N a t i o n a l P a r k S e r v i c e • U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e I n t e r i o r

L i n c o l n H o m e N a t i o n a l H i s t o r i c S i t e • S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s
Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site 

Sangamon County, Springfield, Illinois 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site (national 

historic site) was authorized by an act of Congress, 

Public Law 92-128, on August 18, 1971 (85 Stat. 347). 

The national historic site’s current Master Plan was 

completed more than 35 years ago and has reached 

the limit of its effective life span. Most of the Master 

Plan’s directives have been addressed or 

accomplished by the national historic site staff. The 

ongoing evolution of the national historic site, along 

with its surrounding area and other outside factors, 

have resulted in new issues and challenges that are 

beyond the scope of the 1970 Master Plan. 

This document examines four alternatives for 

managing the national historic site for the next 15 to 

20 years. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing 

each of the alternatives. The “no action” alternative, 

alternative 1, describes the existing national historic 

site management and serves as a basis for comparison 

in evaluating the other alternatives. “Alternative 2, A 

Retreat From Modern Life in the Heart of the 

City,” the NPS preferred alternative, focuses on 

rehabilitating the historic landscape to offer visitors a 

strong sense of the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it. 

“Alternative 3, Life and Work in a Rehabilitated 

Lincoln-era Urban Landscape,” focuses on interpreting and rehabilitating the neighborhood as 

Lincoln knew it along the entire length of Eighth 

Street. Under “Alternative 4, Self-discovery of the 

Lincoln-era Landscape,” the national historic site 

management would focus on rehabilitating the 

landscape to provide visual cues of what was present 

during Lincoln’s time, offering visitors a sense of selfdiscovery. 

The key impacts of implementing the no-action

alternative 1 would be minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience, and long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts on NPS operations. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative 2, the 

preferred alternative, would be long-term, minor 

adverse impacts on archeological resources from new 

construction; minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on the museum collections because 

of the development of a new consolidated curatorial 

facility; moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

the visitor experience because of expanded interpretive and educational programs; and moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts on NPS operations because 

of development of a new consolidated maintenance 

and administrative facilities and increased efficiencies. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative 3 would 

be long-term, moderate to major adverse impacts on 

archeological resources from new construction; longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts on the 

museum collections because of the development of 

new curatorial facilities; long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience because of 

expanded interpretive and educational programs; 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial impacts on 

the socioeconomic environment because of added site 

development; and long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts on NPS operations because of the consolidation of NPS administrative and maintenance facilities. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative 4 would 

be long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts 

on the museum collections because of the development of a new curatorial facility; minor to moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment because of new site development; and 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts on NPS 

operations because of the consolidation of NPS 

administrative and maintenance facilities. 

This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement has been distributed to other 

agencies and interested organizations and individuals 

for review and comment (see next “How to 

Comment” page for details). The public comment 

period for this document will last for 60 days after the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s notice of 

availability has been published in the Federal Register. 

For further information on the General Management 

Plan, contact Superintendent, Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site, 413 South Eighth Street, 

Springfield, Illinois, 62701-1905. 

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service 
ii 

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

Comments on this Draft General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

(GMP/EIS) are welcome and will be accepted 

for 60 days after the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s notice of availability 

appears in the Federal Register. During the 

comment period, comments may be submitted 

using several methods as noted below. 

Online: at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/liho 

We prefer that readers submit comments 

online through the National Park Service’s 

planning website identified above, so the 

comments become incorporated into the 

National Park Service’s (NPS) Planning, 

Environment, and Public Comment system. 

An electronic public comment form is 

provided through this website. 

Mail: Lincoln Home National Historic Site 

General Management Plan 

National Park Service 

Denver Service Center – PDS 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, CO 80225 

or 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site 

413 South Eighth Street 

Springfield, IL 62701-1905 

Hand delivery: at public meetings to be 

announced in the media following the release 

of this plan. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire comment — 

including your personal identifying 

information — may be made publicly available 

at any time. While you can ask us in your 

comment to withhold your personal 

identifying information from public review, 

we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do 

so. 
iii 

SUMMARY 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site was 

established by an act of Congress, Public Law 

92-128, on August 18, 1971, (85 Stat. 347) to 

preserve the site associated with the home of 

President Abraham Lincoln in Springfield, 

Illinois, the only home Mr. Lincoln ever 

owned. The Lincoln family lived in this home 

from 1844 to 1861, when Mr. Lincoln left for 

Washington, D.C., to take office as the 

nation’s 16th president. 

The national historic site’s current Master 

Plan was approved in 1970 (one year prior to 

establishment of the national historic site in 

1971) and has reached the limit of its effective 

life span. The ongoing evolution of the 

national historic site, along with its surrounding area and other outside factors, has resulted 

in new issues and challenges that are beyond 

the scope of the 1970 Master Plan. A new plan 

is needed to 

• clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved at 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site; 

• provide a framework for National Park 

Service (NPS) managers to use when 

making decisions about how to best 

protect national historic site resources, 

how to provide a diverse range of visitor 

experience opportunities, how to manage 

visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if 

any, to develop at the national historic 

site; and 

• ensure that the foundation for decision 

making has been developed in 

consultation with interested stakeholders 

and adopted by NPS leadership after an 

adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, 

and economic costs of alternative courses 

of action. 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents four 

alternatives, including the NPS preferred 

alternative, for future management of Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site. The alternatives, 

which are based on the national historic site’s 

purpose, significance, and special mandates, 

present different ways to manage resources 

and visitor use and improve facilities and 

infrastructure. 

ALTERNATIVE 1 — THE NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUE 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

This alternative describes a continuation of 

current management direction and trends at 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site, which 

follows the concepts outlined in the 1970 

Master Plan. It provides a baseline for 

comparison in evaluating the changes and 

impacts of the other alternatives. 

How Visitors Would Experience the Site 

The visitor experience focus would continue 

to be on ranger-led tours of the Lincoln 

Home, the movie and exhibits in the visitor 

center, the exhibits in the Arnold and Dean 

houses, and the exhibits in the neighborhood. 

The sense of removal from the outside world 

would be limited. Limited curriculum-based 

educational programs would continue to be 

offered on- and off-site. Other nonpersonal 

services, including web information and 

printed media, would remain. Temporary 

wayside exhibits would remain on the Jenkins 

lot. 

How the Site Would be Managed 

NPS management would focus on maintaining 

the existing Lincoln-era neighborhood as it is 

today. Existing structures would be maintained as necessary to preserve their historic 

character and integrity. No restoration or 

rehabilitation would occur. Vacant lots would 
SUMMARY

iv 

remain vacant. The historic landscape would 

be preserved to maintain recognizable 

separate lots. Archeological resources would 

remain in situ. 

Administrative offices, including, administration, maintenance, interpretation, museum 

curatorial, and law enforcement, would 

remain where they are, dispersed in seven 

separate locations, with support space for 

living history in the conference center and for 

maintenance and curatorial functions in 14 

separate buildings. The Cook House, 

Robinson House, and Shutt House would 

continue being leased under the leasing 

program. Lessee parking would remain in 

existing spaces. 

The visitor center (with foyer, information 

desk, two theaters, restrooms, Eastern 

National sales area, and small ranger office) 

would remain as it is. The conference center 

would continue to serve as the location for 

staff training, meetings, and the living history 

support center. Employee parking would 

remain in existing locations along the Ninth 

Street alley, on the Stuve House grounds, and 

in the visitor parking lot when space is 

available. 

Buses would continue to drop off, pick up, 

and park in the current visitor center bus 

parking lot. 

There would be no boundary adjustment 

recommended under this alternative. 

The key impacts of implementing this alternative would be minor, long-term beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience, and long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on NPS 

operations. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 — THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Under alternative 2, national historic site 

management would focus on rehabilitating the 

historic landscape to offer visitors a strong 

sense of the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it. 

This goal would be accomplished by extensive 

rehabilitation at the core of the site, but less 

extensive away from the core. The Lincoln lot 

would be restored if there is sufficient 

documentation. 

How Visitors Would Experience the Site 

As visitors enter the site, they would enter the 

visitor center for orientation and to see 

exhibits and watch the film on Lincoln’s life. 

After that they would move to a new building 

on the Burch lot for a short orientation to 

prepare for the tour of the Lincoln Home. 

After the tour, they would have opportunities 

to see exhibits in the Lincoln back yard and 

Arnold and Corneau houses, as well as in a 

new structure on the Brown lot illustrating 

both Lincoln’s life and life in Springfield in the 

mid-19th century. Visitors could wander 

inside the fenced lots where houses are 

missing. 

Extensive living history programs and rangerled tours would be emphasized, but visitors 

could also experience the site on their own. 

Self-guided tours using neighborhood interpretive wayside exhibits, cell phones, iPods, 

etc. would be available. Curriculum-based 

educational programs would include day-long 

history programs. 

Visitors arriving by bus would be dropped off 

and picked up in the parking lot north of the 

visitor center. Visitors would have access to 

new restrooms and drinking water on the east 

side of the historic site in a new building on 

the Carrigan lot. 

How the Site Would be Managed 

The National Park Service would rehabilitate 

the neighborhood’s historic landscape to 

provide visitors with an understanding of and 

appreciation for the size, density, and diversity 
Summary 

v 

of this mid-19th century Springfield neighborhood. Rehabilitation would be most extensive 

at the intersection of Eighth Street and Jackson Street. Contemporary buildings would be 

constructed on the empty lots of three of the 

historic houses. Such contemporary buildings 

would reflect the historic character of the 

neighborhood with an overall design that 

visitors would recognize as nonhistoric. The 

Lincoln lot would be restored to the greatest 

degree possible. 

One of the contemporary buildings would be 

built on the Burch lot to be a staging area for 

visitors to the Lincoln Home. A second 

contemporary building on the Brown lot 

would provide space for exhibits. The third 

contemporary building would be built on the 

Carrigan lot for visitor services. The Dean 

House would be rehabilitated to support the 

living history program. 

In the remaining areas of the historic district, 

the historic landscape would be rehabilitated 

to illustrate 19th century outdoor life in the 

neighborhood. New features, such as 

foundation outlines and fences, residential 

streetscapes, sidewalks, and stairs, could be 

built to reflect the mass, density, and spatial 

organization of the neighborhood in Lincoln’s 

time. Species of trees and shrubs that were 

present when Lincoln lived at Eighth and 

Jackson streets could be planted to reflect 

historic vegetation patterns as part of an 

overall effort to rehabilitate the historic 

landscape. 

Most NPS administrative offices, including 

most interpretive staff offices, would be 

consolidated and moved to the new 

headquarters in the rehabilitated Stuve House 

and Stuve Carriage House. Five additional 

historic houses no longer needed for NPS 

offices would be offered for lease. The visitor 

center would be expanded to provide space 

for two small NPS ranger offices when 

Eastern National’s operations expand into the 

existing ranger offices. A new curatorial 

facility would be built in the southeast corner 

of the site. A total of eight houses would be 

available for the historic leasing program. The 

conference center would be remodeled to 

accommodate the day-long, curriculum-based 

educational history programs and would be 

renamed the Educational Center. 

The bus dropoff and pickup and RV parking 

would be at the existing location in the lot 

north of the visitor center. Parking for lessees 

would be accommodated in the expanded 

administrative zone in the east alley. 

A boundary adjustment would be sought to 

include the half block between Edwards and 

Cook streets and between South Ninth Street 

and the alley between South Eighth Street and 

South Ninth Street. This boundary adjustment 

would protect significant resources and values 

and enhance visitor appreciation and 

enjoyment of the site. 

The boundary adjustment, in addition, would 

address important operational and 

management issues by removing maintenance 

functions from several historic structures in 

the historic core and consolidating them into 

a new facility in the boundary expansion area, 

as well as moving all employee and volunteer 

parking from the historic site into this new 

area. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative 

2, the preferred alternative, would be longterm, minor adverse impacts on archeological 

resources from new construction; minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

the museum collections because of the 

development of a new consolidated curatorial 

facility; moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on the visitor experience because of 

expanded interpretive and educational 

programs; and moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on NPS operations because of 

development of a new consolidated 

maintenance and administrative facilities and 

increased efficiencies. 
SUMMARY

vi 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

Under this alternative, national historic site 

management would focus on interpretation 

and rehabilitation of the neighborhood as 

Lincoln knew it along the entire length of 

Eighth Street. The historic landscape would 

be extensively rehabilitated to the diverse and 

active quality of the neighborhood in the heart 

of Springfield. 

How Visitors Would Experience the Site 

Visitors would begin their time at the site by 

entering the visitor center where they could 

watch the orientation film on Lincoln’s life 

and see the exhibits. Leaving the visitor 

center, they would walk east towards a new 

structure on the Burch lot for a short 

orientation while they prepare for the tour of 

the Lincoln Home (as in alternative 2). 

Following the tour, they could see exhibits in 

the Lincoln back yard and in structures of 

contemporary design built on the locations of 

structures that were present during the 

Lincoln era. Additional exhibits would be 

located in the Arnold and Corneau houses, as 

well as in a contemporary structure built on 

the Brown lot. 

Other new buildings reflecting the historic 

character of the neighborhood but with an 

overall design that visitors would recognize as 

nonhistoric would be located on currently 

empty lots. These new, contemporary 

buildings would be used for curatorial storage 

functions, living history support, maintenance 

and operations functions, and administrative 

and visitor needs. A second maintenance 

building would be built in the boundary 

expansion area. 

Because there would be buildings throughout 

most of the historic landscape, visitors would 

experience a strong sense of removal from the 

modern world as they moved up and down 

Eighth Street. Interpretive information would 

be developed to explain the history of each 

neighborhood property to enhance visitor 

understanding of the Lincolns’ social 

neighborhood setting. 

Visitors would also have the opportunity to 

enjoy curriculum-based educational 

programs, including multiday programs, to 

gain a better understanding of the day-to-day 

lives of the Lincoln family and their neighbors. 

An innovative, large-scale, living history 

program would enhance visitors’ impressions 

that they had traveled in time to the historic 

period of the Lincoln-era neighborhood. 

Visitors arriving by bus would be dropped off 

on the west side of the national historic site in 

the parking lot north of the visitor center and 

picked up on the east side of the site on Ninth 

Street just north of Edwards Street. Visitors 

would have access to new restrooms on the 

east side of the national historic site in a new 

contemporary structure on the Carrigan lot. 

How the Site Would be Managed 

Existing houses and outbuildings would be 

rehabilitated as needed to serve either 

national historic site administrative needs or 

to be leased out. Historic houses no longer 

needed for NPS operations would be added to 

the existing leasing program. Six additional 

houses would be available for the leasing 

program for a total of nine under this 

alternative. Parking for lessees would be 

accommodated in the expanded administrative zone in the east alley. 

Yards would be rehabilitated with new 

vegetation that reflects the species of trees and 

shrubs that would have been present during 

the Lincoln era, as well as with walkways and 

fences. This rehabilitation would enhance 

visitor understanding of the scale and density 

of the Lincoln neighborhood in the 1860s. 

The Stuve House and carriage house would be 

rehabilitated for use as NPS headquarters 

where offices of most staff, including 
Summary 

vii 

interpretive staff, would be consolidated. The 

Sprigg House could also be used for NPS 

administrative purposes, and there would be 

two small offices in the visitor center, with 

support space in the Irvin House for living 

history and maintenance and curatorial in 

three new buildings. 

The current bus dropoff, parking, and pickup 

area would become only a bus dropoff area, 

making it easier for visitors arriving by bus. A 

new area for buses to pull in and pick up 

visitors would be built on the southeastern 

side of the national historic site on Ninth 

Street just north of Edwards Street. Parking in 

the existing north lot would be limited to RV 

and trailer parking. 

As in alternative 2, a boundary adjustment 

would be sought to include the half block 

between Edwards and Cook streets and 

between South Ninth Street and the alley 

between South Eighth Street and South Ninth 

Street. This area would provide space for 

some maintenance functions that are not 

compatible with desired conditions within the 

historic district. It would also provide space 

for employee and volunteer parking. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative 3 

would be long-term, moderate to major 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

from new construction; long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts on the museum 

collections because of the development of 

new curatorial facilities; long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience 

because of expanded interpretive and 

educational programs; long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts on the 

socioeconomic environment because of added 

site development; and long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts on NPS operations because 

of the consolidation of NPS administrative 

and maintenance facilities. 

ALTERNATIVE 4

Under this alternative, the national historic 

site management would focus on 

rehabilitating the landscape to provide visual 

cues of what was present during Lincoln’s 

time, offering visitors a sense of self-discovery. 

The Lincoln lot would be restored to the 

greatest degree possible. 

How Visitors Would Experience the Site 

Visitors would begin their time at the site by 

entering the visitor center where they could 

watch the orientation film on Lincoln’s life 

and see the exhibits. Leaving the visitor 

center, they would walk east for their tour of 

the Lincoln Home. There would be some 

opportunities for ranger-led tours of the 

historic neighborhood. Self-guided tours 

using neighborhood interpretive wayside 

exhibits, cell phones, iPods, etc. would be 

available. The Arnold, Dean, and Corneau 

houses would contain additional exhibits. 

Visitors could wander inside the fences of lots 

where structures are missing to get a better 

idea of the character of the historic 

neighborhood. 

Visitors arriving by bus would be dropped off 

and picked up on the west side of the national 

historic site in the parking lot north of the 

visitor center. 

How the Site Would be Managed 

The existing historic houses and outbuildings 

would remain as the only large-scale buildings 

in the historic district. The remaining areas of 

the historic district the historic landscape, 

including residential streetscapes, would be 

rehabilitated to illustrate 19th century 

outdoor life in the neighborhood. New 

features, such as foundation outlines and 

fences, could be built to reflect the mass, 

density, and spatial organization of the 

neighborhood in Lincoln’s time. Features 
SUMMARY

viii 

such as sidewalks, paths, stairs, and walkways 

evoking former houses could be built to 

rehabilitate the circulation patterns of the 

historic landscape. Species of trees and shrubs 

that were present when Lincoln lived at 

Eighth and Jackson streets could be planted to 

represent historic vegetation patterns. This 

would also enhance the visitor’s sense of the 

neighborhood’s historic spatial organization, 

and emphasize the views and vistas of the 

historic neighborhood landscape. The 

Lincoln lot would be restored to the greatest 

degree possible. 

The National Park Service would rehabilitate 

the exterior and interior of the Stuve House 

and Stuve Carriage House for NPS 

headquarters. A new curatorial facility would 

be built in the northeast corner of the site, and 

a new maintenance facility would be built in 

the southeast corner of the site. Five historic 

houses no longer needed for NPS operations 

would be added to the existing leasing 

program. 

The visitor center would be expanded to 

provide space for two small ranger offices 

when Eastern National’s operations expand 

into the existing ranger offices. The 

conference center would continue to be used 

for staff meetings, training, and as the living 

history support center. 

The bus dropoff, pickup, and RV/trailer 

parking would be on the west side of the site 

at the existing location in the lot north of the 

visitor center. Lessee parking would be 

permitted in the expanded administrative 

zone in the east alley. Restrooms and drinking 

water would be developed in the Arnold Barn. 

