-
FLIGHT 93NATIONAL MEMORIAL
Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
National Park Service
June 2007
National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior
Flight 93 National MemorialSomerset, Pennsylvania
A F I E L D O F H O N O R F O R E V E R
National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior
Flight 93 National MemorialSomerset, PA flight 93
-
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321-4347) establishes policy, sets goals (section 101),
andprovides means (section 102) for carrying out that policy.
Section 102(2)(C) contains action-forcing provisions to ensurethat
Federal agencies act according to the letter and spirit of the Act.
These provisions require that Federal agencies giveenvironmental
factors appropriate consideration and weight in decisionmaking.
Through a systematic andinterdisciplinary approach, Federal
agencies shall prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) of
the proposed action,assess adverse environmental effects of the
action, evaluate alternatives to the action, consider the
relationship betweenlocal short-term uses and maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, and identify any
irreversible andirretrievable commitments of resources should the
action be implemented.
-
A common field one day.
A field of honor forever.
May all who visit this place remember the collective acts
of courage and sacrifice of the passengers and crew,
revere this hallowed ground as the final resting place of
those heroes, and reflect on the power of individuals
who choose to make a difference.
The quote above is from Captain Stephen Ruda, Los Angeles City
Fire Department,used to describe the Flight 93 crash site. Ruda
wrote the words on a quilted wall hanging
sent to the memorial as a tribute to the passengers and crew of
Flight 93.
-
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
On Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001, the United States came
under attack when four commercial airliners departing fromairports
on the East Coast were hijacked and used to strike targets on the
ground. During the events that ensued, 2,973 peopletragically lost
their lives as a result of these planned, hostile attacks on this
country. Within one hour, two airliners, AmericanAirlines Flight
11, carrying 92 passengers and crew members, and United Airlines
Flight 175, carrying 65 passengers and crew,departed Bostons Logan
International Airport and were flown into the north and south
towers of the World Trade Center inNew York City, killing a total
of 2,635 people. A third airliner, American Airlines Flight 77,
departed Dulles International Airportnear Washington, D.C., struck
the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, killing 64 passengers and crew
on board and 125 people inthe building.
At 8:42 a.m., after a delayed departure, a fourth airliner,
United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 carrying 33 passengers,
seven crewmembers and four hijackers departed Newark International
Airport in New Jersey en route to San Francisco,
California.Approximately 45 minutes into the flight, the plane
changed course near Cleveland, Ohio, and was redirected southeast
towardWashington, D.C. After action was taken by the passengers and
crew members to overtake the hijackers, Flight 93 crashed a
fewminutes after 10:00 a.m. into a reclaimed coal strip mine near
the town of Shanksville in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
Allpersons on board were killed and an attack on the nations
capital was thwarted.1
1 In November 2002, Congress established the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11
Commission. In July 2004, theThe 9/11 Commission Report was
published. The report states, We are sure that the nation owes a
debt to the passengers of United Flight 93. Their actions saved
thelives of countless others, and may have saved either the U.S.
Capitol or the White House from destruction.
-
Passengers and Crewof United Airlines Flight 93
September 11, 2001
Flight 93 Crew Members
Captain Jason M. Dahl Littleton, COFirst Officer LeRoy Homer
Marlton, NJLorraine G. Bay, Flight Attendant East Windsor, NJSandra
Bradshaw, Flight Attendant Greensboro, NCWanda Anita Green, Flight
Attendant Oakland, CA/Linden, NJCeeCee Lyles, Flight Attendant Fort
Pierce, FLDeborah Welsh, Flight Attendant New York City, NY
Passengers
Christian Adams Biebelsheim, Rheinland-Pfalz, GermanyTodd Beamer
Cranbury, NJAlan Anthony Beaven Oakland, CAMark Bingham San
Francisco, CADeora Frances Bodley San Diego, CAMarion R. Britton
Brooklyn, NYThomas E. Burnett, Jr. Bloomington, MNWilliam Joseph
Cashman West New York, NJGeorgine Rose Corrigan Honolulu,
HIPatricia Cushing Bayonne, NJJoseph DeLuca Succasunna, NJPatrick
Joseph Driscoll Manalapan, NJEdward P. Felt Matawan, NJJane Folger
Bayonne, NJColleen Fraser Elizabeth, NJAndrew Garcia Portola
Valley, CAJeremy Glick Hewitt, NJLauren Catuzzi Grandcolas San
Rafael, CADonald Freeman Greene Greenwich, CTLinda Gronlund
Greenwood Lake, NYKristin White Gould New York City, NYRichard
Guadagno Eureka, CA/Trenton, NJToshiya Kuge Osaka, JapanHilda
Marcin Mount Olive, NJWaleska Martinez Jersey City, NJNicole Carol
Miller San Jose, CALouis J. Nacke, II New Hope, PADonald Peterson
Spring Lake, NJJean Hoadley Peterson Spring Lake, NJMark Rothenberg
Scotch Plains, NJChristine Snyder Kailua, HIJohn Talignani Staten
Island, NYHonor Elizabeth Wainio Baltimore, MD
-
The lives of all Americans were changed foreveron September 11,
2001. While the nationmourned the loss of life on that day, the
selflessact of the passengers and crew of Flight 93evoked respect
and appreciation from peoplearound the world. In the days and weeks
follow-ing the tragedy, the nation experienced a rekin-dled sense
of unity, strength, and resolve.Actions of the terrorists, intended
to divide anddemoralize the nation, had the opposite effect,and the
crash of Flight 93 became a symbol ofcourage. The site of the crash
became a place ofimpromptu gathering where the public memori-alized
and commemorated these events whilethey struggled to comprehend
their meaning.
Following an exhaustive field investigation andrecovery effort
during the autumn of 2001 bynumerous Federal, State and local
officials, thecrash site was reclaimed. The crater was back-filled
and the area was planted with grass andwildflowers. At the same
time, county andregional leaders, members of the local commu-nity,
the families of the passengers and crew ofFlight 93, and
representatives from the NationalPark Service began to realize the
importance ofthe crash site as a place of honor and of the needto
preserve and protect it. Within six months ofthe tragic event,
federal legislation was intro-duced to create a national memorial.
Congressacted quickly to approve legislation creating theFlight 93
National Memorial.
This plan is an outgrowth of that legislation andits completion
is an important step in makingthe memorial a reality. It proposes a
designedmemorial landscape that is quiet in reverence,yet powerful
in form. It serves as a guide fordevelopment and future management
of thememorial and a tool for understanding theeffects of
implementing the design. The plan isthe culmination of numerous
studies, the collab-orative efforts of countless people, and
anextensive public process to explore ideas for afitting memorial
tribute.
PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION
The proposed Federal action would establish aprogrammatic
framework for the memorial thatwould accomplish the legislative
objectives out-lined in P.L. 107-226, the Flight 93
NationalMemorial Act of 2002. Creating this frameworkincludes
inventorying and assessing the parksresource conditions,
establishing preliminaryinterpretive themes, defining a vision for
the
visitor experience and planning for the long-term management and
maintenance of a perma-nent memorial honoring the passengers
andcrew members of United Airlines Flight 93.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The purpose of this action is to ensure thatthe Partners the
National Park Service, theFlight 93 Advisory Commission, the
Families ofFlight 93 and the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force as well
as the public have a clear understand-ing of the types of
development, resource condi-tions, visitor experiences, and
managementoptions that would best fulfill the mission of theFlight
93 National Memorial.
This basic foundation for decisionmaking hasbeen developed with
the Partners and otherinterested stakeholders and is adopted by
theNational Park Service after an adequate analysisof the benefits,
environmental impacts and eco-nomic costs of alternative courses of
action hasbeen conducted. The need for this action is sup-ported by
the existing and projected visitation tothe memorial that is
expected to increase fromapproximately 130,000 in 2004, peak at
400,000in 2011the 10th anniversary of the September11th attacksand
level off to about 230,000visitors throughout the remainder of the
20-yearplanning horizon.
This action fulfills the authorities and responsi-bilities
extended to the Secretary of the Interiorand the National Park
Service by Congress. Thisaction further provides direction and
guidanceto the National Park Service in protecting thememorials
resource values and ensuring thatrespect for the rural landscape
and the solemnand tranquil setting of the crash site is main-tained
in perpetuity.
