, temple mounds and kivas, ruinsl of all structural types that still have integrity as structures, and outdooro sculpture. A f s All historic structures are considered to have certain qualities such as being associateds with events that have made t a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or is associated with the elives of significant persons in h s our past; or embodies the distinctive characteristie cs of a type, period, or method of constructions or that represent the work of a master; or that possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant andm distinguishable entity I whose components may lack individual distinction; or have yielded; or may be likely toe yield information n n important in history or prehistory (NPS 1990).t t e r Fi Historic structures at the Gettysburg Nationali Military Park include terrain features, historic roads and traces, house sites, ruins, cemeteries, monuments, markers, and historic objects. The Parksre contains 1,830 monuments o M r (see Figure 7, page 68) and cannon, historic fencing, and 31 miles of historic avenues,a and 147 historic buildings. N Both Parks are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and are part of nthe larger Gettysburg Battlefield a a Historic District. R. EISE includes 170 historict structures including the home, farm buildings, greenhouses, and skeet range, on their List of Classified Structures which have been evaluated usingge National Register of Historic i m o places criteria. e n nt a Cultural Landscapes Pl l a Gettysburg National Military Park contains historicP and designed landscapes thatn are nationally significant and contribute to the story of the battle and its consequences.a These landscapes, when combined with the historic r O structures, archeological resources, and museumk objects and archives of the Parks, reflect the history of the battle ct and its significance to the Civil War and to U.S. history. Together, they provide oone of the most complete physical records of a pivotal Civil War battle, its aftermath,S and its legacy. The Parks andb Soldiers’ National Cemetery e er are listed on the National Register of Historicr Places and are part of the larger Gettysburg Battlefield , v Historic District. For this discussion, the development of the landscapes is also2 tied to and includes topographic i features and relief, site elevation, slope orientation, rock exposure, and modification0 of soil types. These features c are included in the evaluation of impacts to cultural landscapes. 1 e 2 G The most extensive significant landscape at Gettysburge is its 1863 battlefield landscape. Component landscape t features include stone walls, earthworks, fences, orchards and historic roads, lanes and farm buildings. t y The designed landscapes of the national cemeterys and of the commemorative national Military Park also are nationally significant, defining the spaces thatb honored the fallen soldiers and the lines of battle. The u commemorative avenues, monuments, andr other grounds improvements designed to unify the memorial aspects of the battlefield retain integrity andg are contributing resources to the National Register.

N 20

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E The GETT 1999 GMP also called for rehabilitationS of landscapes significant to the Battlen of Gettysburg and its commemoration. Battlefield rehabilitation. projects started in July 2000 and have includedv non- historic tree removal, the planting of trees, maintainingD historic woodlots, planting orchards, andi building fences. In e addition, GETT has been purchasing and removing non-historic and non-contributing rbuildings from the p o landscape. As a result, GETT has been returninga areas of the Gettysburg battlefield to their 1863 and commemorative era condition and improving visitor understanding of the battle. By openingn up more of the r m historically open fields and meadows, the Parkt is providing improved grassland habitate for rare, threatened, and endangered Pennsylvania animals and plants.m n e t Located adjacent to the Gettysburg Battlefield,n the Eisenhower National Historic Site awas the home and farm of t General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Eisenhower properties illustratel the nation’s political history through their association with importanto national and international eventsA and developments that affected or were affected by Dwight Eisenhowerf in the 1950s and 1960s. At severals times during his s presidency, the Eisenhower Farm becamet a temporary “White House,” on weekends,e working vacations, and particularly during periods of recuperationh by Eisenhower (1955-1956). Thes open space, privacy, e and relaxed atmosphere were used to the country’s advantage by Eisenhower ins negotiating with m domestic and international political leaders.I e n n Archeological Resources t t e Archeological sites within the study area are representative of the broad patterns of human history associated with r Fi the greater Gettysburg area. Identified resourcesi of earliest habitation are few, butre some have been found to date from the Late Archaic period (circa 3000-1800o B.C.). Recovered prehistoric resourcesM include rhyolite and quartz r a flakes, projectile points, and lithic scatter. OralN tradition and early historic evidence indicated that prehistoric n objects were readily found in farm fields anda along stream banks within the study area in the early 19th century, a particularly near springs and waterways. Twot major trails used by the Iroquois intersectedge just west of Gettysburg and may indicate that the area was used for migratoryi hunting long before Europeanm settlement opened their own o e roads through the area. The types of archeologicaln sites associated with historic settlement periods include nt resources such as building foundations, quarries,a cemeteries, dump sites, mill races, circulation systems (such as Pl lanes and roads), and field demarcations suchl as post holes and walls. Battle-relateda resources within the general area would include the sites of burials, field hospitals,P entrenchments, encampments,n signal stations, supply Parks, a and headquarters. r O k ct

Parks Facilities and Operations o The Parks include numerous park buildings andS facilities including the visitor center,b cyclorama, staff office buildings, and maintenance areas. Parks operationse at the study area include groundser maintenance, building r , maintenance, general custodial work, monumentv preservation work, historic structure work, and security. Grounds 2 i maintenance employees take care of fine mowing, avenue mowing, and field mowing0 requirements, shrub and tree c maintenance, fence repairs, leaf removal in the fall, and snow removal on sidewalks1 and Parking lots in the winter. e 2 G Cyclic monument repairs and cyclic buildinge repairs are performed as scheduled throughout the calendar year, but these activities are not carried out at the Parkst rangers and Parks Watch volunteers perform site security at the Cyclorama Parks. The Parks also uses volunteerst for grounds maintenance throughout the cultural landscape. y s Visitor Use and Experience b Summer is the time of year when the most peopleu visit the Parks. Approximately 55 percent of the visitation occurs in May through August, with July beingr the busiest month. Large numbers of visitors also come to the Parks during the spring season and in the fall.g Visitation is the lowest in the winter months, from December

N 21

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U through February, with the least amount of visitation. during January. E S n . v Visitation to the Parks can be generally dividedD into three distinct visitor markets: i e r local residents who make regular usep of the Parks and who live in or near Adamso County regional residents who take day tripsa to the Parks and who live within 100 milesn of Gettysburg, but outside of Adams County r m t e non-resident tourists who either staym overnight or visit as a part of longer trips and who live outside the 100-mile radius of Gettysburg n e t n a These visitors come to the Parks to participatet in a wide variety of activities and programs.l Parks ranger guided walks and programs, battlefield tours with Licensed Battlefield Guides, leadership seminars, military staff rides, o education programs for school groups, biking, hiking, youth group camping, and visitingA to “pay respect” at both f s the Soldiers’ National Cemetery and numerous monuments and memorials throughouts the Parks are some of the variety of uses of the Parks by visitors. t e h s e s Numerous special events are held at the Parks annually, including the Battle Anniversarym Programs, the Memorial Day Ceremony in the Soldiers’ National Cemetery,I the Dedication Day Ceremony on eNovember 19 (the n anniversary of the Gettysburg Address), and Remembrance Day activities on the weekendn closest to November 19 t t each year. e r Fi In 2008, Gettysburg National Military Park openedi a new park museum and visitorre center, built in partnership o M with the non-profit Gettysburg Foundation. The project was a major initiative of the Parks’ 1999 GMP. The r a 139,000-square foot facility includes the ParksN visitor center, a 24,000-square footn museum, a gallery for display of the restored Cyclorama painting, artifact conservationa and curatorial storage aspace, research facilities, office t space, a museum cafe, and a bookstore. ge i m o e According to a 2008 study conducted by the nUniversity of Pennsylvania for the ntGettysburg Convention and Visitors Bureau, 3,003,968 people visit the Gettysburga area annually. More thanPl 63 percent of those surveyed for

l a the 2008 study were repeat visitors. The averageP length of stay was reported at 1.07 days, and nearly 50 percent of visitors stayed one night or more. In 2009, revenue generated from the county’s nlodging tax was reported to be a $1,213,430, and amusement taxes were $600,334r (California University of Pennsylvania’sO Tourism Research Center 2008, 2010). k ct

o S b e er Social and Economic Environmentr , v 2 Human Health and Safety i 0 c 1 e GETT/EISE provides information about visitor safety through pre-visit information2 by mail and on the web, G visitor contacts, and orientation bulletin boards.e The Parks have safety plans that address winter operations, hazardous tree management, search and rescue,t and emergency medical services. t y The smoke, heat, and flames from wildland firess can threaten human lives and health, both of the public at large and firefighters in particular. A number of considerationsb have a bearing on protection of the public from fires, including the following: u r g

N 22

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U  Visitor use is lower during th.e fall and spring fire seasons, usually mid-OctoberE to mid- April.  Opportunities for visitors to escapS e a fast-moving fire may be limited alongn a trail. . v  Some individuals would approachD a prescribed or wildland fire and may even attempt suppression action. i e r  Visitors would frequently ignorep warnings or are unaware of potential dangerso and may wander through burned or buarning areas and thus put themselves at risk.n r m t  Smoke from fires near roads can reduce visibility and create dangerouse driving m n conditions e t Visitors can park for free or use the Freedomn Transit Trolley services to travel to and froma the Parks museum and visitor center. t l

o A In January of 2010, the Steinwehr Avenue propertyf owners funded the Gettysburg Businesss Improvement District through tax assessments that enable the Steinwehr Business Owners to market their businessess and community. A Board of Directors, made up of nine businessest and civic leaders, governs the Gettysburge Business Improvement h District. The organization relies on support and partnerships from the Borough of Gettysburg,s Main Street e s Gettysburg, Adams County Economic Development Corporation, and the NPS for them success of its improvements. I e n n t Transportation t e Visitors to the Parks arrive in more than 3,500r buses and 470,000 automobiles annually.Fi There is no scheduled air or rail service to the area. There is a regular busi service that connects Gettysburgre to Harrisburg. Most visitors o M spend time in the vicinity of the Parks museumr and visitor center, the Cyclorama building, the National Cemetery, a and other nearby sites. Many visitors then travelN by automobile, tour, or charter bus via the Parks’ automobile tour n a route, traveling to the Eternal Light Peace Memorial, along West Confederate Avenuea to Devils Den/Little Round Top and finally to Hancock Avenue. Repeat tvisitors and those with a particular gintereste or activity generally go i m directly to the site of interest, as all sites withino the Parks are individually accessible from the public roadway e network. The roads serving Gettysburg Nationaln Military Park include the following (NPS 1999) (see Figure 9, nt a page 70): Pl l a P n US Route 15. This limited access expresswaya travels in a north-south direction and connects the major east-west r routes that serve the Parks. The most important of these is I-76 (the PennsylvaniaO Turnpike), located k ct approximately 35 miles north of Gettysburg. US Route 15 carries approximately 14,000 vehicles per day near the o Parks. As it passes through the area, it interchanges with Business Route 15 (Emmitsburg Road), Pennsylvania S b Route 134 (PA Route 134/Taneytown Road),e Pennsylvania Route 97 (PA Routeer 97/Baltimore Pike), Pennsylvania r Route 116, and US Route 30 (York Pike). , v 2 i 0 c Emmitsburg Road (Business US Route 15). This two-lane road travels in a north-south1 direction between Business US Route 15 near the Pennsylvania-Marylande border and Lincoln Square2 where it intersects US Route G 30. As it approaches the northern boundary ofe the Parks, Business US Route 15 is lined by many visitor services, including restaurants, souvenir shops, motels,t and tour companies. In the area of the Parks, Business US Route 15 carries approximately 5,000 vehicles per day.t y s Taneytown Road (PA Route 134). This two-laneb road travels in a northwest-southeast direction and serves as an access for traffic arriving via US Route 15. Itu also provides the main access to the Soldiers’ National Cemetery from US Route 15. r g

N 23

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Baltimore Pike (PA Route 97). This two-lane. road travels in a northwest-southeast directionE and connects Maryland with Littlestown and Gettysburg. TheS roadway carries approximately 6,400n vehicles per day east of US . Route 15, where it is designated as PA Route 97. Baltimore Pike is the main access tov the new Parks museum and D i visitor center. e r p o York Pike (US Route 30). This east-west roadwaya connects Gettysburg to York, Pennsylvania.n It operates as a r three-lane roadway, with the center lane for left turns only. As it approaches Gettysburgm from the east, it carries t e approximately 13,800 vehicles per day. The mland uses along York Pike are mostly commercial,n with motels and shopping centers predominating. e t n a t l Chambersburg Pike (US Route 30). This two- and three-lane roadway connects Gettysburg to Chambersburg and points west. It serves the Eternal Light Peaceo Memorial area and connects with ReynoldsA Avenue. In the vicinity f s of the western portion of the Parks, it is fronted by residential and agricultural uses. Throughout the Parks, US Route 30 follows the route of Lincoln Highway. The Parks have been coordinating withs the Commonwealth of t e Pennsylvania and other agencies for projectsh within the route of the old Lincoln Highway.s US Route 30 carries approximately 15,000 vehicles per day, weste of Gettysburg. s

m I e Hagerstown Road (PA Route 116). This southwestn to northeast roadway travels betweenn Hagerstown, Maryland, and Gettysburg and connects the rapidly developingt southwest section of Adams Countyt to Gettysburg. It carries e approximately 9,500 vehicles per day near its intersection with West Confederate Avenue. Within the boundaries r Fi of the Parks is a network of avenues. Recently, more of the avenues were converted from two-way roadways to i re one-way roadways. This established a counter-clockwiseo pattern for the major avenuesM within the Parks, r improved traffic flow to the interpretative and commemorative sites within the Parks,a and increased the Parking N n supply. Each one-way avenue is designed to aoperate with one travel lane and one Parking lane. The right lane is a designated for Parking, while moving vehiclest are directed to travel on the left sidege of the avenue. The posted speed limit on the avenues and some state roadsi within the Parks boundary is 25m miles per hour. o e n nt Two of the most used avenues are West Confederatea Avenue and Hancock Avenue. West Confederate Avenue Pl connects PA Route 116 to Emmitsburg Road.l It passes by the North Carolina Memorial,a the Virginia Memorial, and along Seminary Ridge. It is primarily a one-wayP roadway and travels in the nsouthbound direction. A small a portion of the avenue is two-way near its intersectionr with PA Route 116. West Confederate Avenue, which O carries approximately 2,000 vehicles per day,k is the primary avenue taken to South Confederate Avenue and two ct of the more popular commemorative features. Little Round Top and Devil's Deno are located near the north terminus of South Confederate Avenue. S b e er r , Hancock Avenue extends from United Statesv Avenue on the south to Taneytown Road on the north. It passes by 2 i the High Water Mark and the Pennsylvania Memorial and is designated one-way0 (northbound). Hancock Avenue c carries approximately 1,600 vehicles per day. 1 e 2 G An arrival and departure pattern for traffic toe and from Gettysburg National Military Park was evaluated in 2010 (Baker 2010). As indicated in the table below,t this pattern indicates that most regional traffic arrives and departs via Routes 30 and Route t15. y s b u r g