There would be no boundary adjustment 

recommended under this alternative. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative 4 

would be long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts on the museum collections 

because of the development of a new 

curatorial facility; minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment because of new site development; and moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on NPS operations because of the 

consolidation of NPS administrative and 

maintenance facilities. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After distribution of the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement there will be a 60-day public review 

period. When this period ends, the NPS 

planning team will evaluate comments from 

federal and state agencies, organizations, and 

individuals regarding the draft plan. Subsequently, the team will incorporate appropriate 

changes into a Final General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. The 

final plan will include substantive comments 

on the draft document, and NPS responses to 

those comments. Following distribution of the 

Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement and a 30-day noaction period, a “Record of Decision” 

approving a final plan will be signed by the 

NPS regional director. The “Record of 

Decision” documents the NPS selection of an 

alternative for implementation. With the 

signed “Record of Decision,” the approved 

plan can then be implemented. The implementation of the approved plan, no matter 

which alternative, will depend on future NPS 

funding levels and priorities, and on partnership funds, time, and effort. The approval of a 

general management plan does not guarantee 

that funding and staffing needed to implement 

the plan will be forthcoming. Full implementation of the plan could be many years in 

the future. 
ix 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and Need for the Plan 3

Why We Do General Management Planning 3 

Introduction 3 

Brief Description of the National Historic Site 4 

Purpose of the Plan 4 

Need for the Plan 4 

The Next Steps 9 

Implementation of the Plan 9 

Guidance for the Planning Effort 10

Purpose and Significance 10 

Purpose 10 

Significance 10 

Fundamental Resources and Values 10 

Other Important Resources and Values 11 

Special Mandates 11 

Primary Interpretive Themes 11 

Servicewide Laws and Policies 12 

Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to This General Management Plan 15

Archeological Overview and Assessment (2001) 15 

NPS Midwest Region Museum Collection Curatorial Facility Plan (2006) 15 

City of Springfield 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan 15 

Destination Springfield (2006) 16 

Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team Plan (2002) 16 

Transportation Plan 16 

Implementation Plans 16 

Planning Issues/Concerns 17

Introduction 17 

Issues 17 

Cultural Resources 17 

Visitor Experience 17 

NPS Facilities and Operations 17 

Leasing Program 18 

Boundary Adjustments 18 

Issues and Concerns Not Addressed in the General Management Plan 18 

Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 19

Impact Topics 19 

Impact Topics to Be Considered 19 

Cultural Resources 19 

Visitor Experience 19 

Socioeconomic Environment 19 

NPS Operations 20 
CONTENTS

x 

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 20 

Natural Resources 20 

Cultural Resources 22 

Indian Trust Resources 23 

Conformity with Local Land Use Plans 23 

Environmental Justice 23 

Public Health and Safety 24 

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Introduction 27

Management Zones and Alternatives 27 

Formulation of the Alternatives 28 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 28 

Management Zones 30

Management Zones for Lincoln Home National Historic Site 30 

User Capacity 35

Lincoln Home 35 

Dean House 38 

Arnold House 38 

Visitor Center 38 

Alternative 1, No-Action Alternative 39

Concept and General Management Strategies 39 

How Visitors Would Experience the Site 39 

How the Site Would Be Managed 39 

Boundary Adjustment 40 

Actions Common to All Action Alternatives (2, 3, and 4) 43

Alternative 2 — A Retreat from Modern Life in the Heart of the City (Preferred) 44

Concept 44 

How Visitors Would Experience the Site 44 

How the Site Would Be Managed 44 

Boundary Adjustment 47 

Alternative 3: Life and Work in a Rehabilitated Lincoln-era Urban Landscape 49

Concept 49 

How Visitors Would Experience the Site 49 

How the Site Would Be Managed 49 

Boundary Adjustment 50 

Alternative 4: Self-Discovery of the Lincoln-Era Landscape 53

Concept 53 

How Visitors Would Experience the Site 53 

How the Site Would be Managed 53 

Boundary Adjustment 54 

Estimated Costs 57

Associated Costs: Alternative 1 — No Action 57 

Associated Costs: Alternative 2 — Preferred Alternative 57 
Contents 

xi 

Associated Costs: Alternative 3 59 

Associated Costs: Alternative 4 59 

Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 60

Reconstructed Neighborhood 60 

Future Studies Needed 61

Mitigative Measures Common to All Alternatives 62

Cultural Resources 62 

Natural Resources 63 

Exotic Species 63 

Visitor Safety and Experiences 63 

Socioeconomic Environment 63 

Sustainable Design and Aesthetics 63 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 64 

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The National Historic Site’s Cultural Resources 77

Historic Structures 78 

The Arnold House 78 

The Beedle House 78 

The Cook House 78 

The Corneau House 78 

The Dean House 78 

The Dubois House 83 

The Lyon House 83 

The Miller House 83 

The Morse House 83 

The Robinson House 83 

The Shutt House 83 

The Sprigg House 83 

Archeological Resources 83 

Cultural Landscape 84 

Museum Collections 84 

Visitor Experience 85

Visitor Experience at the National Historic Site 85 

Other Lincoln-Related Sites in Springfield and Illinois 85 

Lincoln-Herndon Law Offices State Historic Site 85 

Old State Capitol State Historic Site 85 

Lincoln Depot (Great Western Depot) 85 

Lincoln Tomb State Historic Site 86 

Lincoln's New Salem State Historic Site 86 

Lincoln Log Cabin State Historic Site 86 

Vandalia Statehouse State Historic Site 86 

Metamora Courthouse State Historic Site 86 

Mount Pulaski Courthouse State Historic Site 86 

Postville Courthouse State Historic Site 86 
CONTENTS

xii 

The Socioeconomic Environment 87

History 87 

Population 87 

Employment and Income 87 

Tourism 87 

NPS Operations 89

Staffing 89 

Facilities 89 

Leasing Program 89 

Partnerships 89 

Other NPS Sites Commemorating President Abraham Lincoln and His Family 90

Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park (Kentucky) 90 

Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial (Indiana) 90 

Mount Rushmore National Memorial (South Dakota) 90 

Lincoln Memorial (District of Columbia) 90 

Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site (District of Columbia) 90 

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 93

Cumulative Impact Analysis 93 

Impairment of National Historic Site Resources and Unacceptable Impacts 94 

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 96

Cultural Resources 96 

Definitions of Intensity Levels 97 

Museum Collections 97 

Visitor Experience 97 

Socioeconomic Environment 98 

NPS Operations 99 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative 100

Cultural Resources 100 

Historic Structures 100 

Archeological Resources 100 

Cultural Landscapes 101 

Museum Collections 102 

Visitor Experience 103 

Socioeconomic Environment 103 

NPS Operations 104 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative 105

Cultural Resources 105 

Historic Structures 105 

Archeological Resources 106 

Cultural Landscapes 107 

Museum Collections 108 

Visitor Experience 109 

Socioeconomic Environment 109 
Contents 

xiii 

NPS Operations 110 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 112

Cultural Resources 112 

Historic Structures 112 

Archeological Resources 113 

Cultural Landscapes 114 

Museum Collections 115 

Visitor Experience 116 

Socioeconomic Environment 116 

NPS Operations 117 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 119

Cultural Resources 119 

Historic Structures 119 

Archeological Resources 120 

Cultural Landscapes 121 

Museum Collections 122 

Visitor Experience 122 

Socioeconomic Environment 123 

NPS Operations 124 

Other Impacts 125

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 125 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 125 

Relationships between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 125 

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Public and Agency Involvement 129

Public Meetings and Newsletters 129 

Consultation with Other Agencies/Officials and Organizations 130 

Illinois Historic Preservation Officer, Section 106 Consultation 130 

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving a Copy of This Document 131 

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS, AND INDEX 

Appendix A: Legislation 135

Appendix B: Criteria for Selecting the Environmentally Preferable Alternative 136

Appendix C: Archeological Excavations at the National Historic Site 137

Appendix D: Consultation Letters 138

Selected References 141

Preparers and Consultants 143

Index 144
CONTENTS

xiv 

MAPS 

Region 5 

Vicinity 7 

Alternative 1 41 

Alternative 2 45 

Alternative 3 51 

Alternative 4 55 

TABLES 

Table 1. Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to the National Historic Site 13 

Table 2. Management Zones 31 

Table 3. Indicators and Standards 36 

Table 4. Estimated Costs of the Alternatives 58 

Table 5. Summary Comparison of Alternatives 65 

Table 6: Table 6. Summary of Key Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 71 

Table 7. List of Classified Structures 79 
xv 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement is organized 

in accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s implementing 

regulations for the National Environmental 

Policy Act, NPS management policies, and the 

National Park Service’s Director’s Order on 

“Environmental Analysis” (DO-12). 

Chapter 1: Introduction sets the framework 

for the entire document. It describes why the 

plan is being prepared and what needs it must 

address. It gives guidance for the alternatives 

being considered, which are based on the 

national historic site’s legislated mission, its 

purpose, the significance of its resources, 

special mandates and administrative 

commitments, servicewide mandates and 

policies, and other planning efforts in the area. 

The chapter also details the planning 

opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping meetings and initial 

planning team efforts. The alternatives in the 

next chapter address these issues and 

concerns to varying degrees. This chapter 

concludes with a statement of the scope of the 

environmental impact analysis — specifically, 

what impact topics were or were not analyzed 

in detail. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative, begins by describing 

the management zones that will be used to 

manage the national historic site in the future. 

It also consists of the continuation of current 

management and trends in the national 

historic site (Alternative 1, the no-action 

alternative), followed by actions common to all 

of the action alternatives. Alternatives or 

actions that were considered but dismissed 

from detailed evaluating are described just 

before the discussion of future studies and/or 

implementation plans that would be needed. 

Mitigating measures proposed to minimize or 

eliminate the effects/impacts of some proposed 

actions come next. The chapter concludes with 

a discussion of the environmentally preferable 

alternative and summary tables of alternative 

actions and the environmental consequences 

of implementing those alternative actions. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment describes 

those areas and resources that would be 

affected by implementing actions in the 

various alternatives — cultural and 

archeological resources, natural resources, 

visitor use and experience, socioeconomic 

environment, and NPS operations. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

analyzes the impacts of implementing the 

alternatives on topics described in Chapter 3: 

Affected Environment. Methods used for 

assessing the impacts in terms of the intensity, 

type, and duration, are outlined at the 

beginning of the chapter. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

describes the history of public and agency 

coordination during the planning effort; it also 

lists agencies and organizations receiving 

copies of the document. 

The Appendixes present supporting 

information for the document, along with 

references and a list of the planning team and 

other consultants. 

Chapter 1

Introduction

3 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

WHY WE DO GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLANNING 

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978 requires each unit of the national park 

system to develop a general management plan. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 states “[t]he 

Service will maintain an up-to-date general 

management plan for each unit of the national 

park system” (2.3.1 General Management 

Planning). But what is the value, or usefulness, 

of general management planning? 

The purpose of a general management plan is 

to ensure that a park system unit has a clearly 

defined direction for the preservation of 

resources and visitor use to best achieve the 

National Park Service’s mandate to preserve 

resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations. In addition, general 

management planning makes the National 

Park Service more effective, collaborative, and 

accountable by 

• providing a balance between continuity 

and adaptability in decision making —

Defining the desired conditions to be 

achieved and maintained in a park unit 

provides a touchstone that allows NPS 

managers and staff to constantly adapt 

their actions to changing situations while 

staying focused on what is most important 

about the park unit, 

• analyzing the park unit in relation to its 

surrounding ecosystem, cultural setting, 

and community — This helps NPS 

managers and staff understand how the 

park unit can interrelate with neighbors 

and others in ways that are ecologically, 

socially, and economically sustainable. 

Decisions made within such a larger 

context are more likely to be successful 

over time, and 

• affording everyone who has a stake in 

decisions affecting a park unit with an 

opportunity to be involved in the planning 

process and to understand the decisions 

that are made — National park system 

units are often the focus of intense public 

interest. Public involvement throughout 

the planning process provides focused 

opportunities for NPS managers and staff 

to interact with the public and learn about 

public concerns, expectations, and values. 

Public involvement also provides opportunities for NPS managers and staff to 

share information about the park unit's 

purpose and significance, as well as 

opportunities and constraints for 

management of NPS lands. 

The ultimate outcome of general management 

planning for national park system units is an 

agreement among the National Park Service, 

its partners, and the public on why each area is 

managed as part of the national park system, 

what resource conditions and visitor experience should exist there, and how those conditions can best be achieved and maintained 

over time. 

INTRODUCTION 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents and 

analyzes four alternative future directions for 

the management and use of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site (NHS). Alternative 2 is 

the National Park Service’s preferred alternative. The potential environmental impacts 

of all alternatives have been identified and 

assessed. 

General management plans are intended to be 

long-term documents that establish and 

articulate a management philosophy and 

framework for decision making and problem 

solving in national park system units. General 

management plans usually provide guidance 

during a 15- to 20- year period. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

4 

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation plans 

are accomplished over time. Budget restrictions, requirements for additional data or 

regulatory compliance, and competing 

national park system priorities prevent 

immediate implementation of many actions. 

Major or especially costly actions could be 

implemented 10 or more years into the future. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE 

NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

The Lincoln Home National Historic Site in 

Springfield, Illinois (see Region and Vicinity 

maps), was established in 1971 by Public Law 

92-128 (85 Stat. 347) (see appendix A). 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site protects 

and interprets the home where Abraham 

Lincoln lived with his family from 1844 to 

1861. Located in Sangamon County in westcentral Illinois, Springfield is also the burial 

site for Mr. Lincoln. 

Following the president’s assassination in 

1865, the home remained the property of the 

Lincoln family until 1887, when Robert Todd 

Lincoln, the sole surviving son of Abraham 

and Mary Lincoln, deeded the property to the 

state of Illinois. Robert Lincoln did so with the 

condition that the home remain well maintained and available to the public free of 

charge. 

The home was designated a national historic 

landmark in 1960, and it remained the property of the state of Illinois until 1972, when it 

was transferred to the National Park Service. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The approved general management plan will 

be the basic document for managing Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site for the next 15 to 

20 years. The purposes of this general 

management plan are as follows: 

• Confirm the purpose, significance, and 

special mandates of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site. 

• Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor uses and experiences to be 

achieved in the national historic site. 

• Provide a framework for NPS managers to 

use when making decisions about how to 

best protect national historic site 

resources, how to provide quality visitor 

uses and experiences, how to manage 

visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if 

any, to develop in or near the national 

historic site. 

• Ensure that this foundation for decision 

making has been developed in 

consultation with interested and affected 

parties and adopted by the NPS leadership 

after an adequate analysis of the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of alternative 

courses of action. 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its 

management provides the fundamental 

direction for the administration of Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site (and other units 

and programs of the national park system). 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The alternatives in this general management 

plan address the desired future conditions 

that are not mandated by law and/or policy 

and must be determined through a planning 

process. This general management plan will 

build on the laws and the legislation that 

established the Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site to provide a vision for its future. 

The “Servicewide Mandates and Policies” 

section calls the reader’s attention to topics 

that are important to understanding the 

management direction at the national historic 

site. 
R

L H N H S

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • December 2009 • 449/101893 One inch equals approximately 60 miles

0

0

48 Kilometers

60 Miles

INDIANA

KENTUCKY

ILLINOIS

MICHIGAN

WISCONSIN

IOWA

MISSOURI

CHICAGO

PEORIA

SPRINGFIELD

64 

57

55

72

94 

88 

39

55

155

74

LA

KE

MICHIGA

N

Shawnee

NF

Missouri River

Mississippi

River

L H 

N H S

5

E Jefferson St

S 1st St

S 2nd St

S 4th St

S 5th St

S 3rd St

S 6th St

S 7th St

S 8th St

S 8th St

S 9th St

S 11th St

E Madison St

E Adams St

E Monroe St

E Washington St

E Jackson St E Jackson St

E Edwards St

E Cook St

E Capitol Ave

E Lawrence Ave

S College St

S Spring St

Lincoln Home 

National 

Historic Site

Abraham Lincoln 

Presidential Museum

Lincoln Tomb

Abraham Lincoln 

Presidential Library

Great Western 

Depot

Lincoln Herndon Law Offices 

State Historic Site

Old State Capitol 

State Historic Site

Illinois State Capitol

55

55

29 97

29 97

Springfield

L H N H S

V

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • December 2009 • 449/101895

0 100 YARDS 250 YARDS 500 YARDS

NORTH

INDIANA

ILLINOIS

MICHIGAN

WISCONSIN

IOWA

MISSOURI

CHICAGO

PEORIA

SPRINGFIELD

64 

57

55

72

94 

88 

39

55

155

74

LAKE MICHIGAN Shawnee

NF

Missouri River

Mississippi River

L H 

N H S

7

Purposes and Need for the Plan 

9 

This new general management plan for 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site is 

needed because the national historic site’s 

current Master Plan was completed more than 

39 years ago and has reached the limit of its 

effective life span. Most of its directives have 

been addressed or accomplished by NPS staff. 

The ongoing evolution of the national historic 

site, along with its surrounding area and other 

outside factors, has resulted in new issues and 

challenges for the future that are beyond the 

scope of the 1970 Master Plan. 

Each of these changes has implications for 

how visitors access and use the national 

historic site and the facilities needed to 

support those uses, how resources are 

managed, and how the National Park Service 

manages its operations. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After distribution of the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement, there will be a 60-day public review 

period. When this period ends, the NPS 

planning team will evaluate comments from 

federal and state agencies, organizations, and 

individuals regarding the draft plan. 

Subsequently, the team will incorporate 

appropriate changes into a Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement. The final plan will include 

substantive comments on the draft document 

and NPS responses to those comments. 

Following distribution of the Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement and a 30-day no-action period, a 

“Record of Decision” approving a final plan 

will be signed by the NPS regional director. 

The “Record of Decision” documents the 

NPS selection of an alternative for 

implementation. With the signed “Record of 

Decision,” the approved plan can then be 

implemented, depending on funding and 

staffing. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

Implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of a 

plan does not guarantee that the funding and 

staffing needed to implement the plan will be 

forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

approved plan could be many years in the 

future. 

Implementation of the approved plan could 

also be affected by other factors. Once the 

general management plan has been approved, 

additional feasibility studies and more 

detailed planning and environmental 

documentation would be completed, as 

required, before any proposed actions can be 

carried out. These more detailed plans will tier 

from the approved general management plan, 

describing specific actions managers intend to 

take to achieve desired conditions and longterm goals. 
10 

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE 

The national historic site’s purpose and 

significance provide a foundation upon which 

all planning and management decisions are 

based. Purpose statements are based on 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site’s 

establishing legislation and NPS policies. They 

clarify the reasons the national historic site 

was set aside as a unit of the national park 

system and provide the foundation for the 

management and use of the national historic 

site. 

Significance statements identify the resources 

and values that are central to managing the 

national historic site and express the importance of the site to our natural and/or cultural 

heritage. Significance statements do not 

inventory the national historic site’s 

resources; rather, they describe the site’s 

distinctiveness and help to place it in regional, 

national, and international contexts. Understanding the national historic site’s significance will help managers make decisions that 

preserve the resources and values necessary to 

fulfill the site’s purpose. 

The following are the purpose and significance statements for Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site. 

Purpose 

The purpose of Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site is as follows: 

• To protect and preserve the Springfield 

home of Abraham Lincoln and the 

surrounding Lincoln-era neighborhood as 

a meaningful setting for visitor 

understanding and appreciation; and 

• To interpret Abraham Lincoln and the 

significant impact his 17-year residency in 

Springfield had on his emergence as a 

transcendent national and international 

figure, for the benefit of present and 

future generations. 

Significance 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site is significant as a unit of the national park system 

because of the following: 

• Abraham Lincoln and his family lived in 

this, the only house they would ever own, 

for 17 years that were critical in his 

personal, professional, and political 

development. 

• During these years Abraham Lincoln’s 

legal career evolved from a small town law 

practice to a high level of sophistication — 

he developed a prosperous law practice; 

he served one term in the U.S. House of 

Representatives; and he ran for the U.S. 

Senate and became a major force in the 

new Republican party and its presidential 

nominee in 1860. 

• The Home was the setting for many significant events associated with Abraham 

Lincoln’s political career, including his 

preparation for the Lincoln-Douglas 

debates, his formal receiving of the 

Republican nomination for president, the 

writing of at least part of his first inaugural 

address, and other events. 

• In 1861 he left this house and Springfield, 

Illinois, to become the 16th president of 

the United States. 

Fundamental Resources and Values 

Fundamental resources and values translate 

the broader concepts of national historic site 

significance to the resources and experiences 

on the grounds that should be the focus of 

NPS management. These resources and values 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

11 

should be the preeminent considerations in all 

planning and decision making. 

Focusing on fundamental resources ensures 

that funding is channeled toward elements 

that are fundamental to achieving the national 

historic site’s purpose. 

The fundamental resources of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site are as follows: 

• the Lincoln Home and lot 

• the view of the neighborhood from the 

Lincoln Home, including the intersection 

of South Eighth and Jackson Streets and 

the lots, homes, and outbuildings that 

belonged to Arnold, Corneau, Burch, 

Brown, and Carrigan to provide a 

meaningful setting for the home 

• the historic landscape of the Lincoln 

neighborhood 

• views of the Lincoln Home from the 

intersection of South Eighth and Jackson 

as well as from his neighbors’ lots to 

provide a meaningful understanding of 

the home’s neighborhood context 

Other Important Resources and Values 

In addition to fundamental resources and 

values, the planning process identifies other 

important resources not directly related to the 

national historic site’s purpose. These include 

the following: 

• the national register district within the 

boundary of the national historic site 

Other important sites related to the Lincoln 

experience in Springfield include the 

following: 

• Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and 

Museum 

• Lincoln Depot (Great Western Depot) 

• Lincoln Tomb State Historic Site (a 

national historic landmark) 

• Lincoln-Herndon Law Offices State 

Historic Site (part of the Central 

Springfield National Register Historic 

District) 

• Old State Capitol State Historic Site — a 

national historic landmark (and part of the 

Central Springfield National Register 

Historic District) 

• Lincoln’s New Salem State Historic Site 

• Vachel Lindsay State Historic Site (a 

national historic landmark — home of 

Mary Lincoln’s sister) 

These sites enhance the interpretive story of 

Mr. Lincoln’s relationship with the city of 

Springfield and the development of his legal 

and political careers. 

Special Mandates 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site is a 

deed-restricted park unit (one of two in the 

national park system). The deed restriction 

requires that the Lincoln Home be made 

available without cost to the public. 

Primary Interpretive Themes 

Primary interpretive themes are those ideas 

and concepts about Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site and Abraham Lincoln that every 

visitor will gain an understanding of and 

appreciation for as a result of their visit to the 

site. These themes are based on the national 

historic site’s purpose and significance and 

provide the foundation for all interpretive 

media and programs in the national historic 

site. They address those ideas critical to understanding and appreciating the national 

historic site’s importance. Effective interpretation is realized when visitors are able to 

connect the concepts with the resources and 

derive something meaningful from their 

experience. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

12 

The following theme statements will provide 

the basis for interpretation at the national 

historic site: 

• Abraham Lincoln believed in the ideal that 

everyone in America should have the 

opportunity to improve his/her economic 

and social condition. Lincoln’s life was the 

embodiment of that ideal. 

• Abraham Lincoln was a spouse, parent, 

and neighbor who experienced the same 

hopes, dreams, and challenges of life that 

are still experienced by many people. 

• Many of Abraham Lincoln’s social and 

political beliefs concerning equality, 

freedom, and opportunity came into focus 

while he lived in Springfield. We as a 

nation strive to fulfill Lincoln’s legacy of 

national and individual ideals. 

• People today — as they have since the 

time of Abraham Lincoln’s death — visit 

his home as a place to memorialize his life, 

seek meaning from his struggles and 

achievements, and find inspiration for 

their own lives. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

Many management directives are specified in 

laws and policies guiding the National Park 

Service and are, therefore, not subject to 

alternative approaches. For example, there are 

laws and policies about managing environmental quality (such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, and Executive Order 

11990 “Protection of Wetlands”); laws 

governing the preservation of cultural 

resources (such as the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act); and 

laws about providing public services (such as 

the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility 

Standards) — to name only a few. In other 

words, a general management plan is not 

needed to decide, for instance, that it is 

appropriate to protect endangered species, 

control exotic species, protect archeological 

sites, conserve artifacts, or provide for handicap access. Laws and policies have already 

decided those and many other things for us. 

Although attaining some of the conditions set 

forth in these laws and policies may have been 

temporarily deferred at the national historic 

site because of funding or staffing limitations, 

the National Park Service will continue to 

strive to implement these requirements. 

