November 2010 Executive Summary i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY topics selected for analysis.

Purpose and Need for the Plan Chapter two presents management alternatives including a required “no action” alternative. The The main function of a General Management “no action” alternative serves as a baseline Plan/Environmental Impact statement (GMP/ against which the action alternatives may EIS) is to provide a clear defi nition of the park’s be compared. Three action alternatives are purpose and management direction that will described. The environmentally preferred guide and coordinate all subsequent planning alternative and the NPS preferred alternative are and management. The general management identifi ed and the rationale for selection of the plan takes the long view - 15 to 20 years into the NPS preferred alternative is presented. A zoning future. The National Park Service (NPS) seeks framework for the park is also described and to have all parks operate under approved GMPs. applied to each alternative. This ensures that park managers carry out, as effectively and effi ciently as possible, the mission Chapter three contains descriptions of the of the National Park Service. affected environment of the park. The affected environment comprises that which will be As part of the GMP/EIS process, an NPS considered in the environmental impact chapter. planning team gathered information from the public, neighbors, partners, public agencies Chapter four analyzes the impact of each and other interested parties about the future alternative on the affected environment. It of Appomattox Courthouse National Historical also makes a determination of whether there Park (NHP). The team held public meetings and will be cumulative impacts resulting from the published newsletters to share information about alternatives. the planning process and invite feedback on various plan components. Based on discussions Chapter fi ve describes the consultation and with interested parties, with local and state coordination process associated with the plan agencies, and within the National Park Service, including public involvement and required elements of the plan were signifi cantly revised consultation with the Virginia State Historic during this process. Based on an extensive Preservation Offi cer, any tribal interests, and the analysis of the resources in the park and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The chapter also comments received, the team shaped three describes any continuing consultation that will be action alternatives, which are contained in this necessary to implement sections of the plan. draft document. A “no action” alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Appendices containing a determination on is presented, as well as three action alternatives. impairment in accordance with the Organic Act One of the action alternatives, Alternative 2, has as well as relevant background information or been identifi ed as the NPS preferred alternative information referenced in the plan complete the and as the environmentally preferred alternative. document.

The approval of this plan does not guarantee that the funding and staffi ng needed to implement it will be forthcoming. Funding and staffi ng Park Purpose and Signifi cance decisions are based on available appropriations and staffi ng priorities of the Northeast Region of The park’s purpose and signifi cance statements, the NPS. Full implementation of the plan could be which are based on the park’s authorizing many years in the future. legislation, Congressional testimony and legislative history, form a portion of the foundation of the general management plan. The purpose statement explains why the park was established Document Overview as a unit of the national park system, while the signifi cance statement defi nes the park’s place Chapter one presents the introduction to the within a broader national context. The purposes park and the GMP/EIS process. It reviews goals of Appomattox Courthouse National Historical and issues to be addressed by the GMP/EIS Park are: and provides a foundation for planning including park purpose, signifi cance, themes, fundamental • To commemorate the surrender of General and important resources and values, and impact Robert E. Lee to Lieutenant General ii Executive Summary Ulysses S. Grant and the effective to understand the different conceptions and termination of the Civil War brought about by meanings that the end of the Civil War has the Appomattox Campaign from March 29- taken on through time. April 12, 1865 and to honor those engaged in this great confl ict. Park Interpretive Themes • To preserve and protect those park resources, including landscape features, Interpretive themes are the most important ideas historic structures, archeological sites, or concepts to be communicated to the public cemeteries and monuments, archives about a unit of the national park system. They and collections that are related to the are based on park purpose and signifi cance Appomattox Campaign, the surrender and statements, and connect park resources to its legacy. relevant ideas, meanings, and values. Themes set the framework for interpretive activities • To provide opportunities for the public and are the anchors that organize the visitor to learn about the Civil War; the people experience throughout the park. affected, the Appomattox Campaign and its The thematic framework for the park includes culmination in the surrender at Appomattox a statement of the overarching idea and Court House; and the beginning of peace three themes that fl ow from that idea. Topics, and national re-unifi cation. statements and content paragraphs are expressed for each theme. The content Appomattox Court House National Historical Park paragraphs describe the context for each theme. is nationally signifi cant as: The planning team also developed example stories that would fi ll out an interpretive program • the site of the surrender of the Army of after acceptance of the fi nal plan. Northern Virginia under General Robert E. Lee to Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Overarching Idea Grant, commander of the Union forces, April 9-12, 1865, effectively marking the end of The ending of the Civil War witnessed the failure the Civil War. The village of Appomattox of the South to become a separate nation and Court House and the surrounding landscape confi rmed the United States as a single political have exceptional integrity and are intrinsic entity--outcomes backed by constitutional to understanding the surrender and changes that have re-defi ned the nature of subsequent events. In combination with American law and society. It was experienced park archives and artifacts, they form an by many as the end of slavery. The people of outstanding assemblage that contributes Appomattox experienced the promise, fears, and markedly to the public’s awareness of how expectations brought about by the economic, these events helped to shape the military, social and political upheaval, as did others political and social outcomes of the Civil nationwide. The struggles and negotiations War; among different groups arising from this upheaval have been continually re-evaluated as society’s • the site of the Battle of Appomattox Court values and views on the war have evolved. House on April 9, 1865, which led directly to the surrender. Park lands display the Theme #1: From Petersburg to Appomattox: largely unaltered terrain of the battle and The Final Days & Surrender key topographic features that infl uenced its outcome, and contain the remains of the On April 9, 1865, Generals Grant and Lee set domestic and agricultural sites associated the tone for the men who had followed them into with the engagement; and battle, choosing reconciliation over vengeance • the site where re-unifi cation of the nation and mutual citizenship over regional differences, commenced with the terms of the surrender thereby signaling the effective end of the Civil and the magnanimous actions of Union War. The peaceful conclusion--unlike most civil and Confederate soldiers at Appomattox wars--was not a given, as injuries and hatreds on Court House. The rural setting evokes a both sides could have led to a bloody aftermath timeless sense of place for the consideration in the wake of the nation’s most destructive war. of these events. The park's landscape and structures, commemorative features, Theme #2: The Legacy of Appomattox archeological resources, archives and artifacts provide an opportunity for the public Appomattox came to symbolize the promise of Executive Summary iii national reunifi cation, a fi rst step on the long and form their own intellectual and emotional road to dealing with sectional divisions. However, connections to the meanings in park resources this ideal was not always supported by reality, and associated history, so as to foster as African Americans struggled for equal rights preservation of the site and an understanding ostensibly guaranteed through newly ratifi ed of its relevance today. Visitors safely enjoy Constitutional amendments. White southerners high quality educational experiences that are coped with economic and political dislocations, appropriate to the park’s purpose and are and feelings of submission, humiliation and satisfi ed with the availability, accessibility, resentment. The tensions among confl icting diversity, and quality of park facilities and societal forces are part of the unresolved legacy services. of Appomattox. Goal III - Partnerships and Cooperative Theme #3: Memories and Meanings Actions

Appomattox occupies a signifi cant and The NPS increases its operational capacity compelling place in our national memory. The through cooperative efforts with other public meaning of the historic events at Appomattox and private organizations that understand and has been shaped and reshaped by the differing support the park’s goals to protect and interpret views held by veterans interested in national its resources. reconciliation, white Southerners supporting the “Lost Cause”, African Americans believing in the Goal IV – Operational Effi ciency promise of freedoms yet unfulfi lled, and others. In turn, preservation and commemoration efforts The park is a responsive and fl exible undertaken at the park refl ect differing views of organization, effi ciently using all available the meaning of these events. resources to accomplish its goals. Park facilities, infrastructure and services are coordinated to Park Goals effi ciently support operational needs, including interpretation and resource management. The goals established for Appomattox Court House NHP articulate in very broad terms the Management Alternatives ideals the park will strive to attain. Various approaches to park resource protection, use and The GMP/EIS presents four alternatives development are possible within the parameters for the future of Appomattox Court House of park goals, and the alternatives presented NHP. Alternative 1 (“no action”) assumes the in Chapter 2 investigate different ways that the continuation of current management practices goals could be achieved. and serves as a baseline against which the other alternatives are measured. Three action Taken together, the statements of purpose and alternatives are presented expressing different signifi cance and park goals describe a vision of ways of achieving the park’s purpose and goals. the park’s future. Details of each alternative are provided in Chapter Two. Goal I – Resource Protection Alternative 1- No Action/Continuation of Cultural resources and values contributing to Present Management Direction – Under this the signifi cance of Appomattox Court House alternative, there is no change in direction; NHP are stabilized, maintained and protected plans already in place are implemented. While from deterioration at a minimum; and managed efforts previously planned occur, maintenance considering the cultural context. Natural of the park’s existing conditions is the general resources and values at the park are managed to approach. Historic buildings continue to be used maintain and restore their integrity within the park for administrative offi ces. Cultural and natural and broader ecosystems, as well as to protect resources are managed as they are currently. and foster appreciation of the park’s cultural Park collections are centralized to the extent resources. possible in the interim collections storage facility, and the library and some collections continue Goal II - Visitor Experience and Use to be housed in historic buildings. The park continues to use the current maintenance facility Appomattox Court House NHP is a catalyst and operational inadequacies remain in place. for diverse publics to understand, appreciate The visitor experience continues to be primarily iv Executive Summary oriented to the village. The trail system continues Court House, the emotional connections to the in its current form and is not expanded to the new site that have resonated in American history land area. The park boundary continues to be and the recognition of its national importance unchanged except for minor adjustments through are explored. The village and commemorative donations or by willing sellers. features that may be outside the village are the focus for the visitor experience, and opportunities Alternative 2 - April 1865: A Regional are expanded for the off-site visitor who accesses Partnership Centered on the Appomattox information on the web. The present appearance Campaign - of the park is maintained in general, although Under this alternative, the park is the focal several sites are selected for rehabilitation. The point of a region featuring the events of the approach envisions a refl ective visitor experience Appomattox Campaign, the surrender, and the focused on sites related to the surrender and its termination of the Civil War. A wide range of sites commemoration, and improvements to enhance in the park are accessed for an immediate, on- the commemorative experience. site experience of the story of the surrender and events that preceded it. Restoration, rehabilitation and potential reconstruction are used selectively to enhance visitor understanding. The broader Elements Common to all Action Alternatives story that is told at the park concludes with the beginning of peace and national reunifi cation A series of parkwide management prescriptions and the early days of Reconstruction. Visitors are will be carried out under each of the action also introduced to the related events that took alternatives. These comprise actions related to place through the end of April 1865 as news of cultural and natural resources management, the surrender spread. The regional partnership interpretation and visitor use, partnerships is with owners and managers of Appomattox and cooperative actions, and operational Campaign sites, and the park develops proactive effi ciency. An analysis of potential park boundary relationships with them to protect and interpret adjustments has also been undertaken as the sites. required by law.

Alternative 3 - What Happened Here Changed These prescriptions and the boundary adjustment Everything – Under this alternative, the park analysis are further described in Chapter two. tells a comprehensive story of the surrender and the termination of the Civil War, placing it Environmentally Preferred Alternative as a transforming event within the larger context of the nation’s history. The site explores the NPS has identifi ed Alternative 2 as the consequences of the Civil War, based on the environmentally preferred alternative. First, the experiences of those civilians and soldiers who alternative protects, preserves and enhances were present in and around Appomattox Court historic and cultural processes through its House, and the relevance of those outcomes shaping of the physical setting in the context to American life today. Visitors go through the of the park’s interpretive messages. The visitor village and access a range of sites beyond the experience is closely connected to on-site village. Rehabilitation is the treatment used to resources. Proposed actions in the alternative reveal the landscape and prepare new sites for would result in a moderate level of intervention visitor use. The time period for rehabilitation is in the biological and physical environment to the mid to late 19th century. The visitor learns accommodate visitor use and experiences of the about sites outside the park that explore the resources, and by developing needed operational outcomes of Appomattox and how they resonate facilities. The factor of causing least damage in our lives today. to the biological and physical environment was assessed by eliminating the consequences of Alternative 4 - Changing Meanings of the developing a maintenance facility on park lands Events at Appomattox – Under this alternative, and using an off-site facility. the story of the site is told in the context of the events of April 1865. In addition to this key NPS Preferred Alternative story, the alternative places an emphasis on the subsequent efforts to commemorate the events, NPS has also identifi ed Alternative 2 as the mark their signifi cance, to develop the site as agency’s preferred alternative. Alternative 2 best a national park. The different meanings that refl ects the park’s purpose and signifi cance and have been applied to the events at Appomattox provides for a high level of resource protection. Executive Summary v This alternative promotes adaptive reuses of for public inspection in their entirety. historic structures with minimal new construction and provides for concentration of visitors within Plan Implementation the core of the park, while minimizing visitor impacts on lands outside of the historic core. The approval of this plan does not guarantee that the funding and staffi ng needed to implement the The Next Steps and How to Comment on this plan will be forthcoming. The implementation Draft GMP/EIS of the approved plan will depend on future appropriations, and it could also be affected After the distribution of this Draft GMP/EIS there by factors such as changes in NPS staffi ng will be a 60-day public review and comment priorities, visitor use patterns, and unanticipated period. The NPS planning team will evaluate environmental changes. Full implementation comments from other federal agencies, could be many years in the future. Once the organizations, and individuals regarding the draft General Management Plan has been approved, plan, and will incorporate appropriate changes additional feasibility studies and more detailed into a Final GMP /EIS. The fi nal plan will include planning, design, environmental documentation, comment letters from governmental agencies, and consultations with the Virginia State Historic any substantive comments on the draft document Preservation Offi cer and other agencies would be received from others, and NPS responses to completed, as appropriate, before certain actions those comments. Following distribution of the in the preferred alternative can be carried out. Final GMP/EIS and a 30-day “no-action period,” a record of decision (ROD) approving a Final GMP/ Future program and implementation plans, EIS will be considered by the NPS Northeast describing more specifi c actions that managers Regional Director and, if signed, published in intend to undertake and accomplish in the park, the Federal Register. A Record of Decision will tier from this GMP/EIS. documents the NPS selection of an alternative for implementation and sets forth any stipulations for implementation of the selected alternative.

This document can be downloaded from the NPS Planning, Environment and Public comment web site, http://parkplanning.nps.gov. During the review period, the NPS will hold public meetings and invites electronic comments to be submitted through the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment web site, http://parkplanning. nps.gov, or written comments may be sent to the Superintendent of Appomattox Court House National Historical Park at the following address:

Reed Johnson, Superintendent Appomattox Court House National Historical Site Hwy. 24, P.O. Box 218 Appomattox, VA 24522

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or offi cials of organizations or businesses, available vi Contents

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 2

1.1 INTRODUCTION 2 1.2 Purpose of the General Management Plan ...... 2 Implementation of the GMP ...... 4 1.3 Need for the General Management Plan ...... 4 Planning Issues and Their Related Decision Points ...... 4 Decision Points ...... 4 1.4 Foundation for Planning ...... 8 Statement of Purpose ...... 9 Statement of Signifi cance ...... 9 Park Interpretive Themes ...... 9 Fundamental Resources and Values ...... 10 1.5 Park Goals ...... 22 1.6 Site and Legislative History ...... 22 Prehistory to 1607 ...... 22 Early Contact and Settlement at Clover Hill (1607–1845) ...... 23 Establishment of Appomattox County (1845-1861) ...... 23 The Civil War (1861-1865) ...... 23 Reconstruction and the Aftermath of Civil War (1865–1889) ...... 25 Post-Reconstruction Commemoration and Park Establishment (1889–1933) ...... 25 Creation of a National Monument ...... 25 Pre-World War II Park Development and the Role of Civilian Conservation Corps (1933–1942) ...... 26 Restoration Efforts and National Historical Park Designation (1942–1954) ...... 26 Mission 66 Developments and Additional Reconstruction Efforts (1954–1966) ...... 27 Planning and Legislation, 1970-1992 ...... 27 1.7 Regulatory and Policy Requirements ...... 28 NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4: The Prohibition on Impairment of Park Resources and Values ...... 28 1.8 Related Plans and Programs ...... 29 Service-wide and Regional Museum Collection Plans ...... 29 Holding the High Ground ...... 29 Community Partnership Workshop ...... 29 Appomattox County Community Development Plan ...... 30 Region 2000 Greenway, Blueways, and Trail Plan ...... 30 Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail ...... 30 Rails to Trails...... 30 Virginia Outdoors Plan ...... 30 The Appomattox Heritage and Recreational Trail Plan: A Vision of Connectivity ...... 31 Battle of Appomattox Station – April 8, 1865 Land Study Project ...... 31 Sailor’s Creek Battlefi eld Historic State Park Master Plan, 2003 ...... 31 1.9 Research and Study Efforts Undertaken in Support of Planning ...... 32 Contents vii

Organization of American Historians Site Visit ...... 32 Scholars’ Roundtable ...... 32 Visitor Study ...... 32 Cultural Resource Studies ...... 32 Collection Management Plan ...... 33 Viewshed Analysis ...... 33 Analysis and mapping of features in the 1865 landscape and of the April 1865 military actions...... 33 Wetlands study and map ...... 33 Transportation Planning Study ...... 33 Route 24 Traffi c Calming and Pedestrian Safety Concepts Technical Memorandum ...... 34 Study of Traffi c Use on Virginia State Route 24 at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park ...... 34 Virginia State Route 24 Truck Traffi c Study ...... 34 1.10 Future Conditions ...... 34 Proposed and Potential Private Development ...... 34 Long-Range Transportation Plans ...... 35 1.11 Impact Topics ...... 35 Impact Topics Analyzed in Detail ...... 35 Impact Topics Considered and Dismissed from Further Analysis ...... 35

CHAPTER TWO: ALTERNATIVES ...... 39 2.1 Introduction ...... 40 2.2 Alternative 1- No Action/Continuation of Present Management Direction ...... 40 Overview ...... 40 Costs for Alternative One ...... 43 2.3 Management Prescriptions – Common to all Action Alternatives ...... 43 Cultural and Natural Resource Management ...... 43 Interpretation and Visitor Use ...... 44 Partnerships and Cooperative Actions ...... 45 Operational Effi ciency ...... 45 Zone-Specifi c Management Prescriptions – Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 46 Resource Management ...... 46 Visitor Use ...... 46 Operational Effi ciency ...... 47 2.4 Proposed Boundary Expansion Area -- Common to all Action Alternatives ...... 48 Applying NPS Boundary Adjustment Criteria ...... 48 Description ...... 49 Boundary Expansion Costs ...... 54 2.5 Alternative 2 - April 1865: A Regional Partnership Centered on the Appomattox Campaign ...... 54 Main Idea ...... 54 Resource Protection/Cultural and Natural Resource Management ...... 54 Visitor Use and Experience ...... 55 Partnerships and Cooperative Actions ...... 55 Operational Facilities ...... 55 viii Contents

Boundary Adjustment ...... 57 Costs for Alternative 2 ...... 57 2.6 Alternative 3 - What Happened Here Changed Everything ...... 59 Main Idea ...... 59 Resource Protection/Cultural and Natural Resource Management ...... 59 Visitor Use and Experience ...... 60 Partnerships and Cooperative Actions ...... 60 Operational Effi ciency ...... 60 Boundary Adjustment ...... 60 Costs for Alternative 3 ...... 60 2.7 Alternative 4 - Changing Meanings of the Events at Appomattox ...... 63 Main Idea ...... 63 Resource Protection/Cultural and Natural Resource Management ...... 64 Visitor Use and Experience ...... 64 Partnerships and Cooperative Actions ...... 65 Operational Effi ciency ...... 65 Boundary Adjustment ...... 65 Costs for Alternative 4 ...... 65 2.8 Comparison of Cost Estimates for the Alternatives ...... 67 2.9 Comparative Summary of the Action Alternatives ...... 69 Further Compliance on Proposed Actions Relating to Cultural Resources ...... 75 2.10 Consistency with Section101(b) of NEPA and the Environmentally Preferred Alternative ...... 76 Alternative 1—Continuation of Existing Management Direction ...... 76 Alternative 2 – A Regional Partnership Centered on the Appomattox Campaign ...... 76 Alternative 3 – What Happened Here Changed Everything ...... 77 Alternative 4 – Memories and Meanings ...... 77 Environmentally Preferred Alternative ...... 78 2.11 NPS Preferred Alternative ...... 78 2.12 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study ...... 78 A ‘Back to the past’ Concept ...... 78 Relating to State Route 24 Considered but not Brought Forward into the Plan ...... 79

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 81

3.1 THE STU D Y ARE A ...... 82 3.2 Cultural Resources ...... 82 Cultural Landscape ...... 82 Historic Buildings and Structures ...... 82 Archeological Resources ...... 84 Park Collections ...... 84 Non-contributing Buildings and Structures in the Park ...... 85 National Register Properties and National Historic Landmarks ...... 85 Cultural Resources Related to the Appomattox Campaign ...... 85 3.3 Natural Resources ...... 86 Contents ix

Soils ...... 86 Surface Water and Wetlands ...... 86 Vegetation ...... 90 Wildlife...... 90 Species of Special Concern ...... 90 3.4 Visual Resources and Values ...... 90 3.5 Visitor Use and Experience ...... 91 Visitation ...... 91 Visitor Profi le ...... 91 Circulation ...... 94 Visitor Facilities and Amenities ...... 94 Programming ...... 95 Visitor Experience ...... 96 3.6 Park Operations ...... 96 Staffi ng ...... 96 Facilities ...... 96 Park Circulation ...... 97 Field Management ...... 98 Protection and Security ...... 99 Inholdings, Use and Occupancy Agreements, and Rights of Way ...... 99 Park Cooperators and Partners ...... 99 3.7 Social, Economic and Built Environment ...... 101 Land Use in the Vicinity of the Park ...... 101 Population Characteristics ...... 101 Agricultural Trends ...... 103 Regional Transportation Network ...... 106 Local Government Structure for Planning ...... 108 Parks, Recreation and Open Space ...... 108 Heritage Tourism ...... 109

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 111

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 112 4.2 Methodology for Assessing Impacts ...... 112 4.3 Cultural Resources ...... 113 Methodology...... 113 Cultural Landscape ...... 113 Historic Structures ...... 117 Archeological Resources ...... 119 Park Collections ...... 121 4.4 Natural Resources ...... 122 Soils ...... 122 Surface Water and Wetlands ...... 125 Vegetation ...... 128 Wildlife...... 130 x Contents

Species of Special Concern ...... 133 4.5 Visual Resources and Values Methodology ...... 134 4.6 Visitor Use and Experience ...... 137 4.7 Park Operations ...... 140 4.8 Social and Economic Environment ...... 143 4.9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...... 146 4.10 Relationship between Short Term Use and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long- Term Productivity ...... 146 4.11 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 147

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 149

5.1 INITIAL PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING ...... 149 Agency Scoping Meetings...... 149 Continuation of Scoping Activities and Public Involvement ...... 151 GMP Team Meetings and Workshops ...... 153 5.2 Agency Consultation and Coordination ...... 155 Consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources ...... 155 Section 106 Compliance Requirements for Future Undertakings ...... 156 Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 156 Consultation with American Indian Tribes ...... 156 Consultation with Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation ...... 156 5.3 List of Preparers and Planning Team ...... 156 5.4 List of Recipients ...... 158

REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A: Park Legislation A Appendix B: Applicable Laws and Policies B Appendix C: Impairment Finding C Appendix D: Troop Movement Chronology A Appendix E: Village Structures B Appendix F: Relevant Correspondence C Contents xi

TABLES

Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources and Values...... 12 Table 2-1: Comparison of Cost Estimates for the Alternatives...... 68 Table 2-2: Comparitive Summary of the Action Alternatives...... 69 Table 2-3: Potential Additional Compliance Requirements...... 75 Table 3-1: Demographic Characteristics of the Broader Study Area...... 103 Table 3-2: Employment by Sector for Appomattox County, 2001...... 103 Table 4-1: Impact Intensity Defi nitions: Cultural Resources...... 114 xii Contents

FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Regional/Local Context...... 3 Figure 1-2: Spatial Organization...... 5 Figure 1-3: Boundary History...... 21 Figure 2-1: Alternative 1 – No-Action Alternative...... 42 Figure 2-2: Alternative 2 – April 1865...... 57 Figure 2-3: Alternative 3 – What Happened Here Changed Everything...... 61 Figure 2-4: Alternative 4 – Changing Meanings of the Events of Appomattox...... 65 Figure 3-1: Battle of Appomattox Station...... 87 Figure 3-2: Natural Resources...... 88 Figure 3-3: Areas Viewed from Points within Park...... 92 Figure 3-4: Adjacent Parcels Viewed from Points within Park...... 93 Figure 3-5: Proposed Boundary Adjustment...... 100 Figure 3-6: Population Density...... 102 Figure 3-7: Population Projections...... 104 Figure 3-8: Regional Road Network...... 105 C HAPTER ONE: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A CTION 2 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action

1 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR The NPS mission statement expressed in the 1 2 ACTION 1916 Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1 et. seq.) 2 3 and echoed in later legislation is to: “conserve 3 4 1.1 Introduction the scenery and the natural and historic objects 4 5 and the wild life therein and to provide for the 5 6 Appomattox Court House National Historical enjoyment of the same in such manner and by 6 7 Park is a unit of the National Park System such means as will leave them unimpaired for 7 8 commemorating the surrender of Confederate the enjoyment of future generations.” All parks 8 9 General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern within the national park system must operate 9 10 Virginia to three U. S. armies under the command under an approved general management plan 10 11 of Union Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant to help ensure that park managers carry out, as 11 12 on April 9, 1865 and the beginning of national effectively and effi ciently as possible, this mission 12 13 reunifi cation. The park is also the location of the and the intent of NPS Management Policies 13 14 culmination of military actions that precipitated (2006). The GMP helps defi ne how best to 14 15 the surrender and the end of the Civil War. achieve that mandate. 15 16 16 17 The park lies almost in the center of Appomattox The general management plan provides a 17 18 County in rural south-central Virginia. The Town foundation to guide and coordinate planning and 18 19 of Appomattox, the county seat, is located about management. The GMP takes a long view, 15-20 19 20 3 miles south of the visitor center entrance and years into the future. It focuses on why the park 20 21 the western section of the park adjoins the town was established and what resource conditions 21 22 boundary. The park is approximately 70 miles and visitor experiences should be achieved and 22 23 east of Roanoke, 20 miles east of Lynchburg, 92 maintained over time. The plan considers the 23 24 miles southwest of Richmond, Virginia, and 195 park holistically, in its full ecological and cultural 24 25 miles southwest of Washington, DC. It is within contexts, as a unit of the national park system, 25 26 Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District. (Figure and as part of a surrounding region. The four 26 27 1-1) basic elements required of National Park Service 27 28 GMPs (by Public Law 95-625, “The Redwood 28 29 The site is located on the rolling Piedmont Act”) are: 29 30 foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. The land 30 • 31 rises from the river drainage at 645 feet above Measures for preservation of the area’s 31 32 sea level to ridges of 830 feet. The village of natural and cultural resources 32 33 33 Appomattox Court House is on the crest of a • Types and general intensities of 34 34 ridge with an elevation of 770 feet formed by the development associated with public 35 35 North Branch of the Appomattox River and the enjoyment and use of the area, including 36 36 Plain Run Branch. The park includes about 60% general locations, timing of implementation, 37 37 of the headwaters of the Appomattox River. and estimated costs 38 38 • 39 Within this document the park is referred to as Identifi cation and implementation 39 40 the park and Appomattox Court House National commitments for visitor carrying capacities. 40 41 41 Historical Park (NHP). • Potential boundary modifi cations and 42 42 reasons for them. 43 1.2 Purpose of the General Management 43 44 Plan 44 45 These elements are addressed in Chapter 2: 45 46 The purpose of a General Management Plan Alternatives. Accompanying the alternatives is 46 47 (GMP) is to defi ne the central management the analysis of existing and potential resource 47 48 philosophy for each unit of the national park conditions and visitor experiences, as well as 48 49 system. It provides a policy framework for future estimated costs associated with each alternative. 49 50 decision-making. NPS Management Policies Chapter 3 presents the Affected Environment, 50 51 2006 requires a GMP to (1) clearly describe and Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. 51 52 the specifi c resource conditions and visitor 52 53 experiences to be achieved, and (2) identify the The plan represents the combined efforts 53 54 kinds of use, management, and development that of many individuals and entities. NPS staff, 54 55 will be appropriate in achieving and maintaining scholars, historians, educators, community 55 56 these conditions. This plan will update the park’s leaders, representatives of local, state and other 56 57 1977 General Management Plan. federal agencies, park visitors, and concerned 57 58 members of the public are among the many 58 59 59

4 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 contributors to the development of the document. for dealing with adjacent road issues. The 1 2 Chapter 5 (Consultation and Coordination) planning team initiated a scoping phase during 2 3 summarizes consultation with government which comments on issues and the management 3 4 agencies, and the public scoping activities during direction that the park should be taking were 4 5 the initial scoping phase and afterwards. Public solicited internally (with NPS staff from the park 5 6 scoping was a continuous process throughout the and region), and externally in public scoping. 6 7 development of the plan. As a result of scoping activities and consultation 7 8 with government agencies, a range of planning 8 9 This document serves two functions: (1) it is a issues that should be addressed in the plan were 9 10 Draft General Management Plan for Appomattox identifi ed and refi ned. Consideration was given 10 11 Court House National Historical Park and (2) it to stakeholder, agency and the public’s interests 11 12 is also a Draft Environmental Impact Statement expressed in various settings during public 12 13 for the plan, which assesses the probable scoping, team discussions, and new information 13 14 impacts of the proposed plan and alternatives to from specifi c studies and analyses. See Chapter 14 15 it. By policy, environmental impact statements 5 for more details on this phase of the project. 15 16 are usually prepared with the GMP, to comply 16 17 with the National Environmental Policy Act of Planning Issues and Their Related Decision 17 18 1969, as amended (NEPA). The NEPA process Points 18 19 provides a framework for public participation, 19 20 the development of alternative approaches, and Phrased as questions, decision points express 20 21 evaluation of their environmental consequences the major decisions to be addressed in general 21 22 in order to promote better decision-making. This management level planning. They are based 22 23 Draft General Management Plan/Environmental on the planning issues that were identifi ed and 23 24 Impact Statement has been prepared in the analysis of conditions during the planning 24 25 compliance with the Council on Environmental process. The questions were considered by 25 26 Quality's (CEQ's) implementing regulations for the planning team as alternative management 26 27 NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), the Department of concepts, and later alternatives, were developed. 27 28 the Interior's NEPA regulations (43 CFR Part 46), Each alternative offers a different approach to 28 29 and NPS Director's Order #12, Conservation managing the site and can be characterized 29 30 Planning, Environmental Impact by the way it addresses the planning issues 30 31 Analysis, and Decision-Making, (DO-12) or related decision points. While the ultimate 31 32 and accompanying DO-12 Handbook (2001). goals for the park are the same regardless of 32 33 alternative, the means of achieving the goals 33 34 are different. As required by NEPA, a “no action” 34 35 Implementation of the GMP alternative is evaluated to provide a base line 35 36 against which the impacts of other alternatives 36 37 General management planning constitutes may be measured. 37 38 the fi rst phase of tiered planning and decision 38 39 making. Strategic plans, resource management Decision Point 1 39 40 plans, and annual performance plans are among 40 41 the types of plans that comprise the other tiers of What is the appropriate treatment for the 41 42 NPS planning. Decisions about specifi c actions park’s historic landscape? To what extent 42 43 discussed in the GMP are typically addressed can/should the park’s landscape be returned 43 44 in these other plans. As funds become available to its 1865 appearance? 44 45 to begin the design of facilities or to undertake 45 46 other specifi c actions consistent with the GMP, The extent to which the park’s landscape can or 46 47 site-specifi c planning, research, and technical should be returned to its 1865 appearance was 47 48 environmental analysis will be done. All proposals explored during the planning process. In the early 48 49 are contingent on available NPS funding and the phases of the planning project, the sentiment that 49 50 park will need to compete for available funds. the park be returned to its 1865 appearance was 50 51 often expressed by the public and by some NPS 51 52 1.3 Need for the General Management Plan staff. 52 53 Reconstruction, restoration and rehabilitation 53 54 The initial justifi cation for the planning project have been used within the village to create 54 55 was related to several conditions the park a setting similar to that at the end of the Civil 55 56 faced, in particular the expansion of the park War. Beyond the village, the park’s character is 56 57 boundary since the adoption of the existing GMP defi ned by a rural agricultural landscape. The 57 58 in 1977 and the lack of an effective approach balance between open land areas and forests is 58 59 59

6 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 quite different from the 1865 period. The lands role that the institution of slavery played. 1 2 within park boundaries are more forested than 2 3 at the time of the Civil War, when they were During the public scoping activities, many people 3 4 open and heavily cultivated. The reforestation noted their preference for a lively, engaging 4 5 obscures to some extent the historic spatial visitor experience, such as that created by living 5 6 relationship between the village and nearby history programs. There is a dichotomy between 6 7 farms. Spatial organization in 1865 and 2001 is the stillness and serenity of the village and the 7 8 illustrated in Figure 1-2. conditions that would have been found in 1865. 8 9 Unlike an actual village, there is no bustling 9 10 While there are areas within the landscape that activity. The park’s living history program uses 10 11 could be treated to refl ect the 1865 period, there costumed interpreters to convey fi rst person 11 12 are constraints to having the landscape as a accounts of events in 1865. It is considered an 12 13 whole appear as it did in 1865. Tree buffers need effective means of engaging the visitor, but it is 13 14 to be maintained to screen out the impacts of active only in the summer months and at special 14 15 development occurring outside park boundaries, events through the year. The extent to which a 15 16 including noise effects, and to protect viewshed living village should be recreated was considered 16 17 values. At the same time, servicewide by the planning team. To sustain a living history 17 18 management policies, Chesapeake Bay Program experience for a total recreation of a bustling 18 19 regulations and other objectives such as that village, large numbers of staff and volunteers 19 20 of enhancing biological diversity, may limit the would be required, and development of this 20 21 clearing of vegetation in sensitive areas. type of resource base is not feasible. However, 21 22 there is a need to engage the visitor beyond 22 23 Decision Point 2 the opportunities offered by the living history 23 24 program. 24 25 What is the core experience desired for the 25 26 visitor? Should the management focus be The current length of stay at the park is not 26 27 on a return of the park’s setting to 1865 or suffi cient for understanding park stories. The 27 28 should it be on creating a lively village that 2001 Visitor Survey indicates that the majority 28 29 immerses the visitor in the drama of the past? of visitors to Appomattox Court House stay 29 30 three hours or less, and the stay is currently 30 31 In the reconfi rmation of park purpose and programmed for about two hours. The events that 31 32 signifi cance and the development of interpretive took place prior to the surrender are minimally 32 33 themes, the challenge of making the park’s interpreted, and there is no formal access to the 33 34 meaning relevant to today’s life became lands at the park’s northwestern end that were 34 35 apparent. How do the end of the war and the added to the park boundary in the early 1990s. 35 36 beginning of reunifi cation of the country continue Visitor services are provided only in the village, 36 37 to have an impact on citizens today? This is a site and broader visitor use in outlying areas of the 37 38 that people can make a connection to, because park would be promoted by the availability of 38 39 of the way that Appomattox has resonated in limited amenities. Safety is one of the issues 39 40 American history. It is a connection that can in accessing outlying areas, particularly along 40 41 be experienced by members of the public who Route 24 in terms of pedestrian crossing and 41 42 are not able to visit, too, through publications, sight distance problems at several intersections. 42 43 internet and outreach programs. With the expansion of access, interpretive 43 44 programs, and connections to related resources 44 45 Park staff has taken actions to expand in the Town of Appomattox, a visitor’s length of 45 46 interpretation beyond the Surrender story to stay may increase. 46 47 interpret slavery and village life, but there is 47 48 a further need to enhance and diversify park A larger, more diverse visitor base is desirable, 48 49 stories. The 1998 report from the superintendents yet additional connections need to be forged 49 50 of Civil War battlefi elds, Holding the High with minorities and the local community. African 50 51 Ground, recommends placing battlefi eld stories Americans see the park as an important place 51 52 within the social, economic and political context in their history. It has been described as a place 52 53 of the period. Congress also recognized the that represents “the beginning of everything”, 53 54 need for changes, and added language to the refl ecting the impact of the surrender and the 54 55 Fiscal Year 2000 Department of the Interior events that followed on access to education 55 56 appropriations bill that encourages national and other freedoms. The level of interest among 56 57 battlefi eld parks to offer more interpretation about local residents in visiting the park has been 57 58 the causes of the Civil War, including the unique traditionally low, but there are new opportunities 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 7 1 for integrating related local history within park meet safety standards. Expansion is problematic 1 2 programs. because the buildings are located in an area of 2 3 the cultural landscape that has resource and 3 4 Broader use of the park is anticipated in terms interpretive values. 4 5 of passive recreational use. In part this is due to 5 6 the regional Greenway and Blueway Plan to link There are landscape treatment and aesthetic 6 7 green spaces, and the state Birding and Wildlife issues relating to the use of historic buildings 7 8 Trail. as park offi ces and for bookstore operations. 8 9 Cars parked near the Isbell House are modern 9 10 Decision Point 3 intrusions on the historic scene. This also applies 10 11 to the Meeks store, which houses interpretive 11 12 What types of facilities will meet the park’s offi ces on the second fl oor; the bookstore in the 12 13 long term operating needs and goals? Clover Hill Tavern Kitchen, which houses offi ces 13 14 and retail services; and the Peers House, which 14 15 Existing buildings, including historic structures has cars and other modern devices around it. 15 16 are not adequate, nor were they designed to Some modern uses within the village are likely 16 17 meet operational needs. Adaptive re-use was to be unavoidable, as there are effi ciencies in 17 18 a strategy adopted by park managers early retaining staff and other services for visitors in 18 19 in the history of the park as a practical way to the village and there is a security rationale for 19 20 meet short term needs in a less costly way than continuing park housing in the village. 20 21 constructing new buildings. Adaptation of these 21 22 buildings over time has caused both stress The possibility of siting maintenance or 22 23 and loss of historic fabric and is increasingly maintenance/administrative functions outside 23 24 inadequate for modern uses. This is particularly the park was explored with the assistance of 24 25 so at the Isbell House, the location of the park’s a realty specialist from the General Services 25 26 administrative offi ces, library and collections Administration. In May 2003, the specialist and 26 27 management support functions. The building, the planning team investigated several existing 27 28 a mid-19th century residence, and it is carrying facilities that were then available in the town of 28 29 weight loads that are detrimental to its structural Appomattox and its environs. This investigation 29 30 systems, and is being continually adapted was exploratory and did not identify an obvious 30 31 to meet infrastructure requirements for the choice that would meet park needs. The buildings 31 32 installation of information technology, electrical consisted primarily of warehouses and units in 32 33 and HVAC systems. a shopping strip mall and are considered to be 33 34 representative of the types of existing spaces 34 35 Until recently, park museum collections were in that might be available outside the park for an 35 36 various storage areas in village buildings. Some operational facility. 36 37 centralization and improvement of conditions 37 38 have been achieved through the conversion of Decision Point 4 38 39 a shed at the maintenance facility to an interim 39 40 collections storage facility. The shed does not Is the boundary adequate to protect park 40 41 meet NPS museum standards for security or resources and values? 41 42 environmental controls. Research and treatment 42 43 space is lacking and access to the facility is When the park was being developed in 1940, 43 44 limited. There are security concerns due to the isolated rural nature of Southside Virginia did 44 45 distance from management staff and functional not foretell the infringement of modern housing, 45 46 concerns due to the location of park maintenance roads and utilities which is, today, the most 46 47 operations next door. At the same time, the pressing issue for park managers facing the loss 47 48 park is the subject of a regional collections of viewsheds, surrounding battlefi elds, and the 48 49 storage consolidation plan, which will result in the very character of the site, When the park was fi rst 49 50 recommendation for a facility at the park that will established as Appomattox Court House National 50 51 accept collections from two or three small parks Historical Monument in 1940, the focus was on 51 52 in the region. the village as the surrender site. Many of the 52 53 military actions that resulted in the surrender— 53 54 The 1950s maintenance complex does not related sites associated with the battles of 54 55 meet current health and safety requirements, Appomattox Court House and Appomattox 55 56 and some equipment and vehicles have to be Station, and other skirmishes associated with 56 57 stored outside because of lack of space. It has Lee’s retreat--were not considered for inclusion 57 58 been diffi cult to retrofi t the current buildings to in the original acreage. For many years, the 58 59 59 8 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 landscape surrounding the newly created park under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of 1 2 retained its rural character and Civil War sites Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 2 3 remained undeveloped. The threat of alteration Issues include the limited sight distance at some 3 4 was considered low or non-existent. However, intersections, the speed of through traffi c that 4 5 the possibility of commercial and residential often exceeds the 55 mph limit, and the safety 5 6 development on the fringes of the park has, in of pedestrians and staff crossing the road for 6 7 the past, served as a reminder to the NPS that picnicking, hiking or work activities. Noise and 7 8 resources associated with actions leading to the the visibility of traffi c on the roadway affect the 8 9 surrender were at risk. NPS has responded to visitor experience and the ability of park staff to 9 10 these threats. The protection of the setting and of convey information. VDOT is interested in moving 10 11 related resources has been an integral aspect of traffi c effi ciently and quickly, and the NPS is 11 12 the development of the park, through expansion interested in providing a safe, high-quality visitor 12 13 of the authorized boundary and subsequent experience. There are also concerns that VDOT 13 14 acquisition. may expand Route 24 in the future as traffi c 14 15 increases. 15 16 Today it is evident that these resources must 16 17 be protected or they will be lost to future 1.4 Foundation for Planning 17 18 generations. Cultural resources associated 18 19 with the Appomattox Campaign and other The foundation for the general management plan 19 20 important park resource values are at risk. rests on the park’s purpose and signifi cance. 20 21 Troop movements and military actions took Purpose and signifi cance statements are 21 22 place in a wider area to the south and west based on the park’s authorizing legislation and 22 23 of the park boundary in what is now the town its legislative history. NPS planning program 23 24 of Appomattox. The park’s present boundary standards and NEPA encourage looking beyond 24 25 excludes adjacent sites that are considered the bounds of legislation to address signifi cant 25 26 important to the outcome of the Battle of changes in scholarship and social values. 26 27 Appomattox Court House, as well lands that are 27 28 highly visible from within the park. The evaluation The enabling legislation for the park is 28 29 of related resources on lands adjacent or close contained in the 1930’s An Act to provide for the 29 30 to the park has led to the conclusion that the commemoration of the termination of the War 30 31 current boundary is not suffi cient to protect park between the States at Appomattox Court House 31 32 resources, character, setting, or values. (46 Stat.777). A monument was authorized at 32 33 the site of the surrender for “the purpose of 33 34 Decision Point 5 commemorating the termination of the War 34 35 between the States which was brought about by 35 36 To what extent can park values and resources the surrender of the army under General Robert 36 37 be protected and park goals achieved through E. Lee to Lieutenant General U.S. Grant . . . . 37 38 public/private partnerships with Appomattox and for the further purpose of honoring those 38 39 County, park neighbors, and other who engaged in this tremendous confl ict.” This 39 40 institutions, organizations, and agencies? was a starting point for the deliberations of the 40 41 planning team, which sought to understand 41 42 Collaboration with the community could play a that expression and subsequent legislative 42 43 signifi cant role in the interpretation of related history in the context of expanded perspectives 43 44 resources, expanding the park story and and new scholarship. New input included the 44 45 enriching the visitor experience; as well as in August 2000 site visit report from three scholars 45 46 the protection of related resources. The fact that brought in through the Organization of American 46 47 there are not non-profi t organizations associated Historians, and presentations and discussion 47 48 with the park to assist in fundraising, marketing, at the Scholars’ Roundtable in March 2001. 48 49 or interpretation could limit the park’s capacity Additionally, the 1992 boundary expansion 49 50 to undertake proposed actions. However, legislative testimony in Congress established the 50 51 there is evidence that the local community is importance of retaining new lands because of 51 52 building the capacity for effective collaboration the military actions of the Appomattox Campaign, 52 53 in these areas. Community collaboration specifi cally those engagements that took place 53 54 plays a role in promoting a safe and satisfying prior to the surrender. These contributions have 54 55 visitor experience, and has the potential of helped to reinforce the broader perspectives on 55 56 increasing the park’s operating capacity. This park resources and meanings associated with the 56 57 is particularly the case with resolving issues events at Appomattox Court House. 57 58 on Route 24, which traverses the park and is 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 9 1 Statement of Purpose • the site of the Battle of Appomattox Court 1 2 House on April 9, 1865, which led directly 2 3 A park’s purpose is the reason for which it was to the surrender. Park lands display the 3 4 set aside and preserved by Congress. It provides largely unaltered terrain of the battle and 4 5 the fundamental criterion against which the key topographic features that infl uenced its 5 6 appropriateness of all plan recommendations outcome, and contain the remains of the 6 7 is evaluated. The GMP team developed the domestic and agricultural sites associated 7 8 following statement of purpose: with the engagement; and 8 9 9 • the site where re-unifi cation of the nation 10 The purpose of Appomattox Court House 10 commenced with the terms of the surrender 11 National Historical Park is: 11 and the magnanimous actions of Union 12 12 • To commemorate the surrender of General and Confederate soldiers at Appomattox 13 13 Robert E. Lee to Lieutenant General Court House. The rural setting evokes a 14 14 Ulysses S. Grant and the effective timeless sense of place for the consideration 15 15 termination of the Civil War brought about by of these events. The park's landscape 16 16 the Appomattox Campaign from March 29- and structures, commemorative features, 17 17 April 12, 1865 and to honor those engaged archeological resources, archives and 18 18 in this great confl ict. artifacts provide an opportunity for the public 19 19 to understand the different conceptions and 20 • To preserve and protect those park 20 meanings that the end of the Civil War has 21 resources, including landscape features, 21 taken on through time. 22 historic structures, archeological sites, 22 23 cemeteries and monuments, archives 23 24 and collections that are related to the Park Interpretive Themes 24 25 Appomattox Campaign, the surrender and 25 26 its legacy. Interpretive themes are the most important ideas 26 27 or concepts to be communicated to the public 27 • To provide opportunities for the public 28 about a unit of the national park system. They 28 to learn about the Civil War; the people 29 are based on park purpose and signifi cance 29 affected, the Appomattox Campaign and its 30 statements, and connect park resources to 30 culmination in the surrender at Appomattox 31 relevant ideas, meanings, and values. Themes 31 Court House; and the beginning of peace 32 set the framework for interpretive activities 32 and national re-unifi cation. 33 and are the anchors that organize the visitor 33 34 Statement of Signifi cance experience throughout the park. 34 35 The thematic framework for the park includes 35 36 A statement of signifi cance defi nes what is a statement of the overarching idea and 36 37 nationally signifi cant about a park based on the three themes that fl ow from that idea. Topics, 37 38 park’s legislative purpose, and the park’s place statements and content paragraphs are 38 39 within its broader national context. expressed for each theme. The content 39 40 paragraphs describe the context for each theme. 40 41 Appomattox Court House National Historical Park The planning team also developed example 41 42 is nationally signifi cant as: stories that would fi ll out an interpretive program 42 43 after acceptance of the fi nal plan. 43 • the site of the surrender of the Army of 44 44 Northern Virginia under General Robert 45 Overarching Idea 45 E. Lee to Lieutenant General Ulysses S. 46 46 Grant, commander of the Union forces, April 47 The ending of the Civil War witnessed the failure 47 9-12, 1865, effectively marking the end of 48 of the South to become a separate nation and 48 the Civil War. The village of Appomattox 49 confi rmed the United States as a single political 49 Court House and the surrounding landscape 50 entity--outcomes backed by constitutional 50 have exceptional integrity and are intrinsic 51 changes that have re-defi ned the nature of 51 to understanding the surrender and 52 American law and society. It was experienced 52 subsequent events. In combination with 53 by many as the end of slavery. The people of 53 park archives and artifacts, they form an 54 Appomattox experienced the promise, fears, and 54 outstanding assemblage that contributes 55 expectations brought about by the economic, 55 markedly to the public’s awareness of how 56 social and political upheaval, as did others 56 these events helped to shape the military, 57 nationwide. The struggles and negotiations 57 political and social outcomes of the Civil 58 among different groups arising from this upheaval 58 War; and 59 59 10 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 have been continually re-evaluated as society’s rights of freedmen, and reorder the social and 1 2 values and views on the war have evolved. economic structure of a devastated South. The 2 3 theme explores how the expectations, hopes 3 4 Theme #1: From Petersburg to Appomattox: and promises of Appomattox were played out in 4 5 The Final Days & Surrender a larger political context. It explores whether the 5 6 expectations and hopes held by the villagers, as 6 7 On April 9, 1865, Generals Grant and Lee set well as by the soldiers involved in the surrender 7 8 the tone for the men who had followed them into or even the country at large, were met or 8 9 battle, choosing reconciliation over vengeance remained unachieved. 9 10 and mutual citizenship over regional differences, 10 11 thereby signaling the effective end of the Civil Theme #3: Memories and Meanings 11 12 War. The peaceful conclusion--unlike most civil 12 13 wars--was not a given, as injuries and hatreds on Appomattox occupies a signifi cant and 13 14 both sides could have led to a bloody aftermath compelling place in our national memory. The 14 15 in the wake of the nation’s most destructive war. meaning of the historic events at Appomattox 15 16 has been shaped and reshaped by the differing 16 17 Theme Content: This theme focuses on the views held by veterans interested in national 17 18 surrender--the campaign from Petersburg to reconciliation, white Southerners supporting the 18 19 Appomattox, the events of April 9, the immediate “Lost Cause”, African Americans believing in the 19 20 aftermath, including the stacking of arms on April promise of freedoms yet unfulfi lled, and others. 20 21 12 and the paroling of Lee’s army. It examines In turn, preservation and commemoration efforts 21 22 the choices made by the commanders and their undertaken at the park refl ect differing views of 22 23 political leaders as well as the soldiers within the meaning of these events. 23 24 the context of the times, and how these choices 24 25 infl uenced the outcomes of the Civil War. The Theme Content: This theme focuses on the 25 26 nuances of this watershed event can be explored evolution of thought and perspectives related 26 27 from many different perspectives, including: to the surrender, and the meanings Americans 27 28 military strategy, politics, the leadership and have imposed on both the physical setting 28 29 personalities of generals Grant and Lee and their of Appomattox Court House and the events 29 30 civilian superiors, as well as the personal stories that occurred there in April 1865. It introduces 30 31 of the soldiers and villagers who participated in the fi rst person accounts and recollections of 31 32 the dramatic events. eyewitnesses as well as varied reactions from 32 33 observers throughout the nation. It explores the 33 34 Theme #2: The Legacy of Appomattox ways that Americans have chosen to remember 34 35 and commemorate the surrender since 1865, 35 36 Appomattox came to symbolize the promise of including the re-burial of soldiers, the introduction 36 37 national reunifi cation, a fi rst step on the long of monuments, scholarly investigation, 37 38 road to dealing with sectional divisions. However, preservation and reconstruction of buildings, and 38 39 this ideal was not always supported by reality, creation of the national historical park. It further 39 40 as African Americans struggled for equal rights explores the values and symbolic attributes that 40 41 ostensibly guaranteed through newly ratifi ed different groups have applied to Appomattox over 41 42 Constitutional amendments. White southerners time. 42 43 coped with economic and political dislocations, 43 44 and feelings of submission, humiliation and Fundamental Resources and Values 44 45 resentment. The tensions among confl icting 45 46 societal forces are part of the unresolved legacy With so many resources and with the constraints 46 47 of Appomattox. of limited staff and funding, managers must 47 48 frequently prioritize resource protection activities, 48 49 Theme Content: The idea of peace with honor deciding which resources receive treatment, and 49 50 and national unifi cation symbolized by the how much staff and funding can be allocated 50 51 Appomattox surrender was replaced by fear, for such purposes. As a part of the process of 51 52 chaos and violence (different from the wartime developing the park’s resource management 52 53 violence that preceded it), which gripped the strategy, the parks are required to identify the 53 54 nation in the wake of President Abraham resources that directly relate to park purpose 54 55 Lincoln’s assassination. A period of readjustment and contribute to their national signifi cance. 55 56 followed, known as Reconstruction (1865- These resources and values are considered 56 57 1877), in an attempt to restore order, protect the fundamental to the park. 57 58 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 11 1 1 2 Table 1-1 contains the fundamental resources 2 3 and values for Appomattox Court House National 3 4 Historical Park. It refl ects input received during 4 5 planning team deliberations earlier in the 5 6 planning process, from resource studies, and 6 7 other sources. 7 8 8 9 Fundamental resources and values are those 9 10 that warrant primary consideration during 10 11 planning and management because they are 11 12 critical to achieving the park’s purpose and to 12 13 maintaining its national signifi cance. They fl ow 13 14 directly from park purpose and signifi cance. They 14 15 may include systems, processes, features, visitor 15 16 experiences, stories, scenes, sounds, smells or 16 17 other resources and values. 17 18 18 19 Important resources and values are other 19 20 resources and values that are determined to be 20 21 important to park planning and management 21 22 although they are not related to the park’s 22 23 purpose and signifi cance. They include resources 23 24 and values that are determined to be important in 24 25 their own right, and may be protected under law 25 26 and regulation. 26 27 27 28 In the process of defi ning fundamental resources 28 29 and values, the planning team utililized the 29 30 NPS Facilities Management Software System, 30 31 particularly the Asset Priority (API) and Facilities 31 32 Condition (FCI) Indexes. The API sets forth the 32 33 park’s critical assets, and the FCI describes their 33 34 conditions. 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 12 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action wed. They cers during that time. The Clover Hill Tavern Tavern The Clover Hill cers during that time. fi c purposes between April 9-12, and the general area seeing heavy use by of c purposes between fi Analysis and Guiding Principles Importance Appomattox Court House was the place where Lee and Grant met deliberated on terms The McLean house in the village of The village was the setting for event, with several structures being used April 9, 1865. signing the agreement on of the surrender, for speci complex was the location of printing paroles for Confederate soldiers. and its reconstruction on the to commemorate the end of Civil War The original McLean house was an early focus of private efforts within NPS, beginning in 1948. original site, a multi-disciplinary effort complex, the village is setting for surrender Tavern In addition to the McLean House and its outbuildings Clover Hill The variety of buildings in the village provide context for understanding what happened there and events that follo events. story. are integral to the village setting that is important conveying Civil War The Sweeney Prizery is period. The Sweeney and Connor cabins provide context for the broader stories associated with Civil War it was reportedly used as the headquarters of Major General During the Civil War, Appomattox County. one of the oldest buildings in Fitzhugh Lee. ce, Woodson Law ce, Woodson fi ce, Plunkett Meeks Store, Peers House, Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources Values Table Fundamental Resources Buildings and structures associated with the end of Appomattox Campaign, the surrender and its legacy (i.e., complex, Tavern McLean House, Clover Hill House, Isbell courthouse, Mariah Wright House, Jones Law Of Of fi associated outbuildings; Sweeney Prizery, Charles Sweeney Cabin, Connor Cabin). Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 13 guration. fi ces, archival space, and collections storage bookstore; adaptation to fi ll in missing features key to the surrender story –the McLean House and courthouse – fi oor load-bearing constraints and high levels of visitor access. Analysis and Guiding Principles Current State and Related Trends Reconstruction has been used to understand the context of its setting, such as privy and well structures village buildings slave quarters McLean Complex. Restoration and rehabilitation have been used for treating the tavern, its guesthouse, kitchen, Tavern House and the other buildings. The McLean House parlor is a focus for the park visit, as it in of house that ranger recounts story the surrender. The rest When large numbers of people are in the McLean House, access to parlor is limited and personal services abbreviated. of the building is interpreted as a house museum furnished with items typical those owned by McLean family. Like the house, tavern complex is an important area of interpretation in park, and has printing presses used to explain The paroles may have been printed in the wooden dining room wing at the paroling process that took place after surrender. west end, which no longer exists. Tavern’s former occupants, important events, and objects within Other village structures represent opportunities to interpret building use, history, them. the present use of tavern slave is developing an exhibit on slavery in the McLean House kitchen outbuilding. However, Park staff African-American presence in the village. quarters as restrooms does not support interpretation of the size and con The operations of the Eastern National outlet in Clover Hill kitchen are constrained by building’s Potential Future Threats Historic buildings in the village serve as administrative of meet changing needs over time will continue to place stress on historic material and fabric compromise structural integrity due to fl Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources Values Table Fundamental Resources 14 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action cient cient comfort facilities so that the visitor is able to extend his fi Analysis and Guiding Principles Stakeholder Interest There are strong community interests in the village several areas: preceded settlement of present town Appomattox, and there are familial connections to earlier residents of the village among people in area; NPS decision which had not been in favor of a monument--the original idea for reconstruct the McLean House was supported by local community, commemoration; community residents assisted in the archeological research undertaken prior to construction of McLean House and then the building of house; community members participate in periodic activities village. parks. Eastern National uses the tavern kitchen as a bookstore, which has high rate of gross sales per visitor among Civil War ends there, marking the end of the Trail Retreat Civil War thematic trails have beginning and ending points at the park: Lee’s Two Appomattox County because of its association with begins in Trail Appomattox Campaign; and the Civil Rights in Education Heritage African-Americans gained through the ending of Civil War. the freedom of Law and Policy Guidance Continued treatment of the tavern complex and McLean House will follow Secretary Interior’sTreatment guidelines for the of Cultural Resources and Landscapes. Reconstruction a no longer extant building must occur in the original location, suf fi data must exist to enable accurate reconstruction. Issues GMP Protecting views from the village; telling park story in context; using a range of village buildings to broaden story; dispersing visitors outside the village to broader park landscape; providing suf There is stress on, damage to and loss of original fabric due adaptive use historic structures. visit. Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources Values Table Fundamental Resources Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 15 owing fl cally during the Battle of Appomattox Court House. cally during the Battle of fi cally referenced, in the congressional testimony, the importance of military sites cally referenced, in the congressional testimony, fi lled with soldiers from April 8 through 17. The park includes the headquarters sites of Lee April 8 through 17. lled with soldiers from fi cers and men initially exchanged salutes, is on a knoll north of the village along Stage Road. fi Analysis and Guiding Principles Importance The village and surrounding landscape were site where Lee waited before meeting Grant at the McLean House. Tree Apple and Grant, the Stage Road is a key cultural landscape feature and historic route that alternately provided an avenue of The Lynchburg-Richmond April 12, Federal troops lined up along a portion of the Richmond Lynchburg advance and retreat for Union Confederate troops. On The surrender ceremony site, Stage Road to accept the arms of thousands Confederate soldiers, who marched through village. where the Federal and Confederate of The most recent boundary expansion (1992) speci Appomattox Campaign. While the sites relating to surrender are well known, new lands have emphasized the and the ending of speci military use of park lands prior to the surrender, had a role in the battle and Troops The U.S. Colored The Coleman farmhouse (now site) was a scene of dramatic battle action. house (now site) was used as a signal station for Union troops. Tibbs Lane and Oakville Road. Park lands also include encampment Trent Lane, Sears Tibbs movements occurred along Troop hospital sites. and the impact of resources outside the village and agricultural use of landscape reveal context Civil War Vernacular the surrender on lives of civilians. Current State and Related Trends and their presence was largely ephemeral. Some The armies moved through the landscape quickly in hours before surrender, sites and resources are well understood; others will require more investigation. Sites in the lands added 1990s are not easily accessed for visitor use. Appomattox River within the park is listed on inventory of Wild and Scenic Rivers for its historic, scenic free- The character . Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources Values Table Fundamental Resources Sites, roads and lanes, cultural landscape features, and archeological resources associated with the Battle of Appomattox Court House and the Appomattox Campaign, end of the the surrender and its legacy (i.e., Surrender Ceremony Site, Richmond Stage Road and other lanes Lynchburg site, Tree Apple Appomattox River, roads, the Tibbs the headquarter sites of Lee and Grant; Allen Connor House site, Coleman House site, Site of Last Battle, New Hope Church Earthworks, Site of Last Shot Fired, witness woodlots). 16 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action cient understanding of how they appeared at a fi c will produce visual and audible effects on the visitor c will produce visual and audible effects fi ll requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. ll requirements of the Chesapeake Bay fi action on a privately owned site a mile from the park is another. There is an opportunity for a trail action on a privately owned site mile from the park is another. th c period. fi Analysis and Guiding Principles Potential Future Threats Because many sites are close to or visible from Route 24, increased traf experience and hinder access to the full range of these resources. The two headquarters sites at the north and western edges of park boundary make development adjacent lands, particularly at the western edge, a potential future threat to visitor experience. The ability to tell the whole story would be hampered by development on adjacent lands, particularly higher ridge outside of the values and other resources would be affected. Viewshed park boundary. Stakeholder Interest set of stakeholder interests (town and county government, heritage tourism) are related to interpretive connections resources in A The train depot is one site, and the Appomattox Court House. Appomattox Station and the surrounding area relating to Battles of April 8 site of the epicenter local group is exploring preservation of the land. A connection between the town and park. There is some interest among landowners in the protection of resources on adjacent lands. Law and Policy Guidance of Cultural Landscapes. of the cultural landscape will follow Secretary Interior’sTreatment Standards for the Treatment Attempts to restore or reconstruct historic grades will be avoided unless there is suf speci may be needed for erosion control and to ful Stream buffers Some cultural landscape features, such as water resources and steep slopes, must be handled in the context of special management and protection measures. Issues GMP Adjacent lands; broadening the story; visitation to other areas of park with key resources; boundary adjustment; partnerships with the town and county; role of landscape features in helping visitors understand reasons why surrender occurred this small village. Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources Values Table Fundamental Resources Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 17 cant for their information fi oor so they are not accessible to the fl cant study collection of architectural fragments associated fi cation. fi cance are those relating to individuals and events associated with the eld data recorded during investigations and of collected artifacts. These eld data recorded during investigations and of collected artifacts. fi fi cant archeological collections composed of fi century. century. th Analysis and Guiding Principles Importance history collection, objects of particular signi Within the park’s Several early souvenirs taken by those at the surrender are in park collections. Appomattox Campaign and the surrender. Appomattox Court House and the surrender which are signi Fine arts objects are mainly period renderings of value. There are signi There is a signi relate particularly to architectural features present at the site. in the mid- The collections also reveal social and demographic data related to village life in Virginia original structures. with the site’s 19 The archives include thousands of documents, photographs, maps, letters and similar material, including an early NPS photographic collection and documents associated directly with the surrender events. Current State and Related Trends Park collections have been mainly centralized and are located in an interim facility that represents improvement over past conditions but House and Isbell Mariah Wright The visitor center, The space continues to be over-crowded. lacks a full set of environmental controls. The park library and some archives are on the second House also house collection materials. An adequate, secure research/work space is lacking. handicapped. The 2002 Collections Management Plan anticipates the collection growing exponentially as a result of archeological investigations since 2000 and mitigation work in association with future construction modi The Northeast Region is implementing an initiative to consolidate collections storage in parks the same geographic area. Proposed collections storage needs will be considered in this context. solutions to the park’s Potential Future Threats Long term use of areas where collections and archives are now stored poses threats to the condition these resources. Stakeholder Interest collections. soldiers have an interest in the park’s Students, researchers and descendants of Civil War Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources Values Table Fundamental Resources Archives and collections associated with the end of Appomattox Campaign, the surrender and its legacy 18 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action ng needs; long-term preservation; access to the collection fi ection of how the ending of the Civil War has been remembered in actions prior to the establishment of ection of how the ending Civil War fl Analysis and Guiding Principles Law and Policy Guidance Act of 1935 (16 USC 461-467); Act of 1916 (16 USC 1 et. seq.); Historic Sites Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433); Organic Antiquities Act of 1960, as amended (16 USC 469-469C); Act of 1955 (16 USC 18f); Reservoir Salvage Management of Museum Properties Act of 1966, as amended ( 16 Act of 1974 (16 USC 469-469C); National Historic Preservation Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa-mm); NPS Museum Handbook Archeological Resources Protection USC 470-470t, sec. 110); Issues GMP Facility (storage and exhibit) staf Importance These resources are a re The North Carolina monument Department tablets occurred in the 1890s. park. National recognition with the installation of War soldier and resident of The Raine Monument is a memorial to Civil War is the only state monument to be erected in park. Appomattox Court House, who died during the war. Current State and Related Trends Their condition This group of resources is generally well understood but has not been integrated, on the whole, into park story. is good. Where private property on the high ridge at southern edge of park along Route 631 has been cleared to the Raine Monument and other park features can be seen year round. boundary, Potential Future Threats By default, NPS has become responsible for the Raine Monument, as there are no remaining family members. It is in fair structure of this size could present substantial maintenance requirements in the future. A condition. Stakeholder Interest There are no surviving Raine North Carolina re-enactment group has supported the park and held encampments in past. A family members. Law and Policy Guidance of Historic Properties apply. Secretary of the Interior’sTreatment Standards for the Issues GMP has been remembered; encouraging visitor use of Expanding the story beyond surrender and military events to how Civil War areas beyond the village. (War (War Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources Values Table Fundamental Resources Commemorative resources Raine Monument, North Tablets, Department Carolina Monument and tablets ) Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 19 cant viewshed resources are found fi ll a desired visitor experience within the landscape. They provide ll a desired visitor experience within the landscape. fi Analysis and Guiding Principles Importance contribute to the visitor experience by providing scenic enjoyment and opportunities for contemplating meanings of events Views They reveal the cultural landscape features that are key to understanding the at the park and how those events are relevant today. There are innumerable opportunities for enjoying views from within the park, and a series of viewpoints events that led to the surrender. from key areas are associated with interpretive waysides telling important aspects of the park story. Trends Current State and Related signi However, a substantial extent, the viewed areas are contained within park boundary. To The wooded vegetation on these properties tends to conceal 20th century on adjacent lands along the high ridge at south boundary. development along the ridge line. have been managed in some areas of the park to ful Woodlands to screen modern development and shape the viewsheds of important observation points. Screening vegetation visual buffers Headquarters site at the western edge of park, comprised of dense, 100-200 foot wide belts pine have been planted near Grant’s and at the northeastern boundary near O’Brien Cemetery. voltage regulator has been installed by the local electric utility in a highly visible location northern section of park, just off A Route 24. Increased electricity demands in the region will result increased electric transmission lines that may cross park lands and further intrude on views. Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources Values Table Fundamental Resources Values Viewshed 20 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action

ning the proposed boundary adjustment fi c on the highway is a threat to visitor fi at ridge, next to a timber company holding that has been cleared to the park boundary. This at ridge, next to a timber company holding that has been cleared the park boundary. fl

Analysis and Guiding Principles Threats Potential Future The pine tree plantings represent monoculture planting and are vulnerable to disease storm damage. The clearing of woodlands on adjacent properties or within viewshed areas are activities that could potentially threaten visual some landowners have cleared trees down to the park property. On the high ridge at southern edge of park boundary, quality. similar situation applies on the northeastern A If this trend continues, residences and other development will become more visible. Here the park boundary is on a boundary. The land is susceptible to development based area can be seen from the Chamberlain-Gordon Salute Site and other points in park. on current trends in the area. Route 24 is a visible element of the landscape in some locations, and increased traf viewshed values, particularly on the contemplative aspects of park experience. experience of the park’s Law and Policy Guidance Management of viewshed areas needs to be done in the context natural resource policies. County and town zoning districts in key viewsheds outside the park boundary permit residential development at low density but do not govern impacts of this type development on parklands. Issues GMP for contemplation including the meanings of Civil War/opportunities Boundary adjustment; presenting the broader story, Assessment of Information The results were considered in de viewshed analysis was conducted from key viewpoints. A some locations visible from inside the park are not in boundary area, which contains the most heavily viewed areas. However, There is a need to foster local land use planning initiatives protect the rural character in areas surrounding the adjustment area. park. CCC Dynamite Cabin CCC-NPS Quarry, Cemetery, Tract New County Jail, Burruss vernal pond, wetlands, etc. Natural resources such as the unique plant community, Buildings used for park operations: Moon House, Mathews Maintenance Facility. Appomattox Chapter of the United Daughters Confederacy. managed by the Confederate Cemetery, Table 1-1: Fundamental and Important Resources Values Table Fundamental Resources Important Resources Managed by the Park Important Resources Owned by Others

