1 29.79/3: F 77 L/DRAFT ClemsonUniversr 3 1604 019 774 571 Draft General Management Plan Amendment Development Concept Plan Environmental Assessment FORT LARNED National Historic Site • Kansas ijKSSffiff 25 199* JUL CLEMSON ® Printed on Recycled Paper Draft General Management Plan Amendment Development Concept Plan Environmental Assessment June 1994 FORT LARNED National Historic Site • Kansas United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Denver Service Center Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/draftfortlarnedOOnati SUMMARY This Draft General Management Plan Amendment, Development Concept Plan, and Environmental Assessment is intended to guide the management of Fort Lamed National Historic Site forthe nextdecade. Itseeks to enable park management to fulfill the intent of the enabling legislation, which is to commemorate the significant role played by Fort Lamed in the opening ofthewest. Thisdocumentpresentsfivealternatives, including ano-action alternative (alternative one) that serves as a basis for comparison, and a preferred alternative selected by the regional director. All alternatives expand the Santa Fe Trail cultural theme in the interpretive programs, and none provide park housing on site. Alternativetwowould adaptively use historicstructures (HS). No majorconstructionwouldtake place, but the maintenance building would be expanded and a new maintenance storage facility would be provided. Administration and visitor services would be separated, with administration movedtoofficer'squarters HS-9 andvisitorservices expanded in barracks HS- 1. No modern intrusions would be removed from the historic core area. Land use patterns would be unchanged and no changes would be made in management zoning. In alternative three, all the historic structures would be restored. The visitor center, administration, operations, and curation facilities would be moved out of the historic core to a new visitor center/administration building. A new entrance road would be built. Interpretation would be expanded to increase the understanding of the relationships between the fort, the Santa Fe Trail, the native inhabitants, and the environment. Signs would be improved. There wouldbe ^ery little adaptive reuse ofhistoricstructures. The maintenancebuilding and storage yard would be expanded. All modern intrusions (such as bridges, irrigation ditches, and parking) would be removed if possible. Overhead utilities would be buried. The integrity and authenticityofthe park'ssurviving historic resourceswould be emphasized. Some disturbance to vegetation would be expected. Management zoning would be modified to implement this alternative. Alternative fourwould restore all existing historicstructures and reconstruct those structures which are keyto the interpretive mission ofthe park. Modern uses of historic structureswould be terminated and those functions removed from the historic core area. A new visitor center/administration building would be constructed outside the historic core area. A new, largermaintenance areawould be constructed; itwould includespaceforall existingfunctions plus heated paintstorage, vehiclestorage, and increasedworkspace. Astoragefacilitywould also be constructed to house maintenance materials and equipment. The new maintenance area would also include a new water treatment facility and distribution system, a new fuel storage facility, and a new access road. The preferred alternative takesthe provisionsofalternative three intact, and addsto them only the reconstructions proposed under alternative four. Impacts of alternative two include some permanent soil and vegetation disturbance, but restored areas would result in a net gain of vegetation and wildlife habitat. Cultural resources would be largely unaffected beyond providing enhanced accessibility, continuing the restoration of historic structures, and the removal or screening of visual intrusions. in SUMMARY Alternative threewould have positive impacts on thewetland atthe bridge removal site. There would be short term impacts to soils and vegetation during construction, but there would be a netgain in vegetation andwildlife habitatdue to restoration in otherareas ofthe historicsite. Visitor experience would be improved by the removal of on site intrusions, increased accessibility, and the restoration of all historic structures to the historic period. Alternative four would have the same positive impacts as alternative three. The preferred alternative would also have the same positive impacts as alternative three, since it is essentially a combination of three and four. Tables and maps are included, and appendixes include a site selection analysis and design guidelines. IV CONTENTS Introduction 1 Purpose of and Need for the Plan 1 Purpose 1 Background 1 Significance 1 Issues 2 Management Objectives 5 Alternatives 6 The Preferred Alternative 