Some of these laws and executive orders are 

applicable solely or primarily to units of the 

national park system. These include the 1916 

Organic Act that created the National Park 

Service; the General Authorities Act of 1970; 

the act of March 27, 1978, relating to the 

management of the national park system; and 

the National Parks Omnibus Management Act 

(1998). Other laws and executive orders have 

much broader application, such as the 

Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and Executive Order 11990 

addressing the protection of wetlands. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 USC §1) provides 

the fundamental management direction for all 

units of the national park system: 

[P]romote and regulate the use of the 

federal areas known as national parks, 

monuments, and reservations... by such 

means and measure as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, 

monuments and reservations, which 

purpose is to conserve the scenery and 

the natural and historic objects and the 

wildlife therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. 

The National Park System General Authorities 

Act (16 USC §1a-1, et seq.) affirms that while 

all national park system units remain “distinct 

in character,” they are “united through their 

interrelated purposes and resources into one 

national park system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage.” The act 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

13 

makes it clear that the NPS Organic Act and 

other protective mandates apply equally to all 

units of the system. Further, amendments 

state that NPS management of park system 

units should not “derogat[e] . . . the purposes 

and values for which these various areas have 

been established.” 

The National Park Service also has established 

policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in a 

guidance manual entitled NPS Management 

Policies 2006. The alternatives considered in 

this document incorporate and comply with 

the provisions of these mandates and policies. 

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative, it is important to combine the 

servicewide mandates and policies with the 

management actions described in an 

alternative. 

In addition to the national historic site’s 

enabling legislation, the laws and policies 

explained in table 1 also govern the 

management of Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site. (See table 1.) 

The alternatives in this general management 

plan address the desired future conditions 

that are not mandated by law and policy and 

must be determined through a planning 

process. 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO THE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national historic site.

Desired Condition Source 

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried and 

their significance is determined and documented. 

Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed 

condition unless it is determined through formal 

processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable. When disturbance or deterioration is 

unavoidable, the site is professionally documented 

and excavated, and the resulting artifacts, materials, 

and records are curated and conserved in 

consultation with the Illinois state historic 

preservation office, the city of Springfield historic 

preservation program, and other stakeholders as 

appropriate. The results of future archeological 

research will be employed to inform management 

decision making and enhance interpretive and 

educational programs. 

National Historic Preservation Act; Archeological 

Resources Protection Act; 36 CFR 800, the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation; the programmatic agreement 

among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the National Council of 

State Historic Preservation Officers (2008); NPS Cultural 

Resources Management Guideline (DO-28, 1996); and 

DO 28A, Archeology. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

14 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved for historic structures (e.g., buildings, 

structures, roads, and trails).

Desired Condition Source 

Historic structures are inventoried and their significance and 

integrity are evaluated under National Register of Historic 

Places criteria. The qualities that contribute to the listing or 

eligibility for listing of historic structures in the national 

register are protected in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation (unless it is determined through a formal 

process that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable). 

National Historic Preservation Act; 36 CFR 800, 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation; the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties and the Guidelines for the 

Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and 

Reconstruction of Historic Buildings, the 

programmatic agreement among the National 

Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Council of State 

Historic Preservation Officers (2008); NPS 

Management Policies 2006; NPS Cultural 

Resources Management Guideline (DO-28, 1996) 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved for cultural landscapes.

Desired Condition Source 

Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify 

landscapes that are potentially eligible for listing in the 

national register and to assist in future management decisions for landscapes and associated resources, both cultural 

and natural. 

The management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving the landscape’s physical attributes that contributes to 

its historical significance. 

The preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of cultural landscapes is undertaken in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended (16 USC 470); Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s implementing regulations 

regarding the “Protection of Historic Properties”

(36 CFR 800); Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (1996); NPS Management Policies 

2006; NPS Cultural Resources Management 

Guideline (DO-28, 1996) 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved for museum collections.

Desired Condition Source 

Museum collections (historic objects, artifacts, works of art, 

and archival material) would be acquired, accessioned, and 

catalogued, preserved, protected, and made available for 

access and use according to NPS standards and guidelines. 

NPS Management Policies 2006; DO 28 and its 

implementing guidance NPS-28, “Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline”; NPS Museum 

Handbook
15 

RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

ARCHEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW 

AND ASSESSMENT (2001) 

An archeological overview and assessment 

study was conducted at the national historic 

site and is a basic element of a national park 

system unit’s archeological resource management program. This study summarizes the 

knowledge about the national historic site’s 

archeological resources, the environment, and 

the cultural history; reviews the archeological 

investigations that have taken place at the 

national historic site; and provides recommendations for future research. It is a vital 

component in the development of resource 

management plans/strategies, land protection 

plans, and interpretive prospectuses. The 

assessment recommended a number of 

management actions including: developing a 

cultural landscape approach to managing the 

national historic site; broadening the 

interpretive framework; completing the 

analysis of the materials recovered from 

Lincoln Home and lot excavations; 

reproducing the George Painter interpretive 

documents written in the early 1980s; and 

developing a specific archeological program 

focusing on human diet and health issues 

related to life in Springfield. 

NPS MIDWEST REGION MUSEUM 

COLLECTION CURATORIAL 

FACILITY PLAN (2006) 

The approved “Museum Collection Curatorial 

Facility Plan” for the Midwest Region of the 

National Park Service recognizes that 

resources are limited, and that sharing of 

resources among national park system units 

and consolidation of collections at multi-park 

facilities may be the only way to meet NPS 

stewardship responsibilities. This regional 

approach addresses critical museum 

management issues on a park-by-park basis 

and then develops a multi-park facility 

strategy. 

This plan assessed the needs of the museum 

and curatorial facilities at the national historic 

site. The plan concluded that the national 

historic site had met 95% of the “Checklist for 

Museum Preservation and Protection” as of 

fiscal year (FY) 2006, and that the collections 

storage is adequate, although access could be 

improved through consolidation. It is a goal of 

the national historic site to bring back the 

cataloged items that are at the Midwest 

Archeological Center. Due to lack of space 

however, bringing the artifacts back to the 

national historic site is not feasible. There is 

also no space available to store future 

anticipated museum pieces. The plan 

recommended construction of a new museum 

storage facility with an approximate size of 

8,900 square feet, including offices within or 

near the national historic site. This would free 

up existing historic buildings for interpretive 

purposes. 

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD 

2005-2009 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 

This plan represents a strategic planning guide 

for housing, economic, and community 

development in the city. The consolidated 

plan gives citizens in the community a quick 

overview of Springfield’s housing and 

community development problems; the broad 

5-year goals and strategies proposed to deal 

with those problems; the private, public, 

federal, state, and local resources that may be 

available to help attain those goals; and 

specific projects and actions intended for 

carrying out this strategy beginning July 1, 

2005, and ending June 30, 2009. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

16 

The consolidated plan is designed to be a 

collaborative process whereby the city 

establishes a unified vision for community 

development actions. It offers the city the 

opportunity to shape the various housing and 

community development programs into 

effective, coordinated neighborhood and 

community development strategies. It also 

creates the opportunity for strategic planning 

and citizen participation to take place in a 

comprehensive context and to reduce 

duplication of effort at the local level. Future 

management actions at the national historic 

site could have implications for overall 

neighborhood and community development 

in Springfield. Development of the general 

management plan presents an opportunity for 

coordinated planning between the National 

Park Service and the city of Springfield. 

DESTINATION SPRINGFIELD (2006) 

“Destination Springfield” focuses on 

capitalizing on the tremendous success of the 

Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum and 

its significant impact as a showcase attraction. 

This initiative is intended to use the vast 

interest in and legacy of President Abraham 

Lincoln to strengthen the destination appeal 

of Springfield and to create a tourism initiative 

for Illinois that provides a cultural experience 

on par with the caliber, quality, and character 

of Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. The 

overarching objective is to continue the 

enhancement of Springfield into a multiday 

attraction. Potential actions in the general 

management plan could have an impact on 

future tourism in Springfield.

REGIONAL/URBAN DESIGN 

ASSISTANCE TEAM PLAN (2002) 

The Regional / Urban Design Assistance Team 

was invited to Springfield by the city of 

Springfield and the Springfield Section of the 

American Institute of Architects to focus on 

“New Dimensions for Downtown Springfield: 

Preserving the Past and Building the Future.”

The goals include better planning in the 

downtown, improved directional and visual 

cohesiveness, and improving the links 

between downtown Springfield and its 

surrounding neighborhoods. Potential actions 

in the general management plan could have an 

impact on future development in downtown 

Springfield, as well as improved directional 

and visual cohesiveness between the city and 

the national historic site.

TRANSPORTATION PLAN 

The transportation plan developed as part of 

Springfield’s Mass Transit District evaluated 

the feasibility of a one-stop transportation 

hub for the city of Springfield, including 

Lincoln Home and other historic sites. The 

transportation hub is currently in the 

implementation phase. 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

The National Park Service prepares detailed 

plans that implement the policies and goals of 

the general management plan. Much of the 

management guidance that evolves from the 

general management plan is further defined in 

more specific “implementation plans.” 
17 

PLANNING ISSUES/CONCERNS 

INTRODUCTION 

Various issues and concerns were identified 

during the scoping process (early information gathering) for this general management 

plan by the general public, NPS staff, and 

representatives from other government 

agencies. 

An issue is defined as an opportunity, 

conflict, or problem regarding the use or 

management of public lands. Comments 

were solicited at public meetings and 

through planning newsletters. 

The issues and concerns generally involve 

determining the appropriate visitor experience, cultural landscape treatments, visitor 

facilities, and efficient NPS operations. The 

general management plan alternatives 

provide strategies for addressing the issues 

within the context of the national historic 

site’s purpose, significance, laws and 

policies, and special mandates. 

ISSUES 

The following issues were identified for 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site. 

Cultural Resources 

• Several extant historic structures and 

vacant properties in the national historic 

site have not been researched and 

restored, rehabilitated, or reconstructed. 

Restoration, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of these structures or properties would enhance visitor understanding and appreciation of the site. 

• A cultural landscape report has not been 

completed. Management of the national 

historic site as a cultural landscape 

would enhance understanding of life in 

the neighborhood during Lincoln’s life. 

• Museum collection storage is dispersed 

between three facilities at the national 

historic site and a fourth at the Midwest 

Archeological Center in Lincoln, 

Nebraska. Site curatorial facilities are 

inadequate for storage of the entire 

collection. Collections are currently 

properly preserved and protected, but 

access to and use of the collections is 

constrained. 

Visitor Experience 

The visitor experience at Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site currently focuses on 

ranger-led tours of the Lincoln Home and 

seeing the exhibits and film in the visitor 

center and/or the exhibits in the Arnold and 

Dean houses and the outdoor wayside 

exhibits. To more completely address the 

needs of visitors, NPS staff must explore 

options for enhancing the visitor experience 

at Lincoln Home. 

NPS Facilities and Operations 

Lincoln Home is still a developing NPS site. 

With the exception of the visitor center, the 

site has no separate administrative or 

operational facilities. Maintenance, 

administrative, and curatorial operations 

currently are dispersed in a number of 

historic structures throughout the national 

historic site. Vehicular traffic and parking in 

the historic core present some safety issues 

as well as intrusions on the historic scene. 

The visitor center facilities, including 

restrooms, exhibit space, and space for the 

Eastern National sales operations, are not 

adequate for peak visitor use periods. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

18 

Leasing Program 

Three historic houses at the national historic 

site (Cook House, Robinson House, and 

Shutt House) are leased. Two of the houses 

are used by the General Services Administration (GSA) for their regional offices. A 

third is leased through the General Service 

Administration to Senator Richard Durbin 

for his Springfield office. The three houses 

on the leasing program have a total of 4,700 

square feet. Total leasing revenue in FY 2008 

was $94,000. 

A maximum of six additional houses at the 

national historic site could be leased. The 

lease revenue for these houses would total 

approximately $127,000. This feasibility of 

leasing these additional properties is 

assessed in the management alternatives. 

Boundary Adjustments 

As part of the planning process, the National 

Park Service must identify and evaluate 

boundary adjustments that may be necessary 

or desirable to carry out the purposes of the 

national historic site. Boundary adjustments 

may be recommended to 

• protect significant resources and values, 

or to enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to national historic 

site purposes;

• address operational and management 

issues, such as the need for access or the 

need for boundaries to correspond to 

logical boundary delineations such as 

topographic or other natural features or 

roads or 

• otherwise protect national historic site 

resources that are critical to fulfilling the 

site’s purpose. 

The adequacy of the national historic site’s 

boundaries was assessed as part of the 

general management planning process. It has 

been determined that administration of the 

additional land would be feasible. The area 

recommended for acquisition is a half-block 

area immediately adjacent to the southeast 

corner of the national historic site. The 

relocation of maintenance operations and 

parking to the boundary expansion area 

would enhance the visitor experience and 

improve resource protection. Other 

alternatives for management of maintenance 

operations (alternative 4) are feasible but less 

than adequate for efficient management and 

resource protection. A boundary expansion 

has been recommended in alternatives 2 and 

3 of this plan. 

For more information see “Boundary 

Adjustment” section in alternatives 2 and 3 

in “Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative.” 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS NOT 

ADDRESSED IN THE GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Not all issues or concerns raised by the public are included in this general management 

plan; other issues raised by the public were 

not included if they 

• are already prescribed by law, regulation, 

or policy (see the “Servicewide 

Mandates and Policies” section), 

• would be in violation of laws, 

regulations, or policies, or 

• were at a level that was too detailed for a 

general management plan and are more 

appropriately addressed in subsequent 

planning documents. 

Bus circulation issues were considered to be 

too detailed for a general management plan. 

The bus parking lot north of the visitor 

center is not adequate for both parking and 

bus pickup and dropoff during peak 

visitation times. It was determined that NPS 

managers would work with state, local, and 

private partners to develop a shared bus 

parking area in the downtown area.
19 

IMPACT TOPICS — RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE 

PLANNING PROCESS 

IMPACT TOPICS 

An important part of planning is seeking to 

understand the consequences of making one 

decision over another. To this end, NPS 

general management plans typically are 

accompanied by full environmental impact 

statements. Environmental impact statements identify the anticipated impacts of 

possible actions on resources and on visitors 

and neighbors. Under each alternative, in 

chapter 4, impacts are organized by topic, 

such as “Impacts on Visitor Experience” or 

“Impacts on NPS Operations.” Impact 

topics serve to focus the environmental 

analysis and to ensure the relevance of 

impact evaluation. The impact topics identified for this general management plan are 

outlined in this section; they were identified 

based on federal laws and other legal 

requirements, Council on Environmental 

Quality guidelines, NPS management 

policies, staff subject-matter expertise, and 

issues and concerns expressed by the public 

and other agencies early in the planning 

process (see previous section). Also included 

is a discussion of some commonly addressed 

impact topics that are not addressed in this 

plan for the reasons given. 

IMPACT TOPICS 

TO BE CONSIDERED 

Cultural Resources 

Historic Structures, Archeological 

Resources, and Cultural Landscapes. The 

National Historic Preservation Act and the 

National Environmental Policy Act require 

that the effects of any federal undertaking on 

cultural resources be examined. Also, NPS 

Management Policies, and Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline (Director’s Order 28) 

call for the consideration of cultural 

resources in planning proposals. Actions 

proposed in this plan could affect archeological resources, historic structures, and 

cultural landscapes; therefore, this topic has 

been retained for detailed analysis. 

Museum Collections. Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site currently manages the 

sixth largest archival and artifact collection 

in the NPS Midwest Region. Actions 

described in the alternatives could affect 

curation management storage, and display; 

therefore, this topic has been retained for 

detailed analysis. 

Visitor Experience 

The Organic Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 direct the National Park Service 

to provide enjoyment opportunities for 

visitors that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the resources found in the national 

historic site. The planning team identified 

visitor experience as an important issue that 

could be appreciably affected under the 

alternatives; therefore, this topic has been 

retained for detailed analysis. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires an examination of social and 

environmental impacts caused by federal 

actions. Visitation and potential development at Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site could have an appreciable impact on the 

socioeconomic environment of the city of 

Springfield; therefore, this topic has been 

retained for detailed analysis. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

20 

NPS Operations 

The actions described in the alternatives 

pose impacts on NPS operations, including 

administrative, interpretive, curatorial, and 

maintenance functions; therefore, this topic 

has been retained for detailed analysis. 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED 

FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Some impact topics that commonly are 

considered during the planning process 

were not relevant to the development of this 

general management plan for Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site due to the following: 

(a) implementing the alternatives would 

have no effect/impact or a negligible 

effect/impact on the topic or resource, or (b) 

the resource does not occur in the national 

historic site. These topics are as follows. 

Natural Resources 

Air Quality. The President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality guidelines for 

preparing environmental impact statements 

requires the lead agency to analyze the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives 

on air quality. Also, section 118 of the 1963 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 

requires a national park system unit to meet 

all federal, state, and local air pollution 

standards. 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site is a 

Class II air quality area under the Clean Air 

Act, as amended. A Class II designation 

indicates the maximum allowable increase in 

concentrations of pollutants over baseline 

concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter as specified in Section 163 of the 

Clean Air Act. Further, the Clean Air Act 

provides that the federal land manager has 

an affirmative responsibility to protect airquality-related values (including visibility, 

plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural 

resources, and visitor health) from adverse 

pollution impacts. 

Structures in the national historic site that 

would undergo rehabilitation or restoration 

would be surveyed for asbestos-containing 

materials or other hazardous materials prior 

to any construction activities. If asbestoscontaining materials, lead-containing paint, 

or other hazardous materials are present, 

appropriate work practice requirements 

would be developed to prevent the emission 

of contaminated dust into the atmosphere. 

The work practice requirements would 

specify appropriate removal, handling, 

clean-up procedures and time schedules, 

and appropriate storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for all hazardous waste 

materials. All operators would be required to 

maintain records, including waste shipment 

records, and would be required to use 

appropriate warning labels, signs, and 

markings. 

Construction activities, including equipment 

operation and the hauling of material, could 

result in temporarily increased vehicle 

exhaust and emissions, as well as inhalable 

particulate matter. Construction dust associated with exposed soils would be controlled 

with the application of water or other 

approved dust palliatives. Also, dust-creating 

activities would be suspended when winds 

are too great to prevent visible dust clouds 

from affecting sensitive receptors (houses, 

schools, etc.). In addition, any hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, 

emissions, as well as airborne particulates 

created by fugitive dust plumes, would be 

rapidly dissipated because the location of the 

national historic site and prevailing winds 

allows for good air circulation. Overall, there 

could be a local, short-term, negligible 

degradation of local air quality during 

construction activities; however, no measurable effects outside of the immediate 

construction site would be anticipated. Any 

construction-related, adverse impacts on air 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

21 

quality would be temporary, lasting only as 

long as construction. 

Under each of the management alternatives, 

visitor use and administrative operations 

would generate similar levels of air pollutant 

emissions from motor vehicles and motorized equipment, water and sewage treatment 

operations, and propane and natural-gasfueled appliances. The National Park Service 

would follow established policy requiring 

the use of energy-efficient and environmentally friendly products and processes 

whenever possible. 

None of the actions described in the general 

management plan would violate any air 

quality standard or result in a cumulatively 

net increase of any criteria pollutant under 

federal or state ambient air quality standards. Implementation of any of the alternatives described in this management plan 

would have negligible impacts upon air 

quality, and the Class II air quality designation would be unaffected. Therefore, air 

quality was dismissed as an impact topic. 

Carbon Footprint and Natural or 

Depletable Resources and Energy 

Requirements and Conservation 

Potential. These two impact topics are 

closely related. Using resources and energy 

at unsustainable levels is largely responsible 

for an increase in the carbon footprint. 

These impact topics are considered together 

in this analysis. 

There would be some development under 

the action alternatives, with the addition of 

roughly 30,000 square feet of buildings per 

alternative. This addition would mean initial 

use of both resources and energy 

(considering both the construction process 

and the “embodied” energy present in those 

resources); however, because the site 

management has committed to avoiding 

using fossil-fueled powered energy in these 

buildings, negligible use of resources and 

energy would result in the long-term. The 

National Park Service started to employ 

geothermal systems in existing buildings and 

to purchase wind-produced energy from the 

local utility company and has committed to 

continuing these efforts in future buildings. 

Consequently, the amount of energy 

consumption and resulting emissions of 

carbon dioxide associated with construction 

would be extremely small, and negligible 

impacts on climate in the local environment 

and no measurable impacts in a regional, 

national, or global context would result. The 

use of renewable geothermal and wind 

energy will reduce an otherwise significant 

increase in the use of fossil fuels to a minimal 

increase. In the long term, no appreciable 

increase in visitation or associated 

transportation would occur under any of the 

alternatives, and there would be negligible 

changes to the carbon footprint and natural 

or depletable resources and energy 

requirements of the national historic site. 

Therefore, these topics have been dismissed 

from further analysis. 

Floodplains/Wetlands. Executive Orders 

11988, “Floodplain Management,” and 

11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” require an 

examination of impacts on floodplains and 

wetlands and of potential risk involved in 

placing facilities within floodplains. None of 

the alternatives would change or affect water 

resources or place facilities in a floodplain; 

therefore, this topic has been dismissed from 

further analysis. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands. Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site is located in 

downtown Springfield, Illinois. This part of 

Springfield has been urbanized since the 

middle of the 19th century. None of the 

actions described in the general management 

plan would affect lands that are classified as 

prime or unique; therefore, this topic has 

been dismissed from further analysis. 

Threatened or Endangered Species or 

Species of Concern. As part of the urban 

environment of the city of Springfield, 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

22 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site has no 

threatened or endangered species or species 

of concern, nor has habitat for such species 

been identified within the site’s boundaries; 

therefore, this topic has been dismissed from 

further analysis. 

Wildlife. No important wildlife or wildlife 

habitat have been identified within the 

boundaries of Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site; therefore, this topic has been 

dismissed from further analysis. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. There are no river 

resources within or near Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site; therefore, this topic 

has been dismissed from further analysis. 

Lightscape Management. In accordance 

with NPS Management Policies 2006, the 

National Park Service strives to preserve 

natural ambient lightscapes, which are 

natural resources and values that exist in the 

absence of human caused light. 