The Flight 93 National Memorial Act (P.L. 107-226) was enacted
on September 24, 2002, onlyone year from the terrorist attacks. The
Actauthorized creation of the national memorialand established the
Flight 93 Advisory Commis-sion. The Commission was charged
withworking with the Partners to
1) submit by September 24, 2005, a report tothe Secretary of the
Interior and Congresscontaining recommendations on the plan-ning,
design, construction and long-termmanagement of a permanent
memorial atthe crash site;
iFlight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementExecutive Summary
Executive Summary
-
2) advise the Secretary on the boundaries of thememorial
site;
3) advise the Secretary in the development of amanagement plan
for the memorial site;
4) consult and coordinate closely with the Flight93 Task Force,
the Commonwealth of Penn-sylvania, and other interested parties,
asappropriate, to support and not supplant theefforts of the Flight
93 Task Force on andbefore the date of the enactment of this Actto
commemorate Flight 93; and
5) provide significant opportunities for publicparticipation in
the planning and design ofthe Memorial.
In the Act, Congress authorized the NationalPark Service,
through the Secretary of theInterior, to
1) assist the Flight 93 Advisory Commission inproviding
information on and interpretationof the site, conduct oral history
interviews,provide advice on collections, storage andarchives;
2) assist the Commission in conducting publicmeetings and
forums;
3) provide project management assistance tothe Commission for
the planning, design andconstruction of the memorial;
4) provide programming and design assistanceto the Commission
for possible memorialexhibits, collections, or activities;
5) provide staff support to the Commission andthe Flight 93 Task
Force;
6) participate in the formulation of plans for thedesign of the
memorial, to accept fundsraised by the Commission for construction
ofthe memorial and to construct the memorial;
7) acquire from willing sellers the land orinterest in the land
for the memorial site bydonation, purchase with donated or
appro-priated funds, or exchange; and
8) administer the Flight 93 National Memorialas a unit of the
national park system in accor-dance with applicable laws and
policies.
FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING ANDDECISIONMAKING
The Partners agreed that all development andmanagement decisions
should be guided by aMission Statement. Through a
collaborativeprocess involving several months of workshops,an
online forum, and distribution of a projectnewsletter and public
comment form, the Part-ners drafted a Mission Statement to guide
andground all aspects of the project.
MissionThe Partners summarized the Mission of thenational
memorial in several statements. Themission of the Flight 93
National Memorial isto
1) honor the heroism, courage and enduringsacrifice of the
passengers and crew ofUnited Airlines Flight 93;
2) revere this hallowed ground as the finalresting place of
heroes who sacrificed theirlives so that other would be spared;
3) remember and commemorate the events ofSeptember 11, 2001;
4) celebrate the lives of the passengers and crewof Flight
93;
5) express the appreciation of a grateful nationforever changed
by the events of September11, 2001;
6) educate visitors about the context of theevents of September
11, 2001; and
7) offer a place of comfort, hope and inspira-tion.
Statement of PurposeOn September 24, 2002, the Flight 93
NationalMemorial Act (P.L. 107-226) was enacted, creat-ing the
Flight 93 National Memorial. The follow-ing statements represent
shared understandingsabout the purposes for creating the
memorial:
Honor the passengers and crew members ofFlight 93 who
courageously gave their lives,thereby thwarting a planned attack on
Wash-ington, D.C.
Allow the public to visit the site and expresstheir feelings
about the event and the passen-gers and crew of Flight 93
Respect the rural landscape and preserve thesolemn and tranquil
setting of the crash siteof Flight 93
Statement of SignificanceThe events of September 11, 2001, and
thedramatic story of Flight 93 are forever linked tothe rural
Pennsylvania field on which the crashoccurred. The following
statements summarizethe significance and national importance of
thissite and explain why it was selected as the site ofa national
memorial:
The crash site is the final resting place of thepassengers and
crew of Flight 93.
The heroic actions of the passengers andcrew of Flight 93 are
part of the transfor-mational events of the September 11,
2001,terrorist attacks on the United States.
ii Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary
-
Fundamental Resources and ValuesThe National Park Service and
the Partnersidentified those resources and values that aremost
essential for achieving the purpose andmission of the memorial.
These fundamentalresources will help ensure that planning
andmanagement decisions are focused on the mostsignificant values
of the memorial and include:1) the crash site, 2) the hemlock
grove, and 3) theviewshed and setting of the memorial.
PLANNING PROCESS ANDIDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
The Partners adopted a process for developingthe recommendations
required by the Act. Thisprocess ensures all Partners and the
public areinvolved in decision-making throughout theproject and
that all mandates for planning a newunit of the national park
system are met. TheNational Park Service is the lead public
agencyin planning, designing and constructing thenational
memorial.
The process grounds the design and manage-ment recommendations
in the Mission State-ment and pursues a design competition and
thecreation of this management plan to producerecommendations that
are consistent and well-informed. The process offers transparency
andprovides local residents, the public, and othergovernment
agencies with many and variedopportunities to actively participate
in the cre-ation of the national memorial. The completeprocess is
described in Chapter I.
The National Park Service initiated formalscoping identifying
issues of concern early inthe process on December 10, 2003, when
aNotice of Intent to Prepare a General Manage-ment Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement(GMP/EIS) was published in the
Federal Regis-ter (68 FR 68947-68948). The issues identifiedby
agencies and the public during this processare described in Chapter
I and include:
Local community and lifestyle impacts,including traffic on local
roadways andaccess to the site, changes to local tax baseand school
district tax revenue, and restric-tions on traditional uses (i.e.
hunting andATV use) of the site;
Adjacent development and its impact on thevisitor experience and
the rural setting forthe national memorial;
Development challenges such as the pres-ence of hazardous
materials, geotechnicalconstraints, and the ability to provide
adequate potable drinking water and sewer-age systems;
Noise impacts on the experience of visitorsfrom sources such as
adjacent land uses andaircraft overflights;
Private Sorber family cemetery locatedwithin the boundary and
the need to protectit as the memorial is created;
Security and public safety; and
Accommodating visitation levels, particu-larly during
commemorations, withoutaffecting the solemn environment,
visitorexperience and the sites resources.
BOUNDARY
Determining the boundary for the Flight 93National Memorial has
been the culmination ofnearly two years of resource and
viewshedstudies, site visits, computer modeling, andpublic input.
The Partners concluded that thememorial boundary should
include:
1) the crash site, including the adjacent debrisfield and the
extent where human remainswere found, are the most
importantresources at the site;
2) the immediate lands for visitors to view thecrash site, as
well as areas necessary forvisitor access and facilities; and
3) lands necessary to provide an appropriatesetting for the
memorial.
As a result of collaborative efforts, the Flight 93Advisory
Commission signed Resolution 0401recommending a boundary for the
new nationalmemorial on July 30, 2004. The Secretary of theInterior
approved this recommendation onJanuary 14, 2005. The total area
within theboundary is composed of approximately 2,200acres, of
which about 1,355 acres include thecrash site, the debris field and
the area wherehuman remains were found, and those landsnecessary
for visiting the national memorial.Lands that would provide for
access to the sitefrom U.S. Route 30 are also included. An
addi-tional 907 acres would comprise the perimeterviewshed around
the core visitor lands. Ideally,these lands would remain in private
ownershipand be protected with partners through less-than-fee
means, such as conservation or sceniceasements. Although as of the
public release ofthis draft document all lands within the memo-rial
boundary are in private ownership, theactions presented in this
plan assume eventualFederal ownership of the core lands and
protec-tion of the perimeter viewshed through partner-ships with
other land owners.
iiiFlight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementExecutive Summary
-
MEMORIAL DESIGN COMPETITION
The Partners agreed that an open design com-petition would be
the most inclusive, transpar-ent and democratic way to explore a
range ofdesigns for a national memorial. The competi-tion was open
to design professionals, as well asto the public, and was conducted
in two stages.Stage I of the memorial design competitionopened on
September 11, 2004, and closed onJanuary 11, 2005. The design
competition wassponsored by the Partners with financialsupport from
the Heinz Endowments and theJohn S. and James L. Knight
Foundation.
The competition guidelines challenged the com-petitors to
present concepts for a memorialexpression that portrayed the
issues, ideas, andpassions contained in the Mission Statement.
Allcompetitors were requested to consider the fol-lowing themes in
their concepts. These themesrepresented the Partners
objectives:
Honor the heroes of Flight 93the 40 pas-sengers and crew who on
one Septembermorning changed the course of history;
Contribute to the dialogue of what a nationalmemorial should
be;
Conceive a message that will reflect on theevent that occurred
on September 11, 2001 andbe timeless in its power and
conviction.