N 24

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . Table 4. Traffic Direction of Approach and E S n DepartureTo/From the North via US Route 15 23%. To/From the South via US Route 15 22% v D i To/From the South via PA Route 97 5% e r To/From the East via US Route 30 24%p o To/From the West via US Route 30 21%a n r Source: Transit Service Implementation Plan 2010 m t e m n e t n Once arriving to the area, the visitors travelling along Route 15 are directed to Baltimorea Pike. Visitors on Route t l 30 pass into the center of the Borough and then are directed to Taneytown Road. o A f s Utilities Utilities at the study area include municipal water, municipal sewer, electric and phones lines, and underground oil t e storage tanks See Figure 8, page 69). Gettysburgh Municipal Authority is responsible fors the existing water and sewer services once they connect to the utilitye mains on Steinwehr Avenue. s m I e n n t t e r Fi i re o M r a N n a a t ge i m o e n nt a Pl l a P n a r O k ct

o S b e er r , v 2 i 0 c 1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g

N 25

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n . v EnvironmentalD Consequencesi e r p o In accordance with NEPA, evaluation of environmentala effects requires consideration nof the intensity, duration, and cumulative nature of effects, as well as ar description of measures to mitigate for adversem effects. This section t presents the potential environmental effects or consequences of implementing each ofe the fire management m n program alternatives described in this EA. It ealso presents the scientific and analytic basist for the comparisons of the alternatives. Each of the resource areas whosen affected environment was describeda is addressed here. Impacts t are described as adverse or beneficial and are assessed according to their duration, extent,l and intensity. Analysis of impacts is based on the predicted ability of each alternative to achieve the desired fire management goals of the o A Parks, as previously described. In each resourcef area, potential impacts common to alls of the alternatives are discussed, and then additional impacts specific to each of the alternatives are discusseds separately. t e h s Definitions of the terminology used to describee impacts are included below for clarity.s Unless otherwise specified in the description of impacts, the terms below represent a qualitative estimate of expectedm impacts based on best I professional judgment, expert experience, and/or review of relevant literature. When impactse are based on n n quantitative data, the data will be described int detail in the section for the resource areat to which it applies and the source(s) of the data will be noted at that time.e r Fi i re Adverse: Impact would be harmful. o M r a N Beneficial: Impact would be helpful and would tend to promote well-being. n a a t Duration: Duration refers to the time period over which an impact persists. For impactge topics evaluated in i m this document, duration is defined as: o e n nt Temporary – Impact would occur onlya simultaneously with the fire, management action or Pl suppression activity; once the fire, action,l or activity has ended, resourcea conditions are likely to return to pre-activity conditions. P n Short-term – Impact would extend beyonda the fire, management action or suppression activity, but r would last at most a couple of years. O k Long-term – Impact would extend well beyond the fire, management actionct or suppression

activity, and would likely last a decade or more. o S b e er Extent: Extent refers to the spatial scale overr which an impact is expressed and is defined as follows for , this document: v 2 i 0 c Local – Impact would affect the resource only at site of the fire, management1 action or suppression activity, or its immediate surroundings,e and would not extend into the Parks2 at large or the region outside the Parks. G e t Regional – Impact would affect the resourcet on a Parks level, extending well past the immediate location of the fire, management actiony or suppression activity, and spreading into substantial portions of the Parks or areas beyonds its boundary. b Intensity: Intensity refers to the magnitude, oru severity, of the impacts. r g The intensities of impacts on natural and cultural resources are defined as:

N 26

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E Negligible - Minimal or no impact onS the resource occurs and change is not detectablen at the lowest levels of detection currently availabl.e. v D i e r Minor – Detectable change in a resourcep area occurs, but no substantial resource impact results; the effect is localized and slightly detectable but would not affect overall structureo of any natural a n community or is confined to a small rarea of a cultural resource. m t e Moderate - Measurable change in a resourcem occurs, but the integrity of the resourcen remains intact. e t n a t Major - Substantial impact or change occurs in a resource area that is easily defined,l noticeable, and

measurable; the effect is highly noticeable, and would have a substantial influence on natural o A resources, including effects on individualsf and groups of species, communities,s and/or natural processes; or results in a substantial and highly noticeable change in character-definings features of a cultural resource. t e h s e s The intensities of impacts on visitor experience and aesthetic resources are defined as: m I e Negligible - Minimal or no impact onn the resource occurs; the effect would notn be detectable by visitors and would have no discerniblet effect on visitor experience. t e Minor - Change in a resource area occurs,r but no substantial resource impactFi results; the effect is i slightly detectable by visitors but would not affect overall visitor experience.re o M r a Moderate - Noticeable change in aN resource occurs, but the integrity of the resource remains n intact; the effect is clearly detectablea by visitors but would have little effect on overall visitor a experience. t ge i m o Major - Substantial impact or change occurs in a resource area that is easilye defined, noticeable, n and measurable; the effect would have a substantial, highly noticeable influencent on various aspects a of the visitor experience. Pl l a Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts areP effects on the environment that resultn from the incremental effect of a the action when added to other past, present,r and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what entity O (Federal or non-Federal) undertakes such action(40k CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects can result from individually ct minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Cumulativeo effects analyzed in this S document consider the incremental effects of the proposed action, as well as the bno-action alternative in e er conjunction with past, current, and future actionsr at GETT/EISE. , v 2 i Past and ongoing projects and actions include painting of Parks buildings, stabilization0 of Parks road bridges, c enhancing visitor interpretive facilities – including Parks trails. Improvements to1 the Parks in these projects have e 2 resulted in long-term, minor, localized, beneficialG impacts on human health and safety; minor short-term impacts on the Parks’ natural resources may occur frome repaving roads with minor, short term soil disturbance, along with the minor potential to introduce exotic plant tspecies; and No Adverse Effect on cultural resources. t y None of the actions proposed in any of the altsernatives would be expected to combine with these projects to contribute to cumulative adverse effects. b u r g

N 27

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n . v Natural Resources D i e r Many of the effects of each alternative stem pfrom the relative amount of fire on the landscape.o While evaluating impacts it is important to keep in mind that thea alternatives are for proposed fire managementn programs, which r represent planned, predictable actions by Parks and fire management staff. The amountm of prescribed fire is fairly t e predictable, but the scale, scope, and necessarym response to unwanted wildland fires aren largely unpredictable and are not controllable by management actions proposede in the alternatives. t n a Air Quality t l

o A Methodology for Assessing Impacts f s Impacts to air quality were qualitatively assessed by means of a review of pertinent laws,s guidance and t regulations, consultation with Parks experts, professional judgment, and experience withe comparable actions. h s Major air resource issues include ozone, visibility,e safety, and public health. Under thes Federal Clean Air Act the Parks are required to consider impacts on each of these areas. In this section impacts arem assessed with respect to I the Parks’ Class II airshed, to ozone, and to visibility. Air quality issues related to safetye and to public health n n impacts are addressed later, under Human Healtht and Safety and Transportation. t e Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives r Fi i re GETT/EISE is designated a Class II airshed ounder the Clean Air Act. This designationM is intended to prevent r a further degradation of the airshed from anthropogenicN pollutants such as those generated by industry, power n plants, transportation, and burning of agriculturala waste. Smoke from fire, together with all other existing air a pollution sources affecting the area, must nott allow violations of the National Ambientge Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for any pollutant. Under all of thei alternatives, the NPS would complym with all applicable federal, o e Pennsylvania Department of Environmental nQuality, and local air quality requirements, including those that relate nt to burn permits and smoke management. a Pl l a The Adams County metropolitan area, in whichP Gettysburg National Military Parkn and Eisenhower National a Historic site are located, is designated as a “maintenancer area” for the 1997 eight-hour National Ambient Air O Quality Standards for ozone. Burning vegetationk produces small amounts of nitrogen compounds and volatile ct organic compounds, which are ozone precursors. These compounds react photochemicallyo to produce ozone downwind of a fire. S b e er r , Light scattering and absorption by fine particulatev matter (< 2.5 microns in diameter) strongly affect visibility. 2 i Wildland smoke contains significant amounts of fine particulate matter. Treatment0 of wildland fire smoke c emissions for visibility protection purposes is at the discretion of the State, consistent1 with national policies. e 2 Visibility impacts may occur anywhere in theG Parks, but are of particular concern on roadways and at historic scenes. Smoke impacts on roadway visibilitye will be discussed in detail under Transportation. t The assessment of smoke impacts on human thealth is a key to ensuring that the Parks’ fire program is consistent y with air quality requirements. Public health impactss of smoke from wildland fire will be discussed later under Human Health and Safety. Smoke emissionsb from wildland fires would continue to occur each year under either of the alternatives. Large unwanted wildland firesu could produce large amounts of smoke, but these would be r infrequent in the lifetime of the proposed FMP. Mitigation measures such as those previously described under the g topic heading, “Mitigation Measures Comm on to All of the Alternatives”, apply equally to each of the N 28

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U alternatives. . E S n Impacts Specific to Each Alternative . v D i Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.e Alternative 1 would have negligible to minor,r short-term, localized p to regional adverse impacts on air quality in and around the Parks. Although it is impossibleo to prevent the a n production of some smoke from unwanted wildlandr fires, ignitions would be suppressedm as quickly as possible and at the smallest feasible fire size, thus resultingt in negligible to minor, short-term, localizede impacts to air quality. m Large unwanted wildland fires could have regional impacts on air quality, but would ben rare during the lifetime of e t the FMP n a t l Alternative 2 – Fire Suppression, Prescribed Fire, and Non-fire Treatments (NPS Preferred Alternative). o Alternative 2 would likely have minor to moderate, short-term, localized to regional adverseA impacts on air quality f s in the Parks, slightly more than Alternative 1. Alternative 2 has the potential for more sarea burned from prescribed fire and therefore greater air quality impacts ton a yearly basis than Alternative 1. Prescribede fires would be planned and conducted under conditions thath would minimize impacts of smoke, as describeds in Mitigation e Measures for Air Quality Common to All of the Alternatives (see below). Non-fire treatmentss would not produce m smoke at all, but would produce negligible amountsI of exhaust emissions from power eequipment such as chainsaws and would be expected to have negligiblen impacts on air quality. n t t e Cumulative Impacts r Fi i GETT/EISE is located near a high-population-density area and air quality, especiallyre ozone, has been a concern o M r for many years. The Parks do experience relatively high concentrations of ozonea on occasion during the summer N months. Small wildland fires and prescribed burns would likely contribute smalln amounts of ozone to the regions a a atmosphere. t ge i m o Visibility is occasionally degraded in the Parks, usually during the summer months.e Light scattering and n absorption by fine particulate matter strongly affect visibility. Effects are greatestnt during the summer months a Pl because stable air masses are most common duringl this season. Fine particulate matter is present in wildland fire and prescribed fire smoke. As stated above, treatment of wildland fire and/or prescribeda fire smoke emissions for P n visibility protection purposes is at the discretiona of the State, consistent with national policies. r O k ct All types of fires generate fine particulate matter and ozone precursors. Unwanted wildland fires are not considered planned events for the purposes of the Clean Air Act, but prescribed ofire are planned events. S b Alternative 1 would contribute the least to regionale air quality degradation. Mitigationer measures such as those r described under the topic heading, “Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Common, to All of the Alternatives” (see v 2 below) would be used to minimize these impacts.i 0 c 1 The NPS would comply with all applicable feed eral, Pennsylvania Department of2 Environmental Quality, and local air quality requirements, including those thatG relate to burn permits and smoke management. e t Mitigation t A number of common fire suppression mitigationy measures for Air Quality apply to both alternatives equally, and measures specific for Alternatives 2 apply to prescribe fire and non-fire fuel reduction treatments. These mitigation measures are desb cribed below u Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Commonr to Both Alternatives There are a number of procedures that may beg implemented during a prescribed fire that will reduce the

N 29

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U magnitude of impacts on air quality, including:. E S n  Use smoke prediction models to identify. smoke dispersion patterns. v D  Use smoke density models to identify potential road closings and/or advisories.i e r p Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Specific for Alternative 2 o a n r m There are a number of procedures that may bet implemented during a prescribed fire thate would reduce the magnitude of impacts on air quality, including:m n e  Burn only when meteorological conditions are favorable, that is, visibility is tgreater than 5.0 mi n a (8 km), mixing heights of 1640 ft (500 m) or greater, and the Ventilation Index is 2,000 or t l greater (Ventilation Index = mixing height above ground level, in meters x transport wind speed, in meters per second). o A  Comply with recommended mitigationf measures during state/county ozone advisories,s including decreasing the use of gasoline-powered equipment, re-fueling vehicles befores 0800 or after 1700, t and carpooling. e h s  Avoid sensitive receptors through pere-planning, modeling, and careful implementation. Sensitive receptors are defined as groups of individuals who may be more susceptible sto health risks m associated with smoke, or the placesI where such groups of individuals congregate,e such as an elementary school. n n  Use backing and flanking ignition patternst to reduce smoke production. t  Burn only when meteorological conditionse are favorable, that is, visibility is greater than 5.0 mi r Fi (8 km), mixing heights of 1640 ft (500i m) or greater, and the Ventilation Index is 2,000 or greater (Ventilation Index = mixing height above ground level, in metersre x transport wind o M speed, in meters per second). r a N  Comply with recommended mitigation measures during state/county ozonen advisories, including a decreasing the use of gasoline-powered equipment, re-fueling vehicles abefore 0800 or after 1700, and carpooling. t ge  Use backing and flanking ignition patternsi to reduce smoke production.m o  e Use smoke prediction models to identifyn smoke dispersion patterns. nt  Use smoke density models to identifya potential road closings and/or advisories.  Avoid sensitive receptors through pre-planning, modeling, and careful Plimplementation. Sensitive l a receptors are defined as groups of individualsP who may be more susceptiblen to health risks associated with smoke, or the placesa where such groups of individuals congregate, such as an r elementary school. O k ct

Conclusion o S b Both of the alternatives would have some adversee impacts on air quality in the Parks.er Impacts to the Class II air r , shed would be negligible, while impacts to ozonev levels and visibility would be negligible to minor for Alternative 2 1 and minor to moderate for Alternative 2. i 0 c 1 Floodplains and Wetlands e 2 G In 2003, the National Parks Service issued DO-77-2,e establishing NPS policies, requirements, and standards for t implementing Executive Order 11988 (NPS t2003) along with a procedural manual for floodplain management (NPS 2008). DO 77-2 was issued to “to avoidy to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modifications of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain b development wherever there is a practicable ualternative.” r g

