flight 93 national memorial final general management plan

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


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)


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


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


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.


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.


Flight 93 National MemorialSomerset, PA


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


The Partners agreedthat an open inter-national designcompetition wouldbe the most inclusive,transparent, anddemocratic way tocreate a nationalmemorial to thepassengers and crewof F

flight 93 national memorial final general management plan

Documents