22 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 1.5 Park Goals Goal III - Partnerships and Cooperative 1 2 Actions 2 3 The four goals established for Appomattox 3 4 Court House NHP articulate in very broad terms The NPS increases its operational capacity 4 5 the ideals the park will strive to attain. Various through cooperative efforts with other public 5 6 approaches to park resource protection, use and and private organizations that understand and 6 7 development are possible within the parameters support the park’s goals to protect and interpret 7 8 of park goals, and the alternatives presented its resources. 8 9 in Chapter 2 investigate different ways that the 9 10 goals could be achieved. Goal IV – Operational Effi ciency 10 11 Taken together, the statements of purpose and 11 12 signifi cance and park goals describe a vision of The park is a responsive and fl exible 12 13 the park’s future. organization, effi ciently using all available 13 14 resources to accomplish its goals. Park facilities, 14 15 Goal I – Resource Protection infrastructure and services are coordinated to 15 16 effi ciently support operational needs, including 16 17 IA – Cultural Resources and Values interpretation and resource management. 17 18 Staffi ng is adequate to maintain the park and 18 19 Cultural resources and values (landscapes serve visitor needs. 19 20 and features, rural environment, structures, 20 21 archeological sites, monuments, grave sites, 1.6 Site and Legislative History 21 22 curatorial objects and archives, ethnographic 22 23 resources, etc.) contributing to the signifi cance The park’s boundary has been expanded several 23 24 of Appomattox Court House NHP are stabilized, times in its history. Figure 1-3 shows boundary 24 25 maintained and protected from deterioration at a adjustments at three selected points. The map 25 26 minimum; and managed considering the cultural is not meant to be a comprehensive treatment 26 27 context. of the park’s boundary changes. Appendix A 27 28 contains park legislation, a summary of legislative 28 29 IA – Natural Resources and Values actions, and excerpts from congressional 29 30 testimony related to the most recent boundary 30 31 Natural resources and values (water, wetlands, expansion legislation (106 Stat. 3565). 31 32 soils, topographic features, native plants / wildlife 32 33 / associated communities, etc.) at Appomattox Prehistory to 1607 33 34 Court House NHP are managed to maintain and 34 35 restore their integrity within the park and broader The Piedmont region of Virginia was inhabited 35 36 ecosystems, as well as to protect and foster by Native Americans who would have depended 36 37 appreciation of the park’s cultural resources. on hunting game, fi shing, and collecting naturally 37 38 occurring plant foods. Late in prehistory and 38 39 Goal II - Visitor Experience and Use during the period of contact between Native 39 40 Americans and European colonists, horticulture 40 41 IIA – Education & Interpretation was common. Small groups of Native Americans 41 42 would have visited in the vicinity of the park 42 43 Appomattox Court House NHP is a catalyst at least sporadically and during some periods 43 44 for diverse publics to understand, appreciate resided there seasonally. Prehistoric sites have 44 45 and form their own intellectual and emotional been identifi ed in Appomattox County. None have 45 46 connections to the meanings in park resources been found within park boundaries, although 46 47 and associated history, so as to foster topographic settings and soil types are favorable 47 48 preservation of the site and an understanding of to their appearance. 48 49 its relevance today. 49 50 The ethnic or linguistic affi liation of the Native 50 51 IIB – Visitor Experience and Use/Facilities Americans most likely to have visited or 51 52 inhabited the area late in the prehistoric period 52 53 Visitors safely enjoy high quality interpretive and were probably either Siouan, affi liated with the 53 54 educational experiences that are appropriate Monacans, whose villages were located in the 54 55 to the park’s purpose and are satisfi ed with the piedmont along the James River to the north 55 56 availability, accessibility, diversity, and quality of or Iroquoian, who were affi liated with groups 56 57 park facilities and services. to the south and southeast. In many aspects 57 58 of their culture, these groups were similar to 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 23 1 the Algonquian-speaking Appamatuck, whose began to form in association with the county 1 2 territory straddled the coastal-plain section of the seat. John Raine constructed a second tavern, 2 3 Appomattox River. later purchased by Wilmer McLean for his family 3 4 home and used for the historic meeting between 4 5 Early Contact and Settlement at Clover Hill Generals Lee and Grant in 1865. Farming was 5 6 (1607–1845) the primary occupation of many residents. There 6 7 were tanneries, grist and saw mills along the 7 8 European settlement of the Piedmont region Appomattox River and Plain Run Branch. The 8 9 effectively began after the 1772 treaty with the village and the area around it also included 9 10 Iroquois Indians, which dictated that their territory enslaved persons and free black communities. 10 11 not extend east of the Blue Ridge Mountains. 11 12 Appomattox was still the frontier in 1750. Land In 1854, the Southside Railroad from Petersburg 12 13 in Tidewater Virginia was largely settled and was extended from Farmville to Appomattox 13 14 intensively cultivated. Tobacco cultivation rapidly Depot. The location of the station, three miles 14 15 depleted soil nutrients, and tobacco farmers west of the county seat, began the economic 15 16 began to occupy the Piedmont. The soils in decline of Appomattox Court House. Although the 16 17 Appomattox proved to be well suited to cultivation county’s population had begun to decline in the 17 18 of a dark leaf tobacco that was preferred at the 1850s and 1860s, the local economy thrived due 18 19 time, and a dispersed community of tobacco to the railroad and the James River and Kanawha 19 20 farmers slowly began to occupy the region. In canals. The output of tobacco almost doubled 20 21 1809, the Richmond-Lynchburg Stage Road was and the cash value of farms increased. The 21 22 built, contributing to the growth of the region and railroad was further extended to Lynchburg, and 22 23 leading to the establishment of road houses, businesses in the village began to relocate to the 23 24 taverns, and stage headquarters. Lynchburg depot area to be close to the railroad. 24 25 was, during this era, a thriving tobacco packing 25 26 and shipping center and reportedly the country’s The Civil War (1861-1865) 26 27 2nd wealthiest city (per capita).The location of 27 28 Appomattox on a relatively level plateau along The village was sheltered from the direct affects 28 29 the road between Richmond and Lynchburg of the war until April 1865, although on July 3rd, 29 30 made it an important way-station and a 1863 a locally raised unit – the 18th Virginia 30 31 settlement grew up around it. The local tavern, Infantry suffered the highest casualties of any 31 32 constructed in 1819 by Alexander Patteson, unit in the Army of Northern Virginia at the 32 33 was a center of activity. The settlement became Battle of Gettysburg during “Picketts Charge.” 33 34 known as “Clover Hill”. Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s defeat 34 35 outside Petersburg, at Five Forks, on April 1st, 35 36 Establishment of Appomattox County (1845- 1865 forced Lee to evacuate Richmond and 36 37 1861) Petersburg. Rapid movements to the south of 37 38 Lee’s army, directed by General Grant, forced 38 39 In 1825, local residents began to petition the the Confederates west as they sought to connect 39 40 Virginia Legislature to establish a new county. with General Joseph E. Johnston’s Army of 40 41 By 1845, the legislature had agreed to form Tennessee. A lack of supplies and loss of control 41 42 Appomattox County from parts of surrounding over the rail lines between Petersburg and points 42 43 Buckingham, Campbell, Charlotte, and Prince south and east contributed to the precarious 43 44 Edward counties. Appomattox County was position of the Army of Northern Virginia when 44 45 named for the Appomattox River, which had it reached Appomattox on April 8th. The troop 45 46 taken its name from the large Native American movement chronology report (Appendix D) 46 47 village of Appamatuck located at its confl uence shows the geographic locations of the events that 47 48 with the James River. transpired on April 8 and 9th in Appomattox. 48 49 49 50 Clover Hill, with a population of less than 100 In the Battle of Appomattox Station on the 8th, 50 51 residents, was selected as the county seat, and Union cavalry under Brevet Major General 51 52 a courthouse and jail were constructed from George A. Custer captured Confederate supply 52 53 locally fi red red clay bricks. County seats in trains at Appomattox Depot. Moving northeast, 53 54 Virginia during this period typically appended Custer engaged a Confederate Army reserve 54 55 “Court House” to the county name, signifying artillery under General Reuben Lindsay 55 56 the place where the county’s business was Walker that had gone into bivouac on a rise 56 57 conducted. Thus, Clover Hill’s name was west of Appomattox Court House. Walker had 57 58 changed to Appomattox Court House. A village approximately 100 guns, and over 200 baggage 58 59 59 24 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 and hospital wagons to defend. He placed his and George Meade menaced Longstreet’s 1 2 guns in a semi-circle with the wagons in the rear. Corps from the east at New Hope Church. 2 3 During the course of the battle Custer’s men South of the village, Union infantry under Major 3 4 made four separate charges against the guns General Charles Griffi n and cavalry forces 4 5 prior to breaking through. Custer’s horsemen under Brigadier General Thomas Devin and 5 6 captured between 24 and 30 guns, between 150 Major General George Custer took positions 6 7 and 200 wagons, and up to 1,000 prisoners. along a commanding ridge and began preparing 7 8 The battle effectively eliminated Walker’s unit for an assault. These forces used Prince 8 9 from the Army of Northern Virginia, and obtained Edward Court House Road and Oakleigh Road 9 10 Union Army possession of the key Richmond- (modern) to advance on the Confederates south 10 11 Lynchburg Stage Road west of the village—Lee’s of the village. The last action of the Battle of 11 12 only avenue of escape. Appomattox Court House took place in this area 12 Wilmer McLean, whose house 13 as Confederate Cavalry under General Martin 13 in northern Virginia became a 14 Following the battle, Federal cavalry troopers Gary and Union cavalry clashed near the village. 14 Confederate headquarters in the 15 secured the high ground a half-mile west of the 15 fi rst Battle of Manassas in 1861, 16 village of Appomattox Court House along the Grant had effectively surrounded Lee on three 16 came to the area in 1862. 17 Stage Road at its junction with the Oakville Road sides with the James River to the North. Lee 17 Period accounts, maps, and 18 and began constructing light breastworks. The knew that there was no hope of escape to the 18 illustrations by such notable artists 19 bulk of Lee’s army lay encamped a mile north of north as the bridge at Duiguidsville had been 19 as Robert Sneden and George 20 Appomattox Court House near Rocky Run and burned the previous fall to stop a raid by Federal 20 Frankenstein provide detailed 21 southwest of New Hope Church, an area secured cavalry. Lee ordered truce fl ags sent out and 21 insight into the character of the 22 by Longstreet’s 1st Corps. Lee met with his wrote a note to Grant requesting a meeting to 22 Appomattox landscape at the time 23 generals that evening and decided to advance a discuss the surrender of the Army of Northern 23 of the surrender. 24 portion of his infantry along with Fitzhugh Lee’s Virginia. Hostilities shortly ceased and on the 24 25 cavalry against the Federal cavalry force to the afternoon of April 9th General Lee surrendered 25 26 west. Lee believed that he had out-marched most to Lt. General Grant at the house of Wilmer 26 27 of Grant’s infantry and that the combined force McLean. 27 28 under Gordon and Fitzhugh Lee would easily 28 29 clear the stage road for the van of the army. Early On April 12th, three days later, Confederate 29 30 on the morning of April 9, Major Generals John infantry led by Major General John B. Gordon 30 31 Gordon and Fitzhugh Lee positioned infantry and surrendered to approximately 6,000 troops 31 32 cavalry troops just west of Appomattox Court from the Federal 5th Corps along a section of 32 33 House in line of battle near Tibbs Lane. Gordon’s the Richmond-Lynchburg State Road running 33 34 infantry was stationed on either side of the through the village of Appomattox Court House. 34 35 Richmond-Lynchburg Stage Road, and Fitzhugh In a ceremony supervised, from a knoll south 35 36 Lee’s cavalry was positioned to the north on the of the village near the Peers House, by Union 36 37 Confederate right fl ank. General Joshua L. Chamberlain, the Confederate 37 38 infantry laid down their fl ags and stacked their 38 39 After daybreak, the Confederate formations weapons. 39 40 were seen and targeted by a Federal battery 40 41 positioned astride the stage road a quarter From an initial estimate of some 57,000 men 41 42 mile west, near the crest of the hill. Advancing retreating from Petersburg, Lee’s troops 42 43 Confederate forces overran and captured the numbered about 30,000 by the time they were 43 44 battery. Gordon’s infantry lines wheeled to clear paroled at Appomattox Court House, diminished 44 45 the road west, but the advance was short-lived. through hard marching, captures, lack of 45 46 18,000 Union infantry troops under Ord’s Army rations, combat casualties, and desertions. 46 47 of the James arrived on the right fl ank blocking Lee’s decision to end the war and to discourage 47 48 the stage road and causing Gordon to reface his guerilla warfare among the troops was a key to 48 49 line to the west. The heaviest fi ghting took place acceptance of the result in the South and ultimate 49 50 around the Coleman house, as hard pressure reunifi cation of the Nation. The surrender ended 50 51 on the Confederate advance forced withdrawal the war in Virginia and the took the largest and 51 52 east toward the village. Most of Lee’s cavalry most successful Confederate Army from the 52 53 skirted the Federal left fl ank and, helped by Cox’s fi eld, allowing the Federal Government to further 53 54 North Carolina troops who staved off initial Union concentrate forces to against Generals Joseph 54 55 advances, escaped westward toward Lynchburg Johnston and Richard Taylor. Across the South, 55 56 Confederate commanders quickly realized the 56 57 At the same time, the Federal 2nd and 6th Corps futility of further resistance, saw the generosity 57 58 under Major Generals Andrews Humphreys of terms, and like Lee, concluded to surrender 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 25 1 their troops. Four years of civil war were over. went bankrupt prior to shipping the materials for 1 2 Appomattox Court House became forever the house, which were stored onsite and over the 2 3 associated with the conclusion of the nation’s next fi fty years, the materials succumbed to rot, 3 4 bloodiest confl ict. weather, vegetation, and souvenir collectors. 4 5 5 6 Reconstruction and the Aftermath of Civil War The effort to create Congressional recognition 6 7 (1865–1889) of Appomattox continued. In 1893, ten cast iron 7 8 tablets describing the events of April 9, 1865, and 8 9 The economic boom of the late antebellum era their connection to local features, were placed. 9 10 had stalled by 1870 and tobacco output dropped. This was followed in 1905 by the construction of 10 11 Local agriculture after the war was dominated by the North Carolina Monument to mark the place 11 12 grain cultivation, fruit production, and livestock. where the last volley before the surrender was 12 13 In the Appomattox area, the large population of fi red by the North Carolina Brigade of Brig. Gen. 13 14 free blacks and the tenancy practices in place William R. Cox. The monument and two outlying 14 15 before the war resulted in fewer changes to the markers were the fi rst and only state markers 15 16 economy than experienced through most of the erected on the Appomattox battlefi eld. 16 17 south, where the new practices of sharecropping 17 18 and tenancy became standard. Population Between 1905 and 1926, the village went into 18 19 shifts in the village of Appomattox Court House decline. Homes lay abandoned, the McLean 19 20 continued due to the location of railroad service house and courthouse sites became overgrown, 20 21 in the town of Appomattox, three miles away. By and nearby farmland fell fallow. In 1926, the Act 21 22 1870, African-Americans comprised more than for the Study and Investigation of Battlefi elds 22 23 half the population of the village. was passed by Congress, charging the Army 23 24 War College with the task of identifying all the 24 25 In 1892, the courthouse burned down sites of battles on American soil throughout 25 26 presumably due to a chimney fi re, and the county the nation’s history. The study identifi ed the 26 27 decided to transfer the seat of government to sites, ranked them in order of importance and 27 28 the railroad depot. By 1894, the name of the made recommendations for a plan for national 28 29 depot, now the county seat, was changed to commemoration. Appomattox Court House 29 30 Appomattox. The village of Appomattox Court was to be recognized as a national monument, 30 31 House retained its name. rather than a national military park, due to the 31 32 size of the engagement and number of resulting 32 33 Post-Reconstruction Commemoration and casualties. 33 34 Park Establishment (1889–1933) 34 35 Creation of a National Monument 35 36 Soon after the war, the village began to attract 36 37 tourists curious about the site of the surrender. An Act of June 18, 1930 (46 Stat. 777) 37 38 In 1890, a group of Union veteran offi cers implemented the study’s recommendation 38 39 organized as the Appomattox Improvement authorized the War Department to acquire one 39 40 Company purchased 1,400 acres of land in and acre of land at the site of the old Courthouse, 40 41 around the village. The purpose was to make fence the area in and erect a monument. 41 42 the area the site of a National Campground for The cost was not to exceed $100,000. The 42 43 veteran reunions and the other military uses. The act contained the following language: ““…to 43 44 group attempted to convince Congress to build a acquire at the scene of the said surrender 44 45 monument and roads to special points of interest, approximately one acre of land…for the purpose 45 46 and proposed plans to build a hotel and park, and of commemorating the termination of the 46 47 to sell off land in lots to Union veterans. The plan War Between the States…and for the further 47 48 was never realized because the McLean House purpose of honoring those who engaged in this 48 49 was not secured. In 1891, a separate group tremendous confl ict.” This is considered the 49 50 under Myron Dunlap of Niagara Falls, N. Y., the park’s enabling legislation. 50 51 Appomattox Land and Improvement Company 51 52 formed with the idea to purchase and dismantle In 1931 Congress authorized $2,500 for 52 53 the McLean House. The original idea to exhibit the design, plan, and cost estimates for the 53 54 it at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in monument (46 Stat.1277). The War Department 54 55 Chicago was abandoned. A new venture was appointed a fi ve-man Commission of Fine 55 56 hatched to move the house to Washington, D. Arts to administer a national competition for 56 57 C. Plans were drawn by a local fi rm and the the monument’s design. Some factions of 57 58 building was dismantled. Dunlap and Company the national offi ce of the United Daughters of 58 59 59 26 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 the Confederacy considered any memorial at Federal Government to mark the entrances or 1 2 Appomattox an attempt “to celebrate on our gateways into Civil War battlefi eld sites. 2 3 soil the victory of General Grant and his Army.” 3 4 In 1932, wishing to avoid further infl aming Under the New Deal legislation’s Resettlement 4 5 emotions, the commission stated its preference Act, designed to take submarginal farmland 5 6 for “the idea of recreating the historic scene of out of production, the National Park Service 6 7 the surrender” rather than a memorial sculpture. was able to acquire the land. The acquisition 7 8 This idea of “recreating the historic scene” would was accomplished through the Department 8 9 be a major shift in interpreting historic sites, the of Agriculture’s land utilization and land 9 10 premise put forward by Charles B. Hosmer, Jr. conservation project known as the Surrender 10 11 in Preservation Comes of Age: From Grounds Forest Project. The approximately 970 11 12 Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926- acres were transferred from the Secretary of 12 13 1949. Volume I. University Press of Virginia, Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior in a 13 14 Charlottesville for the Preservation Press, pp. 1939 Executive Order (#8057, 3 CFR 460). 14 15 620-625 15 16 A 1940 Secretary of the Interior’s Order (5 CFR 16 17 Pre-World War II Park Development and the 1520) designated the Appomattox Court House 17 18 Role of Civilian Conservation Corps (1933– National Historical Monument, creating the park. 18 19 1942) A development plan centered on the idea of a 19 20 restored village and set the priorities for site 20 21 Oversight of the memorial became the province work: demolishing unwanted buildings, clearing 21 22 of the Department of the Interior in 1933. B. Floyd underbrush, constructing roads and trails, and 22 23 Flickinger, superintendent of Colonial National providing utilities as well as a utility area. The 23 24 Monument at Yorktown, was given responsibility reconstruction of the Mclean House was at the 24 25 for the project. In his fi rst project report, Flickinger top of the priority list. The plan recommended 25 26 cited agreement with the Fine Arts Commission realigning Route 24, rerouting it from around 26 The McLean House opened 27 and recommended that the authorized funds be the courthouse to north of the village. Efforts 27 for the fi rst time on April 9 in 28 devoted to the restoration of the most important to forestall the construction of private souvenir 28 1949 in an informal ceremony 29 buildings—those that stood there at the time of shops and concession stands on property 29 commemorating the 84th 30 the surrender. The recommendation refl ected north of the highway were carried out through 30 anniversary of the surrender. 31 a growing consensus among National Park the purchase of easements, and a plan to 31 Formal dedication of the 32 Service historians that the most appropriate purchase the property at an appropriate time was 32 monument took place a year 33 memorialization for battlefi elds was preservation developed. It was thought that the presence of 33 later. Participants in the April 34 of the landscape. The recent restoration commercial uses would have compromised the 34 1950 ceremony included National 35 of Colonial Williamsburg and Henry Ford’s historic landscape being preserved nearby. 35 Park Service Director Newton B. 36 Greenfi eld Village is thought to have infl uenced 36 Drury, Virginia Governor John 37 these views. Locally, there was opposition The introduction of the Civilian Conservation 37 S. Battle, United States Senator 38 to the idea of erecting a monument and one Corps (CCC) as a labor force laid the groundwork 38 Virgil Chapman of Kentucky, 39 organization (the Lynchburg Group) advocated for development of the park. Some parts of 39 Congressman W.M. Abbitt of 40 “the entire restoration of the McLean House and the road realignment project, clearing of the 40 Virginia, State Senator C.T. 41 the courthouse group of buildings which stood monument grounds, archaeological excavations, 41 Moses, Sr., and Judge Joel W. 42 there in April 1865” and expressed its interest in and stabilization of historic structures were 42 Flood. Mrs. William Haggard, 43 “securing the entire battlefi eld area on which the undertaken in 1940-41. The work was done by 43 President General of the United 44 last stand of the two armies was made.” Company 1351, composed of approximately 190 44 Daughters of the Confederacy, 45 African Americans from Yorktown, Virginia. As 45 looked on while Major General 46 The 1930 legislation was amended on August World War II came to involve the United States, 46 Ulysses S. Grant III, and Robert 47 13th, 1935 (49 Stat. 613) to authorize the the CCC camp disbanded, leaving much of the 47 E. Lee IV, crossed scissors to 48 acquisition of land, structures, and property within reconstruction and work stopped for the duration 48 cut the ribbon on the porch and 49 one and a half miles of the courthouse site for of the war. 49 offi cially open the McLean House 50 the purpose of creating a public monument. In 50 51 preparation for the construction of the monument, Restoration Efforts and National Historical 51 52 the Virginia State Highway Department regraded Park Designation (1942–1954) 52 53 and resurfaced Highway 24, which roughly 53 54 followed the course of the old Richmond- NPS offi cials debated the role of restoration and 54 55 Lynchburg Stage Road and built a bridge over reconstruction. There were concerns about the 55 56 the Appomattox River on the approach to the site historical accuracy of planned reconstruction of 56 57 from the east. Called the Memorial Bridge, it was the village. Some thought that, with the exception 57 58 comparable to other bridges being built by the of the McLean House, Appomattox Court House 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 27 1 was not historically important enough to warrant by Mission 66, the ten-year fully-funded NPS 1 2 restoration. It was argued that the house should program (1956-66) that was intended to upgrade 2 3 be the sole focus of commemorative efforts. park facilities throughout the country. The 3 4 Perhaps by evoking nostalgic memories of reconstruction of the courthouse was among 4 5 nineteenth-century rural life, re-creation of the the most important projects at Appomattox. The 5 6 village would detract from the importance of the 1940s development plan had recommended its 6 7 McLean House. However, opposition eventually reconstruction as the park’s visitor center and 7 8 faded, and work to reconstruct the McLean headquarters, which was also favored by local 8 9 House and other features began, and from residents. However, the typical visitor center 9 10 1949 to 1968, the NPS reconstructed fourteen constructed during the period was a modern 10 11 buildings in total. building favoring streamlined architectural 11 12 design and materials. Park Service offi cials met 12 13 One early decision in developing an approach to with local citizens in 1961 and gave them the 13 14 work at Appomattox Court House was to be as choice between a modern visitor center and a 14 15 true to the original landscape as possible. This reconstructed courthouse. The local choice was 15 16 included using archeology and other reliable reconstruction. 16 17 documentation to reconstruct the buildings, 17 18 using authentic materials as far as fi nancially Under the Mission 66 program, the parking 18 19 feasible and recreating views and vistas, as area between Route 24 and the village and 19 The courthouse was completed in 20 well as circulation and vegetation patterns roadside pull-offs and parking at historic sites 20 time for the centennial celebration 21 that were known to have existed at the time of were developed, and improvements made to the 21 of Lee’s surrender on April 9, 22 the Civil War. Historians, archeologists, and village’s roads. The program funded interpretive 22 1965. Historian Bruce Catton, 23 architects worked together to determine accurate devices such as signs, markers, maps, and 23 author of The Stillness at 24 information for building reconstruction. exhibits, and the Mission 66 prospectus outlined 24 Appomattox, was the keynote 25 not only the restoration and operational program 25 speaker. 26 Restoration of the Peers House, the Clover Hill at the park, but its interpretation as well. The 26 27 Tavern and its guest house and kitchen were focus was on the McLean House, as had been 27 28 fi nished and the slave quarters reconstructed in the case since the 1890s. Elsewhere, the 28 29 1954. The restored and reconstructed buildings emphasis was mainly on exterior restoration. 29 30 provided practical as well as historical benefi t. Other village buildings were used to house 30 31 The renovation placed the park offi ce and administrative and operational functions and 31 32 museum in the tavern and a comfort station in the none were used entirely for display to the public, 32 33 former slave quarters behind it, while the Peers as was the McLean House. The restored and 33 34 House was used as an employee residence. A reconstructed buildings would “provide only the 34 35 garage, a workshop, parking, and a utility center outline and setting for the drama of Appomattox,” 35 36 (the maintenance complex) were built near in the words of the park’s fi rst superintendent, 36 37 the Peers House. With structures considered Hubert Gurney. 37 38 essential for park operations built, post Civil War 38 39 structures that had been used for various park The landscape in 1965 refl ected the NPS 39 40 construction purposes could then be removed. understanding of the site during the Civil War. 40 41 The bypass road opened in 1954 and automobile NPS land acquisitions had included both property 41 42 traffi c began to be prohibited in the village in signifi cant to important events of the Civil War 42 43 1956. and scenic easements that permitted historic 43 44 views and viewsheds to be maintained. The 44 45 Legislation in 1953 (67 Stat. 181) authorized a establishment and maintenance of views through 45 46 land exchange through which NPS transferred vegetation management was also of primary 46 47 98.6 acres of federal lands in exchange for 76 concern during this period; this is a concern that 47 48 acres along the Richmond-Lynchburg Stage continues to the present. 48 49 Road of greater historic value and closer to the 49 50 village. The designation of the site was changed Planning and Legislation, 1970-1992 50 51 to Appomattox Court House National Historical 51 52 Park through legislation enacted in 1954 (68 The NPS continued to acquire land associated 52 53 Stat.54). with the battle and surrender. New boundaries 53 54 were authorized in 1976 (90 Stat.2732) and the 54 55 Mission 66 Developments and Additional land acquisition ceiling increased. The 1977 55 56 Reconstruction Efforts (1954–1966) General Management Plan addressed the 56 57 expanded boundary and the need to manage 57 58 Major physical improvements were funded the park’s potential surrounding development. It 58 59 59 28 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 classifi ed parkland into scenic easement, natural and applicable NPS policies are summarized in 1 2 environment, and development sub zones. Land the appendix. 2 3 acquisition was proposed to increase visitor 3 4 capacity while providing site protection for the NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 4 5 historic village, preventing visual intrusions to 1.4: The Prohibition on Impairment of Park 5 6 the historic scene, and protecting important Resources and Values 6 7 resources within the proposed boundary. The 7 8 area of acquisition was within sight of the By enacting the NPS Organic Act of 1916 8 9 historic village and contained the fi nal battle (Organic Act), Congress directed the U.S. 9 10 site of the two armies. It was also under threat Department of Interior and the NPS to manage 10 11 of subdivision. Scenic easements prohibited units “to conserve the scenery and the natural 11 12 commercial development, but did not restrict and historic objects and wildlife therein and to 12 13 residential development. provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 13 14 a manner and by such a means as will leave 14 15 In 1992, new boundaries incorporating the area them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 15 16 of proposed land acquisition were adopted and generations” (16 USC § 1). Congress reiterated 16 17 acquisition authorized by donation (106 Stat. this mandate in the Redwood National Park 17 18 3565). The military signifi cance of the park was Expansion Act of 1978 by stating that NPS must 18 19 considerably strengthened through this boundary conduct its actions in a manner that will ensure 19 20 expansion, which included the Burruss Timber no “derogation of the values and purposes 20 21 and Conservation Fund tracts (acquired in 1992 for which these various areas have been 21 22 and 1993, respectively). Congressional intent established, except as may have been or shall be 22 23 is expressed within the testimony received directly and specifi cally provided by Congress” 23 24 during deliberations of the bill. The testimony (16 USC 1a-1). 24 25 speaks to the importance of retaining the lands 25 26 because of the military actions of the Appomattox NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4.4, 26 27 Campaign, specifi cally those engagements that explains the prohibition on impairment of park 27 28 took place prior to the surrender. The boundary resources and values: 28 29 expansion also included a non-contiguous 29 30 parcel three miles north of the park boundary While Congress has given the Service 30 31 containing the remains of the New Hope Church the management discretion to allow 31 32 breastworks. These groundworks or trenches impacts within parks, that discretion 32 33 were thrown up by Confederate troops to oppose is limited by the statutory requirement 33 34 the advancing Union forces. Key excerpts from (generally enforceable by the federal 34 35 the congressional testimony related to the 1992 courts) that the Park Service must 35 36 legislation are provided in Appendix A. leave park resources and values 36 37 unimpaired unless a particular law 37 38 1.7 Regulatory and Policy Requirements directly and specifi cally provides 38 39 otherwise. This, the cornerstone of the 39 40 In accordance with the National Environmental Organic Act, establishes the primary 40 41 Policy Act of 1969, as amended [42 U.S.C. responsibility of the Nation Park 41 42 4332(2)(C)], the Council on Environmental Service. It ensures that park resources 42 43 Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and values will continue to exist in a 43 44 and NPS Director’s Order #12, “Conservation condition that will allow the American 44 45 Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and people to have present and future 45 46 Decision-making,” (DO-12) and accompanying opportunities for enjoyment of them. 46 47 DO-12 Handbook (2001), an environmental 47 48 impact statement (EIS) is being prepared in The NPS has discretion to allow impacts on 48 49 conjunction with this General Management Park resources and values when necessary 49 50 Plan (GMP). The purpose of the EIS is to and appropriate to fulfi ll the purposes of a Park 50 51 consider a broad range of alternatives during (NPS 2006 sec. 1.4.3). However, the NPS cannot 51 52 the development of the park’s GMP, to evaluate allow an adverse impact that would constitute 52 53 the potential effects of these alternatives and to impairment of the affected resources and values 53 54 engage and disclose to the public the fi ndings of (NPS 2006 sec 1.4.3). An action constitutes an 54 55 these analyses prior to any decision on the future impairment when its impacts “harm the integrity 55 56 management of the park. The park’s designating of Park resources or values, including the 56 57 legislation, applicable Federal and State laws and opportunities that otherwise would be present 57 58 regulations, relevant Federal Executive Orders for the enjoyment of those resources or values” 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 29 1 (NPS 2006 sec 1.4.5). To determine impairment, articulated the growing understanding that 1 2 the NPS must evaluate “the particular resources there were important stories appealing to a 2 3 and values that would be affected; the severity, broad range of visitors to be told on the nation’s 3 4 duration, and timing of the impact; the direct and battlefi elds. The report offered the following 4 5 indirect effects of the impact; and the cumulative statement as a guiding principle: Battlefi eld 5 6 effects of the impact in question and other interpretation must establish the site’s particular 6 7 impacts” (NPS 2006 sec 1.4.5). A determination place in the continuum of war, illuminate the 7 8 on impairment for the preferred alternative social, economic and cultural issues that caused 8 9 evaluated in this Draft GMP/EIS is provided in or were affected by the war, illustrate the breadth 9 10 Appendix C. of human experience during the period, and 10 11 establish the relevance of the war to people 11 12 today. 12 13 1.8 Related Plans and Programs 13 14 The need to expand and improve the 14 15 Service-wide and Regional Museum interpretation of the Civil War was further 15 16 Collection Plans explored at “Rally on the High Ground,” a 16 17 symposium held at the Ford’s Theater in May 17 18 House Report 109-30 accompanying the 2000. A follow-up effort, “Interpreting the Sites of 18 19 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies the Civil War through the National Park System” 19 20 Appropriations Act 2006 directed the National proposed a thematic context as a point of 20 21 Park Service to study the issue of collection departure for interpretive programs at the park 21 22 storage in the parks, and to report fi ndings level. Each park would focus efforts on themes 22 23 and recommendations to the Committee on related to its physical resources and primary 23 24 Appropriations that would describe a Servicewide stories but provide a connection to the broader 24 25 approach to developing adequate museum thematic framework. 25 26 collection storage. It was recognized that many 26 27 collections in the parks are not stored under Community Partnership Workshop 27 28 ideal circumstances and a growing number of 28 29 parks were requesting curatorial facilities. The In May of 2005, the partners of Appomattox 29 30 language of the report indicated that future County and Town and the park, with the 30 A greenway is a corridor of linear 31 funding requirements should be weighed against assistance of the Conservation Fund, held a 31 open space that may vary in 32 other Service-wide priorities. To fulfi ll its study workshop to explore areas of collaboration. The 32 scale from narrow ribbons to wide 33 obligations, the Northeast Museum Services event, called In the Shadows of the past— 33 corridors with diverse ecological 34 Center (NMSC) identifi ed opportunities for A Light to the Future: a Community 34 and scenic features. They 35 consolidating collections in parks in the same Partnership Workshop, brought together 43 35 may function as environmental 36 geographic area. The park was recommended members of the community. The objective of the 36 corridors for wildlife, provide fl ood 37 as a location for a multi-park shared facility workshop was to identify areas of mutual concern 37 protection or may be designed to 38 with other parks. This recommendation is in and of collaboration among the park, local 38 create recreational opportunities 39 the 2006 Northeast Region Museum Collection residents, businesses, and organizations that will 39 and alternative transportation 40 Curatorial Facility Plan. Service-wide fi ndings move Appomattox County forward in enhancing 40 options. Some greenways along 41 and recommendations are presented in the Park tourism and community connections to the 41 river corridors provide access to 42 Museum Collection Storage Plan, 2007 (National history preserved at Appomattox Court House. 42 navigable water and are referred 43 Park Service, Park Museum Management Expressed at the meeting was the desire of the 43 to as “blueways.” 44 Program). community to create opportunities to connect to 44 45 the history of the park, and expand connections 45 46 Holding the High Ground to visitors. The creation of a trail system that 46 47 would connect resources was noted as a viable 47 48 Holding the High Ground: Principles and fi rst step, and the focus of efforts following 48 49 Strategies for Managing and Interpreting the workshop. The Appomattox Heritage and 49 50 Civil War Battlefi eld Landscapes is Recreational Trail Plan, described below, has 50 51 the report of proceedings of the August 1998 emerged from these efforts. 51 52 conference of NPS battlefi eld managers held 52 53 in Nashville, Tennessee. Park superintendents This initiative was part of a pilot program 53 54 gathered to discuss the challenges facing sponsored by the NPS Washington Offi ce of 54 55 Civil War sites and set a direction for parks as Park Planning and special Studies and the NPS 55 56 they dealt with road issues, adjacent land use, Northeast Region to assist parks in working with 56 57 interpreting battlefi elds, and managing and the communities around them in areas of mutual 57 58 interpreting layers of resources. The initiative benefi t. 58 59 59 30 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 and blueways system in 2001, working in 1 2 Appomattox County Community Development conjunction with the NPS Rivers, Trails and 2 3 Plan Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) and 3 4 other groups,. The 2003 Greenways, Blueways, 4 5 The 2003 Community Development Plan and trail plan was endorsed by the county and 5 6 presents the comprehensive plan for the physical municipal jurisdictions in the planning district and 6 7 development of the county and the towns of adopted by the Commission. The concept plan 7 8 Appomattox and Pamplin. The plan recognizes will facilitate the formation of a regional system 8 9 that the county is a place of national historical of interconnected green spaces and corridors 9 10 signifi cance and that there is a need to preserve that would link places such as Appomattox Court 10 11 its heritage by encouraging new development House NHP. 11 12 of an appropriate scale and character. Tourism 12 13 activity, due primarily to the presence of the The plan will build on existing trails and proposed 13 14 Appomattox Court House National Historical extensions and connections. An example is the 14 15 Park within the county’s borders, is seen as eastern extension of the Blackwater Creek Trail 15 16 an important economic component. The plan System to Appomattox Court House NHP. The 16 17 reports, however, that travelers tend to stop by system, designated a National Recreational Trail 17 18 the park for a few hours on the way to or from in 1981, provides 12 miles of scenic trails in the 18 19 major attractions throughout the mid-Atlantic Lynchburg area along the Blackwater Creek and 19 20 region, taking with them their disposable income, the James River. A western extension to the City 20 21 which is then spent elsewhere. of Bedford and the D-Day Memorial has also 21 22 been proposed. 22 23 The marketing of business sites is an important 23 24 tool for economic development presented in 24 25 the community development plan. Foremost Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail 25 26 among the sites is a modern industrial park, the 26 27 Appomattox Center for Business and Commerce. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland 27 28 The 485-acre site was created by the Board Fisheries has developed the state Birding and 28 29 of Supervisors and the Industrial Development Wildlife Trail, organized as loop driving routes 29 30 Authority of Appomattox County (IDA), which in the Piedmont, Mountain and Coastal areas. 30 31 oversees industrial development activities within The Appomattox Court House Loop is one of 31 32 the county. The business center is on VA Route the trail loops in the study area. It includes the 32 33 26 near the interchange with U.S. Route 460, and park, Appomattox Buckingham State Forest and 33 34 is south and southwest of the park. Numerous several other sites. 34 35 privately owned business sites are also targeted 35 36 for possible development. Six of the sites are Rails to Trails 36 37 located near the park on the west side of the US 37 38 460 bypass. One of the six sites is the location of Efforts are underway by the Virginia Department 38 39 the epicenter of the Battle of Appomattox Station of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to convert 39 40 and the subject of a preservation study. a 33.5 mile segment of a portion of the Norfolk 40 41 Southern rail line. The railway is abandoning 41 42 The future land use component of the plan seeks tracks on a this segment, which is east of 42 43 to prepare for anticipated growth through fl exible Appomattox County, on a line from Nottaway, 43 44 development mechanisms that would help protect Cumberland and Price Edward counties to the 44 45 the county’s rural and historical characteristics. edge of Appomattox, near Pamplin City. The 45 46 Growth areas in the form of town and town corridor will be developed as the High Bridge 46 47 centers, growth corridors and commerce State Park, and managed by DCR as a unit of the 47 48 corridors are designated, and measures to limit Virginia State Park system. The Pamplin Depot, 48 49 development to low density would be sought an already-built facility with six restrooms, offers 49 50 in historical areas, prime agricultural sites and trail amenities and could serve as a terminus. 50 51 forested riparian areas. 51 52 Virginia Outdoors Plan 52 53 Region 2000 Greenway, Blueways, and Trail 53 54 Plan DCR produces an update of the Virginia 54 55 Outdoors Plan (VOP), the Commonwealth’s 55 56 The Region 2000 Commission (the regional offi cial conservation, outdoor recreation and 56 57 planning commission for District #11) initiated open space plan every fi ve years. The 2007 57 58 planning for a Central Virginia regional greenway VOP identifi es “walking for pleasure” as the 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 31 1 highest ranked leisure activity out of 39 activities museum on the African American heritage of the 1 2 survey. The second highest ranking was “visiting county and tourism center. Appomattox County 2 3 historic sites” which increased from #5 in the has received Virginia Department of Housing 3 4 2002 VOP to #2 in the current plan. The VOP and Community Development grant funding for 4 5 also provides specifi c recommendations for each development of a Master Plan for the former 5 6 planning district. Among the recommendations elementary school complex. Re-use of the Carver 6 7 for the Region 2000 district were: “to foster a Price Building will be addressed in the master 7 8 collaborative effort to create a trail connection plan. 8 9 between the Appomattox Court House National 9 10 Historic Park and the High Bridge Trail State Battle of Appomattox Station – April 8, 1865 10 11 Park’; and to develop the Appomattox Heritage Land Study Project 11 12 and Recreational Trail.” 12 13 The town of Appomattox received a grant from 13 14 The Appomattox Heritage and Recreational the American Battlefi eld Preservation Program 14 15 Trail Plan: A Vision of Connectivity in 2006 to identify and evaluate resources on 15 16 lands remaining from the Appomattox Station 16 17 The plan is a cooperative effort between the Battlefi eld. The project includes assembling 17 18 Town and County of Appomattox and the park. previous research and initial archeological 18 19 It is intended to serve as the guiding document survey data, and completing a cultural landscape 19 20 or concept plan for developing a trail master assessment. The analysis will guide future efforts 20 21 plan within the Appomattox region, and presents and make it possible to determine a viable path 21 22 the benefi ts, justifi cation and framework for for preservation of the battlefi eld. 22 23 developing connection corridors, or trails, 23 24 within Appomattox. The document is a result While some of the original battlefi eld has been 24 25 of the efforts of the Appomattox Heritage and compromised by surrounding development, 25 26 Recreational Trail Planning Team (AHRTPT), a portion of what is believed to be core area 26 27 a committee comprised of Appomattox remains intact. The size of the battlefi eld 27 28 residents, government offi cials and staff, and originally was approximately 100 acres. The 28 29 representatives from the Virginia Department of remaining battlefi eld in a threatened status is 29 30 Transportation, the Region 2000 Commission 37.44 acres. It is zoned M1, predominately used 30 31 and the NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation for manufacturing and the least restrictive zoning 31 32 Technical Assistance Program. The plan builds category among the town’s zoning districts. The 32 33 on the recommendations in the Region 2007 site was recently preserved by the Civil War 33 34 Greenways, Blueways and Trail Plan (described Preservation Trust. 34 35 above), and recent local efforts that have 35 36 highlighted opportunities for developing a trail Sailor’s Creek Battlefi eld Historic State Park 36 37 connection in Appomattox that can eventually be Master Plan, 2003 37 38 a component of a larger regional network. 38 39 The 325 acre park is the site of a military 39 40 A possible trail connection between the town engagement during the Battle of Sailor’s Creek 40 41 of Appomattox and the park, featuring shared that took place at the Hillsman farm. The 41 42 thematic resources, is identifi ed in the plan. battlefi eld is a National Historic Landmark. The 42 43 The privately-owned portion of the Appomattox park contains elements of the battlefi eld, several 43 44 Station Battlefi eld (see below) lies a short settlement features, and signifi cant landscapes. 44 45 distance off Route 24 about a mile from the Visitor facilities are limited, although re- 45 46 park’s western boundary. The site adjoins the enactments are held on an occasional basis. In 46 47 publicly-owned land of the former Appomattox the 2003 Master Plan, the Virginia Department of 47 48 Elementary School on Business Route 460. The Conservation and Recreation’s Division of State 48 49 Carver Price High School, a site on the Civil Parks presented a comprehensive approach to 49 50 Rights in Education Heritage Trail, is within the the development of public facilities and programs. 50 51 elementary school complex of buildings. These Phase I would provide a comfort station, parking, 51 52 two sites could be linked, and access enhanced trail development and stabilization of the Hillsman 52 53 by a multi-purpose trail along Route 24 from the House. Phase II of the plan provides for a 53 54 park to the town of Appomattox. stabilized parking area to support the historic 54 55 demonstration area used for re-enactments. 55 56 The Carver Price Building is vacant and is being In Phase III, a group camp and staff residence 56 57 considered for multi-purpose adaptive reuse that would be developed. The plan was adopted in 57 58 would include a battlefi eld interpretive area, a 2009. 58 59 59 32 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 1.9 Research and Study Efforts Undertaken 1 2 in Support of Planning Visitor Study 2 3 3 4 The following is a list of studies undertaken by From June to October 2001, a survey of 400 park 4 5 park and regional staff or contractors as part of visitors was conducted by Virginia Polytechnic 5 6 advance planning efforts to prepare for the GMP. Institute and State University for NPS. The 6 7 The list also includes several studies that were primary purpose was to collect information about 7 8 developed to meet information needs that arose who visitors are, what they do, their needs and 8 9 during the course of the project. Not included their opinions, and the results were reported 9 10 are several inventories of park fl ora and fauna in Visitor and Key Stakeholder Groups’ Use 10 11 that are being conducted by the Inventory and Patterns and Preferences for Future Conditions 11 12 Monitoring (I&M) Program for natural resources. at Appomattox Court House National Historical 12 13 Information from the program has been Park (2002). Survey data was supplemented by 13 14 integrated into the planning project as inventories the results of three focus group meetings in the 14 15 and reports have become available. fall of 2001. These sessions explored park issues 15 16 with members of the community representing 16 17 Organization of American Historians Site Visit the areas of history, education and community 17 18 leadership. 18 19 Under the auspices of the Organization of 19 20 American Historians, three Civil War historians Cultural Resource Studies 20 21 visited the park in August 2000 to review park 21 22 visitor programs in light of new scholarship. The 2001 Cultural Landscape Inventory, 2003 22 23 The participating scholars were Ed Ayres of the Historic Resource Study, the 2003 Archeological 23 24 University of Virginia, Joseph Glatthaar of the Overview and Assessment, and resource studies 24 25 University of Houston, and Joan Waugh of UCLA. supporting the development of the 100% draft 25 26 The scholars prepared individual reports that National Register Nomination contributed to 26 27 were compiled for the site visit report. new understandings of the breadth of the park’s 27 28 cultural resources. 28 29 Scholars’ Roundtable 29 30 The 2001 Historical Assessment of the 30 31 In March 2001, the park sponsored a roundtable “Conservation Fund” and “Burrus Timber” Tracts 31 32 to explore the history and signifi cance of the park. explored the history of the lands in the 1992 32 33 Historians with expertise in the Civil War spoke boundary expansion area, with an emphasis on 33 34 about aspects of the ending of the Civil War and the military actions of the Battle of Appomattox 34 35 its meanings before an audience composed Court House. 35 36 of park and regional staff, and members of the 36 37 public who represented other historic sites or The Historic Resource Study confi rms areas 37 38 organizations with similar interests. Participating of national signifi cance and identifi es several 38 39 historians were Ed Ayers, University of Virginia, new areas according to National Register 39 40 David Blight, University of Amherst; Catherine criteria. The legislative history of the property 40 41 Clinton, writer and university lecturer; Gary clearly establishes the original and primary 41 42 Gallagher of the University of Virginia. Dwight area of signifi cance as military. The placement 42 43 Pitcaithly, then Chief Historian of the National of commemorative tablets in 1893 and the 43 44 Park Service, was the moderator. Ron Brown, actions of Congress in 1930 and 1935 marked 44 45 park historian, and Chris Calkins of Petersburg recognition of the conservation area of 45 46 National Battlefi eld contributed comments on signifi cance. Conservation also relates to the 46 47 park history and signifi cant resources, including restoration of the village through an innovative 47 48 related resources. NPS NER resource specialists collaborative research effort mounted by NPS 48 49 Alan Cooper, archeologist, and Nancy Brown, in 1940 that included archeology, architecture, 49 50 cultural landscape architect, spoke about recent and history and led to a total of 14 buildings 50 51 studies that have highlighted new understandings reconstructed from 1949-1968. Government/ 51 52 about the signifi cance of park resources. political signifi cance is denoted because the site 52 53 was impacted by the presence of the Civilian 53 54 The roundtable was followed by a workshop Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1940-41. The 54 55 on park purpose and signifi cance and was a village is architecturally signifi cant because of the 55 56 key source of input into the development of the variety of its early to mid-19th century structures 56 57 foundation document and other aspects of the and sites that are representative of a small 57 58 planning process. southern courthouse town of that period. 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 33 1 The 2000 Cultural Landscape Inventory tools to determine the areas seen from the 1 2 documented characteristics, features and observation points. Each observation point was 2 3 qualities of the park’s cultural landscape, and analyzed assuming that the viewer would have 3 4 evaluated the signifi cance of these features 360 degree access to view the surrounding 4 5 in the context of the landscape as a whole. It landscape. Individual maps were prepared for 5 6 treated Appomattox Court House Landscape and each point and a composite map presents the 6 7 Appomattox Court House Village as two separate results of the analysis. 7 8 components. 8 9 Analysis and mapping of features in the 9 10 The Cultural Landscape Inventory identifi es 1865 landscape and of the April 1865 military 10 11 several areas of ethnographic interest. Slave actions. 11 12 cabins associated with the McLean House 12 13 and Clover Hill Tavern are evidence of the role The planning team placed considerable emphasis 13 14 of African-American slaves in the economic in understanding the movements of the two 14 15 and social structures of the area. Several armies through the village of Appomattox Court 15 16 free black artisans and shopkeepers, such as House, Appomattox Depot, and the surrounding 16 17 blacksmith Charles Diuguid had shops and area on April 8 and 9. The results are presented 17 18 lived in the village. Enslaved workers, and later in the Troop Movement Chronology report (see 18 19 servants, lived in quarters behind the Clover Appendix D). Similarly, maps from the 1865 19 20 Hill Tavern and McLean house. Another period period were studied to better understand the 20 21 of ethnographic interest is 1940-41, when the features found on the site in 1865, and selected 21 22 African-Americans who composed Company results are presented in this document. 22 23 1351 of the Civilian Conservation Corps were 23 24 stationed at Appomattox Court House and began The analysis highlighted the importance of lands 24 25 the large-scale efforts of cleanup and restoration adjacent to the park’s southern boundary, which 25 26 at the site. lie on a ridge at an elevation higher than land in 26 27 the park boundary. These lands were of strategic 27 28 Existing conditions have been further described importance in the hours prior to the surrender 28 29 in the Appomattox Court House National due to access and the views afforded to the west 29 30 Historical Park Cultural Landscape Report, and to the village of Appomattox Court House. In 30 31 Volume 1 (October 2004, 100% draft). Volume 2 conjunction with the viewshed analysis, this study 31 32 will recommend treatments for the landscape and effort led to the identifi cation of parcels included 32 33 the 50% draft of volume 2 has made generalized in the proposed boundary expansion. 33 34 recommendations refl ecting each of the action 34 35 alternatives. The fi nal draft will make detailed Wetlands study and map 35 36 recommendations for treatment of the landscape 36 37 based on the selected alternative. The 2002 park wetland study concluded that 37 38 the wetland areas are subject to Section 404 38 39 Collection Management Plan (Clean Water Act of 1977) and to NPS policies. 39 40 It also updated the wetland data in the National 40 41 The NPS Northeast Museum Services Center Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map. A discussion of 41 42 prepared a Collections Management Plan in the differences between the wetlands mapped in 42 43 2002. The plan made a number of immediate 2002 with those on the NWI map is provided in 43 44 and interim recommendations for managing park the study. 44 45 collections. The long-term recommendation was 45 46 that as soon as funding is possible for design Transportation Planning Study 46 47 and construction, the park should develop a 47 48 dedicated collection storage facility in an area The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 48 49 away from the historic block of the park. The new of the Federal Highway Administration, in 49 50 facility would house that part of the collection that conjunction with Brudis & Associates, Inc., 50 51 is not being exhibited while providing space for prepared a park Transportation Planning Study 51 52 curatorial offi ces and support functions. (September 2003 fi nal draft). The purpose was to 52 53 evaluate transportation operations and conditions 53 54 Viewshed Analysis in the park and on the adjacent highway corridor 54 55 of Route 24, and to investigate how traffi c fl ow 55 56 A viewshed analysis was undertaken by the and safety conditions could be improved. The 56 57 planning team in 2002 using Geographic report recommends a multi-fold approach to 57 58 Information Systems (GIS) data and software reducing the speed along Route 24. Short term 58 59 59 34 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 recommendations include enforcement and remaining 20 percent is park visitors. 1 2 additional signage. Traffi c calming, in which 2 3 physical measures are typically employed to The results demonstrated that there was no 3 4 force drivers to slow down, is suggested as a signifi cant difference between weekend, A.M. 4 5 mid-term option. The long-term planning strategy peak, and P.M. peak traffi c patterns. However, 5 6 recommended in the study is the realignment weekend traffi c typically included through traffi c 6 7 of Route 24 to bypass the park. It was also and park visiting traffi c that was slightly higher 7 8 recommended that the residential and business than the A.M. and P.M. peak periods, indicating 8 9 community work to obtain National Scenic Byway more through trips and visitor traffi c on the 9 10 designation for the Route 24 corridor in order to weekend. The study also demonstrates that the 10 11 preserve and enhance landscapes adjacent to majority of park visitors approach the park from 11 12 the corridor. the west (from Appomattox and Highway 460). 12 13 13 14 Route 24 Traffi c Calming and Pedestrian Virginia State Route 24 Truck Traffi c Study 14 15 Safety Concepts Technical Memorandum 15 16 The 2004 study reported on the characteristics 16 17 As a follow-up to the transportation planning of truck use on Route 24 in the general area 17 18 study, a study of traffi c calming measures and of the park. Major industrial companies and 18 19 pedestrian safety concepts was undertaken for other shippers in the area were contacted to 19 20 the planning team by Lardner/Klein Landscape determine how they used the roadway, their 20 21 Architects and H.W. Lochner, Inc. The measures shipping locations, and the time of day and 21 22 are described in a technical memorandum, day of week the roadway is typically employed. 22 23 Route 24 Traffi c Calming and Pedestrian The responses indicated that the roadway is 23 24 Safety Concepts (June 2004). Traffi c calming not a preferred route for truckers and is used 24 25 is seen as a means to help achieve speeds infrequently by most of the businesses contacted. 25 26 more consistent with a desired operating speed The study did fi nd two companies that make 26 27 through a national historical park; enable the frequent use of the road, due to business 27 28 park to create safe pedestrian crossings of the operations in the vicinity of the park and the 28 29 roadway so that the southern side of the park can resulting locational advantages. 29 30 be developed for visitor use; improve the safety 30 31 of existing waysides and pull-offs; and decrease 1.10 Future Conditions 31 32 the speed differential between park visitors and 32 33 through traffi c. The memorandum noted an Proposed and Potential Private Development 33 34 emerging consensus among park managers and 34 35 community leaders about the need to lengthen Residential subdivision of forested and 35 36 visitor stay as a means to enhance community agricultural lands in the vicinity of the park, in 36 37 economic development opportunities. evidence along Route 24 between the park’s 37 38 eastern boundary and the community of Vera, 38 39 Study of Traffi c Use on Virginia State Route can be expected to continue at an increased 39 40 24 at Appomattox Court House National rate. (This is an area of related resources, where 40 41 Historical Park the armies were encamped during the truce and 41 42 surrender proceedings, described in Chapter 42 43 This study, completed in December 2003, 3) The Appomattox County Development Plan 43 44 gathered data on the characteristics of traffi c indicates that the well system in the town of 44 45 on Route 24 between VA Route 60 near Appomattox is not adequate for supporting future 45 46 Buckingham, east of Appomattox County, and industrial, commercial and residential demands. 46 47 U.S. Route 460 North, in the town of Appomattox. The town and county have been working with the 47 48 The study investigated the extent to which the Region 2000 Commission on a study of water 48 49 road serves visitor, through and commuting supply options. Should supply and wastewater 49 50 (local) traffi c on Route 24 between those two treatment systems be expanded to the east of 50 51 points. The resulting data is based on sampling the park, higher density development would 51 52 of vehicular trips and an estimation of origin and likely occur and the potential for increased traffi c 52 53 destination traffi c. The majority of traffi c (60%) volumes in the vicinity of the park would increase. 53 54 using Route 24 is estimated to be local and 54 55 commuting traffi c, traveling to and from points Moderate traffi c increases are expected from 55 56 between the two segments. Only 20 percent the development of the Appomattox Center for 56 57 of the total traffi c is through traffi c that travels Business and Commerce, projected to be fully 57 58 between VA Route 60 and US Route 460. The built out in 20 years. County planning offi cials 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 35 1 anticipate that the site’s associated truck • Cultural Resources 1 2 traffi c will be mainly north on Route 26 and will − Cultural Landscape 2 3 use US 460 to the west and south. The 2003 − Historic Structures 3 4 Transportation Study estimated that the center’s − Archeological Resources 4 5 development, when the site is fully built out, could − Park Collections 5 6 generate approximately 2,400 additional average • Natural Resources 6 7 daily trips on Route 24. The Average Daily Traffi c − Soils 7 8 volume could be expected to increase by two − Surface Water and Wetlands 8 9 percent (2%) per year. − Vegetation 9 10 − Wildlife 10 11 The Lynchburg/Madison Heights By-Pass on − Species of Special Concern 11 12 US 29 is a major regional highway improvement • Visual Resources and Values 12 13 project completed in November 2005. It was • Visitor Use and Experience 13 14 designed as an alternative to the heavily • Park Operations 14 15 congested business route in the Lynchburg • Social and Economic Environment 15 16 area, and its major terminal interchanges at the 16 17 eastern edge of Lynchburg and on the north end The impact analysis is found in Chapter 4 and 17 18 at Amherst are likely to facilitate travel between includes both direct and indirect impacts of 18 19 Appomattox County locations and the city. the alternatives and an analysis of cumulative 19 20 There is the potential of increasing residential impacts. 20 21 development pressures in the county and higher 21 22 levels of commuter traffi c. Impact Topics Considered and Dismissed 22 23 from Detailed Analysis 23 24 Long-Range Transportation Plans 24 25 Resources and environmental concerns that 25 26 The Virginia Department of Transportation would not be appreciably affected by any of 26 27 completed a study in 1999 on the feasibility of the alternatives were eliminated from further 27 28 the TransAmerica Corridor from Beckley, West consideration and comparative analysis. The 28 29 Virginia to Hampton Roads, Virginia. If built, the topics dismissed from detailed and the rationale 29 30 corridor would operate as an east/west interstate for dismissal is provided below. 30 31 and as such, would have signifi cant impacts 31 32 on communities located on the corridor. In the Air Quality 32 33 vicinity of Appomattox, it was proposed that 33 34 the corridor follow US 460. The study has not The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes standards 34 35 progressed to a full transportation planning study to protect and improve air quality and delegates 35 36 or environmental analysis, and no federal or state authority for air quality to the states. Section 118 36 37 funds have been allocated for these phases. of the Act also requires federal land managers 37 38 to protect air quality related to the use of federal 38 39 The 2003 Transportation Planning Study for lands. Based on communication with the Offi ce 39 40 the park noted the link between land use and of Air Quality Assessment in the Virginia Dept. of 40 41 transportation systems and recommended Environmental Quality, Appomattox County is in 41 42 further analysis of these ongoing or proposed attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality 42 43 improvements and the concomitant land use Standards. None of the park management 43 44 in the county and region, to ascertain potential alternatives under consideration would degrade 44 45 impacts to the directly affected communities as existing air quality conditions and potentially 45 46 well as the adjacent communities. affect the county’s attainment status. There are 46 47 no confl icts with the State Implementation Plan- 47 48 1.11 Impact Topics Air Quality Conformity. 48 49 49 50 Impact Topics Analyzed in Detail Construction of new facilities would potentially 50 51 result in and could increase in fugitive dust 51 52 Impact topics were selected for analysis by from soil exposure and disturbance. However, 52 53 determining which park resources or related this effect would occur only during construction 53 54 elements would potentially be affected by actions and would be localized. Water and dust control 54 55 proposed under the four alternatives; topics were agents would be applied during construction 55 56 also chosen to address planning issues and as necessary to control dust. While use levels 56 57 concerns. The impact topics analyzed in detail in would increase under the action alternatives, 57 58 this Draft GMP/EIS are: emissions from park related vehicular traffi c 58 59 59 36 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 would be negligible compared to current levels rivers, or other unique natural resources are 1 2 in the vicinity. Because no perceptible long- term to be considered for analysis if affected by the 2 3 impacts would result from any proposed actions, alternatives (40 CFR 1508.27). 3 4 and no cumulative impacts on air quality are 4 5 anticipated, this impact topic was eliminated from Unique Natural Resources 5 6 further evaluation. 6 7 The Virginia Natural Heritage Program has 7 8 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements identifi ed two unique vegetation communities 8 9 and Conservation Potential in the park, the Basic Seepage Swamp 9 10 and Piedmont Upland Depressional plant 10 11 No natural or depletable resources would communities. The upland swamp plant 11 12 be removed from the park as a result of any community is in the southwestern section of the 12 13 alternative. Under all alternatives, conservation park, an area where the alternatives propose 13 14 principles would be applied to ensure the no actions. The seepage swamp community is 14 15 maintenance of the park’s natural resources. in the fl oodplain of the Appomattox River in the 15 16 northeaster quadrant of the park, and it could 16 17 Climate Change potentially be affected by a new facility in one 17 18 of the alternatives. However, until a specifi c 18 19 On a global scale, changes in climate are location has been determined, the impacts of 19 20 associated with the increase in levels of this action on this resource cannot be measured. 20 21 greenhouse gases that result from produced by Therefore, one community will not be affected 21 22 the burning of fossil fuels and the removal of vast by proposed actions, and there is insuffi cient 22 23 tracts of vegetation, primarily tropical rainforests. information at present to analyze impacts on the 23 24 Increased use of fossil fuels within the park would other. At the time that a new facility is planned, 24 25 occur primarily as a result of increased visitation site-specifi c studies and compliance will be done, 25 26 and the associated use of fossil fuel–burning in consultation with the appropriate agencies, 26 27 vehicles. However, the effects of additional to avoid and minimize any adverse impacts to 27 28 vehicle emissions on climate change are not unique vegetation communities. 28 29 evaluated further, as park related increases 29 30 would represent only a negligible increment of Nationwide Rivers Inventory 30 31 cumulative effects. The addition of new structures 31 32 would contribute to the consumption of fuel for Under a 1979 Presidential directive and related 32 33 heating and cooling. Any new structures would be Council on Environmental Quality procedures, all 33 34 constructed to meet standards and guidelines for federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate 34 35 energy effi ciency and other facets of sustainable actions that would adversely affect one or more 35 36 design and would minimize the consumption of segments of rivers listed on the Nationwide 36 37 fossil fuels. Rivers Inventory. These river segments have 37 38 the potential to be considered eligible for 38 39 Conformity with Land Use Plans, Policies or designation as a unit of the National Wild and 39 40 Controls Scenic Rivers System. The segment of the 40 41 Appomattox River that fl ows through the park 41 42 Possible confl icts between the proposed actions is listed in the inventory as possessing one or 42 43 and land use plans, policies or controls at the more “outstandingly remarkable” cultural values 43 44 state and local levels are to be considered that are more than local or regional signifi cance 44 45 if potentially affected by one or more of the (see Chapter 3 -Affected Environment). For 45 46 alternatives. No confl icts with local, regional or all alternatives under consideration, the park 46 47 state plans and policies are expected as a result would ensure protection of the values for which 47 48 the implementation of any of the alternatives. The the segment through the park was listed on the 48 49 existing and proposed land uses of Appomattox inventory. The topic is not further considered 49 50 Court House NHP are in conformance with local for analysis, as the alternatives do not propose 50 51 land use plans; further, a number of actions in the specifi c actions that would have a measurable 51 52 alternatives would promote objectives expressed impact on these values. 52 53 in local, regional, and state planning initiatives. 53 54 Environmental Justice 54 55 Ecologically Critical Areas and other Unique 55 56 Natural Resources Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 56 57 Address Environmental Justice in Minority 57 58 Ecologically critical areas, wild and scenic Populations and Low-Income Populations, 58 59 59 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 37 1 requires federal agencies to avoid actions that environmental documents. The federal Indian 1 2 could cause disproportionately high and adverse trust responsibility is a legally enforceable 2 3 impacts on minority and low-income populations fi duciary obligation on the part of the United 3 4 with respect to human health and environment. States to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, 4 5 Federal actions stemming from the Appomattox and treaty rights, and it represents a duty to carry 5 6 Court House GMP are not anticipated to result in out the mandates of federal law with respect to 6 7 any identifi able adverse effects to human health American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. There 7 8 or the regional environment, and impacts on the are no Indian trust resources in Appomattox 8 9 socioeconomic environment are not expected Courthouse NHP or its general vicinity. The lands 9 10 to signifi cantly alter the physical and social composing the park are not held in trust by the 10 11 structure of nearby communities. The planning Secretary of the Interior for the benefi t of Indians 11 12 team eliminated this impact topic from further due to their status as Indians. Therefore, Indian 12 13 evaluation, because none of the alternatives trust resources were dismissed as an impact 13 14 presented in this document would result in topic. 14 15 disproportionately high adverse environmental 15 16 effects on minority or low- income communities. According to Executive Order 13007 regarding 16 17 “Indian Sacred Sites” (1996), the NPS will 17 18 Floodplains accommodate, to the extent practicable, access 18 19 to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by 19 20 The park contains a number of perennial religious practitioners from recognized American 20 21 and intermittent streams and a branch of the Indian and Alaska Native tribes and would avoid 21 22 Appomattox River that are subject to fl ooding adversely affecting the integrity of such sacred 22 23 following major storms. The fl oodplains have sites. Based on historical data, including the 23 24 been substantially modifi ed by agricultural review of archeological resources in the vicinity 24 25 practices over time, but they contain important of the park in the draft Archeological Overview 25 26 habitat for fi sh and wildlife and support native and Assessment and tribal land information, no 26 27 riparian vegetation communities. The alternatives known sacred sites are found within the park. 27 28 would not change the character of fl oodplains or Therefore, sacred sites was dismissed as an 28 29 affect the occurrence of natural geomorphologic impact topic. 29 30 processes No critical actions as defi ned in the 30 31 NPS fl oodplain management guidelines are Lightscapes 31 32 involved, and therefore, the topic was dismissed 32 33 from further analysis. NPS Management Policies 2006 state that 33 34 the National Park Service will preserve, to the 34 35 Geology greatest extent possible, the natural lightscapes 35 36 of parks, including natural darkness. Park 36 37 Appomattox County is in the Piedmont Plateau management limits the use of night lighting to 37 38 physiographic region of south-central Virginia, levels required to ensure public safety around 38 39 bounded on the east by the Fall Zone separating park facilities and secure its resources. Generally, 39 40 the Piedmont from the Coastal Plain, and on the the park is closed after dark and has few night 40 41 west by the Blue Ridge province. The Piedmont programs. The alternatives presented in this 41 42 is characterized by gently rolling topography, document do not propose a signifi cant increase 42 43 deeply weathered bedrock and solid rock in night programs. Because the alternatives 43 44 outcrops. The area in the vicinity of Appomattox would not cause a perceptible change in the 44 45 Court House NHP is composed of metamorphic natural lightscape, this issue was eliminated from 45 46 schist and gneisses, typical of the Virginia further evaluation. 46 47 Piedmont. Park managers anticipate that the 47 48 level of development proposed in the alternatives Soundscapes 48 49 would have no perceptible effects on the geology 49 50 of the park. Therefore, this topic was dismissed None of the actions proposed in the alternatives 50 51 from further consideration. would alter the natural soundscape, although 51 52 they could affect noise levels on a site-specifi c 52 53 Indian Trust Resources and Sacred Sites or local basis. Noise levels could be expected to 53 54 increase due to equipment use when facilities 54 55 Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any are built or improved under the alternatives, 55 56 anticipated impacts to Indian trust resources which would only temporarily affect noise levels 56 57 from a proposed project or action by Department in part of the park. The presence of additional 57 58 of Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in visitors may lead to increased noise levels along 58 59 59 38 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action 1 some trails, parking areas and waysides, but in two locations in the park. Because actions in 1 2 at disparate times. The primary noise source the alternatives could potentially affect the habitat 2 3 from NPS actions would continue to be outdoor of the mole salamander, the proposed actions 3 4 maintenance activities but a major variance from are analyzed in the topic of Species of Special 4 5 current noise levels would not occur. Because Concern. The locations of the plant species of 5 6 any impacts on noise levels would not vary management concern to the state have not been 6 7 signifi cantly from current noise levels, this impact mapped or described. While facilities proposed 7 8 topic was eliminated from further evaluation of in any of the alternatives could potentially affect 8 9 proposed NPS actions. these species, it would not be possible to analyze 9 10 Noise effects from vehicular traffi c on Route 24 impacts until specifi c site planning is initiated 10 11 are considered under cumulative impacts in the and more information is available. Therefore, 11 12 visitor use and experience topic. the topic of state-listed plant species of special 12 13 concern has been dismissed from detailed 13 14 Rare, Endangered and Threatened Species analysis. At the time that any site-specifi c actions 14 15 are implemented, additional investigations will 15 16 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires be done to determine if state-listed species 16 17 examination of impacts on all federally listed are present and what measures could be 17 18 threatened, endangered, and candidate species. implemented to protect them to the extent 18 19 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act possible. 19 20 requires all federal agencies to consult with 20 21 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Water quality 21 22 (or designated representative) to ensure that 22 23 any action authorized, funded, or carried out by Water quality in the park’s streams appears to be 23 24 the agency does not jeopardize the continued most infl uenced by the presence of cattle grazing 24 25 existence of listed species or critical habitats. on fi elds next to streams. Park management 25 26 NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006) policies have been modifi ed recently to address 26 27 directs the NPS to consult with state agencies this practice within the boundary through fi eld 27 28 regarding potential impacts to state-listed leasing arrangements. However, water quality 28 29 endangered or threatened species, or species of may continue to be infl uenced by pollutants 29 30 special concern. outside the park boundary. The alternatives do 30 31 not propose actions that would affect the water 31 32 In a letter dated July 27, 2006, the USFWS quality of streams, groundwater sources or 32 33 indicated that the proposed action will not aquifers. Therefore, this topic was dismissed 33 34 adversely affect federally listed species or from further consideration. 34 35 federally designated critical habitat because no 35 36 federally listed species are known to occur in the 36 37 project area. Therefore, the topic of federally- 37 38 listed threatened or endangered species has 38 39 been dismissed from further analysis. 39 40 40 41 However, there are State Species of Special 41 42 Concern and species of management concern, 42 43 as identifi ed by the Virginia Natural Heritage 43 44 Program. These species would be covered 44 45 by NPS policy, which directs that parks 45 46 identify biologically vulnerable species, initiate 46 47 conservation measures, and alleviate threats 47 48 that, if unchecked, may lead to the decline of 48 49 the species and possible federal listing. Parks 49 50 are further directed to avoid the destruction or 50 51 adverse modifi cation of critical habitat for rare 51 52 species, and to protect designated critical habitat 52 53 to the fullest extent possible. 53 54 54 55 A single wildlife species, the mole salamander, 55 56 has been proposed for listing as a state 56 57 endangered species. Its habitat requirements are 57 58 generally understood, and it has been observed 58 59 59 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 C HAPTER TWO: ALTERNATIVES30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 40 Chapter 2: Alternatives

