Draft General Management Plan, Development Concept Plans, Environmental Impact Statement: Stones River National Battlefield, Tennessee

176 Pages·1997·10.4 MB·English

by  National Park Service

29.79/3: ST 7
[ ^^'
•'
lii-.K
National Battlefield • Tennessee
:«.*
Draft General Management Plan
Development Concept Plan • Environmental Impact Statement
FEDERAL
UBLICATIOlir'
,
Printedon recycledpaper
Draft
General Management Plan
Development Concept Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
STONES RIVER
National Battlefield
Rutherford County, Tennessee
This Draft General Management Plan /Development Concept Plan /Environmental Impact Statement
describes three alternatives for cultural and natural resource management, visitor use and interpretation,
and related facility development in Stones River National Battlefield. Alternative 1 (the National Park
Service's proposed action) would improve interpretation and the ability ofthe visitor to experience a
"sense ofplace" within the battlefield; and it would also preserve a larger area ofthe battlefield that has
retained historic landscape integrity. This would be accomplished by protection ofmore resources through
boundary expansion, new exhibits in the visitor center, establishment ofa new automobile tour route
within the expanded park boundary, and new interpretive wayside exhibits. Alternative 2 would improve
interpretation and the visitor experience within the authorized boundary of the park. This would be
accomplished by providing new exhibits in the visitor center, establishing a new automobile tour route
within the park, and providing new wayside exhibits. Alternative 3 (continuation ofexisting conditions)
would represent no significant change in interpretation and the way the park is being managed and no
change in the authorized park boundary. Under all alternatives, there would be an emphasis on working
with local agencies, groups, and landowners to preserve dnd protect lands that retain historic landscape
integrity within the original battlefield, but outside the park boundary. Environmental impacts that would
result from implementation of the alternatives are addressed in the document. Impact topics include
cultural and natural resources, interpretation and visitor use, socioeconomic environment, and NPS
operations.
Comments on this document should be sentto:
Superintendent
Stones RiverNational Battlefield PUBLIC DOCUS/JeKiT^
3501 Old Nashville Highway DEPOSjtorv'itej^
.
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37129
J JLIL16I997
(
E-mail: [email protected]
fRRAPV
t
United States Department ofthe Interior•National Park Service
General Braxton Bragg,
Commanding, Confederate
States, Army of Tennessee
Major General
William S. Rosecrans,
Commanding, United States,
Army of the Cumberland
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Throughoutthe document, adistinction is made betweenthe original battlefield
and Stones RiverNational Battlefield (the park).
—
Original Battlefield General areaoverwhich the Battle of
Stones Rivertookplace from December 31,1862, to January 2,
1863 =4,000 acres.
—
Stones RiverNational Battlefield (The Park) Land within
the currently authorized boundary = 709 acres (includingNational
Park Service land-approximately 500 acres at the time ofthis
writing; city and county land-approximately 12 acres; and
privately owned land-approximately 197 acres). A total of35
acres ofthe park, includingLunette Palmer, Lunette Thomas, and
Curtain WallNo. 2 ofFortress Rosecrans (26 acres), and Redoubt
Brannan ofFortress Rosecrans (9 acres) lie outside theoriginal
battlefield. Thus, 674 acres, or 17%, ofthe original battlefield are
withinthe authorized boundaryofthe park.
IV
SUMMARY
This Draft General Management Plan / Development Concept Plan / Environmental Impact
Statement for Stones RiverNational Battlefield comes at a critical time in the park's history. The
park is located in Rutherford County, one ofthe fastest growing counties in the country. Large
sections of the original battlefield have already been developed and are being planned for
development as residential, commercial, or industrial properties. At the same time, the state of
Tennessee and local communities are attempting to increase tourism and reap the associated
benefits. As part ofthis effort, important strides are being made to interpret Civil War resources
on a regional basis. The National Park Service has been a partner in this endeavor and seeks to
continue in this role.
Although recent legislation has modestly expanded the national battlefield's boundaries, the
National Park Service is attempting to tell the story ofthe battle upon only 674 acres, or 17%,