N 30

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Methodology for Assessing Impacts . E Impacts to floodplains and wetlands were qualitativelyS assessed by examining the hydrologicn features and . processes of the Parks and the distribution of stream courses and wetlands, and by comparingv these with the D i predicted effects of fire management activities,e wildland and prescribed fire suppressionr efforts, and non-fire treatments. The general procedures followedp are outlined in DO 77-1 (NPS 2002) ando NPS Procedural Manual for Wetland Protection (NPS 2008). a n r m t Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives e m n The most common impacts of fire and fire managemente activities on floodplains are relatedt to changes in stream flow, as described in detail below under the topicn heading, Water Resources. In brief, areduction or removal of t vegetation, whether by consumption in a fire, by mechanical removal during fireline constructionl can lead to increased runoff and then to increased stream flow. This additional or sudden stream flow, which could be severe o A if heavy precipitation occurs shortly after a firef event can cause scouring, alter the courses of channels, and create new channels in floodplains. s t e h s Because the size of most wildland and prescribede fires would be small, the impacts ons floodplains would be negligible, temporary, and localized. Although a large, severe fire could have moderate,m short-term, localized I impacts on floodplains, such an event is not controllable and would be rare in the lifetimee of the proposed FMP. n n t t Adverse impacts of fire and fire managemente activities on wetlands are related to changes in soils, vegetation, and r stream flow. Sediment transported by overland flow after fire events or mechanicalFi removal projects can be i re deposited in wetlands and can carry influxes of nutrients or carbon and thereby alter biochemical processes. o M r Sediments entering wetlands can smother emergent vegetation or alter the coursesa of channels. Increases in N overland flow as a result of removal or reduction of vegetation would increase watern inputs into wetland systems a and can create new channels. Fire retardant chemicals, especially long-term retardants,a have been shown to have t ge detrimental impacts on wetlands, such as reductioni in germination of wetland vegetationm (Angeler et al. 2004). o Suppression activities, in particular digging of fireline and hydraulic action of watere used during mop-up, can have n nt detrimental impacts on wetlands such as channelinga of water. Pl l a Impacts to wetlands and floodplains by fire andP fire management activities can alson be beneficial. Wetland vegetation usually adapts well to the natural afire cycle of the surrounding uplands. Fires can help maintain a r O mosaic of wetland vegetation which supportsk ecological diversity and can result in new, succulent vegetation ct which is a high-quality food source for wildlife. o S b Impacts Specific to Each Alternative e er r , v Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression. Alternative 1 would have negligible2 and short-term impacts on i floodplains. Impacts on the extent and functions of wetlands would also be negligible.0 Impacts on wetland c vegetation would be minor to moderate, short-term, localized, and both adverse 1and beneficial. Unwanted e 2 wildland fires are usually small. G e Alternative 2 – Fire Suppression, Prescribedt Fire, and Non-fire Treatments (NPS Preferred Alternative). Alternative 2 would have negligible impacts ton floodplains, the same as Alternative 1. Impacts on the extent and y functions of wetlands would also be negligible,s the same as Alternative 1. Impacts on wetland vegetation would be minor to moderate and largely beneficial, suchb as stimulating new, succulent growth (Somers et al. 2000). Adverse impacts from suppression activities uwould still occur. However, adverse impacts of wildland fire would be less because prescribed fires tend to decreaser the severity of wildland fire by reducing fuel loads, and therefore g decrease the potential for post-fire erosion and sediment transport. Non-fire fuel reduction treatments would not N 31

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U occur in floodplains or wetlands, and activities. adjacent to floodplains or wetlands wouldE be planned to have at most a negligible impact. S n . v D Cumulative Impacts i e r No other reasonably foreseeable, future projectsp within or around the Parks are knowno that would combine with any of the above alternatives to result in cumula ative impacts on floodplains or wetlands.n r m Mitigation t e Other than avoiding non-fire fuel reduction activitiesm in floodplains or wetlands, theren are no other mitigation e measures for floodplains and wetlands proposed in either alternative. t n a t l Conclusion Overall, adverse impacts from each of the alternativeso to floodplains would be negligibleA and to wetlands would f s generally be minor. Alternative 2 allows the greatest opportunity for beneficial impacts through reductions in fuel loads surrounding floodplains and wetlands through prescribed burns, while Alternatives 1 holds the greatest t e potential for adverse impacts. Neither of the halternatives would result in a loss of wetlandss or affect floodplain characteristics. e s m I Soils e n n t t Methodology for Assessing Impacts e Soil impacts were qualitatively assessed usingr literature review, professional judgment,Fi and experience with comparable actions. Analysis considered riski of loss of key ecosystem componentsre and maintenance of natural o M processes: alternatives that would mimic or restorer natural processes were favored over those that would alter or a N reduce natural processes. n a a Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives t ge All fire, whether natural or human-caused, changesi the cycling of nutrients and them biotic and physical properties o e of soils. The magnitude and longevity of effectsn depend on many factors, including fire regime, severity of an nt individual fire, vegetation and soils type beforea the event, topography, season of burning, and pre- and post-fire Pl weather conditions, especially precipitation. lEffects can be direct, or indirect througha changes in soil biota and erosion rates. Sites supporting ecosystems thatP historically had frequent fire tendn to be well-adapted to fire and a repeated burning. Fire can influence soil biotar directly by killing or injuring organisms or indirectly by altering O k properties of the soil environment in which organisms live. Burning usually causesct a reduction in soil invertebrates and fungi while microorganisms such as bacteria usually increase in abundance (SEKIo EA 2004). S b e er Changes to soil nutrients occur in the form ofr shifts in composition, distribution, amount, and availability as a , v result of leaching, volatilization of elements during burning of fuels, and convection2 of ash. Volatilization is the i transformation to a gaseous state, or evaporation, of soil nutrients and is temperature-dependent.0 Nitrogen and, to a c lesser extent, sulfur and phosphorous are most easily lost because they volatize at1 lower temperatures than other e 2 soils nutrients, but others may also be lost asG temperature and residence time increases. Changes in above-ground vegetation, such as the removal of nitrogen-fixinge plant species, can indirectly impact soils and interact with soil nutrient status (Newland and DeLuca 2000 int SEKI EA 2004). Consumption of dead and down fuels by fire t releases nutrients stored in the biomass and makesy it available to plants by convection or leaching of ash. s Changes in physical characteristics of soil followingb fire are the result of many complex interactions. Fire can cause changes in organic horizons, water repellency,u infiltration capacity, porosity, structure, temperature, hydrologic properties, and processes of erosion.r Fire may result in increased potential for erosion through removal of above-ground biomass which holds soil ing place and sometimes even reduction or removal of organic soil

N 32

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U layers. The more severe the fire the greater the. potential for erosion, because severe firesE remove more biomass. Prescribed fires generally result in less erosionS than uncontrollable wildland fire, becausen wildland fires are . usually more severe than prescribed fires (Wohlegmuth et al. 1999 in SEKI EA 2004).v Other factors, such as D i steepness of the slope and pre-fire vegetation,e also affect post-fire erosion. r p o Fire suppression activities can also have impactsa on soils. Construction of fireline disturbsn and mixes soil horizons; the effect is generally localized, butr the wider the fireline, the greater the disturbance.m Firelines t can become channels for water transport, causing rutting and severe erosion in the firelinee itself if heavy m n rains occur before the fireline is rehabilitatede naturally or deliberately. Aerial water applicationt involves dropping large volumes of water from airplanesn or helicopters. Because the water maya fall a large distance t (up to several hundred feet), it arrives with considerable force. This can promote ruttingl and channeling in localized areas. The effects of fire retardant chemicals are similar to the effects of applying high-nitrogen o A fertilizer to the soil; for example, post-fire re-growthf of grasses may be favored over re-growths of forbs such as clover. These effects can last up to ten years (Larson and Duncan 1982). Aerials application of fire t retardants carries with it the effects of both fertilizer application and the rutting potentiale of high-velocity h s water. e s m All of the alternatives would result in impactsI to soils from fire-related management activitiese such as n fireline construction and water application. n t t e Impacts Specific to Each Alternative r Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression. Alternative 1 would have minor toFi moderate, short-term, localized i re impacts on soil resources in the Parks. Aggressiveo suppression of all wildland firesM with emphasis on r extinguishing each fire at the smallest possible size could result in adverse impactsa to soils including physical N n restructuring of soil horizons from digging ofa fire lines, channeling and erosion in fire lines, and tying up of a nutrients in both live and dead and down biomass. t ge i m o Alternative 2 – Fire Suppression, Prescribed Fire, and Non-fire Treatments (NPSe Preferred Alternative). n Alternative 2 would have minor to moderate, short-term, localized impacts on soilnt resources in the Parks. Some a impacts would be adverse while others would be beneficial. For example, managersPl could let a wildland fire burn l a out to a natural or man- made barrier like a streamP or trail instead of digging a fireline.n Prescribed fire would rarely disturb the soils. Fire intensity would abe low enough so as to not change soil composition, short term r O impacts would occur from run-off. Prescribedk fires would likely have beneficial impacts on soils through release ct of nutrients. Non-fire treatments would be expected to have at most a negligible impact on soils. o S b Cumulative Impacts e er r The ongoing park activity most likely to be contributing to adverse soil impacts ,would be mowing operations v which probably are contributing to some soil compaction in mowed areas of the 2Parks. Wildland and prescribed i 0 fires would not further contribute to soil compaction,c but would have cumulative adverse and some beneficial 1 impacts on soil biochemical properties. e 2 G Mitigation e A number of soils mitigation measures for soilst apply to both alternatives equally, for Alternative 1 during fire suppression actions and for Alternative 2t during fire suppression actions, prescribed burns, and non-fire y fuel reduction actions. These mitigation measuress to minimize soil impacts are described below. b Mitigation Measures for Soils Common tou Both Alternatives Unless there is a direct threat to life, property,r or significant natural or cultural resources, heavy mechanized equipment will not be used in theg Park. A process is in place to allow for authorization for

N 33

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U heavy equipment use in the Park in the event. of an emergency need. In addition, minimuE m impact suppression tactics (MIST) will be used duringS all fire management activities. Tactics relevantn to protecting soils include: . v D i e  Do not use tracked, motorized equipment off designated road surfaces, rwithout the p o approval of the Superintendent.a n  Cold-trail the fire edge insteadr of constructing additional fireline, when mpractical. t e  Use natural firebreaks, water, mor water and chemical fire retardant in lieu of constructed fire line wherever possible. n e t  Install water bars on all constructedn fire line on slopes more than 15%. Requesta specifications for water bars fromt a designated, qualified Resource Advisor.l

 Use soaker hose or foggers in mop-up to avoid "boring" hydraulic action on soils. o  Build firelines to the minimum width needed to allow backfiring, burn-out,A or the f s creation of safe blackline. Use natural or existing man-made barriers wherevers possible.  Choose a consumption strategyt (allowing smoldering fuels to burn up insteade of extinguishing them) during mop-uph whenever possible to minimize soils disturbance. e s  Use bulldozers only with written authorization from the Superintendent; the Superintendent may authorize their use when high value resources are atm risk. I e  If bulldozers or other heavy equipmentn are authorized in an emergency,n add or change lubricants associated with thatt equipment only in places designed for thist purpose. Ensure spill cleanup materials are readily available.e  Use solvents for cleaning tools,r power tools, or equipment only inFi places designed for this i purpose. Ensure spill cleanup materials are readily available. re o M  A Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitationr (BAER) Team may be requested following a large a N wildland fire, based on an interdisciplinary needs analysis. When na BAER Team is requested, a include one or more personnel with soils expertise. a t ge Conclusion i m o Both of the alternatives would result in minor to moderate impacts on soil resources.e Alternative 2 would give n nt managers at the Parks the widest range of toolsa to choose from to minimize adverse impacts from any particular Pl project or event. l a P n State Threatened and Endangered Speciesa r O k Methodology for Assessing Impacts ct

Impacts to threatened or endangered species were qualitatively assessed by meanso of a literature review of the S b effects of fire on these species, consultation with biologists, and professional judgment. Analysis of the e er r alternatives considered the potential for take of individuals protected as threatened, or endangered, the potential for v loss of viable populations or special concern species, and the potential for loss, maintenance,2 or restoration of i 0 habitat. c 1 e 2 Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives G e Most of the state protected and species of concernt occurring in the two parks are located within the six CORE t areas mapped for the Parks by the Pennsylvaniay Natural Heritage Program (see Figure 6, page 67 ). Wildfires moving through these CORE areas will likelys adversely impact any protected non-mobile animals and non-fire adapted plants occurring in these habitats. Anyb wildfire suppression ground disturbing actions such as fire line construction through these sensitive habitats ucould also cause impacts to state protected plants and/or animals. r Mobile adult animals would be expected to leaveg the burn areas and would not likely be adversely impacted.

N 34

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U However, young animals may be more at risk. of moving out of the fire area. Fire adaptedE plants would not likely S be adversely impacted by fires. n . v D The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Recreation (VAi DCR), Division of Natural e r Heritage, does not anticipate that any of the proposedp alternatives would adversely impacto natural heritage resources in the Parks. Natural heritage resourcesa are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened,n or endangered plant r and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologicm formations. t e m n e t Impacts Specific to Each Alternative n a t l Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression . Alternative 1 would have negligible impacts on state species of concern occurring in the Parks. Although unwantedo wildland fire events could have adverseA impacts, these events f are not controllable under any of the alternatives. Because the distribution in the Parkss of most of these species is s small and known, suppression fire activitiest would be planned to protect these species.e Overall, adverse impacts to state species of concern are likely to be negligibleh and short-term from wildfire suppressions activities. e s m Alternative 2 – Fire Suppression, Expanded IPrescribed Fire, and Non-fire Treatmentse (NPS Preferred n Alternative). Like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would have negligible impacts on threatenedn or endangered species. t t Because the distribution in the Parks of most of these species is small and known, suppression, prescribed fire, e wildland fire use, and non-fire treatment activitiesr would be planned to protect orFi benefit these species. i re Cumulative Impacts o M r a There are no particular reasonably foreseeableN future projects or actions that, in conjunction with any of the n alternatives, would threaten the continued existencea of any state listed species occurring in the Parks. a t ge Mitigation i m o Other than avoiding fire line construction and/or prescribed fires in CORE arease with fire sensitive protected n species, no other mitigation for protected species are proposed for either alternative.nt a Pl Conclusion l a P Both of the alternatives would likely have negligible impacts on state species ofn concern occurring in the a Parks. Alternative 2 has the greatest potentialr for minimizing adverse impacts and gaining benefits, O because it offers managers the widest array ofk tools (e.g., prescribed burns, non-fire fuel reductions) to ct accomplish resource objectives. o S b Vegetation e er r , v Methodology for Assessing Impacts 2 i Impacts to vegetation were qualitatively assessed by means of a review of the Parks0 documents concerning the fire c ecology in the region, consultation with Parks specialists, and professional experience1 with similar actions. Factors e 2 considered included resemblance to the historGical fire regime and maintenance or restoration of historical plant communities. e t Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives t y Historical and ecological evidence indicates sthat wildfire has played a significant role in shaping the vegetation communities of the two Parks. In recent decades,b drier oak / heath and oak - hickory forests throughout the eastern United States have progressively exhibited compositionalu changes characterized by a lack of oak recruitment and the abundant establishment in understories ofr shade-tolerant, later- successional trees (Lorimer 1984; Abrams g 1992, 1996). The principal reasons for these changes are believed to be the widespread exclusion of fire during N 35