1 CHAPTER TWO: ALTERNATIVES 2.2 Alternative 1- No Action/Continuation 1 2 of Present Management Direction 2 3 2.1 Introduction 3 4 Overview 4 5 NPS recognizes that there is more than one 5 6 way to manage park resources to carry out Main Idea: The park conveys the signifi cance 6 7 the purpose of the park, provide for resource of the events and associated stories in April 7 8 protection, and enhance visitor experiences. 1865 that brought the nation together and set 8 9 Alternatives, therefore, address different ways to it on its present course. The setting is one 9 10 achieve natural and cultural resource protection, in which visitors can feel the physical and 10 11 visitor use and experience, partnerships, and emotional realities of the events that occurred 11 12 park operations. Some actions portrayed here. (From the park’s current Mission 12 13 in this GMP are common to each of the Statement) 13 14 alternatives, meaning that they would be carried 14 15 out regardless of the alternative selected for Under this alternative, there is no change 15 16 implementation. in direction; plans already in place are 16 17 implemented. While restoration and rehabilitation 17 18 This chapter presents four alternatives for efforts previously planned occur, maintenance 18 19 the future of Appomattox Court House NHP. of the park’s existing conditions is the general 19 20 Alternative 1 (“no action”) assumes the approach. Historic buildings continue to be used 20 21 continuation of current management practices, for administrative offi ces. Park collections are 21 22 and serves as a baseline against which the centralized to the extent possible in the interim 22 23 others are measured. The action alternatives--2, collections storage facility, and the library and 23 24 3 and 4--express different ways of achieving the some collections continue to be housed in 24 25 park’s purpose and mission goals. They were historic buildings. The park would not participate 25 26 developed through public comment and agency in the regional collections initiative. The park 26 27 analysis from preliminary concepts that were continues to use the current maintenance facility. 27 28 presented to the public in a December 2003 The visitor experience continues to be primarily 28 29 open house and in newsletter #2 for the planning oriented to the village. The trail system continues 29 30 project. The newsletter was distributed through in its current form and is not expanded to the new 30 31 the project mailing list in early 2004. Additional land area. The park boundary continues to be 31 32 opportunities for public comment will be available unchanged except for minor adjustments through 32 33 upon the release of this draft plan. donations or by willing sellers. 33 34 34 35 A distinguishing aspect of each alternative is Resource Protection/Cultural and Natural 35 36 its interpretive emphasis. Each of the action Resource Management 36 37 alternatives places primary emphasis on one 37 38 of the three interpretive themes described in For the most part, the existing character of the 38 39 Chapter 1. Each alternative is also inclusive of landscape is retained. Elements that refl ect 19th 39 40 the other two themes. century features continue to be maintained. Non- 40 41 contributing structures continue to be removed 41 42 The treatment of the cultural landscape from key areas of the park, and the retention of a 42 43 follows from the interpretive emphasis and rural scenic setting continues to guide treatment 43 44 the desired visitor experience. Rehabilitation of the landscape. The rural setting continues 44 45 and preservation are employed in all three to be maintained through modern agricultural 45 46 action alternatives. The essential features, practices, with large fi elds used for feed crops 46 47 integrity and character of the landscape would and smaller fi elds for the planting of native 47 48 be retained, as required by NPS management grasses. The character of the village landscape 48 49 policies regarding rehabilitation. The time period continues to be maintained by mowed turf, 49 50 selected for physical representation differs, fencing and historic plant types. 50 51 however. For Alternative 2, the c. 1865 period 51 52 or mid-19th century is the approach for selected Management of historic structures in the 52 53 features of the landscape, in order to support village continues to focus on stabilization and 53 54 the proposed interpretive emphasis and desired maintenance. Buildings in the village continue 54 55 visitor experience. For alternatives 3 and 4, the to be kept in good repair. Previously planned 55 56 rehabilitation period is the mid to late 19th and restoration projects continue to take place to 56 57 early 20th century. support interpretation of the surrender events, 57 58 such as the recent restoration of part of the 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 41 1 interior of the Clover Hill Tavern. continue to be the main focus of the visit. Most 1 2 visitors will continue to go to the McLean House 2 3 Most park collections continue to be housed and view the exhibits at the visitor center, with 3 4 in the centralized storage facility designed far fewer visitors walking to the Salute Site. The 4 5 for interim use. The park would not accept interpretive sites along Route 24 continue to 5 6 collections from other parks through the regional remain in the self-guided tour. The vernacular 6 7 consolidation of storage facilities. The collection and battlefi eld resources on the new lands added 7 8 of historical documentation follows the existing to the park in the 1990s continue to be minimally 8 9 Scope of Collections statement. Research interpreted and access continues to be extremely 9 10 focuses on the soldiers involved in the surrender limited. 10 11 events and the battles preceding the surrender. 11 12 Village paths continue to be the main circulation 12 13 Visitor Experience and Use routes. Visitors continue to be guided to the 13 14 picnic tables at Abbitt Park in the Town of 14 15 The park continues to convey the signifi cance Appomattox. The park continues to host school 15 16 of the events and associated stories in April groups and maintain park-specifi c lesson plans, 16 17 1865 that contributed to the end of the Civil based on the Virginia Standards for Learning 17 18 War, brought the nation together and set it on developed in conjunction with Longwood 18 19 its present course, as described in the current University. Within available time constraints, the 19 20 Mission Statement. Interpretive themes continue historian and curator continue to assist visitors, 20 21 to focus on the events of the surrender, the researchers and community residents in research 21 22 legacy of the Civil War, and village life during inquiries. 22 23 a time period between the years leading up 23 24 to and immediately following the surrender Partnerships and Cooperative Actions 24 25 on April 9, 1865. The park continues to seek 25 26 to provide a setting in which visitors see the The park continues to work with others, non- 26 27 physical features of the historic events and feel profi t groups or individual landowners, to 27 28 the emotions engendered by them. Interpretive protect related lands on an ad hoc basis when 28 29 programming continues to emphasize the topics opportunities arise or lands are threatened. The 29 30 of the surrender, reunifi cation, and daily life in the park continues to be an active participant in 30 31 mid-1800s. Stories of those “who were engaged” Lee’s Retreat Consortium, one of two heritage 31 32 continue to be incorporated in media, special tourism driving routes in the region. The park also 32 33 exhibits and programming, typically through continues to sponsor a site on the Civil Rights in 33 34 personal accounts of soldiers and civilians in the Education Heritage Trail, the other heritage route. 34 35 community. Through the consortium, the park continues to 35 36 coordinate with Petersburg National Battlefi eld. 36 37 Personal services at the McLean House and The scope of activities would continue to be 37 38 living history presentations through the summer limited to marketing and similar ventures. 38 39 months continue to be the key factor in the The park continues to host an annual anniversary 39 40 quality of the visitor experience. The displays of the surrender as well as to recruit nationally 40 41 of village life continue in several buildings, known historians for the Annual Civil War 41 42 including the Jones Law Offi ce and Meeks Store. Seminar co-hosted with Longwood University. It 42 43 A modest exhibit on slave life currently slated for continues to work with local and regional groups, 43 44 the McLean House Kitchen would be completed. often in conjunction with special events such as 44 45 Park staff would continue to implement plans the Christmas Open House coordinated with the 45 46 underway to rehabilitate an exhibit on the battle Appomattox Garden Club. Park staff continues to 46 47 of Appomattox station at the Appomattox County coordinate with the county tourism director and 47 48 visitor center. The Clover Hill Tavern Slave the Appomattox County Chamber of Commerce 48 49 Quarters continues to be used as restrooms and on local visitor initiatives. 49 50 interpreted as slave quarters from the exterior. 50 51 The park continues to promote safety 51 52 The visit continues as a predominately self- improvements on Route 24, working with 52 53 guided tour and exploration of the village. the local and regional offi ces of the Virginia 53 54 A stop at the McLean House, where a park Department of Transportation. Safety 54 55 ranger provides interpretation of the surrender, improvements that may result under this 55 56 followed by viewing of the museum exhibits in alternative include speed alerts and pedestrian 56 57 the courthouse, and the two 15 minute media crossing signs. Neither actual speeds nor the 57 58 presentations in the visitor center theatre posted speed limit is expected to be reduced. 58 59 59

Chapter 2: Alternatives 43 1 The park continues to advocate the relocation projects that have been approved and have 1 2 of Route 24 from its present through-the-park- received a funding commitment from the 2 3 location. sponsoring program. This category represents 3 4 a single project, the repaving of Gordon Road, 4 5 Operational Effi ciency funded at $575,000. Otherwise the alternative 5 6 would continue at current levels, with no 6 7 Park collections continue to be housed in the additional development or changes to facilities. 7 8 interim storage facility, the Isbell House, Mariah 8 9 Wright House and visitor center. The public 2.3 Management Prescriptions – Common 9 10 continues to access the park library on the to all Action Alternatives 10 11 second fl oor of the Isbell House. Administrative 11 12 offi ces continue to remain in the Isbell House Statements of desirable resource conditions 12 13 and upper fl oor of Meeks Store. Incremental and visitor experiences, or management 13 14 improvements continue to be made to the prescriptions, address park goals and issues 14 15 existing maintenance facility, particularly for presented in Chapter I and form the basis 15 16 safety, where funding permits. for development of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 16 17 Except for authorized minor boundary These general concepts defi ne the conditions 17 18 adjustments, the park would continue to maintain and experiences that are to be achieved and 18 19 the current boundary. maintained for the park over time. 19 20 20 21 Costs for Alternative One Parkwide prescriptions are not linked to a 21 22 particular place, but are applied to the park as a 22 23 Costs are presented in two categories: annual whole. Complementing the general prescriptions 23 24 operating costs and one-time costs. Annual are those that apply to specifi c geographic 24 25 or recurring costs include those associated locations, described in the next section. The 25 26 with ongoing maintenance, utilities, staffi ng, parkwide management prescriptions, common to 26 27 vehicles, supplies and materials, and any leasing all action alternatives, follow: 27 28 costs. One-time costs, which are generally 28 29 considered capital investments, are associated Cultural and Natural Resource Management 29 30 with such actions as the removal of resources, 30 31 the restoration and rehabilitation of resources, • Natural and cultural resource 31 32 additions to structure, development of new management decisions are based 32 33 exhibits, and research and planning. on adequate scholarly and scientifi c 33 34 information, thorough research and 34 35 Annual Costs planning and consistent monitoring, 35 36 and conform to applicable policies 36 37 This alternative refl ects the 21 full-time equivalent and regulations. 37 38 positions (FTEs) currently assigned to the park. 38 • The needs of park management 39 This staffi ng level would continue in Alternative 39 guide ongoing research such as 40 1. One FTE is one person working 40 hours 40 cultural landscape and architectural 41 per week for one year, or the equivalent. The 41 reports, and archeological 42 FTEs are divided among the following divisions: 42 investigations so as to inform all 43 Administration (the superintendent and two 43 interpretive and preservation efforts. 44 staff positions); Museum Services (curator 44 The park contributes to and acts 45 and one museum technician); Park Historian; 45 as a repository for the public’s 46 Maintenance (facility manager and seven 46 knowledge about natural and 47 maintenance workers and specialists); Natural 47 cultural resources within the park 48 Resources (one natural resource specialist); 48 and their associated values. 49 and Education and Visitor Services (division 49 50 chief, one interpretive park ranger, four park • The park’s scenic setting remains 50 51 guides). Salaries and benefi ts are covered in the relatively undisturbed and its rural 51 52 park’s annual operating budget of $1,345,000 character is enhanced through the 52 53 (2008 dollars; from the FY08 Enacted, 2009 management of viewsheds, fi elds, 53 54 Greenbook). and forests. 54 55 55 • Sensitive natural resources and 56 One-time Costs 56 habitats (water, wetlands, riparian 57 57 corridors, native plants/wildlife 58 The estimate of one-time costs refl ects proposed 58 and communities) are inventoried, 59 59 44 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 monitored and managed to retain through the lens of the landscape. 1 2 and restore their ecological integrity; Visitors understand that different 2 3 maintain the viability of species meanings of the surrender evolve 3 4 populations; and perpetuate species over time, and that commemorative 4 5 diversity, while protecting the quality expressions and preservation help 5 6 and character of the park’s cultural shape the site and its resources. 6 7 resources. 7 • Visitors understand the connections 8 8 • Signifi cant cultural resources, between the events at Appomattox 9 9 including landscapes, archeological Court House NHP and other Civil 10 10 sites, and collections, are War related sites through links to 11 11 documented, stabilized, preserved stories, common themes and related 12 12 or maintained, and treatments resources. Visitors are actively 13 13 are consistent with the selected encouraged to understand regional 14 14 approach to site management and context and to visit other federal, 15 15 interpretation. state and locally managed historic 16 16 sites and attractions to understand 17 • The existing relatively undeveloped, 17 their relationship to the Appomattox 18 free-fl owing, scenic, and historic 18 Campaign, the Surrender and its 19 characteristics of the Appomattox 19 aftermath. 20 River corridor are preserved and 20 21 protected. • Exploration of the village area from 21 22 the Peers House to the McLean 22 • Park collections, including historic 23 House provides the basis for 23 archives, artifacts and objects, are 24 understanding site history and the 24 stored and displayed in centralized, 25 park’s interpretive themes. Visitors 25 accessible, secured facilities 26 are encouraged to experience sites 26 and protected according to NPS 27 beyond the village core and to 27 standards. 28 understand the broader landscape 28 29 • Operating facilities and support uses are as it relates to the park’s interpretive 29 30 located where they have minimal impact on themes. Visitors’ understanding of 30 31 signifi cant resources. key events and their appreciation 31 32 of the site are enhanced through 32 33 interpretive views/observation 33 Interpretation and Visitor Use 34 points. 34 35 35 • Visitors understand that the events • Visitors approaching the park 36 36 at Appomattox Court House NHP clearly distinguish its entry points 37 37 are part of the continuum and and experience a scenic, rural 38 38 evolution of the Civil War and that environment as they travel through 39 39 they both fi t into and affected its the park and access points within it. 40 40 course. Visitors understand the 41 • Visitors safely access the park, 41 importance of the Appomattox 42 buildings and sites that support 42 Campaign and Surrender in 43 interpretation of the park’s primary 43 determining the outcomes of the 44 stories, and visitor amenity areas. 44 war. 45 45 • Appomattox Court House NHP 46 • Visitors understand that the events 46 facilities, programs and sites 47 at Appomattox Court House were 47 are universally accessible to the 48 and are perceived and valued 48 extent possible. Universal design 49 differently by different people- 49 considers the accessibility needs 50 -depending on race, gender, 50 of the physically less mobile or 51 geographic origin, age, or military 51 immobile, and visual and aural 52 and socioeconomic status. Each 52 impairments. The NPS recognizes 53 visitor is given the opportunity 53 that non-physical barriers infl uence 54 to engage the park’s story from 54 park accessibility for populations 55 multiple perspectives. 55 that have traditionally made minimal 56 56 • Visitors understand the signifi cant use of the park. Understanding that 57 57 place that Appomattox Court House not all of the interested public will 58 58 NHP holds in national memory physically access the park, the NPS 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 45 1 expands alternate educational and and private landowners to foster 1 2 interpretive opportunities, such as the protection and enhancement 2 3 through website offerings and other of cultural and natural resources 3 4 media. adjacent to the park; to manage, 4 5 maintain, and restore natural 5 • Park facilities, programs 6 processes that cross park 6 and services recognize and 7 boundaries; and to address 7 accommodate a variety of learning 8 regional linkages. Partnerships 8 styles and behaviors and address 9 are developed to promote visitor 9 the diverse needs of visitors 10 understanding and stewardship 10 who stay for varying lengths of 11 of the park’s natural resources. 11 time. Visitors have access to 12 Partnerships with area universities 12 information about themes, activities 13 enhance the park’s ability to 13 and programs, are able to make 14 understand its resources. 14 informed decisions about how they 15 15 should experience and learn about • NPS joins local communities, state agencies 16 16 the park and related sites, and can and other NPS and non-NPS partners in 17 17 plan for an appropriate length of efforts to protect, enhance and interpret 18 18 stay. non-adjacent cultural and natural resources 19 19 related to the mission of Appomattox Court 20 • The NPS participates in regional greenway 20 House NHP. 21 development and recreational trail 21 22 strategies, considering safe, appropriate 22 23 connections with the park’s trail system. Operational Effi ciency 23 24 Passive recreational uses such as hiking 24 25 and bird watching are managed to ensure • Administrative facilities effi ciently 25 26 protection of park resources and visitor accommodate park needs. 26 27 safety and do not impact the historic scene. 27 • Staff safely accesses and uses park 28 Opportunities for integrating recreation 28 facilities and management areas. 29 compatible with the site’s educational 29 30 purpose are expanded. • The on-site NPS presence during 30 31 and after park hours of operation is 31 32 increased to enhance protection of 32 Partnerships and Cooperative Actions 33 resources and visitor safety. 33 34 34 • Existing park partnerships are • Staffi ng levels are suffi cient to 35 35 continued and strengthened, and support sustained and integrated 36 36 new partnerships with public and research and interpretive 37 37 private entities are developed in programming, and to maintain park 38 38 order to expand NPS ability to resources. 39 39 protect, maintain, and enhance 40 • The fi eld management program 40 park resources and to provide high 41 is managed to enhance the rural 41 quality visitor experiences and 42 character of the park and the 42 interpretation. Linkages with related 43 protection of its cultural and natural 43 sites outside the park boundary help 44 resources. 44 the park expand its ability to tell 45 45 important park stories. Relationships • Effective decisions about the use of 46 46 with constituency groups enrich park land and structures on former term 47 47 programming and support special estates and inholdings are based on 48 48 events. a consideration of the full context of 49 49 NPS management policies and park 50 • NPS collaborates with the local and 50 management prescriptions. 51 regional community in developing 51 52 strategies to achieve mutual benefi ts • The park takes an entrepreneurial 52 53 in the areas of resource protection, approach to managing its resources, 53 54 tourism, and transportation, and to exploring a wide range of non- 54 55 promote a safe and satisfying visitor NPS fi nancial resources to defray 55 56 experience. capital and operational costs and to 56 57 enhance the visitor experience, in 57 • NPS partners with federal, state 58 accordance with Director’s Order 21 58 and local government, non-profi ts 59 59 46 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 (on donations and fundraising). • Historic structures are managed 1 2 through rehabilitation or 2 3 preservation. 3 Zone-Specifi c Management Prescriptions 4 4 – Common to All Action Alternatives • The landscape is managed through 5 5 rehabilitation. 6 6 Using a method called management zoning, the 7 • Landscape treatment is oriented towards 7 GMP identifi es and describes a range of desired 8 support of the interpretive program. 8 resource conditions and visitor experiences 9 9 associated with specifi c geographic areas within 10 10 the park boundary. Four zones are proposed Tertiary Visitor Use Zone 11 11 for the park: 1) Primary Visitor Use Zone; 2) 12 12 Secondary Visitor Use Zone; 3) Tertiary Visitor • Historic structures are managed 13 13 Use Zone; and 4) Park Administration Zone. through preservation. 14 14 The management prescriptions, which articulate • The landscape is managed through 15 15 the resource conditions and visitor experiences preservation, rehabilitation of 16 16 that would be achieved over time, are presented habitats and of historic road traces. 17 17 below by zone. • Areas of sensitive natural or cultural 18 18 resources are not accessible through the 19 19 A basic idea shared by the action alternatives is trail system. 20 20 that visitors would be able to access most areas 21 21 within the park, although areas where sensitive Park Administration Zone 22 22 cultural and natural resources exist may not be 23 23 open to general access. Thus, visitor use zones • Resources are modifi ed for park 24 24 cover much of the land within the park, with park operational needs and non historic 25 25 administration allocated to relatively small areas. additions to the landscape are 26 26 A major zoning difference among the alternatives expected. 27 27 is the extent of land allocated to the primary and • The impacts of activities on the landscape 28 28 secondary visitor use zones. These zones are would be reduced by screening or other 29 29 where visitors could access resources directly as appropriate methods. 30 30 part of the interpretive program. Visitor services, 31 31 information and programming would also be Visitor Use 32 32 available in these zones. In the tertiary visitor use 33 33 zone, there would be limited development and Primary Visitor Use Zone 34 34 direction, and visitors would explore the park at 35 35 their own pace. • Facilities may include the following 36 36 elements: visitor center, fi lms, exhibits, 37 37 Resource Management waysides, comfort facilities including 38 38 restrooms and vending machines; parking 39 39 Primary Visitor Use Zone lot; concessions (bookstore). 40 40 41 • Uses are focused on orientation, education, 41 • Historic structures and landscapes 42 multiple ways to encourage visitor 42 are managed through restoration, 43 understanding and visitor comfort and 43 reconstruction (depending on 44 support 44 adequacy of data and approval 45 45 by the Director of the NPS), • Visitors receive ranger contact. First person 46 46 rehabilitation or preservation. interpretation or other personal services are 47 47 frequently scheduled. 48 • Visitor facilities and services are 48 49 generally managed in this zone in • A moderate to high degree of structure and 49 50 the context of resource protection direction for visitor use is provided by staff, 50 51 and ensuring safety. Resources may interpretive programs and media. The visitor 51 52 be modifi ed to accommodate the experience may be self–guided or ranger– 52 53 needs of the visitor. led. 53 54 54 • Non-historic additions are sensitive • There is a high probability of encountering 55 55 to the cultural and historical context other visitors, NPS staff, and some exposure 56 56 of the surrounding area. to park operations can be expected. 57 57 58 • Secondary Visitor Use Zone • A low to moderate level of physical exertion 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 47 1 is required for most visitors. Some may fi nd • A moderate to high level of physical exertion 1 2 that the distances to be traversed on foot is required for some sections of the trail in 2 3 require a high level of exertion. this zone. The nearest water fountain or 3 4 comfort station could require a walk as long 4 • The village is connected to the park-wide 5 as 15 minutes in some areas. 5 trail system and village circulation routes 6 6 may be part of the trail system. 7 7 Park Administration Zone 8 8 9 Secondary Visitor Use Zone 9 • Visitors would access park operational 10 10 facilities in this zone for research and 11 • Facilities may include the following 11 library use. Higher traffi c densities could be 12 elements: parking lot; comfort station; 12 expected. 13 picnic areas; provisions for group access; 13 14 and information kiosks or similar elements • Screening or other appropriate methods 14 15 that provide interpretation, education or reduce the impacts of operational activities 15 16 orientation services. on adjacent visitor use zones. 16 17 17 • Visitors are exposed to park stories and 18 18 can interact with the historic landscape. Operational Effi ciency 19 19 The attention of the visitor is focused on an 20 20 onsite, or in-the-resource, experience. Primary Visitor Use Zone 21 21 22 • Uses are focused on visitor understanding 22 • Facilities are intensely managed for safety 23 of the resources and visitor safety and 23 purposes. 24 comfort. 24 25 • Interpretive division staff has quarters in a 25 • There is a moderate degree of structure and 26 rehabilitated historic structure. 26 direction, though the experience is mainly 27 27 self--guided. Programmed activities and • Bookstore operations, bookstore storage 28 28 ranger-led walking hikes or tours may take and concessions may be located in one or 29 29 place occasionally. more historic structures or relocated to a 30 30 new structure. 31 • A trail system and/or connections to the trail 31 32 exist. • Park housing provides a measure of on-site 32 33 security 33 • A moderate to high probability of 34 34 encountering visitors and park staff is 35 35 expected. A low to moderate level of Secondary Visitor Use Zone 36 36 physical exertion is required. 37 37 • The fi eld management program enhances 38 38 interpretation and the scenic setting. 39 Tertiary Visitor Use Zone 39 40 40 Tertiary Visitor Use Zone 41 • Walking and hiking to view and understand 41 42 cultural and natural resources or for passive 42 • The fi eld management program enhances 43 recreation are primary activities. Visitors 43 the scenic setting and resource protection 44 explore and discover the park’s unique 44 45 resources at their own pace. 45 Park Administration Zone 46 46 • A trail system and/or connections to the trail 47 47 are present. The trail system may be the • Administrative functions and facilities are 48 48 only means of access to some areas in this consolidated. 49 49 zone. 50 • Collections are fully centralized and 50 51 • Development is limited, providing for suffi cient space for collections management 51 52 visitor wayfi nding and understanding of is provided. 52 53 the resources and the landscape such 53 • Updated maintenance operations are 54 as through waysides and signage; for 54 provided in this zone. If a site outside 55 maintenance access and provisions for 55 the boundary is selected for the main 56 natural resource research. 56 maintenance facility, satellite facilities 57 57 • There is a low to moderate probability of provide limited on-site convenience. 58 58 encountering other visitors and park staff. 59 59 48 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 • Facilities are managed for safety purposes. resource protection have been considered 1 2 and are not adequate 2 3 3 2.4 Proposed Boundary Expansion Area 4 4 -- Common to all Action Alternatives 5 During the course of the planning process, an 5 6 area adjacent to the park’s southern boundary 6 The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 7 has been identifi ed as a potential addition to 7 (Public Law 95-625, U.S.C. 1a.7) directs the 8 Appomattox Court House National Historical 8 National Park Service to consider, as part of a 9 Park. The area contains eight contiguous parcels 9 planning process, what boundary modifi cations 10 and approximately 700 acres. The following is a 10 might be necessary to carry out the park 11 review of the criteria for boundary adjustments 11 purposes. Subsequent to this act, Congress also 12 included as supporting documentation for 12 passed Public Law 101-628, the Arizona Desert 13 the three action alternatives, each of which 13 Wilderness Act. Section 1216 of this act directs 14 recommend the boundary change. 14 the Secretary of the Interior to develop criteria to 15 15 evaluate any proposed changes to the existing 16 Applying NPS Boundary Adjustment Criteria 16 boundaries of individual park units. Section 17 17 1217 of the act calls for the NPS to consult 18 Criterion: to protect signifi cant resources and 18 with affected agencies and others regarding a 19 values or enhance opportunities for public 19 proposed boundary change, and to provide a 20 enjoyment related to the purposes of the park 20 cost estimate of acquisition cost, if any, related to 21 21 the boundary adjustment. 22 One of the purposes of the park is to highlight 22 23 its role in the Appomattox Campaign, and to 23 These legislative provisions are implemented 24 preserve and interpret the last two battles of the 24 through NPS Management Policies that state the 25 campaign, Appomattox Station and Appomattox 25 NPS will conduct studies of potential boundary 26 Court House, which preceded the surrender 26 adjustments and may make boundary revisions if 27 at Appomattox Court House. Starting with the 27 authorized by Congress. Boundary adjustments 28 Confederate retreat from Petersburg in March 28 may be recommended if they fulfi ll at least one of 29 of 1865, and ending with the Surrender at 29 the following criteria to: 30 Appomattox Court House, Confederate and 30 31 Union forces engaged in battle actions spread 31 • Protect signifi cant resources and values, or 32 out over 100 miles. It was the combination of 32 enhance opportunities for public enjoyment 33 factors of topography, location of rail lines and 33 related to the purposes of the park 34 the condition of the Confederate soldiers that 34 35 • Address operational and management led, in the main, to the dramatic close of the 35 36 issues such as the need for access and campaign at Appomattox Court House. Important 36 37 for the boundaries to correspond to logical resources associated with this closing battle are 37 38 boundary delineations such as topographic located within the park and just outside of its 38 39 or other natural features or roads boundaries to the south. 39 40 40 • Or otherwise protect park resources critical 41 The boundary expansion will protect important 41 to fulfi lling park purposes. 42 viewshed values, preserve nationally signifi cant 42 43 battle related resources, and provide access and 43 44 Two additional criteria must be met if the opportunities for interpretation. Further protection 44 45 acquisition would be made using appropriated of these resources will enable the park to tell a 45 46 funds, and not merely a technical boundary more complete story and enable park visitors to 46 47 revision, as set forth by Congress at 16 U.S. fully appreciate the scope of Lee’s fi nal retreat, 47 48 4601-9(c)(2). Section 3.5 of NPS Management the nature of the last battle of the Appomattox 48 49 Policies also states the criteria: Campaign, and to answer the question of why the 49 50 surrender took place in the village of Appomattox 50 51 • The added lands will be feasible to Court House and the valley beyond. The historic 51 52 administer, considering their size, structures on most of these sites are no longer 52 53 confi guration, ownership, and hazardous extant, but the topographical characteristics 53 54 substances, costs, the views of and impacts of the area reveal the historic story. When 54 55 on local communities and surrounding integrated with the lands within the current 55 56 jurisdictions, and other factors such as the park boundary, the expansion area will make 56 57 presence of exotic species possible a fuller picture for understanding the 57 58 movements of the two armies in the hours before 58 • Other alternatives for management and 59 59 50 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 the surrender and the vernacular landscape Description 1 2 of the park. The lands were farmed, and the 2 3 historic structures on them were houses and Area AL-5 – Courtland Property (Godsey, 3 4 farm buildings. Lanes currently within the park Hollywood Baptist)--Morton House & Cavalry 4 5 boundary—Sears and Trent, for example—led to Fight 5 6 the farmsteads. The boundary expansion area 6 7 encompasses the destination point for these The Courtland property, once home of James 7 8 lanes. D. and Mariah L. Morton, was the scene of 8 9 confrontation on the morning of April 9, even as 9 10 Currently, the battle related sites on adjacent truce fl ags were circulating along other portions 10 11 lands are on private property and there is of the lines. Colonel Alexander Pennington, 11 12 no access for resource management and commanding the First Brigade of Brevet Major 12 13 interpretation. The sites are being impacted General George A. Custer’s division, had 13 14 primarily by residential development. Typically, advanced to the Morton House with his staff. 14 15 the parcels are aligned along routes 631 and They dismounted in the yard and Pennington 15 16 627, and residences are laid out along the began surveying the Confederate formations 16 17 road. Behind them are largely forested lands with his looking glass, when Confederate 17 18 that adjoin the park boundary, and as these are General Martin W. Gary ordered the 7th South 18 19 cleared, views from observation points in the Carolina to charge Pennington’s party. A brief 19 20 park are affected as land uses become visible. clash occurred between the cavalry units, and 20 21 Therefore, protection of these lands will also Pennington escaped, although one of his staff 21 22 protect park viewshed values, as the land – being and his bugler were captured. The fi ghting 22 23 higher than most observation points in the park— moved back and forth, to the west and then 23 24 has the potential for extensive forest clearing back again to the Morton House. Several 24 25 taking place and additional buildings being Confederate batteries were also posted near the 25 26 constructed. Because of the loss of most of the house along the Prince Edward Court House 26 27 historic structures, it is archeological resources Road (now Route 627). Their troops and guns 27 28 on the lands that are mainly at risk. The boundary held the Confederate left fl ank as General John 28 29 expansion would protect remaining cultural, B. Gordon’s men withdrew through the village 29 30 natural and scenic resources by preserving lands from their advanced positions. The Federal 30 31 adjacent to the existing NPS park unit, and create brigades of Pennington, Colonel William Wells, 31 32 greater access for resource management, law and Colonel Henry Capehart were advancing 32 33 enforcement, and visitor education. against these Confederate positions when the 33 34 fi ghting fi nally ceased, or nearly so. Word of the 34 35 Together, the sites described below are crucial cession of hostilities reached the Confederate 35 36 to understanding Grant’s strategy of cutting off lines, but could not save the life of Sargeant 36 37 Lee from supplies of food and military equipment Benjamin Weary of the 2nd Ohio Cavalry. He 37 38 at towns along the railroad, and preventing single-handedly demanded the surrender of the 38 39 Lee’s troops from regrouping with Confederate fl ag of the 1st Confederate Engineers Regiment. 39 40 forces to the south. The parcels are generally He rode away to the sound of jeers and laughs 40 41 laid out along the ridgeline between the park’s as bullets riddled his body. Weary was buried just 41 42 southern boundary and a local road, Route west of the Morton House and later re-interred at 42 43 631. The ridgeline location gave the Union Poplar Grove Cemetery near Petersburg. 43 44 troops advancing from the southwest a natural 44 45 advantage over Confederate troops located Present Condition: Much of the Morton house 45 46 on lower ground within and near the village of remains, although in dilapidated condition. It is 46 47 Appomattox Court House. These sites represent two stories with a brick foundation. The front part 47 48 part of a “pincer” movement that barred Lee’s of the house is original, and there is a Victorian 48 49 escape to Lynchburg and points west, trapping addition. There is a slate roof secured with 49 50 his army in the village and making his surrender square nails. On the exposed south side, a stair 50 51 all but inevitable. This is where the last battle case and fi re place are visible, as well as the 51 52 actions took place as Confederate and Union stone foundation to the original house. There was 52 53 cavalry, artillery, and infantry clashed while also a basement with an outside entrance. The 53 54 protecting their respective fl anks. The troop northeastern corner of the property, adjoining 54 55 movement chronology introduced in Chapter 1 the park boundary and Route 627, contains a 55 56 delineates the general locations on lands within modern residence, and a parcel at the opposite 56 57 the park and adjacent to the park. corner near 631 is owned by a church. Otherwise 57 58 the property is wooded and agricultural in use, 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 51 1 and its character is still rural; it retains much of its Area AL-8 – Thornhill Property--Sears House 1 2 integrity. 2 3 The Sears House was used as Custer’s 3 4 Area AL-6 – Webb-Alvis-Howard Properties headquarters on the night of April 9, 1865. On 4 5 April 9, the Federal Fifth Corps under Major 5 6 Located on the west side of Prince Edward General Charles Griffi n engaged Confederate 6 7 Court House Road, this property is signifi cant skirmishers and advanced toward Confederate 7 8 as the scene of the last fi ghting in the vicinity of positions in Appomattox Court House across this 8 9 Appomattox Court House. It contains the ground ground, from LeGrand Road (present-day Route 9 10 over which Gary’s men charged and was driven 631). An increasingly solid wall of infantry barred 10 11 back by Custer’s cavalry. Lee’s escape from Appomattox Court House. 11 12 The lane from the house site to the Richmond- 12 13 Present Condition: A recorded subdivision is Lynchburg Stage Road (Sears Lane) was used 13 14 associated with this property, with parcels laid by General Grant and his staff to reach the 14 15 out along the two roadways. The land is forested McLean House, the site of the Surrender, on the 15 16 with the exception of two developed parcels, one morning of April 9. John Sears, the landowner, 16 17 next to the park boundary on the Court House later donated land for the Confederate Cemetery 17 18 Road (Howard property), and the other (Alvis) on in 1866. 18 19 Route 631. 19 20 Present condition: The Sears House was recently 20 21 Morgan/Goodwin/Doss/Vaughan/Bumgardner/ destroyed by lightning, and all that remains are 21 22 Inge Properties scattered bricks and charred wood that have 22 23 been pushed into the wood line. Sears Lane 23 24 General Custer’s Federal Cavalry Division is intact and runs from the house site to within 24 25 advanced along the southeast edge of these the current park boundary, passing on the east 25 26 areas on the morning of April 9. side of the Raine Monument to reach the old 26 27 Richmond-Lynchburg Stage Road. The Civil 27 28 Present Condition: Residences have been War Preservation Trust holds an easement on a 28 29 built fronting Route 631. The parcels mainly portion of this property that includes the Sears 29 30 stretch back to the park boundary, and there House site. 30 31 has been minimal development away from the 31 32 road frontage. The Webb property has been Area AL-9 – Hunter/Deem Property--Trent 32 33 placed in a ten- year forest management “bank” House and Area AL-10 Fifth Corps Advance & 33 34 program which runs through 2014, at which time Camps 34 35 the owner will determine what he will do with the 35 36 property. The integrity is considered good On the morning of April 9, the Federal Fifth Corps 36 37 under Major General Charles Griffi n engaged 37 38 Area AL-7 – Abbitt/Mitchell Property--Cavalry Confederate skirmishers and advanced across 38 39 Camps this ground, from LeGrand Road (Route 631) 39 40 toward Confederate positions in Appomattox 40 41 Federal artillery pieces were in position on Court House. Federal artillery took up several 41 42 the Abbitt property on the morning of April positions on the Hunter property, primarily near 42 43 9, 1865. The property was used as Federal the Trent House. The Fifth Corps, along with the 43 44 Cavalry camps on for the divisions of Custer Army of the James, ensured that Lee had no 44 45 and Brigadier General Thomas Devin. The Civil avenue of escape. 45 46 War Preservation Trust (CWPT) purchased this 46 47 parcel in 2005 to prevent the imminent threat Major General Philip Sheridan made his 47 48 of subdivision and development. The CWPT is headquarters at the Trent House on the night of 48 49 seeking a ‘conservation buyer” to purchase the April 9. After the surrender, Area AL-10 was used 49 50 property under restrictive easements to prevent as a campground for the Fifth Corps. The site is 50 51 subdivision and development beyond a one also associated with John Trent, who served in 51 52 single family residence. Company B of the 46th Virginia Infantry (Liberty 52 53 Guards). 53 54 Present Condition. The property is currently 54 55 covered in pine forest that was planted in the Present Site Condition: Only the foundation of the 55 56 1970’s. The integrity is considered good. Trent House remains. 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 52 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 Appomattox River parcels [the parcel # south Division of the Army of the Shenandoah, made 1 2 of the river is unknown; the parcel # north of several mounted charges through wooded 2 3 the river is 52-A-51/52] terrain and into a clearing ringed with 25-30 3 4 cannon deployed by 37-year-old Confederate 4 5 Two additional parcels not specifi cally associated Brigadier General Reuben Walker. The fi rst 5 6 with battle actions of the Appomattox Campaign three charges were repulsed largely by the fi ring 6 7 or Surrender, or protection of the park’s scenic of canister (shells fi lled with small iron balls), 7 8 and historic viewsheds, are also proposed for but a fi nal concerted charge netted 25 cannon, 8 9 protection. The park’s purpose is to preserve and 200 wagons, and 1,000 prisoners. By capturing 9 10 protect those park resources, including landscape the Confederate supplies, dispersing Walker’s 10 11 features, historic buildings, archeological sites, artillery and securing the Richmond-Lynchburg 11 12 cemeteries and monuments, archives and Stage Road, the Federals gained the advantage 12 13 collections that are related to the Appomattox of position on April 8. They held the high ground 13 14 Campaign, the surrender and the reunifi cation of west of Appomattox Court House, blocking 14 15 the nation. The parcels are located on both sides the road Lee intended to use, and forcing his 15 16 of the Appomattox River (North Branch, or the surrender the next day. 16 17 mainstem of the river), which bisects the higher 17 18 elevations along the park boundary. The river Present Condition – The bulk of the land 18 19 is important to an understanding of the park’s for consideration is 46 acres now owned by 19 20 topography and during the military events prior to the Civil War Preservation Trust (formerly 20 21 the surrender, it represented an obstacle to troop Jamerson trucking). Other land recommended 21 22 movements. It is an important feature within the for acquisition in the 2007 “Appomattox 22 23 park’s cultural landscape and has been identifi ed Station: Battlefi eld Resource and Management 23 24 as a fundamental resource. Additionally, the Plan” by Thomason and Associates and 24 25 north parcel adjoins the Lee Headquarters’ site “Prospective Properties” identifi ed by the Civil 25 26 and could serve as a buffer for the site. War Preservation Trust is a nearly two acre tract 26 27 that contains the battlefi eld feature “the Pryor 27 28 The ecological and hydrological integrity of the Martin House” now owned by Thomas Haskins; 28 29 Appomattox River in the vicinity of the park a .2 owned by John, Marie, and Carrie Tibbs; 29 30 has remained relatively intact since the Civil 6 acres owned by James Haskins and Ann 30 31 War. Much of the river’s headwater tributaries Patterson; 5 acres by Fred Jones; 8 acres by 31 32 are located within the park and a state Special the Commonwealth of Virginia. Four properties 32 33 Species of Concern has been cited in the river that lay between the Civil War Preservation 33 34 just south of the park’s boundary. This section of Trust (Jamerson) property and Confederate Ave. 34 35 the river and contiguous portions outside the park owned are owned by Appomattox Residential 35 36 boundary are eligible for potential designation Services, Gene Doss, Fred Jones and Gailier 36 37 into the National Wild & Scenic Rivers System. total about 6.5 acres and have some structures 37 38 on them. 38 39 Present Condition: The unnumbered parcel south 39 40 of the Appomattox River is currently tied up in Criterion: the added lands will be feasible 40 41 litigation resulting from a title dispute which was to administer, considering their size, 41 42 uncovered when the Civil War Preservation Trust confi guration, ownership, and hazardous 42 43 (CWPT) began negotiations for purchase. Upon substances, costs, the views of and impacts 43 44 legal resolution of the ownership, it is expected on local communities and surrounding 44 45 that CWPT will renew their efforts to protect these jurisdictions, and other factors such as the 45 46 two parcels. This property had been under threat presence of exotic species 46 47 of subdivision and development when the CWPT 47 48 fi rst approached the present owners. With the exception of the Battle of Appomattox 48 49 Station land, the parcels in the boundary 49 50 Area AL - ?? The Battle of Appomattox expansion area are contiguous with the park 50 51 Station, 4 – 8 p. m., April 8, 1865 boundary to the south and east. Therefore, 51 52 the added lands would create a block of land 52 53 The core area of the Battle of Appomattox Station contiguous to the existing park boundary. 53 54 fi ght took place about one mile west of the park’s Generally they are located between the 54 55 western boundary. After capturing Confederate boundary, Route 631 and the Appomattox River. 55 56 supplies waiting for Lee’s army at Appomattox The expansion area largely follows a prominent 56 57 Station, 25-year-old Brevet Major General ridgeline that has historic signifi cance related 57 58 George A. Custer’s cavalry command, the Third to the Battle of Appomattox Court House. 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 53 1 Lands along the ridgeline are generally located nationally signifi cant lands may exceed 10-15 1 2 between the current boundary and Route 631. years. 2 3 The northernmost two parcels of the expansion 3 4 area are divided by the Appomattox River. Criteria: Other alternatives for management 4 5 These parcels are not served by local roads. and resource protection have been 5 6 In total, the parcels are adjacent to the current considered and are not adequate. 6 7 southern and eastern boundary of the park and 7 8 the proposed boundary is readily identifi able The alternative to federal acquisition is the 8 9 through topographic and manmade features. The continuation of private ownership. Other options 9 10 area would be feasible for the Park Service to for protecting the lands and resources identifi ed 10 11 manage. Their undeveloped character would be as nationally signifi cant are administration by a 11 12 maintained; it is expected that expansion area local, state or other federal agency; or ownership 12 13 would not substantially add to the NPS work load by a non-profi t conservation organization. 13 14 for management of the lands. 14 15 Continued private ownership would not 15 16 The lands are currently private lands and NPS guarantee protection of the battlefi eld lands, 16 17 acquisition would minimally reduce local tax natural resources and scenic views in the near 17 18 revenue for Appomattox County. The general or long term. While the predominant use is 18 19 public in the Appomattox community was agricultural and low density agricultural currently, 19 20 informed of the importance of the lands at a additional development could readily occur due 20 21 December 2003 open house. The landowners to the existence of undeveloped but subdivided 21 22 have been contacted regarding the presence lands. Private ownership would not allow for a 22 23 of historic resources on their properties and uniform interpretive program and public access 23 24 the possibility of a boundary expansion. The to these sites that are central to the purpose of 24 25 potential for a boundary expansion has also Appomattox Court House NHP. 25 26 been discussed with Appomattox Town and 26 27 County offi cials and staff members in the offi ce of Protection of the battle action sites, natural 27 28 Congressman Virgil Goode (R-5th). resources and scenic views by a state agency, 28 29 county or local government may be a viable 29 30 There are no known hazardous substance option; however, no public entity has expressed 30 31 issues associated with the lands, due to the long interest in this role. Appomattox County views 31 32 use of the lands mainly for agriculture and the NPS as the appropriate agency to protect 32 33 continuation of forested conditions. Appropriate resources that are so closely related to park 33 34 hazardous material surveys would be conducted purpose and signifi cance. The NPS is in a good 34 35 prior to acquisition. position to work with state and local governments 35 36 to encourage cooperative planning and protection 36 37 Donations or fee and less than fee simple strategies so that these nationally signifi cant 37 38 acquisition from willing sellers would be pursued resources will be protected in the future. 38 39 only after other means of protection fail to be 39 40 achieved. Acquisition of land through donation Two non-profi t organizations—the Civil 40 41 by a willing owner would the fi rst course of action War Preservation Trust (CWPT) and The 41 42 after expansion of the authorized boundary. Conservation Fund—have previously worked 42 43 The procurement of easements from willing with the park to protect related lands. After 43 44 sellers would be the second course of action. the 1992 boundary expansion authorization, 44 45 This would enable protection of the resources CWPT purchased and later donated the New 45 46 from inappropriate development while retaining Hope Church earthworks site to NPS. The 46 47 private ownership and compatible use of the Conservation Fund was in a position to secure 47 48 land. The acquisition strategy to be pursed lands within the 1992 boundary expansion, 48 49 would differ according to the current use of the which NPS later acquired. The CWPT has been 49 50 individually-held properties. For example, for involved in the protection of lands through fee 50 51 those parcels that have an existing structure simple purchase and subsequent resale with 51 52 along the roadway, an easement would be protective easements in the recommended 52 53 sought to protect historic resources and viewshed expansion area. This is noted above in the 53 54 values, and to maintain current use. For land that description of the Thornhill, Battle of Appomattox 54 55 remains in agricultural or forest use, donation Station, and Abbitt properties. Land conservation 55 56 would be pursued, and fee simple acquisition is a primary mission of the two organizations, 56 57 only if donation or easements are not possible. although priorities, resource stewardship 57 58 The estimated time period for acquisition of these capacities and sustainability challenges differ 58 59 59 54 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 from what is found in the National Park Service. The report is not considered a Legislative Cost 1 2 Non-profi ts typically do not see interpretation Estimate or LEC, which is prepared for submittal 2 3 or long-term resource stewardship as a primary to Congress in the case of a boundary expansion 3 4 mission, as does the NPS. Scenic views and proposal. The scope of the assignment was for 4 5 historic settings are not usually the drivers for a GMP, rather than a report to be submitted to 5 6 their cultural resource protection initiatives, Congress. The report preparation utilized the 6 7 which tend to focus on core historic resources. software used for developing a LEC, which is 7 8 Most often, the organizations protect land defi ned as “an estimate that outlines the costs 8 9 by purchasing and retaining the property associated with acquiring any interest in real 9 10 until a more permanent arrangement can be property for new park units, proposed park 10 11 determined. Easements held by the non-profi ts boundary expansions, remainder of tracts to 11 12 do not always protect the historic structures complete existing units, and/or changes in 12 13 and landscape features from alteration, nor do estates within existing units.” (Section 8.4.1 of the 13 14 they guarantee access for interpretation. Public NPS Land Acquisition Procedures, 2000). Actual 14 15 access for interpretation is often restricted for costs would be determined by appraisal at the 15 16 liability and other reasons. time of acquisition. 16 17 17 18 If a property should be offered for sale, without 2.5 Alternative 2 - April 1865: A Regional 18 19 having been included within the park boundary, Partnership Centered on the 19 20 the NPS would lose the opportunity to participate Appomattox Campaign 20 21 in its protection. NPS may never need to acquire 21 22 the lands or easements, but the authority to Main Idea 22 23 protect the critical natural and cultural resources 23 24 on adjacent lands if opportunities arise is an The park is the focal point of a region featuring 24 25 important tool in fulfi lling the park’s purpose. With the events of the Appomattox Campaign, the 25 26 authority for federal acquisition of easements and surrender and the termination of the Civil War. 26 27 fee simple ownership, NPS can be an effective A wide range of sites in the park are accessed 27 28 partner in preservation of these battle action for an immediate, on-site experience of the story 28 29 sites, scenic and historic viewsheds, and natural of the surrender and events that preceded it. 29 30 resources that contribute to the park’s purpose Restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction 30 31 and signifi cance. are used selectively to enhance visitor 31 32 understanding. The broader story that is told at 32 33 Boundary Expansion Costs the park concludes with the beginning of peace 33 34 and national reunifi cation and the early days 34 35 To develop for the GMP an estimate of the costs of Reconstruction. Visitors are also introduced 35 36 potentially involved in the acquisition of lands, the to the related events that took place through 36 37 Northeast Region Realty Division (now Northeast the end of April 1865as news of the surrender 37 38 Land Resources) prepared a Limited Restricted spread. The regional partnership is with owners 38 39 Use Appraisal report. As required for the GMP, and managers of Appomattox Campaign sites, 39 40 the costs assume 100% fee acquisition by the and the park develops proactive relationships 40 41 NPS. with them to protect and interpret the sites. 41 42 42 43 The costs reported in the estimate include: Resource Protection/Cultural and Natural 43 44 Resource Management 44 45 • Estimated real property acquisition and 45 46 relocation costs on a tract-by-tract basis Rehabilitation of the landscape is proposed for 46 47 the area vacated by the maintenance facility in 47 • Tax data for Payment in Lieu of Taxes 48 the vicinity of the Lee-Grant Meeting and Salute 48 49 • Appraisal contracts sites; the Coleman House site and an area 49 50 surrounding it; the former O’Brien inholding; the 50 • Mapping contracts 51 areas around the Charles Sweeney Cabin, and 51 52 • Title contracts the Sweeney and Beale properties. Rehabilitation 52 53 of these areas would include the removal of 20th 53 • Surveying contracts 54 century residences and accessory buildings; 54 55 • Environmental Site Assessment contracts and could include the removal of vegetation in 55 56 selected areas for visitor use and as feasible, the 56 • Other contract work 57 adoption of smaller fi eld sizes, fencing and crop 57 58 types typical of the mid-19th century. Existing 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 55 1 agricultural fi elds may also receive this type of McLean House, Clover Hill Tavern) evoke the 1 2 rehabilitation treatment. Rehabilitation of the appearance of 1865. 2 3 village landscape is proposed, which could Most historic structures in outlying areas 3 4 include installing fencing and vegetation that are stabilized, preserved and maintained for 4 5 follows mid-19th century lot lines. interpretation. 5 6 The use and collection of historical 6 7 In general, the treatment of the cultural documentation, oral histories and archaeological 7 8 landscape in this alternative meets the conditions information expands for research and 8 9 for rehabilitation of cultural landscapes specifi ed interpretation purposes focusing on 1865. 9 10 in NPS Management Policies because the Archeological sites will continue to be 10 11 landscape features are not adequately serving documented and investigated, in light of their 11 12 their interpretive function in their present state, potential to further an understanding of life in an 12 13 the changes will bring them closer to their historic antebellum Piedmont Virginia courthouse town, 13 14 character, and no change will confl ict with park and to better understand the associated events of 14 15 management objectives as expressed in the April 1865. Baseline data on the c. 1865 land use 15 16 mission goals and management prescriptions. patterns in the region and at the site is acquired, 16 17 A rehabilitation approach also recognizes the as available. 17 18 presence of post 1865 features such as the 18 19 park’s commemorative features and the modern Visitor Use and Experience 19 20 roadway through the middle of the park, and the 20 21 use of vegetation for screening of modern uses. At the courthouse visitor center, visitors receive 21 22 park orientation and can take advantage of 22 23 Rehabilitation is proposed for historic road exhibits and programming related to the theme 23 24 traces. In the vicinity of the Lee-Grant meeting From Petersburg to Appomattox: the Final Days 24 25 and Salute sites, the original alignment of the and Surrender, which receives primary emphasis 25 26 Richmond-Lynchburg State Road is restored. of this alternative. Visitors are also exposed to 26 27 Restoration of the original contours of the the other two themes. 27 28 Richmond-Lynchburg Stage Road in other 28 29 locations is considered as feasible. Exhibits and programming cover the Appomattox 29 30 Campaign, including the events that occurred 30 31 Reconstruction (if data is adequate and approval just before the surrender in and around the town 31 32 received by the NPS Director), rehabilitation and of Appomattox. The regional partnership would 32 33 new construction are proposed in the village, be able to provide opportunities for interpretive 33 34 so as to fi ll in components present in 1865 but programming that focuses on the experience of 34 35 now missing. The Clover Hill Tavern Group civilians as the armies marched from Petersburg 35 36 will achieve a better approximation of its 1865 to Appomattox. Sailor’s Creek State Park is a 36 37 appearance with the reconstruction of the Clover likely area for expanded coordination with the 37 38 Hill Tavern dining room wing and the construction park for this type of programming. Additionally, 38 39 of a stable structure. Construction of similar the expanded chronology of April 1865 sets the 39 40 mass and scale will be pursued if reconstruction surrender as the context for the related events 40 41 is not feasible. The scale of the stable structure, that followed through the end of April, revealing 41 42 and its design features, will be similar to those aspects of the war’s conclusion. Visitors learn of 42 43 found historically. The Clover Hill Kitchen and related sites in the town of Appomattox and in 43 44 Clover Hill Slave Quarters are rehabilitated for other locations in the region, such as Southerlin, 44 45 interpretive programming. The Woodson Law the Danville home where Jefferson Davis stayed 45 46 Offi ce is moved a short distance to restore the until news of the surrender reached him. 46 47 building to its original orientation. Administrative 47 48 uses and collections storage are removed from There are opportunities for learning about the 48 49 the Isbell House, which is rehabilitated to provide broader landscape of the park as the setting 49 50 exhibit space and educational functions. The for the events that led up to and followed the 50 51 upper fl oor of Meeks’ Store may continue to be surrender on April 9, 1865, and the ways in 51 52 used for the interpretive division, or the space which the two armies used the landscape now 52 53 may be vacated and another village building within the park and the community around it. 53 54 rehabilitated and used for that purpose. Learning of the sequence of events and an on- 54 55 site experience with the associated resources 55 56 Building exteriors in the core of the village are critical to the visitor understanding of the 56 57 are preserved and maintain the c. 1865-1870 ‘intersection of history’ that took place in the 57 58 appearance. Interiors of key surrender sites (i.e. courthouse village. The park’s topography, 58 59 59 56 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 views, and land cover all contribute to this Partnerships and Cooperative Actions 1 2 understanding. Observation points shed light on 2 3 how the landscape was used between April 9 and Existing partnerships are maintained and 3 4 12. strengthened and new ones fostered, helping 4 5 the park to carry out its mission. The regional 5 6 Stories are told of how the people of Appomattox partnership that is a core idea of this alternative 6 7 Court House—soldiers and civilians—were would be built around sites associated with the 7 8 affected by the end of the war, exploring the Appomattox Campaign, and a proactive role in 8 9 changes that took place in their lives. The stories Lee’s Retreat Consortium is envisioned. The 9 10 are brought forward to the early reconstruction park would work cooperatively to promote the 10 11 period. These broader stories are told mainly in preservation of Appomattox Campaign sites and 11 12 the village setting, and visitors understand the to further their interpretation; and to promote 12 13 village as a place where a transforming event benefi ts on segments of the driving route that 13 14 occurred. Examples of the sites are the Jones are available under the VA State Scenic Byway 14 15 Law Offi ce, which was occupied by an African program. There may be opportunities for a 15 16 American after the war, and the archeological coordinated transportation system to enhance 16 17 site of the Plymouth Rock School (not yet visitor movement from Petersburg to Appomattox. 17 18 located), the site of a Freedman’s school; and the 18 19 Confederate Cemetery. Park staff would also work with others to develop 19 20 protection strategies for related lands in the 20 21 Civic engagement opportunities are facilitated vicinity of the park, such as the Confederate 21 22 through such actions as an annual Civil War encampment between the eastern park boundary 22 23 Seminar, furthering of opportunities for working and the community of Vera, and to develop 23 24 with the local community identifi ed during the interpretive opportunities with related resources, 24 25 2005 Community Partnership Workshop, and such as the historic sections of the Richmond- 25 26 sustaining and expanding partnerships with area Lynchburg Stage Road in the Appomattox 26 27 universities and colleges. Buckingham State Forest. The park would work 27 28 Visitors enter the village on the pathway from with the community to protect and interpret 28 29 the parking area, similar to existing conditions. the site of the Battle of Appomattox Station, 29 30 Concessions (bookstore and vending machines) located between the park and the town center of 30 31 and handicapped restrooms are located in a Appomattox. 31 32 stable building constructed near the Clover Hill 32 33 Tavern. An option for the visit to begin in the town The park would work with the community and 33 34 of Appomattox may be developed. Virginia Department of Transportation to resolve 34 35 safety issues and to explore traffi c calming 35 36 Outside of the village, visitors are exposed measures on Route 24. As part of the park’s long- 36 37 to park stories and interact with the historic term transportation planning program, a bypass 37 38 landscape at a wide range of sites. They alignment of Route 24 and the restoration of the 38 39 directly access the on-site resources connected historic alignment of the Richmond-Lynchburg 39 40 to the stories and the information needed Stage Road could be considered for future study. 40 41 for understanding them. Visitor dispersal is Such a study would be triggered by changes in 41 42 encouraged through the installation of new existing conditions such as substantially higher 42 43 comfort station(s) and waysides. Limited parking traffi c volumes on Route 24 due to population 43 44 could be provided near the Salute Site. Visitors growth, and increased development and/or if 44 45 directly access the on-site resources connected plans for the Route 460 corridor to become an 45 46 to the stories and the information needed for interstate highway are pursued. 46 47 understanding them. The McLean House and 47 48 Clover Hill Tavern and other village buildings Operational Facilities 48 49 are open for visitor use; there are expanded 49 50 opportunities for people to go inside village Administrative offi ces are consolidated in the 50 51 buildings. An example is the Isbell House, 1970s residence known as the Mathews House 51 52 which could house exhibits or provide space for on Gordon Road. The library and park collections 52 53 educational programming. The Clover Hill Tavern would move to this location, which is augmented 53 54 Slave Quarters is available for interpretation after by the construction of additional space for 54 55 restrooms are removed. Lifts are installed in the collections. The collections facility participates 55 56 courthouse and at the McLean House. in the regional collection management plan and 56 57 receives collections from other parks. 57 58 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 57 1 A new maintenance facility and space for vehicle the current staffi ng levels plus nine and one- 1 2 storage is constructed north of the consolidated half full-time equivalent staff (FTEs). One FTE 2 3 administrative facility at the end of Gordon Road. is one person working 40 hours per week for 3 4 Maintenance vehicles access the village on a one year, or the equivalent. New positions 4 5 former private lane or from Route 24 via Gordon would support museum services (one museum 5 6 Road. technician), natural resource management 6 7 (one biotechnician), and visitor services (one 7 8 Retail operations and storage for the bookstore education specialist and one park guide). As in 8 9 are housed in the reconstructed Clover Hill all the action alternatives, the largest increase 9 10 Tavern Stable. is in the area of park operations, with the 10 11 addition of fi ve protection rangers. The park’s 11 12 The fi eld management program would lease operating budget would need to be increased 12 13 fi elds for agricultural purposes. by approximately $520,000. The total cost to 13 14 operate the park in this alternative would be 14 15 Boundary Adjustment $1,866,000 (in 2008 dollars). 15 16 16 17 Related resources and viewshed values are One-time Costs 17 18 protected through a boundary expansion at the 18 19 park’s southern boundary. The one-time costs associated with this 19 20 alternative are estimated to be $13,582,000. This 20 21 Costs for Alternative 2 alternative has the highest one-time costs among 21 22 the action alternatives, relating to the greater 22 23 Cost estimates for Alternative 2 are identifi ed amount of acreage proposed for rehabilitation 23 24 below. The estimates, in 2008 dollars, are and for visitor access and use, and a focus on 24 25 intended to facilitate a relative cost comparison restoration of selected cultural resources that is 25 26 among the alternatives and would not be used unique among the action alternatives. A major 26 27 for budgetary purposes. The actual costs to component of estimated facility costs is the new 27 28 the federal government could be infl uenced maintenance facility. 28 29 by such factors as the fi nal design of facilities, 29 30 future economic conditions, and opportunities for The following actions were among those used 30 31 partnerships and would vary from the estimates. in the development of the cost estimates, to 31 32 A discussion of the development of the costs and illustrate the range of activities that could be 32 33 a cost comparison follows the description of the undertaken in this alternative. 33 34 alternatives. 34 35 • Rehabilitate the Clover Hill Tavern Kitchen 35 36 The implementation of the approved plan will and Slave Quarters 36 37 depend on future funding. The approval of this 37 • Rehabilitate the Isbell House 38 plan does not guarantee that the funding and 38 39 staffi ng needed to implement the plan will be • Reconstruct the Clover Hill Tavern Dining 39 40 forthcoming. Full implementation of the actions in Room Wing (or an addition of similar mass 40 41 the approved General Management Plan could and scale) 41 42 be many years in the future. 42 • Construct a stable structure in the Clover 43 43 Hill Tavern complex 44 Costs have been broken down into two 44 45 categories: annual operating costs and one-time • Install lifts at the Courthouse and the 45 46 costs. Annual or recurring costs include those McLean House 46 47 associated with ongoing maintenance, utilities, 47 • Rehabilitate the Mathews House for 48 staffi ng, vehicles, supplies and materials, and 48 administrative quarters and collections 49 any leasing costs. One-time costs, which are 49 management and build an addition for 50 generally considered capital investments, are 50 collections storage 51 associated with such actions as the removal of 51 52 resources, the restoration and rehabilitation of • Repave Gordon Road 52 53 resources, additions to structure, development of 53 • Demolish non-contributing structures, 54 new exhibits, and research and planning. 54 including the existing maintenance facility, 55 55 and rehabilitate the vacated areas of the 56 Annual Costs 56 cultural landscape 57 57 58 This alternative would be implemented with • Construct new maintenance facility 58 59 59