ofthe original battlefield of4,000 acres. Through the planning process, additional outstanding
resources with historic integrity have been identified, primarily on lands south ofManson Pike
(historic Wilkinson Pike), which significantly relate to the battlefield's story.
This document includes a vision and management objectives for the park. Two alternatives for
A
achieving these are described, along with their environmental consequences. no-
action/continuation ofexisting conditions alternative is also addressed.
Alternative 1. The emphasis ofalternative 1, the National Park Service's proposal, is two-fold:
(1) to preserve a larger area ofthe original battlefield, and (2) to improve interpretation and the
ability ofthe visitor to experience a "sense ofplace" within the battlefield. The park boundary
would be expanded to include atotal of 1,468 acres, more than doubling the size ofthe park. To
the greatest extent possible, the landscape would be maintained to approximate an 1860s era
appearance. Visitors would come into contact with a larger portion of the battlefield, which
would enhance understanding and appreciation ofthe battle and its consequences.
Alternative 2. The emphasis of alternative 2 is to improve interpretation and the visitor
experience within the currently authorized boundary of the park. The landscape would be
maintained to approximate an 1860s era appearance. The visitor experience would be improved
by providing new interpretive media in the visitor center and by establishing a new automobile
tour route within the park.
Alternative 3. The emphasis ofalternative 3 would be to continue with the current management
direction. There would be no significant change in interpretation and the way the park is being
managed and no change in the authorized park boundary. Some necessary actions would be
undertaken to help improve the battlefield's interpretation and links to the community.
In all alternatives, park staffwould continue to work with the local community to achieve park
management objectives.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS IVIembers and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/draftgeneralniana97stones
9 39 1 1 1 1
CONTENTS
Purpose ofand Need for the Plan
Introduction 3
Park Location and Access 3
Battle ofStones River 3
Legislative Background 3
Purpose and Need 4
Park Purpose and National Significance 1
Vision forthe Park 1
Management Objectives 12
Interpretation 12
Cultural Landscape 12
Adjacent Lands 12
Interpretive Themes 1
Planning Issues and Concerns 15
Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Alternative 1: Proposed Action 19
Concept 19
Land Protection 1
General
1
Proposed Additions 20
Protection Study Areas 23
Remaining Battlefield 24
Cultural Resource Management 25
Natural Resource Management 25
Interpretation and Visitor Use 25
Summary ofVisitor Experience 26
Directional Signs, Orientation Panels, and Wayside Exhibits 26
Visitor Center 26
Auto Tour Route with Wayside Exhibits 29
National Cemetery 30
Other InterpretiveA^isitor Services 30
Visitor Facility Development 3
General 31
Auto Tour Route and Associated Trail 3
McFadden Farm 32
VisitorCenter Trail 35
Other Sites 35
Management Zoning 35
Coordination and Cooperation with Community 36
Carrying Capacity 39
Park Operations and Staffing 40
Estimated Development Costs 41
Vll
CONTENTS
Alternative 2 42
Concept 42
Land Protection 42
Cultural Resource Management 42
Natural Resource Management 42
Interpretation and Visitor Use 42
Summary ofVisitor Experience 42
Directional Signs, Orientation Panels, and Wayside Exhibits 42
VisitorCenter 42
Auto Tour Route with Wayside Exhibits 43
National Cemetery 43
Other InterpretiveA^isitor Services 44
Visitor Facility Development 44
General 44
Auto Tour Route and Associated Trail 44
McFadden Farm 44
Visitor Center Trail 44
Other Sites 44
Management Zoning 47
Coordination and Cooperation with Community 47
Carrying Capacity 47
Park Operations and Staffing 47
Estimated Development Costs 47
Alternative 3: Continuation ofExisting Conditions 48
Concept 48
Land Protection 48
Cultural Resource Management 48
Natural Resource Management 48
Interpretation and Visitor Use 48
Summary ofVisitor Experience 48
Directional Signs, Orientation Panels, and Wayside Exhibits 48
Visitor Center 48
Auto Tour Route with Wayside Exhibits 48
National Cemetery 49
Other Interpretive/Visitor Services 49
Visitor Facility Development 49
General 49
Auto Tour Route 49
McFadden Farm 50
Visitor Center Trail 50
Management Zoning 50
Coordination and Cooperation with Community 50
Carrying Capacity 50
Park Operations and Staffing 50
Estimated Development Costs 50
Mitigation Measures for All Alternatives 53
vni