Preserving a natural lightscape is not a goal 

of the Lincoln Home National Historic Site, 

which is in downtown Springfield. However, 

the staff would strive to limit the use of 

artificial outdoor lighting to that which is 

necessary for basic safety requirements and 

to ensure that all outdoor lighting is shielded 

to the maximum extent possible and to keep 

light on the intended subject and out of the 

night sky, so as to negligibly contribute to 

the surrounding light sources of Springfield. 

Thus, lightscape management was dismissed 

as an impact topic. 

Soundscape Management. In accordance 

with NPS Management Policies 2006 and 

Director’s Order #47, Sound Preservation 

and Noise Management, an important part 

of the NPS mission is preservation of natural 

soundscapes associated with national park 

system units. Natural soundscapes exist in 

the absence of human-caused sound. The 

natural ambient soundscape is the aggregate 

of all the natural sounds that occur in park 

units, together with the physical capacity for 

transmitting natural sounds. Natural sounds 

occur within and beyond the range of 

sounds that humans can perceive and can be 

transmitted through air, water, or solid 

materials. The frequencies, magnitudes, and 

durations of human-caused sound considered acceptable varies among park system 

units, as well as potentially throughout each 

unit, being generally greater in developed 

areas and less in undeveloped areas. 

The Lincoln Home National Historic Site is 

in downtown Springfield, where the 

protection of a natural ambient soundscape 

and/or the opportunity for visitors to 

experience natural sound environments is 

not an objective of the national historic site. 

Visitors do not come to the site to seek the 

quieter, intermittent sounds of nature. Any 

construction associated with implementation of the alternatives, e.g. the hauling of 

material or the operation of construction 

equipment, could result in dissonant sounds, 

but such sounds would be temporary and 

not out-of-place in such a setting. Because 

protection of a natural ambient soundscape 

and/or opportunity for visitors to experience 

natural sound environments is not a site 

objective, soundscape management was 

dismissed as an impact topic. 

Cultural Resources 

Ethnographic and Prehistoric Resources. 

Ethnographic and prehistoric resources are 

defined by the National Park Service as any 

“site, structure, object, landscape, or natural 

resource feature assigned traditional 

legendary, religious, subsistence, or other 

significance in the cultural system of a group 

traditionally associated with it” (Director’s 

Order # 28, Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline, 181). There are no known 

ethnographic or prehistoric resources 

associated with Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site. Therefore, ethnographic and 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

23 

prehistoric resources were dismissed as an 

impacts topic. 

Sacred Sites. According to Executive Order 

13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), the 

National Park Service will accommodate, to 

the extent practicable, access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by religious 

practitioners from recognized American 

Indian and Alaska native tribes and will 

avoid adversely affecting the integrity of 

such sacred sites. The National Park Service 

has found no evidence of any sites at or near 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site; therefore, this topic has been dismissed from 

further analysis. 

Indian Trust Resources 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts on Indian trust resources 

from a proposed project or action by agencies of the Department of the Interior be 

explicitly addressed in environmental documents. The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legally enforceable fiduciary 

obligation on the part of the United States to 

protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and 

treaty rights, and it represents a duty to carry 

out the mandates of federal law with respect 

to American Indian and Alaska native tribes.

There are no Indian trust resources in or 

near Lincoln Home National Historic Site; 

therefore, Indian trust resources have been 

dismissed as an impact topic. 

Conformity with Local Land Use Plans 

Management and use of the national historic 

site is consistent with local land use and 

urban planning. Planning for the national 

historic site has been conducted in 

cooperation with city and county planning 

representatives. None of the actions 

described under the alternatives would 

change these basic uses or conflict with local 

land use planning; therefore, this topic has 

been dismissed from further analysis. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, 

requires all federal agencies to incorporate 

environmental justice into their missions by 

identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts of their programs and 

policies on minorities and low-income 

populations and communities. According to 

the Environmental Protection Agency, environmental justice is the fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people, 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or 

income, with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies. Fair treatment means that no group 

of people, including a racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from Industrial, municipal, and commercial operations 

or the execution of federal, state, local, and 

tribal programs and policies. 

For the purpose of fulfilling Executive Order 

12898, in the context of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the alternatives 

addressed in this document were assessed 

during the planning process. It was determined that none of these alternatives would 

result in disproportionately high direct or 

indirect adverse impacts on any minority or 

low-income population or community. The 

following information contributed to this 

conclusion: 

• The actions in the alternatives would not 

result in any identifiable human health 

effects. Therefore, there would be no 

direct or indirect effects on human 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

24 

health within any minority or lowincome population or community. 

• The effects on the physical environment 

that would occur due to any of the alternatives would not disproportionately 

adversely affect any minority or lowincome population or community, or be 

specific to such populations or 

communities. 

• The alternatives would not result in any 

identified effects that would be specific 

to any minority or low-income 

community. 

Therefore, the topic of environmental justice 

has been dismissed from further analysis. 

Public Health and Safety 

The proposed developments and actions in 

the alternatives would not result in any identifiable impacts on human health or safety. 

Visitor activities at Lincoln Home are limited 

to low-impact and low-risk educational and 

interpretive activities. All construction areas 

would be closed to visitor access. Traffic 

within the site would be closely monitored. 

Therefore, this topic has been dismissed 

from further analysis. 
Chapter 2

The alternatives including the Preferred

27

INTRODUCTION 

Many aspects of the desired future condition 

of Lincoln Home National Historic Site are 

defined in the establishing legislation, the 

national historic site’s purpose and significance statements, and the servicewide 

mandates and policies described earlier. 

Within these parameters, the National Park 

Service solicited input from the public, 

national historic site staff, government 

agencies, and other organizations regarding 

issues and desired conditions for the national 

historic site. Planning team members gathered 

information about existing visitor use and the 

condition of the national historic site's 

facilities and resources. 

Using the above information the planning 

team developed a set of four management 

zones and four alternatives to reflect the range 

of ideas proposed by the national historic site 

staff, other federal, state, and local officials, 

and the public. 

This chapter describes the management zones 

and the alternatives for managing the national 

historic site for the next 15 to 20 years. It 

includes tables that summarize the key differences between the alternatives and the key 

differences in the impacts that could be 

expected from implementing each alternative. 

(The summary of impacts table is based on the 

analysis in Chapter 4, "Environmental Consequences.") This chapter also describes mitigative measures common to all alternatives 

that would be used to lessen or avoid impacts, 

the future studies that would be needed, and 

the environmentally preferable alternative. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

AND ALTERNATIVES 

The building blocks for reaching an approved 

plan for managing a national park system unit 

are the management zones and the 

alternatives. All are developed within the 

scope of the national historic site’s purpose, 

significance, mandates, and legislation. 

Management zones are descriptions of 

desired conditions for national historic site 

resources and visitor experiences in different 

areas of the national historic site. Management zones are determined for each national 

park system unit. The management zones 

identify the widest range of potential appropriate resource conditions, visitor experiences, and facilities for the national historic site 

that fall within the scope of the national 

historic site’s purpose, significance, and 

special mandates. Four management zones 

have been identified for Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site. When management 

zones are applied on the ground in the 

alternatives, the zones define management 

intent for resource conditions, visitor 

experiences, and appropriate activities and 

facilities for each area for the national historic 

site. Application and configuration of the 

zones might vary by alternative depending on 

the intent of the alternative concept. 

It may help to think of the management zones 

as the colors an artist has to paint a picture. 

The alternatives in this general management 

plan are the different pictures that could be 

painted with the colors (management zones) 

available. Each of the alternatives has an 

overall management concept and a description of how different areas of the national 

historic site would be managed (management 

zones and related actions). The concept for 

each alternative gives the artist (or in this case 

the planning team) the idea for what the 

picture (alternative) is going to look like. 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents four 

alternatives for future management of Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site. Alternative 1, 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

28 

the no-action alternative, presents a continuation of existing management direction, and is 

included as a baseline for comparing the consequences of implementing each alternative. 

The action alternatives are alternative 2, 

alternative 3, and alternative 4. The National 

Park Service’s preferred alternative is 

alternative 2. 

The action alternatives present different ways 

to manage resources and visitor use and improve facilities and infrastructure at the 

national historic site. These alternatives 

embody the range of what the public and the 

National Park Service want to see accomplished with regard to cultural resource 

conditions, visitor use and experience, the 

socioeconomic environment, and NPS 

operations at Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site. The zone configurations for each 

alternative were developed by overlaying the 

management zones on a map of the national 

historic site consistent with the intent of the 

alternative’s concept. This is why there are 

different zone configurations on the maps for 

each action alternative. 

As noted above in the “Guidance for the 

Planning Effort” section, the National Park 

Service would continue to follow existing 

agreements and servicewide mandates, laws, 

and policies regardless of the alternatives 

considered in this plan. These mandates and 

policies are not repeated in this chapter. 

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative, it is important to interpret the 

actions proposed in an alternative in the 

context of the servicewide mandates and 

policies (see pages 12-14).

FORMULATION OF 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives focus on what resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences/ 

opportunities should be at the national 

historic site rather than on details of how these 

conditions and uses/experiences should be 

achieved. Thus, the alternatives do not include 

many details on resource or visitor use 

management strategies. More detailed plans 

or studies will be required before most 

conditions proposed in the alternatives are 

achieved. 

Implementation of any alternative also 

depends on future funding and environmental 

compliance. This plan does not guarantee that 

the money will be forthcoming. The plan 

establishes a vision of the future that will guide 

day-to-day and year-to-year management of 

the national historic site, but full implementation could take many years. 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Development of a preferred alternative 

involves evaluating the alternatives with the 

use of an analysis process called “Choosing by 

Advantages” or “CBA.” Through this process, 

the planning team identifies and compares the 

relative advantages of each alternative 

according to a set of factors. These factors 

were developed using the information and 

issues developed during scoping (see previous 

“Planning Issues/Concerns” section). Using 

these factors, the CBA process allows NPS 

staff to systematically evaluate how well each 

of the alternatives addresses the issues 

identified for this plan. The benefits or 

advantages of each alternative were compared 

for each of the following CBA factors: 

• Factor 1 — Preserve, rehabilitate, and 

restore cultural resources. 

• Factor 2 — Enhance visitor experience 

(basic support, as well as educational and 

interpretive experiences). 

• Factor 3 — Improve effectiveness and 

efficiency in NPS operations (parkwide, in 

all divisions). 
Introduction 

29

The relationships between the advantages and 

costs of each alternative were established. 

This information was used to combine the 

best attributes of the initial alternatives into 

the preferred alternative. This alternative gives 

the National Park Service the greatest overall 

benefits for each factor listed above for the 

most reasonable cost. 
30 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR 

LINCOLN HOME NATIONAL 

HISTORIC SITE 

Management zones describe visitor 

experiences, resource conditions, and 

appropriate activities and facilities. The 

management zones were presented to the 

public in the Preliminary Alternatives 

Description newsletter in November 2006 

and were modified in response to public 

comments and analysis by the planning team 

and NPS resource specialists. Because the 

way NPS plans today is different than the 

methods used to develop the 1971 Master 

Plan, no management zones are applied to 

the no-action alternative. Table 2 presents 

the management zones that were developed 

for the national historic site.
Ta

31 

TABLE 2. MANAGEMENT ZONES

Visitor Services/ 

Administration Zone 

(blue) 

Neighborhood 

Rehabilitation Zone 

(red) 

Historic Yard 

Rehabilitation Zone 

(purple) 

Open 

Space/Recreation 

Zone (green) 

Overview The primary uses of this 

zone are to provide for visitor orientation and support NPS administrative and operational needs. No fundamental historic resources are present in this zone. 

The primary uses of this zone are to repopulate the neighborhood with contemporary buildings built within the lots of historic houses for visitors. Uses include exhibits, tours, and operational needs. 

The primary use of this zone is to offer visitors an experiential understanding of the neighborhood in Lincoln’s time. 

The primary uses of this zone is to offer visitors the opportunity for selfdirected recreational activities that are compatible with the historic scene (picnicking, selfguided trail walks, contemplation, attending staged events, etc.). No fundamental historic resources are in this zone. 

Desired Resource Condition 

Modern facilities complement the desired resource conditions in adjacent zones and do not detract from the historic setting. Any existing historic resources are adaptively reused in keeping with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.

The neighborhood is extensively rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties to enhance the feeling of an active neighborhood composed of houses owned and occupied by different families. 

Landscapes, existing structures, and residential streetscapes, are rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties to evoke the feeling of an active neighborhood composed of houses owned and occupied by different families. 

Open, park-like setting with trees, shrubs, lawns, picnic tables and shelters, benches, etc. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

32 

Visitor Services/ 

Administration Zone 

(blue) 

Neighborhood 

Rehabilitation Zone 

(red) 

Historic Yard 

Rehabilitation Zone 

(purple) 

Open 

Space/Recreation 

Zone (green) 

Desired Resource Conditions (cont.) 

Lots could be rehabilitated with infill and planted with a variety of vegetation to create an intuitive sense of domestic life. Contemporary buildings would be sized to approximate the size/mass of historic houses and their outbuildings. Although these contemporary buildings would be compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood, they would be designed so that visitors would readily recognize them as nonhistoric.

Lots would be planted with a variety of vegetation to create an intuitive sense of domestic life and, per the recommendations of a cultural landscape report, might include walkways, fences, gates, foundation outlines, and stoops. 
Ta

33 

Visitor Services/ 

Administration Zone 

(blue) 

Neighborhood 

Rehabilitation Zone 

(red) 

Historic Yard 

Rehabilitation Zone 

(purple) 

Open 

Space/Recreation 

Zone (green) 

Desired Visitor Experience 

Visitor orientation is conducted primarily in this zone. The NPS administrative facilities and the leased facilities might not be accessible to visitors. Uses of facilities in this zone by staff, partners, lessees, and/or visitors would not infringe upon the historic neighborhood feeling. 

There would be a high level of interaction with staff and other visitors in this zone, primarily through structured and directed experiences (e.g., tours, talks, and indoor exhibits). The average time commitment to fully experience the resources in this zone is 1 to 1 1⁄2 hours. From the outdoors, the visitors would enjoy a strong sense of the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it. Visitors would also have an opportunity to step inside some structures, some historic and others contemporary, but all reflective of the historic character of the neighborhood. 

There would be a moderate level of interaction with staff and other visitors. Visitors would enjoy an outdoor experience, passing through the neighborhood, and have opportunities to explore residential lots. Visitors would be primarily selfdirected, and they could explore the site on their own schedule, although they could meet interpreters at key points or during special programs. 

Visitors in this zone would have open space primarily for informal, self-directed activities that are compatible with the historic scene such as walking and picnicking. Visitors could also enjoy occasional staged events. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

34 

Visitor Services/ 

Administration Zone 

(blue) 

Neighborhood 

Rehabilitation Zone 

(red) 

Historic Yard 

Rehabilitation Zone 

(purple) 

Open 

Space/Recreation 

Zone (green) 

Appropriate Facilities 

Accessible visitor service facilities (such as parking areas, visitor center, interpretive films, displays/exhibits, orientation signs, and association sales) and NPS facilities (such as offices, meeting spaces, curatorial storage, and maintenance shops) would be found in this zone. 

Space is needed for conducting workshops, exhibits, or other operational functions in historic or contemporary buildings. Plantings, walkways, fences, and gates would reflect the historic context and be consistent with a cultural landscape report. Historic buildings in this zone that are not needed for visitor services or NPS operations could be added to the leasing program. 

Walkways, fences and gates, plantings, stoops, foundation outlines, and other small features consistent with a cultural landscape report would be appropriate in this zone. Historic buildings in this zone that are not needed for visitor services or NPS operations could be added to the leasing program. 

Picnic tables and shelters, restrooms and drinking fountains, walking trails, interpretive wayside displays/exhibits, and temporary structures for staged events would be appropriate in this zone. 
35 

USER CAPACITY 

General management plans for national park 

system units are required by law to identify 

and address implementation commitments for 

user capacity, also known as carrying capacity. 

The National Park Service defines user 

capacity as the types and levels of visitor use 

that can be accommodated while sustaining 

the quality of park system resources and 

visitor experiences consistent with the 

purposes of the park system unit. Managing 

user capacity in national park system units is 

inherently complex and depends not only on 

the number of visitors, but also on where they 

go, what they do, and the “footprints” they 

leave behind. In managing for user capacity, 

NPS staff and partners rely on a variety of 

management tools and strategies, rather than 

relying solely on regulating the number of 

people in a park or simply establishing limits 

on visitor use. In addition, the ever-changing 

nature of visitor use in parks requires a 

deliberate and adaptive approach to user 

capacity management. 

The foundations for making user capacity 

decisions in this general management plan are 

the national historic site’s purpose, significance, special mandates, and management 

zones. The purpose, significance, and special 

mandates define why the national historic site 

was established and identify the most 

important resources and values, including 

visitor opportunities that will be protected 

and provided. The management zones in each 

alternative describe the desired resource 

conditions and visitor experiences, including 

appropriate types of activities and general use 

levels, for different locations throughout the 

national historic site. The zones, as applied in 

the alternatives, are consistent with and help 

the national historic site achieve its purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. As part of 

the National Park Service’s commitment to 

implement user capacity, the staff will abide 

by these directives for guiding the types and 

levels of visitor use that will be accommodated 

while sustaining the quality of resources and 

visitor experiences consistent with the purpose of the Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site. 

In addition to these important directives, this 

plan also includes indicators and standards for 

the national historic site. Indicators and 

standards are measureable variables that will 

be monitored to track changes in resource 

conditions and visitor experiences. The 

indicators and standards help the National 

Park Service ensure that desired conditions 

are being attained, supporting the fulfillment 

of the national historic site’s legislative and 

policy mandates (see Table 3: Indicators and 

Standards). The general management plan 

also identifies the types of management 

actions that would be taken to achieve desired 

conditions and related legislative and policy 

mandates. 

LINCOLN HOME 

Visitation in the Lincoln Home is by rangerguided tour from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily. 

Tours last approximately 20 minutes and are 

limited to 15 visitors per group. During peak 

season, tours of the home are limited to a 

maximum of 12 groups per hour. Maximum 

visitation in the home totals approximately 

1,530 visitors per day. Visitor use of the 

Lincoln Home is already highly managed and 

regulated given the requirements to visit as 

part of a guided tour. The operational aspects 

of guided visits has been well tested, and the 

current protocol of 15 visitors per group and 

no more than 12 groups per hour has proved 

to help the National Park Service and its 

partners achieve desired resource conditions 

and visitor experiences. The indicators and 

standards (see table 3) for Lincoln Home 

relate to the existing management protocols. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

36 

TABLE 3. INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential Managemen

Number of visitors per group to Lincoln Home 

Lincoln Home No more than 15 visitors 

per group to Lincoln Home 

Continue monitoring the number of organized tours and numbers of people on the tours. 

• Continue regulation of acces• Educate visitors to encourage 

redistribution of use to off-pe

• Provide new programs to dist

times. 

• Manage access and distributi

groups. 

• Change the timing of special • Extend operating hours. 

Number of groups per hour to Lincoln Home 

Lincoln Home No more than 12 groups 

per hour to Lincoln Home 

Continue monitoring the number of organized tours, numbers of people on the tours, and the total number of visitors to Lincoln Home. 

• Continue regulation of acces• Educate visitors to encourage 

redistribution of use to off-pe

• Provide new programs to dist

times. 

• Manage access and distributi

groups. 

• Change the timing of special • Extend operating hours. 

Number of visitors per day to Lincoln Home 

Lincoln Home No more than 1,530

visitors per day, with up to 5 days during the busy summer season being allowed to exceed this standard. 

Continue monitoring the number of organized tours, numbers of people on the tours, and the total number of visitors to Lincoln Home.

• Continue regulation of acces• Educate visitors to encourage 

redistribution of use to off-pe

• Provide new programs to dist

times. 

• Manage access and distributi

groups. 

• Change the timing of special • Extend operating hours. 
Table 3. 

37 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential Managemen

Number of visitors at one time to the exhibit space in the Dean House 

Dean House No more than 25 visitors 

at one time to the exhibit space in the Dean House, with up to one 20-minute period per day during the busy summer season being allowed to exceed this standard. 

Continue monitoring of the total number of visitors to the national historic site. Conduct periodic observations of the number of visitors at one time in the exhibit space. 

• Educate visitors to encourage 

redistribution of use to off-pe

• Provide new programs to dist

times. 

• Actively redirect use to other 

times. 

• Manage access and distributi

groups. 

• Change the timing of special • Initiate temporary closures. • Limit group sizes. 

Number of visitors at one time to the exhibit space in the Arnold House 

Arnold House No more than 25 visitors 

at one time to the exhibit space in the Arnold House, with up to one 20-minute period per day during the busy summer season being allowed to exceed this standard. 

Continue monitoring of the total number of visitors to the national historic site. Conduct periodic observations of the number of visitors at one time in the exhibit space. 

• Educate visitors to encourage 

redistribution of use to off-pe

• Provide new programs to dist

times. 

• Actively redirect use to other 

times. 

• Manage access and distributi

groups. 

• Change the timing of special • Initiate temporary closures. • Limit group sizes. 

Number of visitors at one time in the visitor center 

Visitor Center No more than 210 visitors 

at one time in the visitor center, with up to two incidences* per day during the busy summer season and up to one incidence per day during the rest of the year being allowed to exceed this standard. *incidence = period lasting 10 minutes or more 

Continue monitoring of the total number of visitors to the national historic site. Conduct periodic observations of the number of visitors at one time in the visitor center. 

• Educate visitors to encourage 

redistribution of use to off-pe

• Provide new programs to dist

times. 

• Actively redirect use to other 

times. 

• Manage access and distributi

groups. 

• Change the timing of special • Initiate temporary closures. • Limit group sizes. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

38 

DEAN HOUSE 

The Dean House is part of the Lincoln Home 

National Register District. Approximately 800 

square feet on the first floor of the Dean 

House is dedicated to interpretive exhibits 

that focus on the Lincoln family’s life in 

Springfield. 