Chapter 2: Alternatives 59 1 • Restore the original grade of a segment of on evoking the appearance of 1865. Existing 1 2 the Richmond Lynchburg Stage Road agricultural fi elds may also receive similar 2 3 rehabilitation treatment. In contrast to the 3 • Rehabilitate selected areas for interpretation 4 predominant use of crops typical of the mid-19th 4 and visitor use 5 century proposed in Alternative 2, crop types may 5 6 • Rehabilitate agricultural fi elds be more various and representative of a longer 6 7 time period. Rehabilitation of historic road traces 7 • Extend trails to create a park-wide system 8 is proposed. 8 9 • Add amenities and enhancements in visitor 9 10 use areas Building exteriors in the core of the village are 10 11 preserved and maintain the ca. 1865-1870 11 • Replace interpretive signs and add new 12 appearance. Interiors of key surrender sites (i.e. 12 ones 13 McLean House, Clover Hill Tavern) maintain 13 14 • Develop new audio-visual media the appearance of 1865. The Isbell House is 14 15 used for exhibit space and classrooms. The 15 16 Clover Hill Kitchen and Slave Quarters interiors 16 2.6 Alternative 3 - What Happened Here 17 are rehabilitated for interpretive programming. 17 Changed Everything 18 Meeks’ Store may continue to be used for 18 19 interpretive staff functions or these functions may 19 Main Idea 20 be moved to another village building. In either 20 21 case, rehabilitation would be the treatment used 21 The park tells a comprehensive story of the 22 to accommodate the Interpretive Division offi ces 22 surrender and the termination of the Civil War, 23 and to support operational changes that will be 23 placing it as a transforming event within the 24 needed in the future. Rehabilitation of the village 24 larger context of the nation’s history. The site 25 landscape, which could include installing fencing 25 explores the consequences of the Civil War, 26 and vegetation that follows mid-19th century lot 26 based on the experiences of those civilians 27 lines, is proposed. 27 and soldiers who were present in and around 28 Historic structures in outlying areas are 28 Appomattox Court House, and the relevance of 29 stabilized, preserved and maintained for 29 those outcomes to American life today. Visitors 30 interpretation and visitor use. Archeological sites 30 go through the village and access a range of 31 will be stabilized and preserved; some visitor 31 sites beyond the village. Rehabilitation is the 32 use may be maintained in the vicinity of selected 32 treatment used to reveal the landscape and 33 sites. 33 prepare new sites for visitor use. The time period 34 34 for rehabilitation is the mid to late 19th century. 35 The use and collection of historical 35 The visitor learns about sites outside the park 36 documentation, oral histories and archaeological 36 that explore the outcomes of Appomattox and 37 information expands for research and 37 how they resonate in our lives today. 38 interpretation purposes focusing on continuum 38 39 of history at Appomattox Court House, 39 Resource Protection/Cultural and Natural 40 and to establish its relevance into the 21st 40 According to John Hammond Resource Management 41 century. Archeological sites will continue to be 41 Moore, the “military events of 42 documented and investigated, in light of their 42 those days have been detailed Rehabilitation of the landscape is proposed for 43 potential to further an understanding of life in an 43 many times by generals, privates, the area vacated by the maintenance facility in 44 antebellum Piedmont Virginia courthouse town 44 news reporters, historians, and the vicinity of the Lee-Grant meeting site and 45 and the transition that took place after 1865. 45 some local residents as well, but Salute Site; the Coleman and Tibbs house sites; 46 Oral histories, archeological and genealogical 46 all too little is known about the the former O’Brien inholding; the areas around 47 research explore connections between the park, 47 community where this drama the Charles Sweeney Cabin and Sweeney and 48 community and region. The scope of collections 48 unfolded.” He draws from state Beale properties. Rehabilitation of these areas 49 is expanded to refl ect the integration of new 49 tax records on households could include clearing the land of vegetation; 50 information sources. Census records and court 50 and properties within fi ve miles the removal of 20th century residences and 51 documents are investigated, expanding on 51 of Appomattox Court House, accessory buildings; and the adoption of fi eld 52 such documents as John Hammond Moore’s 52 individuals cited on an 1867 map patterns and crop types based generally on 19th 53 c. 1976 publication, Appomattox Court House: 53 drawn from military surveys, and and early 20th century farming practices. The 54 Community, Village, and Families, 1845-1870. 54 records of well-known citizens areas of rehabilitation would not be as extensive 55 55 who lived in other parts of the (i.e., less land clearing) as in Alternative 2 The 56 The focus on the civilians of the community 56 county. period of rehabilitation covers a broader time 57 touches on genealogical or other connections 57 span, from the mid- to late 19th century, than 58 with today’s residents in Appomattox, and local 58 in Alternative 2, which has a greater focus 59 59 60 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 archives and other sources are cultivated. Heritage Trail (including the Robert Russa Moton 1 2 Sources of local information are developed School). 2 3 over time. During the initial development period, 3 4 representative stories from the county and These sites may also provide opportunities 4 5 region are drawn from to create a base for the for civic engagement. Other civic engagement 5 6 interpretive program. activities include furthering of opportunities 6 7 for working with the local community identifi ed 7 8 Visitor Use and Experience during the 2005 Community Partnership 8 9 Workshop; working with constituent groups 9 10 At the courthouse visitor center, visitors can take such as the United Daughters of Confederacy, 10 11 advantage of exhibits and programming related Sons of Confederate Veterans and Sons of 11 12 to the theme The Legacy of Appomattox, the Union Veterans; and sustaining and expanding 12 13 theme of primary emphasis. Visitors are also partnerships with area universities and colleges. 13 14 exposed to the other two themes. 14 15 A study or learning center on the Civil War could 15 16 Visitors are introduced to the connections focus on topics such as the contrasting and 16 17 between the surrender and the end of the Civil often confl icting values revealed during and 17 18 War, and the associated social, economic and after the Civil War; the actions of Lee, Grant 18 19 political dynamics in the nation’s history—the and others during the surrender events and 19 20 continuing story of the results and consequences later that resonated in history; and the relevancy 20 21 of the war. Programming is directed towards of the events at Appomattox Court House to 21 22 telling the ‘before and after’ story of the residents modern life; the understanding of Appomattox 22 23 of Appomattox Court House, and of the long-term Court House as a peace-making site. The center 23 24 outcomes that have continued to shape American would facilitate civic engagement activities. The 24 25 history. As in Alternative 2, the end of the Civil study center could be developed in a variety of 25 26 War is interpreted as a transforming event. In ways-- programmatic, electronic or facility based. 26 27 this alternative, the national context reveals For example, it could be located in an existing 27 28 how the event has led to consequences that are building in the park, a facility in the community or 28 29 experienced and continue today. exist primarily on a website. 29 30 30 31 Through the village setting and exposure to Visitors enter the village from the parking lot and 31 32 the larger landscape of the park, visitors learn initially visit a new structure on the west side of 32 33 of the surrender events and the outcomes of the parking lot for orientation and fee collection. 33 34 the Civil War for the soldiers who were there The building houses concessions such as the 34 35 and the civilians in the community. Interpretive bookstore and vending machines, and restrooms. 35 36 programming covers a continuum of history at An option for the visit to begin or end in the town 36 37 Appomattox Court House and encompasses of Appomattox may be developed. 37 38 buildings and sites related to the antebellum 38 39 and Civil War periods, the surrender, early As in Alternative 2, visitors are exposed to park 39 40 commemoration and reconstruction, and the stories and interact with the historic landscape at 40 41 post-war period. The Clover Hill Tavern Slave a wide range of sites outside of the village. Visitor 41 42 Quarters is used for interpretive programming dispersal is encouraged through the installation 42 43 after the removal of handicapped restrooms. The of new comfort station(s) and waysides. Limited 43 44 New Jail could house exhibits on what happened parking could be provided near the Salute Site. 44 45 in the village over time, including its use as an Visitors directly access the on-site resources 45 46 election polling station. Observation points and connected to the stories and the information 46 47 waysides provide opportunities for refl ection needed for understanding them. There would be 47 48 and contemplation of the events that transpired less land rehabilitated for visitor use in Alternative 48 49 in 1865, the outcomes of the Civil War, and the 2. Lifts are installed in the courthouse and at the 49 50 relevance of that period to today. McLean House. 50 51 Visitors are introduced to sites beyond the park 51 52 that help make connections to the changes Partnerships and Cooperative Actions 52 53 that followed the surrender and end of war. 53 54 Examples are the Carver-Price High School Existing partnerships are maintained and 54 55 and the Appomattox National Register Historic strengthened and new ones fostered to help 55 56 District in the Town of Appomattox; the Booker meet park goals. The park continues to work 56 57 T. Washington NM; Ford’s Theatre; African with the Lee’s Retreat Civil War Trail consortium 57 58 American Heritage sites; Civil Rights in Education at a level similar to Alternative 1. There may be 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 61 1 opportunities for a coordinated transportation corridor to become an interstate highway are 1 2 system to enhance visitor movement from pursued. 2 3 Petersburg to Appomattox. 3 4 Operational Effi ciency 4 5 A closer relationship than what would be 5 6 maintained in Alternative 1 would be developed Administrative offi ces are consolidated in the 6 7 with the Civil Rights in Education Heritage Trail 1970s Mathews House at the end of Gordon 7 8 consortium. The partnership might undertake Road. Some or all of the interpretive division 8 9 actions such as cooperative ventures with offi ces would remain in the village. The library 9 10 sites on the trail to show how residents and and park collections move to the Mathews 10 11 communities in Appomattox and Southside House, whose capacity would be augmented 11 12 Virginia (counties south and east of Appomattox) by the construction of additional space for 12 13 coped with the outcomes of the civil war, collections. The park participates in the regional 13 14 including emancipation, the later struggles for collections management plan and the facility 14 15 equality and their continuing relevancy. This receives collections from other parks. 15 16 is only one example of the opportunities to 16 17 develop linkages to regional and national sites The existing maintenance facility is vacated, and 17 18 that point to the outcomes and their relevancy most maintenance functions would be located in 18 19 to today’s life. Sites of interest include the a facility outside the park. Limited storage and 19 20 National Constitution Center; selected units of service spaces may be provided for maintenance 20 21 the national park system, including Brown v. support on site. A new structure for vehicle 21 22 Board of Education, Booker T. Washington NM, storage built on the hillside between Route 24 22 23 Ford’s Theatre; and National Historic Landmarks, and the current facility may be considered. 23 24 among them the Robert Russa Moton School. 24 25 Jointly sponsored events or other undertakings Bookstore operations and storage are 25 26 with these sites may be one means to explore consolidated in the new structure on the west 26 27 the topic of relevancy. Partnership efforts with side of the parking lot. 27 28 area universities, such as a tie-in to the Virginia 28 29 Center for Civil War Studies at Virginia Tech, The fi eld management program would lease 29 30 could be instituted to investigate data sources fi elds for agricultural purposes. 30 31 on the experiences of the civilian community at 31 32 Appomattox Court House. Boundary Adjustment 32 33 33 34 The study or learning center on the Civil Related resources and viewshed values are 34 35 War described above may be developed in protected through a boundary expansion at the 35 36 conjunction with a partner, most likely with an park’s southern boundary. 36 37 area university providing electronic support or 37 38 physical space. If an opportunity arises for an Costs for Alternative 3 38 39 existing facility to be used as a study center, the 39 40 park would seek a partner who would work to Cost estimates for Alternative 3 are identifi ed 40 41 establish self-suffi ciency. below. The estimates, in 2008 dollars, are 41 42 intended to facilitate a relative cost comparison 42 43 The park works with the community to protect among the alternatives and would not be used 43 44 the site of cavalry action during the Battle of for budgetary purposes. The actual costs to the 44 45 Appomattox Station, located between the park federal government, which could be infl uenced 45 46 and the town center of Appomattox. by such factors as the fi nal design of facilities, 46 47 future economic conditions, and opportunities 47 48 The park would work with the community for partnerships, would vary. A discussion of the 48 49 and Virginia Department of Transportation to development of the costs and a cost comparison 49 50 resolve safety issues and explore traffi c calming for the alternatives follows the description of the 50 51 measures on Route 24. As part of the park’s alternatives. 51 52 long-term transportation planning program, a 52 53 bypass alignment of Route 24 may be considered The implementation of the approved plan will 53 54 for future study. Such a study would be triggered depend on future funding. The approval of this 54 55 by changes in existing conditions such as plan does not guarantee that the funding and 55 56 substantially higher traffi c volumes on Route staffi ng needed to implement the plan will be 56 57 24 due to population growth and increased forthcoming. Full implementation of the actions in 57 58 development and/or if plans for the Route 460 the approved General Management Plan could 58 59 59

Chapter 2: Alternatives 63 1 be many years in the future. and Slave Quarters 1 2 2 • Rehabilitate the Isbell House 3 Costs have been broken down into two 3 4 categories: annual operating costs and one-time • Install lifts at the Courthouse and the 4 5 costs. Annual or recurring costs include those McLean House 5 6 associated with ongoing maintenance, utilities, 6 • Rehabilitate the Mathews House for 7 staffi ng, vehicles, supplies and materials, and 7 administrative quarters and collections 8 any leasing costs. One-time costs, which are 8 management and construct an addition for 9 generally considered capital investments, are 9 collections storage 10 associated with such actions as the removal of 10 11 resources, the restoration and rehabilitation of • Repave Gordon Road 11 12 resources, additions to structure, development of 12 • Demolish non-contributing structures, 13 new exhibits, and research and planning. 13 14 including the existing maintenance facility, 14 and rehabilitate the vacated areas of the 15 Annual Costs 15 16 cultural landscape 16 17 This alternative would be implemented with the • Construct a vehicle storage facility 17 18 current staffi ng levels plus ten and one-half full- 18 • Construct a small concessions building/ 19 time equivalent staff (FTEs). One FTE is one 19 entrance station 20 person working 40 hours per week for one year, 20 21 or the equivalent. New positions would support • Rehabilitate selected areas for interpretation 21 22 museum services (one museum technician and visitor use 22 23 and an archivist/researcher), natural resource 23 • Rehabilitate agricultural fi elds 24 management (one biotechnician), and visitor 24 25 services (one education specialist and one park • Extend trails to create a park-wide system 25 26 guide). As in all the action alternatives, the largest 26 • Add amenities and enhancements in visitor 27 increase is in the area of park operations, with 27 use areas 28 the addition of fi ve protection rangers. Alternative 28 29 3 would have the highest annual operating costs • Replace interpretive signs and add new 29 30 among the action alternatives, because the rental ones 30 31 costs for the off-site maintenance facility would 31 • Develop new audio-visual media 32 be included. [In the fi rst year of its operation, 32 33 the rental cost is estimated to be $170,000.] 33 34 This alternative has the highest level of staffi ng 2.7 Alternative 4 - Changing Meanings of 34 35 among the action alternatives at 31 FTEs, but the Events at Appomattox 35 36 the variation is not signifi cant, with 30 FTEs 36 37 proposed in Alternative 2 and 29.5 in Alternative Main Idea 37 38 4. The park’s operating budget would need to be 38 39 increased by approximately $742,500. The total The story of the site is told in the context of 39 40 cost to operate the park in this alternative would the events of April 1865. In addition to this key 40 41 be $2,088,000 (in 2008 dollars). story, this alternative places an emphasis on the 41 42 subsequent efforts to commemorate the events, 42 43 One-time Costs mark their signifi cance, to develop the site as 43 44 a national park. The different meanings that 44 45 The one-time costs associated with this have been applied to the events at Appomattox 45 46 alternative are estimated to be $7,804,000. Court House, the emotional connections to the 46 47 site that have resonated in American history 47 48 The one-time costs are substantially lower than and the recognition of its national importance 48 49 in the other action alternatives, as they do not are explored. The village and commemorative 49 50 include costs for the replacement maintenance features that may be outside the village are the 50 51 facility, which would be leased off site. focus for the visitor experience, and opportunities 51 52 are expanded for the off-site visitor who accesses 52 53 The following actions were used in the information on the web. The present appearance 53 54 development of the cost estimates, to illustrate of the park is maintained in general, although 54 55 the range of activities that could be undertaken in several sites are selected for rehabilitation. The 55 56 this alternative. approach envisions a refl ective visitor experience 56 57 focused on sites related to the surrender and its 57 58 • Rehabilitate the Clover Hill Tavern Kitchen commemoration, and improvements to enhance 58 59 59 64 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 the commemorative experience. commemorative features outside the village, 1 2 visitors understand the changing meanings of 2 3 Resource Protection/Cultural and Natural the surrender events and the ending of the Civil 3 4 Resource Management War and the ways in which the site has been 4 5 commemorated and remembered. Preservation 5 6 Rehabilitation of the landscape is proposed for and commemoration efforts are seen in the 6 7 the Apple Tree site and the area vacated by the context of national history. Site preservation 7 8 maintenance facility in the vicinity of the Lee- in the village and the park’s archeological 8 9 Grant meeting site and the Salute Site. The rural investigations can be explored. 9 10 setting outside the village is maintained through 10 11 modern agricultural practices, use of large fi elds, Visitors understand how the park has developed 11 12 and the introduction of a variety of crops and into a commemorative setting and how it has 12 13 grasses to promote habitat diversity. Modern and evolved. A more refl ective visitor experience 13 14 non-contributing structures are removed and the would be fostered in this alternative. The 14 15 land returned to agricultural use or planted for experience would involve selected sites related to 15 16 habitat diversity. Rehabilitation and preservation the surrender, with some improvements made to 16 17 are proposed for historic road traces. The village enhance the commemorative experience. 17 18 landscape is maintained by mowed turf, fencing 18 19 and historic plant types, similar to existing Visitors understand the village as a vernacular 19 20 practices. settlement and the efforts that local groups 20 21 have made to commemorate the site, such 21 22 Rehabilitation is proposed in the village. The as the local chapter of the United Daughters 22 23 Isbell House is rehabilitated for new purposes, of the Confederacy and the Lynchburg Group 23 24 such as for classroom space and exhibits. The that advocated preservation of the village. 24 25 restrooms are removed from the Clover Hill Slave They understand the role of veteran’s groups 25 26 Quarters and the building interpreted from the in the development of the site, ranging from 26 27 exterior. The Meeks’ Store second fl oor continues the group that focused on the McLean House 27 28 to be used for the Interpretive Division or these in the 1890s to the North Carolina veterans 28 29 functions may be moved to a village building who wished to commemorate their role in the 29 30 rehabilitated for this purpose. Battle of Appomattox Court House. Observation 30 31 points and waysides offer opportunities for 31 32 Commemorative features in outlying areas are contemplation and understanding of the changing 32 33 maintained for interpretation and visitor use. meanings of the end of the Civil War. 33 34 Other buildings, cemeteries and archeological 34 35 sites are stabilized and preserved. Educational outreach would be a key activity. The 35 36 Archeological sites will continue to be visitor who does not physically access the site 36 37 documented and investigated, in light of their has opportunities to reach understandings about 37 38 potential to further an understanding of park the park similar to the on-site visitor, through 38 39 resources. alternate ways of experiencing the meanings of 39 40 the park. This alternative relies on technology 40 41 Collections emphasize archival material that to reach the off-site visitor and to convey the 41 42 can be placed in electronic format to enhance main ideas to a greater extent than the other 42 43 accessibility for off-site users. two action alternatives. Because the thematic 43 44 emphasis in this alternative encompasses many 44 45 Leasing of fi elds for agricultural purposes would abstract ideas, visitor use can take place through 45 46 be continued. off-site experiences for understanding, education 46 47 and learning. Website expansion, on-line archival 47 48 Visitor Use and Experience material, and educational curricula are some of 48 49 the ways in which off-site opportunities can be 49 50 At the courthouse visitor center, visitors receive made available to convey the commemorative 50 51 park orientation and take advantage of exhibits signifi cance of the park. 51 52 and programming related to the theme Memories 52 53 and Meaning, which receives primary emphasis As in Alternative 1, visitors enter the village from 53 54 in this alternative. Visitors are also exposed to the parking lot and then go to the visitor center. 54 55 the other two themes. An option for the visit to begin or end in the town 55 56 of Appomattox may be developed. 56 57 Through the village setting and exposure to 57 58 historic events related to the surrender and In the periphery of the village and outside it, 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 65 1 the focus of visitor exposure to park stories The park would work with the community and 1 2 and interaction with the landscape is on Virginia Department of Transportation to resolve 2 3 commemorative features. Visitors directly access safety issues and to explore traffi c calming 3 4 commemorative features and the information measures on Route 24. As part of the park’s 4 5 needed for understanding them. Limited parking long-term transportation planning program, a 5 6 may be provided in the vicinity of the Salute bypass alignment of Route 24 may be considered 6 7 Site. Visitor use of the Apple Tree site would for future study. Such a study would be triggered 7 8 be enhanced through such means as site by changes in existing conditions such as 8 9 rehabilitation, a place for parking, signs, and substantially higher traffi c volumes on Route 9 10 placement on the trail system. 24 due to population growth and increased 10 11 development and/or if plans for the Route 460 11 12 Because interpretive programming at on-site corridor to become an interstate highway are 12 13 resources focuses on commemorative features, pursued. 13 14 fewer sites are accessed for visitor use than in 14 15 alternatives 2 and 3. Operational Effi ciency 15 16 16 17 A park wide trail system provides access to Administrative offi ces are consolidated in the 17 18 the broader landscape. Information would be 1970s residence known as the Mathews House 18 19 available on sites of interest, perhaps through a at the end of Gordon Road. The library and 19 20 trail guide and some signage. Segments of the park collections move to this location, which 20 21 trail may focus on ecology or on how the land has would be augmented by the construction of 21 22 been used over time; the existing forestry trail is additional space for collections. The collections 22 23 one such segment that could be interpreted for facility participates in the regional collection 23 24 this purpose. management plan and receives collections from 24 25 other parks. 25 26 Lifts are installed in the courthouse and at the 26 27 McLean House. A new maintenance facility and space for vehicle 27 28 storage is constructed on the hillside between the 28 29 Partnerships and Cooperative Actions existing facility and Route 24, along the eastern 29 30 part of the loop road. 30 31 Existing partnerships are maintained and 31 32 strengthened. The park continues to work with Bookstore operations remain in the Clover Hill 32 33 the Lee’s Retreat Civil War Trail consortium, Kitchen. Restrooms are removed from the Clover 33 34 strengthening relationships with sites on the Hill Slave Quarters, and the building is used for 34 35 Appomattox Campaign and on the Civil Rights in bookstore storage. 35 36 Education Trail. There may be opportunities for 36 37 a coordinated transportation system to enhance The fi eld management program lease fi elds for 37 38 visitor movement from Petersburg to Appomattox. agricultural purposes. 38 39 39 40 New partnerships are fostered, helping the park Boundary Adjustment 40 41 to carry out its goals, particularly in the areas of 41 42 long-distance learning, curriculum development Related resources and viewshed values are 42 43 and other opportunities for education. This protected through a boundary expansion at the 43 44 could happen at the national scale. The study park’s southern boundary. 44 45 or learning center on the Civil War may be 45 46 developed in conjunction with a partner. The park Costs for Alternative 4 46 47 works with the community to protect the site of 47 48 cavalry action during the Battle of Appomattox Cost estimates for Alternative 4 are identifi ed 48 49 Station, located between the park and the town below. The estimates, in 2008 dollars, are 49 50 center of Appomattox. intended to facilitate a relative cost comparison 50 51 among the alternatives and would not be used 51 52 This alternative would expand its relationships for budgetary purposes. The actual costs to the 52 53 with constituent groups, such as Civil War federal government, which could be infl uenced 53 54 roundtables; the local chapters of United by such factors as the fi nal design of facilities, 54 55 Daughters of the Confederacy and Sons of future economic conditions, and opportunities 55 56 Confederate Veterans; and the Sons of Union for partnerships, would vary. A discussion of the 56 57 Veterans. development of the costs and a cost comparison 57 58 for the alternatives follows the description of the 58 59 59

Chapter 2: Alternatives 67 1 alternatives. 1 2 • Rehabilitate the Clover Hill Slave Quarters 2 3 The implementation of the approved plan will 3 • Rehabilitate the Isbell House 4 depend on future funding. The approval of this 4 5 plan does not guarantee that the funding and • Rehabilitate the Mathews House for 5 6 staffi ng needed to implement the plan will be administrative quarters and collections 6 7 forthcoming. Full implementation of the actions in management and construct an addition for 7 8 the approved General Management Plan could collections storage 8 9 be many years in the future. 9 • Repave Gordon Road 10 10 11 Costs have been broken down into two • Demolish non-contributing structures, 11 12 categories: annual operating costs and one-time including the existing maintenance facility, 12 13 costs. Annual or recurring costs include those and rehabilitate the vacated areas of the 13 14 associated with ongoing maintenance, utilities, cultural landscape 14 15 staffi ng, vehicles, supplies and materials, and 15 • Construct a new maintenance facility 16 any leasing costs. One-time costs, which are 16 17 generally considered capital investments, would • Undertake habitat restoration in selected 17 18 be associated with such actions as the removal areas 18 19 of resources, the restoration and rehabilitation of 19 • Extend trails to create a park-wide trail 20 resources, additions to structure, development of 20 system 21 new exhibits, and research and planning. 21 22 • Add amenities and enhancements in visitor 22 23 Annual Costs use areas 23 24 24 • Replace interpretive signs and add new 25 This alternative would be implemented with 25 ones 26 the current staffi ng levels plus nine full-time 26 27 equivalent staff (FTEs). One FTE is one person • Develop new audio-visual media 27 28 working 40 hours per week for one year, or 28 29 the equivalent. New positions are proposed 29 2.8 Comparison of Cost Estimates for the 30 to support museum services (one museum 30 Alternatives 31 technician), natural resource management 31 32 (one biotechnician), and visitor services 32 The cost fi gures shown here and throughout the 33 (one interpretive park ranger and one park 33 plan are intended only to provide an estimate 34 guide/exhibit specialist). As in all the action 34 of the relative costs of alternatives. NPS and 35 alternatives, the largest increase is in the area 35 industry cost estimating guidelines were used 36 of park operations, with the addition of fi ve 36 to develop the costs (in 2008 dollars) to the 37 protection rangers. The park’s operating budget 37 extent possible, but the estimates should not 38 would need to be increased by approximately 38 be used for budgeting purposes. Specifi c 39 $487,000. The total cost to operate the park in 39 costs will be determined in subsequent, more 40 this alternative would be $1,830,000 (in 2008 40 detailed planning and design exercise, and 41 dollars). 41 through consideration of the design of facilities, 42 42 identifi cation of detailed resource protection 43 One-time Costs 43 needs, and changing visitor expectations. 44 44 Actual costs to the National Park Service will 45 The one-time costs associated with this 45 vary depending if and when the actions are 46 alternative are estimated to be $11,031,000. 46 implemented and on contributions by partners 47 A major component is the cost of the new 47 and volunteers. 48 maintenance facility, as in Alternative 2. Apart 48 49 from this project, one-time costs are lower than in 49 The implementation of the approved plan, no 50 the other two action alternatives, as Alternative 4 50 matter which alternative is selected, will depend 51 proposes fewer facilities and resource treatment 51 on future NPS funding levels and servicewide 52 actions in the broader cultural landscape. 52 priorities, and on partnership funds, time, 53 53 and effort. The approval of a GMP does not 54 The following proposed actions were among 54 guarantee that funding and staffi ng needed to 55 those used to develop the cost estimates, to 55 implement the plan will be forthcoming. Full 56 illustrate the range of activities that could be 56 implementation of the plan could be many years 57 undertaken in this alternative. 57 in the future. 58 58 59 59 68 Chapter 2: Alternatives

Table 2-1: Comparison of Cost Estimates for the Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Annual Operating Costs 1 $1,345,000 $1,866,000 $2,087,500 $1,830,000 Staffi ng – FTEs 2 21 30.5 31 29.5 Total One Time Costs 3 $610,000 $13,582,0003 $7,804,000 $11,031,000 Facility Costs 4 $610,000 $9,895,000 $4,761,000 $8,835,000 Non-Facility Costs $3,687,000 $3,043,000 $2,196,000

1 Annual operating costs are the total costs per year for maintenance and operations associated with each alternative, including utilities, supplies, staff salaries and benefi ts, leasing, and other materials. The fi gure shown here is the park’s annual operating budget for FY08 (2009 Greenbook). 2 The total number of FTEs (full-time equivalents) is the number of person-years of staff required to maintain the assets of the park at a good level, provide acceptable visitor services, protect resources, and generally support the park’s operations. The FTE number indicates ONPS-funded NPS staff only, not volunteer positions or positions funded by partners. FTE salaries and benefi ts are included in the annual operating costs. 3 One time projects are listed in the cost sections in the narratives for the alternatives. The facility component of one-time projects includes those for the design, construction, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse of buildings used for visitor or educational services; roads; parking areas; administrative facilities; comfort stations, maintenance facilities, museum collection facilities, etc. The non-facility component includes actions for the preservation of cultural or natural resources not related to facilities, the development of visitor use tools not related to facilities, and other park management activities that would require substantial funding above park annual operating costs. The principal reason for the reduced facility costs for Alternative 3 is that they do not include construction of an in- park maintenance facility. 4 For the no-action alternative, one-time facility costs include only costs associated with projects already approved and fully funded. Chapter 2: Alternatives 69 cance, and its development as a Alternative 4 Changing Meanings of the Events at Appomattox The story of the site is told in April 1865, context of the events to mark its the subsequent efforts signi fi meanings The different national park. that have been applied to the events at Appomattox Court House, the emotional connections to the site that have American history and the resonated in recognition of its national importance are explored. The rural setting would be maintained Alternative 1. Some areas of the as in landscape would be selected for habitat restoration. Existing visitor use areas are maintained, and site improvements site to enhance Tree Apple made at the visitor access. is rehabilitated after The ‘salute site’ removal of the maintenance facility. eld and fi eld patterns fi century to the early th century. Historic century. th Alternative 3 What Happened Here Changed Everything The park tells a comprehensive story of the surrender and termination placing it as a of the Civil War, transforming event within the larger The site history. context of the nation’s explores the consequences of Civil based on the experiences of those War civilians and soldiers who were present Appomattox Court in and around House and the relevance of those American life today. outcomes to Features would be rehabilitated to support the interpretation of fencing patterns typical of the region from the mid-19 20 may be introduced. use zones are expanded Visitor beyond the village and existing waysides on Route 24. Some thirty acres of tree canopy in the ‘new lands’ new building A area would be removed. Route 24 would be constructed off near the current visitor parking lot. is rehabilitated after The ‘salute site’ removal of the maintenance facility. eld patterns cation and fi fi eld and fencing fi cient documentation is fi Alternative 2 Regional Partnership A April 1865 - The park is the focal point of a region Appomattox featuring the events of Campaign, the surrender and The termination of the Civil War. chronological story that is told at the park concludes with the beginning of peace and national reuni the early days of reconstruction. Features would be rehabilitated in support of interpreting patterns typical of the region during period. Historic Civil War may be introduced and fencing lines restored if suf available. use zones are expanded Visitor beyond the village and existing waysides on Route 24. Some forty acres of tree canopy in the ‘new lands’ area would be removed. is rehabilitated after The ‘salute site’ removal of the maintenance facility. The original grade of the Richmond Stage Road is restored in Lynchburg the vicinity of site. cance fi elds for the planting of fi elds used for feed crops and Alternative 1 No-Action /Present Management Direction The park conveys the signi of the events and associated stories April 1865 that brought the nation in together and set it on its present The setting is one in which course. visitors can feel the physical and emotional realities of the events that occurred here (as stated in the current Mission Statement). The rural setting continues to be maintained through modern agricultural practices, with large fi smaller native grasses. Existing visitor use areas are maintained. Table 2-2: GMP Alternatives Summary Matrix 2-2: GMP Table Main Idea Resource Protection Broad Cultural Landscape 2.9 Alternatives Action Comparative Summary of the 70 Chapter 2: Alternatives ces and library fi Alternative 4 Changing Meanings of the Events at Appomattox Preservation and rehabilitation would be the principal treatment for features in the village. The administrative of are relocated from the Isbell House, and the building rehabilitated for visitor use. Restrooms are removed from the Clover Slave Quarters and the Tavern Hill building rehabilitated. Alternative 3. Same as

th ces fi cient fi century. century. th Alternative 3 What Happened Here Changed Everything Preservation and rehabilitation in the village landscape would support interpretation of the village setting during the period from mid-19 century to the early 20 Historic fencing lines and vegetation patterns may be restored if suf documentation is available. The bookstore, administrative of and library are relocated from historic The Isbell House and Clover buildings. Kitchen are rehabilitated. Tavern Hill Restrooms are removed from the Slave Quarters and Tavern Clover Hill the building rehabilitated. Historic road traces are rehabilitated or preserved, and segments incorporated in the trail-wide park system. Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2. Same as ces fi cient fi lled in through fi cient documentation. fi Alternative 2 Regional Partnership A April 1865 - Preservation, rehabilitation and restoration are employed to support interpretation of the village setting period. Historic during the Civil War fencing lines and vegetation patterns would be restored if suf documentation is available. Missing elements from the 1865 village setting are new construction of similar mass and scale of missing structures. Potentially reconstruction may be employed if there is suf The bookstore, administrative of and library are relocated from historic The Isbell House and Clover buildings. Kitchen are rehabilitated. Tavern Hill Restrooms are removed from the Slave Quarters and Tavern Clover Hill the building rehabilitated. rehabilitated, or preserved and segments incorporated in the trail-wide park system. and related resources are Viewsheds protected through an expansion of the park boundary at its southern edge and subsequent donations or acquisitions of easements and property. . ces and the library. ces and the library. Alternative 1 No-Action /Present Management Direction Previously planned restoration projects continue to take place to support interpretation of the surrender events. Preservation would otherwise be the principal treatment for features in the village landscape Historic buildings continue to be adaptively used for administrative of fi Restrooms remain in the Clover Hill Slave Quarters Tavern Historic road traces are preserved. Historic road traces are restored, boundary expansion would not A The park would continue be sought. working with adjacent landowners and conservation organizations on a parcel by basis. Table 2-2: GMP Alternatives Summary Matrix 2-2: GMP Table Cultural Village Landscape Historic Buildings Historic Road Traces and Viewsheds related resources adjacent to the park boundary Chapter 2: Alternatives 71 ect fl cant fi lled, and others. In fi Alternative 4 Changing Meanings of the Events at Appomattox All themes are interpreted, with an emphasis on “Memories and Meanings.” Appomattox occupies a signi and compelling place in our national The meaning of the historic memory. Appomattox has been shaped events at views and reshaped by the differing held by veterans interested in national reconciliation, white Southerners African supporting the Lost Cause, Americans believing in the promise of freedoms yet unful turn, preservation and commemoration undertaken at the park re efforts views of the meaning these differing events. learn about the surrender Visitors events and how people have connected to the site and meanings in those There are multiple connections. visitor to opportunities for the off-site reach similar understandings. The village and commemorative sites in the periphery of village, and along Route 24, are accessed. Circulation routes encompass the village and provide park-wide access. cation, a fi icting societal forces are part of rst step on the long road to dealing Alternative 3 What Happened Here Changed Everything All themes are interpreted, with an emphasis is on “The Legacy of Appomattox” Appomattox came to symbolize the promise of national reuni fi with sectional divisions. However, this ideal was not always supported Americans African as by reality, struggled for equal rights ostensibly guaranteed by the Constitution. White southerners coped with economic and political dislocations, feelings of submission, humiliation and The tensions among resentment. con fl Appomattox. the unresolved legacy of Park resources are interpreted so as to expand the understanding of outcomes of the surrender and Civil War. The results and consequences of the war are explored in stories, the park and elsewhere, that continue into the present. The village and sites related to surrender events and civilian experiences in the broader landscape are accessed. Interpretive area is programming in the ‘new lands’ introduced. Circulation routes encompass the village and provide park-wide access Alternative 2 Regional Partnership A April 1865 - All themes are interpreted, with an emphasis is on “From Petersburg Appomattox: the Final Days and to Surrender”. April 9, 1865, Generals Grant and On Lee set the tone for men who had followed them into battle, choosing reconciliation over vengeance and mutual citizenship over regional thereby signaling the differences, The end of the Civil War. effective peaceful conclusion—unlike most civil wars—was not a given, as injuries and hatreds on both sides could have led to a bloody aftermath in the wake of most destructive war. nation’s There is a focus on the chronology that Appomattox Campaign begins with the and concludes with related events April 1865.The in the region through park is seen as the culmination of Apomattox Campaign. The village and sites related to surrender events and military actions in the broader landscape are accessed. Interpretive programming in the ‘new area is introduced. lands’ Circulation routes encompass the village and reach outlying areas. cation and daily life in the mid- Alternative 1 No-Action /Present Management Direction Themes include the surrender, reuni fi 1800s. The visit is designed as a self- guided tour that includes exploration The of the village environment. visitor learns about the surrender through personal services at the McLean House. The village core is the focus of most visits, and sites at the village periphery or waysides along Route 24 may not be accessed. The history trail reaching outlying areas is infrequently used Table 2-2: GMP Alternatives Summary Matrix 2-2: GMP Table Experience and Use Interpretation and Visitor Interpretive Themes Core Experience access to Visitor sites and buildings 72 Chapter 2: Alternatives Alternative 4 Changing Meanings of the Events at Appomattox Appomattox The park works with the community on the story of surrender The role of the and its aftermath. community in site preservation at the park is explored Partnerships focus on long-distance learning and curriculum development and other opportunities for education. or on-site Learning Center is An off-site developed as a partnership effort. Alternative 3 Same as The park continues to serve as a key Retreat Consortium. partner in Lee’s The park sponsors a site on the Civil and Trail, Rights in Education Heritage participates in the consortium of trail sites. Alternative 3 What Happened Here Changed Everything Appomattox The park works with the of community on the ‘whole story’ the campaign, surrender and its aftermath. Coordination efforts could be directed to the planned Carver-Price School museum, and Appomattox County Historical Society, among others. Partnerships and linked sites shed light on how local residents and communities coped with the outcomes including emancipation of the civil war, and the later struggles for equality. Linkages to regional and national sites also point to outcomes. or on-site Learning Center is An off-site developed as a partnership effort. The NPS works with the community and preservation interests to protect related lands, especially lands adjacent to the approaches park. Retreat The park participates in Lee’s Consortium, and may expand its role to support programming focusing on the civilian experience at consortium sites. The park sponsors a site on the Civil Trail, Rights in Education Heritage assisting in programming that connects trail sites to the outcomes of Civil War eld. fi eld State fi eld are strengthened. ll in the chronology and enrich Alternative 2 Regional Partnership A April 1865 - Appomattox The park works with the of community on the ‘whole story’ the campaign, surrender and its The visit could begin in the aftermath. Appomattox for orientation and town of Appomattox Station battle a tour of The park would also reach out to other surrender and related sites Civil War to fi story of the events 1865. Linkages Creek Battle with Sailors’ Park, Appomattox-Buckingham State Forest, Pamplin Park and Petersburg National Battle fi These related sites may become the basis for the regional partnership. The NPS works with the community and preservation interests to protect related lands in the vicinity of park, and lands adjacent to the The role of the approaches to the park. park expands to promote protection of resources associated with the Appomattox Campaign. The park is a key partner in Lee’s Retreat Consortium, and expands its role to promote interpretation and resource protection of sites on the Civil trail. War The park sponsors a site on the Civil and Trail Rights in Education Heritage participates in the consortium of trail sites. eld. fi Alternative 1 No-Action /Present Management Direction The park works with the community to develop an interpretive Appomattox experience for the Station battle The park continues to be a key Retreat partner in the Lee’s Consoritum. The park sponsors a site on the Civil Trail Rights in Education Heritage and participates in the consortium of trail sites. Table 2-2: GMP Alternatives Summary Matrix 2-2: GMP Table Actions Partnerships and Cooperative Related sites: visitor experience and interpretation Related sites: resource protection Regional Heritage Routes Tourism Chapter 2: Alternatives 73 Alternative 4 Changing Meanings of the Events at Appomattox Alternative 3 What Happened Here Changed Everything Alternative 2.Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2. Same as eld, and the town of c calming and improvement Alternative 2 Regional Partnership A April 1865 - Appomattox The park works with the Chamber of Commerce and the and Visitor Greater Lynchburg Convention Bureau on visitor awareness of area attractions and development of the tourism The park coordinates infrastructure. Council and Tourism with the Virginia private tour companies on thematic tours, to assure that the park story is understood. The park works with its community partners in implementing the Region 2000 Greenway and Blueway Appomattox The Master Plan, and Plan, Trail Heritage and Recreational particularly in developing connections Appomattox between the park, Station Battle fi Appomattox; and connecting the park Appomattox State Forest. and the fi Traf of safety conditions on Route 24 is fostered through cooperative relationships among the park, VDOT, Appomattox community and the bypass solution may A Region 2000. be explored as a long-term solution in conjunction with partners. Appomattox is restored, the NPS of would seek to develop connections working in to the park for visitor, conjunction with the town and county. Rail (Other partners include VDOT Passenger unit and in Lynchburg) Alternative 1 No-Action /Present Management Direction The park continues to work with the Appomattox Chamber of Commerce Visitor and the Greater Lynchburg and Convention Bureau on visitor awareness of area attractions and development of the tourism infrastructure. The park supports regional trail planning but would take a limited role in working towards implementation. The park works with the Virginia Transportation Department of on incremental improvements to enhance safety conditions on Route 24. No action is anticipated. If passenger rail service to the town Table 2-2: GMP Alternatives Summary Matrix 2-2: GMP Table services Tourism Regional trails Transportation planning – Route 24 Transportation Planning – rail connections 74 Chapter 2: Alternatives ces, library, and ces, library, fi Alternative 4 Changing Meanings of the Events at Appomattox The Mathews House is rehabilitated to house administrative of An addition to collections management. the building houses collections storage space. new maintenance facility is A constructed in the park. The bookstore remains in the Clover Hill Kitchen Tavern ces, fi Alternative 3 What Happened Here Changed Everything The Mathews House is rehabilitated to house administrative of and collections management. library, An addition to the building houses collections storage space. new maintenance facility is A constructed outside the park; limited vehicle storage is provided in a new building in the park. new structure near the visitor parking A lot serves as a visitor contact station and houses the bookstore. Visitor amenities are provided in the outlying area. ces, fi Alternative 2 Regional Partnership A April 1865 - The Mathews House is rehabilitated to house administrative of and collections management. library, An addition to the building houses collections storage space. new maintenance facility is A constructed in the park. new structure in the Clover Hill A complex houses visitor Tavern amenities and the bookstore. Visitor amenities are provided in the outlying area. ces, collections fi oors of the Bocock-Isbell Alternative 1 No-Action /Present Management Direction Administrative of management functions, and the library continued to be housed on the three fl House. Park collections are mainly housed in interim collections storage facility. Maintenance operations continue in with incremental the existing facility, improvements made on a limited basis. The bookstore remains in the Clover Kitchen. Hill Tavern Table 2-2: GMP Alternatives Summary Matrix 2-2: GMP Table Park Operations Chapter 2: Alternatives 75 1 Further Compliance on Proposed Actions and would require no further SHPO review. 1 2 Relating to Cultural Resources Other actions would need further review. This 2 3 information is presented in Table 2-4. The table 3 4 The NPS has developed a list of actions presents actions for all three alternatives for this 4 5 associated with the proposed general assessment. It should be recognized that only 5 6 management plan alternatives that could have one alternative and its associated actions would 6 7 an effect on cultural resources. Some of these be prepared for funding and implementation at 7 8 actions are covered by programmatic exclusions, the conclusion of the planning process. 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 Table 2-4: Potential Additional Compliance Requirements 14 POTENTIAL ACTION COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT 15 15 Continuing archeological site investigation Section 106 compliance initiated as part of the 16 16 Archeological Overview and Assessment 17 Status of Williams cabin ruins Requires Section 110 compliance review and 17 18 revision to current National Register nomination; 18 19 Section 106 SHPO/ACHP review to determine 19 20 any effect on structures 20 21 Development of new maintenance facility Section 106 SHPO/ACHP review to determine 21 22 any effect 22 23 Rehabilitation/restoration of the Stage Road Requires Section 110 compliance National 23 24 alignment in the vicinity of the Surrender Site, Register eligibility; Section 106 SHPO/ACHP 24 25 removal of the maintenance facility and site review to determine any effect on landscape 25 26 rehabilitation feature 26 27 Filling in missing components of the Clover Hill Section 106 SHPO/ACHP review to determine 27 28 Tavern Complex: construction of similar mass any effect 28 29 and scale or reconstruction of the dining room 29 30 of the tavern, and building of a stable to house 30 31 the cooperating association sales outlet and 31 32 accessible public restrooms 32 33 Construction of collections storage space at the Section 106 SHPO/ACHP review to determine 33 34 rear of the Mathews House any effect 34 Removal of existing road segment and Requires Section 110 compliance National 35 35 restoration/rehabilitation of maintenance area Register eligibility; Section 106 SHPO/ACHP 36 36 review to determine any effect on landscape 37 37 feature 38 Development of bookstore/visitor contact station Section 106 SHPO/ACHP review to determine 38 39 to the east of current the visitor parking lot any effect 39 40 Excavation for utilities placement Section 106 SHPO/ACHP review to determine 40 41 any effect 41 42 Installation of signs or markings at archeological Section 106 SHPO/ACHP review to determine 42 43 sites any effect 43 44 Installation of new wayside exhibits and signage Nationwide programmatic exclusion—Section 106 44 45 review within NPS 45 46 Development of new segments of the park-wide Section 106 SHPO/ACHP review to determine 46 47 trail system any effect 47 48 Combined pedestrian corridor and traffi c calming Section 106 SHPO/ACHP review to determine 48 49 treatment to existing SR 24 right-of-way or any effect 49 50 relocation. 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 76 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 consistency with the purposes of NEPA is 1 2 2.10 Consistency With Section 101(b) presented below, followed by the identifi cation of 2 3 of NEPA and the Environmentally the environmentally preferred alternative. 3 4 Preferred Alternative 4 5 Alternative 1—Continuation of Existing 5 6 The general management plan must be Management Direction 6 7 consistent with Sections 101(b) and 102(1) of the 7 8 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which This alternative partially meets the purposes 8 9 express the purposes of NEPA. This part of the through its resource protection activities that 9 10 document presents an analysis of how each provide for preservation of important historic 10 11 alternative achieves the following purposes: and natural aspects of our national heritage. 11 12 The park’s interpretive programs and visitor 12 13 1) Fulfi ll the responsibilities of each generation experiences tend to appeal to a limited range 13 14 as trustee of the environment for succeeding of visitors, and many Americans do not have 14 15 generations. the opportunity to enjoy the park. Current 15 16 management directions are not suffi cient for 16 2) Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, 17 ensuring esthetically and culturally pleasing 17 productive, and esthetically and culturally 18 surroundings and related resources adjacent 18 pleasing surroundings. 19 to the park would remain unprotected. The 19 20 3) Attain the widest range of benefi cial uses of alternative does not achieve the widest range 20 21 the environment without degradation, risk of benefi cial uses of the environment without 21 22 of health or safety, or other undesirable and risk of health or safety. Safety factors related 22 23 unintended consequences. to site access are not adequately addressed 23 24 and solutions are short-term. Undesirable and 24 4) Preserve important historic, cultural, and 25 unintended consequences are generally limited 25 natural aspects of our national heritage 26 in the area of natural resources but cultural 26 and maintain, wherever possible, an 27 resources would remain at risk from degradation. 27 environment that supports diversity and 28 The alternative does not fully support diversity 28 variety of individual choice. 29 and variety of individual choice for the visitor, 29 30 5) Achieve a balance between population as opportunities for visitor use in the new lands 30 31 and resource use that would permit high area are not developed. Messages about the 31 32 standards of living and a wide sharing of signifi cance of events at the park tend to be 32 33 life’s amenities. limited to visitors who receive a ranger talk at the 33 34 McLean House. These factors, in combination, 34 6) Enhance the quality of renewable resources 35 constrain the ability of the park to serve in an 35 and approach the maximum attainable 36 effective way as a trustee of the environment for 36 recycling of depletable resources. 37 succeeding generations. 37 38 38 39 Additionally, in accordance with the DO-12 Alternative 2 – A Regional Partnership 39 40 Handbook (2001), the NPS is required to identify Centered on the Appomattox Campaign 40 41 the environmentally preferred alternative in its 41 42 NEPA documents for public review and comment. This alternative meets the purposes, overall, to 42 43 The environmentally preferred alternative a substantial degree. Important historic, cultural 43 44 is defi ned in the Council on Environmental and natural aspects of our heritage would be 44 45 Quality’s (CEQ’s) NEPA’s Forty Most Asked preserved, although some aspects of the natural 45 46 Questions as the alternative that best promotes environment would be affected as visitor use 46 47 the national environmental policy expressed in expands in the park. It fulfi ls the responsibilities 47 48 NEPA’s Section 101(b). In their Forty Most of serving as trustee for each generation in 48 49 Asked Questions, CEQ further clarifi es the its recognition of new understandings of the 49 50 identifi cation of the environmentally preferred meanings and outcomes of the Civil War, efforts 50 51 alternative, stating “Ordinarily, this means the to expand the knowledge base available for 51 52 alternative that causes the least damage to the visitor, and changes in interpretation. A 52 53 the biological and physical environment; it also broadened and more diverse message would 53 54 means the alternative which best protects, make the park more accessible to visitors with 54 55 preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and a variety of backgrounds, and help to establish 55 56 natural resources” (Q6a). culturally pleasing surroundings. Through a 56 57 boundary adjustment and other actions to protect 57 58 The analysis of the four alternatives for related resources and viewshed values, the 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 77 1 alternative would help to achieve esthetically culturally pleasing surroundings. The diversity 1 2 and culturally pleasing surroundings. More of the message may appeal to many Americans 2 3 Americans would be likely to visit and enjoy the and would likely attract diverse visitor groups 3 4 park. The park would work in concert with the more so than in Alternatives 2 and 4. Important 4 5 community to address safety issues related to historic, cultural and natural aspects of the 5 6 site access, seeking mid to long range solutions environment would be preserved, although some 6 7 to achieve a safe environment for all who travel aspects of the natural environment would be 7 8 through the park--visitors, community residents, affected as visitor use expands in the park. As in 8 9 and commuters alike. This alternative has Alternative 2, the park seeks mid to long range 9 10 the potential for undesirable consequences solutions to achieve a safe environment for all 10 11 on the natural environment resulting from the who travel through the park. The environment 11 12 development of a new maintenance facility; supports diversity and a variety of individual 12 13 however, it would also provide for these possible choice by creating opportunities for visitor 13 14 effects to be better understood and then use in the ‘new lands’ area, enriching the 14 15 moderated by appropriate siting and design. The interpretive program and expanding the number 15 16 environment supports diversity and a variety of places in the park where the park message 16 17 of individual choice by creating opportunities is given, and providing amenities for the visitor 17 18 for visitor use in the ‘new lands’ area, enriching in areas outside the village. Important cultural, 18 19 the interpretive program and expanding the historic, and natural aspects of our heritage 19 20 number of places in the park where the park would be preserved, although some aspects 20 21 message is given, and providing amenities of the natural environment would be affected 21 22 for the visitor in areas outside the village. In as visitor use expands in the park. While the 22 23 addition, the regional partnership supports potential unintended consequences on the 23 24 individual choice and introduces the opportunity environment from construction of a maintenance 24 25 for the visitor experience to include diverse facility in alternatives 2 and 4 would be avoided 25 26 perspectives regarding related resources. The with a facility located outside the park, it is 26 27 use of sustainable design for the facility would acknowledged that depletable resources would 27 28 help enhance the quality of renewable resources. be used in travel to the park from the facility. 28 29 Additionally, the re-use of an existing 1970s Safety risks for employees would increase over 29 30 building for the consolidation of administrative the mid-term due to more time spent accessing 30 31 offi ces would help the park approach maximum the park and traveling through the park. As in 31 32 attainable recycling of depletable resources. This Alternative 2, the re-use of an existing 1970s 32 33 alternative achieves a balance between visitor building for consolidating administrative offi ces 33 34 activity and resource use by providing a level of would approach the maximum attainable 34 35 amenity and facility development that would allow recycling of depletable resources. This 35 36 visitor comfort and promote understanding of alternative achieves a balance between visitor 36 37 the setting, while introducing a moderate level of activity and resource use by providing a level 37 38 intervention in the natural environment. of amenity and facility development that would 38 39 allow visitor comfort and promote understanding 39 40 Alternative 3 – What Happened Here Changed of the setting, while intervening in the natural 40 41 Everything environment to some extent. The degree of 41 42 intervention to accommodate visitor use would be 42 43 This alternative meets the purposes, overall, to less than that of Alternative 2, but would still fall 43 44 a substantial degree. It fulfi lls the responsibilities in the moderate range. 44 45 of serving as trustee for each generation in 45 46 its recognition of new understandings of the Alternative 4 – Memories and Meanings 46 47 meanings and outcomes of the Civil War and 47 48 in its intention to explore the relevancy of the This alternative meets the purposes to some 48 49 ending of the war in today’s America. Through extent. It fulfi ls the responsibilities of serving 49 50 a boundary adjustment and other actions to as trustee for each generation in its recognition 50 51 protect related resources and viewshed values, of new understandings of the meanings and 51 52 the alternative would help to achieve esthetically outcomes of the Civil War and in exploring how 52 53 and culturally pleasing surroundings. Visitor the ending of the war at Appomattox Court 53 54 understanding of how the ending of the war House has been understood and memorialized 54 55 affected the diverse population in the Appomattox in American history. Through a boundary 55 56 community after the war and how it resonates adjustment and other actions to protect related 56 57 in American life today would help visitors make resources and viewshed values, the alternative 57 58 a connection to the site, and to experience would help to achieve esthetically and culturally 58 59 59 78 Chapter 2: Alternatives 1 pleasing surroundings. The alternative achieves resources. Proposed actions in the alternative 1 2 a range of benefi cial uses of the environment would result in a moderate level of intervention 2 3 including a park-wide trail but opportunities for in the biological and physical environment to 3 4 visitor use in the ‘new lands’ area are limited accommodate visitor use and experiences of the 4 5 to the trail system. More Americans and those resources, and by developing needed operational 5 6 representing diverse groups would visit and enjoy facilities. The factor of causing least damage 6 7 the park but many would come to understand to the biological and physical environment was 7 8 the park story through off-site experiences. assessed by eliminating the consequences of 8 9 Important historic, cultural and natural aspects developing a maintenance facility on park lands 9 10 of the environment would be preserved. With and using an off-site facility. 10 11 a lower degree of manipulation overall of the 11 12 natural environment than in alternatives 2 and 3, 2.11 NPS Preferred Alternative 12 13 the natural environment would see less extensive 13 14 change. The surroundings may be not be well NPS has also identifi ed Alternative 2 as 14 15 understood by the visitor because some cultural the agency’s preferred alternative. An 15 16 features would remain in wooded areas and interdisciplinary regional offi ce and park based 16 17 modern agricultural fi elds would be retained. team reviewed each alternative based on factors 17 18 This alternative has the potential for undesirable relating to park purpose and signifi cance, 18 19 consequences resulting from the development resource protection, visitor experience, 19 20 of a new maintenance facility; however, it operations effi ciency, and fi nancial expenditure 20 21 would also provide for the possible effects to be benefi ts. 21 22 understood and then moderated by siting and 22 23 design decisions. As in alternative 2, the park Alternative 2 best refl ects the park’s purpose 23 24 would work to achieve a safe environment for all and signifi cance and provides for a high level of 24 25 who travel through the park--visitors, community resource protection. This alternative promotes 25 26 residents, and commuters alike. The environment adaptive reuses of historic structures with 26 27 supports diversity and a variety of individual minimal new construction and provides for 27 28 choice by enriching the interpretive program and concentration of visitors within the core of the 28 29 expanding the number of places in the village park, while minimizing visitor impacts on lands 29 30 where the park message is given. It would not outside of the historic core. 30 31 provide as much diversity of choice within the 31 32 park environment that alternatives 2 and 3 2.12 Alternative Considered but Eliminated 32 33 promote, although there would be diverse ways from Further Study 33 34 for the park message to be accessed off-site. The 34 35 visitor use- resource use balance would tend to A ‘Back to the Past’ Concept 35 36 shift towards resource use, particularly with fewer 36 37 visitors on-site than in alternative 2 and 3. As A conceptual alternative called Five Days in April 37 38 in alternative 2, the re-use of an existing 1970s 1865 was initially considered. The main idea 38 39 building for consolidating administrative offi ces was to present the park as a window into the 39 40 would help the park approach the maximum past, enabling the visitor to step back in time to 40 41 attainable recycling of depletable resources. experience a living place that intersected with 41 42 NPS Management Policies 2006 place a high history for fi ve days. The landscape would have 42 43 priority on the restoration of native species. been treated so as to return its appearance as 43 44 This alternative would be able to meet the goals much as possible to April 1865, and restorations 44 45 of maintaining components and processes of and reconstruction would have been widely 45 46 naturally evolving park ecosystems, including considered in the village. The village was seen 46 47 natural abundance, diversity, and the ecological as the setting for surrender events. Visitors 47 48 integrity of plants and animals. would understand the varied aspects of the 48 49 surrender and military movements through an 49 50 Environmentally Preferred Alternative emphasis on the chronology and sequence of the 50 51 events that took place over fi ve days. The visitor 51 52 NPS has identifi ed Alternative 2 as the experience would be coordinated with other sites 52 53 environmentally preferred alternative. First, the representing the Appomattox Campaign, and the 53 54 alternative protects, preserves and enhances park would have been seen as the culmination of 54 55 historic and cultural processes through its the campaign. 55 56 shaping of the physical setting in the context 56 57 of the park’s interpretive messages. The visitor While elements of the concept have been 57 58 experience is closely connected to on-site incorporated into one or more of the action 58 59 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives 79 1 alternatives, the overall concept was rejected 1 2 because of the many obstacles to returning 2 3 the park to its 1865 appearance. A focus on 3 4 Five Days also poses signifi cant limitations on 4 5 interpretation and visitor experience. Appomattox 5 6 was the culmination of a series of military 6 7 movements, but it was also the beginning of 7 8 events that changed the course of the nation’s 8 9 history. With its narrow focal point, the concept 9 10 proved inadequate as a management framework 10 11 that could convey the broader context of the Civil 11 12 War, the meanings of the surrender, and the 12 13 stories of what happened after the surrender. 13 14 14 15 Elements Related to State Route 24 15 16 Considered but not Brought Forward into the 16 17 Plan 17 18 18 19 State Highway 24, which bisects the park, is 19 20 on land owned by the Virginia Department 20 21 of Transportation and under its complete 21 22 jurisdiction. The section on Traffi c Calming 22 23 and Route 24 describes the information and 23 24 consultative activities that the planning team 24 25 undertook to deal with issues relating to traffi c 25 26 on State Highway 24. Discussions on whether 26 27 the relocation of Route 24 should be developed 27 28 as a recommendation in the planning project 28 29 took place in the early phases of the project. 29 30 It was recognized that NPS recommendations 30 31 for actions on those lands would have limited 31 32 potential for immediate implementation. 32 33 Therefore, this plan does not present specifi c 33 34 recommendations relating to Route 24. Rather, 34 35 the action alternatives propose that the park 35 36 pursue resolution of concerns in partnership 36 37 with VDOT and the community as part of its 37 38 transportation planning program. The plan does 38 39 provide the potential for the relocation of Route 39 40 24 if traffi c conditions deteriorate over time. 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 C HAPTER THREE28: AFFECTED 29 29 30 E NVIRONMENT30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 82 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The nomination is being updated to include 1 2 resources on lands added to the park in 1992 2 3 Implementation of any of the alternative actions and 1993, and to address new contexts. 3 4 proposed in Chapter 2 could affect cultural 4 5 resources, natural resources, or social and Cultural Landscapes 5 6 administrative matters. In accordance with 6 7 the requirements of NEPA, and the National The village and other historic resources have 7 8 Historic Preservation Act, this chapter describes much the same appearance they presented 8 9 the existing condition of the resources and at the end of the Civil War. The scene, then 9 10 other matters that could be affected, in order to as now, is dominated by open fi elds with 10 11 establish a baseline for Chapter 4’s analysis of trees surrounding the streets and homes of 11 12 potential impacts from each alternative. the residents. A main street, the Richmond- 12 13 Lynchburg Stage Road, circles the courthouse. 13 14 This chapter describes resources and operations While the village was the center of county 14 15 within the park boundary, and characteristics government and contained the homes of lawyers, 15 16 of the visitor experience. Related cultural and clerks, and small-business operators, it was 16 17 natural resources, socio-economic conditions and also an agricultural community with a large 17 18 other factors of the region in which the park is population of enslaved workers, as well as free 18 19 located are also described. African-Americans. The agricultural setting has 19 20 been retained with the use of land as open fi elds 20 21 3.1 The Study Area along State Highway 24, a major two-lane route 21 22 that bisects the park. Views and vistas evident at 22 23 The study area for the description of resources, the time of the Civil War, from the village to the 23 24 and the related analysis in Chapter Four, is surrounding farmland and from the farmsteads 24 25 generally the park, the surrounding area, and to the village have been maintained. Clustered in 25 26 the town and county of Appomattox. A broader the village and dotting the landscape surrounding 26 27 study area has been defi ned for the description it are 19 historic and 13 reconstructed buildings, 27 28 and analysis of the socio-economic environment some of which serve as museums and as park 28 29 topic, and it is also applicable to the visitor use operational facilities. 29 30 and experience topic. 30 31 The numerous efforts to commemorate the 31 32 Appomattox County is in the middle of this events that took place there have affected the 32 33 broader study area, which is composed of landscape and have resulted in the construction 33 34 counties in the Region 2000 planning district of features that have themselves attained 34 35 and the three other counties that border signifi cance. 35 36 Appomattox County. Amherst County, northwest The 2000 Cultural Landscape Inventory has 36 37 of Appomattox County; Bedford County, to the described the park landscape as two separate 37 38 west of Appomattox; Campbell County, southwest components, the park as a whole and the village 38 39 of Appomattox County; and Charlotte County, to of Appomattox Court House. 39 40 the south, are the counties in the Region 2000 40 41 district. Also included in the planning district is Historic Buildings and Structures 41 42 the city of Lynchburg, about 20 miles west of 42 43 Appomattox. Counties outside the district that Village Buildings 43 44 border Appomattox are Buckingham on the 44 45 northeast is; Prince Edward County on the east- The village is centered on the courthouse 45 46 southeast; and Nelson County on the north. The (reconstructed 1963-64), the largest structure 46 47 town of Farmville, Buckingham’s county seat, is in the village and the location of the park’s 47 48 also included in the study area. visitor center. Residential clusters make up the 48 49 majority of the village including the McLean 49 50 3.2 Cultural Resources House (reconstructed 1950) and outbuildings, the 50 51 Isbell House and outbuildings, the Peers House 51 52 Appomattox Court House NHP is listed on the and Mariah Wright House. The McLean House 52 53 National Register of Historic Places. It was and its ice house, kitchen, slave quarters, well 53 54 initially placed on the register by congressional house, and privy form an important interpretive 54 55 action, following the 1966 National Historic setting for the story of the surrender on April 9. 55 56 Preservation Act that provided for placement of The Clover Hill Tavern and its ancillary structures 56 57 NPS cultural parks on the Register. Full National (kitchen, slave quarters, guest house, and privy) 57 58 Register documentation was received in 1989. also form an important interpretive setting, as the 58 59 59 Chapter 3 Affected Environment 83

1 printing of paroles of Confederate soldiers took Cemeteries 1 2 place there. The Meeks Store and the Jones and 2 3 Woodson Law offi ces are rehabilitated structures Cemeteries and burial sites within the park 3 4 that housed commercial uses. The building are characteristic of the nineteenth-century 4 5 known as the New County Jail is considered landscape of rural Virginia. There are six known 5 6 “new” because it was built between 1866 and small cemeteries in the village: three family plots 6 7 1867, after the Civil War. Appendix E provides (Robinson Cemetery, Patteson-Hix, and Wright 7 8 a list of the twenty-seven village structures and Cemetery); a church plot (Presbyterian Church 8 9 indicates the treatment status of reconstructed or Cemetery); the Forrest Cemetery, and a single 9 10 rehabilitated for each building. grave. The latter is that Lafayette Meeks, located 10 11 in the fi eld east of the Plunkett-Meeks store. 11 12 Structures and Features Outside the Village Family cemeteries in the larger park landscape 12 13 include the Raine Cemetery and the Raine 13 14 Single buildings, ruins and small clusters of Slave Cemetery, the Bohannon-Trent Cemetery 14 15 structures are scattered throughout the larger (with the grave of Joel Sweeney); the Sweeney 15 16 park landscape. They are usually associated with Cemetery; and the Connor-O’Brien Cemetery, 16 17 outlying farmsteads and agricultural structures. all of which have gravestones dating from the 17 18 They include the oldest known building in the 19th century to the end of the 20th-century. 18 19 park, the Sweeney Prizery; the wood cabin The O’Brien Cemetery is still active as a family 19 20 homesteads of the Sweeney-Connor Cabin and cemetery. 20 21 Charles Sweeney Cabin; the J. N. Williams Cabin 21 22 ruins; the Coleman House ruins; and the Tibbs An early 19th century cemetery containing over 22 23 House ruins. 50 gravestones in the northwestern section of the 23 24 park was discovered by park staff in the spring of 24 25 Monuments and Markers 2005. The cemetery was not readily visible due 25 26 to overgrown vegetation covering it, and prior 26 27 Four of the ten cast iron tablets placed by the documentary investigation of this area of the park 27 28 War Department in 1893 as the fi rst markers on had not identifi ed the resource. A limited review 28 29 the battlefi eld are still extant. They are at Lee’s of historic documents undertaken for the National 29 30 Headquarters; on the site where the last artillery Register nomination update has found possible 30 31 rounds were fi red by the Army of Northern associations with the Mount Comfort (Methodist) 31 32 Virginia on April 9, 1865; the site of the apple tree meetinghouse. It is identifi ed as the Burruss Tract 32 33 where Lee waited for a reply from Grant; and on Cemetery. 33 34 the site of the Lee-Grant meeting on April 10, 34 35 1865, north of the Peers House. The Confederate Cemetery was established 35 36 The plaque at the Confederate Cemetery in 1866 by the Ladies Memorial Association of 36 37 was originally placed at the courthouse site in Appomattox as a burial place for 18 Confederate 37 38 1926 and moved when the courthouse was soldiers and one Union soldier, who died in 38 39 reconstructed in 1963-64. A large white granite the fi nal fi ghting of April 8 and 9, 1865. The 39 40 obelisk approximately 25 feet tall marks the cemetery is owned and maintained by the 40 41 grave of a Civil War soldier at the Raine family Appomattox Chapter of the United Daughters of 41 42 cemetery. the Confederacy. 42 43 43 44 The North Carolina Monument was sponsored by The Old Herman Methodist Church Cemetery, 44 45 the North Carolina General Assembly to mark the along Route 24 in the western part of the park, 45 46 forewardmost advance of the Army of Northern is within the larger landscape but outside the 46 47 Virginia at Appomattox Court House, and the spot park boundary. Interments still take place in the 47 48 from which the last infantry volley was fi red. The cemetery, although there is no longer an active 48 49 monument was dedicated on April 9, 1905, and congregation. The remains of the Old Herman 49 50 at the same time, two smaller granite markers Methodist Church are within an archeological site 50 51 were placed along the Stage Road between the that is partially within the park boundary. 51 52 Confederate Cemetery and the village. 52 53 Sites 53 54 The Memorial Bridge over the Appomattox River, 54 55 outside the park boundary and administered by Remnants of breastworks built by soldiers under 55 56 the Virginia Department of Transportation, is a the command of Confederate Lieutenant General 56 57 contributing feature built in the 1930s. James Longstreet on April 9, 1865 stand on a 57 58 non-contiguous parcel within the park’s boundary. 58 59 59 84 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 The remnants consist of two mounds of earth, and interpreting the events surrounding the 1 2 each 10 to 12 feet long and rising approximately surrender. Investigated sites in the village area 2 3 three feet above the surrounding ground level. now have been able to fi ll in details of village 3 4 The mounds sit in woods three miles northeast life. They include the Charles H. Duiguid House 4 5 of the courthouse in the community of Vera, and Blacksmith Shop Site, owned by a free 5 6 approximately 20 yards off Route 24. black man; the site of the Union Academy south 6 7 of the Peers House, which may have been the 7 8 The sites of Lee’s Headquarters at the park’s location of a freedman’s school in 1867, and the 8 9 northeastern boundary and Grant’s Headquarters Nowlin Sears Blacksmith Shop Site. Seventeen 9 10 at the western boundary have been developed as uninvestigated village sites and f sites outside the 10 11 interpretive areas. Their location along Route 24 village vicinity have been identifi ed as potential 11 12 refl ects the use of the road, then the Richmond- archeological sites. 12 13 Lynchburg Stage Road, by both armies in the 13 14 hours before the surrender. Not far from Route The draft Archeological Overview and 14 15 24 near the Oakville Road is the Site of the April Assessment posits that the park’s archeological 15 16 9th engagement. This is the location of the fi nal resources, in conjunction with primary archival 16 17 battle positions of both armies and subsequent materials and extensive historic documentation 17 18 Federal encampments. held by the park, make possible the scientifi c 18 19 investigation of a broad cross-section of the 19 20 The Confederate Artillery Park is located between society that supported the Civil War and 20 21 the Apple Tree Site and the Appomattox River. A adapted to its consequences. Future archeology 21 22 portion of the site is in the park, but it mainly falls conducted at the park and the analysis of 22 23 within the right-of-way of Route 24. It is part of existing collections have the potential to address 23 24 the Appomattox Wayside, the picnic area owned important issues in the historical archeology of 24 25 by the Commonwealth of Virginia. the Civil War, including an examination of the war 25 26 within its broader social context and the affect of 26 27 Roads and Lanes the war and its aftermath on different segments 27 28 of society. In particular, sites offer an opportunity 28 29 The Richmond-Lynchburg Stage Road, Prince to study a community of newly liberated African 29 30 Edward Court House Road and Oakville Road Americans. Census records in 1870 indicate 30 31 were all locally important transportation routes. that a large number of houses in the town had 31 32 The stage road is the principal street in the been rented to African American farm laborers 32 33 village of Appomattox Court House. The road or domestic service workers. African-Americans 33 34 underwent various changes before its fi nal formed the majority of the village population at 34 35 rerouting around Appomattox Court House in that time. 35 36 1956, and four different alignments are visible 36 37 along the section between the Appomattox River Park Collections 37 38 and the village. 38 39 At the time of the 2002 Collections Management 39 40 Sears Lane, Wright Lane, Trent Lane, Williams Plan, park collections contained approximately 40 41 Lane, and Pryor Wright Lane were private lanes 53, 526 objects, including 10,887 archeology 41 42 in use during the Civil War. Many of private artifacts, 3,912 history items and 38, 727 archival 42 43 roads and lanes were rerouted or abandoned as documents. Within the history collections, objects 43 44 Appomattox Court House declined in importance. of particular signifi cance are those associated 44 45 Tibbs Lane, which connected the Tibbs plantation with individuals and events in the Appomattox 45 46 to the village, was among the private roads. The Campaign and the surrender. Several early 46 47 lane is marked on several present-day maps, souvenirs taken by those at the surrender are 47 48 but the historic location is not known and its held by the park. Examples include: the camp 48 49 alignment has yet to be identifi ed. table (upon which the Commissioners’ terms 49 50 were signed), the pencil used by General Lee 50 51 Archeological Resources during the surrender meeting, and the white 51 52 towel carried through the lines at Appomattox 52 53 The park exhibits a signifi cant concentration of Court House as a Flag of Truce. There are 53 54 archeological resources. Sites are representative items associated with county residents and 19th 54 55 of small yeoman farmers, free black, merchants century village life. The park’s historic furnished 55 56 and local businesses, and a small-scale interiors, ranging from middle class homes to 56 57 plantation, the Tibbs House site. Archeological a store to slave quarters, contain a mixture of 57 58 research until recently has focused on presenting original and reproduction objects. 58 59 59 Chapter 3 Affected Environment 85