More than 1,000 entries were received for StageI of the
competition. The public had the oppor-tunity to review and comment
on all entries atan open exhibition in Somerset, Pennsylvania,and
through the Internet at an online exhibit onthe project website. An
independent jury offamily members and design professionalsreviewed
all designs and public comments, andon February 4, 2005, five
finalists whose designconcepts were determined to best meet
theMission Statement were selected to proceed toStage II of the
competition.
The Stage II finalists were requested to refinetheir designs to
fully explain their concepts andto present their refinements by
June 15, 2005.These refined concepts were exhibited forpublic
comment in Somerset, Pennsylvania, andon the project website
between July 1 and Sep-tember 25, 2005. A separate jury of noted
designprofessionals, family members, and communityleaders reviewed
the public comments and eval-uated the designs against the
memorialsMission Statement. On September 7, 2005, theFlight 93
Advisory Commission announced thefinal selected design to the
public. This design isdescribed in Alternative 2 Preferred
FinalDesign and is evaluated fully in this document.
ALTERNATIVES
The Partners and the public explored a range ofalternatives for
developing the memorial. Someideas were initially considered but
were elimi-nated from further evaluation due to the infeasi-bility
of the design and its inability to meet theMission Statement. These
alternatives are brieflydiscussed in Chapter II Alternatives,
alongwith the two alternatives under evaluation inthis plan:
Alternative 1 No Action, which con-siders the effects of operating
and maintainingthe memorial under current management prac-tices
with some minor modifications related tovisitor safety and
convenience, and Alternative2-Preferred Design Alternative, which
evaluatesthe effects of developing the memorial based onthe final
design from the international designcompetition. Alternative 2 also
represents theagencys preferred alternative, as well as
theenvironmentally preferred alternative.
Alternative 1 No Action The No Action Alternative assesses how
thememorial would be maintained under thecurrent management
direction. It would notfreeze all activity at the site. No visitor
center orancillary facilities would be developed. Pro-jected
visitation to the site would be expected todecline and average
about 87,000 visitors peryear. The estimated cost of development
for thisalternative would be approximately $450,000.Roadway
improvements along Skyline Road(approximately $2.1 million) would
be borne pri-marily by Stonycreek Township with expectedanticipated
funding from the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania. Estimated staff and
operatingcosts would be $750,000 with up to eight full-time staff
persons.
The National Park Service would acquireapproximately 657 acres
in fee for resource pro-tection and visitor use. The remaining
1,605acres would be acquired through less-than-feemeans such as
easements, and would be a lesserpriority. Based on 2005 estimates,
the cost foracquiring this land and for relocations isapproximately
$8 million.
Alternative 2 Preferred Design Alternative(Agencys Preferred and
EnvironmentallyPreferred Alternative)Alternative 2 proposes to
transform the re-claimed mining site into a memorial landscapebased
upon the selected design from the inter-national design competition
as adopted by thePartners. This alternative would involve
fulldevelopment of the site and implement the se-lected design,
which would include construction
iv Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary
-
of an 8,000-square-foot visitor facility. Access tothe site
would be provided by construction of anew entrance directly from
U.S. Route 30. Withdevelopment of this alternative, visitation to
thememorial is expected to peak at about 400,000visitors during the
10th anniversary (2011) of theterrorist attacks and stabilize to
about 230,000visitors per year over the long term.
Approximately 14 full-time employees are antici-pated to
administer, operate and maintain thememorial. Total operating costs
are estimated atabout $1 million a year. Alternative 2
proposesacquisition of about 1,355 acres in fee forresource
protection and visitor use and another907 acres for viewshed
protection that wouldideally be in partnerships with landowners,
con-servation groups and others land ownersthrough mechanisms such
as conservation orscenic easements. Based on 2005 land values,land
acquisition costs for Alternative 2 are esti-mated at $10
million.
Summary of AlternativesSelection of Alternative 1 would
minimally meetthe goals identified in the Mission Statement(see
Chapter I). Local volunteers would con-tinue to greet visitors,
provide site and resourceinterpretation, and support minimal
mainte-nance at the Temporary Memorial. Althoughdevelopment costs
would be significantly lowerthan those for Alternative 2, there
would be novisitor facilities, no formal interpretive programand no
public education or outreach programs.Visitors would continue to
experience the site inthe open without a visitor facility. In
addition,visitors would also be limited to the area wherethe
Temporary Memorial is currently locatedand would not be permitted
to gain closeraccess to the crash site. Local residents
wouldcontinue to experience the annoyances and
unsafe conditions of visitors traveling alongnarrow, local
roads.
The cost of improving and upgrading SkylineRoad to support buses
and additional trafficwould be incurred by Stonycreek Township
withsupport from PennDOT. Significant improve-ments would also be
needed to Lambertsvilleand Buckstown Roads to safely
accommodatevisitor traffic. The site would be subjected topotential
impacts that could be induced byincompatible development adjacent
to the siteand along the U.S. Route 30 corridor.
Selection of Alternative 2 would more fully meetthe goals of the
Flight 93 National MemorialsMission Statement, as well as the
purpose andintent of the Flight 93 National Memorial Act bycreating
a designed memorial landscape. A newvisitor facility is proposed
under this alternativeto provide for interpretive exhibits, public
edu-cation and outreach, and visitor services. Thepublic would have
a broader range of opportu-nities to learn about the deeds of 40
passengersand crew members and the events that occurredon September
11, 2001. Alternative 2 would pro-vide a venue for visitors to get
closer to the crashsite and would place a greater emphasis on
pro-viding an appropriate setting for the memorialand a more
contemplative visitor experience.
Under Alternative 2, visitor-related traffic wouldno longer
access the memorial by use of localroads, such as Lambertsville
Road and Buck-stown Road. Although the construction costswould be
higher to build the memorial featuresand the related infrastructure
than for Alterna-tive 1, they would be shared through a
partner-ship involving the public, the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania,
and the Federal Government. Acomparison of these costs by
alternative isshown in Table ES-1.
vFlight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementExecutive Summary
Table ES-1: Summary of Estimated Development and Operating Costs
forFlight 93 National Memorial by Alternative
Alternative 2 Costs* Alternative 1 No Action Preferred Design
Alternative
Development Costs** $450,000 $44.7 million(Memorial Feature,
Visitor Center, Utilities, Roads and Parking)
Annual Operating Costs $750,000 $1 million(Employees and
Operations)
Land Acquisition $8 million $10 million(657 acres fee; 1,605
acres easements) (1,355 acres fee; 907 acres easements)
* These costs are based on 2005 estimates and represent gross
costs for planning and comparison purposes only. Actual costs will
bedeveloped through the design development process. Development of
any proposed facilities and infrastructure is dependent on
theavailability of funding.
** Estimated $2.1 million cost to upgrade Skyline Road would be
borne primarily by Stonycreek Township, with assistance
anticipatedfrom the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Extensive
improvements to Lambertsville and Buckstown Roads would also be
necessary.
Source: National Park Service, 2005.
-
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Numerous technical studies and resourcesurveys were conducted
during the planningprocess to determine the potential effects
ofimplementing each alternative. Table ES-2 pre-sents the resource
categories relevant to Flight
93 National Memorial. Through an evaluationprocess and agency
consultation, impacts onthese resources were assessed by
alternative.Table ES-2 represents the levels of magnitude
byalternative on the specific resources.
vi Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts by Alternatives, Flight 93
National Memorial
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Impact Category No Action
Alternative Preferred Design Alternative*
Natural Resources:
Geology, Soils & Topography Negligible Minor
Vegetation & Wildlife Minor Minor
Federally & State Protected Species Negligible Minor
Water Resources:
Wetlands Negligible Moderate
Surface Waters & Water Quality Negligible Minor
Historic and Cultural Resources Minor Minor
Socioeconomic Impacts: Major Moderate
Potable Water Suppliesand Sewage Containment Negligible
Minor
Land Uses Major Moderate
Transportation Major Moderate
Energy Requirements andConservation Potential Negligible
Minor
Visual and Aesthetic Resources Negligible Moderate
Public Health & Safety Minor Moderate
Note: Negligible=No effect or minor effect; Minor=Measurable but
with minimal effect to resources; Moderate=Changes to
resourceconditions but not irreversible or can be mitigated; and
Major=Resource conditions are changed irreversibly affected even
with mitigation.