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U the twentieth century, as well as the cessation. of other disturbances (e.g., repeated cuttingE on short rotations) that favor oaks. In the mid-Atlantic region, red mapleS (Acer rubrum) and American beechn (Fagus grandifolia) are two . of the most abundant, shade-tolerant invaders of oak forests, and this trend is evident overv parts of the Parks. D i Surface fire reduces competition for oak seedlingse and maintains an open canopy, allowingr more light penetration. The majority of canopy species are tolerant ofp surface fire when mature. Most associatedo species are prolific sprouters, and many stems develop as a resulta of the passage of a fire. In the absence ofn fire, the regeneration layer r of many oak forests is becoming dominated by later seral species such as maple and birchm (Brose et al.2001). t e m n Forested wetlands occur within the two Parks.e These classes include alluvial floodplaint forests, found in drainage n swales and on floodplains, and non-alluvial wetlands that occur away from active floodplainsa in various t l environmental settings in the Parks. These forested wetlands rarely, if ever burn due to high water tables, and saturated soils. If a wildland fire were to occuro during a drought, significant organic soilsA would be destroyed, however, these areas would not be affected byf prescribed fire, as prescribed fires woulds only be used during normal weather conditions – not during drought conditions. s t e h s As described under Affected Environment, manye non-native invasive plants are presents in the Parks. It is important to address invasive plant threats early after forest disturbances such as wildfirem and mechanical fuel I treatments, because nonnative plants can invade quickly after disturbance and crowd oute native vegetation, n n resulting in loss of native vegetation, loss of twildlife habitat, and reduction in species tdiversity of both plants and animals. However, fire may also be used as ae tool in the management of nonnative plants. For example, fire can be r Fi used to stress plants during the growing seasoni and make them more susceptible to herbicides, or fire can be used to remove dead or live vegetation, temporarily or permanently, to make it easierre for personnel to gain access to o M r apply herbicides to nonnative plants. a N n a a Fireline construction during suppression activitiest could result in removal of trees, shrubs, and lower tree branches and cutting or trampling of grass and herbaceous layers, resulting in negligible toge minor, short-term, localized, i m o adverse impacts to vegetation. e n nt a Impacts Specific to Each Alternative Pl l a Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression P. n a Alternative 1 would have minor to moderate,r short- to long-term, localized to regional, O largely adverse impacts on the vegetation in kthe Parks. Suppression activities, when conducted according to the ct mitigation measures outlined below (see Mitigation Measures for Vegetation Commono to All of the Alternatives), would have minor, short-term, localized, adverseS impacts on vegetation. b e er r , Alternative 2 – Fire Suppression, Prescribedv Fire, and Non-fire Treatments (NPS Preferred Alternative). In 2 contrast to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 wouldi have minor to moderate, short- to long-term, localized to regional, 0 c beneficial impacts on the Parks’ vegetation communities. Prescribed fire would be1 planned to small areas in the Parks and would have minor to moderate, short-e to long-term, localized, beneficial2 impacts on vegetation by G reducing fuel loads and promoting native treee (oaks and hickories saplings over 2 inches in diameter at base height) species. Non-fire treatments would bet planned to minimize adverse impacts and maximize benefits and would affect only a very small proportion of tthe Parks as a whole. y Cumulative Impacts s b Mowing operations throughout the Parks resultu in cumulative impacts on vegetation by permanent or temporary r removal of woody vegetation in localized areasg of the Parks. Another possible cumulative impact would result

N 36

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U from herbicide treatment of invasive species .within treatment units. The total cumulativeE adverse impacts of these activities when combined with fire managementS activities proposed in the alternativesn is expected to be negligible . to minor, and short -term. Alternative 1 would likely contribute more cumulative adversev impacts on vegetation D i than Alternative 2 because Alternative 1 woulde continue the detrimental impacts of excludingr fire from fire- adapted ecosystems. p o a n Mitigation r m t e m Mitigation Measures for Vegetation Common to Both Alternatives n e t n a A number of mitigation measures for biologicalt resources including vegetation apply tol both alternatives equally, for Alternative 1 during fire suppression actions and for Alternative 2 during fire suppression actions, prescribed burns, and non-fire fuel reductiono actions. Mitigation measures to minimizeA impacts to vegetation specific for Alternative 2 apply tof prescribe burning and non-fire fuel reductions activities. These s mitigation measures to minimize soil impactst are described below.  Locate incident facilities at pre-determined staging areas identified in Geographice Information h s Systems (GIS) data layers. Exceptions must be approved by the Superintendent or his/her e s designee. m  Emphasize minimum impact suppressionI tactics (MIST; RM-18, Chapter 9) eduring operational briefings. Suppression personnel willn choose methods and equipment commensuraten with suppression needs and a strategy thatt will least disturb Park resources. t e  On extended attack and wildland fire use fires, the Park’s superintendent will designate a r Fi Resource Advisor. The Resource Advisori will evaluate that management tactics are commensurate with resource objectives and will provide daily directionre regarding the location o M and protection of biological and culturalr resources projected to be adversely impacted by a N suppression activities or by the fire itself. n a  Chose helicopter bucket drops and water or wet water over tanker dropsa or retardant.  Allow fires to burn out to natural ort existing man-made barriers wheneverge possible. i m  As soon as possible during initial attack,o and daily during extended attack, the Incident e Commander will notify the Communicationsn Center EICC (or Fire Dispatcher, if one is used nt during extended attack) of the locationa of the fire, and the Communications Center will notify the Incident Commander of sensitive areas within or in the path of the firePl (biologically or l a culturally sensitive areas are identifiedP in GIS data layers and on maps nstored in the Park’s GIS). These areas should be avoideda whenever possible during suppression operations. If r initial attack operations are required in these areas, the preferred suppressionO tools will be k water, leaf blowers and claw or leaf rakes. ct

 Constructed fire line, if necessary, will be built the minimum width ando depth needed. S  During fireline construction, minimize the cutting of trees, burned trees,b and snags. e er Leave some trees randomly in the firer line. Cut brush, small trees, and stumps from cut trees , v flush to the ground. Limb trees adjacent to the fire line only enough to 2prevent additional fire i spread. Scatter debris from cutting operations to appear natural. 0 c  During mop-up activities, roll logs to check for hot spots rather than buck1 them up with saws. e 2  A Burned Area Emergency RehabilitationG (BAER) Team may be requested following a large wildland fire, based on an interdisciplinarye needs analysis. When a BAER Team is requested, include one or more personnel witht biological expertise.  Allow fires to burn out to natural ort existing man-made barriers whenever possible.  Give Park natural resource staff withy the opportunity to survey post-burn and post- treatment areas for invasive or exotic species. s b Mitigation Measures for Vegetation Specific ufor Alternative 2 r  Provide prescribed burn and non-fireg treatment plans to Park natural resource staff far enough in

N 37

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U advance of the proposed ignition date. to allow survey of the project area. FireE management staff would cooperate and coordinate withS resource staff to alleviate or mitigate specificn issues identified during a survey. . v D i Conclusion e r p Alternative 2 would have beneficial impacts on vegetation in the two parks by providingo more tools for vegetation a n management needed for maintaining open landscaspes through prescribed burns and non-fire fuel treatments, r m facilitating recruitment of desirable woody speciest in forests, and in reducing the spreade of invasive species in the two parks. m n e t n Water Resources a t l

Methodology for Assessing Impacts o A Impacts to water resources were qualitativelyf assessed based on professional judgments and experience with comparable actions applied to the general hydrologic conditions at GETT/EISE. Impactss were examined with t respect to conformity with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and to the degree to ewhich impacts are beneficial h s to resource conditions. e s m I Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives e n n Important components of water resources includet the hydrologic cycle, stream flow regimes,t sedimentation, water chemistry, and water temperature (DeBano ete al. 1998 in SEKI EA 2004). Fire affects water quantity, quality, r Fi chemistry, and physical and biotic characteristics.i Effects vary according to the severity, size, season, frequency, and location on the slope of a fire, and according to post-fire weather, primarily reprecipitation (Elliot and Vose o M r 2005, Clinton et al. 2003, Neary and Currier 1982). a N n a a The primary sources of nutrient input into streamst are geological weathering and atmospheric deposition. Fire can cause changes in nutrient levels through ash fall during a fire event and leachingg eafterwards. Other characteristics i m o of water chemistry, such as buffering capacity and therefore pH, can also be impactede in similar ways. Depending n on the percent of the watershed burned and the severity of the fire, these effects ntcan be insignificant or can last a a year or more (Minshall 2001, Megahan and Hornbeck 2000, Swank and Vose 1997).Pl l a P The most common way fire can alter water conditions is by increasing the temperaturen of the water. Many stream a r courses, particularly narrow courses like most of those at the Parks, are shaded byO adjacent and overhanging k vegetation. Reduction or removal of this vegetation can allow additional sunlightct to penetrate to water surfaces

o and increase the temperature of the water. TheseS impacts may last several years as vegetation re-grows and may affect stream reaches below the location of the fire as warmer water flows downstream.b e er r , v Increases in stream flow discharge often occur following fire due to the reduction2 or removal, through combustion, i of vegetation and organic soil layers. Reducing these layers decreases interception0 and infiltration and therefore c increases the overland and subsurface flow of water. These effects are usually sh1ort-term, with stream flow e 2 returning to pre-fire levels as vegetation and Glitter layers recover (SEKI EA 2004). e Sediment is eroded soil particles transported tinto water channels by overland flow (DeBano et al. 1998 in SEKI t EA 2004). Impacts of fire would be greatest ywhere slopes are steep, soils are shallow, and high-intensity rainfall, such as severe thunderstorms, is common. Likes stream flow discharge, effects are usually short-term, returning to pre-fire levels as vegetation and litter layers brecover (SEKI EA 2004). u

r Suppression and other fire management activities,g especially mechanical non-fire treatments, can also impact

N 38

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U water resources. Disturbance of soil and litter. layers during fireline construction and mechanicalE removal of vegetation can increase sedimentation. Fire retardantS chemicals can be dropped or carriedn by overland flow into . water, causing nutrient influxes and changes in pH. Stream flow or water quantity mayv be temporarily reduced by D i removing water from stream courses or watere bodies using pumps or helicopter water rbuckets. Some changes to characteristics of water resources, such as nutrientp levels, pH, temperature, stream flow,o and sedimentation, would occur under all of the alternatives. a n r m t Impacts Specific to Each Alternative e m n Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.e Alternative 1 would have negligible to minor,t short-term, localized to regional, adverse impacts on water resourcesn in the Parks. Aggressive suppression ofa all wildland fires with t emphasis on extinguishing each fire at the smallest possible size could result in impactsl to water resources including short-term nutrient influxes, temporary changes in pH, increased temperatures, short-term increases in o A stream flow, and reduction in water volume duef to removal of water for suppression purposes.s s t Alternative 2 – Fire Suppression, Expanded Prescribed Fire, and Non-fire Treatmentse (NPS Preferred h s Alternative). Alternative 2 would have negligiblee to minor, short-term, localized to regional,s adverse impacts on water resources in the Parks. Overall, impacts would be less than those of Alternative m1. Prescribed fire would have fewer impacts, because projects could beI planned to burn riparian vegetation (vegetatione growing near the n water course) in controlled conditions thereby burning less severely and thus remove lessn vegetation and litter t t layer, which would lead to less sedimentatione and less increase in stream flow. Impacts from prescribed fire would be negligible to minor, temporary, and localized.r Non-fire treatments would continueFi in open wetland areas, i leading to minor, temporary, and localized impacts on sedimentation and streamre flow. o M r a N Overall, impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 1, but Alternative 2 wouldn allow managers to select a strategies that minimize adverse impacts to water resources rather than focusinga on extinguishing the fire at the t smallest possible size. For example, managers could let a wildland fire burn out gtoe a natural or manmade barrier i m o like a stream or trail instead of digging firelines. Non-fire treatments would be expectede to have at most a n negligible, temporary impact on water resources if vegetation were reduced or removednt adjacent to and in riparian a areas. However, with increased prescribed fire, additional wetland areas could bePl burned, keeping non-fire l treatment equipment and personnel out of the open wetland areas in historic vistasa – thereby reducing overall P n impacts to stream flow and sedimentation – whilea maintaining the historic scene. r O k Cumulative Impacts ct

Fire management activities throughout the Parks would not be expected to contributeo to cumulative adverse S impacts on water resources. In the places where herbicides are used to treat exoticb or invasive species, this could e er r combine with the nutrients released by burning and leach into water resources, but, this is unknown, nor are the v potential impacts known. However, mitigation measures described previously used2 to protect soils would i minimize these impacts. 0 c 1 e 2 Mitigation G Mitigation Measures for Water Resources Commone to Both Alternatives A number of mitigation measures for water resourcest apply to both alternatives equally, for Alternative 1 during fire suppression actions and for Alternativet 2 during fire suppression actions, prescribed burns, and non-fire fuel reduction actions. These mitigationy measures to minimize soil impacts are described below. s b  Provide materials on-site at fireu camps and staging areas for cleaning up spills of hazardous materials, especiallyr fuels and lubricants.  Do not dump flagging or otherg trash in standing or flowing bodies or water.

N 39

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U  Except in emergencies, obtain .approval from a designated Resource AdvisorE with natural resource expertise, or from theS Park’s Natural Resources Office, before nfording streams with vehicles or other equipment.. v D  Instruct firefighters in the proper disposal of human waste in camp and iin the field. e r  Do not apply retardants and water with chemical additives to streams or wetlands. p o  If bulldozers or other heavy equipmenta are authorized in an emergency,n add or change lubricants associated with thatr equipment only in places designed for thism purpose. Ensure spill cleanup materials are readily available.t e  Use solvents for cleaning tools,m power tools, or equipment only in placesn designed for this e purpose. Ensure spill cleanup materials are readily available. t n a  A Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitationt (BAER) Team may be requestedl following a large wildland fire, based on an interdisciplinary needs analysis. When a BAER Team is requested, include one or more personnelo with expertise in water resources. A f s

Conclusion s t e Both alternatives would result in negligible toh minor, short-term impacts to water resources.s Alternative 2 would give managers at the Parks the widest range ofe tools to choose from to minimize impactss from any particular project or event. m I e n n Wildlife and Fisheries t t e Methodology for Assessing Impacts r Fi Impacts to wildlife and fisheries were qualitativelyi assessed based on professionalre judgment and experience with o M comparable actions. Impacts were examined runder the assumption that native wildlife and fish populations in the a N Parks evolved in the presence of, and are therefore to some degree adapted to, fire.n In accordance with this a assumption and with NPS policy, the loss of individual animals was not considereda in assessing impacts of the t alternatives. Area affected by fire, maintenance of habitat diversity, and risk of catastrophicge loss of habitat were i m considered in evaluating the environmental consequenceso of the alternatives. Impacts on special status species, e n where the loss of individual animals could be important, were assessed separatelynt in this Chapter under the a heading Threatened and Endangered Species. Pl l a Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives P n a Fire and fire management activities affect wildlifer largely to the extent that they affect vegetation. The fire itself O k and associated smoke can cause the death of individual animals, but this is insignificantct to the population as a whole. Consumption or mechanical removal of vegetation or fuels can also removeo or reduce habitat for certain S species, such as when consumption of large dead and down fuels or removal of snagsb reduces habitat for small e er mammals or cavity- nesting birds, but it equallyr increases habitat or prey for other species, such as when raptors , v can hunt easily for exposed small mammals, when large trees are killed and becom2 e snags, or when succulent new i growth provides browse for deer. The mosaic pattern of most fires creates a natural0 diversity of habitat while c leaving refugia for fire-sensitive species. Although impacts to wildlife could be moderate1 and long-term, there e 2 would be both adverse and beneficial impacts.G e Fire and fire management activities affect fisheriest to the extent that they affect water resources. Fire retardant t chemicals can be toxic to fish and other aquatic wildlife. Changes in water resources also change habitat for water- y dwelling species; for example, an increase ins water temperature due to reduction in canopy cover, whether by prescribed fire or by non-fire treatments suchb as mechanical removal, may make water too warm for certain fish species. Another example is when increased usediment influx makes the water column too silty for certain species. r Because impacts to water resources would beg negligible to minor, impacts to fisheries resources would also be negligible to minor. N 40