1 (NHLs) in the region, Sailor’s Creek Battlefi eld 1 2 Archival collections include numerous letters and Robert Russa Moton High School. The 2 3 and diaries of Union and Confederate soldiers, landmark program is a subset of the National 3 4 an early NPS photographic collection. There Register program. NHLs are nationally signifi cant 4 5 are several collections that document the historic places designated by the Secretary of 5 6 commemoration of Appomattox Court House the Interior because of their exceptional value or 6 7 from the war’s ending through its management by quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage 7 8 the National Park Service. Rare book collections of the United States. Sailor’s Creek Battlefi eld, 8 9 include the library of General Ely Parker, Grant’s located in Farmville, Amelia County, was the site 9 10 aide at the surrender, and the law library of of three distinct battles fought on April 6, 1865. 10 11 village resident Lewis Isbell. The battles formed the last major engagement 11 12 between the Union and Confederate armies. 12 13 Archeological collections are composed of fi eld Ultimately the battlefi eld action culminated in the 13 14 data recorded during investigations and collected surrender at Appomattox Court House, and the 14 15 artifacts from site investigations beginning site is a signifi cant park related resource. The 15 16 in 1940, and include a study collection of Robert Russa Moton High School, in the town of 16 17 architectural fragments associated with the site’s Farmville, Prince Edward County, is nationally 17 18 original structures. signifi cant because of its association with the 18 19 struggle for the desegregation in the nation’s 19 20 Non-contributing Buildings and Structures in public schools. It serves as the Robert Russa 20 21 the Park Moton Museum: A Center for the Study of Civil 21 22 Rights in Education. 22 23 Several houses and associated outbuildings are 23 24 of 20th century origin. These include the Moon Cultural Resources Related to the 24 25 and Mathews houses of 1970s construction, Appomattox Campaign 25 26 which incorporate building materials attributed 26 27 to the Tibbs plantation house. The Moon house Resources in the Vicinity of the Park 27 28 is now used for park housing and the Mathews 28 29 house is available to house park operations. The study of the military events and troop 29 30 The Claudine O’Brien House and outbuildings movements in the area around Appomattox 30 31 are in generally poor condition. Two occupied Court House has assisted in understanding the 31 32 residences (formerly ‘life estate’ properties) are chronology of events leading to the surrender, 32 33 also non-contributing. the relationship of topography to the actions 33 34 that took place, and the location of related 34 35 The maintenance facility at the east edge of the resources. (Appendix D) There is a concentration 35 36 village contains two concrete block sheds used of resources related to the Battle of Appomattox 36 37 for storage of equipment, a shop building, fuel Court House along the high ridge at the park’s 37 38 pumping site, hazardous waste storage building, southern boundary. The topography made it 38 39 staff offi ces, and the interim collections storage possible for Union troops at this elevation to keep 39 40 facility. sight of the Confederate Army in the vicinity of 40 41 the village of Appomattox Court House. Land 41 42 National Register Properties and National parcels located mainly between the boundary 42 43 Historic Landmarks and the higher elevations of Route 631 (Oakleigh 43 44 Avenue) have been identifi ed in the boundary 44 45 Properties in Appomattox County listed on the adjustment section in Chapter 1. Features found 45 46 National Register include the Appomattox Historic on these parcels include the routes Union troops 46 47 District in the town of Appomattox. The district’s used for advancing, sites of skirmishes and 47 48 signifi cance is related to its association with locations where the fl ag of truce was raised, 48 49 major historical events in the town from 1840 to encampments, and houses that were briefl y used 49 50 1950, and well preserved collection of 19th and as headquarters. 50 51 20th century commercial and residential buildings 51 52 that represent a wide range of architectural Related sites just outside the boundary 52 53 styles. Other sites in the county, in addition to the adjustment area are the LeGrande House, at 53 54 park, are the Memorial Bridge over Route 24, and Prince Edward Court House Road and Oakleigh 54 55 the Pamplin Pipes Factory in Pamplin City, which Avenue. The Inge House served as headquarters 55 56 made clay pipes that were marketed nationally. for several Federal Fifth Corps division 56 57 commanders. The encampment for the division 57 58 There are two National Historic Landmarks straddles largely undeveloped lands within and 58 59 59 86 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 outside of the proposed boundary expansion Soils 1 2 area. 2 3 Appomattox County is comprised of 219,520 3 4 The epicenter of fi ghting during the Battle acres (343 square miles) in the Piedmont 4 5 of Appomattox Station on April 8, 1865 took Plateau physiographic region of south-central 5 6 place about one mile from the park boundary Virginia. The largest physiographic province in 6 7 (see Figure 3-1: Battle of Appomattox Virginia, the Piedmont is bounded on the east 7 8 Station). Federal Calvary under Custer attacked by the Fall Zone, which separates the Piedmont 8 9 Confederate reserve artillery under R. L. Walker. from the Coastal Plain, and on the west by the 9 10 The site is in the town of Appomattox, and is Blue Ridge province. The Piedmont province is 10 11 part of a trucking and distribution business. characterized by gently rolling topography, deeply 11 12 The area in front of the Confederate guns weathered bedrock and solid rock outcrops. Most 12 13 remains undeveloped. Just prior to the attack, of Appomattox County lies between 500 and 800 13 14 Confederate trains had been captured at feet above sea level. Elevations within the park 14 15 Appomattox Depot. The Civil War-era depot is no range from approximately 600 feet above sea 15 16 longer extant. level at the Appomattox River to about 830 feet 16 17 along the western park boundary. 17 18 A two-mile stretch of the original Richmond- 18 19 Lynchburg State Road is located in the Soil maps produced by the U.S. Department of 19 20 Appomattox-Buckingham State Forest. Known as Agriculture (USDA) identify 13 different soil types 20 21 Richmond Forest Road, this unpaved section is in the park, primarily clay, silt and sandy loams. 21 22 thought to have changed little since 1865. Other Predominant soil types are a clay loam (Cullen) 22 23 segments with apparent integrity are found on which comprises well-drained upland areas and 23 24 privately owned lands between the state forest is a prime farmland soil type; and an alluvial 24 25 and the community of Vera. They are parallel to fl oodplain soil (Iredell loam) found in lower areas 25 26 and south of Route 24, and are visible in some and along waterways. Soil types found on the 26 27 places from the highway. Virginia Hydric Soils list form the Appomattox 27 28 River and the Plain Run Branch fl oodplains and 28 29 Sites between Petersburg and Appomattox are also found in the southwestern portion of the 29 30 park. Approximately 530 acres of prime farmland 30 31 From April 2-9, 1865, the marching soldiers of and 300 acres of hydric soils are found within the 31 32 both armies fi lled the roads from Richmond and park. 32 33 Petersburg to Appomattox, and today there are 33 34 many extant sites representing signifi cant actions Surface Water and Wetlands 34 35 of the Appomattox Campaign. Sites are linked 35 36 through a Civil War driving route that begins in Appomattox County is divided between two 36 37 the city of Petersburg and Petersburg National large river basins: the James River basin, which 37 38 Battlefi eld and stretches nearly 100 miles to drains into the lower Chesapeake Bay, and the 38 39 Appomattox Court House. Two sites in the park Roanoke River basin. Tributaries to the James 39 40 are on the tour, Lee’s Headquarters and the New River drain to the north and those to the Roanoke 40 41 Hope Church earthworks. River basin drain to the south from a divide that 41 42 corresponds approximately with the U.S. Route 42 43 3.3 Natural Resources 460 corridor. The James River is the largest river 43 44 in Virginia and represents the largest watershed 44 45 The following sections describe the regional in Virginia. The Appomattox River is a major 45 46 and local natural resources found within the tributary to the James River and one of fi ve rivers 46 47 study area. Baseline data for the park is that make up the watershed. 47 48 being developed by the National Park Service 48 49 Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program, studies The park falls under the purview of the 49 50 undertaken for the general management planning Chesapeake Bay Protection Act, and as an entity 50 51 project and other study efforts that coincided of the National Park Service, it participates in 51 52 with the planning project. I&M data has become commitments made under the Chesapeake Bay 52 53 available in the form of species inventories in the 2000 Agreement, including the Chesapeake Bay 53 54 later stages of the planning project. Figure 3-2: Riparian Buffer Plan. 54 55 Appomattox Court House National Historical Park 55 56 Natural Resources shows the park’s natural Appomattox River 56 57 resources. 57 58 The Appomattox River is generally narrow and 58 59 59 Figure 3-1: Battle of Appomattox Station Figure 3-2: Chapter 3 Affected Environment 89

1 relatively shallow in Appomattox County. The values involve a site or feature associated with 1 2 Appomattox River and its tributaries are Class a signifi cant event, an important person or a 2 3 III streams, which mean that they are generally cultural activity of the past that was rare or one- 3 4 satisfactory for secondary contact recreation, of-a-kind in the region and, in most cases, is 50 4 5 propagation of fi sh and aquatic life and possess years or older. “Other” values include qualities 5 6 other benefi cial uses. Fish surveys in the park involving hydrological, paleontological and 6 7 have revealed good species diversity and botanical resources; the specifi c values for the 7 8 populations, both of which refl ect good water portion of the river in the park were not identifi ed. 8 9 quality. A water quality and macroinvertebrate 9 10 study of the Appomattox River and its tributaries Wetlands 10 11 within the park over a two year period was 11 12 completed by Lynchburg College in 2004. The Park wetlands are shown on the natural 12 13 study found that overall water quality ranges from resources map. They are relatively extensive 13 14 good to very good due to forested riparian buffers in size, varied in type and include at least one 14 15 in the park. unique plant community. The 2002 wetland 15 16 delineation and mapping study found 28 different 16 17 Approximately 8.4 miles of the North Branch of wetlands in two principal wetland classifi cations: 17 18 the Appomattox River fl ow are contained in park palustrine, which includes marshes, bogs, ponds 18 19 boundaries. It fl ows midway through the park in and swamps; and riverine, or wetlands contained 19 20 an east-west direction and under the Memorial within a channel. 20 21 Bridge at SR 24. The Plain Run Branch, the main 21 22 tributary to the North Branch, fl ows eastward Riverine systems comprise a signifi cant portion 22 23 along the southern boundary parallel to SR 24 for of the park’s aquatic resources. Conditions of 23 24 approximately 4 miles, joining the North Branch representative stream segments were assessed 24 25 downstream of the bridge. The park is in the in the 2002 study. In general, the forested 25 26 headwaters of the Appomattox River watershed ungrazed streams in the western portion of the 26 27 and the upper reaches of the river run through park were found to be of good quality, while 27 28 the park. Approximately 40% of the watershed streams with active grazing zones impacted by 28 29 (5.79 square miles) for the North Branch is cattle grazing were rated as low in quality. 29 30 contained in the park. 30 31 The capacity of park wetlands to support habitat 31 32 The North Branch contains remnants of dams complexity, or wildlife richness and diversity, was 32 33 and impoundments, namely the check dam at explored in the 2002 study. An assessment of 33 34 the Memorial Bridge and Sweeney’s Dam and wildlife functional capacity in four different types 34 35 Mill site at the southern boundary. There is also a of wetlands showed a range of habitat complexity 35 36 road crossing at the dam site most likely put in by within the park. A beaver-created palustrine 36 37 NPS in more recent times. The effects on water complex at the northwestern boundary had the 37 38 fl ow of these features appear to be minimal. highest functional capacity, with open water and 38 39 vegetated wetlands that provide a rich structure 39 40 The section of the Appomattox River that for wildlife habitat. The lowest capacity area was 40 41 extends from its headwaters eastward to the a wetland system that had been used by cattle, 41 42 town of Farmville was listed in the Nationwide with a signifi cant disturbance of wildlife habitat. 42 43 Rivers Inventory (NRI) by the NPS in 1982. The The other two areas, a network of streams along 43 44 NRI is a listing of more than 3,400 free-fl owing Plain Run Branch and the forested depressional 44 45 river segments in the United States that are system, or vernal pond, near the Tibbs house site 45 46 believed to possess one or more “outstandingly were not as complex as the beaver infl uenced 46 47 remarkable” natural or cultural values determined wetland but had fair to above average functional 47 48 to be more than of local or regional signifi cance. capacity. 48 49 The Appomattox River NRI section extends 49 50 44 miles through Appomattox, Buckingham, Floodplain wetlands, which are contiguous along 50 51 Cumberland and Prince Edward Counties, and is much of the Appomattox River and the lower 51 52 described as the longest, largest, least developed 1,000 feet of the Plain Run Branch, encompass 52 53 river in the Piedmont upland. the largest wetland areas (75.51 acres). The 53 54 1978 Federal Emergency Management Agency 54 55 The NPS considered the stretch of the river that (FEMA) fl oodplain maps for Appomattox County 55 56 fl ows through Appomattox Court House NHP delineated the fl oodplains along the Appomattox 56 57 to possess signifi cant historic values and other River just outside the park boundaries as Zone 57 58 “outstandingly remarkable” values. Historic A, which represents “areas of 100-year fl ood; 58 59 59 90 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 base fl ood elevations and fl ood hazard factors, in the Virginia Piedmont. Its assemblage of plants 1 2 not determined.” Floodplain zones within the and animals in a relatively small area contributes 2 3 boundaries of the park were not delineated signifi cantly to biotic diversity. 3 4 on the FEMA map. However, fl oodplain areas 4 5 within the park have been mapped based on the Wildlife 5 6 elevation contours used in the FEMA maps. It is 6 7 assumed that park fl oodplains are within Zone A. Baseline data for fi sh, reptiles and amphibians, 7 8 birds and mammals is being developed under the 8 9 Vegetation guidance of the NPS Natural Resource Inventory 9 10 and Monitoring Program. The fi eld research has 10 11 The park’s landscape has been generally been completed and tables of species found in 11 12 described as cropland, pastureland, and the park are now available. 12 13 forests comprised of pine, mixed pine- 13 14 deciduous or maturing deciduous woodlots. As NPS biologists conducted a fi sh survey of the 14 15 of 2002, Appomattox Court House NHP was Appomattox River and streams in 2002 and 15 16 approximately 70 percent wooded (1,159 acres), 2004, investigating four sites. The results yielded 16 17 of which 15 percent of the wooded area was 27 different fi sh species, with common shiner, 17 18 described as mature hardwood forest. Most of chub, perch, darters, sunfi sh and suckers being 18 19 the mature hardwoods, which represent the predominant. 19 20 climax forest of the central Piedmont, are in oak 20 21 and hickory. In general, they are located on steep The amphibian and reptile population in the park 21 22 slopes. Forested riparian buffers can be found was inventoried in 2003. The inventory identifi ed 22 23 along the banks of most of the Appomattox River 19 species of salamanders and 16 species of 23 24 and Plain Run Branch. Tributaries fl owing within reptiles. One species, the mole salamander, was 24 25 pastures, however, are generally devoid of forest identifi ed as a state species of special concern. 25 26 buffers. 26 27 Avian species were inventoried in 2003. The 27 28 The park’s wooded vegetation possesses cultural inventory yielded 99 species documenting over 28 29 landscape values. Some areas have come to be 90% of the species expected to occur. A total of 29 30 known as “witness woodlots”, having possibly 23 species observed are recognized as state or 30 31 remained as woodlots since 1865 and probably federal species of special management concern. 31 32 never converted to agriculture. The value of the 32 33 “witness woodlots” is that, although the forest Field research on mammals undertaken in 33 34 species composition may have changed, they 2003 identifi ed 37 species that may occur 34 35 represent a continuum of forest cover from and documented 22. Raccoon, skunk, fox, 35 36 1865. They are also likely to contain undisturbed groundhogs, gray squirrels, mice, voles and 36 37 archeological sites, particularly in the areas cottontail rabbits are commonly seen at the 37 38 where troops were posted or fi ghting occurred. park, and white-tailed deer are regularly 38 39 observed. Habitat manipulation at APCO 39 40 Woodlands have been managed in some areas has resulted in producing a mixture of forest, 40 41 of the park to fulfi ll a desired visitor experience shrub and grassland that, in combination with 41 42 within the landscape. They provide visual buffers the surrounding interspersion of forest and 42 43 to screen modern development and shape the agriculture, constitutes excellent habitat for white- 43 44 viewsheds of important observation points. tailed deer. (Porter 1991 44 45 Screening vegetation comprised of dense, 100- 45 46 200 foot wide belts of pine have been planted in Species of Special Concern 46 47 two areas. One is near Grant’s Headquarters site 47 48 at the western edge of the park, and the other is Sightings of a State species of special concern, 48 49 located at the northeastern boundary near the the mole salamander, were documented and 49 50 O’Brien Cemetery. confi rmed in the I&M reptile and amphibian fi eld 50 51 research project. Further research is needed 51 52 Two natural plant communities have been to confi rm and document the existence of a 52 53 documented through a vegetation mapping and breeding population in the park. 53 54 classifi cation project conducted by the Natural 54 55 Heritage Program in the Virginia Department of 3.4 Visual Resources and Values 55 56 Conservation and Recreation and North Carolina 56 57 State University. The Montane Basic Seepage Views are important elements of the cultural 57 58 Swamp is the fi rst such natural community known landscape and they contribute to the visitor 58 59 59 Chapter 3 Affected Environment 91

1 experience by providing scenic enjoyment or Court House occur between April and October, 1 2 aiding in understanding the park story. Scenic with peaks in May through July. Special events 2 3 views of the surrounding countryside are through the year, which are described below, 3 4 available from many locations in the village, draw modest increases in visitors. Local events 4 5 because of its prominent position on a ridge, such as the Historic Railroad Festival in October 5 6 and at parking pull-offs along Route 24. The and Civil War re-enactments have also resulted 6 7 park’s long, panoramic vistas are generally in modest ‘spikes’ of visitation. 7 8 uninterrupted by incompatible 20th century 8 9 development, although Route 24 is a visible Visitor Profi le 9 10 element of the landscape in some locations. 10 11 According to the 2001 Visitor Survey, about half 11 12 Key observation points have been identifi ed of the people visiting the site were members of 12 13 in Figure 3-3: Areas Viewed from Points family groups of two. Only a third of the visitor 13 14 within Park. They represent focal points for groups contained children. The average visitor 14 15 views from the village or are within interpretive age was 50, with half the visitors between the 15 16 areas where vistas are important to the story. In ages of 40 and 59. Visitors were relatively 16 17 some cases, the observation points serve both affl uent (58% with household incomes greater 17 18 functions. The areas viewed from the observation than $60,000), and well educated (85% with at 18 19 points can be considered viewshed resources. least some college education). Most were white 19 20 The presence of vegetation was not considered (%); less than one percent was African American 20 21 in the viewshed analysis, and views may be more and 1.5% was of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. 21 22 enclosed than the maps indicate. 22 23 There were few international visitors (3%), most 23 24 To a large degree, the viewed areas are of whom traveled from the United Kingdom. Most 24 25 contained within the park boundary. However, U.S. visitors came from the southeast (57%), with 25 26 signifi cant viewshed values are found on the greatest numbers from Virginia (25%), North 26 27 adjacent lands along the high ridge at the south Carolina (7%), and Florida (7%). Virginia visitors 27 28 boundary (See Figure 3-4: Adjacent Parcels tended to come from the state’s highly populated 28 29 Viewed from Points within Park). The eastern areas—the Hampton Roads, Richmond 29 30 wooded vegetation on these properties tends and Northern Virginia regions. Only 10% of 30 31 to conceal 20th century development along the the Virginia visitors were from the Lynchburg, 31 32 ridge line. As tree clearing takes place on the Farmville, and Appomattox area 32 33 ridge, perhaps for opportunities for landowners 33 34 to enjoy views of the park, residences and other The majority (79%) of survey respondents were 34 35 development will become more visible. The fi rst-time visitors to the park. The length of visit 35 36 proposed boundary expansion encompasses a was more often 1-2 hours (36%) or 2-3 hours 36 37 portion of adjacent lands on the south boundary. (41%). While 77% of visitors expressed a desire 37 38 to stay longer, half of the visitors said their 38 39 3.5 Visitor Use and Experience schedule prohibited a longer stay. Visitors rarely 39 40 stayed longer than 4 hours (6.7%). 40 41 Visitation 41 42 The survey included questions on activities in an 42 43 Estimates of annual visitation show a decline, area around the park defi ned as Appomattox- 43 44 in general, over the last ten years. The trend Lynchburg-Farmville. About 24% made stops 44 45 provides a sharp contrast to visitation numbers along the driving route of the Appomattox 45 46 prior to the last decade, with visitation reaching Campaign (Lee’s Retreat) in addition to the park. 46 47 a peak of 402, 947 in 1990. Other historic sites Almost half of the visitors surveyed in 2001 (45%) 47 48 have experienced declining visitation; many traveled into the town of Appomattox. Only 47% 48 49 causes have been cited for the decrease, stayed overnight in Appomattox-Lynchburg- 49 50 including a preference among Americans for Farmville area with an average stay of two nights. 50 51 spending more of their leisure time in recreational Of those who stayed overnight, 71% did so in a 51 52 activities and the large increase in two-income motel, hotel or bed and breakfast. Most (67%) ate 52 53 earners in families with limited leisure time. A at an area restaurant followed by visiting other 53 54 drop in the numbers of school children on fi eld historic sites and museums (41%). 54 55 trips due to funding cuts in school budgets is a 55 56 local factor in the decline. Average expenditures per visitor group reported 56 57 in the survey were $39.54 for food purchases and 57 58 Approximately 80% of the visits to Appomattox $23.71 for inside the park expenditures (fees and 58 59 59 Figure 3-3: Areas Viewed from Points within Park Figure 3-4: Adjacent Parcels Viewed from Points within Park 94 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 purchases at the bookstore). Nearly two-thirds 1 2 of visitors reported that they spent no money on Trails and Pedestrian Crossings 2 3 retail purchases in the Appomattox-Lynchburg- 3 4 Farmville area. For those visitors who spent Until recently, a six-mile History Trail linked the 4 5 money on lodging, the average expenditure was village to Lee’s and Grant’s headquarters sites 5 6 $51.52 per group. at the northern and southern ends of the park, 6 7 Sweeney’s Prizery, the Raine Monument, the 7 8 Bus tours and school groups are frequent in the North Carolina Monument, and the Confederate 8 9 fall and spring months. School groups commonly Cemetery. The trail incorporated two segments 9 10 arrive in the spring months, and bus tour groups paralleling Route 24 and two unmarked 10 11 in the fall. A reservation system is in place to pedestrian crossings of the roadway. The history 11 12 keep tours moving, assure better access to the trail operates now as two separate systems; the 12 13 McLean House and limit the number of buses in crossings were eliminated due to concerns over 13 14 the parking lot. With about 200 in each school the safety of pedestrians on the roadway. 14 15 group, the park can accommodate up to four 15 16 school groups or 800 people per day. There are On the north side of Route 24, 1.5 miles of 16 17 two bus spaces in the parking lot, and the parking trails run through the village and connect the 17 18 overfl ow area also accommodates buses. Confederate Cemetery and the Chamberlain- 18 19 Gordon Salute Site. On the south side, 4.5 miles 19 20 Circulation of trails link Lee’s Headquarters site, the Forestry 20 21 Trail, Sweeney Prizery, Sweeney Dam and 21 22 The visitor tours the village on a self-guided mill site, and provide a connection to the North 22 23 basis. A park guide at the courthouse provides Carolina Monument and the Raine Monument. 23 24 a brief orientation to the visitor and hands out The Forestry Trail is a segment near the Lee’s 24 25 copies of the park brochure. The visitor center Headquarters site maintained by the Appomattox 25 26 contains an array of exhibits on the Appomattox Chapter of the American Society of Foresters. 26 27 Campaign and the events at Appomattox Court Small signs have been installed to identify trees 27 28 House. Visitors are encouraged to visit the along the one-half mile trail. There is a short trail 28 29 McLean House after seeing the exhibits and fi lms from the parking lot at Lee’s Headquarters to the 29 30 at the visitor center. The McLean House parlor is site of Lee’s encampment. The segments from 30 31 the main venue for interpretation of the surrender, Grant’s Headquarters site to the North Carolina 31 32 and a park guide or ranger is stationed there to Monument and from the Appomattox River Bridge 32 33 tell the story of the surrender. The visitor then to Lee’s Headquarters site, paralleling Route 24, 33 34 walks through the village on his or her own. have been removed. 34 35 35 36 The most visited sites in the 2001 visitor survey The Virginia Department of Transportation 36 37 were the McLean House (98%) and the Visitor operates a picnic wayside at the Confederate 37 38 Center (92%). The bookstore was the next most Artillery Park near the Memorial Bridge in 38 39 visited site (87%). Seventy percent went to the conjunction with the park. Motorists park at one 39 40 Clover Hill Tavern and 80% to Meeks’s store. of the two areas on the north side of the bridge 40 41 These sites are all clustered at the western and walk to the picnic sites on the south side. 41 42 end of the village near the parking area. The There is a six foot grass shoulder along Route 42 43 percent of visitors who reported walking to the 24 to allow pedestrians to get to the bridge; 43 44 Salute Site, close to the Lee Grant meeting site however, there is no traffi c barrier to separate 44 45 at the far end of the village, was 21.5%. Ten pedestrians from vehicles, so pedestrians and 45 46 percent reported hiking the six-mile history trail or vehicles share the roadway. 46 47 segments of it. 47 48 Visitor Facilities and Amenities 48 49 About half of the visitors in the 2001 survey 49 50 reported stopping at one or more highway pull- There is an interior water fountain at the visitor 50 51 offs or interpretive stops along Route 24, and the center, an exterior water fountain near the Jones 51 52 survey gathered data on three sites. At Grant’s Law Offi ce and benches in the vicinity of the 52 53 Headquarters, 28% of the visitors surveyed courthouse. Picnic facilities are available at Abbit 53 54 stopped; at Lee’s Headquarters, 33% of those Park in the town of Appomattox, in addition to the 54 55 surveyed stopped; and at the Confederate VDOT wayside near the Memorial Bridge. 55 56 Cemetery, 35% stopped. The survey did not 56 57 cover visitors who stopped only at waysides on The most visited buildings, the Visitor Center 57 58 Route 24 and did not enter the village area. and McLean House, are fi rst fl oor accessible. 58 59 59 Chapter 3 Affected Environment 95

1 However, the key area within the park for Offi ce, New Jail and Jones Law Offi ce 1 2 interpretation of the surrender is the McLean 2 3 House parlor, which is on the second fl oor. Living History 3 4 Accommodations to view photos and video tapes 4 5 are made for visitors who cannot go up the stairs. In the park’s living history program, seasonal 5 6 In most other village buildings, the areas used employees use fi rst person interpretation and 6 7 for programming or exhibits are generally located take on the role of characters at Appomattox 7 8 on the fi rst fl oor and access can be gained by Court House in 1865. The experiences of a Union 8 9 entering on the fi rst fl oor or by viewing from soldier, a Confederate soldier, and civilians who 9 10 the front door. The Clover Hill Tavern and its lived in the village at the time of the surrender are 10 11 porch, the location of many of the living history conveyed. The performances are given from May 11 12 performances, is not wheelchair accessible. The through September and occasionally in October, 12 13 wheelchair accessible restrooms at the Visitor and are scheduled for special events throughout 13 14 Center and at the Tavern Slave Quarters do not the year. In 2003, the park introduced a printing 14 15 meet other handicapped access standards. press to demonstrate the printing of paroles for 15 16 Confederate soldiers in the Clover Hill Tavern in 16 17 Programming the days after the surrender. 17 18 18 19 Exhibits Education Programs 19 20 20 21 The visitor center contains an array of exhibits The park serves nearly 4500 school children 21 22 on the Appomattox Campaign and the events annually. The program for school groups includes 22 23 at Appomattox Court House. Its second fl oor a reservation system, pre-visit materials, 23 24 70-seat theatre shows two different 15 minute and a ranger talk at the McLean House. In 24 25 slide programs on an hourly schedule. The conjunction with Longwood University, the 25 26 “Documentary” program covers the Appomattox park has developed an educational curriculum 26 27 Campaign. The “Soldiers Diaries” consists of incorporating the Commonwealth of Virginia’s 27 28 excerpts from diaries of soldiers who were “Standards of Learning”. A Junior Ranger 28 29 present at the site in 1865. An electric map program has been established. Local troops 29 30 depicts the movement of the Confederate and use the history trail in conjunction with the trail 30 31 Union armies from Petersburg to Appomattox. A guide to gain merit badges; the park hosts 31 32 series of exhibits provide details on the surrender approximately 2200 Boy Scouts annually. 32 33 and stacking of arms, and display site-associated 33 34 objects. On the fi rst fl oor are period photographs Publications 34 35 of Union and Confederate soldiers present at 35 36 Appomattox Court House, and panels illustrating The 2003 park handbook features articles by 36 37 the roles of African Americans in the Appomattox noted historians Edward Ayers, David Blight and 37 38 campaign and surrender. The story of the slave Gary Gallagher that present new scholarship. 38 39 named Hannah, who lived on the Coleman farm, The handbook also includes a village map 39 40 is told here. She either refused to leave or was showing the locations of some of the no 40 41 unable to; caught between the lines, she was the longer extant buildings, drawing from recent 41 42 only civilian causality of the fi ghting before the archeological investigations that have provided 42 43 surrender. There is also an exhibit on Ely Parker, new information. 43 44 the Native American on Grant’s staff who made 44 45 the fi nal copy of the surrender terms. Special Events 45 46 46 47 The McLean House has six furnished rooms, in The principal special event for the park is the 47 48 addition to the parlor, that are representative of surrender anniversary marking the events of 48 49 the Civil War period. The outdoor kitchen has a April 8 through 12, 1865. The park sponsors a 49 50 backroom portrayed as a combination living and variety of activities, ranging from living history, 50 51 work area for the McLean household slaves. The lectures, and demonstrations of printing paroles. 51 52 slave quarters contain two furnished rooms on Other special events include the summer day 52 53 the fi rst fl oor. An exhibit on slavery in Appomattox camp for children aged 8-12; two days when 53 54 County is in the planning stages, and will be the fee is waived: Founder’s Day in August and 54 55 installed in the slave quarters. There is a formal the mid-December Holiday Open House. An 55 56 exhibition space in the Clover Hill Tavern Guest off-site special event, sponsored by the park 56 57 House and historic furnished interiors in the in conjunction with Longwood University, is the 57 58 Clover Hill Tavern, Meeks Store, Woodson Law annual Civil War seminar, usually held on a 58 59 59 96 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 Saturday in March. Historians speak around a organized into fi ve operating divisions: Natural 1 2 central theme, and the event is free and open to Resource Management, Interpretation, Museum 2 3 the public. Services, Maintenance, and Administration. 3 4 There are fi ve permanent park guides and 4 5 Visitor Experience rangers, nine employees devoted to maintenance 5 6 and building preservation, one natural resource 6 7 The 2001 survey revealed the following management specialist, one Curator, one 7 8 information about the visitor experience at the Term Museum Technician, one Historian, and 8 9 park. Most visitors rated their park experience an administrative staff of two. The Museum 9 10 as very good (45%) or good (39%). Visitors Technician position is a project funded term 10 11 tended to report satisfaction with cultural position. Seasonal (temporary) positions are 11 12 landscape conditions, such as the condition of held by three to six park guides working in 12 13 village historic structures and roads, and with interpretation and one maintenance worker. 13 14 facility conditions, such as the amount of litter 14 15 and cleanliness of restrooms. For information The work force is supplemented by volunteers. 15 16 education services, visitors rated access to The NPS Volunteer-in-Parks (VIP) program 16 17 historic buildings, exhibits and other features of includes recurring contributions by long- 17 18 the visitor center, as extremely important and term VIP’s, as well as special events and 18 19 reported they were highly satisfi ed. Interpretive unique occurrences. These include Civil War 19 20 programs such as ranger programs, living history reenactment groups with several hundred 20 21 and information at the McLean House were rated members who encamp at the park and portray 21 22 as very important, and visitors reported they were to the visitor the life of a typical soldier. The 22 23 highly satisfi ed with them. annual totals fl uctuate as some events do not 23 24 repeat from year to year. Visitor service and 24 25 When asked to identify confl icts that they felt with maintenance volunteers who commit to regular 25 26 other uses or users, the majority (87%) reported and recurring service such as working the 26 27 no confl icts. For those visitors who experienced information desk or assisting with routine duties 27 28 confl icts, the most common were with the use of average 900 hours per year. 28 29 cell phones in the historic village (mentioned 18 29 30 times) and the use of mechanized equipment in Facilities 30 31 the village (16 times). Survey respondents were 31 32 asked to report their feelings of crowdedness at Administration 32 33 the park, with 28% reporting feeling slight to very 33 34 slight crowding and 64% not at all crowded. The park’s administration building, the Isbell 34 35 House, was built in 1848-1849 by the Bocock 35 36 Open-ended questions about problems with the brothers and was subsequently owned by Judge 36 37 park visit were asked, and most visitors either Lewis D. Isbell during the 1865 surrender. It 37 38 reported no dislikes or did not respond. For was renovated to serve as the superintendent’s 38 39 facilities condition, the need for more drinking residence after establishment of the monument 39 40 fountains or a place to buy drinks was the in 1940. Administrative offi ces were moved from 40 41 problem most often written in. The number of the Clover Hill Tavern to the house in the early 41 42 park benches was next, followed by access 1980s, and the curator’s offi ce along with some 42 43 issues for the elderly or disabled, which included collections relocated from the second fl oor of 43 44 the amount of walking, steps into buildings, and Meeks’s Store to the basement. The park library 44 45 the path from the parking lot. The two most and historian’s offi ce are housed on the second 45 46 common problems with information/education fl oor. The interior shows cracking and other visual 46 47 services were too little living history in the village evidence of stress from the high foot traffi c in 47 48 and interpretation or information problems, which the administrative offi ces and the immense fl oor 48 49 included unclear signs on the highway and lack loading of the second fl oor storage spaces. The 49 50 of information from park personnel. structure lacks a fi re suppression system and 50 51 UV fi ltering on the windows in collection storage 51 52 3.6 Park Operations areas. 52 53 53 54 Staffi ng Offi ces and a lunch/break room for the 54 55 Interpretation Division are located on the 55 56 The park’s operating budget of approximately second fl oor of the Meeks Store, a historic 56 57 $1,255,000 funds a work force of 19 permanent structure dating to 1850. Access to the second 57 58 and 3 seasonal positions. The park staff is fl oor is gained on a narrow exterior stairway 58 59 59 Chapter 3 Affected Environment 97

1 which cannot be easily used in icy and snowy for inventorying, storage for all collections, 1 2 conditions. cataloguing, carrying out preservation treatments 2 3 and doing research. The Mariah Wright House, 3 4 Maintenance built in 1823 and the earliest wood-frame 4 5 structure surviving in the village complex, is 5 6 The maintenance facility or yard is a small being used for the storage of architectural 6 7 complex of buildings and related infrastructure fragments. Its interior spaces are unfi nished and 7 8 that evolved incrementally after the construction lack environmental controls, fi re suppression 8 9 of the main shop building in 1954. Uses include or intrusion detection. At the Courthouse, the 9 10 carpentry and mechanical shops, offi ces, mechanical room behind the visitor contact desk 10 11 collections storage, equipment storage, and is used to store unexhibited collections. 11 12 paint room. A 200 sq. ft. storage building houses 12 13 hazardous materials. The facility’s vehicle fuel Clover Hill Tavern Kitchen Bookstore 13 14 station consists of two above-ground fuel storage 14 15 tanks and two pumps Eastern National’s retail operations are on the 15 16 fi rst fl oor and the second fl oor is used for storage. 16 17 Codes and standards for operating procedures The structure is too small for the large volume of 17 18 have continued to place new demands on sales and provides no offi ce space, restrooms or 18 19 the facility, particularly in the carpentry and other employee facilities. The adaptive use has 19 20 mechanical craft shops that fabricate material resulted in some stresses on the historic fabric 20 21 for the historic structures. While the shops have of this original building. There is insuffi cient room 21 22 been retrofi tted to install new systems over time, for easy movement through the store when large 22 23 these changes have come at the expense of numbers of visitors are present and occasionally, 23 24 other needs and NPS standards for this type visitors must line up and wait to enter the store. 24 25 of facility are not being met. Employees have Bookstore operations require vehicular access, 25 26 no changing area, shower facilities or lockers gained on a dirt road on the north side of the 26 27 to store clothing or safety equipment. The village that leads from the maintenance complex. 27 28 facility has one restroom equipped with a single 28 29 commode and a laundry sink. The break room Housing 29 30 has limited facilities. 30 31 Park acreage has increased substantially The park’s Housing Management Plan provides 31 32 since 1954 and additional equipment has been for two housing units, the Peers House and 32 33 purchased. There is limited space for vehicle Moon House. The Moon House is a replacement 33 34 and equipment storage; consequently, some unit for the Ferguson House, vacated in 2004 34 35 equipment is stored outdoors. The yard of the because of its obsolete condition, and later 35 36 Peers House, visible from the village, is used demolished. 36 37 for employee parking. The facility is close to two 37 38 key interpretive areas, the Gordon-Chamberlain Park Circulation 38 39 Salute Site and the meeting place of Grant and 39 40 Lee. Views of the maintenance facility from Route 24 essentially operates as a park 40 41 these sites and from the village are blocked by circulation route, as internal vehicular circulation 41 42 vegetation for most of the year. However, the within the park lacks connectivity. In the vicinity 42 43 adjacency of the facility to key sites is a factor of the park, Route 24 is a two-way, two-lane 43 44 which restricts expansion to meet operational roadway with 10-foot lanes and two-foot 44 45 needs. shoulders. The right of way is entirely within 45 46 VDOT ownership and is 110 feet in width, 46 47 Interim Collections Storage extending 55 feet from the centerline of the road. 47 48 Multiple roads and parking areas are accessed 48 49 Until recently, park collections were stored in from the roadway within the park boundary. 49 50 disparate locations throughout the village. Guided Most are multiple use in nature, and carry both 50 51 by the park curator, the park has developed pedestrian and vehicular traffi c, or administrative 51 52 a centralized storage space in a 500 square and public traffi c. State secondary roads SR 617 52 53 foot utility building at the maintenance area to and SR 656 also provide access to park property. 53 54 consolidate the most sensitive materials. The In general there are 15 roads and parking 54 55 space has been fi tted out to provide some facilities located within the park. 55 56 climate control. It does not meet NPS standards 56 57 and lacks the full range of controls needed to Roads and access points off Route 24 that 57 58 protect collections over the long term and space are used primarily by visitors are the village 58 59 59 98 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 entrance road, the Confederate Cemetery fi elds. Although this landscape treatment was 1 2 parking area, the parking areas at Lee’s and only partially implemented, it resulted in the fi eld 2 3 Grant’s headquarters sites; and the North near Grant’s Headquarters, the fi eld south of 3 4 Carolina Monument parking area. In addition Lee’s Headquarters, and the fi elds immediately 4 5 to these intersections and parking facilities, north and south of the village. The 1977 GMP, 5 6 there are informal pull-offs at two interpretive however, moved in the opposite direction from 6 7 sign locations, the Apple Tree site and the Joel the 1963 Master Plan by protecting the existing 7 8 Sweeney State historical marker. Motorists also forests for use as visual screens and buffers. 8 9 access one of the two parking areas located In 1978 and 1995, the park acquired additional 9 10 on the north side of the road in order to use land on the north and west sides of the park. 10 11 the picnic areas at the VDOT wayside near the These parcels contained agricultural fi elds that 11 12 Memorial Bridge. were immediately incorporated into the leasing 12 13 program. 13 14 There are fi ve administrative access roads, used 14 15 mainly by park staff and occasional visitors to Agricultural leasing has been a tool used since 15 16 administrative offi ces. One of the fi ve, Gordon the 1940s to maintain the fi elds. Over the years, 16 17 Road, provides access to the Moon House, the fi elds have been leased for hay, crops such 17 18 former Mathews House, and a private residence. as corn and small grains, and cattle grazing. 18 19 Another route (710) provides access to the Changes in agricultural practice have been a 19 20 Sweeney Cabin and Sweeney Cemetery, and major determinant of land use and fi eld size. 20 21 ends at the cluster of structures on the former For example, federal agricultural programs that 21 22 O’Brien inholding. Route 24 also provides access reduced farmer’s incentives to grow certain 22 23 to the Herman Methodist Church Cemetery, an crops, such as corn, led to increased acreage for 23 24 active cemetery not within the park boundary. cattle grazing. Cropland, hay and pasture were 24 25 The access road is mainly used non-park visitors. about equal in total land use around 1963, but 25 26 by 1999, 84% of the park’s fi elds were used for 26 27 Five of the intersections on Route 24 have been cattle grazing. Farmers found it more convenient 27 28 identifi ed as having sight distance problems to lease larger fi elds for hay and pasture. A Soil 28 29 based on the roadway’s posted speed limit and Water Conservation Plan in 1980 showed 28 29 30 of 55 MPH (2001 study). Sight distances are different fi elds that totaled 420 acres. By 1999, 30 31 related to the length of unobstructed vision at those 28 fi elds had been combined to 12 fi elds. 31 32 a particular speed. To provide for safe access 32 33 onto a main roadway for a vehicle starting to By 1999, approximately 360 acres of fi elds in 33 34 cross or turn onto the main roadway from a stop the park were used for cattle grazing. Cattle had 34 35 position, the distances along the main roadway full access to wetlands and streams within these 35 36 should be suffi ciently long enough to provide pastures. The result was extensive damage 36 37 clearance time. The 2001 study found that the to wetlands and streambanks. Changes were 37 38 existing sight distances at the fi ve intersections made fi rst in fi eld use and later in the leasing 38 39 matched those that were desirable at 35 MPH. program to reduce the amount of land used for 39 40 The fi ve are Grant’s Headquarters parking area, cattle grazing. Field use changes from1999 to 40 41 the park offi ce side road, the park maintenance 2002 refl ected an approximate 40% reduction 41 42 roadway, Route 710, and the east end of the in land used for pasture. Approximately one 42 43 Route 656. (Refer to Photo 4 - VA Route 24 @ mile of stream and three acres of wetlands were 43 44 the Appomattox River looking east). removed from cattle access by these changes. 44 45 Cattle currently have access to streams and 45 46 Field Management wetlands in the remaining fi elds. This practice will 46 47 be changed, however, once the existing leases 47 48 The park contains 448 acres of fi elds, which expire. Currently four leases, expiring in 2007, 48 49 include open, non-forested land and land used permit cattle grazing. 49 50 for agricultural leasing. The mowed lawns 50 51 around the village, power line rights-of-way, One hayfi eld and two pastures were removed 51 52 and roads are not included in this acreage. The from agricultural leasing in 2002. These fi elds 52 53 current fi eld confi gurations in the park are the have been used to experiment with various 53 54 result of the 1963 Master Plan, the 1977 GMP techniques for eliminating existing exotic fescues 54 55 and later land acquisitions. The landscape and establishing and maintaining native warm- 55 56 treatment component of the 1963 Master Plan season grasses. This information will be used 56 57 called for restoration of the historical landscape to determine if further fi elds in the park can be 57 58 by removing much of the forest to create open established in native warm-season grasses and 58 59 59 Chapter 3 Affected Environment 99

1 used in the agricultural leasing program. with the other being prepared for demolition. The 1 2 park is working with the occupants of the other 2 3 Protection and Security two residences to meet their housing needs 3 4 through lease extensions. The occupancy of the 4 5 The park has no security or enforcement residences is considered short-term. 5 6 personnel, and depends on local law 6 7 enforcement for protective services, specifi cally A long-standing Memorandum of Agreement with 7 8 the offi ce of the County Sheriff, the principal the trustees of the Herman Methodist Church 8 9 law enforcement agency in Appomattox Cemetery provides for the park to maintain 9 10 County. However, local offi cials cannot enforce the cemetery, mainly by cutting the grass. The 10 11 provisions of NPS law, such as those relating to cemetery, outside the park boundary, is accessed 11 12 archeological losses. The presence of NPS staff from Route 24 and borders the park on three 12 13 in park housing is considered to be a deterrent to sides. 13 14 vandalism and other types of undesirable activity 14 15 occurring during times the park is closed. Crime The Central Virginia Electric Cooperative has 15 16 reported at the park has been minimal. rights of way for overhead and underground 16 17 lines within the park. The village is served by 17 18 Inholdings, Use and Occupancy Agreements, and the underground lines, with the connection to 18 19 Rights of Way the transmission line located at the south side 19 20 of the intersection of Isbell Road and Route 24. 20 21 Inholdings, shown in Figure 3-5: Proposed Overhead lines run along Route 656 and part of 21 22 Boundary Adjustment, include a 75-acre the southern boundary, as well as in locations 22 23 agricultural parcel on the northern boundary. The that serve current and former inholdings and the 23 24 inholding is visible from the Gordon-Chamberlain life estate residences. A voltage regulator was 24 25 Salute Site at the east edge of the village, and installed in the northeastern part of the park in 25 26 therefore falls within an important viewshed. A 2004. 26 27 5-acre parcel containing a residence built in 2004 27 28 is located on the north side of Gordon Road. Two secondary roads, SR 656 and SR 627, are 28 29 The owner has right of access to the road and a within the park boundary. Route 656 has a 25 29 30 reasonable expectation that it will be maintained foot easement from the centerline. Route 627 30 31 in good condition by the park. The Confederate has easements of 75 foot for a distance of .05 31 32 Cemetery is owned and managed by the miles at Route 24 and easements of 15 feet for 32 33 Appomattox Chapter of the United Daughters of the remainder of the roadway through the park. 33 34 the Confederacy. The Raine Monument plot is Route 24 and its right of way are outside the park 34 35 a private inholding that belonged to the Raine boundary. 35 36 family. There are no living family members, and 36 37 the park has assumed caretaking responsibilities The Town of Appomattox provides sewerage and 37 38 for the plot. water services, including maintenance and repair, 38 39 to the park under a cooperative agreement. The 39 40 Three inholdings purchased by NPS just prior services are brought in on underground pipelines 40 41 or during the GMP planning period provide new within the Route 24 right of way, and piped to 41 42 opportunities for park use. The Moon House the village and maintenance facility areas. The 42 43 parcel was acquired in 2001; the Mathews House remainder of the park has individual septic 43 44 parcel located on the south side of Gordon Road systems and wells. There is a sewage pump 44 45 was acquired in 2003; and the Claudine O’Brien station on the south side of Route 24 near Isbell 45 46 property, at the end of Route 701, was acquired Road. 46 47 in 2003. 47 48 Park Cooperators and Partners 48 49 Extended use and occupancy agreements (also 49 50 known as life estates) for four residences expired The park’s single cooperating association, 50 51 in 2003 and 2004. The houses and associated Eastern National (EN), operates the book store/ 51 52 structures, which dated from the 1950s, were sales outlet, one of the highest grossing sales- 52 53 located in highly visible areas of the landscape. per-person units among Civil War parks in the 53 54 Two were on Route 656 near the northern Northeast Region. EN donates six percent of the 54 55 boundary of the park, and two were in the revenue derived from sales for use in interpretive 55 56 vicinity of the intersection of routes 24 and 701, programming and support, and sponsorship 56 57 near Sweeney’s Cabin. Two houses have been of the annual Civil War Seminar. The donation 57 58 vacated and one has since been demolished, is used to hire and pay the “Living History” 58 59 59 Figure 3-5: Proposed Boundary Adjustment

Parcels containing significant viewshed protection Chapter 3 Affected Environment 101

1 interpreters on duty during the summer months. vicinity of Appomattox Court House National 1 2 In 2006, the amount received was $15,832 Historical Park and within the park boundary. 2 3 Its purpose is to protect against encroachment 3 4 The park is involved in a variety of partnerships upon the park, encourage uses which will lead 4 5 and cooperative relationships in the community to its conservation and improvement, and assure 5 6 and region. It is an active member of the that new structures and uses will be in keeping 6 7 Virginia’s Retreat Consortium. Other examples with the character of the park. The zone permits 7 8 include joint efforts with the county and town of single family dwellings. 8 9 Appomattox, and the Region 2000 Commission; 9 10 promotion and coordination with Petersburg Population Characteristics 10 11 National Park and the Historic Sandusky 11 12 Foundation in Lynchburg; tourism outreach Outside the municipalities of Lynchburg and 12 13 with the Appomattox Chamber of Commerce; Farmville, the study area has a low-density 13 14 sponsorship of the open house in December character. This is illustrated in Figure 3-6: 14 15 with the Garden Club; student internships, Population Density and detailed in the person 15 16 cooperative agreement for studies and other per square mile fi gures in the chart below. 16 17 projects with numerous colleges and universities Clusters of higher density population along the 17 18 in the region. Of particular note is the annual Civil major transportation corridors of routes 29, at the 18 19 War Seminar which is undertaken with Longwood eastern edge of the study area and 460, crossing 19 20 College. Appendix F lists current and potential southwest through the study area from the east, 20 21 partnerships identifi ed during the planning are visible on the map. 21 22 process. 22 23 Table 3-1 highlights the changes in demographic 23 24 3.7 Social, Economic and Built characteristics among the jurisdictions in the 24 25 Environment study area between 1990 and 2000. 25 26 26 27 Land Use in the Vicinity of the Park Between 1990 and 2000, the population in 27 28 all counties and cities within the study area 28 29 The area at the park’s western boundary is at increased except for the city of Lynchburg, which 29 30 the edge of development spreading out from declined one percent. Bedford and Buckingham 30 31 the town of Appomattox. On the north side of VA counties exhibited the highest percentage growth 31 32 Route 24 is a small business park with industrial with 32 percent and 21 percent increases. 32 33 buildings used for storage and distribution. On Appomattox County’s population showed an 11.4- 33 34 the south side of VA Route 24, land uses include percent increase, similar to that for the study area 34 35 the Galilee Baptist Church and cemetery along as a whole. In 2001, Appomattox County ranked 35 36 the road frontage and behind them, a mobile seventh in population among the eight counties, 36 37 home park and small industrial park adjoining the with 13,885 residents. Appomattox, Buckingham 37 38 wooded area near Grant’s Headquarters. Service and Prince Edward Counties have maintained a 38 39 businesses are found along Route 24 between slow, but stable growth rate over the past century. 39 40 the park boundary and the 460 bypass about 1 In the century between 1900 and 2000, the 40 41 mile from the boundary. greatest growth occurred in Campbell, Bedford 41 42 and Amherst counties, while Charlotte and 42 43 To the north, south and east, agricultural and Nelson counties experienced population declines. 43 44 low-density residential uses are characteristic 44 45 of the lands adjacent to and in the vicinity Throughout the study area, the number of 45 46 of the park. Forested lots fronting Route 24 housing units increased between 1990 and 46 47 between the park’s eastern entrance and the 2000, a trend related to both population growth 47 48 settlement area of Vera two miles to the north and demographic changes and preferences. 48 49 are gradually being cleared and subdivided for Appomattox gained over 900 housing units over 49 50 single family residences. Existing densities are the decade, a percent change of 18.6%. 50 51 lower than those permitted by the underlying 51 52 zoning designations, in part because public water Within the study area, Buckingham, Prince 52 53 and sewer service is not available beyond the Edward and Charlotte counties have the highest 53 54 town boundary and the extension to the park. percentages of African-American residents. In 54 55 Lands adjacent to the park within the county Appomattox County, 23 percent are African- 55 56 are zoned A-1 (Agricultural), B-1 (Business), American. Hispanics, Asians and persons of 56 57 H-1 (Historic District) and R-1 (Residential). The other races comprise less than 1 percent of the 57 58 Historic District zone is found primarily in the county’s population. 58 59 59 Figure 3-6: Population Density Chapter 3 Affected Environment 103 Table 3-1: Demographic Characteristics of the Broader Study Area 2000 VA 1990 2000 % Change Persons % of African Location Population Population in Pop. Per Sq. Mi. African American 1990-2000 2000 American Population Amherst Co. 28,578 31,894 11.6% 67.1 6,311 19.8% Appomattox Co. 12,298 13,705 11.4% 41 3,140 22.9% Bedford Co. 45,656 60,371 32.2% 80 3,767 6.2% Bedford City 6,073 6,299 3.7% 900 1,410 22.4% Buckingham Co. 12,873 15,623 21.4% 26.9 6,102 39.1% Campbell Co. 47,572 51,078 7.4% 101.3 7,516 14.7% Charlotte Co. 11,688 12,472 6.7% 26.3 4,102 32.9% Farmville City 6,046 6,845 13.2% 982.5 1,758 25.7% Lynchburg City 66,049 65,269 -1.2% 1332 19,382 29.7% Nelson Co. 12,778 14,445 13.1% 31 2,151 14.9% Prince Edward Co. 17,320 19,720 13.9% 55.9 7,063 35.8% Study Area 266,869 297,721 11.5% na 62,702 21.01% State of VA 6,187,358 7,078,515 14.4% 178.8 1,390,293 19.6% Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census data, 1990 and 2000

Projected population growth between 2000 and 2030 is shown for the counties in the study area in Figure 3-7: Population Projections. Appomattox County’s population increase is projected at 19.5%. Bedford County is projected to have the largest percentage increase, with Nelson, Buckingham and Prince Edward Counties Table 3-2: Employment by Sector for projected to increase between 20-40%. Appomattox County, 2001 Number of Percentage Sector In Appomattox County, manufacturing, Employees of Economy government and trade are the largest Agriculture 57 1.5 employment sectors. Table 3-2 reports sector Mining 23 0.6 employment for the second quarter 2001. Construction 413 11.2 Manufacturing 916 24.7 Transportation 102 2.8 Trade 792 21.4 Agricultural Trends F.I.R.E.¹ 105 2.8 Services 431 11.6 Between 1987 and 1997, the amount of farmland Government 863 23.3 TOTAL 3,702 100.0 in Appomattox County decreased from 79,136 ¹Finance, insurance and real estate; Source: acres to 76,643 acres, or about 3 percent. Virginia Economic Development Partnership, Likewise, total cropland declined by 3,469 acres 2002. between 1992 and 1997, although three new crop farms were reported. Livestock, poultry and produce were the leading sources of farm income for Appomattox County in 1997. Over 200 farms in the county are involved in beef and dairy cattle production. The sale of livestock (cattle and calves) accounted for 40 percent of the farm income, and crops 28 percent. Tobacco production accounted for the highest percent of county agricultural production in 2000 (48%); corn was next highest (20%) and wheat at 11%. Cattle and calves accounted for 4% of production. Appomattox County has substantial forestlands and is a leading pulpwood producer in Virginia. Figure 3-7: Population Projections Figure 3-8: Regional Road Network 106 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 Regional Transportation Network comprised 20% of the estimated use. Vehicle 1 2 classifi cation counts have indicated that trucks 2 3 The study area is crossed by several major account for 17% of all weekday traffi c on Route 3 4 highways. Lynchburg is a major highway 24. The percentage is slightly lower during the 4 5 convergence point with intersections of US peak travel portions of the day when park visitors 5 6 Route 29, the multi-lane highway connecting tend to be using the roadway. A 2004 study of 6 7 Washington, D.C., Charlottesville, Danville and truck traffi c use on Route 24 concluded that 7 8 the cities of North Carolina’s Piedmont Crescent; trucking operations may have greater confl icts 8 9 US 460, an east-west highway from Norfolk, with commuting traffi c than with park visitor 9 10 VA to St. Louis; and US 501, a northwestern/ traffi c. This is due to the typical hours and days 10 11 southeastern highway between the Shenandoah of operation for trucks, which are generally during 11 12 Valley and central North Carolina. U.S. Route the work week. Additionally, the study found that 12 13 29 traverses the eastern portion of Amherst the road is not a preferred route among truckers, 13 14 County and serves as the region’s commercial, but is used because the businesses being served 14 15 industrial and residential development corridor. are located close to Route 24. 15 16 Crossing the western portion of the study area 16 17 is Interstate 81, a north-south interstate that While Route 24 is the main travel route through 17 18 follows the Shenandoah Valley. US Highway 60 the park, there are other public roads in the park. 18 19 runs east-west from Richmond across the mid- Two state roadways have intersections on Route 19 20 portion of the study area and the northern part 24 within the park boundary. One is SR627, 20 21 of Appomattox County, intersecting with Routes which intersects with Route 24 near the middle 21 22 29 and the interstate. See Figure 3-8: Regional of the park on the south side. This route provides 22 23 Road Network. access to residential areas south of the park. The 23 24 other is the eastern end of SR656, a loop road 24 25 Within Appomattox County, the primary roads that provides entry to residential and farm areas 25 26 are U.S. Highway 460 and state highways 24 north of the park. The western end of the 656 26 27 and 26. Highway 460 enters Appomattox County loop is just outside of the park boundary on the 27 28 at its eastern edge; in the town of Appomattox, west. 28 29 it splits into a business route and a limited 29 30 access bypass. VA Route 26 runs north from The Average Daily Traffi c (ADT) volume for 30 31 460 in the town of Appomattox, connecting with Route 24 in the vicinity of the park visitor 31 32 Route 60 at Bent Creek on the James River. entrance is 3,901 vehicles, and the roadway has 32 33 VA Route 24 originates at US Route 60 west of the capacity to handle more traffi c volume. The 33 34 Buckingham and runs for twenty miles into the highest volume forecast for the road is 4,600 34 35 town of Appomattox. Just east of the town of ADT; the 2003 transportation study found that, 35 36 Appomattox, the roadway passes through the if this volume were reached, the level of service 36 37 park and intersects with entry and exit ramps to at this intersection would continue to be at near 37 38 the 460 bypass, less than a mile from its western ideal conditions, in engineering terms. Among the 38 39 boundary. From Appomattox, Route 24 continues Route 24 intersections within or contiguous to the 39 40 south and west into Campbell and Bedford park, that at the western end of the SR656 loop 40 41 counties. has the highest volume of traffi c. Outside of the 41 42 immediate area of the park, traffi c volumes are 42 43 Road Network in the Vicinity of the Park highest at the Route 24 entry and exit ramps to 43 44 the 460 bypass, and at the intersection of SR26 44 45 State Route 24 is classifi ed as a rural and the 460 bypass, about two miles west of the 45 46 minor arterial by the Virginia Department of park boundary. 46 47 Transportation (VDOT). It is the principal travel 47 48 route through the park and provides access for Characteristics of Route 24 through the Park 48 49 staff and visitors to operations and interpretive 49 50 sites. The posted speed limit on VA Route 24 for this 50 51 roadway segment through the National Park is 51 52 A 2004 study of traffi c use on Route 24 between 55 MPH. The posted speed limit just outside the 52 53 routes 460 and 60 found that commuting Park is 45 MPH on the west end and 45 MPH on 53 54 traffi c comprised 60% of the estimated use. the east side. However, observed speeds through 54 55 These users either traveled the full extent of the park are generally higher than the posted 55 56 the roadway or accessed points along Route limit. 56 57 24 (representing local traffi c). Park visitors, 57 58 those who turned at the visitor center entrance, An analysis of accident information by the 58 59 59 108 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) District Commission. Region 2000 is one of 1 2 for a 3½-year period ending in April 2001 was 23 planning district commissions (PDCs) in 2 3 presented in the 2003 draft Transportation the Commonwealth of Virginia. It serves the 3 4 Study. The analysis concluded that even with jurisdictions of Amherst, Appomattox, Bedford, 4 5 the presence of moderate traffi c volumes, the Campbell counties; and the cities of Bedford 5 6 overall accident rate for the Route 24 corridor and Lynchburg. The purpose of the PDCs is to 6 7 through the park was not alarming. The absence encourage and facilitate cooperation among 7 8 of vehicle to vehicle type collisions was termed local governments in each region and between 8 9 unusual. VDOT updated the data in 2005, the State and local governments in addressing 9 10 analyzing accidents over a 4½ year period quality of life issues on a regional level. 10 11 from July 2000 to December 2004. There were 11 12 fi ve reported accidents, with speed considered The Lynchburg Metropolitan Statistical Area 12 13 a factor in only one of the fi ve. The accident (MSA) is composed of the cities of Lynchburg 13 14 rate was found to be lower than the statewide and Bedford and Bedford Bounty. The MSA is the 14 15 accident rate for the same roadway type. The framework for transportation planning for these 15 16 data reported here does not refl ect the fatal traffi c jurisdictions. Appomattox is considered a Rural 16 17 accident in 2010, which involved a park staff County in terms of transportation planning. 17 18 employee accessing the highway. 18 19 Localities are required by the Commonwealth 19 20 Rail Service of Virginia to update their comprehensive plans 20 21 at least once every fi ve years. The County 21 22 The mainline of the Norfolk Southern Railway Board of Supervisors and the Appomattox and 22 23 parallels U.S. Route 460 and travels through Pamplin town councils adopted the Appomattox 23 24 the Towns of Pamplin and Appomattox before Community Development Plan in 2003. 24 25 entering Concord in Campbell County on the 25 26 west. While there is a passenger train depot in Parks, Recreation and Open Space 26 27 downtown Lynchburg, Appomattox County is 27 28 served only by freight rail service. As a result Appomattox Court House NHP is the only 28 29 of several studies by the Virginia Department national park within the study area. Appomattox- 29 30 of Rail and Public Transportation, the National Buckingham State Forest is within fi ve miles of 30 31 Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) the park. Holliday Lake State Park is located 31 32 and Norfolk Southern Corporation, a general within the forest and contains a 150 acre 32 33 concept for passenger rail service to Central and impoundment that has swimming facilities. There 33 34 Southwestern Virginia has been developed. The are several local recreational facilities in the 34 35 proposed service is known as the TransDominion town and county of Appomattox, and a county 35 36 Express Passenger Rail Service. Two round trip recreation park is being developed off Route 460 36 37 trains per day would serve 19 stations along just west of the town. 37 38 a route from Bristol to Washington, D.C. with 38 39 connecting service from Richmond to Lynchburg. Among the counties in the broader study area, 39 40 There is the potential for a stop in Appomattox on Appomattox is one of several that have been 40 41 the Richmond to Lynchburg line. identifi ed as defi cient in recreational areas (2000 41 42 Virginia Outdoors Plan). The plan recommended 42 43 Local Government Structure for Planning that if future recreation facilities are located 43 44 near historic sites, potential usage of the facility 44 45 A County Administrator and a fi ve-member should be maximized while taking care to not 45 46 Board of Supervisors govern the County. The destroy the integrity of the historic site. The state 46 47 town of Appomattox is the county seat. The outdoor planning process has also recognized 47 48 town of Pamplin City is the other incorporated that numerous signifi cant public lands and green 48 49 municipality in the county; both towns are space, such as is represented at Appomattox, 49 50 governed by six-member town councils headed lack trail access or connectivity. The proposed 50 51 by an elected Mayor. Pamplin City and the Town Cumberland to Appomattox Trail would connect 51 52 of Appomattox share a joint planning commission the Cumberland State Forest (outside the study 52 53 and Board of Zoning Appeals. area) and Appomattox Court House NHP via 53 54 the Buckingham/Appomattox State Forest. 54 55 Appomattox County and other jurisdictions This trail proposal and others for the Region 55 56 in the broader study area are served by the 2000 Planning District have been generally 56 57 Region 2000 Regional Commission, formerly incorporated in Regional Greenways and 57 58 known as the Central Virginia Planning Blueways Plan. 58 59 59 Chapter 3 Affected Environment 109

1 1 2 Heritage Tourism The story of the surrender is complemented by 2 3 two related events at sites not far from the park. 3 4 Local tourism services are provided by Jefferson Davis and his cabinet occupied the 4 5 Appomattox County government and the County mansion of Major William T. Sutherlin in Danville, 5 6 of Commerce. The county tourism director and Virginia as they waited for Lee’s Army to arrive. 6 7 the chamber have produced a visitor brochure, Davis fl ed south by train on April 10 after learning 7 8 The Appomattox Tourism Guide. The chamber of the surrender, and the result is that Danville is 8 9 operates the Appomattox Visitor Information often called the ‘Last Capital of the Confederacy’. 9 10 Center, located in the renovated railroad depot. Not far from Roanoke, the young Booker T. 10 11 Services are also coordinated with the Greater Washington heard the news of the surrender 11 12 Lynchburg Convention and Visitors Bureau, and freedom for African Americans from Union 12 13 which has recognized the park’s signifi cant draw soldiers moving through the Virginia countryside. 13 14 for tourism in the region and actively promotes The home of the noted educator and founder of 14 15 the park. The park is a member of Virginia’s Tuskegee Institute is now a national park. 15 16 Retreat, a marketing consortium that promotes 16 17 visitor opportunities in Southside Virginia. The The terms established by Grant and Lee at 17 18 two heritage trails in the Southside, Lee’s Retreat Appomattox were refl ected in subsequent 18 19 and the Civil Rights in Education, are coordinated surrenders throughout the South. Bennett House 19 20 under the consortium. (now Bennett Place State Historic Site) in North 20 21 Carolina on April 26 is the closest of these sites 21 22 Civil War Trails and Sites to the park. 22 23 23 24 Lee’s Retreat is among a number of thematic Civil Rights in Education Heritage Trail 24 25 groups of Civil War sites within the umbrella 25 26 organization of Virginia Civil War Trails, Inc. This 489 mile route goes through 11 Southside 26 27 While termed Lee’s Retreat, the sites represent counties and the City of Petersburg. The focus 27 28 events associated with both Lee’s withdrawal and is on historic sites that refl ect the struggles and 28 29 Grant’s pursuit. The self-guided tour is interpreted achievements among African Americans seeking 29 30 through waysides and AM radio frequency, and educational opportunities; sites also refl ect the 30 31 personal accounts of the period are provided stories of Native American and women who 31 32 through the audio media. Sites in addition to the sought equal opportunity in education. The trail 32 33 park that offer visitor services and interpretation begins in Appomattox County to emphasize 33 34 are Petersburg National Battlefi eld, an NPS site that the end of the Civil War brought new 34 35 and the beginning point of the tour; Pamplin opportunities for African Americans. The trail 35 36 Historical Park, a privately-owned battlefi eld site stop in the town of Appomattox is at the Carver 36 37 and museum; and Sailor’s Creek Battlefi eld State Price High School, the area’s African-American 37 38 Park. Two sites are located at Appomattox Court high school in the days of segregation. The 38 39 House, Lee’s Headquarters and the New Hope Carver Price High School Alumni Association 39 40 Church earthworks. The wayside for the Battle is spearheading efforts to develop a museum 40 41 of Appomattox Station is at the train depot in in the building showcasing the struggles and 41 42 Appomattox. Generally other sites are not open accomplishments of the black students who 42 43 to the public, and most are privately-owned and attended the school. The trail wayside at the park 43 44 are not protected. describes the freedman’s school that is known to 44 45 have been in operation after the Civil War in or 45 46 South of Appomattox is the 1864 Wilson-Kautz close to the village of Appomattox Court House. 46 47 Raid Trail, which marks the route of the two The Robert Russa Moton Museum in Farmville is 47 48 US generals who led a 300-mile cavalry raid also on the trail. 48 49 to destroy railroads in Southside Virginia. The 49 50 battle of Staunton River Bridge took place Virginia Scenic Byway Designation 50 51 during the raid when, on June 25, 1864, Union 51 52 cavalry raiders hoping to destroy the bridge The portion of Route 24 bisecting the park is 52 53 at Staunton fought, among others, about 500 designated as a Virginia Scenic Byway, as is 53 54 “old men and young boys” who defended the the stretch between Appomattox and Route 60. 54 55 position. The battlefi eld site is now a state park. A project of the departments of Transportation 55 56 Sites in Lynchburg related to the 1864 Battle of and Conservation and Recreation and the 56 57 Lynchburg are linked by an audio driving tour Commonwealth Transportation Board, the 57 58 organized by the Historic Sandusky Foundation. scenic byway program identifi es road corridors 58 59 59 110 Chapter 3 Affected Environment

1 containing aesthetic or cultural value near areas 1 2 of historical, natural or recreational signifi cance. 2 3 The program encourages travel to interesting 3 4 destinations and away from high-traffi c corridors. 4 5 Scenic byways are signed, identifi ed on the 5 6 widely distributed highway map, “A Map of Scenic 6 7 Roads in Virginia,” and described on the Virginia 7 8 Scenic Roads Web site. Road segments on Lee’s 8 9 Retreat Civil War Trail have also been designated 9 10 state scenic byways. 10 11 11 12 Area Attractions 12 13 13 14 The Appomattox County Historical Society 14 15 operates two sites: the Appomattox County 15 16 Historical Museum in the Town of Appomattox, 16 17 and Clover Hill Village, just south of the park. The 17 18 village features ten 19th-century structures that 18 19 have been moved from their original locations 19 20 and reassembled in a village setting. The society 20 21 is committed to developing a comprehensive 21 22 program portraying daily life in an agrarian, rural 22 23 village of the period from the1840s to the 1920s, 23 24 and occasionally hosts living history events. The 24 25 six-acre site has been developed with a parking 25 26 lot, roadway, split rail fencing, and electric and 26 27 water service. 27 28 28 29 Other attractions include the Pamplin Pipe 29 30 Factory in Pamplin City, which is open 30 31 sporadically to the public; Stonewall Vineyards in 31 32 western Appomattox County; the D-Day Memorial 32 33 in Bedford, memorializing Allied Forces on D- 33 34 Day, June 6, 1944; and Poplar Forest, Thomas 34 35 Jefferson’s summer home, near Lynchburg. The 35 36 last home and resting place of Patrick Henry, 36 37 located in Brookneal, Charlotte County, was 37 38 designated as the Red Hill Patrick Henry National 38 39 Memorial in 1986 (Public Law 99-296). In 39 40 addition to the Civil War site of Sandusky, which 40 41 commemorates the Battle of Lynchburg, the city 41 42 of Lynchburg has a variety of museums and 42 43 historic sites, including “Point of Honor,” home 43 44 of Dr. Cabell (Patrick Henry’s physician). African 44 45 American heritage sites in Lynchburg are part 45 46 of a coordinated visitor experience presented in 46 47 Explore Our Legacy: A Guide to African-American 47 48 Heritage, a brochure produced by the Greater 48 49 Lynchburg Convention and Visitors Bureau. 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 C HAPTER FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL27 28 28 29 C ONSEQUENCES29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 112 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL 1 2 For a detailed description of the topics 2 CONSEQUENCES 3 that are analyzed, please refer to Chapter 3 4 Three: Affected Environment. Resources 4 4.1 Introduction 5 and environmental concerns that would 5 6 not be appreciably affected by any of the 6 This Draft GMP/EIS has been prepared 7 alternatives were eliminated from further 7 to satisfy the requirements of NEPA, 8 consideration, as described in Chapter 8 which requires the evaluation of potential 9 One 9 impacts resulting from federal actions 10 10 or lands involving federal jurisdiction. 11 4.2 Methodology for Assessing 11 The alternatives presented in this draft 12 Impacts 12 document establish management 13 13 objectives and outline potential actions 14 The planning team based this impact 14 that may result from those objectives. 15 analysis and conclusions largely on the 15 The general nature of the alternatives 16 review of existing research and studies, 16 dictates that the analysis of impacts is 17 information provided by experts in the 17 also general. The National Park Service 18 National Park Service and other agencies 18 can make reasonable projections of likely 19 and organizations, and the professional 19 impacts, but the analysis is based on 20 judgment of the Appomattox Court House 20 assumptions and current understandings 21 staff. Where necessary and appropriate, 21 that may not correctly anticipate future 22 the planning team proposes mitigating 22 conditions over the 20-year life of the 23 measures to minimize or avoid impacts. 23 plan. As a result, the Draft GMP/EIS is 24 The potential for resource impacts and 24 programmatic in character and presents 25 the magnitude of those impacts could 25 an overview of potential impacts relating 26 increase without the application of 26 to each alternative. Future implementation 27 mitigating measures. 27 proposals would tier off this broad-scale 28 28 EIS, which will serve as a foundation 29 Effects can be direct, indirect, or 29 for further environmental compliance as 30 cumulative. Direct effects are caused by 30 actions are implemented. 31 an action and occur at the same time 31 32 and place as the action. Indirect effects 32 This chapter describes the probable 33 are caused by the action and occur later 33 consequences of the alternatives on 34 or farther away, but are still reasonably 34 cultural and natural resources, visitor 35 foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the 35 use and experience, park operations 36 impacts on the environment that result 36 and facilities, and the socioeconomic 37 from the incremental impact of the action 37 environment associated with the 38 when added to other past, present and 38 Appomattox Court House NHP. These 39 reasonably foreseeable future actions. 39 impact topics were selected for analysis 40 Actions are considered regardless of what 40 by determining which park resources 41 agency, (federal or non federal) or person 41 or related elements would be affected 42 undertakes such other action. Cumulative 42 by actions proposed under the four 43 effects can result from individually minor, 43 alternatives. Topics were also chosen to 44 but collectively signifi cant, actions taking 44 address planning issues and concerns. 45 place over a period of time. Cumulative 45 Actions and topics are addressed only 46 impacts may be evaluated in a regional 46 where there is a potential impact. The 47 context, which could vary according to the 47 impact topics are examined across the 48 impact topic. 48 spectrum of activities associated with each 49 49 of the alternatives, including those that are 50 Effects can be either adverse or benefi cial. 50 common to all alternatives. These impacts 51 In some cases, proposed actions could 51 are interrelated; an activity generated in 52 result in both adverse and benefi cial 52 one topic area can affect another topic 53 impacts for the same impact topic. The 53 area. For example, a cultural resource- 54 intensity or magnitude (negligible, minor, 54 related activity would have an impact on 55 moderate, or major) was evaluated for 55 cultural resources, but could also have an 56 adverse impacts. A defi nition for each 56 effect on visitor use or park operations. 57 intensity level was determined for most 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 113