Source: Compiled by National Park Service, 2006.
-
viiFlight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementExecutive Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
Formal planning for the memorial was initiatedon December 10,
2003, with the publication of aNotice of Intent in the Federal
Register (68 FR68947), followed by a series of agency and
publicscoping meetings that were conducted during2003-2005. Chapter
I includes an overview of theplanning and public involvement
process. Thisprocess culminated in the publication of theDraft
GMP/EIS in June 2006 and a 60-day publiccomment period. On June 16,
2006, a Notice ofAvailability announcing the availability of
theDraft Flight 93 National Memorial GMP/EIS waspublished in the
Federal Register (71 FR 34964).Comments were accepted on the Draft
GMP/EISuntil August 15, 2006.
In addition to the formal Federal Register an-nouncement, media
releases and a newsletterwere widely distributed announcing the
availabil-ity of the document. Broad electronic messagingthrough
email and online through the Flight 93National Memorial project
website was con-ducted to advise the public and agencies aboutthe
availability of the document and the 60-daypublic comment period.
Printed copies of thedocument were also available upon request.
A public hearing in the format of an open houseworkshop was
conducted on July 20, 2006, at theShanksville-Stonycreek School in
Shanksville,
Pennsylvania. The purpose of the public hearingand public
comment period was to provideagencies and the public with an
opportunity tosubmit comments on the technical accuracy andadequacy
of the Draft GMP/EIS, and on thealternatives to the proposed
action.
Approximately 1,452 comments were received onthe Draft GMP/EIS
during the 60-day commentperiod and at the public hearing. No
agenciesexpressed concerns or identified significantimpacts that
potentially could result from theproposed action. Subsequent to its
review, EPAassigned the project a rating of LO, whichmeans Lack of
Objections and the agency hasnot identified any potential
environmentalimpacts requiring substantive changes to thepreferred
alternative. Appendix J summarizesagency and other substantive
comments receivedon the Draft GMP/EIS, as well as
summarizescomments unrelated to the NEPA analysis.These comments
pertained to personalpreferences for or opposed to the design
selectedfor the memorial, general support for oropposition to the
project, and a request by aformer design competitor to be included
in theattribution of the selected design. Thesecomments are
included in a separate com-pendium of comments that may be
obtainedfrom the National Park Service upon request.
-
How to Read This Plan
This Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement reflects the collabora-tive efforts of the Partners the
National Park Service, the Flight 93 Advisory Commission,the
Families of Flight 93 and the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force. It was
developed with the inputand assistance of the public and many
local, State, and Federal agencies. The plan explores twooptions to
meet the vision embodied in the Flight 93 National Memorial Mission
Statement, themandates of the Flight 93 National Memorial Act, and
the administrative policies and guidanceof the National Park
Service. This plan will not only guide development of a new
nationalmemorial to honor the passengers and crew members of Flight
93, but it will also prescribe thefuture management decisions for
the memorial during the next 15-20 years.
This plan is divided into six chapters:
Chapter I Purpose of and Need for Action describes the Federal
action and reasons why theGeneral Management Plan (GMP) is being
prepared. Chapter I presents the Mission Statementfor the Flight 93
National Memorial and explains the fundamental resources of the
memorial.This section also describes the planning process and
issues that are addressed in the plan.
Chapter II Alternatives describes the No Action Alternative and
the Preferred Design Alterna-tive. The No Action Alternative
provides a baseline from which the Preferred Design Alternativecan
be evaluated. These alternatives are evaluated in terms of how they
fulfill the Mission State-ment and the intent of the Flight 93
National Memorial Act. Resource conditions and opportu-nities for
visitor experiences, as well as levels of development intensity
necessary to fulfill thatalternative, are presented. The Preferred
Design Alternative represents the Federal agencys pre-ferred
alternative and the environmentally preferred alternative.
Chapter III Affected Environment describes the existing
cultural, natural, and socioeconomicresources that could be
potentially affected by implementing either alternative.
Chapter IV Environmental Consequences describes the potential
impacts to the memorialskey resource values that could result from
implementing either alternative.
Chapter V Consultation, Coordination and Compliance describes
the public involvement andagency coordination process that occurred
during the planning for the memorial. The requiredcompliance
mandates are also summarized.
Chapter VI Preparers, Reviewers and Contributors identifies the
National Park Service staffand Partners who contributed to the
preparation and review of this plan, the consultants whoprepared
special studies and supporting documentation, and the other project
contributors andreviewers.
References are cited from which background and supporting
documentation was obtained.
Appendices provide additional supporting technical data and
relevant background materialcited throughout the plan.
The Flight 93 National Memorial Draft General Management
Plan/Environmental ImpactStatement was available for a 60-day
public review period from June 16 through August 15, 2006.Comments
were received through the online project website, by email and by
writtencorrespondence. A public hearing in the form of a public
open house was conducted on July 20,2006, for the purpose of
receiving public comment. Appendix J of this document summarizesthe
public comments received. A separate compendium of comments is
available upon request.
During the preparation of the Final General Management
Plan/Environmental ImpactStatement, minor edits and corrections
were made to the document.
viii Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
-
ixFlight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementTable of Contents
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION Page
Proposed Federal
Action.......................................................................................................................................I-1
The Purpose of the
Action....................................................................................................................................I-1
The Need for the
Action.......................................................................................................................................I-1
Key Decisions
.........................................................................................................................................................I-2
The Flight 93 National Memorial Act
..................................................................................................................I-3
The
Partners...........................................................................................................................................................I-3
The Planning
Process.............................................................................................................................................I-4
Establishing a Boundary
.......................................................................................................................................I-5
Relationship of this Plan to the Flight 93 National Memorial
Design Competition........................................I-6
Relationship of this Plan to Other Partner Efforts
.............................................................................................I-8
Foundation for Planning and
Decisionmaking...................................................................................................I-9
Primary Interpretive Themes
..............................................................................................................................I-10
Fundamental Resources
......................................................................................................................................I-10
Special
Mandates.................................................................................................................................................I-10
Scoping.................................................................................................................................................................I-13
Impact Topics
.......................................................................................................................................................I-14
Relationship to Plans, Projects and Other
Activities.........................................................................................I-14
Summary of Legislative and Policy Requirements
............................................................................................I-15
CHAPTER II ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES
Explanation of the Alternatives
Process.............................................................................................................II-1
Preliminary Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further
Consideration.........................................II-1
Alternatives under
Consideration.......................................................................................................................II-2
Actions Common to Both
Alternatives...............................................................................................................II-3
Uses of the
Site.....................................................................................................................................................II-5
Management Zones
.............................................................................................................................................II-7
Alternative 1 No Action
....................................................................................................................................II-8
Alternative 2 Preferred Design Alternative
.................................................................................................II-14
(Agencys Preferred Alternative and Environmentally Preferred
Alternative)
Conclusions
.........................................................................................................................................................II-23
CHAPTER III-AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Location................................................................................................................................................................III-1
Memorial Boundary and Land
Ownership........................................................................................................III-5
Park
Visitation......................................................................................................................................................III-5
Existing Park Administration and
Operations...................................................................................................III-6
Site
Infrastructure................................................................................................................................................III-6
Natural
Resources................................................................................................................................................III-9
Historic and Cultural
Resources........................................................................................................................III-22
Visual and Aesthetic Resources
........................................................................................................................III-27
Socioeconomic
Characteristics..........................................................................................................................III-30
Contemplated Future Actions
..........................................................................................................................III-39
-
CHAPTER IV ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Page
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................IV-1
Environmental Factors and Evaluation
.............................................................................................................IV-1
Impacts Common to Both Alternatives
.............................................................................................................IV-2
Resource-Specific Impact Categories
.................................................................................................................IV-3
Natural
Resources................................................................................................................................................IV-4