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Impacts Specific to Each Alternative . E Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.S Alternative 1 would have minor to moderate,n short- to long-term, . localized, adverse and beneficial impacts on wildlife and fisheries in the Parks. Aggressivev suppression of all D i wildland fires with emphasis on extinguishinge each fire at the smallest possible size wouldr result in impacts to vegetation and water resources, such as reducedp sprouting of riparian vegetation and sedimentation,o which would have adverse impacts on wildlife and fisheries,a such as reduced nutrient-rich browse andn changes in water pH. r Suppressing wildland fires at the smallest possible size would prevent large fires fromm burning in mosaic patterns t e and would therefore reduce natural habitat diversity.m n e t n a Alternative 2 – Fire Suppression, Expanded tPrescribed Fire, and Non-fire Treatments (NPS Preferred Alternative). Alternative 2 would have minor to moderate, short- to long-term, localized,l largely beneficial but occasionally adverse impacts on wildlife ando fisheries in the Parks. Overall, adverse impactsA would be less than those of Alternative 1 and benefits would be fgreater. Prescribed fire would have fewers adverse impacts and far more beneficial impacts, because projects would be planned to minimize adverse impactss to vegetation and water t e resources and to maximize benefits to wildlifeh and fisheries, such as increasing browses or exposing prey. Alternative 2 allows managers to select strategiese that minimize adverse impacts to naturals resources rather than focusing on extinguishing the fire at the smallest possible size, and maximizing opportunitiesm for creation of I e natural vegetation mosaics. Over time, the impactsn of wildland fire would be largely beneficialn - for example, by creating mosaics for habitat diversity. t t e r Non-fire treatment activities, especially mechanical treatments, would be expectedFi to have negligible to minor i re impacts on wildlife and negligible impacts ono fisheries. Impacts on wildlife wouldM be primarily from modification r of vegetation resulting in alteration of habitat, and impacts would be similar to thosea from modification of habitat N n by fire. Activity and noise related to vegetationa removal could have impacts: individuals could be alarmed or frightened away. These impacts would be negligible because non-fire treatment aareas are small so animals would t ge have plenty of places to go to and not far to geti there to avoid the disturbance, treatmentsm usually take place slowly o so animals would have time to escape, and few individuals would be disturbed relativee to the population as a n nt whole. Activities would be planned to minimizea impacts on fisheries – for example, by leaving sufficient shading over watercourses and by not depositing debris into watercourses. Pl l a P n Cumulative Impacts a r There are many factors impacting the Parks’ and the region’s wildlife and fisheriesO communities, including air k ct quality that hovers between remaining poor and improving slightly, climate change, invasion by nonnative pests and pathogens, an increase in nonnative invasive animals, and a long history of fireo exclusion. Mowing and S b herbicide treatments in the Parks are probablye having cumulative impacts on wildlifeer and resulting in individual r deaths of wildlife from these treatments, Wildand fire suppression, prescribed fires,, and non-fire fuel reduction v 2 treatments would have further cumulative adversei impacts on wildlife and fisheries in the Parks. However, 0 wildlife and fisheries impacts would be minor,c and recover quickly. Alternative 2 would promote fire in areas in 1 the Parks and tend to reduce future detrimentale impacts from wildland fires. The2 contribution of Alternative 2 to the overall cumulative impact on wildlife wouldG be negligible to minor, and short-term in duration. e t Although ash fall and sediment transport duringt and after fire events would contribute incrementally to pollution inputs, wetlands would filter ash and sedimenty run-off from the burned areas until green-up occurs, thereby making these inputs short-term in duration, localizeds to the burn areas, and have a negligible impact on wildlife b and fisheries in the Parks. u r g

N 41

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Mitigation . E Mitigation measures for reducing impacts to SVegetation described above also apply ton Wildlife and Fisheries. . v D Conclusion i e r p o Both alternatives would result in minor to moderate,a short- to long-term, localized, beneficialn and adverse impacts to wildlife and fisheries. Alternative 2 wouldr give managers at the Parks the widest rangem of tools to choose from t to manage impacts. e m n e Cultural Resources t n a t l Methodology for Assessing Impacts Impacts on cultural resources were assessed oqualitatively through review of the Parks Aliterature, consultation with f the Parks cultural resource experts, professional judgment, and experience with similars actions. The effects of fire s on cultural resources are not well understood ort documented. Thus, the following discussione of potential impacts of fire and fire management on cultural resourcesh is general and somewhat speculative. Impactss were assessed based primarily on the likely extent of ground disturbancee and the level of pre-planning possibles to mitigate impacts. m I Impacts Common to Historical Structures, Archeological Resources and Cultural Landscapese n n Unwanted wildland fire is unpredictable andt therefore impacts are uncontrollable. However,t impacts from suppression activities are controllable to a certaine degree. r Fi i Mitigation described for the Alternatives would help prevent adverse impacts tore the known cultural resources at o M r the two parks and would reduce the likelihood of impacts to unknown sites. Duea to the limited nature of the N information about archeology at the two parks, it is possible that some unknownn sites, or objects could be a impacted during a fire event. a t ge i m Historical Structures o e n nt a Impacts Common to Both of the Alternatives Pl l a Fires themselves can and often do destroy historicP structures or properties, especiallyn those constructed of wood or other flammable material. Direct ground disturbancea associated with the building of fi re lines and wi th mechanical r O fuel treatment activities can impact historic resk ources directly. Mechanical activities can physically damage or ct move resources or parts of resources. Besides being directly scorched or consumedo by fire, resources can be chemically or physically altered by heat. ForS example, several dating techniquesb are no longer useful after the e resource has been exposed to even relatively low intensity fires. er r , v 2 Impacts Specific to Each Alternative i 0 Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.c Alternative 1 fire suppression actions could have minor to moderate, 1 permanent, localized, adverse impacts on historicale resources. 2 G e Alternative 2 - Fire Suppression, Expanded Prescribedt Fire, and Non-fire Treatments (NPS Preferred Alternative). Alternative 2 would have fire suppressiont impacts similar to those of Alternative 1. Prescribed fires and non-fire treatments would be planned to yhave negligible adverse impacts on historical resources. Some prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatment activitiess would be designed to have beneficial impacts such as reducing b fire risk to structures by reducing fuels aroundu historic structures. r g

N 42

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Cumulative Impacts . E Present and reasonably foreseeable future actionsS have and continue to contribute impactsn to historical resources in . and around the Parks. Fire management activities would have minor, short-term impactsv (smoke and accessibility) D i to the overall scene, but should have little actuale impact on the historical resources in ther Parks. Over time forces such as corrosion, erosion, microbial action, weatherip ng, rainfall, oxidation, and vandalismo all take their toll on the continued existence and integrity of these resources.a n r m t e m Mitigation n e t Fire management activities within the Park willn be carried out in a manner that minimizesa impacts to the Park's historic resources. A number of mitigationt measures for cultural resources includingl historic structures apply to both alternatives equally, for Alternative 1 during fire suppression actions and for Alternative 2 during fire suppression actions,o prescribed burns, and non-fire fuel reductionA actions. f These mitigation measures to minimize historic resource impacts are described below.s s t Mitigation Measures for Historic Structures Common to Both Alternatives e h s e s  Locate incident facilities at pre-determined staging areas identified in GIS datam layers and on maps found in the Park’s GIS. ApprovalI of the Superintendent or his/her designeee is required for exceptions. n n t t  Suppression personnel must choose emethods and equipment commensurate with suppression needs and a strategy that will least disturb Park historic resources. r Fi  The Park’s Superintendent will designate a Cultural Resource Technical Specialist(s) to provide i re daily direction regarding the locationo and protection of cultural resourcesM projected to be r impacted by a wildland fire. a N  Sensitive areas are identified in GIS data layers. As soon as possible duringn initial attack, and a daily during extended attack, the Incident Commander will notify the Communicationsa Center ­ t EICC (or Fire Dispatcher, if one is used during extended attack) of the locationge of the fire, and i m the Communications Center will notifyo the Incident Commander of sensitive areas within or in e the path of the fire. Avoid these areasn whenever possible during suppression operations. If initial nt attack operations are required in thesea areas, water, “wet” water, foam, leaf blowers, and claw or leaf rakes are the preferred suppression tools. Pl l a  Use minimum impact suppression tacticsP (MIST) during all fire managementn activities. In addition to measures for protecting soils, tacticsa relevant to cultural resources include: r - Minimize tree-falling. Snags within or adjacent to firelines willO be removed only if they k show evidence of fire, present hazard to firefighters, or constitutect a legitimate threat to

the integrity of the fireline. Living trees will be left undisturbedo as much as possible. S Lower branches will be limbed to remove ladder fuels rather thanb removing whole trees e er (ladder fuels are fuels whichr provide vertical continuity between strata, allowing fire to , carry from surface fuels intov 2 the crowns of trees or shrubs).i 0 c - After the emergency is over, transport personnel, equipment, and1 trash out of the Park in a manner that is consistent withe Park management objectives. 2 - In the event that the use ofG bulldozers is authorized in an emergency, assign an archeologist, or cultural resourcee specialist to the bulldozers to minimize damage to resources. t - Favor a consumption strategyt during mop-up operations to minimize disturbance to y buried cultural resources (as consumption strategy means that smoldering fuels are allowed to burn up insteadb of using tools or other potentially destructive methods to extinguish them). u r  The Streamlined Section 106 Reviewg Process may be used only if the Parks have an approved fire

N 43

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U management plan . . E  Consistent with the approved fire managementS plan, this streamlined activity nincludes the following undertakings, as well as others. that are comparable in scope, scale, vand impact: 1. Removal of dead and downedD vegetation, outside of historic districts,i cultural landscapes, e and archeological sites, using equipment and methods that do not introducer ground p o disturbance beyond documenteda natural and historic disturbance. 2. Removal of dead and downed vegetation, as well as trees and brush locatedn within historic r m properties, if the vegetation tdoes not contribute to the significance of ethe historic property and equipment and methodsm are used that do not introduce ground disturbancen beyond documented natural or historice disturbance. t 3. Forest management practices,n including thinning of tree stands, outsidea of historic districts, cultural landscapes, and archeologicalt sites, using equipment and methodsl that do not

introduce ground disturbance beyond documented natural or historic disturbance. o A 4. Restoration of existing fire linef disturbances, such as hand lines, replanting with native plants and/or grasses, placement of straw bales, wattles, and felling ofs dead trees when the s root ball is left intact and in tsitu. e  Installation of Environmental Monitoringh Units: The Streamlined Review Processs may be used for the placement of small-scale, temporarye or permanent monitoring units, suchs as weather stations, termite bait stations, water quality, air quality, or wildlife stations, inm previously disturbed I areas, as determined by a qualified archeologist, or areas inventoried and founde not to contain n n historic properties. Borings must bet limited to pipes less than 2 inches in diameter and surface samples to less than 12 inches in size and minimal in number. t e

r Fi i re Conclusion o M r Alternative 1 would have negligible to minor adverse impacts from fire suppressiona actions, and Alternative 2 N would have both minor adverse and beneficial impacts on historical resources fromn fuel load reductions around a historic structures through prescribed fires and/or non-fire fuel load reduction treatments.a t ge Archeological Resources i m o e n nt Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives a The risk to archeological resources is from both the ground disturbance associatedPl with building of firelines and l a from the heat and flames of the fire itself. P n Significant archeological sites often contain bua ried culturally-related items of metal, glass, fabric, ceramics, bone r O and other materials. Clearing firelines associatked with fire suppression activities can damage subsurface ct archeological resources by exposing, crushing, rearranging, or removing them. Resources can be physically o damaged or destroyed, and the scientific informationS they could furnish is often losbt forever when they are disturbed or removed from their context. e er r , v 2 The amount of surface and subsurface heatingi has a direct impact on buried archeological resources. The three 0 c major factors involved in determining the nature and extent of soil heating are fire1 intensity, duration of heat, and heat penetration into the soil. Fuel loading, fuele moisture content, and weather are2 considered to be the most G important influences on fire intensity. Hottere surface fires penetrate more deeply into the subsurface and can potentially cause more damage. On several documentedt wildfires in the southwest, the severity of burning at sites seemed to correspond closely to the density oft the fuel load adjacent to and on the site. Research with in-place y artifacts during prescribed fires in Minnesotas state Parks indicates that depth of heat penetration is related to soil texture and moisture. Soil heating occurred tob a greater depth on sandy and rocky soils, while soils high in clay had limited heating (GRPO 2004). Clay soilsu are common in the Parks. r g The vulnerability of subsurface archeological resources and artifacts to fire depends not only on the intensity of the N 44

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U fire and on soil moisture but on the nature of the. materials themselves. Besides being directlyE consumed by fire, artifacts can be physically or chemically alteredS by heat. For example, glass bottles cann be cracked or broken, while . objects carved or chipped from stone are likely to be more resistant to fire and heat. v D i e Impacts Specific to Each Alternative r p o Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.a Alternative 1 could have minor to moderate,n permanent, localized impacts, such as crushing or scattering duringr suppression activities, on archeological mresources from suppression t activities. e m n e t Alternative 2 - Fire Suppression, Expanded Prescribedn Fire, and Non-fire Treatmentsa (NPS Preferred t Alternative). Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to Archeological resources than lthose of Alternative 1.