Past experience, the physical capacity, the 

desired social setting, and the ability of NPS 

staff to protect resources, suggest that exhibit 

space in the Dean House can accommodate a 

maximum of 25 visitors at one time, with each 

visitor spending a total of 15 to 20 minutes 

viewing the exhibits. Exceeding this number 

of visitors would diminish the visitor 

experience and prevent the national historic 

site from achieving desired conditions for 

visitor experience and enjoyment. 

ARNOLD HOUSE 

The Arnold House is part of the Lincoln 

Home National Register District. 

Approximately 800 square feet of the Arnold 

House is dedicated to interpretive exhibits 

focusing on historic preservation efforts at 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site. The 

exhibit space in the Arnold House can 

accommodate a maximum of 20 to25 visitors 

at one time, with each visitor spending a total 

of 15 to 20 minutes viewing the exhibits. 

Exceeding this number of visitors would 

diminish the visitor experience and prevent 

the national historic site from achieving 

desired conditions for visitor experience and 

enjoyment. 

VISITOR CENTER 

Because most visitors enter the visitor center 

during their visit, the center can become 

crowded during busy visitation periods. NPS 

staff have determined that the practical 

capacity of the visitor center is 210 visitors at 

one time. This number includes full capacity 

in the theaters (130 in Theater 1 and 50 in 

Theater 2) and 30 visitors viewing the exhibits 

or visiting the bookstore. If this number is 

exceeded, the quality of visitor experience 

diminishes and desired conditions are not 

realized. 
39 

ALTERNATIVE 1, NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

This alternative describes a continuation of 

current management direction and trends at 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site, which 

follows the concepts outlined in the 1970 

Master Plan. It provides a baseline for comparison in evaluating the changes and impacts of the other alternatives. Managers 

would continue to follow the special mandates and servicewide mandates and policies 

described in the earlier "Guidance for the 

Planning Effort" section of this document. 

HOW VISITORS WOULD 

EXPERIENCE THE SITE 

The visitor experience focus would continue 

to be on ranger-led tours of the Lincoln 

Home. The visitor experience would also 

continue to include watching the movie at 

the visitor center and exploring displays/ 

exhibits in the visitor center, Arnold and 

Dean houses, and at various points in the 

neighborhood. The sense of removal from 

the outside world would be limited. Tours 

would be staged outside in good weather 

and in the Dean House and/or Arnold 

House in poor weather. Limited curriculumbased educational programs would continue 

to be offered on- and off-site. Other existing 

nonpersonal services, including web 

information and printed media, would 

remain. Temporary wayside exhibits would 

remain in place on the Jenkins lot. 

Restrooms and drinking water would 

continue to be available only at the visitor 

center. Visitors could continue to walk, 

picnic, or read in the eastern side of the site. 

HOW THE SITE 

WOULD BE MANAGED 

NPS management would focus on maintaining the existing Lincoln-era neighborhood as it is today. Existing structures would 

be maintained as necessary to preserve their 

historic character and integrity. No restoration or rehabilitation would occur. Vacant 

lots would remain vacant. The historic 

landscape would be preserved to maintain 

recognizable separate lots. Archeological 

resources would remain in situ. 

Administrative offices, including, administration, maintenance, interpretation, 

museum curatorial, and law enforcement, 

would remain where they are, dispersed in 

seven separate locations, with support space 

for living history in the conference center 

and for maintenance and curatorial in 14 

separate buildings. Maintenance staff would 

remain dispersed among existing facilities 

with a total of approximately 8,000 square 

feet. The curatorial administrative staff 

would remain in the Corneau House with 

storage in three other on-site buildings. A 

portion of the material collection would 

remain at the Midwest Archeological Center. 

The Cook House, Robinson House, and 

Shutt House would continue being leased 

under the leasing program.1 Lessee parking 

would remain in existing spaces. 

The 8,400-square-foot visitor center, which 

contains two foyers, a lobby, an information 

desk, two theaters, restrooms, an Eastern 

National sales area, and two small ranger 

 

1 Any work undertaken by lessees to maintain, repair, 

rehabilitate, restore, or build upon a leased property 

must be done in accordance with the applicable 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines

and other NPS policies, guidelines, and standards. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40 

offices, would remain as it is. The 

conference center (4,300 square feet) would 

continue to serve as the location for staff 

training, meetings, and the living history 

support center. Employee parking would 

remain in existing locations along the Ninth 

Street alley, on the Stuve House grounds, 

and in the visitor parking lot when space is 

available. 

Buses would continue to dropoff, pick up, 

and park in the current bus parking lot. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 

There would be no boundary adjustment 

recommended under this alternative.
Grace Evangelical 

Lutheran Church

Lincoln Home 

Visitor Center

Visitor Parking

Stuve House

Shutt House

Dubois House

Miller House

Sprigg House

Conference 

Center

JACKSON STREET

EIGHTH STREET

Burch Lot

Carrigan 

Lot

Corneau

House

Robinson

House

Cook

House

Arnold

House

Lincoln 

Home

Morse

House

Dean 

House

Lyon House

Beedle 

House

Closed

to 

Traffic

Closed

to 

Traffic

Bus Drop-Off, 

Pick-Up and Parking

Capitol Avenue

Edwards Street

Seventh StreetNinth Street

Walters Lot (Privately owned)

Remann Lot

Niles Lot

Worthen Lot

Bugg Lot

Irwin Lot

Roll Lot

Allen Lot

Jenkins Lot Aitken

Barn

Brown Lot

A O

Lincoln Home National Historic Site

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • December 2009 • 381 20012• 

PU

PU

PU

PU

PU

PU

Park Boundary

L

Park Use

Restrooms

Buildings Containing Interpretive Displays 

PU

LS Leased Space

LS

LS

LS

N A A

41

43 

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (2, 3, AND 4) 

• The historic Morse, Miller, Stuve, and 

Stuve Carriage houses and the Aitken 

Barn would be rehabilitated and 

adaptively used as administrative offices 

or leased space. 

• A cultural landscape report for the entire 

site focusing on the residential 

streetscape as well as individual lots 

would be developed in collaboration 

with park interpreters to provide 

guidance on site design as well as 

interpretive media in the landscape. 

• Wayside path-finding aids between 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site 

and downtown Springfield’s Lincolnrelated sites and area attractions would 

be developed. 

• Interpretive services would be expanded 

to include use of international language 

translations in audio devices for 

exploring the national historic site, 

publications, and the site’s website. If 

available, bilingual interpreters would be 

hired to improve communications with 

international visitors. 

• An information connection to other 

Lincoln-related sites in central Illinois, 

Indiana, and Kentucky would be 

developed. 

• Lincoln Home National Historic Site 

would be identified as a unit of the 

national park system on major highway 

signs, path-finding signs, and in 

collaboration with the new visitor center 

in the restored Union Station railroad 

depot located west of the Abraham 

Lincoln Presidential Library and 

Museum. 

• The national historic site would be 

proactive in developing educational 

programs with schools in Illinois and 

nationwide through the use of onsite 

education programs, teaching outlines, 

videos, DVDs, training aids, and on-line 

media produced by the national historic 

site and through partnerships with 

academic institutions. 

• Access would be provided to facilities 

and interpretive media to accommodate 

the needs of special populations (those 

with sight, hearing, and mobility 

disabilities; visitors who do not speak 

English; and the elderly and young 

children). Interpretive media includes 

audiovisual programs, displays/exhibits, 

historic furnishings, publications, and 

wayside exhibits. 

• The national historic site staff would 

investigate options to partner with local 

agencies and historic sites to promote 

the Lincoln story and specific related 

projects directed at enhancing the 

visitor’s experience in the community. 

• The National Park Service and Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site would 

continue the partnership with Eastern 

National, a not-for profit-cooperating 

association that provides educational 

material through its museum shop in the 

visitor center. 

• Bus parking would be relocated to a new 

off-site facility shared with city, county, 

and state partners. This would free up 

space for RV and trailer parking. 

• The main visitor parking lot (south of 

the visitor center) would not change. 

• The Cook, Robinson, and Shutt houses 

would continue to be leased for 

compatible uses. 

• Current Springfield public transit system 

offers a dropoff and pickup service using 

their regular citywide buses and special 

historic site buses at the southeast corner 

of Capital Avenue and South Seventh 

Street. Also, a commercial tour guide 

trolley service stops at the southwest 

corner of Capital Avenue and South 

Seventh Street. These services are 

anticipated to continue. 
44 

ALTERNATIVE 2 — A RETREAT FROM MODERN LIFE IN THE HEART OF 

THE CITY (PREFERRED) 

CONCEPT 

Under alternative 2, national historic site 

management would focus on rehabilitating 

the historic landscape to offer visitors a 

strong sense of the neighborhood as Lincoln 

knew it. This goal would be accomplished by 

extensive rehabilitation at the core of the 

site, but less extensive away from the core. 

The Lincoln lot would be restored to the 

greatest degree possible. 

HOW VISITORS WOULD 

EXPERIENCE THE SITE 

As visitors enter the site, they would enter 

the visitor center for orientation to the site 

and to see exhibits and watch the film on 

Lincoln’s life. After exiting the visitor center, 

they would move to a new building on the 

Burch lot for a short orientation to prepare 

for the tour of the Lincoln Home. After the 

tour, they would have opportunities to see 

exhibits in the Lincoln back yard and Arnold 

and Corneau houses, as well as in a new 

structure on the Brown lot illustrating both 

Lincoln’s life and life in Springfield in the 

mid-19th century. Visitors would have a 

sense of removal at the core from the 

modern world. Visitors would have access to 

new restrooms on the east side of the 

national historic site in a new structure on 

the Carrigan lot. 

Extensive living history programs and 

ranger-led tours would be emphasized, but 

visitors could also experience the site on 

their own to draw their own conclusions 

about Lincoln’s life in Springfield. 

As they move away from the core, visitors 

would be immersed in the outdoor features 

of the historic landscape, and could wander 

inside the fences of lots where structures are 

missing to get a better sense of the character 

of the historic neighborhood. Self-guided 

tours using neighborhood interpretive wayside exhibits, cell phones, iPods, etc. would 

be available. Curriculum-based educational 

programs would include day-long history 

programs. 

HOW THE SITE 

WOULD BE MANAGED 

The National Park Service would rehabilitate the neighborhood’s historic landscape 

to provide visitors with an understanding of 

and appreciation for the size, density, and 

diversity of this mid-19th century Springfield 

neighborhood. Rehabilitation would be 

most extensive at the core of the site — at the 

intersection of Eighth Street and Jackson 

Street. Contemporary buildings would be 

constructed on the lots of three historic 

houses as shown on historic maps and other 

graphic images. Such contemporary buildings would reflect the historic character of 

the neighborhood with an overall design that 

visitors would recognize as nonhistoric. 

Archeological resources would be removed 

from these lots before construction of these 

new structures. The Lincoln lot would be 

restored if sufficient documentation exists. 

Additional restrooms and drinking fountains 

would be located in one of the new contemporary buildings on the Carrigan lot. One of 

the contemporary buildings would be built 

on the Burch lot to be a staging area for 

visitors to the Lincoln Home. A contemporary building on the Brown lot would provide space for exhibits. The Dean House 

would be rehabilitated to support the living 

history program. The Corneau House would 

be converted to visitor use. The conference 

center would be remodeled to 
Aitken

Barn

Grace Evangelical 

Lutheran Church

Lincoln Home 

Visitor Center

Expanded

Visitor Parking

Stuve House

Shutt 

House

Dubois 

House

Miller 

House

Sprigg 

House

Education 

Center

JACKSON STREET

EIGHTH STREET

Burch Lot

Carrigan Lot

Corneau

House

Robinson

House

Cook

House

Arnold

House

Lincoln 

Home

Morse

House

Dean 

House

Lyon 

House

Beedle 

House

Closed

to 

Traffic

Closed

to 

Traffic

Bus drop-off and 

pick-up and 

RV/trailer parking

Capitol Avenue

Edwards Street

Seventh StreetNinth Street

Walters Lot

Remann Lot

Niles Lot

Worthen Lot

Bugg Lot

Irwin Lot

Roll Lot

Jenkins Lot

Allen

Barn

Allen Lot

Brown Lot

L H N H S

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • Decemberr 2009 • 381 • 20013 

A T - NPS P

A R F M L   H   C

Park Boundary

Future Structure

Visitor Use

Park Use

Headquarters

Leased Space

Open Space/Recreation

Visitor Services/Administration

(Privately owned)

Maintenance Facility

and Employee Parking

Curatorial Facility

L

M Z

Neighborhood Rehabilitation

Historic Yard Rehabilitation

Lincoln Home Restoration

LS

LS

VU

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

Exhibits

VU

Exhibits Exhibits

VU

Tour Staging

VU

HVAC

VU

VU

VU

Boundary adjustment

(Not to scale)

HQ

HQ

PU

PU

VU

PU

HQ

LS

45

Alternative 2: A Retreat from Modern Life in the Heart of the City (Preferred) 

47 

accommodate the day-long, curriculumbased, educational history programs and 

would be renamed the Educational Center. 

In the remaining areas of the historic district, 

the historic landscape would be rehabilitated 

to illustrate 19th century outdoor life in the 

neighborhood. New features, such as 

foundation outlines and fences could be 

built to reflect the mass, density, and spatial 

organization of the neighborhood in 

Lincoln’s time following the treatment 

recommendations of a cultural landscape 

report. Features such as residential 

streetscapes, sidewalks, paths, stairs, and 

walkways evoking former houses could be 

built to rehabilitate the circulation patterns 

of the historic landscape. Species of trees 

and shrubs that were present when Lincoln 

lived at Eighth and Jackson streets could be 

planted to reflect historic vegetation patterns 

as part of an overall effort to rehabilitate the 

historic landscape. This would enhance the 

visitor’s sense of the neighborhood’s historic 

spatial organization and emphasize the views 

and vistas of the historic neighborhood 

landscape. 

Most NPS administrative offices, including 

most interpretive staff offices, would be 

consolidated and moved to the new 

headquarters in the rehabilitated Stuve 

House and Stuve Carriage House. Other 

administrative functions could be in the 

Sprigg House. Maintenance operations 

would be consolidated in a new facility 

within the expanded boundary to the southeast. A new consolidated curatorial facility 

would be built in the south portion of the 

open space/recreation zone located along 

the eastern side of the national historic site. 

Five additional historic houses (the Beedle, 

Dubois, Lyon, Miller, and Morse houses) no 

longer needed for NPS offices would be 

available for the historic leasing program — 

making a total of eight houses. Parking for 

lessees would be accommodated in the 

expanded administrative zone in the east 

alley. The visitor center would be expanded 

to provide space for two small NPS ranger 

offices when Eastern National’s operations 

expand into the existing ranger offices. The 

conference center would be remodeled to 

accommodate the day-long, curriculumbased educational history programs and 

would be renamed the Educational Center. 

Programs would continue be held off-site as 

well. 

The bus dropoff and pickup and RV/trailer 

parking would be at the existing location in 

the lot north of the visitor center. 

Space for a new consolidated maintenance 

facility and relocated parking for NPS employees and volunteers would be facilitated 

by a boundary expansion (see below). 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 

A boundary adjustment would be sought to 

include the half block between Edwards and 

Cook streets and between South Ninth 

Street and the alley between South Eighth 

Street and South Ninth Street. This 

boundary adjustment would protect 

significant resources and values and enhance 

visitor appreciation and enjoyment of the 

site by moving potentially hazardous 

maintenance operations out of the historic 

core of the national historic site. It would 

also remove modern visual and auditory 

intrusions relating to maintenance 

operations from the historic scene. 

The new maintenance facility would also 

address important operational and management issues by removing maintenance 

functions from several historic structures in 

the historic core and consolidating them into 

a new facility, thereby enhancing operational 

efficiency and employee safety. The space 

added by the boundary expansion would 

also provide for staff and volunteer parking, 

thus alleviating traffic and safety concerns 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

48 

and removing modern visual and auditory 

intrusions from the historic core. 

Estimates indicate that the boundary 

adjustment and development of an NPSowned facility are less than the cost of 

leasing similar facilities built on the same 

location over the long term. There is no 

building that suits NPS needs in the area 

where it is needed, and a privately built 

leased facility would be more expensive than 

one built and owned by the National Park 

Service.
49 

ALTERNATIVE 3: LIFE AND WORK IN A REHABILITATED LINCOLN-ERA 

URBAN LANDSCAPE 

CONCEPT 

Under this alternative, national historic site 

management would focus on interpretation 

and rehabilitation of the neighborhood as 

Lincoln knew it along the entire length of 

Eighth Street. The historic landscape would 

be extensively rehabilitated to the diverse 

and active quality of the neighborhood in the 

heart of Springfield. 

HOW VISITORS WOULD 

EXPERIENCE THE SITE 

Visitors would begin their time at the site by 

entering the visitor center where they could 

watch the orientation film on Lincoln’s life 

and see the exhibits. Leaving the visitor center, they would walk east towards a new 

structure on the Burch lot for a short orientation while they prepare for the tour of the 

Lincoln Home (as in alternative 2). Following the tour, they could see exhibits in the 

Lincoln back yard and in structures of contemporary design built on the locations of 

structures that were present during the 

Lincoln era. Additional exhibits would be 

located in the Arnold and Corneau houses, 

as well as in a contemporary structure built 

on the Brown lot. 

Other new buildings reflecting the historic 

character of the neighborhood but with an 

overall design that visitors would recognize 

as nonhistoric would be located on currently 

empty lots. Because there would be buildings 

throughout most of the historic landscape, 

visitors would experience a strong sense of 

removal from the modern world as they 

moved up and down Eighth Street. These 

structures would serve as buffers against 

modern visual and auditory intrusions. 

Interpretive information would be 

developed to explain the history of each 

neighborhood property to enhance visitor 

understanding of the Lincolns’ social 

neighborhood setting. 

Visitors would also have the opportunity to 

enjoy on- and off-site curriculum-based 

educational programs, including multiday 

programs, to gain a better understanding of 

the day-to-day lives of the Lincoln family 

and their neighbors. An innovative, largescale, living history program would enhance 

visitors’ impressions that they had traveled 

in time to the historic period of the Lincolnera neighborhood. Programs would 

continue to be held off-site as well. 

Visitors arriving by bus would be dropped 

off on the west side of the national historic 

site in the parking lot north of the visitor 

center and picked up on the east side of the 

site on Ninth Street just north of Edwards 

Street. RVs and vehicles with trailers would 

park in the north parking lot. Visitors would 

have access to new restrooms on the east 

side of the national historic site in a new 

contemporary structure on the Carrigan lot. 

HOW THE SITE 

WOULD BE MANAGED 

The National Park Service would rehabilitate the historic landscape by constructing 

contemporary buildings in most of the currently empty lots. Although these contemporary buildings would reflect the historic 

character of the neighborhood, they would 

be designed so that visitors would readily 

recognize them as nonhistoric. Development 

of empty lots would include structures on 

the site of former houses and could include 

structures on the site of the former outbuildings associated with these houses. These 

new, contemporary buildings would be used 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

50 

for curatorial storage functions, living 

history support, maintenance and operations 

functions, and administrative and visitor 

needs. 

As noted above, staging of tour groups 

would take place in the new building on the 

Burch lot, exhibits would occupy the house 

on the Brown lot, and restrooms and drinking fountains would be in the new building 

on the Carrigan lot. Interiors of other new 

buildings would be used for NPS operations. 

A new contemporary building would be built 

on the Irwin lot to provide support space for 

the living history program. On the Worthen, 

Niles, and Bugg lots, a single building 

designed to appear as three separate houses 

from the street would serve curatorial 

storage functions. On the Roll and Jenkins 

lots, another single building designed to 

appear as two separate houses from the 

street would serve maintenance functions. 

Archeological resources would be removed 

as part of the construction on at least nine 

lots. Because a building on the Roll and 

Jenkins lots would not be large enough to 

support all maintenance functions, and 

because some maintenance functions are not 

suitable for the historic district, it would also 

be necessary to build a second maintenance 

building. This new development would take 

place in the boundary expansion area. 

Existing houses and outbuildings would be 

rehabilitated as needed to serve either 

national historic site administrative needs or 

to be leased out. Historic houses no longer 

needed for NPS operations would be added 

to the existing leasing program. Although 

increased leasing is not a goal of the management alternative, vacant historic space 

would be better preserved through occupancy and use than by keeping the houses 

vacant. Leasing revenue would enable the 

National Park Service to maintain the houses 

in better condition than under current uses. 

Six additional houses (the Beedle, Dean, 

Dubois, Lyon, Miller, and Morse houses) 

would be available for the leasing program 

under this alternative, bringing the total to 

nine leased buildings. Parking for lessees 

would be accommodated in the expanded 

administrative zone in the east alley. Yards 

would be rehabilitated with new vegetation 

that reflects the species of trees and shrubs 

that would have been present during the 

Lincoln era, as well as with walkways and 

fences — following the treatment recommendations of a cultural landscape report. 

This rehabilitation would enhance visitor 

understanding of the scale and density of the 

Lincoln neighborhood in the 1860s. 

The Stuve House and carriage house would 

be rehabilitated for use as NPS headquarters 

where offices of most staff, including interpretive staff, would be consolidated. The 

Sprigg House could also be used for NPS 

administrative purposes, and there would be 

two small offices in the visitor center, with 

support space in the Irvin House for living 

history and maintenance and curatorial in 

three new buildings. 

The current bus dropoff, parking, and pickup area would become only a bus dropoff 

area, making it easier for visitors arriving by 

bus. A new area for buses to pull in and pick 

up visitors would be built on the southeastern side of the national historic site on 

Ninth Street just north of Edwards Street. 