1 of the impact topics; the intensities are ascribed to the landscape) and integrity 1 2 expressed qualitatively because of the of those features necessary to convey 2 3 generalized nature of the proposed its signifi cance. The character-defi ning 3 4 actions. features of a cultural landscape include 4 5 spatial organization and land patterns, 5 6 Impacts are also described in terms of topography, vegetation, circulation 6 7 their duration; i.e., short-term or long-term. patterns, water features, structures 7 8 The planning horizon for this General buildings, and views. The section below 8 9 Management Plan/Environmental Impact focuses on spatial organization and land 9 10 Statement is approximately 20 years. In use patterns, treating resources views, 10 11 general, impacts that would last less than topography, and vegetation in a general 11 12 one year were classifi ed as short-term. way. 12 13 Long-term impacts would last more than 13 14 one year. Impacts of Alternative 1 14 15 15 16 4.3 Cultural Resources The removal of non-contributing structures 16 17 at sites in visible locations in the landscape 17 18 Methodology would achieve a more open character in 18 19 the landscape. There would be minimal 19 20 In this impact analysis, cultural resources intervention in the cultural landscape in the 20 21 include cultural landscapes, historic ‘new lands’ area, which would be largely 21 22 buildings and structures, museum maintained as a wooded expanse. 22 23 collections and archives, and archeological 23 24 sites and resources. Cumulative Impacts 24 25 25 26 The planning team based this impact The cumulative affect of park actions 26 27 analysis and conclusions largely on the would be to open up the cultural landscape 27 28 review of existing research and studies, to a greater extent, and the character of 28 29 information provided by experts in the NPS several visible sites would no longer be 29 30 and other agencies and organizations, defi ned by 20th century buildings. The 30 31 and the professional judgment of the impact would be benefi cial and long- 31 32 Appomattox Court House NHP staff. For term. 32 33 purposes of analyzing potential impacts 33 34 on cultural resources, the impact intensity Conclusion 34 35 defi nitions are defi ned in Table 4-1. 35 36 This alternative would largely maintain 36 37 the integrity of character-defi ning features 37 38 Cultural Landscape throughout the park due to the low level of 38 39 site development. Overall, the impact to 39 40 The 2001 Cultural Landscape Inventory the cultural landscape under Alternative 1 40 41 provided the basis for the analysis of would be long-term and benefi cial. 41 42 impacts on park’s cultural landscape. 42 43 A draft Cultural Landscape Report Impacts of Alternative 2 43 44 (CLR) treatment plan for the entire park 44 45 is in process, and the 50% draft also As in Alternative 1, the removal of non 45 46 provided pertinent information. The conforming structures from visible areas 46 47 purpose of the CLR treatment plan is to of the landscape would enhance the 47 48 provide the park with general guidance park’s rural setting. 48 49 regarding ongoing preservation and 49 50 management of the park’s landscape Rehabilitation of the maintenance 50 51 during the development of alternatives facility site to expand the interpretive 51 52 and subsequent implementation of the area around the Lee-Grant meeting and 52 53 preferred alternative. Surrender Ceremony sites and open up 53 54 the landscape north of the Peers House, 54 55 A cultural landscape listed on the National with the accompanying restoration of the 55 56 Register of Historic Places must possess alignment and approximate grade of the 56 57 signifi cance (the meaning or value road at the time of the Civil War would 57 114 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Archives and Collections Alteration would affect the condition and Alteration would affect long-term preservation of a few items in the museum collection, but would not degrade the usefulness of collection for future research and interpretation. the condition and Alteration would affect long-term preservation of many items in the museum collection and would diminish the usefulness of collection for future research and interpretation. the condition and Alteration would affect long-term preservation of the collection as a whole and would destroy the usefulness of the collection for future research and interpretation. Resources Archeological Disturbance of a site(s) results loss of important in little, if any, information potential. Disturbance of a site(s) does not result in substantial loss of important information potential. Disturbance of a site(s) is substantial, results in the loss of most or all the site and its potential to yield information. ning fi . and Structures ning feature(s) of the fi Historic Buildings Alteration would affect a feature of Alteration would affect the structure or building and would be perceptible and measurable, but would The action would be slight and localized. not diminish the overall integrity of structure or building. one or more Alteration would affect character de structure or building, and would be perceptible and measurable, but would not diminish the integrity of building or structure to the extent that its National Register eligibility is jeopardized character-de Alteration would affect features of the structure or building, and would be substantial, discernible, and The action could potentially permanent. diminish the integrity of resource to the extent that it is no longer eligible to be listed on the National Register. Impact(s) is at the lowest levels of detection, barely perceptible, and not measurable. Cultural nitions: Cultural Resources Landscapes ning pattern(s) or feature(s) ning patterns or features Alteration would affect a pattern or feature of Alteration would affect the landscape and would be perceptible measurable, but would be slight and localized. The action would not diminish the overall integrity of the landscape. Alteration would have an impact one or more character-de fi of the cultural landscape and would be perceptible and measurable, but would not diminish the integrity of landscape to extent that its National Register eligibility is jeopardized. Alteration of the landscape would affect character-de fi of the cultural landscape, and would be The substantial, discernible, and permanent. action could potentially diminish the overall integrity of the landscape to extent that it is no longer eligible to be listed on the National Register. Impact Intensity De fi Table 4-1: Table Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 115

1 enhance a character defi ning feature. features of the landscape more evident. 1 2 They would be incorporated into a park- 2 3 The rehabilitation of areas between the wide trail system, introducing a new land 3 4 Coleman site and the village periphery use element in some sections of the 4 5 and at the Charles Sweeney and Sweeney cultural landscape. 5 6 cabins would open up the landscape, 6 7 making topographic and historic features The ability of the park to protect lands 7 8 more visible. Selected vegetation on its southern boundary through a 8 9 clearing may make witness woodlots boundary adjustment would have a 9 10 more predominant features in the long-term benefi cial impact by reducing 10 11 landscape. The rehabilitation of fi elds in the potential for land use development 11 12 selected areas would reduce the amount incompatible with the cultural landscape. 12 13 of acreage in modern agricultural use. At 13 14 the same time, visitor uses and features Cumulative Impact 14 15 such as pavement, access roads, and 15 16 parking areas would be introduced at two The cumulative impact on the park’s 16 17 sites, creating a minor adverse impact on rural setting and the character-defi ning 17 18 the cultural landscape. features of the cultural landscape would 18 19 be benefi cial and long-term. 19 20 In the village, the addition of missing 20 21 elements and other efforts to restore Conclusion 21 22 or rehabilitate the landscape to the 22 23 appearance in 1865, such as the re- The removal of non-contributing 23 24 orientation of the Woodson Law Offi ce structures and subsequent rehabilitation 24 25 to its historic alignment, would enhance of the landscape would enhance the 25 26 character defi ning features. park’s rural setting and the character- 26 27 defi ning features of the cultural 27 28 In the park administration zone to the landscape. New land uses and facilities 28 29 north and east of the village, new uses would be introduced to support visitor 29 30 and structures would be introduced use and house park operations, with 30 31 in a previously developed area of the changes to spatial organization. The 31 32 cultural landscape. Because this area result may be minor adverse impacts on 32 33 has already been developed, the impact the landscape. 33 34 would be negligible in terms of spatial 34 35 organization. The impact on visual Impacts of Alternative 3 35 36 resources is discussed under that topic 36 37 later in this chapter. Actions and impacts relating to the 37 38 removal of obsolete and non-contributing 38 39 At the north and south entrances to structures would be similar to those in 39 40 the park on Route 24, there would be Alternative 2. 40 41 modifi cations to the cultural landscape to 41 42 create a sense of entry into the park. Along Rehabilitation of the maintenance facility 42 43 with directional signage and interpretive site after its removal would expand the 43 44 information placed in the village and interpretive area around the Lee-Grant 44 45 broader landscape to guide the visitor, meeting and Surrender Ceremony sites 45 46 this set of actions could have an adverse and open up the landscape north of the 46 47 impact on the cultural landscape. These Peers House. 47 48 landscape impacts need to be balanced 48 49 against the visitor’s desire to understand The rehabilitation of areas between 49 50 the setting and to be comfortable in the the Coleman site and Oakville Road 50 51 environment. Appropriate siting and and around the Charles Sweeney and 51 52 design that is sympathetic to the historic Sweeney Connor cabins for visitor use 52 53 setting and context would be employed and interpretation would create more 53 54 to mitigate any adverse impacts. open conditions and/or make topographic 54 55 and historic features such as road traces 55 56 Rehabilitation and restoration of historic more visible. Vegetation clearing may 56 57 road traces would make these historic make witness woodlots more visible. 57 116 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 The rehabilitation of agricultural fi elds and subsequent rehabilitation of the 1 2 in selected locations would reduce the landscape would enhance the park’s 2 3 amount of acreage in large fi elds adapted rural setting and the character-defi ning 3 4 for modern agricultural use. New land uses features of the cultural landscape. The 4 5 would be introduced to support visitor use, cumulative impact on spatial organization 5 6 with a modest level of development taking would be benefi cial and long-term. The 6 7 place in the cultural landscape. cumulative impact on land patterns could 7 8 be minor and adverse. 8 9 The installation of park operations in 9 10 the Mathews House and development Conclusion 10 11 of a collections storage facility in the 11 12 administration zone north of the village The removal of non-contributing structures 12 13 on Gordon Drive would introduce new and subsequent rehabilitation of the 13 14 uses and facility development. Similar to landscape would enhance the park’s 14 15 Alternative 2, this would not signifi cantly rural setting and the character-defi ning 15 16 affect spatial organization and the area features of the cultural landscape. 16 17 affected would be smaller. New land uses and facilities would be 17 18 introduced to support visitor use and 18 19 With the location of the main maintenance house park operations, with changes to 19 20 facility outside the park, this alternative spatial organization. The result may be 20 21 would provide onsite ancillary functions minor adverse impacts on the landscape. 21 22 for convenience. A park administration 22 23 zone between Route 24 and the site of Impacts of Alternative 4 23 24 the existing facility would be established, 24 25 and is the proposed location for a vehicle The removal of non-contributing structures 25 26 storage facility. This would be a new land in visible areas of the landscape would 26 27 use element in the cultural landscape. have a benefi cial impact on the park’s 27 28 Because of its adjacency to Route 24 and rural setting. The maintenance facility site 28 29 the sloping topography, the building would would be rehabilitated for an expansion 29 30 be visible from the road, but its small size of the interpretive area around the Lee- 30 31 and the presence of vegetation would Grant meeting and Surrender Ceremony 31 32 moderate its presence in the landscape. sites. Similar to Alternative 3, this proposal 32 33 The impact would be negligible to minor, would facilitate the management of this 33 34 adverse and long-term. signifi cant and highly visible area as an 34 35 interpretive resource. 35 36 The construction of a concession building 36 37 to the west of the visitor center parking lot The installation of park operations in 37 38 would expand the built environment at the the Mathews House and development 38 39 periphery of the village. Although the area of a collections storage facility in the 39 40 between the village and the Confederate administration zone north of the village 40 41 Cemetery has been maintained in an at the end of Gordon Drive would have 41 42 open condition for many years, it was impacts similar to Alternative 3. 42 43 historically the location for a barn and 43 44 other outbuildings associated with the As in Alternative 2 but in a different 44 45 McLean House complex. The impact on location, this alternative proposes a 45 46 the cultural landscape would be minor new maintenance facility within the 46 47 and adverse. park. The proposed site is within the 47 48 park administrative zone on the wooded 48 49 The placement of directional signage slopes between Route 24 and the current 49 50 and interpretive information and the maintenance facility. While wooded 50 51 development of gateway treatment at vegetation within the zone would be 51 52 park entry points would be the same as in maintained, the location is not far from 52 53 Alternative 2. the open fi elds within interpretive areas at 53 54 the edge of the village and from Route 24. 54 55 Cumulative Impacts The introduction of a facility at the desired 55 56 size and scale could create minor to 56 57 The removal of non-contributing structures moderate adverse impacts on the cultural 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 117

1 landscape, although design and siting of and association. An updated National 1 2 the facility could reduce or avoid these Register Nomination for the park is in 2 3 impacts. 100% draft form. Its delineations of 3 4 signifi cant and contributing features are 4 5 The impacts of the placement of directional the basis for the analysis of impacts in 5 6 signage and interpretive information and this section. 6 7 development of gateway treatment at 7 8 park entry points would be the same as in Other references include the Historic 8 9 Alternative 2. Structures Report for the Clover Hill 9 10 This alternative would support habitat Tavern Group, and the Restoration of 10 11 restoration and the planting of native Historic Road Traces. 11 12 grasses in selected areas. While modern 12 13 agricultural practices would still be largely Impacts of Alternative 1 13 14 employed in maintaining the park’s open 14 15 fi elds, some modifi cations to fi eld patterns Current adaptive uses in the Bocock- 15 16 would result from native grass planting Isbell House and Clover Hill Kitchen 16 17 and habitat restoration projects. The would be maintained, with stresses on 17 18 impact on the cultural landscape would the structures continuing. In general, 18 19 be benefi cial. however, historic structures would be 19 20 preserved and maintained. Management 20 21 Cumulative Impact of historic structures under this alternative 21 22 would maintain a steady state with no 22 23 The removal of obsolete and non- further deterioration of historic structures. 23 24 contributing structures and subsequent The impact of this proposal would be 24 25 rehabilitation of the landscape would negligible. 25 26 enhance the park’s rural setting and the 26 27 character-defi ning features of the cultural Cumulative Impact 27 28 landscape. The cumulative impact on 28 29 spatial organization would negligible. Cumulative impacts would be negligible. 29 30 30 31 Conclusion Conclusion 31 32 32 33 The removal of non-contributing Current adaptive uses in the Bocock- 33 34 structures and subsequent rehabilitation Isbell House and Clover Hill Kitchen would 34 35 of the landscape, and habitat restoration in continue to stress the structures, creating 35 36 selected areas would enhance the park’s minor adverse impacts. In general, 36 37 rural setting and the character-defi ning management of historic structures under 37 38 features of the cultural landscape. The this alternative would maintain a steady 38 39 impact would be benefi cial and long- state with no further deterioration of 39 40 term. New land uses and facilities would historic structures. 40 41 be introduced to support visitor use and 41 42 house park operations, creating minor to Impacts of Alternative 2 42 43 moderate adverse impacts. 43 44 Overall, village buildings would continue 44 45 Historic Structures to be used for visitor programming, 45 46 interpretive uses and supporting staff 46 47 Methodology functions, and modifi cations to achieve 47 48 these purposes would also continue. The 48 49 For listing on the National Register, rehabilitation and modifi cations required 49 50 structures and buildings must be over time to meet changing needs could 50 51 associated with an important historic result in minor to moderate adverse 51 52 context—that is, possess signifi cance impacts; however, the NPS would follow 52 53 through the meaning or value ascribed the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 53 54 to the building or structure. The features for the Treatment of Historic Properties 54 55 necessary to convey its signifi cance to ensure that any alterations maintain 55 56 must have integrity – location, design, character-defi ning features. Potential 56 57 workmanship, setting, materials, feeling visitor use impacts resulting in adverse 57 118 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 impacts on the physical structure of 1 2 buildings would be mitigated by the Conclusion 2 3 design of access to the structures, the 3 4 use of scheduled programming to avoid The rehabilitation and modifi cations 4 5 high levels of visitor use at any particular required over time to meet changing 5 6 time, and visitor capacity monitoring. needs in village buildings, which serve 6 7 multiple purposes, could result in minor to 7 8 At the Bocock-Isbell House, the weight moderate adverse impacts. The removal 8 9 loading that is causing stress on the of uses that are stressing historic fabric in 9 10 building’s historic fabric and structural two buildings will be benefi cial. 10 11 integrity would be substantially reduced or 11 12 removed entirely. The Clover Hill Tavern Impacts of Alternative 3 12 13 Kitchen would be rehabilitated after the 13 14 removal of the bookstore concession. Overall, village buildings would continue 14 15 These actions would result in a benefi cial to be used for visitor programming, 15 16 impact on the structures. interpretive uses and supporting staff 16 17 functions, and modifi cations to achieve 17 18 Outside of the village, the removal these purposes would also continue. 18 19 of several obsolete structures would Administrative functions would be 19 20 facilitate management of their associated relocated from the Isbell House. The 20 21 sites. A strategy for managing the New Clover Hill Tavern Kitchen would be 21 22 Hope Church earthworks and cemeteries rehabilitated after the removal of the 22 23 under forest cover would be developed. bookstore concession, avoiding potential 23 24 The development of a walking trail at the adverse impacts. The impact would be 24 25 earthworks to provide for visitor access benefi cial. 25 26 would avoid adverse impacts by guiding 26 27 visitor use in an appropriate way. The A strategy for managing the New Hope 27 28 long-term impact on the preservation of Church earthworks and cemeteries 28 29 these features would be benefi cial. under forest cover would be developed. 29 30 This alternative would also undertake 30 31 The rehabilitation or restoration of historic the rehabilitation of historic road traces, 31 32 road traces could result in adverse including the original alignment of Tibbs 32 33 impacts but these would be avoided Lane. Impacts would be the same as in 33 34 by maintaining a six inch cover over Alternative 2. 34 35 the original grade. In some cases, the 35 36 removal of tree cover during treatment Cumulative Impact 36 37 would enhance preservation of the 37 38 resource. The investigation of the historic Long term, the cumulative impact 38 39 alignment of Tibbs Lane would reduce the of the treatment of village buildings 39 40 potential for direct physical impacts, once in accordance with the Secretary’s 40 41 its location has been identifi ed. These Standards, the reduction of stresses on 41 42 actions would also make these historic historic fabric through removal of some 42 43 features of the landscape more evident adaptive reuses, and preservation or 43 44 and make possible their integration into rehabilitation of outlying structures would 44 45 the park-wide trail system. result in a cumulative benefi cial impact. 45 46 46 47 Cumulative Impact Conclusion 47 48 48 49 Long term, the cumulative impact of the The rehabilitation and modifi cations 49 50 treatment of village buildings in accordance required over time to meet changing 50 51 with the Secretary’s Standards, the needs in village buildings, which serve 51 52 restoration of missing elements in the multiple purposes, could result in minor to 52 53 village, the reduction of stresses on moderate adverse impacts. The removal 53 54 historic fabric through removal of some of uses that are stressing historic fabric in 54 55 adaptive reuses, and preservation or two buildings will be benefi cial. 55 56 rehabilitation of outlying structures would 56 57 result in a benefi cial impact. 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 119

1 Impacts of Alternative 4 multiple purposes, could result in minor to 1 2 moderate adverse impacts. The removal 2 3 Overall, village buildings would continue of uses that are stressing historic fabric in 3 4 to be used for visitor programming, two buildings will be benefi cial. 4 5 interpretive uses and supporting staff 5 6 functions, and modifi cations to achieve Archeological Resources 6 7 these purposes would also continue. 7 8 Administrative functions would be Methodology 8 9 relocated from the Isbell House and 9 10 restroom facilities removed from the An archeological site can be eligible to be 10 11 Clover Hill Slave Quarters. The impacts listed on the National Register of Historic 11 12 would be similar to those described in Places if the site has yielded, or may be 12 13 Alternative 2. likely to yield, information important in 13 14 prehistory or history. An archeological 14 15 The Clover Hill Tavern Kitchen would site can be nominated to the National 15 16 continue to be adaptively used for the Register in one of three historic contexts 16 17 bookstore concession. High levels of or levels of signifi cance: local, state, or 17 18 sustained visitor use that might result national. The park’s 2004 Archeological 18 19 in adverse impacts on the structure are Overview and Assessment is in 90% draft. 19 20 unlikely, however. Use of the second fl oor Archeological resources that have been 20 21 of the building for bookstore storage could evaluated are eligible for listing because 21 22 result in adverse impacts if the loads are their integrity as been demonstrated as 22 23 heavy and use is long-term. A secondary good. Based on the testing program, sites 23 24 location for storage could avoid adverse that have not been tested are expected to 24 25 impacts beyond a minor level. possess good integrity as well and may 25 26 be considered potentially eligible. 26 27 Plans for managing the New Hope Church 27 28 earthworks and cemeteries under forest Information from the archeological 28 29 cover would be developed. The impact investigations implies that the likelihood 29 30 on the long-term preservation of these of impacting archeological resources 30 31 features would be benefi cial. during the implementation of any action 31 32 This alternative would also undertake described in the alternatives is relatively 32 33 the rehabilitation of historic road traces, high, as actual and potential archeological 33 34 including the original alignment of Tibbs sites and their component data are 34 35 Lane; impacts would be the same as in scattered throughout the park. 35 36 Alternative 2. 36 37 Impacts of Alternative 1 37 38 Cumulative Impact 38 39 Ground disturbance stemming from 39 40 Cumulative impacts from park actions activities in this alternative is expected 40 41 to rehabilitate historic village structures to be at a low level, resulting in 41 42 and preservation of selected outlying negligible impacts on archeological 42 43 structures would be benefi cial. The resources. Maintaining the physical 43 44 cumulative impacts of rehabilitation of integrity of archeological sites currently 44 45 structures within the village and enhanced under forest cover could be of concern 45 46 maintenance and stabilization of historic as over time, there could be adverse 46 47 structures in outlying areas would be impacts to archeological sites from trees 47 48 benefi cial, provided that visitor use is uprooted during storms or due to decay. 48 49 appropriately managed and buildings are Earthworks and cemeteries in the park 49 50 secured. are particularly vulnerable. The lack of 50 51 site security may subject archeological 51 52 Conclusion resources to potential looting and damage 52 53 from unauthorized access. These types 53 54 The rehabilitation and modifi cations of impacts may be adverse at a minor to 54 55 required over time to meet changing moderate level of intensity. 55 56 needs in village buildings, which serve 56 57 57 120 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 Cumulative Impact good stewardship of archeological 1 2 resources and vigilant monitoring of the 2 3 With the low incidence of ground-disturbing sites would mitigate these impacts. 3 4 activities, the cumulative impact is likely 4 5 to be adverse and minor to moderate due Cumulative Impact 5 6 to the absence of site security over the 6 7 long-term. The cumulative impact of Alternative 7 8 2 would be positive overall, with 8 9 Conclusion moderate impacts, due to additional 9 10 staff and resources for better protection, 10 11 The overall impact to archeological sites preservation and maintenance of below- 11 12 under Alternative 1 would be negligible to ground resources. Research opportunities 12 13 minor, long-term and adverse. that would lead to enriched understanding 13 14 of the park’s archeological resources 14 15 Impacts of Alternative 2 would also contribute to the cumulative 15 16 impact. 16 17 The staffi ng of protection rangers at a level 17 18 of 5 FTE is proposed. The presence of Conclusion 18 19 protection rangers able to monitor possible 19 20 ARPA violations and enforce these laws Mitigation and monitoring would reduce 20 21 would have a positive and benefi cial the potential for any adverse impacts in 21 22 impact on archeological resources. ground-disturbing activities. Archeological 22 23 resources would benefi t from surveys, 23 24 Some structures on former inholdings inventory, management, and interpretation 24 25 are located in previously disturbed of park resources that would result in more 25 comprehensive knowledge about cultural 26 areas, where demolition would 26 27 resources. Additional positive benefi ts 27 have a negligible impact on historic include increased public understanding 28 resources. Archeological resources 28 29 and sensitivity to the importance of the 29 may be present in the Tibbs and 30 park’s cultural resources; and enhanced 30 31 Coleman sites areas where structures security measures to protect site 31 32 would be removed. Partial landscape resources. 32 33 rehabilitation and development to 33 34 accommodate visitor use in broader Impacts of Alternative 3 34 35 areas of the landscape, reconstruction 35 36 of missing elements in the village have The staffi ng of protection rangers at a level 36 of 5 FTE is proposed. The presence of 37 the potential to affect archeological 37 38 protection rangers able to monitor possible 38 resources to a greater degree than ARPA violations and enforce these laws 39 the other action alternatives, due 39 40 would have a positive and benefi cial 40 to geographic extent. The location 41 impact on archeological resources. 41 42 of the proposed new maintenance 42 43 facility site represents the least likely The demolition of structures on former 43 44 occurrence of impacts on potential inholdings in previously disturbed areas 44 45 cultural resources. would have a negligible impact on historic 45 46 resources. Archeological resources may 46 47 The effort to bring archeological sites into be present at the Tibbs and Coleman 47 48 the interpretive program and the dispersal sites where structures would be removed. 48 49 of visitors into the broader landscape Archeological sites currently under forest 49 50 would bring them into contact with sites cover may also be exposed due to the 50 51 with archeological resources. Highlighting clearing of vegetation in visitor use zones 51 52 their location could make them vulnerable Without appropriate mitigation measures, 52 53 to destructive activities, yet may be there could be minor long term adverse 53 54 necessary for visitor understanding. This impact on archeological resources. 54 55 effort could result in minor long-term There is little likelihood of signifi cant 55 56 adverse impacts on these archeological archeological resources in the vicinity 56 57 resources. Public education to encourage of the concession building west of the 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 121

1 parking lot, or in the park administration with archeological resources. Highlighting 1 2 zone between Route 24 and the current their location could make them vulnerable 2 3 maintenance facility. The effort to bring to destructive activities, yet may be 3 4 archeological sites into the interpretive necessary for visitor understanding. This 4 5 program and the dispersal of visitors into effort could result in minor long-term 5 6 the broader landscape would bring them adverse impacts on these archeological 6 7 into contact with sites with archeological resources. Public education to encourage 7 8 resources. Highlighting their location good stewardship of archeological 8 9 could make them vulnerable to destructive resources and vigilant monitoring of the 9 10 activities, yet may be necessary for visitor sites would mitigate these impacts. 10 11 understanding. This effort could result 11 12 in minor long-term adverse impacts on Cumulative Impact 12 13 these archeological resources. Public 13 14 education to encourage good stewardship The cumulative impact of Alternative 4 14 15 of archeological resources and vigilant would be benefi cial due to additional 15 16 monitoring of the sites would mitigate staff and resources for better protection, 16 17 these impacts. preservation and maintenance of below- 17 18 ground resources. 18 19 Cumulative Impacts 19 20 Conclusion 20 21 The cumulative impact of Alternative 3 21 22 would be benefi cial, due to additional Impacts would be similar to Alternative 2, 22 23 staff and resources for better protection, although the incidence of ground-breaking 23 24 preservation and maintenance of below- activities would be less. The potential for 24 25 ground resources. Research opportunities short term adverse impacts related to 25 26 that would lead to enriched understanding ground-breaking would be negligible to 26 27 of the park’s archeological resources minor. 27 28 would also contribute to the cumulative 28 29 impact. Park Collections 29 30 30 31 Conclusion Methodology 31 32 32 33 Impacts would be similar to Alternative 2. Impacts on the park’s museum and 33 34 archeology collections were assessed 34 35 Impacts of Alternative 4 based on information provided by park staff 35 36 and the 2002 Collections Management 36 37 The staffi ng of protection rangers at a level Plan. The plan describes the status 37 38 of 5 FTE is proposed. The presence of and condition of archives, artifacts and 38 39 protection rangers able to monitor possible other collections in the park and provides 39 40 ARPA violations and enforce these laws recommendations for their maintenance 40 41 would have a positive and benefi cial and use. Additional information came from 41 42 impact on archeological resources. the 2006 NPS Northeast Region Museum 42 43 Collection Curatorial Facility Plan, 43 44 Some structures on former inholdings are specifi cally the strategy recommendation 44 45 located in previously disturbed areas, and for the park; and from background data 45 46 demolition would have a negligible impact developed by the NPS Northeast Region 46 47 on historic resources. Archeological Museum Services (Parker, pers.comm). 47 48 resources may be present in the Tibbs 48 49 and Coleman sites areas where structures Impacts of Alternative 1 49 50 would be removed. Archeological surveys 50 51 would precede any construction and Most park collections would continue to 51 52 known archeological resources would be be housed in the centralized, converted 52 53 avoided to the greatest extent possible. storage facility at the maintenance 53 54 The effort to bring archeological sites into complex and in other locations that do 54 55 the interpretive program and the dispersal not fully meet NPS standards. Materials 55 56 of visitors into the broader landscape would continue to be stored in less than 56 57 would bring them into contact with sites optimal conditions, requiring that curatorial 57 122 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 staff monitor conditions carefully so as identifi cation and function of the 1 2 to reduce the potential of exposure to materials. These capabilities would enrich 2 3 deterioration and loss of integrity. Curation the park’s interpretive and research 3 4 of objects would be constrained, and programs. Artifacts discovered during 4 5 the distance from curatorial staff poses future archeological surveys would able 5 6 security problems. The impact would be to be stored in an appropriately controlled 6 7 minor to moderate, adverse, and long- environment. The park would also be 7 8 term. positioned to participate in facility sharing 8 9 as laid out in the NPS Northeast Regional 9 10 Cumulative Impact Museum Collection Facilities Strategy. 10 11 The cumulative impact would be benefi cial 11 12 There would be insuffi cient storage for and long-term. 12 13 new items, therefore limiting growth of 13 14 the collection. The park would not be Conclusion 14 15 able to accept collections from other park 15 16 units, and would therefore be unable Actions in Alternatives 2 would assure the 16 17 to participate in the regional collections usefulness of the collections for future 17 18 plan. Park collections would not be readily research and interpretation, secure the 18 19 accessible for study, research or for use in condition of the collection as a whole 19 20 new exhibits, limiting their contribution to from the threat of further degradation, 20 21 new understandings of park signifi cance and position the park to take part in the 21 22 and enhancement of park stories. The regional collections plan. The impact 22 23 cumulative impact would be adverse, would be benefi cial and long-term. 23 24 minor and long-term. 24 25 Impacts of Alternative 3 25 26 Conclusion 26 27 Actions and resulting impacts are the 27 By maintaining current storage conditions, 28 same as under Alternative 2. 28 29 items in park collections could be 29 adversely affected if their integrity is lost, 30 Impacts of Alternative 4 30 31 and the usefulness of the collection for 31 32 future research and interpretation could 32 33 be reduced. Measures would continue to Actions and resulting impacts are 33 34 be taken to reduce these outcomes. The the same as under Alternative 2. 34 35 potential impact is minor and adverse. 35 36 Natural Resources 36 37 Impacts of Alternative 2 37 38 Soils 38 39 The centralization of park collections in a 39 40 new facility that meets NPS standards for Methodology 40 41 collections storage would prevent further 41 42 deterioration of items that are stored in The mapped locations of soils were 42 43 less than ideal conditions. The addition compared with locations of proposed 43 44 of curatorial staff will allow greater access development and landscape rehabilitation. 44 45 for research and exhibition, and provide a Seven soil types designated as Prime 45 46 level of security and effi cient function that or Unique soils by the Department of 46 47 does not currently exist. Impacts to care, Agriculture’s Natural Resource and 47 48 storage and access of the collections Conservation Service were found within 48 49 would be benefi cial. the park, in both open fi elds and in 49 50 forested conditions. Total acreage for 50 51 Cumulative Impact these soil types is 530. The potential for 51 52 soil loss due to disturbance of soils was 52 53 With increased staff resources and also assessed. 53 54 an up-to-date facility, the curatorial 54 55 program could be more effective in the The impact intensity defi nitions are as 55 56 areas of record keeping and retrieval of follows: 56 57 information pertaining to the discovery, 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 123

1 Negligible – Soils would not be affected or the use of best management practices. 1 2 the impacts to soils would be below or at There would be no long-term impact, 2 3 the lower levels of detection. Any impacts and in those areas of the landscape 3 4 to soils would be slight and no long-term where impervious cover is removed, the 4 5 impacts to soils would occur. impact would be benefi cial. In addition, 5 6 anticipated higher levels of staff and 6 7 Minor – The impacts to soils would be visitor use could result in the potential 7 8 detectable. Impacts to soil area would be for soil erosion, and compaction in some 8 9 small. areas. Adverse impacts to soils would 9 10 occur over time through ongoing soil 10 loss from pedestrian traffi c along trails, 11 Moderate – The impacts to soils would 11 which would be expected to cause some 12 be readily apparent, likely long-term, and 12 erosion. Monitoring of conditions on trail 13 result in a change to the soil character 13 segments would reduce the intensity of 14 over a relatively wide area. 14 15 this type of impact. 15 16 16 Major – The impacts to soils would 17 Rehabilitation to achieve fi eld conditions 17 be readily apparent, long-term, and th 18 similar to mid-19 century conditions 18 substantially change the character of the 19 would result in benefi cial impacts to Prime 19 soils over a large area in and out of the 20 and Unique Farmlands from enhanced 20 park. 21 opportunities for productive use of soils. 21 22 This type of farmland is found within 22 Impacts of Alternative 1 23 portions of the proposed visitor use 23 24 zones at the Coleman site area and the 24 No changes to soils are envisioned under 25 Charles Sweeney and Sweeney Connor 25 this alternative. Soil loss and erosion 26 sites. Construction of a new maintenance 26 are possible in the short-term as non- 27 facility and related site work could involve 27 contributing buildings are demolished but 28 the conversion of up to 5 acres of existing 28 these effects would be avoided using best 29 Prime and Unique Farmlands. Five acres 29 management practices. The regrading 30 are less than 1% of the total acreage of 30 of affected sites following demolition of 31 these soil types within the park boundary 31 noncontributing structures would have a 32 and the conversion would have a negligible 32 negligible impact on soils, and the removal 33 impact. 33 of impervious cover in these locations 34 34 would have a benefi cial impact. There 35 Cumulative Impact 35 would be no long-term impact. 36 36 37 Actions resulting in soil disturbance from 37 Cumulative Impact 38 landscape rehabilitation, demolition and 38 39 construction would occur in different areas 39 Due to the low level and intensity of 40 of the park and at different times. With the 40 actions in this alternative the cumulative 41 avoidance of adverse impacts through 41 impact would be negligible. 42 the use of best management practices, 42 43 the cumulative impacts of park actions, 43 Conclusion 44 considering use of pedestrian trails and 44 45 conversion of prime and unique soils, the 45 Short term adverse impacts would be 46 cumulative impact would be long-term 46 avoided through best management 47 and benefi cial. 47 practices, and there would be no long- 48 48 term impact. 49 Conclusion 49 50 50 Impacts of Alternative 2 51 Minor adverse impacts to soils would 51 52 occur over time through ongoing soil 52 Soil loss and erosion during demolition is 53 loss from pedestrian traffi c along trails, 53 possible in the short-term, and vegetation 54 which would be expected to cause some 54 removal for landscape rehabilitation could 55 erosion. Monitoring of conditions on trail 55 have signifi cant impacts on soils initially. 56 segments would reduce the potential 56 Adverse impacts would be avoided by 57 for these impacts. Impacts to Prime and 57 124 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 Unique Farmlands could be negligible or conversion of prime and unique soils, the 1 2 benefi cial, if more of these soils are put cumulative impact would be negligible to 2 3 to productive use as agricultural fi elds are minor adverse and long-term. 3 4 developed in secondary visitor use zones 4 5 and surrounding areas. Overall the long- Conclusion 5 6 term impact on soils would be negligible 6 7 to minor and adverse. Minor adverse impacts to soils would 7 8 occur over time through ongoing soil 8 9 Impacts of Alternative 3 loss from pedestrian traffi c along trails, 9 10 which would be expected to cause some 10 11 The potential for soil loss and erosion erosion. Monitoring of conditions on trail 11 12 during demolition would be avoided segments would reduce the potential 12 13 through measures to control run off. for these impacts. Impacts to Prime and 13 14 There would be no long-term impact, and Unique Farmlands could be negligible or 14 15 in those areas of the landscape where the impact could be benefi cial, if more 15 16 impervious cover is removed, the impact of these soils are put to productive use. 16 17 would be benefi cial. The construction Construction of the satellite vehicle storage 17 18 of an ancillary storage structure in the facility on a wooded slope presents design 18 19 proposed park administration zone off and management challenges so as to 19 20 Route 24 could result in soil run off, avoid minor adverse impacts from soil 20 21 which would be avoided by the use of run-off and compaction. 21 22 best management practices. Vegetation 22 23 removal for landscape rehabilitation could Impacts of Alternative 4 23 24 have signifi cant impacts on soils initially. 24 25 Minor adverse impacts to soils would The potential for soil loss and erosion 25 26 occur over time through ongoing soil during demolition would be avoided 26 27 loss from pedestrian traffi c along trails, through measures to control run off. 27 28 which would be expected to cause some There would be no long-term impact, and 28 29 erosion. Monitoring of conditions on trail in those areas of the landscape where 29 30 segments would reduce the potential for impervious cover is removed, the impact 30 31 these impacts. would be benefi cial in terms of reducing 31 32 run-off. Minor adverse impacts to soils 32 33 Rehabilitation to achieve fi eld conditions would occur over time through ongoing 33 th 34 similar to mid to late-19 century soil loss from pedestrian traffi c along 34 35 conditions has the potential for minor trails, which would be expected to cause 35 36 benefi cial impacts to Prime and Unique some erosion. Monitoring of conditions on 36 37 Farmlands from enhanced opportunities trail segments would reduce the potential 37 38 for productive use of soils. Fewer acres for these impacts. 38 39 will be involved in productive use of soils 39 40 than in Alternative 2, but the impacts would Prime and Unique soils are not present 40 41 be similar. Construction of a concession in the park administration zone off Route 41 42 building near the visitor center parking lot 24 along the maintenance facility access 42 43 or the vehicle storage building would have road, where a new facility is proposed 43 44 no impact on these types of soils, as they for construction. However, the potential 44 45 are absent in this location. for impacts from runoff short term during 45 46 construction and long term due to the 46 47 Cumulative Impact extent of impervious surface is present. 47 48 Best management practices need to be 48 49 As in Alternative 2, actions resulting in soil carefully designed and followed during 49 50 disturbance from landscape rehabilitation, construction to avoid these impacts, and 50 51 demolition and construction would occur site engineering must be adequate in the 51 52 in different areas of the park and at design of the facility to avoid soil run off 52 53 different times. With the employment long-term. 53 54 of best management practices to avoid 54 55 adverse impacts from soil disturbance, Cumulative Impact 55 56 the cumulative impacts of park actions, 56 57 considering use of pedestrian trails, and Rehabilitation of the landscape would be 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 125

1 less extensive than in the other two action Impacts of Alternative 1 1 2 alternatives. The construction of the 2 3 maintenance facility on a wooded slope Impacts to water resources would be 3 4 will add to the cumulative impact, which is benefi cial as existing management 4 5 likely to be minor, adverse and long-term. practices continue and vegetative buffers 5 6 are enhanced along streams. 6 7 Conclusion 7 8 Cumulative Impacts 8 9 Minor adverse impacts to soils would 9 10 occur over time through ongoing soil loss The cumulative impact of park actions 10 11 from pedestrian traffi c along trails, which on the headwaters of the Appomattox 11 12 would be expected to cause some erosion. River within the boundary would be 12 13 Monitoring of conditions on trail segments minor, benefi cial and long-term. Non- 13 14 would reduce the potential for these park actions could affect qualities of the 14 15 impacts. Construction of the maintenance river and adjacent wetlands, however, as 15 16 facility on a wooded slope presents many a portion of the headwaters watershed 16 17 design and management challenges to of the Appomattox River lies upriver 17 18 avoid soil disturbance resulting in run-off of the park boundary. The Plain Run 18 19 and compaction. The potential for adverse Branch is vulnerable to the adverse 19 20 impacts is minor to moderate, but the effects of forest clearing for residential 20 21 potential would be reduced by mitigation development outside the park boundary, 21 22 measures. as its southwestern portion runs along 22 23 the lower elevations below the ridgeline. 23 24 Surface Water and Wetlands The impacts of Alternative 1 contribute a 24 25 small benefi cial increment to the overall 25 26 Methodology for Surface Water and cumulative impacts on surface waters 26 27 Wetlands and wetlands. 27 28 28 29 Water resources were identifi ed and Conclusion 29 30 mapped in the park’s 2002 Wetlands 30 31 Study. The proposed locations for activities The no action alternative would have 31 32 in the alternatives were compared to the benefi cial impacts on water resources. 32 33 locations of rivers, streams and wetlands 33 34 mapped in the study. The thresholds of Impacts of Alternative 2 34 35 change for the intensity of an impact are 35 36 defi ned as follows: In this alternative, use of Gordon Drive 36 37 for park administrative and maintenance 37 38 Negligible – The impact is not measurable functions will greatly increase. To handle 38 39 or perceptible. the increased load of vehicles, particularly 39 40 heavier maintenance equipment and 40 41 Minor – The impact is measurable or trucks, Gordon Drive will be rebuilt to meet 41 42 perceptible, and relatively small in terms standard roadway confi gurations. While 42 43 of area and the nature of the change. the scope of the project has not been 43 44 The overall viability of the resource would established, it would involve widening 44 45 not be affected. Left alone, the resource the current roadway and possible road 45 46 would recover and the impact would be realignment. The boundary of the 46 47 reversed. proposed park administrative zone in the 47 48 Gordon Drive area is in the vicinity of the 48 49 Moderate – The impact is suffi cient to Tibbs vernal pool and the headwaters 49 50 cause a noticeable change in the resource of Scotts Branch, and the construction 50 51 over a relatively small area. The change and use of Gordon Drive pose several 51 52 could be reversed. possible short and long term impacts to 52 53 the pool and the Scott Branch headwaters 53 54 Major – The impact is substantial, highly wetlands. During periods of maximum 54 55 noticeable, affects a wide area, and may seasonal fi lling, the Tibbs vernal pool is 55 56 be permanent. approximately two acres in size with the 56 57 southern end located less than 40 feet 57 126 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 from Gordon Drive. The headwaters of 1 2 Scott Branch are located approximately No construction or vegetative removal 2 3 300 feet from Gordon Drive. Possible that might cause disturbance of the pool is 3 4 impacts could include loss of wetlands, proposed at the Moon House, the closest 4 5 decrease of vegetative buffer and facility to Tibbs vernal pool. 5 6 increased sedimentation and stormwater 6 7 runoff. By using environmental-friendly The area of new construction of the 7 8 design and engineering as well as maintenance facility is approximately 600 8 9 proper sedimentation control practices feet from wetland along the Appomattox 9 10 these possible impacts can be avoided. River and 500 feet from Scotts Branch. 10 11 Additionally, through proper design, the Construction of the facility could result in 11 12 rebuilding of the road could enhance impacts to both water resources. Short 12 13 wetland protection by changing road term impacts on the stream could occur 13 14 alignment to increase the vegetative during site preparation and construction, 14 15 buffer around the Tibbs vernal pool, and but these would be avoided through 15 16 directing stormwater runoff away from the appropriate site management. Long 16 17 wetland areas. term, the larger footprint of the building 17 18 and resulting increase in impervious 18 19 Increased use of Gordon Drive poses surface could have adverse impacts 19 20 long-term impacts to water resources by due if sediments are deposited in the 20 21 non-point road surface runoff pollution. stream. Implementation of stormwater 21 22 Pollutants, including de-icers and vehicle management best practices would avoid 22 23 and equipment fl uids (e.g. oil, anti-freeze), long-term impacts. 23 24 could have moderate to severe impacts 24 25 to water quality in Tibbs vernal pool if In the expansion of the trail system in 25 26 stormwater is not properly directed away. the new lands area or modifi cations to 26 27 Pollutants from the road would accumulate the existing system, design and location 27 28 in the pool area resulting in a gradual but measures for new footage would mitigate 28 29 steady degradation of the water quality potential adverse impacts on water 29 30 over time. Because the unique wildlife resources. High levels of foot traffi c 30 31 that uses this pool for breeding requires would be avoided in sensitive streamside 31 32 high water quality, impacts from road and wetland areas. 32 33 run-off could result in long-term adverse 33 34 impacts. Through design and engineering, The Plain Run Branch would be protected 34 35 however, the reconstructed road could from land use changes by the park 35 36 provide increased protection of the Tibbs boundary adjustment along the southwest 36 37 vernal pool by diverting stormwater and side. 37 38 reduce the potential for minor impacts. 38 39 Cumulative Impact 39 40 The area of new construction for collections 40 41 storage, at the rear of the Mathews The cumulative impact of park actions, 41 42 House, is at least 800 feet away from including mitigation measures, in the 42 43 the Tibbs vernal pool and 500 feet from park administration zone in the Gordon 43 44 Scotts Branch. No impacts are expected Drive area could be adverse, long-term 44 45 to the vernal pool, but construction of the and minor to moderate. The intensity 45 46 collections storage could result in impacts level would depend on the effectiveness 46 47 to Scotts Branch. Short term impacts of mitigation measures of Gordon Drive 47 48 on the stream could occur during site stormwater management, design features 48 49 preparation and construction, but these and construction practices. The change in 49 50 would be avoided through appropriate the authorized boundary will reduce the 50 51 site management. Long term, the larger potential for cumulative adverse impacts 51 52 footprint of the building and resulting resulting from land use changes on the 52 53 increase in impervious surface could have ridge south of the Plain Run Branch. 53 54 adverse impacts due if sediments are 54 55 deposited in the stream. Implementation Conclusion 55 56 of stormwater management best practices 56 57 would avoid long-term impacts. Actions relating to the development of 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 127

1 facilities in the administrative zone and be brought directly to the pool, and the 1 2 the rebuilding of Gordon Drive could result forested buffer at its edge would tend to 2 3 in short and long term minor to moderate discourage visitor use. 3 4 adverse impacts on water resources. The 4 5 potential for adverse impacts would be Cumulative Impacts 5 6 reduced through proper design and best 6 7 management practices. The change in The cumulative impact of park actions, 7 8 the authorized boundary will reduce the including mitigation measures, in the 8 9 potential for cumulative adverse impacts park administration zone in the Gordon 9 10 resulting from land use changes on the Drive area could be adverse, long-term 10 11 ridge south of the Plain Run Branch. and minor to moderate, depending on the 11 12 effectiveness of stormwater management 12 13 Impacts of Alternative 3 and the design and construction of Gordon 13 14 Drive. The development of the satellite 14 15 Impacts from the rebuilding of Gordon maintenance facility could have minor to 15 16 Drive would be the same as in Alternative moderate adverse effects. The intensity 16 17 2. The impacts from the development level would depend on the application 17 18 of administrative and collections and effectiveness of mitigation measures 18 19 management space would be the same as for the Gordon Drive project. The change 19 20 in Alternative 2 except for the construction in the authorized boundary will reduce the 20 21 of the maintenance facility. potential for cumulative adverse impacts 21 22 resulting from land use changes on the 22 23 This alternative proposes construction of ridge south of the Plain Run Branch. 23 24 a satellite facility for equipment storage off 24 25 the east section of the maintenance loop Conclusion 25 26 road (George Peers Drive). Approximately 26 27 1200 square feet of land could be cleared No wetlands would be displaced. Actions 27 28 for the footprint of the building and some relating to the development of facilities in 28 29 associated parking. This is a wooded administrative zones and the rebuilding of 29 30 area that slopes down to the Plain Run Gordon Drive could result in short and long 30 31 Branch on the south side of Route 24. term minor to moderate adverse impacts 31 32 Stormwater fl ows down the hillside to on water resources. Development of a 32 33 Plain Run through culverts under Route satellite maintenance facility could result 33 34 24. Short term impacts from the proposed in minor to moderate adverse impacts. 34 35 facility could result from sedimentation The potential for adverse impacts would 35 36 during construction. Long term, the be reduced through proper design and 36 37 resulting increase in impervious surface best management practices. The change 37 38 could have adverse impacts if soil erosion in the authorized boundary will reduce the 38 39 increases from stormwater runoff. potential for cumulative adverse impacts 39 40 resulting from land use changes on the 40 41 Construction of the facility housing ridge south of the Plain Run Branch. 41 42 concessions to the west of the visitor 42 43 center parking lot would have a negligible Impacts of Alternative 4 43 44 impact on water resources due to the 44 45 relatively fl at area and distance from Impacts from the rebuilding of Gordon 45 46 streams. Drive would be the same as in Alternative 46 47 In the expansion of the trail system in 2. The impacts from the development 47 48 the new lands area or modifi cations to of the administrative zone would be the 48 49 the existing system, design and location same as in Alternative 2 except for the 49 50 measures for new footage would mitigate construction of the maintenance facility. 50 51 potential adverse impacts on water 51 52 resources. High levels of foot traffi c would The proposed site of a new maintenance 52 53 be avoided in sensitive, streamside and facility in this alternative, on the wooded 53 54 wetland areas. In this alternative, the slope south of the existing facility, presents 54 55 boundary of the secondary visitor use a number of development constraints. 55 56 zone in the Tibbs site area is close to the The facility would require a 3 to 5 acre 56 57 vernal pool. Visitors would not generally footprint, similar to Alternative 2. A 57 128 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 stormwater holding pond would probably have been listed at several chronological 1 2 be needed because the hillside is too points, but the comprehensive listing has 2 3 steep to allow for sheet fl ow. Plain Run not been completed. The locations have 3 4 Branch, on the opposite side of Route 24, not been mapped. 4 5 could be adversely affected to a minor to 5 6 moderate degree if stream fl ow is affected The impact assessment for vegetation is 6 7 by sediment deposit. Meeting the site focused on changes to the mix of species 7 8 engineering challenges of using a sloping and the effects on habitat and natural 8 9 site will require careful design during communities. The thresholds of change 9 10 construction to avoid or reduce short-term for the intensity of impacts are defi ned as 10 11 impacts, and implementation of a site follows. 11 12 design that avoids long-term impacts. 12 13 Negligible – No vegetation would be 13 14 Cumulative Impacts affected or some individual plants could 14 15 be affected as a result of the alternative, 15 16 The cumulative impact of park actions, but there would be no impact to the 16 17 including mitigation measures, in the vegetative community. The impacts would 17 18 park administration zones and along be on a small scale. 18 19 Gordon Drive could be adverse, long- 19 term and minor to moderate. The change 20 Minor – The alternative would affect some 20 in the authorized boundary will reduce the 21 individual plants and would also affect a 21 potential for cumulative adverse impacts 22 relatively minor portion of that species’ 22 resulting from land use changes on the 23 vegetative community. 23 24 ridge south of the Plain Run Branch. 24 25 25 Conclusion Moderate – The alternative would affect 26 some individual plants and would also 26 27 affect a sizeable segment of the species’ 27 28 Actions relating to the development of 28 facilities in the administrative zone and vegetative community over a relatively 29 large area. 29 30 the rebuilding of Gordon Drive could result 30 31 in short and long term minor to moderate 31 32 adverse impacts on water resources. Major – The alternative would have a 32 33 Development of the maintenance facility considerable effect on plant populations 33 34 could have negligible to moderate adverse and affect a relatively large area in and 34 35 impacts depending on the effectiveness of out of the park. 35 36 stormwater management design. Proper 36 37 design and best management practices Impacts of Alternative 1 37 38 would be employed as mitigation 38 39 measures. The change in the authorized Native plant community species would 39 40 boundary will reduce the potential for continue to be inventoried and monitored 40 41 cumulative adverse impacts resulting under the purview of the Inventory and 41 42 from land use changes on the ridge south Monitoring Program. Species would 42 43 of the Plain Run Branch. continue to be minimally disturbed 43 44 by human activities related to park 44 45 Vegetation maintenance and visitor use, if current 45 46 visitation levels continue or decrease 46 somewhat. The impact of park actions 47 Methodology 47 48 would be benefi cial. 48 49 The park’s GIS database contains a 49 Cumulative Impact 50 generalized vegetation layer, as well the 50 51 locations of pine plantations established 51 The cumulative impact of park actions in 52 for lumber and forested areas considered 52 this alternative would be benefi cial. 53 to be ‘witness woodlots’ (that is, thought 53 54 to be under continuous cover since 54 Conclusion 55 1865). More detailed vegetation mapping 55 56 has been completed to the association 56 57 level. Plant species observed in the park While species would continue to be 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 129

1 minimally disturbed by human activities communities represent regeneration from 1 2 related to park maintenance and visitor previous logging operations or planted 2 3 use, the impact would be negligible. pine stands, and potential benefi ts of the 3 4 Inventory and monitoring activities would conversion would be the reduction of non- 4 native invasive plant species that have 5 have a benefi cial impact. 5 6 became established in these previously 6 disturbed areas. Expanded visitation 7 Impacts of Alternative 2 7 8 accessing more areas of the park could 8 result in minor adverse impacts on 9 Rehabilitation of portions of the landscape 9 individual plant species. There would be 10 could result in the removal of up to 40 10 a cumulative short-term adverse impact 11 acres of tree canopy, mainly in previously 11 from construction related activities and 12 logged areas or areas that were planted 12 development of new segments of the 13 with various pine species while in private 13 park-wide trail system. 14 ownership. The change in forest canopy 14 15 would be accompanied by the creation 15 Conclusion 16 of open fi elds planted to native grasses 16 17 or shrub communities to shape desired 17 The possible removal of tree canopy would 18 views. Visitor facilities such as parking 18 take place in areas representing less than 19 areas or interpretive waysides would be 19 four percent of the park’s forested area, 20 introduced but these uses would involve 20 which totals 1,159 acres. The reduction 21 only a small amount of land. The acreage 21 would result in a minor change in the area 22 would be split up into several discrete 22 of vegetative communities in the park as a 23 areas, resulting in specifi c impacts that 23 whole. Minor short-term adverse impacts 24 would likely be minor and adverse. No 24 would occur from disruptive activities 25 riparian vegetation areas would be 25 during construction. The park as a whole 26 affected. 26 27 would support abundant habitat for plant 27 species. 28 The section of the park administration 28 29 zone that contains the proposed site for the 29 Impacts of Alternative 3 30 maintenance facility, at the end of Gordon 30 31 Drive on its north side, is vegetated. 31 As in Alternative 2, rehabilitation of 32 Most but not all of the approximately 32 portions of the landscape would result 33 fi ve acres of mixed evergreen-deciduous 33 in the removal of tree canopy in several 34 forest averaging 10-20 years old would be 34 discrete areas. The maximum acreage 35 cleared in the construction of the building 35 involved would be less, approximately 30 36 and associated parking. 36 37 acres, but the types of impacts would be 37 similar to Alternative 2. 38 The existing maintenance facility would be 38 39 removed in this alternative. The one-acre 39 Construction of a satellite facility for 40 site will be rehabilitated with topography 40 maintenance on the wooded slopes 41 restored to pre-1940s conditions. The site 41 between Route 24 and the site of 42 will be replanted with native vegetation, 42 the current facility would disturb park 43 probably consisting of warm-season 43 fl ora. Impacts would be minor given 44 grasses or native forbs. 44 45 the limited footprint of the building and 45 associated parking area. Construction 46 The acreages are representative and 46 of the concessions building to the west 47 refi nement of the actual boundaries of 47 of the visitor parking area would remove 48 the landscape rehabilitation areas would 48 non-native turf grass and its effect on 49 occur based on fi eld surveys. Additional 49 vegetation would be minor. 50 analysis and documentation would 50 51 be conducted prior to proceeding with 51 The removal of the maintenance facility, 52 implementation. 52 53 with the exception of the gas pumping 53 area and an area reserved for parking, 54 Cumulative Impact 54 55 would leave most of the one-acre site 55 available for replanting. Replanting and 56 The areas selected for conversion from 56 the use of native vegetation, probably 57 tree canopy to grassland/shrub plant 57 130 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 consisting of warm-season grasses or Conclusion 1 2 native forbs, would have a benefi cial long 2 3 term impact. Construction projects would result in 3 4 short term adverse impacts. Fields 4 5 Acreages are representative and planted to native grasses and habitat 5 6 refi nement of the actual boundaries of in selected areas restored would have 6 7 the landscape rehabilitation areas would benefi cial impacts. The park as a whole 7 8 occur based on fi eld surveys. Additional would support abundant habitat for plant 8 9 analysis and documentation would species. The impact on vegetation would 9 10 be conducted prior to proceeding with be benefi cial. 10 11 implementation. 11 12 Wildlife 12 13 Cumulative Impact 13 14 Methodology 14 15 The cumulative impact would be similar to 15 16 that of Alternative 2. The impact assessment for wildlife is 16 17 focused on changes to the mix of species, 17 18 Conclusion levels of populations of species and the 18 19 effects on habitat. Physical impacts 19 20 Overall impacts would be similar to that associated with new development 20 21 of Alternative 2. The park as a whole plans and anticipated visitor uses were 21 22 would support abundant habitat for plant considered. The context of the evaluation 22 23 species. was the park and surrounding area. 23 24 24 25 Impacts of Alternative 4 Negligible – Wildlife and habitats would 25 26 not be affected or the effects would be 26 27 In this alternative, the area where the most at or below the level of detection, and 27 28 ground disturbance will take place is on the changes would be so slight that 28 29 the wooded slopes where the site of the there would not be any measurable or 29 30 new maintenance facility is proposed. The perceptible consequence to the wildlife 30 31 size of the site could range from 3-5 acres. species populations. 31 32 Clearing and construction would result in 32 33 adverse impacts on vegetation that could Minor – Impacts on wildlife and habitats 33 34 be minor to moderate, depending on the would be detectable, but they would not be 34 35 area involved. Additional analysis and expected to be outside the natural range 35 36 documentation would be conducted prior of variability. The effects would likely be 36 37 to proceeding with implementation. localized, small, and of little consequence 37 38 to the species’ population. 38 39 Some areas of the park would be selected 39 40 for habitat restoration, which would have Moderate – Impacts on wildlife and 40 41 a minor to moderate benefi cial impact habitats would be readily detectable 41 42 on park fl ora. Selected fi elds would be and localized, with consequences at the 42 43 converted to native grasslands, increasing population level. Impacts could be outside 43 44 the habitat for certain bird species and the natural range of variability for short 44 45 resulting in an impact that is benefi cial periods of time. 45 46 and long-term. 46 47 Major – Impacts on wildlife and habitats 47 48 Cumulative Impact would be obvious and would have 48 49 substantial consequences to wildlife 49 50 Considering the limited extent of forest populations in the region. 50 51 clearing and the potential for habitat 51 52 restoration, the cumulative impact of Impacts of Alternative 1 52 53 park actions on vegetation would be 53 54 benefi cial. Species would continue to be minimally 54 55 disturbed by human activities related 55 56 to park maintenance and visitor use, 56 57 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 131

1 if current visitation levels continue or 1 2 decrease somewhat. No riparian vegetation areas would be 2 3 affected, minimizing the impacts on bird 3 4 Cumulative Impact and other species that use this type of 4 5 habitat. The park as a whole would support 5 6 The cumulative impact of park actions in abundant habitat for wildlife species. 6 7 this alternative would be negligible, over 7 8 the long-term. These acreages are representative and 8 9 refi nement of the actual boundaries of 9 10 Conclusion the landscape rehabilitation areas would 10 11 occur based on fi eld surveys. Additional 11 12 Species would continue to be minimally analysis and documentation would 12 13 disturbed by human activities related be conducted prior to proceeding with 13 14 to park maintenance and visitor use, implementation. 14 15 resulting in a negligible impact. 15 16 Cumulative Impact 16 17 Impacts of Alternative 2 17 18 The cumulative effects of construction 18 19 The possible removal of tree canopy would related activities and development of 19 20 take place in areas representing less than new segments of the park-wide trail 20 21 four percent of the park’s forested area, system would have a short-term adverse 21 22 which totals 1,159 acres. The reduction cumulative impact on wildlife. Expanded 22 23 would result in a minor change in the area visitation accessing more areas of the 23 24 of vegetative communities in the park as a park would result in minor adverse 24 25 whole. Minor short-term adverse impacts impacts on wildlife and the habitat that 25 26 would occur from the disruption of the supports them. 26 27 habitat. 27 28 Conclusion 28 29 Wildlife species would be disturbed 29 30 by human activities related to park Overall, reduction of woodlands would 30 31 maintenance and visitor use. Expansion result in a minor change in wildlife 31 32 of the park’s trail system could access a communities within the park as a whole. 32 33 variety of habitats, as the objective is a Minor short-term adverse impacts would 33 34 park-wide network. There is the potential occur from the disruption of the habitat. 34 35 for minor to moderate adverse impacts to The change would primarily benefi t 35 36 certain wildlife species that are sensitive wildlife species that prefer open or edge 36 37 to human disturbance where trails access habitats. With an expanded trail system 37 38 woodlands. A result could be a drop in the likely to access a variety of habitats, there 38 39 population of woodland species or simply is the potential for impacts on certain 39 40 relocation to adjacent forested cover. wildlife species that are sensitive to 40 41 human disturbance, where trails access 41 42 Rehabilitation of portions of the landscape woodlands. The impact would be minor, 42 43 could result in the removal of tree canopy adverse and short-term, as species move 43 44 in a maximum of 40 acres of second away from visitor activity. 44 45 growth forest. Forest clearing has the 45 46 potential for minor adverse impacts on Impacts of Alternative 3 46 47 wildlife that inhabit woodlands, such as 47 48 forest dwelling species dependent on the Wildlife species would be disturbed 48 49 downed logs, nest sites and mast. The loss by human activities related to park 49 50 of forest habitat would be accompanied in maintenance and visitor use. Expansion 50 51 some cases by the creation of open fi elds. of the park’s trail system could access a 51 52 This would have a benefi cial effect on variety of habitats, as the objective is a 52 53 species that prefer open fi elds or the edge park-wide network. There is the potential 53 54 between fi eld and forest. Some species for minor to moderate adverse impacts to 54 55 would be expected to use crops as a food certain wildlife species that are sensitive 55 56 source, and their populations within the to human disturbance where trails access 56 57 park would increase. woodlands. These species would probably 57 132 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 leave the affected areas and relocate 2, although fewer acres of tree canopy 1 2 nearby. A result could be a drop in the would be affected. 2 3 population of woodland species or simply 3 4 relocation to adjacent forested cover. Impacts of Alternative 4 4 5 5 6 Forest clearing has the potential for minor Wildlife species would be disturbed 6 7 adverse impacts on wildlife that inhabit by human activities related to park 7 8 woodlands, such as forest dwelling maintenance and visitor use. Expansion 8 9 species dependent on the downed logs, of the park’s trail system could access a 9 10 nest sites and mast. The loss of forest variety of habitats, as the objective is a 10 11 habitat would be accompanied in some park-wide network. There is the potential 11 12 cases by the creation of open fi elds. for minor to moderate adverse impacts to 12 13 This would have a benefi cial effect on certain wildlife species that are sensitive 13 14 species that prefer open fi elds or the edge to human disturbance where trails access 14 15 between fi eld and forest. Some species woodlands. These species would probably 15 16 would be expected to use crops as a food leave the affected areas and relocate 16 17 source, and their populations within the nearby. A result could be a drop in the 17 18 park would increase. population of woodland species or simply 18 19 relocation to adjacent forested cover. 19 20 This net amount of wooded vegetation 20 21 to be cleared represents less than four In this alternative the area of the most 21 22 percent of the park’s 1,159 forested ground disturbance is in the wooded slopes 22 23 acres. The acreage would be split up where the site of the new maintenance 23 24 into several discrete areas, resulting in facility is proposed. The size of the site 24 25 specifi c impacts that would likely be minor could range from 3,500 to 5,000 square 25 26 and adverse. No riparian vegetation feet. Clearing and construction would 26 27 areas would be affected, minimizing the disrupt wildlife populations, resulting in 27 28 impacts on bird and other species that short-term dislocations as species migrate 28 29 use this type of habitat. The park as a to undisturbed areas. Additional analysis 29 30 whole would support abundant habitat for and documentation would be conducted 30 31 wildlife species. prior to proceeding with implementation. 31 32 32 33 These acreages are representative and Cumulative Impact 33 34 refi nement of the actual boundaries of 34 35 the landscape rehabilitation areas would Considering the limited extent of forest 35 36 occur based on fi eld surveys. Additional clearing and the potential for habitat 36 37 analysis and documentation would restoration, the cumulative impact of park 37 38 be conducted prior to proceeding with actions on wildlife would be benefi cial. 38 39 implementation. 39 40 Conclusion 40 41 Cumulative Impact 41 42 A modest amount of forest clearing would 42 43 The cumulative effects of construction take place off the current maintenance 43 44 related activities and development of loop road for construction of a new 44 45 new segments of the park-wide trail maintenance facility. With an expanded 45 46 system would have a short-term adverse trail system likely to access a variety of 46 47 cumulative impact on wildlife. Expanded habitats, there is the potential for impacts 47 48 visitation accessing more areas of the on certain wildlife species that are sensitive 48 49 park would result in minor adverse to human disturbance, where trails access 49 50 impacts on wildlife and the habitat that woodlands. The impact would be minor, 50 51 supports them. adverse and short-term, as species move 51 52 away from visitor activity. Fields planted 52 53 Conclusion to native grasses and habitat in selected 53 54 areas restored would have benefi cial 54 55 The impact would be similar to Alternative impacts. The overall impact on wildlife 55 56 56 57 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 133