Impacts from suppression activities would be fewer because an appropriate management response would allow o A fires to be suppressed at a larger size if such fa strategy would minimize damage to archeologicals resources - for example, by using natural or manmade barriers instead of constructed fireline to stop fires spread. Prescribed fire t activities would be planned to have negligible impacts on archeological resources. Non-firee fuel treatments, h s especially mechanical treatments, can also havee impacts on archeological resources. Ass with fire suppression activities, soil disturbance can damage subsur face archeological resources by exposing,m breaking, crushing, I trampling, rearranging, or removing them, but treatment activities would be carefully plaenned and approved by n n cultural resources staff to minimize the chancest that such damage could occur. Overall, impactst would be negligible to minor, permanent, and localized. e r Fi Cumulative Impacts i re o M Archeological resources are limited, non-renewable,r and often fragile. Over time, forces such as corrosion, erosion, a microbial action, weathering, rainfall, oxidation,N and vandalism all take their toll on the continued existence and n a integrity of these resources. Post-fire observations are often unable to distinguisha between damage to archeological resources caused by the fire itself and damaget that was pre-existing. Wildland firege could be managed so as to have i m minimal impact by choosing locations to constructo firelines, or to use existing natural or manmade fire breaks. In e n Alternative 2, prescribed fire could be managed to be culturally sensitive; so as tont choose areas with little or no a chance of disturbing the archaeological record. Overall cumulative impacts wouldPl be negligible to minor, and l localized, however, if a culturally sensitive area were to be disturbed, the impactsa would be long-lasting. P n a Mitigation r O Fire management activities within the Park willk be carried out in a manner that minimizes impacts to the ct

Park's archeological resources. A number of mitigation measures for cultural resourceso including archeological resources apply to both alternativesS equally, for Alternative 1 duringb fire suppression actions and for Alternative 2 during fire suppressione actions, prescribed burns, ander non-fire fuel r reduction actions. Mitigation measures to minimize impacts to archeological resources, applied only to v prescribed burns or non-fire fuel reduction treatments are specific for Alternative2 2. These mitigation i measures to minimize soil impacts are described below. 0 c 1 e 2 Mitigation Measures for Archeology ResourcesG Common to Both Alternatives e Mitigation measures described for Historic Structurest above also apply to Archeological Resource. Additional mitigation specific for archeologicalt resources are as follows: y  Archeologically sensitive areas are identifieds in GIS data layers. As soon as possible during b initial attack, and daily during extendedu attack, the Incident Commander will notify the Communications Center - EICC (or rFire Dispatcher, if one is used during extended attack) of the location of the fire, and the Communicationsg Center will notify the Incident Commander of sensitive areas within or in the path of the fire. Avoid these areas whenever possible during N 45

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U suppression operations. If initial attack. operations are required in these areas, Ewater, “wet” water, foam, leaf blowers, and claw Sor leaf rakes are the preferred suppressionn tools.  In the event that the use of bulldozers. is authorized in an emergency, assign anv archeologist, or cultural resource specialist to the bulldozersD to minimize damage to resources.i e r  Favor a consumption strategy duringp mop-up operations to minimize disturbance to buried cultural resources (a consumption strategy means that smoldering fuels are allowed too burn up instead of a n using tools or other potentially destructiver methods to extinguish them). m  Following completion of activities undert this section, post-burn inspection ande monitoring should be conducted by a qualified archeologistm to ensure no archeological sites weren impacted or previously unknown sites revealed. e t n a t Mitigation Measures for Archeology Resources Specific for Alternative 2 l

o A  Ensure that all prescribed fire and non-firef fuels treatment plans have a sections addressing the impacts of the fire on cultural resources contained within the projected fire area,s a description of the susceptibility of these resources tot damage from fire effects, and a descriptione of the mitigation actions to be taken by personnelh involved in fire line operations. s e s  Ensure that all prescribed fire and non-fire fuels treatment activities that may take place are fully reviewed for Section 106 compliance before implementation by the Parks’ Cultmural Resource I e Manager and the Parks’ cultural resourcen management advisor team for culturaln resource impacts and acceptable mitigation ort avoidance measures. t  Exclude historic structures, includinge ruins of historical structures (not including earthworks ), from prescribed fire treatment unit. When rthis is not possible, use leaf blowersFi to remove fine fuels such as leaves from the interior of structuresi or ruins to minimize the fuel bedre available to spotting o M embers. r a  If the project activities include groundN disturbance, archeological monitoring may be appropriate n throughout the ground disturbing activities,a in accordance with any recommendation of the a Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Team. When monitoring is recommended, members of t ge any appropriate Federally recognizedi Indian Tribes may be invited to participatem in monitoring. o  Following completion of activities under this section, post-burn inspectione and monitoring should n be conducted by a qualified archeologist to ensure no archeological sitesnt were impacted or a previously unknown sites revealed. Pl l a Conclusion P n a Both alternatives could have some adverse impactsr on archeological resources. Alternative 1 has the greatest O potential to cause impacts to archeological resourcesk because it involves the most aggressive suppression activities ct potentially involving creation of new firelines and use of heavy equipment over oarcheological sites. S b Cultural Landscapes e er r , v 2 Impacts Common to Both of the Alternativesi 0 Significant cultural landscapes are usually associatedc with human-altered natural features or with historic districts. 1 They are impacted by fire or fire managemente activities insofar as the fire or acti2vities alter the vegetation or soils of the landscape. Pre-planning for wildland fireG would minimize the possibility of impacts to known cultural e landscapes. Therefore, the greatest potential tfor adverse impacts is from fire suppression activities such as ground disturbance and clearing of brush to create firelines.t y Impacts Specific to Each Alternative s Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.b Alternative 1 could have minor to moderate, short- to long-term, u localized impacts on cultural landscapes fromr fire suppression activities. g

N 46

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Alternative 2 - Fire Suppression, Expanded Prescribed. Fire, and Non-fire TreatmentsE (NPS Preferred Alternative). Alternative 2 would have fewerS impacts on Cultural Resources than Alternativen 1. Impacts from . suppression activities would be fewer because an appropriate management response wouldv allow fires to be D i suppressed at a larger size if such a strategy woulde minimize damage to cultural landscapesr (e.g., reduce the need for ground disturbing actions associated withp creating new fire lines). o a n r Prescribed fire treatments would be planned to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to culturalm landscapes, and they t e would be expected to have negligible adversem short-term impacts. Some prescribed firen treatments are planned to assist in the maintenance of cultural landscapes,e such as by using fire to maintain a cleat ring that was historically n maintained; these would be beneficial impacts. a t l

Non-fire treatments can adversely affect culturalo landscapes by removing vegetation thatA may be important to a f s historic scene. In contrast, non-fire fuel reduction treatments can also have beneficial impacts by reducing the risk from unwanted wildland fire by reducing fuels. s t e h s Overall, adverse impacts of Alternative 2 on ecultural landscapes would be negligible tos minor, temporary to long­ term, and localized, and beneficial impacts would be similar. m I e n n Cumulative Impacts t t There are many factors impacting the Parks’ ecultural landscapes, including succession, climate change, invasion by nonnative pests and pathogens, andr increase in nonnative invasive plants.Fi Succession is a naturally occurring event; over time, if the Parksi do nothing to maintain the landscape,re the open fields would o M turn into mature hardwood forests. If the Parksr do nothing to manage nonnative pests, they would a eventually be overrun with exotic plants, andN would lose native bio-diversity of the existing open fields. The n Parks are currently managing the open fieldsa of our cultural landscape with a combination of bush-hogging and mowing. This management regime is precluding succession, and aiding in controllinga exotic invasive t ge pests, while also decreasing needed bush-hogging. While Alternative 1 could combine with these impacts to i m o worsen the condition of cultural landscapes by exposing them to potentially destructivee suppression n activities, Alternative 2 would not be likely to contribute incrementally to adversent impacts to cultural a landscapes. Overall, Alternative 2 would likely have more long-term beneficialPl cumulative impacts. l a Mitigation P n All of the mitigation measures for cultural resourcesa for Historic Structures described above would also reduce r O impacts to Cultural Landscapes in both Alternatives.k ct

Conclusion o S b All of the alternatives could have some adversee impacts on cultural landscapes. Alternativeer 1 has the greatest r potential to cause impacts to cultural landscapes because it involves the most aggressive, suppression activities. v 2 Alternatives 2 would have similar impacts, buti less than those from Alternative 1. 0 c Parks Facilities and Operations 1 e 2 G Methodology for Assessing Impacts e Impacts to facilities and operations at GETT/EISEt were assessed qualitatively by using discussions with the park t staffs, professional judgment, and experiencey with similar actions to predict the likely effects of wildland fires, prescribed fires, and fire suppression on normsal Parks operations. b Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives u Fires can potentially affect operations at Nationalr Parks, especially in developed sites like visitor centers, g administrative and maintenance facilities, and concessionaire- operated services. Fire activities have the potential N 47

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U to cause changes or curtailment of concession. and visitor services. Impacts can occur Edirectly from the threat to facilities, and indirectly from smoke and the Sdiversion of personnel to other projects. Roadsn normally used for . maintenance operations may be closed for short periods of time during wildland fires.v Field operations such as D i data collection, herbicide application, or traile maintenance may be disrupted during wildlandr fires. All impacts would last no longer than the period of time pduring the fire event, usually not more thano 12 to 36 hours, and generally impact only the area of the Parks immediatelya adjacent to the fire area. n r m t e In the event of a severe wildland fire, some Parksm staff would be diverted from their regularn duties for directly fire- related activities (all red-carded staff in the Parks).e Wildland fires are beyond the controlt of the proposed Fire n Management Plan. a t l

Impacts Specific to Each Alternative o A Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.f Alternative 1 would have negligible to minor,s temporary, localized, adverse impacts on Parks facilities and operations. While a large, severe unwanted wildlands fire could have t significant impacts, such an event is unpredictable and uncontrollable under all of the ealternatives. Wildland fire h s suppression is the primary responsibility of outsidee fire fighting agencies, and little changess in park staff activities would occur during wildfire fire suppression events in the Parks. m I e n Alternative 2 - Fire Suppression, Expanded Prescribed Fire, and Non-fire Treatmentsn (NPS Preferred t t Alternative). Alternative 2 would have minore to moderate, temporary, localized, adverse impacts on Parks facilities and operations, more impacts than Alterativer 1. Impacts of suppressionFi activities would be similar to i those of Alternative 1. Prescribed fires are planned activities and would requirere participation of staff from the o M Parks as well as regional fire staff, resulting rin expected minor adverse impacts on park operations. Similarly, a N non-fire fuel treatment activities would be expected to have minor impacts on operationsn at the Parks. Overall, this a alternative would likely have minor adverse impacts on park operations due to requirementsa for park staff to t participate in prescribed burns and non-fire fuel load treatment. ge i m o e Cumulative Impacts n nt a There are no other reasonably foreseeable events or actions that would combine Plwith any of the proposed FMPs to produce cumulative impacts on the Parks facilitiesl or operations. a P n a Mitigation r O Mitigation measures for Park Facilities and Operationsk are for prescribed burning and non-fire fuel reductions, and ct therefore, are only specific for Alternative 2. Most of the measures involve informingo park neighbors and surrounding public of future prescribed burns.S Parks neighbors are those privateb parties having property within or e er immediately adjacent to the boundaries of ther Parks. These parties can be directly impacted by fire management , activities in both positive (beneficial impacts)v and adverse (adverse impacts) ways. Keeping park neighbors 2 i informed of fire management activities is a key component of mitigating adverse 0impacts of those activities. In c order to accomplish this: 1 e 2 G Mitigation Measures for Park Facilities and eOperations Specific for Alternative 2  Notify landowners having propertyt adjacent to prescribed fire units of the planning process via press release or other means.t y  Each spring before prescribed sburning begins, the Parks would prepare and release a press release describing the locations,b objectives, and planned treatment windows of prescribed fire projects planned for initiationu in the following spring, summer, and fall. The notice would be released to at least oner newspaper covering each of the counties that may be affected by smoke from any ofg the prescribed fires. The notice would include a contact name

N 48

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U and number for more informat.ion. E  Use the Parks web site to provSide information, or links to information, abn out fire . v ecology and about prescribed fireD activities in the Parks.  Inform all parties requesting or receiving information about fire operatioi ns in the Parks about e r the web site as a source of updatp ed and detailed information. o a n Conclusion r m Alternative 2 would have greater adverse impactst on park operations due to changes ine staffing times needed for m prescribed fires and/or non-fire fuel reduction activities. n e t n a Visitor Use and Experience t l

Methodology for Assessing Impacts o A Impacts to visitor use and experience at GETT/EISEf were assessed qualitatively by discussionss with Park staffs, professional judgment, and experience with similar actions to predict the likely effects sof wildland fires, prescribed t e fires, and fire suppression on the way visitorsh use and experience the Parks. s e s Impacts Common to Both of the Alternatives m Fires and fire management activities can haveI a wide variety of both beneficial and adversee impacts on visitor use n and experience. Smoke from fires can reduce visibility, be perceived as smelling unpleasant,n and aggravate health t t conditions. Facilities such as visitor centers maye be closed due to staff’s being needed elsewhe re in the Parks, to smoke conditions, to direct threat from the fire,r or to use of the facility for fire operations.Fi Trails or roads may be i partially or fully closed to allow access by emergency vehicles or to avoid to risksre to public safety. Noise or o M activity from fire management activities may be distracting or offensive. Burned areas may be perceived as r a unattractive or, once new growth has begun, Nas exceptionally attractive. Educationaln and ranger-led programs may change in topic or content in response to firesa in the Parks. a t ge i m Impacts Specific to Each Alternative o Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression. Alternative 1 would have minor, temporarye to short-term, localized, n nt beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor usea and experience in the Parks. SuppressionPl activities could have all of the impacts described above. l a P n a Alternative 2 - Fire Suppression, Expanded Prescribed Fire, and Non-fire Treatments (NPS Preferred r O Alternative). Alternative 2 would have similark fire suppression impacts similar toct Alternative 1. Prescribed fire activities would be planned to minimize impacts, but would still have occasionalo impacts, especially to air quality, S b aesthetics, and visitor access. Non-fire treatmentse would have negligible impacts on visitor use and experience. Visitors may feel they are getting a mixed message regarding non-fire treatments,er especially mechanical r , treatments, as vegetation is manipulated and voften removed in a Parks setting that2 is otherwise protected from human disturbance. Overall, Alternative 2 adversei impacts to visitor use and experience0 would be expected to be c 1 minor, temporary, and localized. e 2 G Cumulative Impacts e There are no other reasonably foreseeable eventst or actions that would combine with any of the proposed Alternatives to produce cumulative impacts ont visitor use and experience. y Mitigation s b Mitigation measures for reducing adverse impactsu to visitor use and experience are divided into mitigation common to both alternatives and mitigation appliedr to prescribed burns or non-fire fuel reductions that are specific for Alternative 2. Many of the above gmeasures (especially related to smoke and safety) will mitigate

N 49

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U the impacts of the fire management program on. visitor use and experience. E S n Mitigation Measures for Visitor Use and Experience. Common to Both Alternatives v D  The Park will undertake an information and education program to ensure ithat citizens, key e r contacts, and employees understpand the current status of the fires within the Park and the mission of the specific action(s) being taken. o a n r m Mitigation Specific for Alternative 2 t e  Conduct treatments or projectsm which could disrupt visitor experience inn any way, such as the use of chainsaws to removee brush around a structure, during periodst of low visitation (spring or late fall rather than sun mmer) whenever possible. a t l

Conclusion o Both of the alternatives would have minor, temporary to short-term, localized, beneficialA and adverse impacts. f s None of the alternatives would result in impacts that would impair visitor use and experiences at the Parks. t e Social and Economic Environmenth s e s m Human Health and Safety I e n n Methodology for Assessing Impacts t t Impacts to human health and safety were assesse ed qualitatively by using discussion s wi th Park staff, professional r judgment, and experience with similar actions to predict the likely effects of wildlandFi fires, prescribed fires, and fire i re suppression on the health and safety of the pubolic, Parks visitors, Parks staff, and fireMfighters. The alternatives were r evaluated based on each one’s ability to minimize the exposure of firefighters and aothers to direct and indirect hazards N n of the fire itself, and ability to minimize exposurea of firefighters, park staff, visitors, and others to wildland and prescribed fire smoke. a t ge i m Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives o e n There are two major categories of health and safety issues. The first is activity-causednt injuries or fatalities. This a includes direct injury to the public, visitors, or staff by the fire itself, such as by Plbeing burned by the heat of the l fire. It also includes indirect injury, such as injury by falling rocks or trees looseneda or weakened by the fire, or by P n fire suppression activities. Injuries to firefightersa are infrequent but do occur, and are managed through the use of r personal protective equipment, training, safety briefings, qualification standards,O and other elements of an k aggressive safety program. Injuries to members of the public and to park staff arect very rare.