Historic and Cultural Resources
.......................................................................................................................IV-16
Socioeconomic
Impacts.....................................................................................................................................IV-20
Land Uses
...........................................................................................................................................................IV-30
Transportation...................................................................................................................................................IV-33
Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential
........................................................................................IV-38
Visual and Aesthetic
Resources........................................................................................................................IV-39
Public Health and Safety
..................................................................................................................................IV-43
Cumulative Impacts
..........................................................................................................................................IV-46
Summary of Environmental
Consequences.....................................................................................................IV-47
CHAPTER V CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE
Scoping..................................................................................................................................................................V-1
Compliance
Status................................................................................................................................................V-1
CHAPTER VI PREPARERS, REVIEWERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
The Partners
........................................................................................................................................................VI-1
Committees and
Contributors............................................................................................................................VI-2
Design Competition Juries and Finalists
...........................................................................................................VI-3
Consultants and Contributors
............................................................................................................................VI-4
REFERENCES
.....................................................................................................................................................................R-1
APPENDICESA Flight 93 National Memorial Applicable Federal and
State Laws, Regulations and Policies
B Flight 93 National Memorial Agency Correspondence
C Flight 93 National Memorial Related Plans, Projects and Other
Activities
D Fight 93 National Memorial National Register Sites, Somerset
County, PA
E Flight 93 National Memorial Water Quality Data
F Flight 93 National Memorial Potable Water and Sewage Treatment
Options
G Flight 93 National Memorial Transportation and Traffic
Data
H Flight 93 National Memorial Economic Impact Tables
I Flight 93 National Memorial Hazardous Materials Investigation
Soil Sample Locations
J Flight 93 National Memorial Comments and Responses
x Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents
-
xiFlight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementTable of Contents
Listing of Figures and Tables
Figure # Title Page
I-1 Flight 93 National Memorial Planning and Design Process
..........................................................................I-5I-2
Flight 93 National Memorial Boundary
..........................................................................................................I-7
II-1 Alternative 1 No Action Management Zoning
..........................................................................................II-9II-2
Alternative 2 Preferred Design Alternative Management
Zoning.........................................................II-15
III-1 Flight 93 National Memorial Regional
Map.................................................................................................III-2III-2
Aerial Photograph of Flight 93 National Memorial
....................................................................................III-3III-3
Flight 93 National Memorial Existing Infrastructure,
2005.........................................................................III-8III-4
Flight 93 National Memorial Topography
..................................................................................................III-10
III-5 Flight 93 National Memorial Resources/Constraints,
2004........................................................................III-17III-6
Water Quality Monitoring Results of Lamberts Run Remediation
Project, 2001....................................III-21III-7
Lamberts Run Water Quality, 2005
.............................................................................................................III-21III-8
Flight 93 National Memorial Mining Legacy,
2004....................................................................................III-25III-9
Flight 93 National Memorial Volunteer Fire Department Districts
..........................................................III-39
IV-1 Composite View from Six Vantage Points, Flight 93 National
Memorial ................................................IV-41IV-2
View of Tower of Voices, Flight 93 National Memorial
............................................................................IV-42
Table # Title Page
ES-1 Summary of Estimated Development and Operating Costsfor
Flight 93 National Memorial by
Alternative...........................................................................................v
ES-2 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternatives,
Flight 93 National Memorial .........................vi
I-1 Flight 93 National Memorial Fundamental Resources and
Values.............................................................I-11I-2
Scoping Meetings Conducted for Flight 93 National Memorial,
2003-2005 .............................................I-13
II-1 Alternative 1 No Action Management Matrix
.........................................................................................II-10II-2
Estimated Development Costs for Alternative 1 No
Action....................................................................II-12II-3
Estimated Operating Costs for Alternative 1 No Action
..........................................................................II-13II-4
Alternative 2 Preferred Design Alternative Management
Matrix..........................................................II-16II-5
Development Costs, Alternative 2 Preferred Design Alternative,
2005.................................................II-21II-6 Life
Cycle Costs over a 25-Year Planning Horizon, Alternative 2
Preferred Design Alternative..........II-22II-7 Estimated Operating
Costs for Alternative 2 Preferred Design
Alternative..........................................II-23II-8
Comparison of Estimated Costs by
Alternative...........................................................................................II-24
III-1 Sorber Family Cemetery Grave Sites
...........................................................................................................III-26III-2
Aesthetic Sensitivity of Affected Landscapes by Criteria, Key
Observation Points
and Sensitivity Values, Flight 93 National Memorial
.............................................................................III-30III-3
Current Population, Changes in the 9-County Region, 1990-2020
..........................................................III-31III-4
Median Age, Elderly and Racial Diversity in the 9-County Region,
2000 ................................................III-31III-5
Somerset County Racial and Ethnic Diversity, 2000
...................................................................................III-31III-6
Household and Personal Incomes, Unemployment and Poverty in the
9-County Region, 1999...........III-32III-7 Somerset County Top
Employers by Number of Employees, 2004
...........................................................III-32III-8
Number of Establishments and Employees by Industry for Somerset
County, 2001 ..............................III-33III-9 Percentage
of Total Earnings by Industrial Category within 9-County Region,
1999 ............................III-33III-10 Percentage of Total
Paid Employees and Total Sales in Arts, Entertainment,
Recreation
and Accommodation Services within 9-County Region, 2001
..............................................................III-34
-
Table # Title Page
IV-1 Impact Categories Appropriate to Flight 93 National
Memorial
Review..................................................IV-2
IV-2 Alternative 1 Estimated Economic Impact of No Action on the
Nine-County Region, 2005-2020.....IV-21
IV-3 Estimated Total Impacts of Flight 93 National Memorial
Construction
on the Nine-County Region, 2006-2011
.....................................................................................................IV-25
IV-4 Potential Long-Term Changes in Somerset County Expenditures
and Revenues, Flight 93
National Memorial
.......................................................................................................................................IV-26
IV-5 Potential Long-Term Changes in Municipal Government
Expenditures and Revenues
as a result of the Flight 93 National
Memorial..........................................................................................IV-26
IV-6 Alternative Potable Water Supplies, Flight 93 National
Memorial..........................................................IV-29
IV-7 Alternative Sanitary Sewage Service Options, Flight 93
National Memorial
..........................................IV-29
IV-8 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternatives,
Flight 93 National Memorial ...................IV-47
xii Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents
-
xiiiFlight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
LISTING OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
agl above ground level
AMD Acid Mine Drainage
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLI Cultural Landscapes Inventory
DCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DEP Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalProtection
DM Departmental Manual
DO Directors Order
DOQQ Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
E.O. Executive Order
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973
Fm Formation
FR Federal Register
FWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
GIS Geographic Information System
GMP General Management Plan
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
Grp Group
IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning
KOP Key Observation Point
LOS Level of Service
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PBBA Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas
PBS PBS Coals, Inc.
PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
P.L. Public Law
ppm parts per million
ROD Record of Decision
rSHS Residential Statewide Health Standard
SCRIP Stonycreek Conemaugh River Improvement Project
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office(r)
Stat. Statute
U.S.C. U.S. Code
vpd vehicles per day
WRAS Watershed Restoration Action Strategy
-
CHAPTER IPurpose of and Need for ActionI
-
PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION
On September 24, 2002, Congress enacted theFlight 93 National
Memorial Act, (P.L. 107-226),which authorized a national memorial
to com-memorate the passengers and crew of Flight 93who, on
September 11, 2001, gave their livesthereby thwarting a planned
attack on ourNations Capital. The Act specifically desig-nated the
crash site of Flight 93, located inStonycreek Township, Somerset
County, Penn-sylvania, as the site for this national memorial
tohonor the passengers and crew of Flight 93. TheAct also formally
designated this site a unit ofthe national park system, which
automaticallylisted the site in the National Register of
HistoricPlaces (November 8, 2002).
The proposed Federal action is to establish aprogrammatic
framework in the form of aGeneral Management Plan to accomplish
theobjectives set forth in the Flight 93 NationalMemorial Act. This
General Management Plancomplies with all applicable statutory
require-ments and policies, including the National Envi-ronmental
Policy Act of 1969, the NationalHistoric Preservation Act, and 16
U.S.C. 1a-7(b)and addresses the following issues:
The types of management actions requiredfor the preservation of
park resources;
The types and general intensities of develop-ment (including
visitor circulation and trans-portation patterns, systems, and
modes)associated with public enjoyment and use ofthe area,
including general locations, timingof implementation and
anticipated costs;
Visitor carrying capacities and implementa-tion commitments for
all areas of the park;and
Potential modifications to the externalboundaries of the park,
if any, and thereasons for the proposed changes.
THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTION
In addition to the mandates set forth in theFlight 93 National
Memorial Act and in 16 U.S.C.1a-7(b), there are two broad purposes
for theGeneral Management Plan. The first is to ensurethat the
Partnersthe Flight 93 Advisory Com-mission, the Families of Flight
93, the Flight 93Memorial Task Force, and the National
ParkServiceas well as the public, have a clear under-standing of
the types of resource conditions,visitor experiences and management
actions
that will best fulfill the mission of the Flight 93National
Memorial. The second is to ensure thatthe basic foundation for
decision-making hasbeen developed with the Partners and
otherinterested stakeholders and adopted by theNational Park
Service after an adequate analysisof the alternatives, benefits,
environmental im-pacts and economic costs and benefits of
alter-native courses of action has been conducted.
THE NEED FOR THE ACTION
The need for this action is to develop a pro-grammatic framework
to guide the NationalPark Service and the Partners during
thecreation and long-term administration of thenew Flight 93
National Memorial. This frame-work, which is in the form of a
General Manage-ment Plan, provides direction and guidance tothe
National Park Service for protecting theMemorials resource values
and maintaining thetranquil setting of the crash site. The
planningprocess offers the public an open opportunityto offer input
and to formally participate inthis process.
The Partners conducted an open internationaldesign competition
to produce a design for thenational memorial. The selected design
wasapproved by the Partners and formally adoptedby the Flight 93
Advisory Commission and pub-licly announced on September 7, 2005.
It servesas the Preferred Design Alternative in this planand is
described in Chapter II, Alternative 2.This alternative also
represents the agencyspreferred alternative.
The need for this action is further supported bythe existing and
projected visitation to theMemorial that is expected to increase
fromapproximately 130,000 in 2004, to a peak of400,000 in 2011the
10th anniversary of theSeptember 11th attacksand to a level of
about230,000 visitors throughout the remainder ofthe 20-year
planning horizon.
This action fulfills the authorities and responsi-bilities
extended to the Secretary of the Interiorand the National Park
Service by Congress.Specifically, Congress has authorized
theNational Park Service, through the Secretary ofthe Interior,
to
1. assist the Flight 93 Advisory Commission inproviding
information on and interpretationof the site, conduct oral history
interviews,provide advice on collections, storage andarchives;
I-1Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementChapter I The Purpose of and
Need for Action
Chapter I Purpose of and Need for ActionThe GeneralManagement
Planwill guide and directdevelopment of theFlight 93
NationalMemorial for thenext 15-20 years.
-
2. assist the Commission in conducting publicmeetings and
forums;
3. provide project management assistance tothe Commission for
the planning, design andconstruction of the Memorial;
4. provide programming and design assistanceto the Commission
for possible memorialexhibits, collections, or activities;
5. provide staff support to the Commission andthe Flight 93 Task
Force;
6. participate in the formulation of plans for thedesign of the
Memorial, to accept fundsraised by the Commission for construction
ofthe Memorial and to construct the Memorial;
7. acquire from willing sellers the land or inter-est in the
land for the Memorial site by dona-tion, purchase with donated or
appropriatedfunds, or exchange; and
8. administer the Flight 93 National Memorialas a unit of the
national park system in accor-dance with applicable laws and
policies.
KEY DECISIONS
As the planning process unfolded and meetingswere held with the
public and public agencies, itwas apparent to the Partners that
several keydecisions were needed to guide developmentand
administration of the national memorial.These decisions involved
answering the follow-ing questions:
Why are the actions taken by the passen-gers and crew onboard
Flight 93 importantto the nation? What about this site is
signif-icant? What is important for visitors tolearn from a visit
to the national memo-rial? To provide the initial answers to
thesequestions, the Partners developed a MissionStatement. The
Mission Statement serves asthe foundation for the design
competitionand the General Management Plan and ispresented later in
this chapter.
What resources are fundamental for pre-serving, protecting, and
understanding thestory of Flight 93? How should other exist-ing
resources at the site be treated? TheNational Park Service and the
other Partnersstudied and evaluated the resources at thesite. A
list of Fundamental Resources appearslater in this chapter. These
resources are crit-ical for understanding the Flight 93 story
andcan not be compromised. Other resources atthe site are described
in Chapter III.
What lands should be included within thenational memorial
boundary to ensure keyresources are protected, necessary
visitorfacilities and access are provided, and anappropriate
setting is provided? TheNational Park Service, the Partners and
ateam of specialists toured the site, initiatedvarious studies,
discussed potential commer-cial and tourism-related development
pres-sures, and conducted extensive computerviewshed modeling.
These efforts lead to aboundary recommendation that was adoptedby
the Secretary of the Interior on January 14,2005. An overview of
the process (Figure I-1)and a boundary map (Figure I-2) appear
laterin this chapter.
How will the need for and the design of amemorial feature and
all facilities at thenational memorial be determined? ThePartners
agreed that an open design competi-tion would be the most
democratic, inclusiveand transparent way to collect ideas on
thedesign for the Memorial and to develop amaster plan for the
site. The public wouldhave an opportunity to enter the
competitionand share their opinions throughout theprocess before a
selected design was an-nounced. The selected design is presented
asthe Preferred Design Alternative in thisGeneral Management
Plan/EnvironmentalImpact Statement and is studied equally witha No
Action Alternative. Descriptions of theNo Action Alternative and
the Preferred De-sign Alternative are presented in Chapter II.
What resource conditions, types of visitorexperiences and levels
and types of visitoruse are desired and consistent with theMission
Statement? The No Action Alterna-tive and the Preferred Design
Alternative aredescribed in Chapter II. Each alternativedescription
includes a management zoningmap and a corresponding description of
thedesired resource conditions, intended visitorexperience, and
types and intensities ofvisitor uses.
How will development of the memorial befunded? This plan
includes a description ofthe costs associated with each
alternative. Anoverall project budget was developedthrough
extensive computer modeling, meet-ings with Federal and State
officials, and afundraising feasibility study. The overallproject
costs will be provided by the privatesector, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvaniaand the Federal government. The relation-ship of this
plan to the overall project budgetand fundraising effort is
explained later inthis chapter.
I-2 Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter I The Purpose of and
Need for Action
Entrance to Flight 93 TemporaryMemorial (NPS 2003)
-
THE FLIGHT 93 NATIONALMEMORIAL ACT
In the days and weeks following the crash ofFlight 93,
exhaustive investigations into thecrash occurred. During the autumn
of 2001, thecrater caused by the crash was backfilled and thearea
was planted with grass and wildflowers. ATemporary Memorial was
created overlookingthe crash site to accommodate the
impromptugathering of thousands of visitors wishing tomemorialize
and commemorate the actions ofthe passengers and crew of Flight
93.
At the same time, county and regional leaders,members of the
local community, the families ofthe passengers and crew of Flight
93, and repre-sentatives from the National Park Service beganto
realize the importance of the crash site as aplace of honor and for
the need to protect it andto accommodate the overwhelming public
visi-tation to the site. Within six months of the tragicevent,
Federal legislation was introduced tocreate a new national memorial
honoring thepassengers and crew of Flight 93.
On September 24, 2002, Congress enacted theFlight 93 National
Memorial Act (Public Law 107-226, 116 Stat. 1345). The Act
authorized anational memorial to commemorate the passen-gers and
crew of Flight 93 who, on September 11,2001, courageously gave
their lives therebythwarting a planned attack on our
NationsCapital. This legislation created the Flight 93National
Memorial and specifically designatedthe crash site of Flight 93,
located in StonycreekTownship, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, asthe
site to honor the passengers and crew ofFlight 93. The Secretary of
the Interior is author-ized by the Act to administer the Memorial
as aunit of the national park system.
The purposes of the Flight 93 National MemorialAct are to
Establish a national memorial to honor thepassengers and crew of
United Airlines Flight93 of September 11, 2001.
Establish the Flight 93 Advisory Commissionto assist with
consideration and formulationof plans for a permanent memorial to
thepassengers and crew of Flight 93, includingits nature, design,
and construction.
Authorize the Secretary of the Interior tocoordinate and
facilitate the activities of theFlight 93 Advisory Commission,
providetechnical and financial assistance to theFlight 93 Task
Force, and to administer aFlight 93 memorial.
THE PARTNERS
Four Partner organizations are overseeing theplanning, design
and construction of a perma-nent memorial for Flight 93. These
Partners are1) the Flight 93 Advisory Commission, 2) theFamilies of
Flight 93, 3) the Flight 93 MemorialTask Force, and 4) the National
Park Service.Brief descriptions of the roles of these Partnersare
presented in the following discussion.