8 Alternative One: No Action 9 General 9 Land Use and Management 9 Existing Land Use 9 Management Zoning 9 Resources Management 9 Natural Resources 10 Cultural Resources 10 Visitor Use 10 Access, Circulation, and Parking 10 Information and Orientation 13 Interpretation and Visitor Experience 13 Visitor Services 13 Recreational Activities 14 Visitor Capacity 14 Visitor Facilities to be Retained or Expanded 14 Visitor Facilities to be Removed or Restricted 14 Park Operations 14 General Development 14 Boundary Adjustments and Land Protection 15 Plan Implementation 15 Alternative Two: Modern Uses of Existing Historic Structures 16 General 16 Land Use and Management 16 Existing Land Use 16 Management Zoning 16 Resources Management 16 Natural Resources 16 Cultural Resources 17 Visitor Use 17 Access, Circulation, and Parking 17 Information and Orientation 17 Interpretation and Visitor Experience 17 CONTENTS Recreational Activities 18 Visitor Services 18 Visitor Capacity 19 Visitor Facilities to be Retained or Expanded 19 Visitor Facilities to be Removed or Restricted 19 Park Operations 19 General Development 19 Visitor Center 20 Administration and Headquarters 20 Maintenance 20 Vehicle Access, Circulation, and Parking 21 Pedestrian Circulation 21 Building Restoration 21 Utilities 21 Site Work 21 Accessibility 22 Modern Uses Of Historic Structures 23 Boundary Adjustments and Land Protection 23 Plan Implementation 23 Legislative Actions Required to Permit the Action to Occur 23 Additional Studies Required 23 Phasing 24 Operating Costs 24 Alternative Three: Restore Existing Historic Structures 33 General 33 Land Use and Management 33 Existing Land Use 33 Management Zoning 33 Resources Management 35 Natural Resources 35 Cultural Resources 35 Visitor Use 35 Access, Circulation, and Parking 35 Interpretation and Visitor Experience 36 Recreational and Cultural Activities 36 Visitor Services 36 Visitor Capacity 36 Visitor Facilities to be Retained or Expanded 36 Visitor Facilities to be Removed or Restricted 37 Park Operations 37 General Development 37 Visitor Center 37 Administration and Headquarters 38 Maintenance 38 Vehicular Access, Circulation, and Parking 38 Pedestrian Circulation 39 Building Restoration 39 Utilities 40 VI Contents Removals 40 Site Work 40 Accessibility 41 Modern Uses Of Historic Structures 41 Boundary Adjustments and Land Protection 41 Plan Implementation 41 Legislative Actions Required To Permit Action To Occur 41 Additional Studies Required 41 Phasing 42 Operating Costs 42 Alternative Four: Reconstruct Key Structures and Restore Existing Historic Structures 48 General 48 Land Use and Management 48 Existing Land Use 48 Management Zoning 48 Resources Management 48 Natural Resources 48 Cultural Resources 48 Visitor Use 48 Access, Circulation, and Parking 48 Interpretation and Visitor Experience 49 Recreational and Cultural Activities 49 Visitor Services 49 Visitor Capacity 49 Visitor Facilities to be Retained or Expanded 49 Visitor Facilities to be Removed or Restricted 49 Park Operations 49 General Development 49 Visitor Center 50 Administration and Headquarters 50 Maintenance 50 Vehicle Access, Circulation, and Parking 50 Pedestrian Circulation 50 Building Restoration and Reconstruction 51 Utilities 52 Removals 52 Site Work 53 Accessibility 53 Modern Uses of Historic Structures 53 Boundary Adjustments and Land Protection 53 Plan Implementation 53 Legislative Actions Required To Permit Action To Occur 53 Additional Studies Required 53 Phasing 53 Operating Costs 53 VII CONTENTS The Affected Environment 63 Natural Resources 63 Physical Setting 63 Floodplains 63 Wetlands 64 Soils 64 Prime and Unique Farmlands 64 Climate 65 Vegetation 65 Wildlife 66 Threatened and Endangered Species 66 Air Quality 67 Water Quality and Resources 67 Cultural Resources 68 Historic Background 68 Historic Appearance 69 Existing Historic Structures 71 Historic Structures No Longer Existing and Other Historic Structures and Features 74 Santa Fe Trail Ruts Area 74 Visitor Use Data 74 Visitor Use Statistics and Analysis 74 Projections of Potential Demand 78 Santa Fe National Historic Trail 79 Regional Land Use and Regional Visitor Facilities and Services 81 Land Use 81 Visitor Facilities and Services 81 Regional Recreational Resources 82 Socioeconomic Environment 82 Population 83 Economy 83 Transportation/Access 84 Environmental Consequences 85 Alternative One: No Action 85 Impacts on Natural Resources 85 Impacts on Cultural Resources 85 Impacts on Visitor Use 86 Socioeconomic Impacts 86 Alternative Two: Modern Use of Existing Historic Structures 86 Impacts on Natural Resources 86 Impacts on Cultural Resources 88 Impacts on Visitor Use 89 Socioeconomic Impacts 89 Alternative Three: Restore Existing Historic Structures 89 Cumulative Impacts 89 Impacts on Natural Resources 90 Impacts on Cultural Resources 92 Impacts on Visitor Use 92 VIII