The second category is the health and safety impacts of smoke generated by fires.o The risks are well-studied and S b include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, ande particulates found in smoke. Most erbyproducts of combustion that are r of health concern are concentrated on the fireline, and decrease to negligible levels, in very short distances. Fine v 2 particulates, however, can travel long distancesi from the fire in smoke. Smoke impacts are related to the amount of 0 fuel consumed and how efficiently it burned,c not to the size of the burned area (SEKI EA 2004). 1 e 2 Firefighters are exposed to the greatest healthG risks from smoke on or near firelines. Standard firefighting practices e are practiced to minimize exposure, includingt planning location of fires to minimize exposure, rotating personnel out of smoky areas at regular intervals, and providingt sleep areas away from smoke accumulations during extended attack events. The greatest risk to they health of park visitors, staff, and other public is from fire particulates in smoke, because these can travels long distances from the fire. Local weather patterns affect smoke b mixing and dispersal patterns, especially at night.u r g

N 50

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Impacts Specific to Each Alternative . E Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.S Alternative 1 would result in negligible ton minor, temporary to short- . term, localized to regional, adverse impacts on human health and safety. While unwantedv wildland fires are D i unpredictable and therefore their impacts cannote be managed by any of the alternatives,r suppression activities can expose firefighters to measurable risks. p o a n Alternative 2 - Fire Suppression, Expanded Prescribedr Fire, and Non-fire Treatmentsm (NPS Preferred t Alternative). Alternative 2 would have negligible to moderate, temporary to short- term,e localized to regional, m n adverse and beneficial impacts on human healthe and safety. There would be slightly moret adverse impacts than those of Alternative 1 because additional areasn would be burned using prescribed fire. aPrescribed fire activities t would be planned to minimize impacts, but all impacts cannot be eliminated. Risks tol firefighter safety would be less adverse compared to Alternative 1 through the use of an appropriate management response to unwanted o A wildland fires. Impacts to Park staff and the public,f such as exposure to smoke, woulds be more adverse than under Alternative 1 because of the presence of more fire on the landscape due to wildland fires suppression and prescribe t burning. e h s e s Cumulative Impacts m For the most part, neither of the alternatives Iwould combine with any reasonably foreseeablee future action or event to contribute incrementally to adverse impactsn on human health and safety. While firen projects would be managed t to minimize impacts, some individuals may be sensitive or susceptible to smoke impacts.t Alternative 2 could e contribute to cumulative impacts on the healthr of these few individuals. Fi i re Mitigation o M r a Mitigation measures for reducing adverse impactsN to human health and safety are divided into mitigation for n fire suppression common to both alternatives aand mitigation applied to prescribed burns or non-fire fuel a reductions that is specific for Alternative 2. t ge i m Mitigation Measures for Health and Safety Commono to Both Alternatives e n  Park personnel will exchange information concerning wildland andnt prescribed fire at Visitor a Centers, and at all public use facilities throughout the Park. Pl  Inform Park staff about wildlandl or prescribed fire operations througha Park radio P announcements, and information sent out via email. n a  Inform Park visitors about wildlandr or prescribed fire operations through public radio O announcements, notices on thek Park web site, site bulletins, and personal contacts with Park ct

staff. Inform visitors about fire danger status, trail and road closures,o and areas where smoke might be present along roads, trails,S and other visitor use areas. b e er  The Division of Natural Resourcer Management and Visitor Protection is responsible for , enforcing all closures, and the vBurn Boss will ensure that closure and informational signs on 2 all prescribed fires are properlyi posted. 0 c  Include mention of power lines, propane tanks, or gas lines in safety1 briefings for every fire operation in which any of ethese features might be encountered.2 G  Ensure that a Safety Officer or Public Information Officer is assigned to all extended- attack e wildfires, and prescribed burnst larger than 10 acres.  Assure visitor safety will be givet n a higher priority than fire suppression and monitoring activities. For example, personnely will be drawn from monitoring and suppression forces to ensure visitor safety if necesssary.  Any time human life is endangered,b take all necessary means to warn or evacuate visitors u and neighbors. r  Limit or prevent visitor use nearg wildland fires and potentially affected areas.

N 51

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E Mitigation Measures for Health and Safety SpecificS for Alternative 2 n . v  Plan prescribed fires to preventD heavy smoke volume under high-tension power lines.  When propane tanks or gas lines are present within prescribed burn units,i prepare fuels e r before ignition to prevent directp flame impingement on these features. o  Ensure NPS personnel are availablea to patrol the perimeter of prescribed nfires to inform visitors about the role of fire in a naturalr area, explain the risks associated with approachingm too close to a fire, and enforce visitor compliancet with area closure orders. e m n Conclusion e t n Both of the alternatives would have adverse impacts on human health and safety with aAlternative 2 likely t l having potential for more intense impacts (i.e., negligible to moderate adverse impacts) compared with Alternative 1 (negligible to minor adverse impacts)o due to more fire and non-fire managementA events. Neither alternative eliminates all health and safetyf concerns. Safety of firefighters, thes public, and other staff is always the highest priority for all fire management actions under all of the alternatives.s Nonetheless, Alternative 2 gives managers the most flexibilityt to choose the tools that could minimizee adverse impacts while accomplishing management goals. h s e s

Transportation m I e n Methodology for Assessing Impacts n t t e Impacts of the alternatives on transportation rwere qualitatively assessed based onFi professional judgment, experience with similar actions, and consultationi with Park staffs. Alternatives werere compared based on impacts to o M roads outside and inside the Parks. r a N n Impacts Common to Both of the Alternativesa a Wildland fire events could have impacts on transportationt in and around the Parks.ge Outside of the Parks, smoke passing over a roadway can be dense enoughi to impede vision and make road conditionsm hazardous for short o periods of time. Visitor traffic on main Parks roads may be temporarily slowed, ereduced to one lane, or closed for n nt the duration of a fire event, reducing visitor access.a Impacts would last no longer than the time the fire is burning. Pl Within the Parks, administrative roads used forl maintenance and other access maya be temporarily closed due to poor visibility or to facilitate access by firefightingP equipment. n a r Impacts Specific to Each Alternative O k ct

o Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.S Alternative 1 would have negligible to minor, temporary, localized, adverse impacts on transportation in and around the Parks. As describedb above, impacts would e er result from road closures, especially within ther Parks, and the safety risk if drifting smoke from a fire were , to reduce visibility on a roadway. v 2 i 0 Alternative 2 - Fire Suppression, Expanded Prescribedc Fire, and Non-fire Treatments (NPS Preferred 1 Alternative). Alternative 2 would have impactse similar to those of Alternative 1 for2 wildland fires. Prescribed fire events would be planned to minimize transportationG impacts by burning under wind conditions that blow smoke e away from roadways and by using traffic controlt personnel to manage traffic during periods of reduced visibility. In very rare cases, a non-fire, especially mechanical,t fuels treatment project may necessitate the temporary closure of public roadways, or park roads, such as toy protect travelers from a felled tree, but the duration of the impact would not be more than one hour. Non-fire fuels treatment projects would have a negligible impact on b transportation. Overall, Alternative 2 would ulikely have negligible to minor adverse impacts on transportation. r g

N 52

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Cumulative Impacts . E No reasonably foreseeable future event or manS agement action would be expected to combinen with any alternative . to contribute to cumulative impacts on transportation in or near the Parks. v D i e Mitigation r p o There are no mitigation measures for transportationa proposed for either alternative. n r m t Conclusion e m n Neither of the FMP alternatives would substantivelye affect transportation in and aroundt the Parks. One exception is the possible temporary closure of roads duringn fire suppression activities or becausea of heavy smoke emanating t from wildland fires or prescribed burns. Over the long term, closures would be infrequentl and would not significantly impinge on local transportation. Both of the alternatives would have negligible to minor, temporary, o A localized impacts on transportation in and aroundf the Parks. s s Utilities t e h s e Methodology for Assessing Impacts s m Impacts of the alternatives on utilities withinI the Parks were assessed qualitatively basede on professional judgment, experience with similar actions, andn consultation with Parks staff. n t t Impacts Common to All of the Alternatives e r Fi i Heavy smoke from wildland fire has been known to cause arcing from high-tensionre power lines. The gas o M contained in gas lines is flammable. It is possibler that extreme heat from a fire could damage the pipe line, but this a N is unlikely. It is more likely that ground disturbance during fire suppression activities,n especially due to the use a ofheavy equipment, might physically damage gas pipe lines. Access to utility linesa by utility staff could be t temporarily denied during a fire event to protect the safety of utilities staff or to gensuree that roadways are free i m to allow access for emergency or firefightingo vehicles. Utility equipment could be damaged by the passing flame e n of a fire. nt a Pl Impacts Specific to Each Alternative l a P n Alternative 1 – No Action: Fire Suppression.a Alternative 1 would have negligible to minor, temporary, localized, r O mostly adverse impacts on public or private utilitiesk within the Parks from wildland fire suppression activities. ct

Alternative 2 - Fire Suppression, Expanded Prescribed Fire, and Non-fire Treatmentso (NPS Preferred S b Alternative). The fire suppression impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to those from Alternative 1. e er r Prescribed burning or non-fire fuels treatments in utilities corridors would have ,the beneficial impact of v helping to keep the corridor open for utility access. Non-fire fuels treatments would2 be planned to have no i adverse impact on utilities. Overall, Alternative 2 would have negligible to minor0 temporary adverse c impacts, and some beneficial impacts on utilities in the Parks. 1 e 2 Cumulative Impacts G e No reasonably foreseeable future event or mant agement action would be expected to combine with any of the alternatives to contribute to cumulative impactst on utilities within the Parks. Both of the alternatives would have negligible to minor, temporary, localized impactsy on public and private utilities within the Parks. s Mitigation b u Mitigation measures proposed for utilities are for prescribed fires and therefore are specific only to Alternative 2. r g Mitigation Measures of Utilities Specific for Alternative 2 N 53

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U  Plan prescribed fires to prevent. heavy smoke volume under high-tensionE power lines.  When propane tanks or gas linesS are present within prescribed burn units,n prepare fuels . before ignition to prevent direct flame impingement on these features. v D i e Conclusion r p o Alternative 2 would have some benefits to utilitiesa by keeping the utility lines open throughn the use of prescribed fire and/or mechanical removal woody vegetation.r m t e m n e t n a t l

o A f s s t e h s

e s m I e n n t t e r Fi i re o M r a N n a a t ge i m o e n nt a Pl l a P n a r O k ct

o S b e er r , v 2 i 0 c 1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g

N 54

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E Public Involvement,S Consultationn and . v CoordinationD i e r p o Public Involvement a n r m

t e As required by NPS policies and planning documents, it is the Parks’ objective to work with state, federal, m n and local governmental and private organizationse to ensure that the Parks and its programst are coordinated with theirs, and are supportive of their objectives,n as far as proper management of the aParks permits, and that their programs are similarly supportive of Parkst programs. l

o Consultation and coordination have occurred with numerous agencies for the developmentA of the f s alternatives and preparation of the EA. The following, organizations, and agencies were contacted for information, which assisted in identifying important issues, developings alternatives, t e and analyzing impacts: h s Delawaree Nation s Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officem PennsylvaniaI Department of Conservation ande Recreation n Pennsylvania Department of Forestry n t t e Public Notice/Public Scoping r Fi i re In order to give the public and all interested partieso a chance to review the EA, itM would be noticed for public r a comment for a minimum of 30 days through Nlocal newspapers and on the world-wide-web. During this 60-day n period, the EA would be available for reviewa at the Visitor Center of the Gettysburg National Battlefield, on the a NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Commentt web site at http://Parkplanning.nps.gov/GETTge . Copies of the EA would also be sent to applicable Federal,i State, and local agencies for their reviewm and comment. o e n nt a Document Review Pl l a P The following persons, agencies, municipalities, and organizations were solicitedn to review this a r Environmental Assessment, or requested and were granted the opportunity to reviewO it: k ct

 Doug Wallner, Fire Management Officer, NPS Northeast Region o S  Jacki Katzmire, Regional Environmental Coordinator, NPS Northeastb Region e er  Pennsylvania Department of Conservationr and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage , v  Cliff Lively, Area Fire Management Officer, Delaware Water Gap 2 i  United States Fish and Wildlife Service 0 c  Delaware Tribe of Indians 1 e 2  Pennsylvania Historic Museum CommissionG Bureau for Historic Preservation e

Preparers t t y The following persons participated in the preparations of this EA  Haynes Currie, Environmental Protectionb Specialist, Chesapeake Bay Program Office  Sara Koenig, Biologist, Gettysburgu National Military Park r  Zachary Bolitho, Natural Resources,g Gettysburg National Military Park

N 55

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n . v ReferencesD and Literature Citedi e r p o Abrams, M.D. 2003. Where has all thea white oak gone? BioScience 53 (10): 927-939.n r m t e Abrams, M. D. 1996. Distribution, historicalm distribution, and ecophysical attributesn of oak species in eastern United States.e Annales des Sciences Forestieres 53:487t –512. n a t Abrams, M.D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. BioScience 42: 346-353.l

o A Angeler, D.G.; Rodriguez, M.; Martin,f S.; and Moreno, J.M. 2004. Assessment sof application-rate dependent effects of a long-term fire retardant chemicals (Fire Trol 934®) on Typha domingensis tgermination. Environment Internat’l 30 (3):e 375-381. h s e s Brose, P.; Schuler, T.; Van Lear, D.; and Berst, J. 2001. Bringing fire back: the changing regimes of the Appalachian mixed-oak forests. Journal of Forestry November 200l.m I e n n Clinton, B.D.; Vose, J.M.; Knoepp, J.D.;t and Elliott, K.J. 2003. Stream nitrate responset to different burning treatments in southerne Appalachian forests. Pp 174-181 in Galley, K.E.M.; Klinger, R.C.; and Sugihara, N.G.r (eds.). Proceedings of Fire ConferenceFi i 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, andre Management. o M Miscellaneous Publication No.r 13. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. a N n California University of Pennsylvania’sa Tourism Research Center 2008 Gettysburg Intercept Visitor a Study; 2010 Gettysburg Interceptt Visitor Study. ge i m o e Cuff, D. J., W. J. Young, E. K. Miller,n W. Zelinsky, and R. F. Abler, editors. 1989. The Atlas of nt Pennsylvania. Temple Universitya Press. Philadelphia, PA. 288pp. Pl l a DeBano, L.F.; Neary, D.G., and Ffolliott,P P.F. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. (from SEKI EA 2004). n a r O k Elliot, K.J. and Vose, J.M. 2005. Initial effects of prescribed fire on qualityct of soil solution and

streamwater in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journalo of Applied Forestry 29(1): 5-15. S b e er r , Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, K. D. Patterson,v and K. Taverna. 2006. The natural communities 2 of Pennsylvania: classificationi of ecological community groups. Second approximation. 0 Version 2.2. Pennsylvania Depac rtment of Conservation and Recreation, Division of 1 Natural Heritage. Richmond, eVA. 2 http://www.dcr.Pennsylvania.gov/natural_heritage/ncintro.shtmlG . e t t y s b u r g