1 would be benefi cial. of activities related to park housing and 1 2 operations would continue, likely causing 2 3 Species of Special Concern no effect on these resources. 3 4 4 5 Methodology Cumulative Effect 5 6 6 7 This discussion covers Virginia Species of Alternative 1 is expected to have only 7 8 Special Concern, which includes a single negligible impacts on potential habitat for 8 9 wildlife species, the mole salamander. As special concern species; therefore, there 9 10 noted in Chapter 1, state listed species are would be no cumulative impacts. 10 11 not subject to the provisions of the federal 11 12 Endangered Species Act. However, NPS Conclusion 12 13 policy directs parks to identify biologically 13 14 vulnerable species, initiate conservation Alternative 1 would cause no effect on 14 15 measures, and alleviate threats that, if species of special concern because 15 16 unchecked, may lead to the decline of the current vegetation cover types and 16 17 species and possible federal listing. habitat conditions will remain largely the 17 18 same, and the current park resource 18 19 These defi nitions are consistent with management approach will continue. 19 20 the language used to determine effects 20 21 on threatened and endangered species Impacts of Alternative 2 21 22 under Section 7 of the Endangered 22 23 Species Act. The intensities of impacts Construction of the maintenance facility 23 24 on special status species are defi ned as and the Gordon Drive rebuilding project 24 25 follows: could adversely affect the habitat of the 25 26 mole salamander. Protection of the vernal 26 27 No effect – The action would cause no pool and surrounding terrestrial forest in 27 28 effect on the special status species (or the the vicinity are important for protection, 28 29 effect would not able to be meaningfully because the salamander lives in the 29 30 measured, detected, or evaluated), or it forest and uses the pool for breeding. 30 31 would be completely benefi cial. Visitor access in the vicinity of the Tibbs 31 32 site and vehicle use along Gordon Drive 32 33 Likely to adversely affect – The action could be possible factors affecting the 33 34 would likely result in a direct or indirect habitat but this has not been established. 34 35 adverse effect on a species and the effect The proposed habitat management plan 35 36 would not be discountable or completely for the mole salamander would focus on 36 37 benefi cial. the areas that need to be protected for 37 38 this species--seasonally fl ooded-wetlands 38 39 Locations where the mole salamander and surrounding upland forest. Identifying 39 40 has been observed, the vernal pool near the habitats and migratory range would 40 41 the Tibbs site and in the Appomattox help ensure its long-term viability. 41 42 River, were compared to areas where 42 43 landscape rehabilitation, visitor use and Cumulative Impact 43 44 new construction are proposed. 44 45 The cumulative effect of Alternative 45 46 Impacts of Alternative 1 2 on species of special concern is 46 47 partially contingent upon how the park 47 48 Within park boundaries, the mole addresses the habitat needs of the mole 48 49 salamander and its associated habitat salamander and the specifi c location of 49 50 could be affected by park resource the park maintenance facility and possible 50 51 management programs; by daily park realignment of Gordon Drive. The forested 51 52 operations such as maintenance and condition of land bordering the Appomattox 52 53 ranger patrols; and by the development River is expected to be maintained 53 54 and use of facilities including trails and fairly close to existing conditions. Non- 54 55 visitor support areas. The current level park actions in the watershed of the 55 56 Appomattox River upriver from the park 56 57 57 134 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 could infl uence changes to water quality population. The potential impacts of 1 2 and fl ow characteristics, affecting the Alternative 2 would contribute a very 2 3 viability of mole salamander population. small increment to the overall cumulative 3 4 The potential impacts of Alternative 2 effects and preservation of forest next 4 5 would contribute a very small increment to the river may help offset some of the 5 6 to the overall cumulative effects and adverse effects of changes elsewhere in 6 7 preservation of forest next to the river may the watershed. 7 8 help offset some of the adverse effects of 8 9 changes elsewhere in the watershed. Conclusion 9 10 10 11 Conclusion The overall impact on this alternative on 11 12 the mole salamander would be similar to 12 13 Adverse effects could result from Alternative 2. 13 14 Alternative 2 actions. Specifi c impacts to 14 15 the mole salamander population would Impacts of Alternative 4 15 16 be better understood after additional 16 17 environmental evaluations and fi eld As in Alternative 1, the Gordon Drive 17 18 studies prior to implementation of rebuilding project could adversely affect 18 19 construction projects. the habitat of the mole salamander 19 20 but the potential for adverse effects 20 21 Impact of Alternative 3 is less in this alternative, which does 21 22 not propose a maintenance facility on 22 23 As in Alternative 1, the Gordon Drive Gordon Drive. Protection of the vernal 23 24 rebuilding project could adversely affect pool and surrounding terrestrial forest in 24 25 the habitat of the mole salamander the vicinity are important for protection, 25 26 but the potential for adverse effects is because the salamander lives in the 26 27 less in this alternative, which does not forest and uses the pool for breeding. 27 28 propose a maintenance facility on Gordon Vehicle use along Gordon Drive could 28 29 Drive. Protection of the vernal pool and be possible factors affecting the habitat 29 30 surrounding terrestrial forest in the vicinity but this has not been established. The 30 31 are important for protection, because the proposed habitat management plan for 31 32 salamander lives in the forest and uses the mole salamander would focus on the 32 33 the pool for breeding. Visitor access in areas that need to be protected for this 33 34 the vicinity of the Tibbs site and vehicle species--seasonally fl ooded-wetlands 34 35 use along Gordon Drive could be possible and surrounding upland forest. Identifying 35 36 factors affecting the habitat but this has the habitats and migratory range would 36 37 not been established. The proposed help ensure its long-term viability. 37 38 habitat management plan for the mole 38 39 salamander would focus on the areas Cumulative Effect 39 40 that need to be protected for this species- 40 41 -seasonally fl ooded-wetlands and The cumulative effect is similar to that of 41 42 surrounding upland forest. Identifying the Alternative 3. 42 43 habitats and migratory range would help 43 44 ensure its long-term viability. Conclusion 44 45 45 46 Cumulative Impact The overall impact on this alternative on 46 47 the mole salamander would be similar to 47 48 Cumulatively, park actions could have Alternative 2. 48 49 an adverse effect on this species. This 49 50 is partially contingent upon how the park 4.4 Visual Resources and Values 50 51 addresses the habitat needs of the mole Methodology 51 52 salamander, particularly in the vicinity of 52 53 the vernal pool. Non-park actions in the The methods used for determining visual 53 54 watershed of the Appomattox River upriver impacts involved the use of ArcView and 54 55 from the park could infl uence changes GIS software analyzing topography. The 55 56 to water quality and fl ow characteristics, viewshed analysis described in Chapter 56 57 affecting the viability of mole salamander 3 was based on specifi c views that are 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 135

1 important in the interpretive program values outside the park boundary would 1 2 or identifi ed in the Cultural Landscape likely remain largely unprotected, resulting 2 3 Inventory. The analysis enabled the in a minor adverse impact. 3 4 identifi cation of viewsheds within and 4 5 outside the park boundary. While some Impacts of Alternative 2 5 6 of the visual experience within the 6 7 park is related to the sweeping vistas The removal of the existing maintenance 7 8 unencumbered by modern uses that can facility and the vegetation that screens it, 8 9 be observed at many points in the park, opening up views at the northern edge 9 10 this analysis focuses on key viewshed of the village; and the removal of non- 10 11 areas. The Cultural Landscape Report, contributing structures from two key areas 11 12 Volume Two, Treatment Plan 50% Draft, of the landscape would have benefi cial 12 13 dated September 9, 2005, was also impacts on interpretive views. 13 14 referenced in the following discussion. 14 15 The maintenance facility proposed for 15 16 Impacts of Alternative 1 construction at the end of Gordon Drive 16 17 could be visible from the village. The 17 18 There would be benefi cial impacts overall area which would house the facility, in the 18 19 to visual resources from park actions, vicinity of the Mathews House, is at a higher 19 20 such as the removal of non-contributing elevation from the village. Topographical 20 21 structures from two visible areas of the features infl uencing views include the 21 22 landscape. Vehicles would continue to slope from the proposed site to the edge 22 23 be parked near the Peers House and to of the village, and a low ridge between the 23 24 be visible from the village. Along the high village and the site. The ridge does not 24 25 ridge at the park’s southern boundary, extend across the landscape, but it would 25 26 Alternative 1 could foster protection of protect views at the west end of the village. 26 27 key viewshed values adjacent to the park The land sloping down to the edge of the 27 28 boundary through fee simple acquisition village is wooded and currently serves as 28 29 from willing sellers or through acquisition a buffer zone concealing the Mathews and 29 30 of scenic or conservation easements. Moon residences from view. The size of 30 31 This would occur solely on a case-by- the site selected for the facility, the scale 31 32 case basis, as the park would continue of the building and other design features 32 33 to respond occasionally to opportunities would reduce potential adverse impacts. 33 34 for protection. However, incompatible The facility may also be visible from the 34 35 development or site treatment on adjacent Salute Site interpretive area, due to the 35 36 lands would likely take place over the size of the area around the facility. The 36 37 long-term. Additional screening along presence of wooded vegetation would 37 38 the southern ridge at the park boundary reduce potential impacts on views. The 38 39 would not be effective as the land is at impact of this proposed action could be 39 40 a higher elevation. Park actions could minor to moderate, adverse and long- 40 41 have a benefi cial impact on a site by site term. 41 42 basis. 42 43 The proposed boundary adjustment, 43 44 Cumulative Impact common to all action alternatives, 44 45 increases the opportunities for protection 45 46 Park and non-park actions would not be of the visual values adjacent to the 46 47 suffi cient to protect key viewshed values existing boundary. Some 8,000 feet of 47 48 in the absence of a sustained protection the southern ridgeline can be seen from 48 49 program, such as would be afforded by a the village, and changes to the character 49 50 boundary adjustment. Cumulatively, the of the lands along the ridge could 50 51 impact on park visual resources would be constitute a signifi cant potential adverse 51 52 minor and adverse. impact to these values. The boundary 52 53 expansion would have benefi cial effects, 53 54 Conclusion the intensity dependent on the locations 54 55 of the protected properties and the extent 55 56 Park actions would have a negligible to which property is protected through 56 57 impact on views within the park. Viewshed donations, acquisition or donation of 57 136 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 easements, and direct acquisition of expansion would be the same as in 1 2 land. Alternative 2. 2 3 3 4 Cumulative Impact Cumulative Impact 4 5 5 6 Within the framework of a boundary Within the framework of a boundary 6 7 expansion on the southern edge of the expansion on the southern edge of the 7 8 current boundary, park and non-park current boundary, park and non-park 8 9 actions would together be employed actions would together be employed 9 10 to protect key viewshed values. to protect key viewshed values, as in 10 11 Cumulatively, the impact would be long- Alternative 2. Cumulatively, the impact 11 12 term and benefi cial. would be long-term and benefi cial. 12 13 13 14 Conclusion Conclusion 14 15 15 16 Viewshed values outside the park Construction of the maintenance facility 16 17 boundary at the southern boundary would in the park operations zone north of the 17 18 be protected, resulting in a benefi cial long- village could result in a negligible to minor 18 19 term impact. Visual resources around adverse impact on views from the village. 19 20 the Surrender Site would be enhanced. The construction of a concession building 20 21 There is the potential for new construction west of the visitor center parking area 21 22 to be visible from two key areas, which would add a new visual element in a key 22 23 could create a minor to moderate adverse viewshed. Visual resources around the 23 24 impact on views from the village. Surrender Site would be enhanced. Visual 24 25 values outside the park boundary at the 25 26 Impacts of Alternative 3 southern boundary would be protected 26 27 through the boundary adjustment, with a 27 28 The removal of the existing maintenance long-term benefi cial impact. 28 29 facility and the vegetation that screens it, 29 30 opening up views at the northern edge Impacts of Alternative 4 30 31 of the village; and the removal of non- 31 32 contributing structures from two key areas Alternative 4 proposes construction of 32 33 of the landscape would have benefi cial a full service maintenance facility on 33 34 impacts on views. the slope south and east of the existing 34 35 maintenance complex. Due to the size 35 36 The construction of an auxiliary facility for and functions of the facility, and extent of 36 37 maintenance vehicle storage south and clearing, there could be the potential for 37 38 east of the existing maintenance complex visibility from the village. However, the 38 39 could result in a negligible or minor topography is such that the structure could 39 40 adverse impact due to the topography of be sited below the horizon when viewed 40 41 the site, its location away from key views, from either the Richmond-Lynchburg 41 42 and the modest size of the facility. The Stage Road near the Peers House or from 42 43 construction of a concession building the wayside exhibit area. The structures 43 44 west of the visitor center parking area would be visible from Route 24, but they 44 45 would add a new visual element within are otherwise not in proximity to visitor 45 46 key viewsheds, particularly those of use areas or commemorative sites. The 46 47 the Surrender Ceremony site and the facility would require skillful architectural 47 48 Confederate Cemetery. The building would design that would be sensitive to the 48 49 be compatible with historic structures of topography and views; with this achieved, 49 50 the period, such one of the McLean site the impact on key visual resources would 50 51 barns that had been located in the vicinity. be negligible to minor and adverse. 51 52 The introduction of a new visual element 52 53 could appear to be a visual intrusion. The removal of the existing maintenance 53 54 However, the use of appropriate sizing facility and the vegetation that screens it, 54 55 and design would reduce this effect. opening up views at the northern edge 55 56 of the village; and the removal of non- 56 57 The impacts of the proposed boundary contributing structures from key areas 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 137

1 of the landscape will have a benefi cial to participate in the study. If participation 1 2 impact on visual resources. in the study was agreed to, the visitor was 2 3 given a two-page contact sheet to fi ll out 3 4 The impacts of the proposed boundary on site and later mailed a 12-page survey 4 5 expansion would be the same as in to be returned by mail. Of the 561 names 5 6 Alternative 2. collected on site, 400 (71%) returned 6 7 completed mail-back surveys. 7 8 Cumulative Impact 8 9 Impacts of Alternative 1 9 10 Within the framework of a boundary 10 11 expansion on the southern edge of the Under this alternative, visitor appreciation 11 12 current boundary, park and non-park of the site would continue to be dependent 12 13 actions would together be employed to some extent on a prior knowledge of the 13 14 to protect key viewshed values, as in Civil War. Many visitors would continue to 14 15 alternatives 2 and 3. However, new leave the park without having heard the 15 16 construction close to Route 24 could compelling story of the surrender due to 16 17 intrude on the park’s rural setting. the reliance in this alternative on personal 17 18 Cumulatively, the impact would be long- services to convey the story, the limited 18 19 term, moderate and benefi cial. capacity of the McLean House parlor, 19 20 where the ranger story is given, and the 20 21 Conclusion scheduling of living history presentations. 21 22 The trend of a majority of visitors (80%) 22 23 Construction of the maintenance facility not reaching the Surrender Ceremony site 23 24 in the park operations zone off Route would continue. A visit to the interpretive 24 25 24 could result in a minor to moderate waysides along SR 24 would remain a 25 26 adverse impact on views within the park. separate experience in many cases and 26 27 Visual resources around the Surrender visitors unfamiliar with Civil War history 27 28 Site would be enhanced. Visual values may not understand the sites’ historic 28 29 outside the park boundary at the southern context and connections to the village. 29 30 boundary would be protected through the Interpretation of the vernacular and 30 31 boundary adjustment, with a long-term battlefi eld resources on the new lands 31 32 benefi cial impact. added to the park in the 1990s would be 32 33 minimal, and that of the African American 33 34 4.5 Visitor Use and Experience experience constrained by the use of 34 35 the Clover Hill Tavern Slaves Quarters 35 36 Methodology as restrooms. The impact on the visitor 36 37 experience in terms of orientation to the 37 38 As discussed in Chapter 3, the number of full range of resources within the park and 38 39 annual visitors has declined over much on gaining an understanding of the park’s 39 40 of the last decade, with a reversal in this signifi cance would be minor to moderate, 40 41 trend occurring over 2005 and 2006. adverse and long-term. 41 42 Several reasons for the decline have been 42 43 cited, including the distance of the park Visitors would have minimal access to the 43 44 from population centers; lack of visitor ‘new lands’ area. Pedestrian crossings on 44 45 amenities; the lack of a broad appeal to Route 24 would continue to be discouraged 45 46 different cultural and ethnic groups and due to safety factors. Passive recreational 46 47 those with interests other than Civil War uses of the park, such as hiking and bird 47 48 military history; and the economics of watching, would continue to take place 48 49 long-distance travel as affected by gas only on existing trails. The result would 49 50 prices and other factors. be a minor adverse impact on the visitor’s 50 51 ability to experience the park as a whole. 51 52 The main source of information for 52 53 this topic is the Visitor Survey, which The visitor would continue to benefi t from 53 54 was written and interpreted by Virginia the park’s involvement in the regional trail 54 55 Tech. Visitors were surveyed at the park systems coordinated by Virginia’s Retreat, 55 56 between June 2001 and October 2001. and future interpretive connections to 56 57 One person from every four groups asked the town of Appomattox. However, there 57 138 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 would be limited capacity for expanded for the stories interpreted. Additionally, 1 2 connections and visitor experiences, the ability of the park to tell the story of 2 3 and the Civil Rights in Education Trial the African American experience would 3 4 experience would be minimal, based on the be signifi cantly enhanced with a new 4 5 park’s single wayside. Related resources use for the Clover Hill Tavern Slave 5 6 adjacent to the boundary would not be Quarters. The reconstruction of the tavern 6 7 interpreted nor would they be accessible. dining room and the addition of a stable 7 8 The resulting impact on the visitor’s ability structure within the tavern complex would 8 9 to make connections to sites outside the enhance the interpretation of the events 9 10 boundary would be benefi cial. that took place in the village. Visitors 10 11 would have more opportunities to learn 11 12 Cumulative Impact of the surrender story and its meanings, 12 13 with the McLean House no longer serving 13 14 Cumulatively, park actions would tend as the primary location for conveying the 14 15 to concentrate visitor use in the village, story. The impact on visitor understanding 15 16 particularly at the sites closest to the would be benefi cial and long-term. 16 17 visitor parking lot. The length of stay 17 18 for the typical visitor would remain at The expansion of visitor use outside of 18 19 current levels, affecting the ability of the the village to park wide sites, along with 19 20 visitor to understand the whole story. the expansion of limited amenities to 20 21 Cumulative impacts on visitor use and meet the anticipated visitor needs, would 21 22 experience would be negligible to minor help to meet the visitor’s need for comfort 22 23 and adverse. and support appreciation of the site. In 23 24 all of the action alternatives, the park 24 25 Conclusion visitor experience would be improved 25 26 by the installation of clear directional 26 27 The park’s capacity to meet challenges and interpretive signage, and distinctive 27 28 posed by visitor interests, tourism trends entrances that reinforce the concept that 28 29 and new directions in Civil War interpretive the visitor is entering a special place. 29 30 programming would be limited. This These actions would have long-term, 30 31 could result in constraints on visitor benefi cial impact on visitor enjoyment of 31 32 understanding of site resources and their the site. 32 33 signifi cance. There would be no park- 33 34 wide access. The availability of amenities The boundary expansion would make 34 35 and support services, especially outside more feasible the interpretation of 35 36 the village, would continue to limit visitor related resources, and over time, provide 36 37 use and length of stay. The impact on the opportunities to access to the resources. 37 38 visitor experience would be minor and The visitor would benefi t from the resulting 38 39 adverse. protection of important views as well. The 39 40 impact on the visitor experience would be 40 41 Impacts of Alternative 2 benefi cial and long-term. 41 42 42 43 The ability of the park to tell a broader Cumulative Impact 43 44 story of the Appomattox Campaign 44 45 and Surrender, exposure to park-wide Cumulatively, park actions could result 45 46 resources and to related sites in the in a longer visitor stay and lead to repeat 46 47 boundary expansion area, the regional visits, with more of the park open to visitor 47 48 partnership with sites in the Appomattox use, different ways to experience the park, 48 49 Campaign, and interpretive connections and accessibility to amenities that will 49 50 through the town of Appomattox would provide a greater level of physical comfort. 50 51 provide a much richer context, over Actions taken by the park in conjunction 51 52 Alternative 1, for visitors who come to the with the managers of individual sites in the 52 53 park with an understanding of the Civil War regional partnership and the Appomattox 53 54 Story. There would be a greater appeal Campaign trail system as a whole would 54 55 for visitors who may not be versed in Civil enrich the visitor’s understanding of 55 56 War history, with the expansion of stories the chronology of events that led to 56 57 of civilian life and a longer time span Appomattox Court House. Because the 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 139

1 Virginia’s Retreat consortium is already would likely appeal to visitors with a broad 1 2 in place, the coordinated interpretive range of interests and create opportunities 2 3 and marketing actions needed for the to interact with non-traditional park users. 3 4 partnership expansion could be set in The level of involvement in the Civil 4 5 place relatively quickly, with visible results Rights in Education Heritage Trail would 5 6 expected in a relatively short time period. be the highest among the alternatives in 6 7 Collaborative work with partners, with the #3, promoting the park’s ability to reveal 7 8 town and county of Appomattox a key the connections of the April 1865 events 8 9 partner among all the action alternatives, to key events in the nation’s history and 9 10 would likely result in cross visitation among to illustrate the relevancy of those events. 10 11 sites and attractions. Highway noise The impact on the visitor experience 11 12 would continue to potentially disrupt the would be benefi cial and long-term. 12 13 visitor experience, and could interfere with 13 14 interpretive programming and a ranger’s As in Alternative 2, the visitor would be 14 15 ability to impart information; this impact exposed to resources beyond the village 15 16 would be short-term and continuing into through new waysides and a park-wide 16 17 the long-term; however the park would trail system. With the availability limited 17 18 have the tools in the action alternatives amenities and support services, visitors 18 19 to ameliorate this impact through its would be expected to experience a 19 20 involvement in local transportation greater level of physical comfort as they 20 21 planning. The cumulative impacts of this access sites beyond the village. The 21 22 alternative on visitor use and experience impact from these actions, as well as from 22 23 would be benefi cial and long-term. the introduction of visible entry points 23 24 into the park, would be similar to that of 24 25 Conclusion Alternative 2. 25 26 26 27 Under Alternative 2, total visitation and The impacts of the proposed boundary 27 28 visitor length of stay could increase expansion and the visual reinforcement 28 29 signifi cantly. Park wide resources of the park as a special place would be 29 30 would be accessible for viewing and for similar to Alternative 2. 30 31 interpretation; interpretive values would 31 32 be enhanced at several sites. The limited Cumulative Impact 32 33 expansion of amenities and support 33 34 services would increase the comfort Cumulatively, park actions could result 34 35 level that visitors experience at the park. in a longer visitor stay and lead to repeat 35 36 Visitors would gain an understanding of visits, with more of the park open to visitor 36 37 the context and chronology of the events use and different ways to experience the 37 38 of April 1865 through resources within and park. Collaborative work with partners, 38 39 outside the park. The impact on visitor with the town and county of Appomattox 39 40 use and experience would be benefi cial a key partner among all the action 40 41 and long-term. alternatives, would likely result in cross 41 42 visitation among sites and attractions, but 42 43 Impacts of Alternative 3 to a lesser degree than in Alternative 2. 43 44 Cumulatively, park and non park actions 44 45 The visitor would benefi t from park would result in benefi cial long-term 45 46 actions that present a broader story of the impacts on visitor understanding of the 46 47 Appomattox Campaign and Surrender, outcomes of the Civil War. 47 48 as in Alternative 1. As in the other action 48 49 alternatives, the Mclean House parlor Conclusion 49 50 would no longer be the main location for 50 51 conveying the surrender story and its Total visitation and visitor length of stay 51 52 meanings, so more visitors would gain an would be expected to increase. Park 52 53 understanding of the surrender events and wide resources would be accessible for 53 54 their meanings. The reuse of the Clover viewing and for interpretation; interpretive 54 55 Hill Tavern Slave Quarters would enhance values would be enhanced at several 55 56 interpretation of the African American sites. The limited expansion of amenities 56 57 experience. The expansion of park stories and support services would increase the 57 140 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 comfort level that visitors experience at experience may result in increased public 1 2 the park. The impact on visitor use and access to research materials and park 2 3 experience would be benefi cial and long- resources that may be too sensitive to 3 4 term. allow for direct physical access. The 4 5 impact would be benefi cial and long- 5 6 Impacts of Alternative 4 term. 6 7 7 8 The visitor would benefi t from park The impacts of the proposed boundary 8 9 actions that present a broader story of the expansion and the visual reinforcement 9 10 Appomattox Campaign and Surrender, as of the park as a special place would be 10 11 in Alternative 1. Similar to Alternative 3, the similar to Alternative 2. 11 12 visitor profi le could change signifi cantly 12 13 due to outreach to diverse audiences, Cumulative Impact 13 14 particularly off-site, and appeal to different 14 15 aspects of the site’s stories. As in the Cumulatively, park actions would be 15 16 other action alternatives, there would expected to lead to a modest increase 16 17 be less reliance on the McLean House in visitors, with more of the park open 17 18 for personal services in conveying the to visitor use through the park wide trail 18 19 surrender story and its meanings and new system. Participation in other heritage 19 20 opportunities to convey the message in a tourism activities within and outside of the 20 21 variety of ways. Visitors would be more region would support outreach to potential 21 22 likely than they are currently to go to sites national and regional audiences and 22 23 on the periphery of the village, particularly therefore contribute to future visitation. 23 24 the Surrender Ceremony site and the The national focus may limit the park’s 24 25 Confederate Cemetery, for a rich retelling ability to reach out to sites in the broader 25 26 of the commemorative story. These study area. Overall the cumulative impact 26 27 actions would have long-term benefi cial would be benefi cial and long-term. 27 28 impacts on visitor enjoyment of the site, 28 29 and understanding of its meanings. Conclusion 29 30 30 31 Outside the village and its periphery, Visitor use of the park would expand over 31 32 more visitors would get to the Apple Tree Alternative 1 with interpretive programming 32 33 site and to existing waysides in order to bringing visitors to the periphery of the 33 34 receive the full story of commemoration at village and to highway waysides. Visitor 34 35 the park. Similarly, the potential for the length of stay would likely be less than in 35 36 highway visitor who stops at a wayside to the other action alternatives, because the 36 37 explore more of the park should increase. interpretive focus is on a more limited set 37 38 There would be fewer sites park-wide of resources. Total visitation overall, which 38 39 where interpretive programming would be would include virtual visitation through 39 40 provided compared to alternatives 2 and the internet as well as direct personal 40 41 3, but a trail system would make parkwide experience, could approach that of the 41 42 sites available. A greater level of amenities other action alternatives. The impact 42 43 in the village and the potential to access on visitor use and experience would be 43 44 parking close to the Surrender Ceremony benefi cial and long-term. 44 45 site would improve the comfort level for 45 46 visitors. The impact on visitor use of the 4.6 Park Operations 46 47 park would be benefi cial and long-term. 47 48 Methodology 48 49 This alternative would support the 49 50 Virginia’s Retreat consortium of related The methodology used in assessing 50 51 sites at a level similar to that of the no impacts drew from the use of facility 51 52 action alternative, but a wide range of models developed by the NPS facilities 52 53 related resources could be connected management program. Based on 53 54 to the park via online. On-line access inputs provided by the park, the models 54 55 would benefi t those who can not travel generated estimate square footage 55 56 or who have physical or other infi rmities. needs for the maintenance facility and the 56 57 The reliance on off-site, on-line visitor collections storage facility. In assessing 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 141

1 locations for the maintenance facility, the Transportation, to introduce limited, small- 1 2 planning team worked with a Northeast scale safety enhancements. The impact 2 3 Region General Services Administration would be benefi cial and minor in the 3 4 staff member to determine whether space short to mid-term. Long-term, however, 4 5 for an in-town facility was a feasible option. increased traffi c on Route 24 due to land 5 6 This investigation centered on existing use and population changes east of the 6 7 buildings, specifi cally those that were on park may limit the usefulness of discrete 7 8 the market for leasing or sale at the time of safety enhancements. 8 9 the survey; the result suggested that the 9 10 inventory of buildings or sites suitable for Conclusion 10 11 a maintenance facility in the area of the 11 12 park changes from time to time, but the With safety and productivity shortcomings 12 13 local community could be the source of a acute at the maintenance complex, 13 14 potential facility. The Regional Collection the impact of this alternative on park 14 15 Storage Plan was also used as input in operations would be long-term, moderate 15 16 the analysis. and adverse. 16 17 17 18 Park circulation is addressed in this impact Impacts of Alternative 2 18 19 topic. The methodology for analyzing 19 20 park actions is based on the studies The consolidation of operational facilities 20 21 and initiatives described elsewhere in on one general location would achieve 21 22 this document. Transportation studies effi ciencies in communication and 22 23 are presented in chapters 1 and 3, and operational ability, resulting in moderate 23 24 additional details are provided in Chapter benefi cial impacts on park operations. 24 25 5 on the consultation process. A new maintenance facility would meet 25 26 staff safety and productivity needs. The 26 27 Impacts of Alternative 1 bookstore would benefi t from increased 27 28 space for display and operations. 28 29 There would be no opportunity for The benefi ts of an in-park location of 29 30 expansion of the maintenance facility and the maintenance complex would be 30 31 limited means to address its defi ciencies. maintained in this alternative, although 31 32 The Isbell House would continue to the village would not as easily accessed 32 33 be used as park headquarters, with a as it is in Alternative 1. The impact on 33 34 continuation of existing constraints on park facilities would be long-term and 34 35 the use of the building and therefore benefi cial. The presence of protection staff 35 36 park operations. The impact would be on site would be a deterrent to unlawful 36 37 long-term, moderate and adverse. The activity and vandalism and improve the 37 38 locations of these facilities in and near park’s ability to respond to public safety 38 39 the village, however, would continue to be situations. The impact would be benefi cial 39 40 advantageous because they are close to and long-term. 40 41 the center of visitor use and operational 41 42 activities. The park’s main deterrent to There would be increased vehicle 42 43 unlawful activity and vandalism would movement and staff activity in the vicinity 43 44 be the presence of staff members who of the residential inholding on Gordon 44 45 occupy housing units. Drive, as park staff access the Matthews 45 46 House. These impacts are likely to be 46 47 Cumulative impact negligible. However, the introduction of a 47 48 maintenance facility on the site next to the 48 49 Where circulation routes intersect with inholding could result in more noticeable 49 50 Route 24, confl icts and potential safety effects, such as noise and the visible 50 51 hazards resulting from the interaction of presence of vehicle activity due to heavier 51 52 pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles vehicles. Such activities would be limited 52 53 on Route 24 would be evident. However, to the workday, in general. The vegetative 53 54 cumulative benefi ts would result through buffer between the proposed maintenance 54 55 efforts of the park, in conjunction with facility and the inholding parcel would be 55 56 the local community and the Local maintained, reducing the potential for 56 57 Residency of the Virginia Department of impacts. With measures taken to mitigate 57 142 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 possible impacts, the impact of locating as they travel between the park and the 1 2 park operations on the residential use of primary facility, and there would be an 2 3 the inholding could be negligible to minor, expectation of increased time for the 3 4 adverse, and long-term. completion of some operations. Park 4 5 vehicles would likely have to use Route 24 5 6 Cumulative Impact to reach areas within the park at a higher 6 7 level than currently, and some vehicles 7 8 Cumulatively, park actions may increase would be slow-moving. A possible result 8 9 the potential for confl icts on Route 24 would be an adverse impact on park staff 9 10 through the development of secondary safety, although this situation would be 10 11 visitor use zones that may involve new ameliorated through the on-site ancillary 11 12 points of vehicular access off Route 24; building for the storage of some park 12 13 increases in the use of the visitor use vehicles. It should be noted that the park’s 13 14 zones on the highway as more visitors western boundary is adjacent to the town of 14 15 access the waysides; potential pedestrian Appomattox, so travel distances between 15 16 crossings of Route 24 in the park-wide a near-by facility and the destination of a 16 17 trail system. Non-park actions would be park vehicle would likely be within two to 17 18 expected to generate additional traffi c three miles and potentially even less than 18 19 volume on Route 24 as the area around that. The impact on park facilities would 19 20 the park is developed. The park would be long-term and benefi cial. 20 21 work with VDOT and other local partners 21 22 to develop mid-and long term solutions The impact of the introduction of protection 22 23 to the issues relating to the use of Route rangers would be similar to Alternative 2. 23 24 24, such as through physical changes to Park actions related to the introduction of 24 25 the roadway that would result in traffi c the park administration zone on Gordon 25 26 calming. The impact of park actions Drive would generate traffi c but direct 26 27 on visitor and park staff safety and the impacts on the residential inholding are 27 28 visitor experience could contribute a expected to be negligible. 28 29 small benefi cial incrementto the overall 29 30 cumulative impact. Cumulative Impact 30 31 31 32 Conclusion Cumulatively, park actions to develop 32 33 facilities that meet current standards, 33 34 With a high degree of consolidation of staff to consolidate staff offi ces, and to meet 34 35 facilities and functions, Alternative 2 would the staffi ng needs would have a long- 35 36 result in benefi cial long term impacts in term benefi cial impact. In general, the 36 37 virtually all aspects of park operations. cumulative impact of park and non-park 37 38 Park actions on a cumulative basis could actions on circulation would be similar to 38 39 increase the potential for confl icts on that of Alternative 2. 39 40 Route 24 between higher speed through 40 41 traffi c and slower park-related traffi c and Conclusion 41 42 pedestrian crossing. This adverse impact 42 43 would be reduced by efforts of the park This alternative would not create the 43 44 working in conjunction with the community degree of staff consolidation achieved 44 45 on these issues. in Alternative 2, with maintenance staff 45 46 located outside the park in a new facility. 46 47 Impacts of Alternative 3 However, park operations would be 47 48 located in facilities that meet operating 48 49 The consolidation of administrative and and safety standards. The impact on park 49 50 collections management functions would operations would be benefi cial and long- 50 51 improve effi ciency of park operations. term. Impacts on park circulation would 51 52 Safety issues would be addressed with be similar to Alternative 2. 52 53 the new primary maintenance facility, 53 54 and up-to-date installations in the facility Impacts of Alternative 4 54 55 would improve productivity. Its location 55 56 outside the park would mean that park The consolidation of administrative and 56 57 staff would spend more time on the road collections management functions would 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 143

1 improve effi ciency of park operations. change both socioeconomic conditions 1 2 Facilities would meet standards and and settlement patterns. Population 2 3 provide for staff safety and comfort. Up-to- expansion factors infl uencing Appomattox 3 4 date installations in the new maintenance County are occurring not only in the 4 5 facility would increase productivity. Park Region 2000 district, but to the north of 5 6 maintenance operations would benefi t Appomattox in Nelson County, which is 6 7 from the accessibility to the village in the Charlottesville area of infl uence; 7 8 afforded by an in park location that is and to the east, in Buckingham County, 8 9 relatively close to the village. The impact where recent population growth appears 9 10 would be long-term and benefi cial. The to be related to the I-64 interstate corridor 10 11 impact of the introduction of protection between Richmond and Charlottesville. 11 12 rangers would be similar to Alternative 2. 12 13 Park actions related to the introduction of Therefore, the area of analysis for this 13 14 the park administration zone on Gordon topic extends beyond the town and 14 15 Drive would generate traffi c but direct county of Appomattox to encompass 15 16 impacts on the residential inholding are the Region 2000 planning district, 16 17 expected to be negligible. the adjacent counties of Nelson and 17 18 Buckingham, and the town of Farmville 18 19 Cumulative Impact (see map x). Appomattox County is in the 19 20 middle of this broader study area. The 20 21 In general, the cumulative impact of park’s participation in heritage tourism 21 22 park and non-park actions on circulation partnerships, specifi cally Lee’s Retreat 22 23 would be similar in alternatives 2 and 3. Route in the Virginia Civil War Trails, 23 24 It is recognized that more traffi c on Route Inc., and the Civil Rights in Education 24 25 24 would be generated by park users in Heritage Trail through the Virginia’s 25 26 the other two alternatives; at this level of Retreat consortium, is applicable to this 26 27 analysis, however, the impact would not study area. Sites on these driving routes 27 28 be signifi cantly different. are located in the broader study area, 28 29 although they also extend outside of it, 29 30 Conclusion mainly to the south and east. 30 31 31 32 There would be a benefi cial impact on Purchases by visitors for food, lodging, 32 33 park operations, although the level of gas and other automobile-related 33 34 consolidation of staff and facilities achieved expenditures, and incidental purchases 34 35 in Alternative 2 would not be as great. were considered in assessing impacts the 35 36 There would be benefi ts of convenience local and regional economy. The visitor 36 37 gained from the in-park location of the survey found that visitor expenditures 37 38 maintenance facility. Impacts on park within the area defi ned as Appomattox- 38 39 circulation would be similar to Alternative Lynchburg-Farmville were signifi cant on 39 40 2. three-person group basis, amounting to 40 41 $91.06 if overnight lodging were included 41 42 4.7 Social and Economic and $39.54 if only food expenses were 42 43 Environment counted. Expenditures within the park 43 44 itself amounted to an additional $23.71. 44 45 Methodology The impact of these expenditures is 45 46 expected to be the most intense at the 46 47 The park is located in a largely rural county local (county) level and more diffuse in 47 48 and region that has historically had a low the larger Lynchburg-Farmville area. 48 49 population density and predominant land 49 50 uses of agriculture and forest. Developed Impacts of Alternative 1 50 51 land in Appomattox County accounts 51 52 for only 5% of the total. Growth rates in Impacts to the local economy would 52 53 the county have until recently remained continue to be derived from park 53 54 moderate, with population increasing expenditures related to park employee 54 55 by less than 65% over the last seventy salaries, supplies and contracts, as well 55 56 years. The infl ux of new populations in as purchases by visitors. Over time, 56 57 the last several decades has begun to there may be small scale construction 57 144 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 or facilities improvements that would would contribute to benefi cial cumulative 1 2 require the assistance of the area’s labor impacts in the region. Overall impacts to 2 3 force. In 2004, Appomattox Court House the socio-economic environment would 3 4 NHP received 152,453 visitors. With be 4 5 a visitor group size of three, average long-term and benefi cial. 5 6 visitor expenditures annually in the larger 6 7 community could amount to $2 to $2.8 Impacts of Alternative 2 7 8 million, depending on whether lodging is 8 9 including. These expenditures provide a The impact of construction expenditures 9 10 benefi cial impact to the local economy. could have signifi cant short term benefi ts, 10 11 with a portion of the construction budget 11 12 With visitation continuing at current used for labor and materials that would 12 13 levels, park actions in Alternative 1 would come from the local economy. There 13 14 not result in increases in traffi c volumes. would be long-term, moderate benefi ts to 14 15 There would be negligible impacts on the local community through an increase 15 16 traffi c volumes or travel patterns in the in local expenditures and local and state 16 17 local and regional transportation network. taxes from wages generated by the new 17 18 employees, as the park takes on new 18 19 Cumulative Impact activities, programming and employees. 19 20 Relative to the overall size of the area 20 21 Actions taken by the park and its local economy and work force, these benefi ts 21 22 stakeholders may not be suffi cient to would be minor. 22 23 improve safety and access so that Route 23 24 24 could be used by walkers and bicyclists Alternative 2 would generate economic 24 25 between the town of Appomattox and the value through increased visitation and 25 26 park. This alternative is less likely than the tourism in the area. Should park visitation 26 27 action alternatives to be actively involved levels reach the 1990 peak visitation 27 28 in the emerging regional trail system level of 402,907, impacts from visitor 28 29 and green corridor concept, and some expenditures could be substantial. The 29 30 interpretive, open space and passive limited visitor amenities available at the 30 31 recreational opportunities may not be park should not compete directly with 31 32 realized. However, park actions would nearby commercial services. 32 33 still contribute to the cumulative impacts 33 34 related to the expansion of regional The acquisition of NPS interests in land 34 35 recreational systems and on accessibility within the proposed boundary expansion 35 36 to the park. Participation in joint activities area, whether through easement or fee 36 37 with the town and county of Appomattox, simple acquisition, would result in a loss 37 38 and in Virginia’s Retreat, the consortium of county tax revenue. The NPS payment 38 39 for the Lee’s Retreat and Civil Rights in in lieu of taxes would help to make up 39 40 Education heritage trails, would result in a for these losses, lessening the revenue 40 41 minor, benefi cial and long-term impact on impact from lands being held in public 41 42 the region’s heritage tourism framework. ownership. The overall impact would be 42 43 negligible to minor in the short to mid- 43 44 The long-term cumulative impact on the term. 44 45 socio-economic environment would be 45 46 benefi cial. Changes in the agricultural leasing 46 47 program could involve the removal of 47 48 Conclusion acreage in large fi elds that are currently 48 49 being leased, but the changes would be 49 50 Current expenditures on park activities and incremental, take place over an extended 50 51 by visitors in the community would remain period, and implemented as leases 51 52 close to existing levels. Participation in expire. The intensity of impact is likely 52 53 joint activities with the town and county to be negligible to minor, as the acreage 53 54 of Appomattox, and in Virginia’s Retreat, converted to this type of production would 54 55 the consortium for the Lee’s Retreat and not be substantial, and it would be short- 55 56 Civil Rights in Education heritage trails, term, as farmers adjust to new methods. 56 57 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 145

1 regional attractions, and competition 1 2 Cumulative Impact with major Virginia tourism destinations 2 3 such as the larger Civil War parks to the 3 4 The efforts of NPS working with local east, Colonial Williamsburg and Busch 4 5 stakeholders to establish the trail Gardens. 5 6 between the park and the town of 6 7 Appomattox would have a benefi cial Conclusion 7 8 impact on the regional trail system. With 8 9 the implementation of safe bicycle and Anticipated increases in visitation to the 9 10 pedestrian trail connections, accessibility park, resulting in an increase in total 10 11 to the park would be increased. Similarly, visitation and length of stay, would lead 11 12 connections between the park and to increased spending in the community. 12 13 Appomattox Buckingham State Forest One-time construction costs, long-term 13 14 could result in an alternative way to access maintenance, research and staffi ng 14 15 the Confederate earthworks in Vera. expenditures; and visitor expenditures in 15 16 Cumulative park and non-park actions are the local community would contribute sales 16 17 likely to result in an increase in passive and income tax revenues and tourism- 17 18 recreational use of the park in the long related jobs to the local and regional 18 19 term, due to greater accessibility to the economy, particularly in combination with 19 20 park in the regional trail system and from new and expanded visitor services and 20 21 efforts of state agencies to develop ‘rails interpretive programming at other area 21 22 to trails’ path (Department of Conservation attractions. The efforts of NPS working 22 23 and Recreation), and promote the Birding with local stakeholders to establish the 23 24 and Wildlife Trail (Department of Game trail between the park and the town of 24 25 and Inland Fisheries). In spite of existing Appomattox would have a benefi cial 25 26 and recently expanded recreational areas cumulative impact on the regional trail 26 27 in the Appomattox community, demand for system. Actions that the park undertakes 27 28 recreational use in the county and region in conjunction with the Appomattox 28 29 will continue to grow in the foreseeable Campaign regional partnership would 29 30 future based on population forecasts have a signifi cant benefi cial impact on 30 31 for the region. Local residents may tend the regional tourism framework over the 31 32 to view the park more as a potential long-term Alternative 2 would result in 32 33 community recreation site, in addition benefi cial effects on the socio-economic 33 34 to the primary educational and research environment. 34 35 purposes of the park. 35 36 Impacts of Alternative 3 36 37 Actions that the park undertakes in 37 38 conjunction with the Appomattox The short-term benefi cial impacts of 38 39 Campaign regional partnership would Alternative 3 on the local economy 39 40 have a signifi cant benefi cial impact on the due to construction would be similar to 40 41 regional tourism framework over the long- Alternative 2, but lower in intensity, as the 41 42 term. NPS actions and partner actions to amount of construction would be less. The 42 43 develop connections between the park use of an in-town site for the maintenance 43 44 and Civil War sites in Lynchburg and to the facility would result in a rental income 44 45 south could strengthen heritage tourism stream within the private economy. The 45 46 initiatives in those areas. Increased scope of new activities, programming 46 47 visitation would induce some businesses and employee increases would be similar 47 48 to locate to the area to provide additional to Alternative 2, resulting in similar 48 49 visitor support services. benefi cial impacts from expenditures in 49 50 the community. While visitor amenities 50 51 Cumulative impacts to the local and would increase in the park, the offerings 51 52 regional economy stemming from actions would be limited and would not compete 52 53 in this alternative would be benefi cial. directly with nearby commercial services. 53 54 The level of impact would be affected Impacts relating to the agricultural leasing 54 55 by the relatively small scale of facility program, regional trail network, and 55 56 development at the park, relatively small acquisition of NPS interests in lands in 56 57 numbers of visitors as compared to other the boundary expansion area would be 57 146 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 similar to Alternative 1. for heritage tourism would be benefi cial 1 2 and long-term. 2 3 Cumulative Impact 3 4 Conclusion 4 5 Increased visitation could induce 5 6 businesses to locate in the local area. The modest expansion of on-site visitation 6 7 The cumulative impact on the regional trail over existing conditions would result 7 8 system would be similar to Alternative 2. in increased expenditures by visitors. 8 9 In terms of heritage tourism in the region, Benefi ts would accrue to the local and 9 10 partnership activities would not be as regional economy as expenditures fl ow 10 11 formal or extensive as in Alternative 2, but through the local economy. Benefi cial 11 12 the impact would be benefi cial. impacts on the local and regional economy 12 13 and regional trail system would be similar 13 14 Conclusion overall to Alternative 2. In terms of heritage 14 15 tourism in the region, partnership activities 15 16 Benefi cial impacts on the local and would not be as formal or extensive as in 16 17 regional economy and regional trail system Alternative 2, but the impact would be 17 18 would be similar overall to Alternative 2. benefi cial. 18 19 In terms of heritage tourism in the region, 19 20 partnership activities would not be as 4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 20 21 formal or extensive as in Alternative 2, but 21 22 the impact would be benefi cial. There would no unavoidable adverse 22 23 impacts under the alternatives. The 23 24 Impacts of Alternative 4 impact analysis identifi es potential 24 25 adverse impacts to mole salamander 25 26 Alternative 4 would result in a benefi cial habitat, cultural landscapes, wetlands 26 27 impact on the local economy in both the and surface waters, and some others. 27 28 short and long term, with impacts from The paragraph below states that natural 28 29 construction spending and employee productivity at new facilities sites would 29 30 expenditures being similar to the other be lost for as long as the facilities are 30 31 action alternatives. Visitation levels under in use. Those are unavoidable adverse 31 32 Alternative 4 would not be expected to impacts. This item speaks to the NEPA 32 33 match the park’s peak visitation level requirement to disclose the environmental 33 34 of 402,907 in 1990, because of the consequences of the federal action, so 34 35 emphasis on virtual access. However, don’t blow it off. Be honest about what 35 36 visitor stays would be modestly expanded impacts will result in permanent loss of 36 37 over existing levels. resources or temporary disruptions in 37 38 natural systems that will need time to 38 39 Changes in the agricultural leasing recover. 39 40 program as acreage is removed from the 40 41 leasing program for the conversion to 4.9 Relationship between Short 41 42 native grasses or for habitat restoration Term Use and Maintenance and 42 43 would result in negligible impacts on the Enhancement of Long-Term 43 44 agricultural production in the area, due to Productivity 44 45 the amount of acreage involved. 45 46 Impacts from the acquisition of NPS NPS is required to describe actions 46 47 interests in the case of a boundary in terms of objectives of the National 47 48 expansion and from the integration of the Environmental Policy Act to maintain and 48 49 park within the regional trail system would enhance the long-term productivity of 49 50 be similar to Alternative 2. the environment. The action alternatives 50 51 include numerous elements that may 51 52 Cumulative Impacts either enhance or diminish the long-term 52 53 productivity of the environment. 53 54 The cumulative impact on the regional 54 55 trail system would be similar to Alternative Natural productivity at new facilities sites 55 56 2. The impact from park and non park would be lost for as long as the sites are 56 57 actions supporting the region’s framework in use. Natural productivity of the sites 57 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 147

1 could be partially restored if the facilities materials. 1 2 were ever removed and the site reclaimed. 2 3 Natural productivity under each alternative Irretrievable commitments of resources 3 4 would be enhanced by the removal of mean that the resource can not be 4 5 several non-historic structures and the recovered or reused. These resources 5 6 consequent rehabilitation of some sites can be renewable but used for a particular 6 7 as open fi eld. In addition, each action purpose and thus lost to other activities. 7 8 alternative would expand opportunities Biotic communities at the new facilities 8 9 for developing native grassland habitat would be lost for as long as the sites were 9 10 or croplands. Alternatives 2 and 3 would in use. Overall production capacity for 10 11 expand croplands, which would enhance biological resources would be reduced in 11 12 the park’s agricultural productivity. localized areas of proposed development. 12 13 Alternative 4 would have a focus on Vegetation and habitat values of the 13 14 habitat restoration and planting of sites could be partially restored if the 14 15 native grasslands, thus enhancing the facilities were ever removed and the sites 15 16 park’s natural productivity. Clearing of reclaimed; however, some long-term loss 16 17 vegetation for landscape rehabilitation of habitat would occur as a result of these 17 18 and new construction may allow the actions. 18 19 opportunity to remove exotic plants and 19 20 reduce further encroachment. However, The funding, renewable resources, and 20 21 some natural productivity would be park staff time used to construct, operate 21 22 reduced, to varying degrees based on the and maintain visitor and park facilities 22 23 reuse plan for an individual site, with the would be lost for other activities. This would 23 24 clearing of vegetation. Visitor use could constitute an irretrievable commitment 24 25 preclude some species from using the of resources. Although proposed 25 26 area, causing loss of natural productivity. developments could be removed, these 26 27 The alternatives propose various levels of areas could not be restored to pre- 27 28 intervention in the landscape but overall development conditions. Commitment 28 29 the total area affected is such that the to archeological investigations under 29 30 magnitude of these kinds of changes all action alternatives would entail the 30 31 would not be high. expanded or new curatorial facilities at the 31 32 park to store artifacts and additional park 32 33 4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable staff to conserve, catalog and manage the 33 34 Commitments of Resources collection. Use of funding, park staff, and 34 35 renewable and non-renewable energy 35 36 An irreversible commitment of resources sources for construction and operation of 36 37 is one that cannot be changed once it expanded or new curatorial facilities would 37 38 occurs, except perhaps in the extreme constitute an irreversible and irretrievable 38 39 long term. The use of non-renewable commitment of resources. These 39 40 energy sources, such as fuel to power resources are lost for other activities, and 40 41 construction equipment, would be an withdrawal from the project is impossible 41 42 irreversible commitment of resources once archeological excavations have 42 43 under each action alternative. Although yielded artifacts that need to be cleaned, 43 44 energy supplies are expected to be treated, cataloged, and stored. 44 45 suffi cient, once committed these 45 46 resources are irretrievable. Under each Expansion of interpretive programming 46 47 action alternative, limited amounts of at in conjunction with regional partners, 47 48 non-renewable resources would be used and new interpretive programs, activities 48 49 for construction projects – modifi cations and facilities at Appomattox Court House 49 50 to Gordon Drive, construction of a new would also constitute an irreversible and 50 51 administration facility or addition to an irretrievable commitment of resources 51 52 existing structure, construction of a new because of the use of funding, park staff, 52 53 maintenance facility, parking, development and renewable and limited non-renewable 53 54 and placement of waysides, directional energy sources and materials. Once 54 55 signs and other interpretive features, and interpretive programs and partnerships 55 56 park operations. These non-renewable are in place, it would be diffi cult to withdraw 56 57 resources would include fossil fuel and resources and support from them. 57 148 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

1 1 2 Cultural resources and landscape 2 3 elements historically associated with 3 4 Appomattox Court House exist on lands 4 5 adjacent to NPS property. Development 5 6 of adjacent lands by private owners would 6 7 constitute an irretrievable loss of the 7 8 remaining acreage and cultural resources 8 9 associated with the park. The park would 9 10 cooperate with adjacent landowners 10 11 and Appomattox County to protect the 11 12 park’s setting and cultural resources from 12 13 possible incompatible development and 13 14 encroachment. This would constitute an 14 15 irretrievable commitment of resources 15 16 because of the level of long-term 16 17 support and commitment of park staff 17 18 and resources, including potential land 18 19 acquisition. 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 C HAPTER FIVE: CONSULTATION27 AND 28 28 29 C 29OORDINATION 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 150 Chapter 5 Coordination & Consultationt

1 CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND and Recreation, Virginia Department of 1 Transportation, and Virginia Department 2 COORDINATION 2 3 of Agriculture and Consumer Services; a 3 4 The public has an important role representative of the City of Petersburg’s 4 5 in assisting the NPS chart a future Offi ce of Economic Development; and 5 6 direction for a park through the general the Federal Highway Administration’s 6 7 management plan. Recognizing Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division. 7 8 this, has the park reached out to the In Appomattox, representatives from 8 9 community for ideas and expertise, the Virginia Department of Game and 9 10 listened to concerns, and engaged Inland Fisheries (Farmville District), 10 11 interested individuals and organizations Virginia Department of Forestry, Virginia 11 12 outside, as well as inside, the National Cooperative Extension, USDA Natural 12 13 Park Service. Government agencies, Resources Conservation Service, and 13 14 non-profi t organizations, business groups Appomattox County attended, as did staff 14 15 and individual citizens have expressed members from Prince Edward County, 15 16 an interest in the plan. the Town of Farmville, Region 2000 16 17 Planning Commission, and the offi ce of 17 18 5.1 Initial Public and Agency Scoping U.S. Representative Virgil Goode also 18 19 attended. 19 20 A Notice of Intent to prepare an 20 21 Environmental Impact Statement and to The summary of comments and 21 22 begin public contacts for scoping was concerns is reported in APCO GMP/EIS 22 23 published in the Federal Register on April Agency Scoping Meetings, July 2001 23 24 26, 2001. Summary of Issues and Annotated 24 25 Comments (Draft 12/21/01). 25 26 Agency Scoping Meetings 26 27 Planning Newsletter #1 27 28 Two meetings were held in July 2001 28 29 in Appomattox and Richmond with The fi rst newsletter (Summer 2001) for 29 30 representatives of local, state and the project was printed and distributed in 30 31 federal agencies to introduce the early August, with 1556 copies mailed. 31 32 planning process to decision makers and The newsletter introduced the project 32 33 representatives of relevant agencies, and and the scoping process, announced 33 34 to gather input that could be considered the September public meetings, and 34 35 in the development of the plan. An described key issues to be addressed 35 36 additional purpose was to initiate a in the planning process, asking for 36 37 dialogue on planning issues that could be additional input on those or other issues 37 38 maintained throughout the course of the that should be considered. A targeted 38 39 planning and implementation process. A distribution of newsletters to the almost 39 40 total of 75 representatives of local, state 40 national park system units that are 40 41 and federal agencies, elected offi cials thematically connected to the Civil War 41 42 and Virginia Indian tribes were invited by was also done. 42 43 letter to the agency scoping meetings in 43 44 Richmond and Appomattox, described Public Scoping Meetings 44 45 above. In addition to counties adjacent 45 46 to Appomattox and in the Region 2000 Three public meetings were held, in 46 47 Planning District, an effort was made to Lynchburg on September 18; in Farmville 47 48 notify representatives from jurisdictions on September 20; and in Appomattox 48 49 in the counties between Petersburg on September 25. The meetings, 49 50 and Appomattox, in which sites on the announced in the newsletter and 50 51 Appomattox Campaign are found, and to through the local media, were intended 51 52 invite them to the meetings. to introduce the planning project to 52 53 the communities in the vicinity of the 53 54 At the Richmond meeting, there park and to gain input that could be 54 55 was representation from the Virginia considered in developing the plan. The 55 56 Department of Historic Resources, approximately 70 attendees participated 56 57 Virginia Department of Conservation in small group discussions designed to 57 Chapter 5 Coordination & Consultationt 151

1 elicit their concerns and their views about Scoping Summary 1 2 the future of the park. 2 3 In November and December 2001, Input received from agency 3 4 the park received more than 70 e-mail representatives and members of the 4 5 messages, based on a form letter, public was recorded and summarized, 5 6 from members of the National Parks and then analyzed to identify issues 6 7 and Conservation Association with to be addressed in the plan and those 7 8 suggestions for the planning project. issues that are outside the scope of the 8 9 The names and addresses of the GMP process. (Summary of Scoping 9 10 correspondents were added to the Issues; Summary of Planning Issues and 10 11 mailing list. Issues Topics, 4/21/02) 11 12 12 13 Focus Group Sessions Continuation of Scoping Activities 13 14 and Public Involvement 14 15 As a component of the visitor study 15 16 conducted through a cooperative Planning Newsletter #2 16 17 agreement with the Department of 17 18 Forestry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute The second newsletter (Fall-Winter 18 19 and State University, three meetings with 2003) was printed and distributed in 19 20 focus groups were held in November December 2003. Approximately 1900 20 21 and December of 2001. The park staff copies were mailed. The newsletter 21 22 provided the names of individuals to provided the draft statements of park 22 23 be invited to the sessions, which were purpose and signifi cance, and described 23 24 directed to historians, educators, and the initial management concepts. It 24 25 community leaders. The interests, also contained brief summaries of what 25 26 concerns and issues expressed by the planning team had learned about 26 27 the approximately 20 attendees were pre-Surrender battles, commemorative 27 28 included in the overall Summary of features, archeological sites, natural 28 29 Scoping Issues, cited above. resources, traffi c safety along Route 24, 29 30 and scenic views. It sought to place the 30 31 Other contacts during initial public park within a larger regional context. 31 32 scoping 32 33 Open House in Appomattox, 33 34 Park staff participated in numerous December 3, 2003 34 35 informal meetings and contacts with 35 36 stakeholders throughout the initial An open house on the progress of the 36 37 scoping. Stakeholders included six plan was held in the town of Appomattox 37 38 related national park units in the at the Appomattox Community Center. 38 39 region; the Virginia Department Notifi cation of the event was made 39 40 of Transportation; two non-profi t through the local newspaper and a 40 41 organizations supporting the national brochure, which was mailed and placed 41 42 parks, the National Parks and in public areas so that it could be picked 42 43 Conservation Association and Eastern up. The purpose was to introduce the 43 44 National; Historic Sandusky Foundation; general public to the fi ndings regarding 44 45 Lynchburg Civil War Roundtable; the the park’s national signifi cance, history 45 46 town of Appomattox, Appomattox County, and natural environment; management; 46 47 Appomattox and Lynchburg chambers of and to solicit input on the preliminary 47 48 commerce; and several African American management concepts and draft 48 49 heritage groups. In March 2002, park and interpretive themes. Copies of Planning 49 50 regional staff met with the Appomattox Newsletter #2 were distributed to the 50 51 Chapter of the United Daughters of the participants. Attendees numbered 43 51 52 Confederacy, owner of the Confederate and included landowners nearby and 52 53 Cemetery, to discuss how the park and adjacent to the park; business owners; 53 54 chapter members could work together to staff from academic and educational 54 55 enhance visitor services and the overall institutions, various non-profi ts and 55 56 visitor experience. state agencies; and county and local 56 57 government offi cials. 57 152 Chapter 5 Coordination & Consultationt

1 1 2 During the open house, presentation Prior to the open house and in 2 3 boards depicting Appomattox Court preparation for it, the park superintendent 3 4 House preliminary management discussed with community leaders 4 5 concepts were prominently displayed. to discuss ways in which the County 5 6 Participants could walk around to various and Town of Appomattox, Appomattox 6 7 stations representing key fi ndings on County Chamber of Commerce, and 7 8 park resources and the preliminary civic groups could work on issues 8 9 alternatives for managing the park. of common concern (November 19, 9 10 NPS staff and consultants were posted 2003). The eight participants included 10 11 at the displays and were available to the Appomattox County Chamber 11 12 take comments and answer questions. of Commerce; Appomattox County 12 13 Participants were further engaged at the Department of Parks, Recreation and 13 14 stations and throughout the open house Tourism; Mayor and Town Manager of 14 15 to respond to a written questionnaire, Town of Appomattox; Appomattox County 15 16 designed to solicit suggestions on Board of Supervisors; and Carver-Price 16 17 how the park and the community Alumni Association. 17 18 might encourage park visitors to stay 18 19 longer and learn more about the area’s Ongoing Contacts 19 20 heritage, and to gain feedback on the 20 21 management concepts. (A summary Public scoping has been a continuous 21 22 of comments received during and process during the development of the 22 23 following the open house is compiled plan. The superintendent and other staff 23 24 in the December 3, 2003 Open House members have continued to maintain 24 25 Comments General Management Plan, contact with the Civil War Preservation 25 26 02/20/04.) Trust and private landowners on 26 27 protecting resources adjacent to the 27 28 Participants included staff from the offi ce park through scenic easements; and 28 29 of U.S. Representative Virgil Goode; the with Appomattox Town and County 29 30 Mayor and Town Manager, Appomattox; administration and political leaders 30 31 members of the Appomattox County and other stakeholders regarding the 31 32 Board of Supervisors; staff from the preservation of the remaining portion of 32 33 Virginia Department of Transportation, the Battle of Appomattox Station site; and 33 34 Lynchburg College, Longwood on connections between the town and 34 35 University, Appomattox County School park, including a potential trail connection 35 36 System, Appomattox County Recreation between the park, the battlefi eld site, and 36 37 Department, Appomattox Chamber downtown Appomattox. The Appomattox 37 38 of Commerce, U.S. Department Town Council expressed its support of 38 39 of Agriculture, Natural Resources the plan incorporating efforts to interpret 39 40 Conservation Service (Old Dominion the Battle of Appomattox Station site in 40 41 RC&D), Appomattox County Assembly, an April 14, 2004 letter from then Mayor 41 42 Inc., NAACP, Appomattox Historical Ronald C. Spiggle; the Appomattox 42 43 Society, and Pamplin Historical Park. County Board of Supervisors expressed 43 44 The event received favorable press similar support in an April 25, 2004 44 45 coverage through the Times Virginian letter from Aileen T. Ferguson, County 45 46 and Lynchburg Advance. Administrator. (LETTERS ATTACHED) 46 47 One of the outcomes of the dialogue 47 48 at the open house was the recognition Traffi c Calming 48 49 that a multi-purpose trail along Route 49 50 24 as it goes through the park could be In exploring the viability of the traffi c 50 51 a potential component of the region’s calming proposal as a concept for the 51 52 emerging trail system, and provide a plan, the team used Route 24 Traffi c 52 53 connection between the park and the Calming and Pedestrian Safety Concepts 53 54 town of Appomattox. The idea was then as a discussion document to explore 54 55 incorporated into the Route 24 traffi c key issues, especially those of common 55 56 calming proposal (discussed on pp. xx interest to the park and community, 56 57 and xx and below). with members of the public and key 57 Chapter 5 Coordination & Consultationt 153

1 stakeholders. The park hoped to build Research Projects and Scholarly Input 1 2 on what appeared to be an emerging 2 3 consensus with community leaders on Leading into and during the planning 3 4 the need to lengthen visitor stay as a process, numerous research and 4 5 means of increasing economic activity consulting projects were undertaken to 5 6 associated with a visit to the park, and provide the most accurate and current 6 7 the recognition that more would need information with which to make decisions 7 8 to be done to slow Route 24 traffi c and for the park’s future. Topics related to 8 9 improve pedestrian safety to achieve this the park’s cultural landscape, archeology, 9 10 goal. viewsheds, visitor use, park collections, 10 11 vegetation and wildlife were investigated; 11 12 The park worked with Lardner/Klein several of the resulting studies are 12 13 Landscape Architects on efforts to described in Chapter One or included 13 14 inform government agencies, local among the references cited in the 14 15 offi cials, elected representatives and Appendices. Information generated from 15 16 members of the public of the status these research and study projects was 16 17 of the GMP planning process and to incorporated into the planning process. 17 18 solicit input on the preliminary traffi c 18 19 calming ideas. Approximately 30 Scholarly input was also sought 19 20 contacts were made with owners of park and gained in two initiatives co- 20 21 inholdings; landowners at the eastern sponsored with the Organization of 21 22 and western gateways of the park along American Historians: the August 2000 22 23 Route 24; national and state elected historians’ site visit and the March 2001 23 24 representatives; the Appomattox Town Scholars’ Roundtable. The scholars 24 25 Council, Appomattox County Board and interdisciplinary experts gave 25 26 of Supervisors, Appomattox County presentations at the roundtable were 26 27 Planning Commission; Region 2000 joined by an invited audience whose 27 28 Planning District Commission; and the questions and refl ections helped to 28 29 Local Residency and Regional District hone a better understanding of what 29 30 Offi ce of the Virginia Department of is historically signifi cant about the 30 31 Transportation (VDOT). Property owners park, the meaning of the events that 31 32 within and adjacent to park boundaries took place there, and why the site is of 32 33 and users of Route 24 were interviewed. value to the public. The audience was 33 34 These activities mainly took place made up of park and other NPS staff, 34 35 between February and September 2004, representatives of related organizations, 35 36 and a meeting was held in August 2004. and various individuals. Staff from the 36 37 offi ce of U.S. Representative Virgil H. 37 38 The support of VDOT, the key Goode, Jr., Petersburg and Richmond 38 39 stakeholder in this initiative, was critical National Battlefi eld Parks, Arlington 39 40 to moving forward. The Lynchburg House and Harpers Ferry Center were 40 41 District conveyed its lack of support for present. Representatives of historic sites 41 42 the proposal in a September 1, 2005 and museums were from the Museum 42 43 letter. A similar position was expressed of the Confederacy and Pamplin 43 44 by planning staff in the Richmond Offi ce Historical Park; other organizations 44 45 and the suggestion made that the park represented were the United Daughters 45 46 continue to work with regional VDOT of the Confederacy and Lynchburg 46 47 engineers on safety issues, and to be Civil War Roundtable. The session was 47 48 cognizant of the department’s pedestrian held at the Tredegar Visitor Center at 48 49 and bicycle policy (phone conversation). Richmond National Battlefi eld with a total 49 50 These two recommendations will support attendance was 35. 50 51 the park’s work with community partners 51 52 to resolve safety issues and to meet GMP Team Meetings and Workshops 52 53 community-wide objectives, as part of 53 54 the approach put forward in Chapter 2. Refl ecting the NPS interdisciplinary 54 55 approach to planning, the GMP 55 56 planning team drew from the expertise 56 57 of its members in park administration, 57 154 Chapter 5 Coordination & Consultationt

1 in cultural and natural resources statements of park purpose and 1 2 management, history and historic signifi cance, and agreement on key 2 3 preservation, interpretation, collections decision points. Consideration of 3 4 management, landscape architecture, current visitors and potential future 4 5 archeology, park operations and facilities visitors and development of potential 5 6 management. There were eight GMP management prescriptions for the 6 7 team meetings conducted with park and park visitor experience. 7 8 Northeast Region staff, with attendance 8 • November 6-7, 2002: What do we 9 that varied according to the agenda for 9 know? Opportunities and constraints 10 the workshops. 10 Site resources, history and data 11 11 needs, including regional context, 12 • February 12, 2002 – Overview 12 signifi cant habitat, wetlands and 13 of scoping process and contacts 13 fl oodplains, surface and ground 14 made with agencies, organizations, 14 water, archeological and historic 15 and elected offi cials. Review of 15 resources, park collections, cultural 16 information on park signifi cance, 16 landscape, viewshed resources, 17 scholarly input and new perspectives 17 adjacent lands resources, park use 18 on the events of April 1865 from 18 and circulation, inholdings and rights- 19 the OAH site visit and scholars’ 19 of-way, visitation trends, interpretive 20 roundtable in March of 2001. 20 opportunities and tourism and 21 Identifi cation of issues, concerns 21 marketing initiatives. 22 and interests from park staff from 22 23 the 2001 public meetings and focus • April 1-2, 2003: Reconsideration 23 24 group sessions; and selection of of park signifi cance and purpose 24 25 those which are appropriate to based on interpretive themes. 25 26 address within a GMP. Preliminary Development of park mission goals 26 27 identifi cation of the differences and and management prescriptions 27 28 range of approaches represented by to identify appropriate resource 28 29 the issues – the “decision points.” conditions, types of visitor use 29 30 and overall experience, education 30 • April 30 – May 1, 2002: Refi nement 31 and interpretation approach, 31 of key decision points, and 32 organizational effi ciency, and 32 identifi cation of historic resources 33 types of park-partner cooperative 33 from the draft Historic Context 34 relationships. Management and 34 Statement (an initial component 35 interpretation of resource layers, 35 of the Historic Resource Study 36 including the 1865 landscape, and 36 2005) and values potentially at 37 an initial effort at graphics that 37 stake as a result of the decision- 38 represented the movement of troops 38 making process. Preliminary 39 across the landscape, to understand 39 development of park purpose and 40 battlefi eld resources. Introduction 40 key areas of signifi cance. Review 41 to synthesized information on 41 of viewshed analysis results and 42 environmentally sensitive areas 42 historic resources on lands adjacent 43 within the park. Prioritizing 43 to the park, and the relationship of 44 resources for interpretation and 44 the park’s natural resources to its 45 active management, including where 45 cultural resources. A fi eld trip was 46 rehabilitation and restoration might 46 made to the area surrounding the 47 be warranted. 47 park to further understanding of this 48 48 relationship. • June 4-5, 2003: Refi nement 49 49 of interpretive themes and 50 • May 2002: Interpretive Themes 50 identifi cation of stories that 51 Workshop: Develop broad 51 would be representative of the 52 interpretive concepts and guide 52 themes. Identifi cation of key park 53 the development of a Long-Range 53 resource areas for interpretation 54 Interpretive Plan for the park. Assure 54 and management, as part of site 55 coordination between the two 55 resource analysis and a mapping 56 planning processes. 56 process that was later simplifi ed and 57 57 • July 11, 2002: Refi nement of draft developed as a three-map series, Chapter 5 Coordination & Consultationt 155