Parking in the existing north lot would be 

limited to RV and trailer parking. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 

As in alternative 2, a boundary adjustment 

would be sought to include the half block 

between Edwards and Cook streets and 

between South Ninth Street and the alley 

between South Eighth Street and South 

Ninth Street. This area would provide space 

for some maintenance functions that are not 

compatible with desired conditions in the 

historic district. It would also provide space 

for employee and volunteer parking. 
LS

LS

LS

PU

LS

LS

HQ

HQ

LS

LS

LS

PU

VU

LS

VU

VU

Grace Evangelical 

Lutheran Church 

Lincoln Home 

Visitor Center 

Visitor Parking 

Stuve House

Shutt House 

Dubois House 

Miller House

Sprigg House 

Education 

Center

JACKSON STREET 

Burch Lot

EIGHTH STREET 

Carrigan Lot

Corneau 

House 

Robinson 

House 

Cook

House

Arnold

House

Lincoln 

Home

Morse

House

Dean 

House

Lyon 

House

Beedle 

House

Closed 

to 

Traffic 

Closed 

to 

Traffic 

Capitol Avenue 

Edwards Street 

Seventh Street Ninth Street 

Walters Lot 

Remann Lot 

Niles Lot

Worthen 

Lot

Bugg Lot

Irwin Lot

Roll Lot

Jenkins 

Lot

Allen 

Barn 

Allen Lot 

Brown Lot

(Privately owned) 

Aitken 

Barn 

Exhibits/

VU

Exhibits/

 VU

Staging Area/

 VU

Curatorial Maintenance

(quiet uses)

HVAC

Bus 

Pick-up

M Z

L (noisy equipment use & 

materials storage)

and Employee Parking 

Maintenance Facility

(Not to scale)

Bus drop-off and 

pick-up and 

RV/trailer parking

Exhibits

VU

L H N H S

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • December 2009 • 381 • 20014 

A T

L  W   R 

L- U L

Open Space/Recreation

Visitor Services/Administration

Boundary adjustment Neighborhood Rehabilitation

Park Boundary

Future Structure

Visitor Use

Park Use

Headquarters

Leased Space

VU

PU

HQ

LS

51

53 

ALTERNATIVE 4: SELF-DISCOVERY OF THE LINCOLN-ERA LANDSCAPE 

CONCEPT 

Under this alternative, the national historic 

site management would focus on rehabilitating the landscape to provide visual cues of 

what was present during Lincoln’s time, 

offering visitors a sense of self-discovery. 

The Lincoln lot would be restored to the 

greatest degree possible. 

HOW VISITORS WOULD 

EXPERIENCE THE SITE 

Visitors would begin their time at the site by 

entering the visitor center where they could 

see exhibits and watch the orientation film 

on Lincoln’s life and see exhibits. Leaving 

the visitor center, they would walk east for 

their tour of the Lincoln Home. There 

would be some opportunities for ranger-led 

tours of the historic neighborhood. Visitors 

could also experience the site on their own 

and draw their own conclusions about 

Lincoln’s life in Springfield. Self-guided 

tours using neighborhood interpretive 

wayside exhibits, cell phones, iPods, etc. 

would be available. The Arnold, Dean, and 

Corneau houses would contain additional 

exhibits. Visitors could wander inside the 

fences of lots where structures are missing to 

get a better idea of the character of the historic neighborhood. Interpretive information would be developed for each property. 

A limited curriculum-based program would 

continue to be held on- and off-site (same as 

in alternative 1.) 

Visitors arriving by bus would continue to be 

dropped off and picked up on the west side 

of the national historic site in the parking lot 

north of the visitor center. Recreational 

vehicles and vehicles with trailers would 

park in this north parking lot. Visitors would 

have access to new restrooms and drinking 

water in the Arnold Barn. 

HOW THE SITE 

WOULD BE MANAGED 

The existing historic houses and outbuildings would remain as the only large-scale 

buildings in the historic district. In the 

remaining areas of the historic district, the 

historic landscape, including residential 

streetscapes, would be rehabilitated to 

illustrate 19th century outdoor life in the 

neighborhood. New features, such as 

foundation outlines and fences, could be 

built to reflect the mass, density, and spatial 

organization of the neighborhood in 

Lincoln’s time. Features such as sidewalks, 

paths, stairs, and walkways evoking former 

houses could be built to rehabilitate the 

circulation patterns of the historic landscape, following the treatment recommendations of a cultural landscape report. 

Species of trees and shrubs that were present 

when Lincoln lived at Eighth and Jackson 

streets could be planted to represent historic 

vegetation patterns as part of an overall 

effort to rehabilitate the historic landscape. 

This would also enhance the visitor’s sense 

of the neighborhood’s historic spatial organization, and emphasize the views and vistas 

of the historic neighborhood landscape. The 

Lincoln lot would be restored to the greatest 

degree possible. Archeological resources 

would remain mostly in situ. 

The National Park Service would rehabilitate the exterior and interior of the Stuve 

House and Stuve Carriage House for NPS 

headquarters. A new curatorial facility 

would be built in the northeast corner of the 

site, and a new maintenance facility would 

be built in the southeast corner of the site. 

The conference center would remain as it is 

and used for staff meetings, training, and the 

living history support center. 

Historic houses no longer needed for NPS 

operations would be added to the existing 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

54 

leasing program. Although increased leasing 

is not a goal of this management alternative, 

vacant historic space would be better 

preserved through occupancy and use than 

by keeping the houses vacant. Leasing 

revenue would enable the National Park 

Service to maintain the houses in better 

condition than under current uses. Five 

additional houses (the Beedle, Dubois, Lyon, 

Miller, and Morse houses) would be 

available for the leasing program under this 

alternative, bringing the total to eight 

buildings. Limited traffic would be 

permitted in the alleys. Lessee parking 

would be permitted in the expanded 

administrative zone in the east alley. 

The open space/recreation zone on the 

eastern side of the national historic site 

would be relandscaped. Maintenance 

operations would be consolidated in a new 

facility in the southeast corner of the site and 

curatorial facilities consolidated in a new 

building in the northeast corner. 

The visitor center would be expanded to 

provide space for two small ranger offices 

when Eastern National’s operations expand 

into the existing ranger offices. 

The bus dropoff, pickup, and RV/trailer 

parking would be on the west side of the site 

at the existing location in the lot north of the 

visitor center. Restrooms and drinking water 

would be placed in the existing Arnold Barn. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 

There would be no boundary adjustment 

recommended under this alternative. 
Grace Evangelical 

Lutheran Church

Lincoln Home 

Visitor Center

Expanded

Visitor Parking

Stuve House

Shutt 

House

Dubois 

House

Miller 

House

Sprigg 

House

Conference

Center

JACKSON STREET

Burch Lot

EIGHTH STREET

Carrigan Lot

Corneau

House

Robinson

House

Cook

House

Arnold

House

Lincoln 

Home

Morse

House

Dean 

House

Lyon 

House

Beedle 

House

Closed

to 

Traffic

Closed

to 

Traffic

Capitol Avenue

Edwards Street

Seventh StreetNinth Street

Walters Lot

Remann Lot

Niles Lot

Worthen Lot

Bugg Lot

Irwin Lot

Roll Lot

Jenkins Lot

Allen

Barn

Allen Lot

Brown Lot

(Privately owned)

Curatorial 

Facility

Maintenance

Facility

Aitken

Barn

Exhibits/

 VU

Exhibits/

VU

Exhibits/

VU

LS

LS

PU

PU

PU

LS

HQ

HQ LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

Bus drop-off and 

pick-up and 

RV/trailer parking

VU

L H N H S

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • December 2009 • 381 • 20015 

A F

S-D   L-E L

Park Boundary

Future Structure

Headquarters

L

Open Space/Recreation

Visitor Services/Administration

Historic Yard Rehabilitation

M Z

VU Visitor Use

LS Leased Space 

Lincoln HomeRestoration

Park Use

HQ

PU

55

57 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Cost estimates in general management plans 

are required by the 1978 Parks and Recreation 

Act, are requested by Congress for budget 

control purposes, and are important to 

meaningful decision making. The purpose of 

cost estimates is to assist managers with 

setting priorities and to inform the public. For 

comparison purposes, the planning team 

estimated the cost to implement each of the 

alternatives (Table 4: Estimated Costs of the 

Alternatives). These costs are for comparative 

purposes only. 

The following applies to costs presented in 

this plan: 

• These cost figures are broad estimates 

based on the costs of construction, 

supplies, and employee salaries, and 

should not be used for budgeting and 

project planning. 

• The costs presented have been developed 

using industry standards to the extent 

available. 

• Actual costs will be determined at a later 

date, considering the design of facilities, 

identification of detailed resource 

protection needs, and changing visitor 

expectations. 

• Potential costs for land protection tools 

(easements, acquisitions, etc.) to 

implement the boundary adjustment 

proposal in this management plan are not 

included in these estimates. 

• Approval of the general management plan 

does not guarantee that funding or staffing 

for proposed actions will be available. 

• Full implementation of the general 

management plan may be many years in 

the future. 

• Some of these costs may be borne by 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site 

partners, rather than by the National Park 

Service. However, since there are no 

legislated or official partners for the 

national historic site, all costs are included 

in this analysis. It is possible that some 

projects would be undertaken at the scale 

presented only if sufficient outside 

funding is available. 

The NPS Facility Planning Model was run to 

determine the space needs for reconfiguring 

administrative space and building new 

maintenance and curatorial facilities. The 

models run for the preferred alternative have 

been approved by the NPS Midwest Region 

and Washington offices of the Park Facilities 

Management Division. 

ASSOCIATED COSTS: 

ALTERNATIVE 1 — NO ACTION 

Costs associated with implementing this alternative are ongoing operations (base funding) 

and those items proposed under the current 

management direction. 

Nonfacility costs would include new interpretive exhibits. Annual operating costs include 

staffing costs as well as maintenance and 

operation costs. Leasing proceeds are subtracted from annual operating costs. In addition to the above costs, periodic increases in 

base funding would be required to cover 

inflation and remain at the current level of 

national historic site operations. There would 

be no additional staffing under this 

alternative. 

ASSOCIATED COSTS: 

ALTERNATIVE 2 — PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

The cost estimates for this alternative would 

include restoration of the Miller, Stuve, and 

Stuve Carriage houses; the Aitken Barn; and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

58 

TABLE 4. ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative 1

(No Action) 

Alternative 2

(NPS Preferred) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Annual 

Operating Costs1

$2,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,800,000 $2,100,000 

Staffing (FTE2) 41.75 51.5 50 44 

One-Time Costs

Facility Costs3 $5,100,000 $15,200,000 $15,300,000 13,500,000 

Nonfacility 

Costs4

 $ 0 $3,000,000 $ 5,400,000 200,000 

Total One-Time 

Costs 

 5,100,000 $ 18 200,000 $ 20,700,000 13,700,000 

(1) Annual operating costs (ONPS) are the total annual costs for maintenance and operations associated 

with each alternative, including: maintenance, utilities, supplies, staff salaries and benefits, leasing, and 

other materials. Projected leasing revenue has been subtracted from these costs. (Figures are in 2007 

dollars.) 

(2) Total full-time equivalent (FTE) employees are the number of employees required to maintain the assets 

of the national historic site at a good level, provide acceptable visitor services, protect resources, and other 

operational support. The full-time equivalent staff would not necessarily be NPS employees. NPS managers 

would explore opportunities to work with partners, volunteers, and other federal agencies to efficiently 

manage the national historic site. Employee salaries and benefits are included in the annual operating 

costs. 

(3) Initial construction costs include those for construction or renovation of facilities. In the no-action 

alternative, initial construction costs includes only those costs already planned within existing programs 

and with an approved funding source. 

(4) Nonfacility costs include the costs of actions for cultural and natural resource management, visitor 

service materials, and other NPS management activities that are not related to a facility but would require 

substantial funding above the annual operating costs. 

(5) The cost of completing the cultural landscape report as well as planting plans/construction documents 

is present under each alternative. 

Lincoln Home outbuildings. They would also 

include construction of a maintenance facility 

and a curatorial facility; expansion of the 

visitor center; the construction of three 

contemporary buildings on the Burch, 

Carrigan, and Brown lots; restoration of the 

Lincoln lot; and activities associated with the 

rehabilitation of the historic landscape. 

Nonfacility costs in this alternative would 

include landscaping of the Open Space zone, 

new interpretive exhibits, building foundation 

outlines, and archeological research. 

Annual operating costs would include 10 

additional staff recommended to fully 

implement the preferred alternative. This 

increase would be necessary for expanded 

interpretive and educational programs, 

increased ranger-led tours, the living history 

program, and support in maintenance, law 

enforcement, and administration. As in 

alternative 1, these costs also include expected 
Estimated Costs 

59 

maintenance and operations costs. Existing 

and projected leasing proceeds are subtracted 

from annual operating costs. 

ASSOCIATED COSTS: ALTERNATIVE 3 

Cost estimates for this alternative include 

restoration of the Miller, Stuve, and Stuve 

Carriage houses; the Aitken Barn; and Lincoln 

Home outbuildings. They also include 

construction of contemporary buildings on 

the Brown, Burch, Worthen, Niles, Bugg, 

Carrigan, Irwin, Roll, and Jenkins lots; 

maintenance and parking facilities in the 

boundary adjustment area; and a new bus 

pickup area. Nonfacility costs in this alternative would include landscaping of the Open 

Space zone, archeological research, and new 

interpretive exhibits. 

Annual operating costs would include eight 

additional FTE staff positions recommended 

to fully implement this alternative. This increase would be necessary for interpretive and 

living history programs and support in maintenance, law enforcement, and administration. 

As in the other alternatives, these costs also 

include expected maintenance and operations 

costs, and, again, existing and projected 

leasing proceeds are subtracted from annual 

operating costs. 

ASSOCIATED COSTS: ALTERNATIVE 4 

Cost estimates for this alternative include 

restoration of the Miller, Stuve, and Stuve 

Carriage houses, the Aitken Barn; and Lincoln 

Home outbuildings; restoration of the Lincoln 

lot; construction of new maintenance and 

curatorial facilities; and the rehabilitation of 

the historic landscape. Nonfacility costs in this 

alternative would include construction of 

foundation outlines, landscaping of the Open 

Space zone, archeological research, and new 

interpretive exhibits. 

Annual operating costs include two additional 

FTE staff positions recommended to fully 

implement this alternative. This increase 

would be necessary for law enforcement; 

cultural resource management; and administrative support. Maintenance and operation 

costs are included in annual operating costs. 

Because under this alternative, the national 

historic site would lease a total of eight 

buildings, expected lease proceeds are 

subtracted. 
60 

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER ANALYSIS 

An alternative with the following ideas was 

considered but rejected due to (1) the lack of 

documentation to guide accurate reconstruction that was consistent with NPS and Department of the Interior cultural resource policies; 

(2) the excessive costs of such a reconstruction program, and (3) the potential adverse 

impacts on Eastern National operations in the 

national historic site. 

RECONSTRUCTED NEIGHBORHOOD 

Under this alternative, missing elements of the 

1860s neighborhood would have been recreated through large-scale reconstruction. 

The interior of these reconstructed buildings 

would have been adaptively used, but the 

exterior would have been restored to represent the historic period of the Lincoln 

neighborhood. The cultural landscape would 

be restored to 1860. The Stuve House would 

be restored on the exterior and adaptively 

used on the interior, but rather than taking 

responsibility for this directly, the National 

Park Service would seek out a private leasee 

for the house with strict preservation 

requirements to renovate the building for 

their use with a long-term lease. New 

curatorial space would be consolidated and 

leased on land adjacent to the national historic 

site, and maintenance operations would be 

consolidated and moved to a new building in 

the south portion of the Open Space/ 

Recreation Zone. Development of modern 

(not reconstructed) facilities would be limited 

to the new maintenance facility, a new bus 

pickup space, and new restrooms in an area 

along South Ninth Street. The Eastern 

National Museum shop would be moved to a 

new location in one of the reconstructed 

buildings. 

Some of the reconstructed buildings would 

have housed interpretive displays, a new 

museum shop, and a new staging area for 

tours of the Lincoln Home. The current 

visitor center would not have been expanded, 

but interior space for exhibits would have 

increased by the amount currently occupied 

by the museum shop. 

Buses would have used the visitor center 

parking lot as a dropoff point and park offsite. A new pickup site would have been along 

Ninth Street. The current bus parking lot 

would be set aside for recreational vehicle 

(RV)/trailer parking. 
61 

FUTURE STUDIES NEEDED 

After completion and approval of a general 

management plan for the national historic 

site, other more detailed studies and plans 

would be needed before specific actions 

could be implemented. As required, 

additional environmental compliance 

(National Environmental Policy Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, and 

other relevant laws and policies), and public 

involvement would be conducted. Those 

additional studies include, but would not be 

limited to the following. 

• An additional leasing study will be 

required to more accurately determine 

the leasing revenues that would be 

realized under the action alternatives. 

• A site-specific development plan and 

environmental assessment would be 

prepared to analyze the potential 

locations for the maintenance facility 

and curatorial facility identified in 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

• Historic structure reports would be 

prepared for restoration of any 

structures on the Lincoln lot. 

• A cultural landscape report would be 

completed for the entire national 

historic site. 

• A resource stewardship plan/strategy 

would be completed for the national 

historic site. 

• A commercial services plan would be 

developed in support of an expanded 

leasing program. 
62 

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Congress charged the National Park Service 

with managing the lands under its 

stewardship “in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations” (NPS 

Organic Act, 16 USC 1). As a result, the 

National Park Service routinely evaluates 

and implements mitigation whenever 

conditions occur that could adversely affect 

the sustainability of national park system 

resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the action 

alternatives protects unimpaired natural and 

cultural resources and the quality of the 

visitor experience, a consistent set of 

mitigating measures would be applied to 

actions proposed in this plan. The National 

Park Service would prepare appropriate 

environmental review (i.e., those required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, and 

other relevant legislation) for these future 

actions. As part of the environmental review, 

the National Park Service would avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts 

when practicable. The implementation of a 

compliance-monitoring program would be 

considered to stay within the parameters of 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

National Historic Preservation Act and the 

associated compliance documents. The 

compliance-monitoring program would 

oversee these mitigative measures and would 

include reporting protocols. 

The following mitigative measures and best 

management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts from 

implementation of the alternatives. These 

measures would apply to all alternatives. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Park Service would preserve 

and protect, to the greatest extent possible, 

the cultural resources of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site. Specific mitigating 

measures would include the following: 

• Continue to develop inventories for and 

oversee research about archeological 

and historical resources to better understand and manage the resources. Continue to manage cultural resources and 

collections following federal regulations 

and NPS policies and guidelines. 

Maintain the national historic site’s 

collection in a manner that would meet 

NPS curatorial standards. 

• Subject projects to site-specific planning 

and compliance. Make efforts to avoid 

adverse impacts through the use of the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, and by using screening 

and/or context-sensitive design that 

would be compatible with historic 

resources. If adverse impacts could not 

be avoided, mitigate these impacts 

through a consultation process with all 

interested parties. As required, 

archeological studies would precede any 

ground disturbance. 

• As appropriate, archeological surveys 

and/or monitoring would precede any 

ground disturbance. Known archeological resources would be avoided to the 

greatest extent possible during construction. If archeological resources that are 

listed in or are eligible for listing in the 

national register could not be avoided, 

an appropriate data recovery plan would 

be developed in consultation with the 

Illinois state historic preservation 

officer, the City of Springfield Historic 

Preservation Program, and other 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Alternatives 

63 

stakeholders as appropriate. In the rare 

event that previously unknown 

archeological resources were discovered 

during construction, all work in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery 

would be halted until the resources 

could be identified and documented 

and, if the resources cannot be preserved 

in situ, an appropriate mitigation strategy 

could be developed in consultation with 

the state historic preservation officer. 

• Before implementing any action that 

would adversely impact a nationalregister-eligible or -listed structure, or 

any contributing element or feature of a 

national-register-eligible or-listed 

landscape, an appropriate mitigative 

strategy would be developed in 

consultation with the Illinois state 

historic preservation officer. All 

mitigative documentation would be 

prepared in accordance with Section 106 

and Section 110 (b) of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, 36 CFR 800, 

and the Secretary’s Standards for 

Documentation. The documentation 

would be submitted to the NPS Historic 

American Buildings Survey/Historic 

American Engineering Record/Historic 

American Landscape Survey program. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Exotic Species 

Implement a noxious weed abatement 

program. Standard measures could include 

the following elements: certify all seeds and 

straw material as weed-free, identify areas of 

noxious weeds during preconstruction, treat 

noxious weeds or noxious weed topsoil 

before construction (e.g., topsoil 

segregation, storage, herbicide treatment), 

and revegetate with native species that were 

present during the time that Lincoln lived in 

the home, as described in the cultural 

landscape plan. 

 

VISITOR SAFETY AND EXPERIENCES 

• Implement a traffic control plan, as 

warranted. 

• Implement measures to reduce adverse 

effects of construction on visitor safety 

and experience as necessary. 

• Conduct an accessibility study to 

understand barriers to national historic 

site programs and facilities. Based on this 

study, implement a strategy to provide 

the maximum level of accessibility. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

During the future planning and implementation of the approved management plan for 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site, the 

National Park Service would work with the 

city of Springfield and Sangamon County 

governments to further identify potential 

impacts and mitigative measures that would 

best serve the interests and concerns of both 

the National Park Service and the local communities. Partnerships would be pursued to 

improve the quality and diversity of 

community amenities and services. 

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 

AND AESTHETICS 

Projects would avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

Development projects (e.g., construction of 

buildings, facilities and, utilities, and building rehabilitation) would be designed to 

work in harmony with the surroundings. 

Projects would be sustainable whenever 

practicable, by recycling and reusing 

materials, by minimizing use of new 

materials, by minimizing energy consumption during the project, and by minimizing 

energy consumption throughout the lifespan 

of the project. 
64 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

Environmentally preferable is defined as “the 

alternative that will promote the national 

environmental policy as expressed in Section 

101 of the National Environmental Policy 

Act.” Section 101 states: 

[I]t is the continuing responsibility of the 

Federal Government to: 

(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 

(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; 

(3) attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk to health or safety, or 

other undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

(4) preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national 

heritage, and maintain, wherever 

possible, an environment which 

supports diversity, and variety of 

individual choices; 

(5) achieve a balance between population 

and resource use which will permit 

high standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities; and 

(6) enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources. 

