Comments closed September 22
Protect Gettysburg battlefield structures from demolition
National Park Service · Gettysburg National Military Park, PA
- What
- The Park Service may demolish historic assets at Gettysburg National Military Park, a nationally significant Civil War battlefield.
- Where
- Gettysburg National Military Park, PA
- How much
- Historic structures, landscapes, or infrastructure at Gettysburg National Military Park could be permanently lost.
- Decided
- Comments closed September 22, 2026. No decision document is on file yet.Date from National Park Service PEPC project page ↗, read September 16, 2026.
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the NPS Planning (PEPC) project page ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the project page names, as PLAN read them.
- How muchThe first sentence of our What’s at risk read of the notice; the whole read is under Case.
- DecidedSeptember 22, 2026, from National Park Service PEPC project page, the document’s comment period ↗. Read September 16, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 10, 2026.
What the proposal said, and what the decision did
No figure from the proposal has been checked against the decision on this fight yet. What the record does hold is the issues ledger below.
No decision document is on PLAN’s record for this fight yet. When the agency’s decision lands, what it answered goes here.
PLAN's read: high threat
The Park Service may demolish historic assets at Gettysburg National Military Park, a nationally significant Civil War battlefield.
What’s at risk
If this goes through
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
The window has closed; the record of what was missing stays.
Chapter 5, Recommended Treatments for Rehabilitation ↗
The agency says
“Rehabilitation is the recommended ultimate treatment and use for the building.”
The document's title is 'Demolition/Removal of Select Assets,' but the underlying HSAR recommends preservation and rehabilitation, not demolition.
Chapter 5, Recommended Treatments for Rehabilitation ↗
The agency says
“The rehabilitation of the interior and the exterior must conform to the guidance and mandates put forth by the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106, Section 110, and ACHP).”
The barn is a contributing structure to a National Register district accepted in 2004, yet the document never demonstrates that a Section 106 consultation was completed or that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was notified before a demolition or removal decision was made.
TABLE: Summary of Condition Assessment Ratings ↗
The agency says
“The Maintenance Deficiency Priority Rating of SERIOUS given to the building indicates that aspects of the building are deficient and if not corrected within one to three years will result in the failure of a building component.”
The HSAR rates the barn's overall condition as POOR/SERIOUS, not as failed or irreparable.
D509004 Lightning Protection System ↗
The agency says
“The downlead cables have been severed and are not grounded, rendering the system useless.”
The lightning protection system is rated POOR/CRITICAL, with severed downlead cables rendering it nonfunctional, and the barn has no fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, or fire detection system.
G9087 Overall Building Site Drainage ↗
The agency says
“When the non-historic additions are removed from the south and east elevations, neutral drainage on the west, south, and east elevations could retain water at the base of the barn.”
Section G9087 warns that once the non-historic south and east additions are removed, neutral drainage on three elevations 'could retain water at the base of the barn,' worsening the already-documented deterioration of foundations and the bulging retaining wall.
Chapter 5, Hazardous Materials & Historic Buildings ↗
The agency says
“A hazardous material survey and analysis by an environmental engineer or consultant is a good way to identify potential material hazards and plan for their mitigation.”
The HSAR identifies a hazardous materials survey as a necessary preliminary step before any work in the building, noting that lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials are the two most common hazards in historic buildings.
Chapter 5, HPTC Programming Estimate ↗
The agency says
“Note: Work under this agreement will not be performed on any windows or doors unless required as a result of adjacent timber work. Park is responsible for: Compliance. All archaeological monitoring and clearance.”
The programming estimate carries a stated margin of negative 10 percent to positive 25 percent and totals $296,575, but it covers only stabilization tasks and explicitly excludes windows, doors, archaeological monitoring, and compliance costs, which are listed as the park's separate responsibility.
A101001-2 Barn Timber-Frame Foundations ↗
The agency says
“Due to washout of the footings at the base of the posts, much original framing has been lost and supplemental framing has been added.”
The HSAR notes that the barn's west elevation timber-frame foundation wall is actively failing, with a center post tenon already displaced from its mortise and modern cribbing as the only thing preventing collapse, yet the recommended immediate treatment requires hiring a structural engineer to design new concrete footings before reconstruction can begin.
In the agency’s own words
Section 106 Consultation and Supporting Docmentation
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Pennsylvania
Predicted likely to care is a guess from the group's sourced work in Pennsylvania, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Center for Biological Diversity
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Allegheny National Forest, Pennsylvania: Fighting the current logging surge on the Allegheny as a threat to endangered bats and hellbenders.
- Environment America
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Allegheny National Forest, Pennsylvania: Its Pennsylvania arm documented the forest's exposure to logging and gas drilling in a dedicated report.
- Gettysburg Foundation
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Pennsylvania: They work only in Pennsylvania.
- Sierra Club
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Allegheny National Forest, Pennsylvania: Longtime co-plaintiff in litigation against Forest Service timber projects on the Allegheny, including the East Side clearcutting case.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
Who signs it
The notice names no signer PLAN could read. PLAN names a decision-maker only when the document names one.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
In court on this ground
No court case we track is over Gettysburg National Military Park.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗NPS PEPCWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights that need you
Go deeper for free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.