1 the Troop Movement Chronology. federal agencies that have direct or 1 2 Refi nement of draft management indirect jurisdiction take into account 2 3 prescriptions or guiding principles the effect of undertakings on national 3 4 common to action alternatives. register properties and allow the Advisory 4 5 Preliminary development of distinct Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 5 6 concepts for managing the park, and the State Historic Preservation 6 7 including the main ideas, desired Offi ce (SHPO) the opportunity to 7 8 visitor experience, and desired comment. Toward that end, the NPS 8 9 interpretive focus, considering will work with the Virginia Department 9 10 resource protection strategies, of Historic Resources and the Advisory 10 11 access and circulation, facility Council to meet the requirements of 11 12 development and partnerships. 36 CFR 800 and the 2008 Nationwide 12 13 Programmatic Agreement between the 13 • August 13-14, 2003: Revisions to 14 National Conference of State Historic 14 preliminary concepts for managing 15 Preservation Offi cers, the Advisory 15 the park, and defi nition of three 16 Council on Historic Preservation, and the 16 action alternatives. 17 National Park Service (Department of 17 18 • March 30-31, 2004: Testing the the Interior). This agreement requires the 18 19 four park management concepts NPS to work closely with the SHPO and 19 20 or alternatives against the park the ACHP in planning and design for new 20 21 mission goals and management and existing NPS areas. The agreement 21 22 prescriptions, and preliminary also provides for review of development 22 23 development of park management projects during at least four stages – task 23 24 zones, considering key resource directive, policy review draft, and draft 24 25 areas; analyzing appropriate and fi nal documents. 25 26 locations for facilities development. 26 27 Updates on public involvement To ensure that GMP proposals that might 27 28 activities, community context, and affect properties listed or eligible for the 28 29 resource information; review of national register comply with provisions 29 30 comments and suggestions from of Section 106, the SHPO (Virginia 30 31 public open house in December of Department of Historic Resources) 31 32 2003. was invited to participate early in the 32 33 planning process. Representatives of 33 34 the SHPO have been regular participants 34 5.2 Agency Consultation and 35 in core planning efforts and will, along 35 Coordination 36 with the ACHP, have an opportunity to 36 37 review and comment on this Draft GMP/ 37 Consultation with relevant tribal 38 EIS. The following consultations and 38 organizations, local, state and federal 39 meetings have occurred with the Virginia 39 agencies and regional institutions has 40 Department of Historic Resources (VA 40 taken place, with agencies invited to 41 DHR): 41 comment on material presented in 42 42 newsletters; and to provide input and 43 • July 31, 2001 – VA DHR staff 43 information to inform the Environmental 44 participated in the agency scoping 44 Impact Statement. Consultation 45 meeting in Richmond. 45 letters dated July 7, 2001, were sent 46 46 to the Advisory Council on Historic • October 3, 2001 – Appomattox Court 47 47 Preservation, the Virginia SHPO and the House NHP staff and superintendent, 48 48 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. and Northeast Region staff met 49 49 with VA DHR staff at the park. (The 50 50 Consultation with the Advisory record of consultation dated October 51 51 Council on Historic Preservation and 10, 2001 summarizes key points 52 52 the Virginia Department of Historic discussed at the meeting.) 53 53 Resources 54 • December 11, 2003 – Reed 54 55 Johnson, park superintendent, met 55 Section 106 of the National Historic 56 with VA DHR in Richmond to discuss 56 Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 57 the current status of the GMP, 57 (16 USC 470, et seq.) requires that 156 Chapter 5 Coordination & Consultationt

1 including the proposed traffi c calming managers, a professional archeologist 1 2 treatment along State Route 24. The will determine the need for archeological 2 3 staff provided suggestions on the activity or testing evaluation. Any such 3 4 traffi c calming proposal. studies would be carried out in advance 4 5 of construction activity and would 5 • May 20, 2005 – VA DHR staff made 6 meet the needs of the State Historic 6 a site visit to the park to evaluate 7 Preservation Offi ce. 7 conditions for future potential effects 8 8 on historic resources, based on 9 The following plans and studies 9 draft park management alternatives. 10 relating to cultural resources have been 10 Meeting follow-up was expressed in 11 identifi ed as necessary to support the 11 the following letter. 12 implementation of proposals made in this 12 13 • June 17, 2005 – VA DHR letter to document. Some of these are underway. 13 14 superintendent Reed Johnson, This list may be expanded or otherwise 14 15 Appomattox Court House NHP modifi ed as the specifi c requirements 15 16 provided comments on the action for individual projects become better 16 17 alternatives. The VA DHR provided defi ned: 17 18 suggestions on siting the new 18 19 park maintenance facility, adaptive • Archeological studies and 19 20 reuse of the Matthews House, and investigations 20 21 relocation of the bookstore in ways 21 • Historic structures reports 22 that would be protective of the 22 23 archeological and historic resources • Historic furnishings plans 23 24 and minimize modern intrusions. 24 • A revised scope of collections 25 LETTER INCLUDED. 25 statements 26 26 • April 12, 2005 --VA DHR letter to 27 • A viewshed management plan 27 superintendent Reed Johnson with 28 to guide removal and treatment 28 comments on the draft Cultural 29 of vegetation for viewshed 29 Landscape Report and letter of 30 management purposes 30 October 13, 2005 on the Cultural 31 31 Landscape Report, Volume Two, • A forest management plan to guide 32 32 Treatment Plan. The October letter treatment of the forest plantations, 33 33 reiterates comments on the action the natural woodlands, and to 34 34 alternatives supplied via letter address diseased and dying trees 35 35 dated June 17, 2005. LETTERS 36 • An agricultural management plan 36 INCLUDED. 37 to guide the use and treatment of 37 38 agricultural fi elds 38 39 Section 106 Compliance 39 • A treatment plan to guide treatment 40 Requirements for Future Undertakings 40 for historic roads and trails 41 41 42 Section VI-G of the Programmatic 42 43 Agreement requires that general Consultation with U.S. Fish and 43 44 management plans include a statement Wildlife Service 44 45 about the status of the parks’ cultural 45 46 resources inventory and that the Section 7 of the Endangered Species 46 47 statement indicate needs for additional Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 47 48 cultural resource information, plans, or et seq.) requires all federal agencies to 48 49 studies required before undertakings consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 49 50 can be carried out. The table on page 75 Service to ensure that any action 50 51 in Chapter Two identifi es future actions authorized, funded or carried out by 51 52 under the preferred alternative that would the agency does not jeopardize the 52 53 likely require review under Section 106 continued existence of listed species 53 54 of the National Historic Preservation Act or critical habitat. A letter initiating the 54 55 and under the Programmatic Agreement, consultation process in July 2001was 55 56 and the nature of the review. Prior to sent to the agency to the US Fish 56 57 any ground-disturbing action by park and Wildlife Service in Gloucester, 57 Chapter 5 Coordination & Consultationt 157

1 VA. A second letter with an outline of Recreation (VA DCR) was contacted. 1 2 the preliminary alternatives was sent 2 3 February 17, 2006. Through a form The NPS will continue to consult 3 4 letter dated July 27, 2006, the Service with these state agencies regarding 4 5 indicated that the proposed action will habitat requirements and management 5 6 not adversely affect federally listed strategies for state-listed rare, threatened 6 7 species or federally designated critical or endangered species or state species 7 8 habitat because no federally listed of concern before the design and 8 9 species are known to occur in the project construction phase of any proposed 9 10 area. FORM LETTER INCLUDED. actions. 10 11 11 12 Consultation with American Indian The Planning and Recreation 12 13 Tribes Resources Division of the Department 13 14 of Conservation and Recreation 14 15 Consultation provides an opportunity to has provided input on programmatic 15 16 involve tribes in the general management concerns. Comments relating to the 16 17 planning process, in order to gain input proposed development of a trail system 17 18 into determining whether or not there potentially linking the park to Saylers 18 19 might be ethnographically sensitive areas Creek Battlefi eld State Park and 19 20 in the park and, in the presence of those providing feedback on the content of 20 21 areas, to learn of related tribal concerns. Planning Newsletter #2, were conveyed 21 22 The Virginia Indian Council, composed in a letter dated February 24, 2004. 22 23 of tribal representatives appointed by LETTER INCLUDED. 23 24 the Governor of Virginia, was contacted 24 25 by letter dated June 28, 2001; a similar 5.3 List of Preparers and Planning 25 26 letter was sent to the United Indians of Team 26 27 Virginia. No responses were received. 27 28 NPS Planning Team Member, 28 29 Consultation with Virginia Department Advisors, and Consultants to the 29 30 of Game and Inland Fisheries, Team 30 31 Virginia Department of Agriculture 31 32 and Consumer Services, and Virginia Planning Team Members 32 33 Department of Conservation and Reed Johnson, Appomattox Court House 33 34 Recreation NHP, Superintendent 34 35 Carol Cook, Northeast Region, 35 36 NPS Management Policies require Community Planner/Project Manager 36 37 cooperation with appropriate state Julie Bell, Northeast Region, Landscape 37 38 conservation agencies to protect state- Architect 38 39 listed and candidate species of concern Joanne Blacoe, Northeast Region, 39 40 in the parks. The NPS has consulted Interpretive Planner 40 41 with the Virginia Department of Game Nancy Brown, Northeast Region, 41 42 and Inland Fisheries to ascertain the Historical Landscape Architect 42 43 presence of any state-listed or candidate Chris Calkins, Petersburg National 43 44 rare, threatened or endangered species Battlefi eld Park, Chief, Interpretation 44 45 that could be affected by this project. Kim Coons, Appomattox Court House 45 46 The reply included information from NHP, Chief, Education & Visitor Services 46 47 the agency’s computerized Wildlife Allen Cooper, Northeast Region, 47 48 Information Online Service. The Virginia Archeologist 48 49 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Dick Dretsch, Northeast Region, 49 50 Services was consulted for additional Architect 50 51 information on the potential or confi rmed Brian Eick, Appomattox Court House 51 52 presence of federally or state-listed rare, NHP, Natural Resources Manager 52 53 threatened and endangered species James Farrell, Northeast Region, 53 54 or candidate species of concern in or Geographic Information Systems 54 55 near Appomattox Court House NHP. Specialist 55 56 The Natural Heritage Division of the Roger Firth, Appomattox Court House 56 57 Virginia Department of Conservation and NHP, Facilities Manager 57 158 Chapter 5 Coordination & Consultationt

1 Ursula Lemanski, Rivers and Trails 1 2 Conservation Assistance Program, West U.S. Senators and Representative 2 3 Virginia Field Offi ce Senator James Webb (VA) 3 4 Connie Moody, Appomattox Court House Senator Mark Warner (VA) 4 5 NHP, Administrative Offi cer Representative Tom Perriello, the 5th 5 6 Doyle Sapp, Appomattox Court House Congressional District of Virginia 6 7 NHP, Interpretive Ranger 7 8 Ruth Sawyer, Appomattox Court House State Agencies 8 9 NHP, Administrative Offi cer Commonwealth of Virginia, Offi ce of the 9 10 Patrick Schroeder, Appomattox Court Governor 10 11 House NHP, Park Historian Department of Agriculture and Consumer 11 12 John Spangler, Facility Manager Services 12 13 Cliff Tobias, Northeast Region, Historian Department of Conservation and 13 14 Joe Williams, Appomattox Court House Recreation 14 15 NHP, Chief of Museum Services Department of Environmental Quality 15 16 Department of Game and Inland 16 17 NPS Northeast Regional Offi ce Fisheries 17 18 Advisors Department of Historic Resources 18 19 Dennis R. Reidenbach, Regional Director Department of Transportation (Central, 19 20 Michael Reynolds, Deputy Regional District and Local Residency Offi ces) 20 21 Director Division of Tourism 21 22 Maryanne Gerbauckas, Associate Region 2000 Planning District 22 23 Regional Director for Historic Commission 23 24 Preservation, Planning, and Compliance 24 25 Robert W. McIntosh, Associate Regional Local Governments 25 26 Director for Construction and Facilities Mayor, Town of Appomattox 26 27 Management Chairman, Appomattox County Board of 27 28 Terrence D. Moore, Chief of Planning Supervisors 28 29 and Compliance Town of Appomattox (Administrator) 29 30 Allen Cooper, Branch Chief of Park County of Appomattox (Administrator) 30 31 Planning and Special Studies 31 32 Organizations, Businesses and 32 33 Document Preparation Universities 33 34 Megan Lang, Northeast Region, Virginia’s Retreat Consortium 34 35 Community Planner Appomattox Historical Society 35 36 Amanda Jones, Northeast Region, Appomattox Chapter, United Daughters 36 37 Community Planner of the Confederacy 37 38 Appomattox Chapter, Sons of the 38 39 Plan Consultants Confederacy 39 40 Jim Klein, Lardner/Klein Landscape Appomattox Chamber of Commerce 40 41 Architects Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce 41 42 Eileen Carlson, Environmental Pamplin Historical Park 42 43 Management Collaboration, Inc Eastern National Park Service 43 44 Karen Pinell, Nastaran Saadatmand. and National Parks and Conservation 44 45 Christopher Jaeschke, Federal Highway Association 45 46 Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Region 2000 (Economic Development) 46 47 Highway Division Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 47 48 Virginia Tech Department of Forestry 48 49 5.4 List of Recipients Lynchburg Civil War Roundtable 49 50 50 51 Federal Agencies School Districts 51 52 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Appomattox School District 52 53 Natural Resources Conservation 53 54 Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 54 55 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 55 56 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 56 57 Petersburg National Battlefi eld 57 R EFERENCES SELECTED REFERENCES

Appomattox County, Virginia. Appomattox Community Development Plan, 2002.

Environmental Concern, Inc. Wetland Inventory and Mapping Project. Final Report. Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, July 1, 2002.

Holding the High Ground: Principles and Strategies for Managing and Interpreting Civil War Battlefield Landscapes. Proceedings from the Conference of Battlefield Managers, Nashville, TN August 24-27, 1998.

Hosmer, Charles B., Jr. Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-1949, 2 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1981.

John Milner Associates, Inc., in Association with HNTB Urban Design and Planning, Columbia Maryland. National Park Service, Cultural Landscape Report, Volume One. June 2004. 95% draft.

Kitchel, William F. Soil Survey of Appomattox County, Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Lardner/Klein Landscape Architects, P.C., in Association with H.W. Lochner, Inc. June 2004. Final Draft. Appomattox Court House national Historical Park, Route 24 Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Concepts.

Lemanski, Ursula. The Regional Greenway/Infrastructure Feasibility Plan. Region 2000. National Park Service, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program. May 2002.

Lochner, H.W., Virginia State Route 24 Truck Traffic Study. Prepared for the National Park Service, Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. September 2004.

Ludwig, J. Christopher and Christopher A. Pague. A Natural Heritage Inventory of Mid-Atlantic Region National Parks in Virginia: Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. Final Report. Natural Heritage Technical Report #93-7. Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, Feb. 1993.

Lund, Anne C. and Thomas J. Rawinski. “A Floristic Survey of Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, Appomattox County, Virginia.” Banisteria, No. 16. 2000.

Marvel, William. Historical Assessment of the ‘Conservation Fund’ and ‘Burruss Timber’ Tracts within Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. January 2001, revised April 2001. Prepared for the National Park Service.

Moore, John Hammond. Appomattox Court House: Community, Village, and Families, 1845- 1870. 1976. National Park Service.

Pousson, John F. A Contribution to an Overview of Archaeological Resources, Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. March 2001. National Park Service.

Preservation Comes of Age, From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-1949. Volume I, Charles B. Hosmer, Jr. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville for the Preservation Press.

Region 2000. Economic Profile.

Robinson and Associates, Inc. Appomattox Court House National Historical Park Historic Resources Study. August 2002.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Appomattox Court House NHP, Description of Natural Resources. Kris Heister, February 2001.

Collection Management Plan, Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. Northeast Museum Services Center. May 2002.

Cultural Landscapes Inventory: Appomattox Court House Landscape, Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. 2000.

Environmental Review: Draft General Management Plan. Denver Service Center, December 1977.

Final Report: Archaeological Research: Historic Roads; Mariah Wright House Outbuildings; Appomattox Courthouse National Historical Park. Denver Service Center. December 1979.

Final Report, Archeological Research, Mariah Wright House Outbuildings, Historic Roads [Appomattox Court House National Historical Park]. Kathleen W. Fiero, Denver Service Center. 1983.

General Management Plan, Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. 1977.

Inventory & Monitoring Program. http://www1.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ncbn/index.htm (2006).

List of Classified Structures. Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. Long Range Interpretive Plan. Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. Draft 2002.

National Register of Historic Places Nomination-Inventory Form. “Appomattox Court House.” May 18, 1989.

National Register of Historic Places Nomination-Inventory Form. “Appomattox Historic District.” May 2001.

Natural Resource Information for GMP. Brian Eick, April 2003.

Northeast Region Archeology Program, Appomattox Court House National Historical Park Archeological Overview and Assessment, 2004. 90%. A Brief History of Appomattox County, Growth and Decline of Appomattox Court House.

Northeast Region, Museum Collection Curatorial Facility Plan. 2006. Northeast Museum Services Center.

Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance Program. Nationwide Rivers Inventory.

Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS 2 State of African American Heritage Tourism in Southside Virginia: Summary of Conversations with Tourism and Marketing Organizations and State Agencies. August 2002. Julie Bell.

Statement for Management, Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, Jan. 1995.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and Brudis & Associates, Inc. Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, Transportation Planning Study, September 2003. Final Draft.

U.S. Bureau of Census. 2000.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997 Census of Agriculture, County Profile.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration. “Flood Insurance Rate Maps Appomattox County, Virginia,” 1978.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Forestry. Visitor and Key Stakeholder Groups’ Use Patterns and Preferences for Future Conditions at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, November 2002. William R. Harvey and Joseph W. Roggenbuck.

Transportation Institute. Study of Traffic Use on Virginia State Route 24 at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. December 2003. Kyoungo Ahn and Hesham Rakha.

Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation Sailor’s Creek Battlefield Historic State Park Master Plan, Executive Summary. 2002 Draft.

Virginia Outdoors Plan, 2002.

Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Resources of Appomattox County. 2002.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Virginia’s Natural Resources Guide.

Virginia Department of Forestry, Appomattox County. County Forestry Statistics, 1998-1999.

Virginia Economic Development Partnership. Employment and personal income data, 2002 and 2003.

Virginia Hydric Soils List, 2003.

Virginia’s Region 20000, Local Government Council. The Appomattox Heritage and Recreational Trail Plan – A Vision of Connectivity. 2006/2007.

Wood Swofford Associates, Architects. Clover Hill Tavern Group, Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, Appomattox, Virginia: Historic Structures Report. April 1997.

Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS 3

Referenced Websites: http://www.appomattox.com http://www.appomattox.com/html/appomattoxcountyinfo.html http://www.appomattoxvarealestate.com/area_information.htm http://www.dcr.state.va.us/parks.htm http://www.dcr.state.va.us/sw/wsheds.htm http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/vbwt/index.asp http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/highlights/va/vac020.txt http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2001-11/onthetrail.html http://www.nps.gov/apco http://www.nps.gov/apco/bldings.htm http://www.nps.gov/apco/sanslyd.htm http://www.nps.gov/iwisapi/explorer.dll/x2_3anr4_3aNRIS1/script/report.iws http://www.lvaimage.lib.va.us http://www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/piedmont.html http://www.192.206.31.52/cfprog/dnh/naturalheritage/display_counties.cfm http://www.hscl.cr.nps.gov/reports.

Personal Communication References

Communication on the traffic calming concepts. October 24, 2005 telephone conversation between Carol Cook and Marsha Fiol, Division Administrator, Transportation and Mobility Planning Division, Virginia Department of Transportation Central Office.

Communication on Appomattox County and its attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Email of Sept. 7, 2002 from Carolyn Stevens, Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality Assessment to Eileen Carlton of EMC. Ltd.

Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS 4 A PPENDIX A: PARK LEGISLATION Park Legislation

An Act To provide for the inspection of the battle fields and surrender grounds is and around old Appomattox Court House, Virginia, approved February 25, 1926 (W Stat. 9)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assentbled. That a commission is hereby created, to be composed of the following members, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of War:

(1) A commissioned officer of the Corps of Engineers, Army Engineer United States Army; (2) A veteran of the Civil War who served honorably in the military forces of the United States; and (3) A veteran of the Civil War who served honorably in the military forces of the Confederate States of America.

Sec.. 2. In appointing the members of the commission created by section 1 of this Act the Secretary of War shall as far as practicable, select persons familiar with the terrain of the battle fields and surrender grounds of old Appomattox Court House, Virginia, and the historical events associated therewith.

Sec.. 3. It shall be the duty of the commission, acting under the direction of the Secretary of War, to inspect the battlefields and surrender grounds in and around old Appomattox Court House. Virginia, in order to ascertain the feasibility of preserving and marking for historical and professional military study such fields. The commission shall submit a report of its findings to the Secretary of War not later than December 1,1926.

Sec.4. There is authorized to be appropriated. out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $3,000 in order to carry out the provision of this Act.

An Act to provide for the commemoration of the termination of the War between the States at Appomattax Court House, Virginia. approved June 18, 1930 (46 Stat 777)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that for the purpose of commemorating the termination of the War between the States which was brought about by the surrender of the army under General Robert E. Lee to Lieutenant General U. S. Grant at Alpomattox Court House, in the State of Virginia, Confederate on April 9, 1865, and for the further purpose of honoring those who engaged in this tremendous conflict, the Secretary of War is authorized and directed to acquire at the scene of said surrender approximately one acre of land, free of cost to the United States, at the above- named place, fence the parcel of land so acquired or demarcate its limits, and erect a monument thereon.

Sec. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $100,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to carry out the prorisions of section 1 of this Act.

Sec. 3. The land acquired under Section 1 of this Act shall be under the jurisdiction and control of the Secretary of War, and there is authorized to be appropriated for the maintenance of such tract of land and monument, a sum not to exceed $250 per annum. (16 U.S.C. §§ 450b-450d as amended. See p. 147, Laws Relating to the National Park Service, Supp- L )

Excerpt from "An Act Making appropriations for the military and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1932, and for other purposes," approved February 23, 1931 (46 Stat. 1277, 1305)

Monument Appomattox Court House, Virginia: For every expenditure requisite for or incident to the work of securing a design and the preparation of plans and estimate of cost for a monument at Appornattox Court House, Virginia. to commemorate the termination of the War between the States, in accordance with the Act entitled "An Act. to provide for the commemoration of the termination of the War between the States at Appomattox Court House, Virginia," approved June 18, 1930 (46 Stat., p. 777), $2,500: Provided, That the plan and design of such monument shall be subject to the approval of the National Commission of Fine Arts.

Establishment of monument authorized, Act of June 18, 1930 amended Act of August 13, 1935

An Act To amend Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the commemoration of the termination of the War between the States at Appomattox Court House, Virginia," approved June 18, 1930, and to establish the Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument. and for other purposes, approved August 13, 1935 (49 Stat. 613)

Be it enacted by the Senate Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the commemoration of the termination of the War between the States at Appomattox Court House, Virginia", approved June 18, 1930, are hereby amended to read as follows:

`That when title to all the land, structures, and other property within a distance of one and one- half miles from the Appomattox Court House site, Virginia, as shall be designated by the Secretary of the Interior in the exercise of his discretion as necessary or desirable for national monument purposes, shall have been vested in the United States in fee simple, such area or areas shall be, and they are hereby, established, dedicated, and set apart as a public monument for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and shall be known as the 'Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument.'

"Sec. 2. That there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $100.000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to carry out the provisions of this Act as amended hereby.

"Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized to accept donations of land and/or buildings, structures, and so forth, within the boundaries of said park as determined and fixed hereunder and donations of funds for the purchase and/or maintenance thereof: Provided, that he may acquire on behalf of the United States, by purchase when purchasable at prices deemed by him reasonable, otherwise by condemnation under the provisions of the Act of August 1, 1888, such tracts of land within the said park as may be necessary for the completion thereof within the limits of the appropriation as authorized in Section 2." (16 U.S.C. sec. 450b, 450c note, 450d.)

Sec. 2. Such Act of June 18, 1930, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new section to read as follows:

"Sec. 4. The administration, protection, and development of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument shall be exercised under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior by the National Park Service, subject to the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916, entitled 'An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes', as amended." (16 U.S.C. sec. 450c.)

See Executive Order No. 8057 of February 23, 1939 (3 CFR, CUM.SUPP., 460). transferring land from,Department of Agriculture for moumment purchase; a1so Order of the Secretary of the Interior of April 10, 1940 (5 Fed. Reg. 1320), designating area to comprise the monument.

An Act To authorize the exchange of lands of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument, Virginia, for non-Federal lands, approved July 17, 1953 (67 Stat. 181)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to exchange lands of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument, Virginia, for non-Federal lands of approximately equal value when, in his opinion, such action is in the interest of the United States. Lands acquired pursuant to this Act shall be within a distance of one and one-half miles from the historic Appomattoz Court House site, Virginia, and shall become a part of the monument upon acquisition of title thereto by the United States. The total area of this national monument as it may be revised pursuant to this Act shall be no greater than its present acreage. (16 U.S.C. § 450d-1.)

An Act To chage the name of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument to the “Appomattox Court House National Historical Park," approved April 15, 1954 (68 Stat.54)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the historical site known as the "Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument”, located near Appomattox, Virginia, shall hereafter be known and designated as the “Appomattox Court House National Historical Park". Any law, regulation, document, or record of the United States in which such site is designated or referred to by the name of the "Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument" shall be held and considered to refer to such site by the name of the "Appomattox Court House National Historical Park". (16 U.S.C. § 450d-1 note.)

Excerpt from “An Act To provide for increase in appropriation ceilings and boundary changes in certain units of the National Park System, and for other purposes,' Approved October 21, 1976 (16 USC 450a-l.

Sec. 308. (a) The Appomattox Court House National Historical Park shall hereafter comprise the area, depicted on the map entitled "Boundary Map. Appomattox Court House National Historical Park", numbered 340-20,000A, and dated September 1976, which is on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

(b) Within the boundaries of the park, the Secretary may acquire lands and interests in lands, by donation. purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange. Any lands or interests in lands owned by the State of Virginia or its political subdivisions may be acquired only by donation.

(c) (1) The owner of an improved property on the date of its acquisition by the Secretary may, as a condition of such acquisition. retain for himself and his heirs and assigns a right of use and occupancy of the improved property for noncommercial residential purposes for a definite term of not more than twenty-five years or, in lieu thereof, for a term ending at the death of the owner or the death of his spouse, whichever is later. The owner shall elect the term to he reserved. Unless this property is wholly or partially donated to the United States, the Secretary shall pay the owner the fair market value of the property on the date of acquisition. less the fair marker value, on that date, of the right retained by the owner. A right retained pursuant to this section shall be subject to termination by the Secretary upon his determination that it is being exercised in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of this Act. and it shall terminate by operation of law upon the Secretary's notifying the holder of the right of such determination and tendering to him an amount equal to the fair value of that portion of the right which remains unexpired.

(2) As used in this Act, the term "improved property" means a detached, single-£amily dwelling, construction of which was begun before June 8, 1976, which is used for noncommercial residential purposes, together with such additional lands or interests therein as the Secretary deems to be reasonably necessary for access thereto, such lands being in the same ownership as the dwelling, together with any structures accessory to the dwelling which are situated on such land.

3) Whenever an owner of property elects to retain a right of use and occupancy as provided in this section, such owner shall be deemed to have waived any benefits or rights accruing under Sections 203, 204, 205, and 206 of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1894), and for the purposes of such sections such owner shall not be considered a displaced person as defined in Section 101(6) of such Act.

The Secretary shall administrer the park in accordance with the Acts of August 23, 1016 (39 Stat. 535) as amended and supplemented, and August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666) as amended.

(e) The Acts of June 18, 1930 (46 Stat. 777), August 13, 1935 (49 Stat. 613), and July 17, 1933 (67 Stat. 181), are repealed.

(f) There are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $1,335,000 to carry out the purposes of this Act.

PUBLIC LAW 102—541 [S. 225]; October 27, 1992

FREDERICKSBURG AND SPOTSYLVANIA NATIONAL MILITARY PARK; APPOMATTOX COURTHOUSE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

An act to expand the boundaries of the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park, Virginia

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDING.

Congress finds that the land area near Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park, Virginia, located south and west of the intersection of the Orange Flank Road and Brock Road in Spotsylvania County was strategically significant ground associated with the battle of the Civil War known as the Battle of the Wilderness, and that the tract of land adjacent to such area known as Longstreet's Flank Attack” was also strategically significant to that battle.

SEC. 1. ADDITION TO WILDERNESS BATTLEFIELD.

SEC. 3. ADDITION TO APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

(a) Section 308(a) of Public Law 94-578 (16 U.S.C. 450e—1(a)) is amended by striking "numbered 340—20,000A, and dated September 1976,” and inserting in lieu thereof, “numbered 340/80,015 and dated June 1992,”: Provided, That this subsection shall not be effective until the lands included within the proposed new boundaries of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park pursuant to this Act have been donated to the Secretary of the Interior.

(b) Lands included within the boundaries of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park pursuant to this section may be acquired only by donation.

106 STAT. 3565

Summary of Legislative Actions

. An Act of February 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 9)

Authorized an expenditure of $3,000 for an inspection of the battlefields and surrender grounds in and around old Appomattox Court House, Virginia.

. Act of June 18, 1930 (PL 71-379, 46 Stat. 777)

Authorized the acquisition of 1 acre of land, at no cost to the government, and the appropriation of $100,000 for the erection of fences and a monument to be maintained by the War Department at a cost not to exceed $250 per year.

. Act of February 23, 1931 (46 Stat. 1277)

Authorized $2,500 for the design, plan, and cost estimates for the monument. Design of the monument is subject to approval by the National Commission of Fine Arts.

. Act of August 13, 1935 (PL 75-268, 49 Stat. 613)

Amended the act of June 18, 1930 to allow the Secretary of the Interior to acquire by donation, purchase, or condemnation title to all the land, structures, and other property within a distance of 1½ miles from the Appomattox Court House site deemed necessary or desirable for the establishment of a national historical monument to be administered by the National Park Service. The sum of $100,000 was appropriated to carry out the provisions of this act.

. Executive Order 8057, February 23, 1939 (3 CFR 460)

Provided for the transfer of approximately 963.93 acres from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior. The land was acquired under the authority of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, approved April 8, 1935 (49 Stat. 115), in connection with the Department of Agriculture's land utilization and land conservation project in Virginia known as the Surrender Grounds Forest Project, LA-VA2. The right, title, and interest of the United States in these lands was transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the provisions of Title Ill of Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, approved July 22, 1937 (50 Stat. 522, 525).

. Secretarial Order Designating the Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument, April 10, 1940 (5 FR 1520)

An order from Secretary of the Interior Ickes creating the park (approximately 970.30 acres).

. Act of July 17, 1953 (PL 83-136, 67 Stat. 181)

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior to exchange lands of the Appomattox Court House National Monument for nonfederal lands of approximately equal value within a distance of 1½ miles of the Appomattox Court House site. Restricted the total area to 1,027.11 acres.

. Act of April 15, 1954 (68 Stat. 54)

Changed the designation of Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park.

. Act of October 21, 1976 (PL 94-578, 90 Stat. 2732)

Adopted new boundaries on map dated September 1976 and modified the land acquisition ceiling, increasing the maximum acreage.

. Act of October 27, 1992 (PL 102-541, 106 Stat. 3565)

Adopted new boundaries on map dated June 1992 and authorized the acquisition of lands within the boundary by donation. The park now contains approximately 1,743 acres.

Addendum to Legislative Summary

Congressional testimony supporting the 1992 legislation (PL 102-541)

Senate hearing on S. 225 before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, June 23, 1992

From the statement of Senator John W. Warner:

“I have recently been informed that the owners of three parcels of land—all of which are historically significant to the events which occurred at Appomattox in 1865—are interested in having their land included in the Park’s boundary. . .. . One of these parcels consists of approximately 193 acres and (another) parcel consists of approximately 180 acres. The land is significant due to the Confederate army’s initial success in action, which took place on the land on April 9, 1865. Later in that day this property was the site of important military action that led directly to the surrender.

“The present park boundary protects historic land significant only to the surrender. The inclusion of these tracts would honor the soldiers who fought in these last days of the war and enable the Park to interpret for the public the importance of the military events that led to the surrender.”

From the statement of Senator Charles S. Robb

“The Appomattox Battlefield, is, of course, the site of the final surrender of the Confederate Army. The existing park protects historic land relating only to the surrender itself. The legislation I introduced this morning would add parcels of land that would help honor the soldiers who fought in the last days of the battle and provide insight into the military events that led to the surrender. One of the tracts is the site of the last trenches dug by the Confederate Army during the battle of Appomattox.

“The legislation would adjust the boundary of the Park to accommodate the acquisition of three additional parcels of lands. “

From the statement of Grae Baxter, Executive Vice President, Civil War Battlefield Foundation

“On April 9, 1865, this land was the site of important military action that led directly to the surrender. Today, the park includes land that relates primarily to the surrender, ‘the stillness at Appomattox’. This additional land would enable the park to protect and preserve the battlefield, so that visitors can better understand the reasons the surrender was at Appomattox and honor the 664 men who were casualties in the battle of Appomattox.

“The historic significance of this land is best described by Ed Bearss: The land north of the Richmond-Lynchburg Stage Road, today’s Route 24, was the ground crossed by the horse soldiers of Fitzhugh Lee’s division as they hammered back Ronald Mackenzie’s cavalry. This was the last offensive of the Army of Northern Virginia ...... General Lee realized that his only alternative was to contact General Grant and propose the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia.

We recall General Chamberlains’ words to his fellow soldiers” In great deeds something abides. On great fields something stays. Forms change and pass; bodies disappear’ but spirits linger, to consecrate ground for the vision-place of souls.” “

Testimony before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on S. 225 in the Congressional Record—House, October 3, 1992

From the testimony of Minnesota Representative Vento

“S.225 was amended by the Senate to allow several tracts of land to be donated to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. These lands saw major military movements the morning of April 9, 1865. Later that day, General Robert E. Lee of the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant of the Army of the Potomac. Lees than a year after they had fought at Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania. Lee and Grant met again, this time in the living room of Wilmer McLean. With Lee’s surrender, the Civil War was essentially over.

“The lands . . . . face immediate development pressures. Acquisition at Appomattox Court House would also protect the park from development along Route 24. By including these lands in the park boundaries, we will further protect our heritage. “

A PPENDIX B: APPLICABLE LAWS AND P OLICIES

FEDERAL MANDATES REFERENCE PURPOSE

Act of June 18, 1930 P.L. 71-379; 46 An Act to provide for the commemoration of the termination of Stat. 777 the War between the States at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. Authorized the acquisition of 1 acre and $100,000 to erect a monument and fences on the site. First legislative action to identify park purpose, enacted June 18, 1930.

Act of August 13, 1935 P.L. 75-268; 49 Amended P.L. 71-379 to allow the Secretary of the Interior to Stat. 613 acquire all land, structures and other property within a distance of 1.5 miles from Appomattox Court House for the establishment of Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument to be administered by the National Park Service.

Act of April 15, 1954 68 Stat. 54; 16 Changed park designation from National Monument to U.S.C. 450d-1 National Historical Park. Enabled land exchange in 1953 for Appomattox Court House NHP only.

National Park Service 16 U.S.C. 1-4, et Promotes and regulates the use of national parks, monuments, Organic Act of 1916 seq. and reservations, by such means and measures as to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and provides for the enjoyment of the land in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Government Performance and P.L. 103-62 Requires Federal agencies to develop a strategic planning and Results Act of 1993 performance management system establishing goals and reporting results. National Parks Omnibus P.L. 105-391; 112 Public accommodations, facilities, and services in NPS units Management Act of 1998 Stat. 3497; 36 shall be limited to those accommodations, facilities, and CFR 51 services that are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment, and are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the unit. General Authorities Act of (16 U.S.C. 1a-1) Affirmed that all national park areas, including historic sites, 1970, as amended in 1978 while acknowledged to be "distinct in character," were "united through their interrelated purposes and resources into one national park system, as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage." National Environmental P.L. 91-190, as Establishes national policy for protection of the human Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) amended by P.L. environment and ensures that decisionmakers taken 94-52 and P.L. 94- environmental factors into account. Requires all Federal 52; 42 U.S.C. agencies to analyze alternatives and document impacts 4321-4347 resulting from proposed actions that could potentially affect the natural and human environment. Council on Environmental 40 CFR 1500- Implements NEPA and provides guidance to Federal agencies Quality Regulations, as 1508 in the preparation of environmental documents identified under amended NEPA. Appendix Table A: Applicable Federal, Commonwealth of Virginia and U.S. Department of the Interior Policies Statutes, Regulations and Policies, Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS

FEDERAL MANDATES REFERENCE PURPOSE (CONTINUED)

National Trust Act of 1949 16 U.S.C. 468c-e Facilitates public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or interest.

Historic Sites Act of 1935 16 U.S.C. 461- Establishes a national policy to preserve historic sites and 467; 36 CFR 65 objects of national significance for public use.

Antiquities Act of 1906, as 16 U.S.C. 431- Provides for the protection of historic or prehistoric remains, amended 433; 43 CFR 3 "or any antiquity," on Federal lands; authorizes the President to declare national monuments by proclamation; authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal lands. Protects historic monuments and ruins on public lands. 16 U.S.C. 470aa- Prohibits the unauthorized excavation or removal of Archaeological Resources mm; 43 CFR 7 "archeological resources" on Federal and Indian land, and Protection Act of 1979, as and 36 CFR 79 provides direction for the management of archeological amended collections. Archaeological and Historic 16 U.S.C. 469- Requires survey, recovery, and preservation of significant Preservation Act of 1974, as 469c; 74 Stat. 220 scientific, prehistorical, historical, archaeological, or amended paleontological data when such data may be destroyed to due Federal activities. Directs Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they find that such activities may cause loss or damage. National Historic 16 U.S.C. 470; 36 Protects and preserves districts, sites, and structures and Preservation Act of 1966, as CFR 60, 63, 65, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources. Sec. 106 amended; Sec. 106 and Sec. 78-79, 800 requires consultation with the State Historic Preservation 110 Office. Sec. 110 requires that NPS identify and nominate all eligible resources under its jurisdiction to the National Register of Historic Places.

The Architectural Barriers 42 U.S.C. 4157, et Requires public buildings constructed, altered, leased, or Act of 1968; the seq.; 29 U.S.C. financed with Federal funds to be accessible to persons with Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 701, et seq.; 42 disabilities. Ensures that all facilities and programs are and Americans with U.S.C. 12101, accessible to visitors with disabilities. Disabilities Act of 1990 P.L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327

National Wild and Scenic 16 U.S.C. 1271- Requires that “In all planning for the use and development of Rivers Act, Sec. 5(d) 1287 water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas.” The NPS maintains a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) of river segments that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic or recreational river areas. The section of the Appomattox River that flows through Appomattox Court House NHP is listed in the NRI and has been acknowledged as having Outstandingly Remarkable Historic Values and other values that support its listing.

November 8, 2010 2 Appendix Table A: Applicable Federal, Commonwealth of Virginia and U.S. Department of the Interior Policies Statutes, Regulations and Policies, Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS

FEDERAL MANDATES REFERENCE PURPOSE (CONTINUED)

Outdoor Recreation Act of P.L. 88-29 Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain 1963 a continuing inventory and evaluation of outdoor recreation needs and resources including rivers…

Clean Water Act (CWA) of 33 U.S.C. 1251, et Sec. 401 regulates water quality requirements specified under 1977, as amended, Sec. 401, seq. the CWA. Section 402 requires a National Pollutant Discharge Sec. 402, & Sec. 404(b)(1) Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharges into waters of the U.S. Sec. 404 requires a permit before dredging or filling U.S. Army Corps of wetlands can occur. Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter and Clarifies the Bush Administration’s policies on wetland loss National Wetlands and mitigation Mitigation Action Plan, dated 12/24/02

Land and Water 16 U.S.C. 4601-4 Preserves, develops, and assures the quality and quantity of Conservation Fund Act to 4601-11 outdoor recreational resources. Applies to all projects that (LAWCON) of 1965, as impact lands involving LAWCON funds. amended; Sec. 6(f)

Federal Water Pollution 33 U.S.C. 1251- Establishes criteria and performance standards for the Control Act of 1972, as 1376, et seq. restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and amended biological integrity of the nation’s waters through prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.

Farmland Protection Policy 7 U.S.C. 4201- Minimizes impacts on farmland and maximizes compatibility Act (FPPA) of 1981 4209 with State and local policies.

Clean Air Act (CAA) 42 U.S.C. 7401, et Establishes standards to protect and improve air quality. Amendments of 1990, as seq. 42 U.S.C. Requires project conformity with State Implementation Plan amended; Sec. 118 7609 concerning air quality. Sec. 118 requires Federal land managers to protect air quality on Federal land.

U.S. Department of 49 U.S.C. 303; 23 Requires coordination between the Departments of Transportation Act of 1969, U.S.C. 138 Transportation and Interior whenever any publicly owned park, Sec. 4(f), as amended wildlife refuge, recreation area, historic site, or tribal lands could be potentially affected by a transportation project. Requires the DOT to evaluate all prudent and feasible alternatives to using these public resources and to include all possible planning to minimize harm.

Endangered Species Act of 16 U.S.C. 1531- Establishes a policy to protect and restore federally listed 1973, as amended 1543 threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna.

November 8, 2010 3 Appendix Table A: Applicable Federal, Commonwealth of Virginia and U.S. Department of the Interior Policies Statutes, Regulations and Policies, Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS

FEDERAL MANDATES REFERENCE PURPOSE (CONTINUED)

Emergency Planning and 40 CFR 350-372 Provides information to the public about chemicals used, Community Right-to-Know stored, and released; and to facilitate planning for chemical Act (EPCRA) accidents

Resource Conservation and 42 U.S.C. s/s Authorizes EPA to control hazardous waste, including the generation, Recovery Act, as amended transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. 6901 et seq. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non- (1976) hazardous wastes. Addresses environmental problems resulting from underground storage tanks. RCRA focuses only on active and future facilities, not abandoned or historical sites.

U.S. EPA Standards for the 40 CFR 503 Provides States and local governments with guidance on the Use or Disposal of Biosolids use or disposal of biosolids, including land application. Provides permit application requirements.

Federal Communications 47 CFR 1.1301- 47 CFR 1.1307(a)(4) specifically addresses impacts that Commission Procedures 1.1319 proposed antenna structures may have on historical sites and Implementing the National other protected resources. Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NPS POLICIES AND REFERENCE PURPOSE GUIDANCE

Park Planning DO-2 Directs the decisionmaking processes that result in the goals and actions specific to each unit of the national park system and those units of the national trails system administered by the National Park Service. DO-12 and Conservation Planning, Handbook for Provides bureau guidance on NEPA compliance consistent with Environmental Impact Environmental CEQ regulations and on approaches to environmental Analyses and Decision-making Impact Analyses documentation.

National Park Service Tourism DO-17 Promotes and supports sustainable, responsible, informed, and manages visitor use through cooperation and coordination with the tourism industry.

Land Protection DO-25 Articulates the framework for land protection and the process for land acquisition and interests in land within the authorized boundaries of NPS units. The policy includes direction for parks to develop a “Land Protection Plan,” which establishes land acquisition priorities.

November 8, 2010 4 Appendix Table A: Applicable Federal, Commonwealth of Virginia and U.S. Department of the Interior Policies Statutes, Regulations and Policies, Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS

NPS POLICIES AND GUIDANCE REFERENCE PURPOSE (CONTINUED)

Special Park Uses DO-53 Provides supplemental guidance to section 8.6 of NPS Management Policies on permitting special park uses.

Property Leasing DO-38 Provides parks with guidance on leasing lands within the park.

Leasing Regulations (Proposed 36 CFR 18 Amends current NPS regulations concerning the leasing of rule) historic properties within areas of the national park system to encompass additional types of properties as authorized by law and the change in procedures for leasing properties.

2006 NPS Management 8.6.7 Provides guidance to parks on agricultural practices in parks Policies, Ch. 8, Use of the Agricultural and the management and use of domestic or feral livestock. Parks Use; 8.6.8 Recommends development of an Agricultural/Livestock Domestic and Management Plan that ensures the proper management of Feral Livestock livestock and agricultural practices and provides protection to the park’s resources.

Wetlands Protection DO-77-1 Establishes NPS policies, requirements and standards for implementing Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands." Recommends park units obtain a parkwide wetland inventory, based on “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the U.S.,” FWS/OBS-79/31

Storm Water Pollution Clean Water Identifies methods park will use to prevent storm water from Prevention Plan Act coming in contact with potential pollutants, such as oils, fluids, etc., and transporting those pollutants to waterways.

Floodplain Management DO-77-2 Establishes NPS procedures for implementing floodplain protection and management actions in units of the National Procedural Park System as required by Executive Order 11988, Manual 77-2 "Floodplain Management," and Director's Order #77-2, "Floodplain Management."

November 8, 2010 5 Appendix Table A: Applicable Federal, Commonwealth of Virginia and U.S. Department of the Interior Policies Statutes, Regulations and Policies, Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS

NPS POLICIES AND REFERENCE PURPOSE GUIDANCE (CONTINUED)

Cultural Resource DO-28 Addresses the preservation and treatment of archaeological, Management cultural, and historic properties and ethnographic resources.

Cultural Resource Addresses standards and requirements for research, planning, Management Guideline NPS-28 and stewardship of cultural resources, as well as management Release No. 5 of archeological resources, cultural landscapes, historic, and prehistoric structures, museum objects, and ethnographic

Secretary of the Interior’s resources. Standards and Guidelines for 36 CFR 28 Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment 36 CFR 68 of Historic Properties; and Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes NPS-77 Natural Resource To guide the actions of park managers so that natural Management Guidelines resource management activities planned and initiated at field areas comply with Federal laws and regulations, and with Department of the Interior and NPS policy.

Accessibility for Park Visitors DO-42 Ensures that all people have the highest level of accessibility that is reasonable to NPS programs, facilities, and services in conformance with applicable regulations and standards.

Integrated Pest Management Describes the biology and management of 21 species or Manual categories of pests.

Integrated Pest Management Minimizes the use of toxic pesticides and establishes a Plan strategy for the control of invasive species.

Integrated Solid Waste NPS SD 91-1 and Identifies strategies for solid waste management and Management Plan NPS Solid Waste recycling to reduce the generation of solid waste. Management Handbook; Regional Director’s Memo, “Greening the NPS, Northeast Region Sustainability Guidelines,” dated 5/5/98

November 8, 2010 6 Appendix Table A: Applicable Federal, Commonwealth of Virginia and U.S. Department of the Interior Policies Statutes, Regulations and Policies, Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS

NPS POLICIES AND REFERENCE PURPOSE GUIDANCE (CONTINUED)

Non-NPS Roads DO 87A, DO-87D, Sets forth NPS operational policies and procedures for and RM-87D; 23 responding to requests received for use of national park lands U.S.C. 317 for these highway purposes built by a State or other DOT, that are partially or fully funded under Title 23 U.S.C.

Handbook on Departmental Provides guidance in the preparation of departmental Review of Section 4(f) comments on DOT Section 4(f) evaluations. Evaluations

Chesapeake 2000, Directive No. 98-2 NPS agreed to work cooperatively with the participating Chesapeake Bay Agreement states, including Virginia, and other Federal agencies and partners to manage the 64,000-square-mile Chesapeake Bay watershed as a cohesive ecosystem through its 26 park units. Through the 1998 Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan (FACEUP), NPS recommitted to cooperative ecosystem management, watershed protection, living resources and habitat stewardship, nutrient and toxins prevention and reduction and sustainability.

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE REFERENCE PURPOSE ORDERS

Protection and Enhancement Executive Order Provides Federal leadership in protecting and enhancing the of Environmental Quality 11514, as amended quality of the Nation's environment to sustain and enrich by Executive Order human life. 11991

Protection of Wetlands Executive Order Requires Federal agencies to consider all practicable 11990 alternatives to impacting wetlands.

Floodplain Management Executive Order To avoid the long-and short-term adverse impacts associated 11988 with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

Protection and Enhancement Executive Order Protects and enhances the cultural environment. of Cultural Environment 11593

Federal Actions to Address Executive Order To avoid Federal actions that cause disproportionately high Environmental Justice in 12898 and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations Minority Populations and with respect to human health and environment. Low-Income Populations

November 8, 2010 7 Appendix Table A: Applicable Federal, Commonwealth of Virginia and U.S. Department of the Interior Policies Statutes, Regulations and Policies, Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS (CONTINUED) REFERENCE PURPOSE

Greening the Government Executive Order To incorporate waste prevention and recycling in the Federal through Waste 13101 agency's daily operations and work to increase and expand markets Prevention, Recycling, and for recovered materials through greater Federal Government Federal Acquisition preference and demand for such products. It is national policy to prefer pollutio prevention to disposal, whenever feasible.

Invasive Species Executive Order Prevents the introduction of invasive species and provide for 13112 their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.

COMMONWEALTH OF REFERENCE PURPOSE VIRGINIA STATUTES

State Environmental Review Code of Virginia: Provides guidance on the Commonwealth of Virginia's Process (SERP) Title 10.1-1188 (b), environmental review process Chapter 11, Art. 2

County Comprehensive Code of Virginia: Requires all localities to have comprehensive plans showing Planning Title 15.2-2223- the proposed uses for land throughout the locality; sensitive 2224 environmental areas; historical areas; etc.

County Historic District Code of Virginia Authorizes localities to protect historic structures and areas Zoning Title 15.2-2283 through zoning.

Scenic Rivers Act, 1970 Code of Virginia: Protects and preserves certain rivers possessing natural or Title 10.1-409 pastoral beauty. The Appomattox River 100 feet from the base of the Lake Chesdin Dam, to the Route 36 bridge crossing in the City of Petersburg, a distance of approximately 6.2 miles, is a component of the Virginia Scenic Rivers System. This segment of the river is not within the study area.

Agricultural and Forestal Code of Virginia Provides for the creation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts District Act Title 15.2-440 through the voluntary applications of landowners.

Virginia Cultural Resources Code of Virginia: Preserves and protects State cultural, historic, and Title 10.1-2200 archaeological resources.

Historic Register Listing Code of Virginia The Virginia Board of Historic Resources can nominate Title 10.1-2204 historic structures, sites, and districts for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and National Register of Historic Places.

November 8, 2010 8 Appendix Table A: Applicable Federal, Commonwealth of Virginia and U.S. Department of the Interior Policies Statutes, Regulations and Policies, Appomattox Court House GMP/EIS

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATUTES REFERENCE PURPOSE (CONTINUED)

Virginia Antiquities Act Code of Virginia: Identifies, evaluates, preserves, and protects sites and objects Title 10.1, Chapter of antiquity located on State-controlled land that have historic, 23 scientific, archaeological, or educational value.

Virginia Natural Heritage Code of Virginia: Establishes a natural heritage program that identifies Program Title 10.1-212 significant natural resources.

Virginia Flood Damage Code of Virginia: To improve Virginia’s flood protection programs and to Reduction Act of 1989 Title 10.1-602 coordinate the State’s floodplain programs.

Virginia Endangered Plant Code of Virginia: Authorizes the Virginia Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer and Insect Act Sec. 3.1-1020-1030 Services to regulate and protect Virginia's endangered plants and insects.

Virginia Endangered Species Code of Virginia: Regulates endangered or threatened species in Virginia and Act, 1987, as amended Sec. 29.1-564-568, prohibits the taking, transportation, processing, sale or offer Chapter 5, Art. 1 for sale within the Commonwealth, any threatened or endangered species of fish or wildlife.

Scenic Highway and Virginia Code of Virginia: Authorizes the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Byways Act, 1966 Sec. 10, Chapter Dept. of Recreation and Conservation to recognize certain 390 roads for outstanding features.

Sources: Legislative Information System, Code of Virginia, 1999; www.nps.gov; NPS Management Policies 2006; NPS Office of Policy; NPS Chief Historian; and NPS Chief Architect; original date of preparation 2003; reformatted 11 5 2010

November 8, 2010 9 A PPENDIX C: IMPAIRMENT FINDING IMPAIRMENT DETERMINATION Appomattox Court House National Historical Park Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

The Prohibition on Impairment of Park Resources and Values

NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4.4, explains the prohibition on impairment of park resources and values:

While Congress has given the Service the management discretion to allow impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement (generally enforceable by the federal courts) that the Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. This, the cornerstone of the Organic Act, establishes the primary responsibility of the Nation Park Service. It ensures that park resources and values will continue to exist in a condition that will allow the American people to have present and future opportunities for enjoyment of them.

What is Impairment?

NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4.5, What Constitutes Impairment of Park Resources and Values, and Section 1.4.6, What Constitutes Park Resources and Values, provide an explanation of impairment.

Impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible National Park Service manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

The NPS has discretion to allow impacts on Park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a Park (NPS 2006 sec. 1.4.3). However, the NPS cannot allow an adverse impact that would constitute impairment of the affected resources and values (NPS 2006 sec 1.4.3).

Section 1.4.5 of Management Policies 2006 states:

An impact to any park resource or value may, but does not necessarily, constitute impairment. An impact would be more likely to constitute impairment to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose conservation is:

o Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park o Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or o Identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents as being of significance.

An impact would be less likely to constitute an impairment if it is an unavoidable result of an action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity of park resources or values and it cannot be further mitigated.

Per Section 1.4.6 of Management Policies 2006, park resources and values that may be impaired include:

o the park's scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife, and the processes and condition that sustain them, including, to the extent present in the park: the ecological, biological, and physical processes that created the park and continue to act upon it; scenic features; natural visibility, both in daytime and at night; natural landscapes; natural soundscapes an smells; water and air resources; soils; geological resources; paleontological resources; archeological resources; cultural landscapes; ethnographic resources; historic and prehistoric sites, structure, and objects; museum collections; and native plants and animals; o appropriate opportunities to experience enjoyment of the above resources, to the extent that can be done without impairing them; o the park's role in contributing g to the national dignity, the high public value and integrity, and the superlative environmental quality of the national park system, and the benefit and inspiration provided to the American people by the national park system; and o any additional attributes encompassed by the specific values and purposes for which the park was established.

Impairment may result from NPS activities in managing the park, visitor activities, or activities undertaken by concessionaires, contractors, and others operating in the park. Impairment may also result from sources or activities outside the park, but this would not be a violation of the Organic Act unless the NPS was in some way responsible for the action.

How is an Impairment Determination Made?

Section 1.4.7 of Management Policies 2006 states, "[i]n making a determination of whether there would be an impairment, an NPS decision make must use his or her professional judgement. This means that the decision-maker must consider any environmental assessments or environmental impact statements required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); consultations required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); relevant scientifie and scholarly studies; advice or insights offered by subject matter experts and others who have relevant knowledge or experience; and the results of civic engagement and public involvement activities relating to the decision.

Management Policies 2006 further define "professional judgement" as "a decision or opinion that is shaped by study and analysis and full consideration of all the relevant facts, and that takes into account the decision-maker's education, training, and experience; advice or insights offered by subject matter experts and others who have relevant knowledge and experience; good science and scholarship; and, whenever appropriate, the results of civic engagement and public involvement activities relation to the decision

Impairment Determination for the Preferred Alternative

This determination on impairment has been prepared for the preferred alternative described on pages 54- 59 of this GMP/EIS. An impairment determination is made for all resource impact topics analyzed for the preferred alternative. An impairment determination is not made for visitor use and experience, socioeconomics, and park operations because impairment findings relate back to park resources and values, and these impact areas are not generally considered to be park resources or values according to the Organic Act, and cannot be impaired in the same way that an action can impair park resources and values.

The NPS has determined that implementation of the selected alternative will not result in impairment of park resources and values at Appomattox Court House NHP. In reaching this determination, the GMP/EIS was reviewed to reaffirm the park’s purpose and significance, fundamental and important resources and values, and the identified management goals and desired future conditions. Based on a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts described in the GMP/EIS and the application of the

provisions of the NPS Management Policies 2006, the NPS concluded that the implementation of the selected alternative will not result in impairment of any of the resources and values of Appomattox Court House NHP.

A PPENDIX D: TROOP MOVEMENT C HRONOLOGY The Generalized Chronology of Troop Movements of April 8 and 9, 1865 at Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park

October 2003

A PPENDIX E: VILLAGE STRUCTURES Village Structures – dates of original construction and type of treatment received

Original Reconstruction Restoration Square Structures Construction Date Date Footage Date Clover Hill Tavern 1819 1954 2,772 Conner Cabin 1860-65 1986-87 608 Courthouse 1846 1963-64 4000 County well 1848 1965 80 Isbell House 1848-49 1948-49 4752 Isbell kitchen 1849 1948 800 Isbell smokehouse 1849 1948 288 Isbell stable 1849 1964 1008 Jail c.1860-70 1959, 1963-65, 2400 1983 Jones Law House c.1855 1959 1134 Jones well house c.1855 1963 64 Mariah Wright House c.1823 1964-65 2160 McLean House 1848 1948 4910 McLean icehouse c.1848 1964 256 McLean kitchen c.1848 1964 1320 McLean slave c.1848 1964 896 quarters McLean privy c.1848 1968 McLean well house 1848 1949 90 Meek’s privy c.1856 1968 Meek’s stable c.1860 1949 1200 Meek’s storeroom c.1856 1959 224 Peers House 1855 1954 048 Plunkett-Meeks store 1850 1959 2160 Charles Sweeney 1830-40 1987-88 756 Cabin Sweeney Prizery 1790-1799 1959, 1978-79² 924 Tavern guesthouse 1819 1959 1320 Tavern privy c.1820 1968 Tavern kitchen 1819 1958 960 Tavern slave quarters c.1820 1954 513 Woodson law office 1851-56 1959, 1985 216 O’Brien House 1500 Mathews House 5687 Moon House 5772 ¹Preserved. ²Stabilized. Sources: National Park Service, Jan. 1995. Statement for Management, Appomattox Court House National Historical Park and The Village of Appomattox Court House, Virginia, http://www.nps.gov/apco/bldings.htm, 28 March 2000. African American Heritage Trail Sites within the broader study area, 2003

County/Municipality Historic African American Sites Location Amherst Rose Chapel Baptist Church Madison Heights  Appomattox Court House NHP Appomattox Appomattox  Galilee Baptist Church Appomattox  Buckingham Training School Commemoration Dillwyn Buckingham  Stanton Family Cemetery Diana Mills Campbell Avoca Altavista Nelson Mt. Woodland Baptist Church Greenfield Prince Edward Twin Lakes State Park Green Bay  8th Street Baptist Church  Anne Spencer Home & Garden  Court Street Baptist Church  Greater Lynchburg Convention & Visitor Bureau  Legacy Museum for African-American History  Lynchburg Museum  Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Human Rights City of Lynchburg  Old City Cemetery Lynchburg Town of Farmville The Robert Russa Moton Museum Farmville Source: African American Heritage in Virginia and Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, http://www.virginia.edu/vfh/aahv/trails.html

A PPENDIX F: RELEVANT C ORRESPONDENCE W. Tayloe Murphy. Jr. Joseph H. Maroon s.a.tmyofN'­ [);recto< &'0""'" COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 203 Governor Street. Suite 326 TDD (804) 786-2121 Richmond. Virginia 23219-2010 (804) 786-2556 FAX (804) 371-7899

February 24, 2004 Mr. Reed Johnson, Superintendent Appomattox Court House National Historic Park waz ; Z 83:1 Post Office Box 218 Appomattox,4...;.{ Virgil]ia 24522 ~ §lU\U§l©§l n Dear Supen Clndcnt Jelmson: Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) staffhave reviewed the information set forth in your P1anning Newsletter 2 concerning the General Management Plan for the Appomattox Court House National Historic Park. We believe that the process to date bas been very successful in identifYing the park purpose and significance. We also support the interpretive themes as developed. And, the initial management concept seems to adequately address a reasonable range of alternatives. We would like to provide you with some new infonnation to include in your planning considerations for this park. Norfolk Southern Railroad is planning to abandon the rail line from Pamplin City to Burkeville. This includes the Higb Bridge BaIIlefield at the crossing of the Appomattox River. They plan to donate the corridor to the Commonwealth as an addition to the Virginia State Parks system. It would be of further benefit if we were able to connect Saylers Creek Battlefield State Park with the rail corridor and then connect the rail corridor from Pamplin City througb Holiday Lake State Park, the state fores~ and on to the National Historic Park at the Court House. This would provide an alternative route for visitors who might travel by bicycle in following the Route of Lee's Retreat. You may want to incorpomte this concept into your planning process.

Thank you for including us on your mailing list for this project. We look forward to reviewing the alternatives. Sincerely, A"~ ~ ~ Davy, Division Director Planning and Recreation Resources cc: Joseph H. Maroon Joe Elton, Division Director, State Parks Robert S. Munson, Environmental Program Manager

An Agency ofthe Natural Resources Secretariat P. O. BOX7Q5 MAYOR LINDEN $TREET R. C. SPIGGLE J.?POMATTOX, VA 24522 COUNCIL MEMBERS: PHONE: (434) 352-8268 JOYCE BENNETI FAX: (434) 352-2126 W. H. (BUDDY) CARSON E-MAIL: [email protected] STEVEN E. LAWSON N. H. (JIMMY) MAYBERRY TOWN MANAGER C. LEWIS MCDEARMON, JR. DAVID T. GARRen, JR. MARVIN H. MITCHELL CLERK OF COUNCIL ROXANNE W. PAULEnE

April 14, 2004

Mr. Reed Johnson Superintendent, Appomattox Court House National Pari< P.O.Box218 Appomattox, Va 24522

Dear Mr. Johnson:

At the Town Council meeting held on April 12, 2004 Town Council by unanimous consent respectfully request that Appomattox Court House National Park incorporate the Jamerson site, behind the old Elementary School, between Business Route 460 and Route 24 into its Master Management Plan.

As you know the Town and County are jointly interested in promoting tourism in Appomattox and we are always looking for ways to lengthen the stay for visitor's to Appomattox. The old elementary school site· lends itself to many uses in conjunction with the Jamerson property. This property we feel would provide an opportunity to broaden the strong of Appomattox. The Town very much looks forward to working with you and the Park Service to establish this site for interpretation of the final conflict in Appomattox.

Thank you for all that you do and I look forward to continued support from you.

n re1y, i-..1\~-e.. C . Ronald C. Spiggle Mayor

RCS/rwp

cc: Carol Cook, National Park Service Sandy Rives, National Park Service Congressman Virgil Goode Samuel E. Carter, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Anne H. Di.xon, Director of Tourism APPOMATTOX COUNTY SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE (434) 352-2637 APPOMATTOX RIVER DISTRICT FAX: (434) 352-4214 WILLIAM H. CRAFT E-MAIL: [email protected]

COURTHOUSE DISTRICT SAMUEL E. CARTER

FALLING RIVER DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THOMAS H. CONRAD P. O. Box 863 PINEY MOUNTAIN DISTRICT RUSSELL H. MOORE Appomattox, Virginia 24522

WRECK ISLAND DISTRICT SHAWN A. ARMBRUST

April 25, 2004

Ms. Carol Cook, Outdoor Recreation Planner Park Planning and Special Studies Division Mid-Atlantic Region - National Park Service U. S. Customs House 200 Chestnut Street, 3'" Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106

Dear Ms. Cook:

At their meeting on April 19, 2004, the Appomattox County Board of Supervisors made a motion requesting that the National Park Service Include the newly discovered Jamerson Battleground Site in their master plan. The Board feels that this site is very important to the hiStory of Appomattox County and the Qvil War.

If you need further information please feel free to contract me.

Sincerely,

Aileen T. Ferguson County Administrator "~) I:; «('! ,,;; , ': I ,~ --, 'U! 5 ~ 1= i.! oJ -:. I " , , " • j Ilr~1 JAN 3 1 2006 "; It):t -~ ~ ,~ , 1-___-1, .=lJ

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA W. Tayloe: Murphy. Jr. Department of Historic Resources Kathleen S. Kilpatrick Secretary of Natural Resources. Director 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Tel: (804) 361·2323 Fu; (804)367-2391 roO: (804) 367-2386 www.dhr.virginia.gov

June 17, 2005

Reed Johnson, Superintendent United States Department of the Interior National Pari< Service Appomattox Court House National Historic Park Post Office Box 218 Appomattox, Virginia 24522-{)218

Re: Appomattox Court House National Historic Park GeneraI Management PIanIEIS Project Siting of the Mainlenance Facility Appomattox County, Vn-ginia DHR File Number 2001-0856

Dear Mr. Johnson:

As a fonow up to our meeting on May 20, 2005 we are providing our comments on the four draft alternatives discussed on site in connection with development of the General Management Plan.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 each take a slightly different approach to interpretation and physical management of the park and each has its merits. We are equaUy sure that Park staff wou1d do an exemplary job of implementing anyone of the alternatives. Based on our discussions, however, it appears to us that Alternative 2, April 1865- A Regional Partnership, offers the greatest opportunity to fulfill the Park's mission of interpretation and make optimwn use of the unique character of the site.

Relocation of the Park Maintenance Facility_We fully agree that the location of the current maintenance facility detracts from the visitor's experience. On site inspection of possible locations for a new maintenance facility included one area on the western edge of the Park where the Pari< boundary intersects with County Road 656, the area south and east of the current mJlintenance facility, and the area to the east of the current Matthews in-hOlding. AdminislI'ativc Services Capital Region Office Tidewater Region Office Roanoke Region Office Winchester Region Office 10 Courthouse Avenue 2801 KensingtonAve. 14415 Old Counhouse Way. 2"" Floor 1030 Penrnar Ave., SE 107 N. Kent SIfect, Suite 203 Petersburg. VA 23803 Richmond, VA 23221 Newpon News. VA 23608 Roanoke. VA24013 Winchester. VA 22601 Tel: (804) 863-1624 Tel: (804) 367-2323 Tel: (757) 886_2807 Tel: (540) 857-7585 Tel; (540) 722-3427 Fax: (804) 862-6196 fax:: (804) 367-2391 Fu; (757) 886-2808 Fax: (540) 857-7588 Fax: (540) 722-7535 Locating the maintenance facility outside the park would seem to be problematic from a managemeIU and safety standpoint and seems to offer very limited advantages. Both of the in-park options may be workable. Construction of a new maintenance facility south and east of the current maintenance facility is possible and would be less intrusive than at present. 'The topography is such that the facility would not be visible from either the Stage Road near the Peer House or from the wayside exhibit area. The topography, however, would also require careful design with some recontouring of the hillside and likely creation of a BMP for drainage. Archaeological survey would be needed to address potential impacts to presently unidentified features associated with the Peers House.

The preferred location from many perspectives is the site on Gordon Road north of the old Matthews House and next to the new Matthews House and in-holding. 'This area appears to be adequately screened from the historic zone as it slopes away from the village area. In addition there appears to be ample space for plantings to create additional vegetative buffer. This location also has the least potentia! to affect archaeological resources. Moreover, it has the advantage of proximity to the Matlhews House that may be reused as an administrative facility.

Adaptive Reuse of the Matthews House. Based on our on site inspection, it appears that the Matthews House could very effectively be converted to an administrative building. 'This area is screened from the historic zone. In addition the existing garage could be converted to a collections storage facility. Its proximity to the administrative building would provide a greater level of security than at preseIU. 'The minor landscaping and grade changes tbat may be needed to improve access bave little potentia! to affect archaeological resources.

Bookstore. We also fully support your efforts to remove the bookstore from its location in an historic building allowing that building to be more productively utilized in interpretation.

We appreciate your invitation to visit the Park as part of at an early planning stage of the General Management Plan and the time you, your staff, and Carol Cook speIU to explain the Alternatives currendy under consideration. We look forward to further consultation as planning efforts continue.

If you have any questions concerning our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 367-2323, ext. 112; fax (804) 367-2391; e-mail [email protected] or Kristin Hill at ext. 111; e-mail [email protected].

Sincerely, ~~Manager Office of Review and Compliance c. Carol Cook, Community Planner, Northeast Region United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061

Date: July 27, 2006

Project name: Ai'f"""'ftox c...,J Hou.se. NHf C;;

.L We have reviewed the information you have provided and believe that the proposed action will not adversely affect federally listed species or federally designated critical habitat because no federally listed species are lmown to occur in the project area. Should project plans change or if additional infonnation on listed and proposed species becomes available, this detennination may be reconsidered.

__ We recommend that you contact both of the following State agencies for site specific infonnation on listed species in Virginia. Each agency maintains a different database and has differing expertise and/or regulatory responsibility:

Virginia Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation Environmental Services Section Division of Natural Heritage P.O. Box 11104 217 Governor Street, 2nd Floor Richmond, VA 23230 Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 367-1000 (804) 786-7951

If either agency indicates a federally listed species is present, please resubmit your project description with letters from both agencies attached.

__ If appropriate habitat may be present, we recommend surveys within appropriate habitat by a qualified surveyor. Enclosed are county lists with fact sheets that contain information the species' habitat requirements and lists of qualified surveyors. If this project involves a Federal agency (Federal pennit, funding, or land), we encourage the Federal agency to contact this office if appropriate habitat is present and if they determine their proposed action may affect federally listed species or critical habitat.

__ Determinations of the presence of waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the need for permits are made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They may be contacted at: Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, 803 Front Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, telephone (757) 441-7652.

Our website http://virginiafieldoffice.fws.govcontainsmanyresourcesthatmay assist with project reviews. Point of contact is Eric. PQyis. at (804) 693-6694, ext. lO,",

Sincerely,

Karen L. Mayne Supervisor Virginia Field Office