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

alternative 2, the alternative preferred by the 

National Park Service for Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site in this plan. This 

alternative would satisfy the goals of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): it 

would provide a high level of protection of 

resources while concurrently providing for a 

wide range of neutral and beneficial uses of 

the environment. This alternative would 

maintain an environment that supports a 

diversity and variety of individual choices, and 

it would integrate resource protection with an 

appropriate range of visitor uses. 

All of the alternatives fully satisfy criteria 1 

and 5 of Section 101 because they all protect 

the environment for future generations and 

achieve a balance of population and resource 

use that permits high standards of living and a 

wide sharing of life’s amenities. Alternatives 2 

and 3 provide more culturally pleasing 

surroundings by filling in empty lots to better 

convey the urban density of Lincoln’s 

residency there. During public meetings, the 

planning team heard comments about the outof-place feeling of the empty lots. Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 would address overcrowding in the 

visitor center and provide more visitor 

experience opportunities than alternative 1, 

thereby better attaining the widest range of 

beneficial uses of the environment (criterion 

3). 

Alternative 2 meets the fourth criterion better 

than alternative 1, 3, or 4 because, while all of 

the alternatives preserve important aspects of 

our national heritage, rehabilitation under 

alternative 2 offers the most diversity and 

variety of individual choices. Lastly, criterion 

6 is the only criterion that the alternative 1 

satisfies to a greater extent than the other 

alternatives. Because the no-action alternative 

proposes no new construction, it proposes 

using little, if any, additional depletable 

resources. Weighed as a whole, however, 

alternative 2 satisfies the set of criteria for 

environmental preferability better than the 

other alternatives. See the table in Appendix 

B: Criteria for Selecting the Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative for a summary of the 

ways in which the alternatives satisfy the 

NEPA criteria for the environmentally 

preferable alternative.
Table 5. Summary Comp

65 

TABLE 5. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE 1 NOACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 2: A RETREAT FROM MODERN 

LIFE IN THE HEART OF THE CITY 

ALTERNATIVE 3: LIFE AND WORK IN A REHABILITATED LINCOLN-ERA URBAN LANDSCAPE 

ALTERDISCOVLINCOL

Concept Concept: 

National historic site management would focus on the existing Lincoln-era neighborhood and would maintain it as it is today. Existing structures would be maintained as necessary to preserve them. Visitor experience would focus on ranger-led tours of the Lincoln Home. 

Concept: National historic site management would focus on rehabilitating the historic landscape to offer visitors a strong sense of the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it. This goal would be accomplished by extensive rehabilitation at the core of the site, but less extensive away from the core. The Lincoln lot would be restored to the greatest extent possible. 

Concept: National historic site management would focus on interpretation and rehabilitation of the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it along the entire length of Eighth Street. The historic landscape would be extensively rehabilitated to the diverse and active quality of the neighborhood in the heart of Springfield. 

ConcepThe natmanagerehabiliprovide was pretime to of self-lot wougreates

HOW VISITORS WOULD EXPERIENCE THE SITE

Tours and Living History Program 

There would continue to be ranger-led tours of the Lincoln home and neighborhood. 

There would be ranger-led tours of the Lincoln home and neighborhood and an extensive living history program. 

There would be expanded ranger-led tours outside the Lincoln Home and neighborhood and an extensive living-history program. 

Same a

Film, Displays, and Exhibits 

Visitors would continue watching the film in the visitor center, and exploring displays and exhibits in the visitor center, in the Arnold and Dean houses, and in the neighborhood. 

Visitors would see the film and explore displays and exhibits in the visitor center, Arnold and Corneau houses, in the contemporary structure on the Brown lot, and in the neighborhood. 

Same as alternative 2. Visitors 

in the vexplore in the vArnold, housesneighb
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

ALTERNATIVE 1 NOACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 2: A RETREAT FROM MODERN 

LIFE IN THE HEART OF THE CITY 

ALTERNATIVE 3: LIFE AND WORK IN A REHABILITATED LINCOLN-ERA URBAN LANDSCAPE 

ALTERDISCOVLINCOL

Interpretation Interpretation would 

include • orienting people in the 

visitor center 

• conducting home and 

neighborhood tours 

• staging tours outdoors or 

in exhibit houses 

• offering limited 

curriculum-based educational programs 

Interpretation would include• orienting people in the 

visitor center 

• developing new exhibits for 

the structure on the Brown lot and/or moving existing Dean House exhibits into the structure on the Brown lot 

• adding exhibits in the 

structure on the Corneau lot 

• staging tours in the 

structure on Burch lot 

• conducting an extensive 

living history program 

• conducting day-long 

curriculum-based educational programs 

• developing interpretive 

information for each property 

• developing technologyenhanced neighborhood 

tours 

• conducting off-site 

education programs 

• expanding ranger-led tours 

outside the Lincoln Home 

Interpretation would include • orienting people in the visitor 

center 

• conducting expanded rangerled programs • developing new exhibits for 

structure on Brown lot and/or moving existing Dean House exhibits into structure on Brown lot 

• staging tours in structure on 

Burch lot 

• conducting an extensive living 

history program 

• conducting multiday, 

curriculum-based, educational programs 

• developing interpretive 

information for each property 

• conducting off-site 

educational programs 

Interpresame a• deve

inforprop

• deve

enhatours 

Tour Staging Tours would continue to be 

staged outside in good weather and in the Dean and/or Arnold houses in poor weather. 

Tours would be staged in the new structure on the Burch lot. 

Same as alternative 2 Same a
Table 5. Summary Comp

67 

ALTERNATIVE 1 NOACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 2: A RETREAT FROM MODERN 

LIFE IN THE HEART OF THE CITY 

ALTERNATIVE 3: LIFE AND WORK IN A REHABILITATED LINCOLN-ERA URBAN LANDSCAPE 

ALTERDISCOVLINCOL

Sense of Place Visitors would continue to 

have a very limited sense of removal from the modern world. 

Visitors would have a sense of removal from the modern world at the core. At the periphery, the addition of sidewalks, paths, etc., and vegetation to lots would enhance the visitor’s sense of the historic neighborhood. 

Visitors would have a strongsense of removal from the modern world throughout the historic district. 

The addfeature(rather would experie

Educational Programs 

There would continue to be limited curriculum-based educational programs onand off-site. 

There would be day-long curriculum-based education programs on- and off-site. 

There would be expanded, multiday, curriculum-based education programs on- and offsite. 

Same a

Nonpersonal Services 

These would include existing interpretive exhibits, visitor center orientation films, website information, printed media, and temporary exhibits on Jenkins lot. 

Same as alternative 1 plus interpretive information would be developed for each property, and technologyenhanced neighborhood tours would be developed. 

Same as alternative 1 plus interpretive information would be developed for each property. 

Same a

Restrooms and Drinking Water 

Restrooms and water would continue to be available only in the visitor center. 

Additional restrooms andwater would be provided in the new contemporary structure on the Carrigan lot. 

Same as alternative 2 Additio

water wthe Arn
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

68 

ALTERNATIVE 1 NOACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 2: A RETREAT FROM MODERN 

LIFE IN THE HEART OF THE CITY 

ALTERNATIVE 3: LIFE AND WORK IN A REHABILITATED LINCOLN-ERA URBAN LANDSCAPE 

ALTERDISCOVLINCOL

HOW THE SITE WOULD BE MANAGED

Structures Structures would be 

maintained and repaired as necessary to preserve them. No restoration or rehabilitation would occur. 

The Stuve House and Stuve Carriage House would be rehabilitated for NPS administrative functions. The Dean house would be rehabilitated to support the 

living history program. The Corneau House would be converted to visitor use. The Lincoln lot would be restored if sufficient documentation exists. Other historic structures would be added to the leasing program. 

Same as alternative 2 except for the Dean House, which would be leased. Living history would be staged in the new structure on the Irwin lot. 

Same afor the would Additiowould greates

Landscape Vacant lots would remain 

vacant, historic landscape would continue to be preserved to maintain recognizable separate lots. 

New contemporary buildings using materials that reflect the site’s historic character would be built on the Burch, Carrigan, and Brown lots. All lots would be rehabilitated to add small-scale features and vegetation according to treatment recommendations of a cultural landscape report. 

New contemporary buildings using materials that reflect the site’s historic character would be built on at least the Burch, Carrigan, Brown, Worthen, Niles, Bugg, Irwin, Roll, and Jenkins lots. Yards would be rehabilitated to add small-scale features and vegetation according to treatment recommendations of a cultural landscape report. 

All lots would small-scvegetattreatmeof a cu

Archeological Resources 

Archeological resources would remain mostly in situ. 

Archeological resources would be removed as part of the construction on the Burch, Carrigan, and Brown lots. 

Archeological resources would be removed as part of the construction on at least nine lots. 

Same a
Table 5. Summary Comp

69 

ALTERNATIVE 1 NOACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 2: A RETREAT FROM MODERN 

LIFE IN THE HEART OF THE CITY 

ALTERNATIVE 3: LIFE AND WORK IN A REHABILITATED LINCOLN-ERA URBAN LANDSCAPE 

ALTERDISCOVLINCOL

Administrative Space 

NPS offices would remain in their current seven separate locations with support space for living history in the conference center and for maintenance and curatorial operations in 14 separate buildings. 

NPS offices would beconsolidated in the Stuve House and Stuve Carriage House complex, the Sprigg House, and the visitor center, with support space in the Dean House for living history and the maintenance and curatorial operations in two new buildings. Interpretive staff would be housed away from where visitors are concentrated (i.e., in offices in the Stuve House and Stuve Carriage House). 

NPS offices would be consolidated in the Stuve House and Stuve Carriage House complex, possibly the Sprigg House, and two small offices in the visitor center, with support space in the Irvin House for living history and maintenance and curatorial operations in three new buildings. Interpretive staff would be housed away from where visitors are concentrated (i.e., in offices in the Stuve House and Stuve Carriage House). 

Same asupport in the cInterprehoused visitors in officeand Stu

Maintenance Operations 

Maintenance staff would remain dispersed among existing facilities. 

Consolidated maintenance operations would be developed in a new facility in the boundary expansion area. 

Maintenance would be divided into two buildings, one in the historic district and one in the boundary expansion area. 

Consoloperatiin a new part of site. 

Curatorial Facilities and the Collections 

The curatorial staff would continue to be housed in the Corneau House, and storage would continue in three on-site buildings and at the NPS Midwest Archeological Center. 

A consolidated curatorial/

collections facility would be built in the southeast corner of the national historic site. 

A consolidated curatorial/

collections facility would be built in a new contemporary structure on the Worthen, Niles, and Bug lots. 

A consocuratorwould northeanationa

Leased Structures and Lessee Parking 

The three historic structures currently under lease would remain in the historic leasing program. Leasing is accommodated by allowing lessees to park in existing spaces. 

The historic leasing program would expand to a total of eight houses. Parking for lessees could be accommodated in expanded administrative zone in the east alley. 

The historic leasing program would expand to include a total of nine houses. Parking for lessees could be accommodated in expanded administrative zone in the east alley. 

The hiswould eight hlessees accommexpandin the e
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

70 

ALTERNATIVE 1 NOACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 2: A RETREAT FROM MODERN 

LIFE IN THE HEART OF THE CITY 

ALTERNATIVE 3: LIFE AND WORK IN A REHABILITATED LINCOLN-ERA URBAN LANDSCAPE 

ALTERDISCOVLINCOL

Parking (Employee) 

Employee parking would continue as is along the Ninth St. alley, the Stuve House grounds, and the visitor parking area when available. 

Employee parking would be accommodated in the boundary expansion area. 

Employee parking would be accommodated in the boundary expansion area. 

Employrelocateaccomm

Visitor Center There would be no change 

to the visitor center. 

Visitor center would be expanded to include two new offices. Eastern National would expand its space into the existing two small offices. 

Same as alternative 1. Same a

Conference Center 

The conference center would continue to be used for staff meetings, training, and as the living history support center. 

The conference center would become a dedicated education center. 

The conference center would become a dedicated education center. 

Same a

Bus Drop-off and Parking 

Bus parking, dropoff, and pickup would remain in the current bus parking lot. 

Buses would park off-site. Bus dropoff and pickup and RV/trailer parking would remain in the existing lot in the northwest corner of the national historic site. 

Buses would park off-site. Bus dropoff and RV/trailer parking would remain in the existing lot in the northwest corner of the national historic site, but bus pickup would move to the southeast corner of the national historic site on Ninth Street between Jackson and Edwards streets. 

Same a

Boundary Adjustment 

There would be no boundary adjustment. 

A boundary adjustment would be sought to include the half block between Edwards and Cook streets and between South Ninth Street and the alley between South Eighth Street and South Ninth Street. 

Same as alternative 2. Same a
Table 6. Summary of Key Impacts of Imp

71 

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALT

Historic Structures 

Implementation of alternative 1 (no action alternative) would result in long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on historic structures. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor, and adverse. Alternative 4 would not contribute any new adverse impacts to the adverse cumulative impacts. Section 106 Summary: No adverse effects on historic structures. 

Implementation of alternative 2 (the preferred alternative) would result in long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on historic structures. Cumulative impacts would be long-term, minor, and adverse. Alternative 2 would not contribute any new adverse impacts to the overall adverse cumulative impact. Section 106 Summary: No adverse effect on historic structures. 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on historic structures. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor, and adverse. Alternative 3 would not contribute any new adverse impacts to the adverse cumulative impacts. Section 106 Summary: No adverse effect on historic structures. 

Implemenative 4 wlong-termminor, behistoric sCumulatbe long tadverse. would nonew adveadverse cSection adverse estructure

Archeological Resources 

Implementation of alternative 1 (no-action alternative) would result in permanent, negligible, adverse impacts on archeological resources. The cumulative impacts would be permanent, moderate, and adverse. Adverse impacts on archeological resources resulting from implementation of alternative 4 would be a very small component of the adverse cumulative impacts. Section 106 Summary. No adverse effect. 

The preferred alternative would result in overall, minor, adverse impacts on archeological resources Cumulative impacts would be permanent, moderate, and adverse. Adverse impacts on archeological resources resulting from implementing alternative 2 would contribute a measureable component to the overall adverse cumulative impacts. Section 106 Summary. No adverse effect. 

Alternative 3 would result in permanent, moderate to major, adverse impacts on archeological resources at the national historic site. Cumulative impacts would be permanent, major, and adverse. Adverse impacts on archeological resources resulting from implementation of alternative 3 would be a substantial component of the adverse cumulative impact. Section 106 Summary. Adverse effect. 

Alternativpermaneimpacts oresourcesimpacts wpermaneadverse. on archeresulting mentatiowould be componecumulativSection No adver
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

72 

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALT

Cultural Landscapes 

Implementation of alternative 1 (no-action alternative) would result in long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts on the cultural landscapes. The cumulative impacts would be long term, minor, and adverse. Alternative 4 would not contribute any adverse impacts to these overall adverse cumulative impacts. Section 106 Summary. No adverse effect.

Implementation ofalternative 2 (the preferred alternative) would result in long-term, minor beneficial impacts on the cultural landscapes. The cumulative impacts would be long term, negligible, and beneficial. Alternative 2 would contribute an appreciable component to these beneficial cumulative impacts. Section 106 Summary. No adverse effect. 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the cultural landscapes. Cumulative impacts would be permanent, minor, and adverse. Alternative 3 would not contribute to the adverse cumulative impacts. Section 106 Summary. No adverse effect. 

Implemealternativlong-termminor, bethe natio

cultural lcumulativbe long tand benewould noadverse ioverall adimpacts. Section No adver

Museum Collections 

Continued management under the no-action alternative would result in long-term, negligible, and beneficial impacts on museum collections. There would be no cumulative impacts. 

The preferred alternative would result in long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts on museum collections. Cumulative impacts would be long term, moderate, and beneficial. Alternative 2 would contribute substantially to these cumulative beneficial impacts. 

Alternative 3 would result in long-term, minor to moderate beneficial impacts on museum collections. The cumulative impact would be long term, moderate, and beneficial. Alternative 3 would contribute a substantial beneficial increment to these beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Alternativlong-termmoderate on musecumulativlong termbeneficiawould cosubstantincremenimpact. 
Table 6. Summary of Key Impacts of Imp

73 

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALT

Visitor Experience 

Continued management under the no-action alternative would result in long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the visitor experience at the national historic site. The overall cumulative impacts would be long term, moderate, and beneficial. The actions resulting from implementing this alternative would contribute a very small beneficial component to the overall cumulative impacts on the visitor experience. 

Management under the preferred alternative would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on the visitor experience at the national historic site. Overall cumulative impacts would be long term, major, and beneficial. Implementing the preferred alternative would contribute a substantial beneficial component to the overall cumulative impacts on the visitor experience. 

Management under alternative 3 would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on the visitor experience at the national historic site. Cumulative impacts on the visitor experience would be long term, major and beneficial. Alternative 3 would contribute a substantial beneficial component to the overall beneficial cumulative impacts on the visitor experience. 

Continueunder thresult in to moderimpacts oexperienchistoric scumulativbe long tand beneresulting implemealternativa very smcomponecumulativvisitor ex

Socioeconomic Environment 

Continued management under the no-action alternative would result in a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the local socioeconomic environment. Cumulative impacts would be long term, moderate, and beneficial. Alternative 4 would contribute a small beneficial component to these overall cumulative impacts on the socioeconomic environment. 

Management under the preferred alternative would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the regional socioeconomic environment. Cumulative impacts would be long term, moderate, and beneficial. The actions under the preferred alternative would contribute an appreciable beneficial component to these beneficial cumulative impacts on the socioeconomic environment. 

Management under alternative 3 would result in long-term, minor to moderate, and beneficial impacts on the local socioeconomic environment. Cumulative impacts would be long-term, major, and beneficial. Alternative 3 actions would contribute an appreciable beneficial component to these cumulative impacts. 

Managemalternativa long-temoderateon the loenvironmimpacts wterm, maAlternativcontributcomponecumulativsocioecoenvironm
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74 

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALT

NPS Operations 

Continued management under the no-action alternative would result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on NPS operations. This would be because of ongoing inefficiencies resulting from dispersed operations, communications, and facilities. Existing lease revenues would continue to reduce annual operating costs. There would be no cumulative impacts on NPS operations. 

Management under the preferred alternative would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on NPS operations. This would be due to increased efficiencies resulting from consolidated administrative operations and development of modern, efficient facilities for maintenance and curatorial operations. In addition, increased lease revenues would reduce annual operating costs for the five additional leased historic houses. There would be no cumulative impacts on NPS operations. 

Management under alternative 3 would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on NPS operations. This would be due to increased efficiencies resulting from consolidated administrative operations and development of modern, efficient facilities for maintenance and curatorial operations. Increased lease revenues would reduce annual operating costs for the six additional leased historic houses. 

Managemalternativlong-termbeneficiaoperationdue to inresulting administrand devemodern, for maintcuratoriaIncreased would reoperating additionahouses. Tcumulativoperation
Chapter 3

Affected Environment

77 

THE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE’S CULTURAL RESOURCES 

This chapter describes the existing environment of Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site. It is focused on the national historic 

site’s resources, uses, facilities, and socioeconomic characteristics that have the 

potential to be affected by implementation 

of any of the alternatives. 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site is 

composed of a four-square-block area in 

downtown Springfield, Illinois, bounded by 

Capitol Avenue on the north, Edwards Street 

on the south, South Seventh Street on the 

West, and South Ninth Street on the east. 

The focus of the national historic site is the 

Lincoln Home. This was the only home 

owned by Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln 

lived here with his family from 1844 until he 

moved to Washington, D.C., in 1861 to take 

office as the 16th president of the United 

States. 

In the nearly quarter century that Lincoln 

lived in Springfield, he rose from an obscure 

country lawyer to the presidency. Lincoln’s 

rise paralleled the rise of Springfield from a 

country village to a growing regional center. 

Lincoln arrived in Springfield in 1837 after 

playing a key role in the fight to move the 

state capital from Vandalia to the more 

centrally located Springfield. As his career 

prospered, Lincoln married and settled into 

a 19th century lifestyle. Lincoln bought a 

small one-and-a-half story cottage on 8th 

and Jackson in 1844 to accommodate his 

growing family. With a firm base in 

Springfield, Lincoln gradually developed 

into a political figure of national importance. 

Lincoln, his family, and the city of 

Springfield all grew up together. 

Built in 1839, the house had a bedroom 

added on the first floor in 1846 and was 

enlarged to two stories in 1855-56 to 

accommodate the growing Lincoln family. 

The Lincolns lived in this house during the 

1860 presidential election. The Lincoln 

Home neighborhood was diverse 

representing many occupations and social 

and economic levels. For example, though 

his Lincoln-neighborhood home was part of 

a city environment, Henson Lyon owned 

farmland east of Springfield and identified 

himself as a farmer. Harriet Dean taught 

school in her neighborhood home. Mary 

Remann, a widow, helped meet expenses by 

renting part of her home to boarders. Amos 

Worthen served as the Illinois state geologist 

and was conducting a survey of geological 

features and mineral resources in various 

parts of the state during the period he 

resided in the neighborhood. Jameson 

Jenkins moved goods by wagon. Jared P. 

Irwin was a bricklayer who helped in the 

construction of the Capitol building, known 

today as the Old State Capitol. 

Another neighbor, Jesse K. Dubois, had 

become acquainted with Abraham Lincoln 

while they were both serving in the state 

legislature. In 1856, Lincoln championed the 

nomination of Dubois as the Republican 

candidate for state auditor. After his election 

to that office, Dubois moved to Springfield. 

At the 1860 Republican convention in 

Chicago, Dubois was a leader in organizing 

support for Lincoln's presidential 

nomination. Other neighbors were not 

Lincoln's political allies. George W. Shutt, 

for example, spoke at several rallies 

supporting Democratic presidential 

candidate Stephen A. Douglas, an opponent 

of Lincoln in the election of 1860. 

Mrs. Lincoln was a close friend with 

neighbor Julia Sprigg. Mrs. Sprigg's daughter 

often helped Mrs. Lincoln by looking after 

the younger Lincoln boys. After Mrs. 