Flight 93 Advisory CommissionPursuant to the Flight 93 National
Memorial Act(P.L. 107-226), the Flight 93 Advisory Commissionwas
established and directed to prepare areport containing
recommendations for theplanning, design, construction and
long-termmanagement of a permanent memorial at thecrash site.
Specifically, the Advisory Commis-sion is required to
1. submit by September 24, 2005, a report to theSecretary of the
Interior and Congress con-taining recommendations on the planning,
de-sign, construction and long-term managementof a permanent
memorial at the crash site.
2. advise the Secretary on the boundaries of thememorial
site.
3. advise the Secretary in the development of amanagement plan
for the memorial site.
4. consult and coordinate closely with the Flight93 Task Force,
the Commonwealth of Penn-sylvania, and other interested parties,
asappropriate, to support and not supplant theefforts of the Flight
93 Task Force on andbefore the date of the enactment of this Actto
commemorate Flight 93.
5. provide significant opportunities for publicparticipation in
the planning and design ofthe Memorial.
On September 11, 2003, 15 members of the Flight93 Advisory
Commission (Commission) weresworn in by the Secretary of the
Interior. Themembers of the Commission, selected by aNominating
Committee of the Flight 93 Memor-ial Task Force, are family
members, local resi-dents, and local and national leaders.
Thedesignee for the Director of the National ParkService also
serves on the Commission. TheCommission, which meets quarterly,
held itsfirst meeting on November 14, 2003.
Families of Flight 93, Inc.The Families of Flight 93, Inc.
(Families of Flight93) is a certified 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organizationcomprised of relatives of the passengers andcrew of
Flight 93. The purpose of the organiza-tion is to assist in
developing and sustaining a
Flight 93 Memorial Task ForceWorkshop (NPS 2003)
I-3Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementChapter I The Purpose of and
Need for Action
-
permanent memorial to the passengers andcrew of Flight 93. The
organization is led by a15-member Board of Directors.
Flight 93 Memorial Task ForceThe Flight 93 Memorial Task Force
is a broad-based working group, composed of more than80 family
members, local residents, first respon-ders, educators, local
business leaders and gov-ernment representatives. Task Force
memberscame together in the months after September11th as the
families and the community soughtways to deal with the crash and
commemoratethe acts of the passengers and crew aboardFlight 93. The
Task Force is structured into com-mittees that serve as the
operational arm of theFlight 93 Advisory Commission.
National Park ServiceThe National Park Service is the Federal
agencyresponsible for overseeing and managing theplanning, design
and construction of the Flight93 National Memorial. As the
Memorials long-term steward, the National Park Service
isresponsible for administering the Memorial as aunit within the
national park system. In the fallof 2003, the National Park Service
establishedthe Flight 93 National Memorial project office at109
West Main Street, Suite 104, Somerset, Penn-sylvania 15501-2035.
The office serves as theheadquarters for the Memorial, as well as
thecombined offices for the Partners of Flight 93.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
In the authorizing legislation, Congress formallyestablished the
Flight 93 National Memorial,thereby creating one of the newest
additions tothe national park system. The National ParkService is
the lead public agency responsible forthe planning, design and
construction of thenational memorial. In the summer of 2003,
thePartners agreed to a process (Figure I-1) fordeveloping the
mandates of the Act. Thisprocess ensures that the Partners are
involved inthe decision-making throughout the project andthat all
mandates for planning a new unit of thenational park system are
met.
The planning and design process groundsdevelopment and
management decisions for theMemorial in the Mission Statement.
Thisprocess also guided the design competition andthis management
plan to produce an opendesign competition, and consistent and
well-informed decisions for the future of theMemorial. The process
offers transparencyand provides local residents, the public and
government agencies opportunities to activelyparticipate in the
establishment of the nationalmemorial.
Development of a programmatic framework inthe form of a General
Management Plan is amajor Federal action with long-term manage-ment
implications for a unit of the national parksystem. Therefore,
compliance with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Section 106of the National Historic Preservation Act andother
pertinent Federal statutes and policies, isrequired1. The NEPA
process and consultationwith the State Historic Preservation
Officer isintegrated into general management planning tosupport
better decision-making. The integratedprocess provides a formal way
to involve thepublic throughout the project, ensures consider-ation
of all reasonable alternatives, and disclosesbenefits and potential
consequences of imple-menting the plan. General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statements are the toolsused by the
National Park Service to guide thefuture of all units within the
national parksystem.
The plan has been created through an inter-disciplinary approach
involving partners; otherrelevant offices within the National Park
Ser-vice; other Federal, State and local agencies;multidisciplinary
resource specialists; and de-sign professionals. The General
ManagementPlan is based on full and proper use of
scientificinformation related to existing and potentialresource
conditions, visitor experiences, envi-ronmental impacts and
relative costs of alter-native courses of action. The plan is
alsoprepared with information and ideas receivedfrom the general
public.
General Management Plans are required for allunits of the
national park system. Each planmust meet all statutory requirements
containedin 16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b) and must address the follow-ing
components:
The types of management actions requiredfor the preservation of
park resources;
The types and general intensities of develop-ment (including
visitor circulation and trans-portation patterns, systems and
alternativemodes) associated with public enjoymentand use of the
area, including general loca-tions, timing of implementation and
antici-pated costs;
Visitor carrying capacities and implementa-tion commitments for
all areas of the park;and
I-4 Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter I The Purpose of and
Need for Action
1A complete description of other applicable laws and policies
can be found in Appendix A.
The planning anddesign processgrounds decisions ina Mission
Statementthat was created bythe Partners andthe public.
-
Potential modifications to the externalboundaries of the park,
if any, and thereasons for the proposed changes.
To inform and support the recommendationsdeveloped in this plan,
the National Park Serviceand the Partners conducted the
followingstudies: visual analysis, transportation and trafficstudy,
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,preliminary geotechnical
study, visitation pro-jections, water supply and sewerage
feasibilitystudy, collections and archives assessment,natural
resource surveys, cultural landscapeinventory, fundraising
feasibility study, an eco-nomic impact analysis, oral histories,
archeolog-ical survey and mining history.
General Management Plans include maps foreach alternative that
delineate managementzones prescribing different treatments
andfunctions for each area of the park. In thisGeneral Management
Plan, both the No ActionAlternative and the Preferred Design
Alternativeinclude a map of the management zones and adescription
of the desired resource conditions,desired visitor experiences and
intended usesfor each zone. Existing conditions and
proposeddevelopment within these zones are evaluated inChapter
II-Alternatives.
As an integral part of the General ManagementPlan and NEPA
process, the National ParkService is required to evaluate a
reasonablerange of alternatives through preparation of
anEnvironmental Impact Statement. As a compan-ion to this General
Management Plan, the Envi-ronmental Impact Statement assesses
thepotential effects of creating a designed memoriallandscape on
the natural environment and onthe local communities. The purpose of
and needfor the Federal action is articulated; alternativeconcepts
are evaluated; the affected natural,
cultural and socioeconomic resources aredescribed; and the
potential consequences ofeach alternative are evaluated. Agency
andpublic input into the planning process is sum-marized and
measures to avoid or minimizeadverse effects are recommended.
Full public disclosure of the information col-lected, the
evaluations and findings of theseeffects, and the input from all
parties are pre-sented in this document. The public will have
a45-day period to review and submit commentson the draft
Environmental Impact Statement,as well as present comments at an
open publicmeeting and online. All comments will be con-sidered in
the final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.
The processwill conclude with the signing of a Record ofDecision by
the Regional Director, NortheastRegion of the National Park
Service.
ESTABLISHING A BOUNDARY
Determining the boundary for the Flight 93National Memorial
involved resource and view-shed studies, as well as public input.
The Part-ners created a Resource Assessment Committeeof the Task
Force to offer recommendations tothe Advisory Commission. This
committee wascomprised of community residents, local offi-cials,
National Park Service staff, and repre-sentatives from the
Partners. The committeetoured the site and initiated numerous
studiesby natural and cultural resource specialists,economists,
planners and engineers to betterunderstand the resources from the
crash as wellas the surrounding landscape. Extensive com-puter
modeling was also done to define viewsthat would be important to
providing an appro-priate setting for the national memorial.