N 56

a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military. Park (GETT/EISE). 2009. Fire EffectsE Monitoring Plan: S n Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National. Battlefield Parks. Fredericksburg, Pennsylvania: Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. v D i e r Grand Portage National Monument (GRPO). p2004. Environmental Assessment for the oGrand Portage National Monument Wildland Fire Managementa Plan. Grand Portage, MN: Grand Portagen National Monument. r m Larson, J.R. and Duncan, D.A. 1982. Annual tgrassland response to fire retardant and wildfire.e Journal m of Range Management 35 (6): 700-703. n e t n a Lorimer, C.G. 1993. Causes of the oak regenerationt problem. Pp 14-39 in Loftis, D. andl McGee, eds. Proceedings: Oak regeneration: serious problems, practical recommendations. Knoxville, TN: September 8-10, 1992. General Technicalo Report SE-84. Atlanta, GA: U.S. DepartmentA of Agriculture Forest Service Southeast Research Station.f s s t e Ludwig, J. Christopher, Christopher Pague. 1993.h A Natural Heritage Inventory of Mid- Atlantic Region National Parks in Pennsylvania: Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania NMP. Naturals Heritage Technical e s Report #93-9. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Recreation, Divisionm of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Pennsylvania. UnpublishedI report submitted to National eParks Service – Mid- Atlantic Regional Office. February 1993.n n t t e Megahan, W.F. and Hornbeck, J. 2000. Lessons learned in watershed managment: a retrospective view. Pp. r Fi 177-188 in Ffolliott, P.F.; Baker Jr., M.B.;i Edminster, C.B.; Dillon, M.C.; and Mora, K.L., technical coordinators. 2000. Land Stewardship in the re o M 21st Century: The Contributions of Watershedr Management; 2000 March 13-16; Tucson, Arizona. a N Proceedings. RMRS-P-13. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,n Forest Service, Rocky a Mountain Research Station. a t ge Minshall, G.W. 2001. Responses of stream benthici macroinvertebrates to fire. Forestm o Ecology and Management 178: 155-161. e n nt a Pl NatureServe. 2006. International Ecologicall Classification Standard: Terrestriala Ecological Classifications. NatureServe CentralP Databases. Arlington, VA. U.S.A.n Data current as of 7 March 2006. a r O eary, D.G. and Currier, J.B. 1982. Impactk of wildfire and watershed restoration on water quality in South ct Carolina’s Blue Ridge Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 6(2): 81-90. o S b Newland, J.A. and DeLuca, T.H. 2000. Influencee of fire on native nitrogen-fixinger plants and soil nitrogen r status in ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir forests in western Montana. Canadian, Journal of Forest v 2 Research 30: 274-282. (from SEKI EAi 2004) 0 c National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional1 Cultural Properties (NPS e 2 1998). G e t National Park Service (NPS) t 1990 National Register Bulletin 15: Howy to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. s b u 1998 National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional r Cultural Properties. g 57 N a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan U Environmental Assessment 1999 Gettysburg National Military Park Final General Management Plan and Environmental . E Impact Statement, June 1999. S n . v 2000 National Register Bulletin 36: GuidelinesD for Evaluating and Registering iArcheological e r Properties. p o a n 2001 Director’s Order 12: Conservationr Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis,m and Decision-making. t e m n

e t 2002 Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resourcen Management. a t l 2004a Cultural Landscape Report: Defense of Cemetery Hill. o A f s 2004b Gettysburg National Military Park, Treatment Philosophy: The 1863 Landscape 2004. s t e 2004b National Register of Historic hPlaces 2004 Documentation s e s 2006a Management Policies 2006. m I e 2006b Vegetation Classification andn Mapping at Gettysburg National Militaryn Park and t Eisenhower National Historic Site, 2006. Tech Report NPS/NER/NRTRt —2006/058. e r Fi 2008 Procedural Manual 77-1: Wetlandi Protection. re o M r 2008. Resource Manual (RM) 18 - Wildland Fire Management. Washington,a D.C. N n a a 2009 Gettysburg National Militaryt Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site Geologic Resources Inventory Report. ge i m o 2012 Final Disposition of the Gettysburg Cyclorama Building Environmentale Assessment n nt a 2012 Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National Battlefield Park Fire ManagementPl Plan Environmental l a Assiessment, 2012. P n a Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)r 2012 Web Soil Survey. Available online at: O .k Accessed on September15, 2012. ct

o National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2001.S Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. Boise (ID): National Interagency Fire Center.b e er r , v National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2008. Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning2 and Implementation i Procedures and Reference Guide. Boise (ID): National Interagency Fire Center.0 50p. c 1 e Pennsylvania Department of Forestry (VA DOF). 2001. Fact Sheet: Prescribed Fire2 and Pennsylvania’s G 4 PM Burning Law. Charlottesville, VA:e Pennsylvania Department of Forestry. t Pennsylvania Department of Game and Inlandt Fisheries (VA DGIF). Date unknown. Species Information: Amphibians: Shenandoah salamander.y In: Pennsylvania Department of Game and Inland Fisheries [online]. Available: http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/s index.cfm. Accessed August 13, 2004. b Schultz, C. H. Editor. 1999. The Geology uof Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey. Harrisburg. 888 pp. r g 58 N a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI).U 2004. Environmental Assessment Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI .EA) [online]. Available: http://www.nps.gov/E seki/fire/ffmp/ffmp.htm. Accessed AugustS 6, 2004. n . v D i Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI).e 2004. Fire and Fuels Management Plan Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI FFMP) [online]. Available: r p o http://www.nps.gov/seki/fire/ffmp/ffmp.htm.a Accessed August 6, 2004. n

r m Somers, A.B.; Bridle, K.A.; Herman, D.W.; andt Nelson, A.B. 2000. Managing Wetlande Vegetation. Chapter 5 in The restoration and managementm of small wetlands of the mountains and Piedmontn in the Southeast: a manual emphasizing endangerede and threatened species habitat witht a focus on bog turtles. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentn of Agriculture, Natural Resources aConservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. t l

o Speir, R. 1967. Soil Survey of Adams County, Pennsyvlania. United States DepartmentA of f s Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 150 pp. s t e Swank, W. T. and Vose, J.M. 1997. Long-termh nitrogen dynamics of Coweeta foresteds watersheds in the southeastern United States of America.e Pp 657-671 in Global Biogeochemicals Cycles, Vol. II, m No. 4. I e n n USDI National Parks Service. 2001. Fire Monitoringt Handbook. Boise (ID): National t Interagency Fire Center. 274p. e r Fi USDI National Parks Service. 2001. DO 12 –i Conservation Planning, Environmentalre Impact Analysis, and Decision-making. Washington,o D.C. M r a N n USDI National Parks Service. 2008. DO 12 Handbook.a Washington, D.C. a t ge USDI National Parks Service. 2008. DO 18 - i Wildland Fire Management. Washington,m D.C. USDI o e n USDA and USDI. 2004. Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federalnt Wildland a Fire Management policy. Boise (ID): National Interagency Fire Center. U.S.Pl l a P Wieboldt, T. F., G. P. Fleming, C. E. Stevens, J. F. Townsend, D. M. E. Ware, andn R. A. S. a Wright. 2005. Digital Atlas of the Pennsylvaniar Flora (http://www.biol.vt.edu/digital_atlas/). O Pennsylvania Botanical Associates, c/ok Massey Herbarium, Department of Biological Sciences, ct Pennsylvania Tech, Blacksburg, VA. o S b Wohlgemuth, P.M., Beyers, J.L., and Conard,e S.G. 1999. Postfire hillslope erosioner in Southern California r chaparral: A case study of prescribed fire as a sediment management tool., Pp. 269-276 in U.S. v Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Proceedings of the symposium2 on fire economics, planning, i and policy: bottom lines. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-173. Albany,0 CA: U.S. Department of c Agriculture Forest Service Southwest Research Station. (from SEKI EA 2004)1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g 59 N a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n Appendix 1: Relevant. Correspondencev D i e r p o a n r m t e m n e t n a t l

o A f s s t e h s e s m I e n n t t e r Fi i re o M r a N n a a t ge i m o e n nt a Pl l a P n a r O k ct

o S b e er r , v 2 i 0 c 1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g 60 N a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n . v D i e r p o a n r m t e m n e t n a t l o A f s s t e h s e s m I e n n t t e r Fi i re o M r a N n a a t ge i m o e n nt a Pl l a P n a r O k ct

o S b e er r , v 2 i 0 c 1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g 61 N a t i

Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n . v AppendixD 2: Figures i e r p o a n Figure1. Vicinity Map r m t e m n e t n a t l

o A f s s t e h s e s m I e n n t t e r Fi i re o M r a N n a a t ge i m o e n nt a Pl l a P n a r O k ct

o S b e er r , v 2 i 0 c 1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g 62 N a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n . v D i e r p o Figure 2. Fire Management Unit a n r m t e m n e t n a t l

o A f s s t e h s e s m I e n n t t e r Fi i re o M r a N n a a t ge i m o e n nt a Pl l a P n a r O k ct

o S b e er r , v 2 i 0 c 1 e 2 G e t t y s b u r g 63 N a t i Gettysburg National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment U . E S n . v D i e r p o Figure 3. Soils a n r m t Soil Map—Adams County, Pennsylvania e m n

e t '' 20 '' n

a t 77 ° 12' 2

77 ° 17' l

304800 306000 307o200 308400 309600 310800 39° 51' 37'' A 39° 51' 43'' f s s t KnB e h KnC Po KnB 5 B s e KnC KnC CrA s

60 0 60 0

RfB ReB KnB PoC 3 ReB LhB AbA m 3 CrAI AbB RfB PoC 441 NdD 441 KnC 5 KnB CrA e PoB RfB n AbB PoB ReB KnB Bo n CrA5 PoB UgB5 t AbB NaC RfA KnB KnB AbB 5 Rw KnB t KnB e KnB PoB RfB LhB ReB AbA CrA 5 ReB BrC rPoB AbA 5 LhB AbA Fi 30 KnB BrB ¤£ Rw i Ab5A KnB 5 40 0 RfB 40 0

5 ReB LhC re 2 LhB PoB 2 RfB KnB RfB ReB LgoB CrA 441 LhB Kn5B NdB M 441 LhB Bo r

LhC AbB KnB t a CrA KnC

N KnB AbA LhB LhB LhA KnB n a CrA LgB a t S ratton CrA KnE RfA ge

AbA i AbB N St N

LhC RfA KnC mCrA LhB KnC 5 Pt AbA KnB KnBo E Middle St Bo 44 112 00 e Bo LhB 44 112 00 ReB n LhB KnB5 BrCnt BrD LhC PcB Uc AbA LhB a LhB BrC KnC CrA LhC ReB Pl LgB RfB PcB W NaC LhB NaC PoB l PcC KnB MdB NdD 5 CrA NaB a NaC AbA LgD WbB 5 BrB St S Washington KnD P BrB NaC MdB NaB PcB n WaA RfC PcB PoB AbB LhB WaA MeB a NaB NdE MeB MdB AbB NaC 00 0 00 0

AbB BrB NaC 0 PcB r Uc NdD 0 RfB CrA BrD O WbB MeB 441 RfC 5W MdB MeB 441 BrB kLgC AbA NdB AbB MeB ct Hc NdB PoB AbB 5 BrC WbB NaB NdD PcB LgB AbB NaC WaA o MeB MeB AbA LhB NaB PoCS NaB b NdD LgB NdB e WaA NdD BrB er WaA NdB NdB LgB LhA WaB 5RfB r NdD PoB MeB PcB WaB NdB WbB , LgB NdB 80 0 80 0 5

PoB CrA NaC NdE 8 8 NaB LgB v PcC BrB WaA WaB NdD NdB NdD LgB 2 NdD NdB 440 440 P5oB iBo LgB LhA 5 Granite Schoolhouse CrA PoB 5 3 NaB 0 Ln MdA LhC NaB 3 c LhB NaB WaA3 LgB 3 3 WaB 1 ReA KnC e 3 NdD 3 3 KnB WaB N3aB 3 2 G MdB 3 WaA Rw 3 WaA 5+5 RfB PcB PoB 5 e WbB 5 N3dD PoB LhA 3+3 PcB Md3 A t CrA + Rw KnC NaB 5 NdB WaA AbA LhC 3 60 0 60 0

Bo KnC ReB PcB t NdD MdB 7 ReA MdB 7 MeB Hc 55 PcB PcB MdB MeB 3 440 W y 440 Rw NdD AbB s b u r g 64 N a t i Soil Map–Adams County, Pennsylvania

Map Unit Legend

Adams County, Pennsylvania (PA001)

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AbA Abbottstown silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 199.8 3.0%

AbB Abbottstown silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 376.8 5.7% Bo Bowmansville silt loam 220.8 3.3% BrB Brecknock channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent 203.0 3.1% slopes BrC Brecknock channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent 50.4 0.8% slopes BrD Brecknock channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent 10.6 0.2% slopes Cm Codorus silt loam 7.6 0.1% CrA Croton silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 350.8 5.3% CrB Croton silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 19.2 0.3% Hc Hatboro silt loam 155.2 2.3% KnB Klinesville channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent 234.5 3.5% slopes KnC Klinesville channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent 129.4 2.0% slopes KnD Klinesville channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent 3.5 0.1% slopes KnE Klinesville channery silt loam, 25 to 40 percent 5.2 0.1% slopes LgB Legore channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 87.2 1.3% LgC Legore channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 18.3 0.3% LgD Legore channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent 6.2 0.1% slopes LhA Lehigh channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 205.0 3.1% LhB Lehigh channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 910.4 13.8% LhC Lehigh channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 87.0 1.3% LkB Lehigh channery silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, 0.0 0.0% very stony MdA Mount Lucas silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 27.2 0.4% MdB Mount Lucas silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 243.4 3.7% MeB Mount Lucas silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, very 144.1 2.2% bouldery NaB Neshaminy channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent 441.6 6.7% slopes NaC Neshaminy channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent 97.2 1.5% slopes NdB Neshaminy channery silt loam, 0 to 8 percent 265.4 4.0% slopes, extremely bouldery

65

Soil Map –Adams County, Pennsylvania

Adams County, Pennsylvania (PA001)

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI NdD Neshaminy channery silt loam, 8 to 25 percent 425.2 6.4% slopes, extremely bouldery

NdE Neshaminy channery silt loam, 25 to 45 percent 43.5 0.7% slopes, extremely bouldery PcB Penn silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 161.7 2.4% PcC Penn silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 11.2 0.2% PoB Penn-Klinesville channery silt loams, 3 to 8 322.7 4.9% percent slopes PoC Penn-Klinesville channery silt loams, 8 to 15 14.9 0.2% percent slopes Pt Pits, quarries 4.8 0.1% ReA Readington silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 31.2 0.5% ReB Readington silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 135.1 2.0% RfA Reaville channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 24.1 0.4% RfB Reaville channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 248.1 3.7% RfC Reaville channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent 11.7 0.2% slopes Rw Rowland silt loam 45.0 0.7% Uc Urban land 139.2 2.1% UgB Urban land-Penn complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes 4.7 0.1% W Water 13.8 0.2% WaA Watchung silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 200.5 3.0% WaB Watchung silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 48.0 0.7% WbB Watchung silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, 233.7 3.5% extremely bouldery Totals for Area of Interest 6,619.2 100.0%

66

Soil Map –Adams County, Pennsylvania

Figure 4. Wetlands

67

Soil Map –Adams County, Pennsylvania

Figure 5. Vegetation

68

Soil Map –Adams County, Pennsylvania

Figure 6. Sensitive Areas

69

Soil Map –Adams County, Pennsylvania

Figure7. Historic Monuments

70

Soil Map –Adams County, Pennsylvania

Figure 8. Utilities at GETT and EISE

71

Soil Map –Adams County, Pennsylvania

Figure 9. Roadways through GETT and EISE

72