Afterconsidering all the information, the Partners
I-5Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementChapter I The Purpose of and
Need for Action
Figure I-1: Flight 93National MemorialPlanning and
DesignProcessSource: National Park Service,January 2006.
-
concluded that the boundary should include thefollowing lands
and resources:
1) the crash site, the adjacent debris field, andthe areas where
human remains were found;
2) the immediate lands from which visitorscould view the crash
site, as well as areas nec-essary for visitor access and
facilities; and
3) lands necessary to provide an appropriatesetting for the
Memorial.
The total area within the boundary is approxi-mately 2,200
acres, of which approximately 1,355acres include the crash site,
the areas wherehuman remains were found, the debris field, andlands
necessary for viewing the national memo-rial. These lands would
also allow for safe visitoraccess to and from the Memorial via U.S.
Route30 and would reduce memorial traffic on thelocal rural
roadways. When acquired, theselands would be owned and managed by
theFederal government. Approximately 907 addi-tional acres comprise
the perimeter viewshed.The viewshed would ideally remain in
privateownership and be protected through the acqui-sition of
conservation or scenic easements bypartners or other governmental
agencies.
As a result of collaborative efforts among allparties, the
Flight 93 Advisory Commissionsigned Resolution 0401 recommending a
bound-ary for the new national memorial on July 30,2004. Figure I-2
displays the Flight 93 NationalMemorial boundary that was approved
by theSecretary of the Interior on January 14, 2005.
All land within the national memorial boundaryis in private
ownership as of the public release ofthis draft plan. Any
recommendations in thisplan for development or resource
protectionactions by the National Park Service assumeFederal
ownership of any affected lands.
RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PLANTO THE FLIGHT 93 NATIONALMEMORIAL
DESIGN COMPETITION
In the spring of 2004, the Partners hired profes-sional design
competition advisors to helpdevelop and administer the
international designcompetition. The Partners agreed that a
designcompetition open to everyone would be themost inclusive and
democratic way to create anational memorial. The Partners
collectivelysponsored the Flight 93 National MemorialInternational
Design Competition with financialsupport from the Heinz Endowments
and theJohn S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
The design competition was conducted in twostages. Stage I,
which began on September 11,2004, was open to design professionals
as well asto the public. All registered participants receiveda
competition manual that presented the Memo-rials Mission Statement
and explained the initialdesign program. The competition manual
pro-vided a description of the site and its environs, acommunity
profile and the history of the area.Site and resource maps were
included.
The competition guidelines challenged the com-petitors to
present design concepts for amemorial expression that portrays the
issues,ideas, and spirit and intent of the Mission State-ment. The
memorial expression could rangefrom an individual artwork piece to
a largerlandscape treatment. All competitors wererequested to
consider the following themes,which represented the Partners
objectives:
Honor the heroes of Flight 93the 40 pas-sengers and crew who on
one Septembermorning changed the course of history;
Contribute to the dialogue of what a nationalmemorial should
be;
Conceive a message that will reflect on theevent that occurred
on September 11, 2001,and be timeless in its power and
conviction.
The intent of Stage I was to provide a range ofdesign concepts
for the national memorial. InOctober, November, and December of
2004,registered competitors were given an opportu-nity to tour the
site with the competition advi-sors and Partners. A photographic
version of thesite tour was posted on the project website andall
registered competitors were given a compactdisk with a video tour
of the site and the localcommunity. A formal question and
answerperiod was also available with the questions andresponses
posted on the project website for allparticipants to view.
On January 11, 2005, the Stage I designs weresubmitted. All
Stage I submittals were submittedanonymously as a concept on a
single board.More than 1,000 entries were received fromthroughout
the world. All entries that compliedwith the competition guidelines
were exhibitedin Somerset, Pennsylvania and were pho-tographed and
posted on the project website.Visitors to the exhibition and the
website couldcomment on the designs. The exhibit providedfamily
members, the Partners and the publicwith an opportunity to view the
thoughtfulness,creativity, and commitment of the designers. Allthe
design submittals were included in thenational memorials permanent
collection.
I-6 Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter I The Purpose of and
Need for Action
The approvedboundary for theFlight 93 NationalMemorial
providesfor protection of thecrash site and thesetting for
thememorial. It alsoallows for visitors toenter the site
directlyfrom U.S. Route 30so visitor traffic onrural roads
andsurrounding villagesis reduced.
-
I-7Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact StatementChapter I The Purpose of and
Need for Action
Flight 93 National MemorialSomerset, PA
National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior
Boundary
Figure I-2: Flight 93 National Memorial Boundary
Source: National Park Service, 2005.
-
An independent jury, comprised of nine designprofessionals,
family members, and nationalleaders (and one family member who
served as arecorder and alternate), evaluated all Stage Ientries.
The jury reviewed the public comments,discussed the merits of the
design concepts andsought entries that best embodied the spirit
ofthe Mission Statement and an understanding ofthe landscape. The
jury recommended five final-ists, who were publicly announced on
February4, 2005, and who advanced to Stage II of thedesign
competition.
In Stage II, the five finalists received an honorar-ium to
refine their Stage I design concepts to alevel that fully explained
the spatial, material,and symbolic attributes of their concept for
theFlight 93 National Memorial. On February 24and 25, 2005, the
five finalists toured the site andparticipated in a master plan
workshop toexplore the sites resource conditions, under-stand
potential visitor experiences, and deter-mine a range of actions
that would be neededthroughout the national memorial site tosupport
their design. The workshop ensuredthat any of the design concepts
could be fullyconsidered as an alternative in the General
Man-agement Plan. In April 2005, the finalists met thePartners and
participated in a second site visit inwhich they were given
complete access to allareas of the site for several days. Stage II
entrieswere due on June 15, 2005. The designs wereexhibited in
Somerset, Pennsylvania and on theproject website from July 1
through September25, 2005. The public was given the opportunityto
comment on the final designs at the exhibi-tion and through the
project website.
During the first week of August 2005, a separatejury reviewed
all public comments received todate and evaluated the designs. The
Stage II Jurywas comprised of 15 members including familymembers,
design and art professionals, andcommunity and national leaders.
The jury col-laboratively and rigorously examined thedesigns to
determine which one best fulfilled thespirit of the Mission
Statement.
As prescribed by the competition regulations,the jurys
recommendation was forwarded tothe Design Oversight Committee,
which is com-prised of a representative from each of thePartners.
The Design Oversight Committee re-viewed the recommendation and
presented it tothe head officials of their respective
Partnerorganizations. On September 7, 2005, all groupsassociated
with this process concurred with therecommendation which was
subsequentlyadopted by the Commission and publiclyannounced. The
selected design, which isreflected in Alternative 2 of this study,
representsthe Preferred Design Alternative and theagencys Preferred
Alternative.
RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PLANTO OTHER PARTNER EFFORTS
Capital CampaignThe Families of Flight 93, on behalf of the
Part-ners, contracted for a fundraising study to testthe
feasibility of various fundraising scenarios.The study concluded
that it is feasible to raise$30 million from the private sector
toward cre-ation of the Flight 93 National Memorial.
TheCommonwealth of Pennsylvania has pledged$10 million towards the
development of theMemorial. The remaining facility,
infrastructureand land acquisition costs will be provided bythe
Federal government, the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania and other
partners. The Partnerssubsequently prepared a fundraising plan
andlaunched a capital campaign to raise the neces-sary funds.
The Families of Flight 93, the National ParkService and the
National Park Foundation havecreated the Flight 93 National
Memorial Fundand are entering into a fundraising agreement.The
National Park Foundation is a congression-ally chartered national
nonprofit organizationthat will serve as the fiduciary agent for
theFlight 93 National Memorial Fund.
Land Acquisition ProgramAs of the public release of this draft
plan, allland within the national memorial boundary isin private
ownership. Any recommendations inthis plan for future development
or resourceprotection conducted or authorized by theNational Park
Service assume Federal owner-ship of any affected lands. Through
the Flight 93National Memorials enabling legislation, theNational
Park Service is authorized to acquireland for the Memorial from
willing sellers orfrom persons wishing to donate or exchangeland.
The Conservation Fund, one of thenations foremost conservation
organizations, is
I-8 Flight 93 National Memorial Final General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter I The Purpose of and
Need for Action
The Partners agreedthat an open inter-national designcompetition
wouldbe the most inclusive,transparent, anddemocratic way tocreate
a nationalmemorial to thepassengers and crewof F