Lincoln left Springfield and became the First 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

78 

Lady, she continued to be a friend of the 

Sprigg family and exchanged letters with 

Mrs. Sprigg. 

Following Mr. Lincoln’s assassination in 

1865, the home remained in the family’s 

possession, while being leased, until 1887 

when Robert Todd Lincoln deeded it to the 

state of Illinois. From 1952 through 1955, the 

state of Illinois completed a major 

restoration of the house and added a privy. 

The wood shed and carriage house located 

in the rear of the lot were added in the 1960s, 

which brought it to its present appearance. 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site was 

formally listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places on August 18, 1971. The 

Lincoln Home was recognized as a national 

historic landmark on December 19, 1960. 

The national historic site’s cultural history is 

represented by historic structures, archeological resources, cultural landscapes, and 

museum collections. 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

With exception of the Lincoln Home, none 

of the structures within the national historic 

site have been individually evaluated for 

their eligibility for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places, but most have 

been included in the national register as part 

of the national register historic district 

listing. 

The following is a list of the historic 

structures in the Lincoln Home historic 

district. Table 7: List of Classified Structures 

identifies the structures on the national 

historic site’s list of classified structures. 

The Arnold House 

Charles Arnold, a political ally of Abraham 

Lincoln, resided in this house from 1850-79. 

He served twice as the county sheriff on the 

Whig ticket. The house was used as a school, 

and in September 1841 the Evangelical 

Lutheran congregation was organized at this 

location. Today, the house is open to the 

public and has exhibits highlighting its 

preservation. The property includes a 

reconstructed barn and privy. 

The Beedle House 

The Beedle House was constructed ca. 1840. 

In 1860 William H. Beedle and his servant, 

Kate Tierney, were living at this address. 

Beedle was a railroad fireman and he rented 

the house. 

The Cook House 

The Cook House was constructed in the 

1850s with subsequent additions in the 

1880s. In 1860 the house was rented by Mrs. 

Sarah Cook, a widow, who lived there with 

five family members and two renters. 

The Corneau House 

The Corneau House was constructed ca. 

1849. Charles Corneau was a Springfield 

druggist. A portion of the Corneau fence 

appears in an 1860 photo of the Lincoln 

home. Restoration was completed in 2002. 

The property includes a reconstructed barn 

and privy. 

The Dean House 

The Dean House was constructed in the 

1850s. In 1860 the house was owned and 

occupied by Harriet Dean, a divorcée who 

was involved in teaching and gardening. 

There are no historic photos of this 

property. The Dean House has exhibits on 

the first floor. The property includes a 
Table 7: 

79 

TABLE 7. LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES

PREFERRED 

STRUCTURE 

NAME 

ADDRESS STRUCTURE NUMBER LCS ID NUMBER PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 

Aitken Barn HS-16 012604 

A wood frame, 18' x 27' barn with loft with both tongue-and-gboard-and-batten siding. It has a gable roof with exposed raftedivision between the 1st and 2nd floors. There are 6-light windvertical board doors. 

Allen Barn HS-21 009216 A 45' x 20' gabled 11⁄2-story wood frame building with board-a

portion of the structure is original to circa 1860. 

Arnold House 810 East Jackson Street HS-20 017004 A small 11⁄2-story wood frame house with a side gable roof with 

east end. Windows throughout are 6-over-6 wood sash flanked is sheathed with clapboard with cornerboards, and there is an i

Beedle House 411 South Eighth Street HS-12 012600 This house is a wood frame 26’2” x 49’6” 2-story Italianate hou

front porch. There are three interior brick chimneys, and a rear Architectural details include dentils and scroll brackets. The hou

Conference 

Center 

406 South Eighth 

Street HS-30 070021 

A 2-story Italianate house with clapboard siding on the east winwidth front porch has Corinthian columns. Wood sash windowwith segmental arches, and there is a fanlight over the front doand there is a brick chimney. 

Cook House 508 South Eighth Street HS-19 012605 

A 24’4” x 55’4” 2-story wood frame Greek Revival with a hip rocornerboards, gables, dormer, and side porch. There is a full-wiblock piers, a pressed metal ceiling, and square balusters. The fdiamond panes transom. 

Corneau House 501 South Eighth Street. HS-02 009210 

A 34’2” x 32’5”1-story gabled Greek Revival wood frame strucsheathed with clapboard siding with cornerboards and has 6-ovThere are three brick chimneys. The front door has a 4-light traentrance located between the ells. 

Dean House 419 South Eighth Street HS-13 012601 A 2-story wood frame Italianate house with a hip roof, gable el

brackets, dentils, and pendants. There is a front 2-story bay witthe door. Porches have turned columns and beaded balusters. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

80 

TABLE 7. LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES

PREFERRED 

STRUCTURE 

NAME 

ADDRESS STRUCTURE NUMBER LCS ID NUMBER PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 

Dean 

Outbuilding HS-13A 070134 

A 12’ x 12’ 1-story gabled building with board and molded batt

door on the east side, and 4-over-4 windows on the north and addition to the Dean House but was separated and rehabilitaterestoration project. 

Dubois House 519 South Eighth Street HS-15 012603 

A 26’ x 65’ 2-story wood frame Greek Revival house with a hip the house and a gable roofed rear ell. There is a full-width front sheathed with clapboard siding with cornerboards. It was restoin 2005. 

Eighth and 

Jackson Streets HS-29 009221 

Paved asphalt streets overlaid with gravel to evoke a 19th centu1800’ long and 40’ wide with oak plank curbing 3” thick. There drains. The two unpaved alleys are 570’ long and 16’ wide. Conextending beyond national historic site boundaries. 

Historic Fences HS-31 070133 

Lincoln Home includes a variety of wooden fences reconstructeincluding both vertical board and horizontal board styles. The felines. 

Lincoln Home 430 South Eighth Street HS-01 000866 

A 2-story wood frame side gable structure with a rear ell, symmside porch with a wrought iron railing on the upper level. Wood double hung. Architectural details are Greek Revival in style, witand corner pilasters. 

Lincoln Home 

Brick Walkways HS-01E 070135 

A walkway in front of Lincoln’s house consisting of 1,487 squar

laid in a herringbone pattern 19’2” wide and 77’6” long. The bover flexible base laid with sand in dry joints. The reconstructed the original walkway. 

Lincoln Home 

Carriage House / 

Wood Shed 

 HS-01A/B 070130 

Originally two structures, this reconstructed carriage house is us48’ woodshed has a standing seam copper shed roof and verticblock walls. The gabled carriage house is 20’ x 23’ with double and louvered gable vents. 
Table 7: 

81 

TABLE 7. LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES

PREFERRED 

STRUCTURE 

NAME 

ADDRESS STRUCTURE NUMBER LCS ID NUMBER PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 

Lincoln Home 

Privy HS-01C 009217 

A 6’5” x 7’5” side gabled 1-story wood frame privy that is a thrthan planks for seats. The exterior is sheathed with clapboard sis cornice molding at eaves. There are circular vents near the gawindow openings. 

Lincoln Home 

Retaining Wall 

and Picket Fence 

 HS-01D 070025 

A brick retaining wall topped with a wood picket fence with fivleading up to house, The center opening is gated. The fence ex

the lot and 29’ on the south. The top of the 40” tall fence stanwalkway. 

Lincoln Home 

Well and Cistern HS-01F 070132 

Two hand pumps of similar wood construction, with wood han

each for the well and cistern. Both were historically of the chainmechanism encased in a flat-topped, box-shaped wooden houscistern are lined with stone. 

Lyon House 413 South Eighth Street HS-08 009212 

A 31’7” x 29’3” wood frame 2 story with a truncated hip roof. siding with cornerboards, elaborate soffit and front porch with Windows include 2-over-2, 2-over-4, and 6-over-6 with shutterarched panes on the south elevation. 

Miller House 511 South Eighth Street HS-14 012602 

A 36’4” x 50’ 2-story wood frame Greek Revival house with a trear recessed entrance porch. The house is sheathed with clapbfront has two paneled doors, and there are detailed window suWindows include both 6-over-6 and 1-over-1. 

Morse House 818 East Capitol Street HS-09 009213 

A 41’10” x 44’10” 2-story Greek Revival house with a gable roopedimented cornerboards on brick piers. Windows are a mix of over-2. There are French doors on the south elevation. The houappearance in 2009. 

Oak Boardwalk 

– Eighth and 

Jackson Streets 

 HS-27 009220 

A reconstruction of 6' x 1,750' pressure-treated oak planks, 2" oak sleepers set on sand and gravel bed and anchored with squsquare feet. In addition to the boardwalks along the streets, thebackyards in the neighborhood. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

82 

TABLE 7. LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES

PREFERRED 

STRUCTURE 

NAME 

ADDRESS STRUCTURE NUMBER LCS ID NUMBER PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 

Robinson House 520 South Eighth Street HS-10 009214 

A 25’ x 62’ 2-story front gabled Greek Revival wood frame struover-4, 6-over-6, and 6-over-9 with shutters. There is a full-widcolumns and brackets, and a window bay on the south elevatiowith a brick veneer. 

Shutt House 525 South Eighth Street HS-17 012599 

A 37’6” x 47’6” 2-story house a hip roof, 1-story porches front dentils and brackets. The house is sheathed with clapboard with square window bay on the south elevation and two interior chiboth 2-over-4 and 2-over-2. 

Sprigg House 507 South Eighth Street HS-11 009215 

A 20’8” x 50’1” 1-story brace-framed structure with a front gasheathed with clapboard siding with cornerboards. Windows arflanked by wood shutters. There is an exterior brick chimney on an interior brick chimney. 

Stuve Carriage 

House HS-05A 017002 A 45’ x 24’ 1-story masonry building. It is brick with half-hipped 

Stuve House 526 South Seventh Street HS-05 009211 

A 29’ x 55’ 2-story brick Italianate house with brick parged and The roof includes both hip and gable sections. The heavy eaves Fenestration includes oval attic windows, and tall 1-over-1 windon the lower floors. 
The National Historic Site’s Cultural Resources 

83 

reconstructed barn, wash house, and 

heirloom garden. 

The Dubois House 

Built in 1859, the Dubois house was the residence of Jesse K. Dubois until 1864. Dubois 

was the state auditor and a neighbor of 

Abraham Lincoln. He was also a close friend 

of Lincoln, and named his son after him. The 

property includes the Aitken Barn 

constructed ca. 1920. 

The Lyon House 

The Lyon House was constructed in the 

1850s. In 1860, the house was occupied by 

Henson Lyon, his son Thomas, Huldah 

Burge and her three children, and Miss H. 

M. Sotches. Lyon was a retired farmer and 

land speculator. There are no historic 

photos of this property. The Lyon House 

was restored before NPS acquisition. The 

property includes a reconstructed privy. 

The Miller House 

This home is named for Allen Miller, a 

contemporary and neighbor of Abraham 

Lincoln. Mr. Miller was a wealthy local 

dealer in leather, stoves, and tin. Miller, his 

wife, and three children lived in the home 

from 1855 to 1864. It is believed that the 

home was built around 1850. The simple but 

comfortable wood-frame house was typical 

for a successful Springfield businessman of 

that era. 

The Morse House 

Built in 1855, the James Morse House was 

home to Mr. James Morse and family from 

1855–80. The house has two stories above 

grade like other structures in the area, 

including the Lincoln family home. 

Restoration of the house was completed in 

2009. 

The Robinson House 

Built between 1863 and 1866, the house was 

the residence of Henson Robinson, a 

neighbor of Abraham Lincoln. Robinson 

was a partner in a Springfield business that 

sold stoves, furnaces, and other tinware. The 

business manufactured cups and plates for 

soldiers during the Civil War. 

The Shutt House 

Built before 1859, the house was rented to 

lawyer George Shutt in 1860. Although a 

neighbor of Abraham Lincoln, Shutt 

supported Stephen A. Douglas in the 

presidential campaign of 1860. 

The Sprigg House 

In 1853 this house was purchased by Julia 

Sprigg, a friend of Mary Lincoln. It is known 

that Mrs. Sprigg's daughter cared for the 

Lincoln's sons. Mrs. Sprigg lived in the home 

from 1853 to 1869. It is believed that the 

home was built in 1851 by John B. Weber. 

The property includes a reconstructed barn 

and privy. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Archeological studies in the Lincoln 

neighborhood began with excavations in the 

back yard of the Lincoln Home in late 

summer 1951. Since that time, nearly 41 

archeological projects have been carried out 

within Lincoln Home National Historic Site. 

The bulk of the excavations that occurred in 

the past 37 years testify to the ongoing 

development and changes that have 

occurred in the Lincoln neighborhood 

 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

84 

Archeological studies have been able to provide substantive information regarding the 

architectural development of not only the 

Lincoln Home but also of the other 

structures in the national historic site. In 

addition to determining previous 

construction episodes directly related to the 

individual structures, subsurface remains of 

other features have been identified. 

Excavations throughout the national historic 

site identified the remains of architectural 

features and artifacts at the Lincoln, Shutt, 

Cook, Dean, Robinson, Arnold, Sprigg, 

Corneau, Carrigan, Dubois, and Morse 

houses and lots; the Allen Barn; and the 

conference center. (See Appendix C: 

Archeological Excavations in the National 

Historic Site for a complete list of the 

investigations conducted between 1951 and 

2006.) Additional monitoring occurred 

during construction and demolition, such as 

that carried out in conjunction with 

demolition of a modern brick foundation 

that remained after the Corneau House had 

been moved to its 1860 location. Extensive 

excavations have also been made at the 

Burch, Carrigan, and Miller houses. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE 

In addition to the structural elements identified above, other important elements of the 

cultural landscape at the national historic 

site include circulation features such as 

Jackson Street, South Eighth Street, the 

alleys between South Seventh and South 

Eighth streets, South Eighth and South 

Ninth streets, between Edwards Street and 

Jackson Street, between Jackson Street and 

Capitol Avenue, the sidewalks, vegetation on 

the lots and street shoulders, views and 

vistas of the Lincoln Home from various 

points in the national historic site, and views 

of the neighborhood from the Lincoln 

Home. 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

According to the 2006 “Midwest Region 

Museum Collection Curatorial Facility 

Plan,” Lincoln Home National Historic Site 

has the sixth largest collection in the NPS 

Midwest Region, totaling nearly 500,000 

items. The 2006 “Collections Management 

Report” indicates that the archeological 

collection totals 77,828 artifacts, 55,497 of 

which are housed at the Midwest Archeological Center. In addition, there are 7,009 

history artifacts and more than 413,000 items 

in the archival collection. Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site is one of the few park 

units in the Midwest Region that has permanent full-time collections management 

specialists. 

Overall, the national historic site has met 

95% of the “Checklist for Museum 

Preservation and Protection” in fiscal year 

06. According to the “Curatorial Facility 

Plan, Lincoln Home,” the collections storage 

is adequate, although access could be 

improved through consolidation. The 

storage capacity is at its maximum; therefore, 

there is a need for additional space to 

accommodate future storage needs.
85 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AT THE 

NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

Visitor experience at the Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site is focused on rangerled tours of the Lincoln Home. The first and 

second floors of the home are included in 

the tour. The only access to Lincoln Home is 

with a free ticket for a specific tour time. 

Tour tickets are distributed at the visitor 

center information desk. 

Tours are limited to 15 people per tour and a 

maximum of two tours per hour. The visitor 

center is open every day from 8:30 a.m. to 

5:00 p.m., except Thanksgiving Day, 

Christmas Day, and New Year’s Day. School 

groups, charter groups, or other large groups 

must reserve Lincoln Home tours in advance 

through the Springfield Convention and 

Visitors Bureau. 

The peak visitation season for the national 

historic site extends from March to October. 

Visitation averages just over 400,000 

annually. 

Other visitor activities at the national 

historic site include viewing the film and 

exhibits in the visitor center, and exploring 

displays and exhibits throughout the 

Lincoln-era neighborhood, in the Arnold 

House, and in the Dean House. The visitor 

center is home to the site’s museum shop, 

which is operated by Eastern National, a 

nonprofit cooperating association. 

Completing a comprehensive visit of the site 

requires 11⁄2 to 2 hours. 

Visitors to the site can also obtain information about Lincoln-related Springfield sites, 

including the Lincoln-Herndon Law Offices 

State Historic Site, the Lincoln Depot (Great 

Western Depot), the Lincoln Tomb State 

Historic Site, the Old State Capitol State 

Historic Site, the Abraham Lincoln 

Presidential Library and Museum, and the 

restored log village at Lincoln’s New Salem 

State Historic Site. 

OTHER LINCOLN-RELATED SITES 

IN SPRINGFIELD AND ILLINOIS 

Lincoln-Herndon Law 

Offices State Historic Site 

Lincoln practiced law at several locations in 

Springfield; however, this is the only 

building that still remains. Lincoln and two 

of his partners, Stephen Logan and William 

Herndon, had their offices here. The second 

and third floors have been restored and 

furnished to the Lincoln period, depicting 

typical law offices, the federal district 

courtroom, related court offices, and 

meeting rooms. 

Old State Capitol State Historic Site 

The Greek Revival Old State Capitol was 

built between 1837 and 1853, and served as 

the Illinois Statehouse until 1876. Selfguided and conducted tours point out the 

various functions of government, with 

special attention given to Lincoln's presence 

as a lawyer and state legislator. 

Lincoln Depot (Great Western Depot) 

This historic railroad depot is the spot where 

Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous 

farewell address to the citizens of Springfield 

before his departure for Washington in 

February 1861. A small exhibit room in the 

depot highlights Lincoln's speech. A theater 

on the upper floor presents a video program 

focusing on Lincoln's departure and trip to 

Washington. 

 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

86 

Lincoln Tomb State Historic Site 

This location in Oak Ridge Cemetery, 

chosen by Mary Lincoln, is the final resting 

place of Abraham Lincoln, his wife, and 

three of their four sons. On-site interpreters 

provide conducted tours of the interior of 

the tomb and discuss the return of Lincoln's 

body to Springfield, his burial, and the 

history of the tomb. 

Lincoln's New Salem State Historic Site 

A visitor center offers an indoor theater 

where an orientation film on Lincoln while 

he was at New Salem is shown and exhibits 

that introduce visitors to Lincoln's life in 

New Salem. A restored log village uses 

period and reproduction furnishings and 

living history to further tell the Lincoln 

story. Visitors tour the site on their own, 

with talks and demonstrations given at 

various stops along the route. 

Lincoln Log Cabin State Historic Site 

Lincoln Log Cabin is the last home of 

Thomas and Sarah Bush Lincoln, father and 

stepmother of Abraham Lincoln. Rural life 

in the 1840s is shown through first-person 

interpretation, providing visitors a glimpse 

into the daily lives of the Lincolns. This state 

site hosts many historical and traditional 

events throughout the year. 

Vandalia Statehouse State Historic Site 

Vandalia was the seat of Illinois government 

from 1820 until 1839. This statehouse was 

built in 1836. Many significant issues were 

debated here by Illinois legislators, including 

Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. 

Today, the Vandalia Statehouse displays 

some original furnishings as well as period 

pieces. 

Metamora Courthouse State Historic Site 

Metamora Courthouse was erected in 1845 

and is one of two remaining court buildings 

on the old Eighth Judicial Circuit where 

Abraham Lincoln (among the prominent 

attorneys) argued cases. Today, the old 

courthouse, with its carefully restored 

courtroom, houses museum exhibits 

portraying circuit court life in the 1840s and 

1850s. 

Mount Pulaski Courthouse 

State Historic Site 

Mount Pulaski Courthouse served from 

1848 to 1855 as the second Logan County 

courthouse. The first floor contains six 

offices used by county officials, and the 

second floor houses the courtroom where 

Abraham Lincoln, as a lawyer, practiced 

when court was in session. The courthouse 

has been restored and furnished to an 1850s 

appearance. 

Postville Courthouse State Historic Site 

Postville Courthouse is a reproduction of 

courthouse constructed in 1840 that served 

as Logan County’s first seat of government. 

Until 1848 the original building was one of 

the courts in which Abraham Lincoln argued 

cases while traveling the historic Eighth 

Judicial Circuit. The two-story frame 

courthouse sits near the center of a 

landscaped city block. The first floor has a 

reception and orientation room and an 

exhibit gallery. On the second floor are 

rooms representing an 1840s courtroom and 

county office. 
87 

THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site is in 

the city of Springfield, Illinois, which serves 

as both the capital of the state and the seat of 

government for Sangamon County. 

HISTORY 

The area around Springfield was originally 

settled by trappers and traders who came to 

the Sangamon River valley in 1818. 

Originally named Calhoun, the settlement 

was renamed Springfield in 1832. Springfield 

replaced Vandalia as the state capital in 1837, 

due primarily to the efforts of Abraham 

Lincoln and his political allies in the city. 

Springfield grew steadily between 1837 and 

1860, a period of growth that paralleled the 

rise of Lincoln’s political fortunes. By the 

time Lincoln left Springfield to assume the 

office of the president in 1861, Springfield 

had made the transition from frontier community to mid-sized city. Springfield prospered during the Civil War as an Industrial 

center and continued to diversify economically in the post-war years. In addition to 

serving as Illinois’ state capital, Springfield 

also grew as a hub for industry, agriculture, 

mining, and railroad development. 

POPULATION 

As of July 1, 2006, the population of the 

Springfield metropolitan statistical area was 

estimated at 206,112, and the population for 

Sangamon County was estimated at 193, 524. 

EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME 

Full-time and part-time employment for 

Sangamon County totaled 133,370 as of 

2005. Of these workers, 32% were in 

services; 28% were in government; 17% 

percent were in retail trade; 6% were in 

FIRE (fire, insurance, and real estate); 4% 

were in wholesale trade; 4% were in 

transport-communications-public utilities; 

6% were in construction, mining, and 

quarrying; and 4% were in manufacturing. 

The 11 largest employers in Sangamon 

County are as follows: 

• State of Illinois – 17,000 

• Memorial Health System – 3,400 

• St. John’s Hospital – 2,840 

• Illinois National Guard – 2,700 

• Springfield School District #186 – 2,019 

• City of Springfield – 1,707 

• Horace Mann Insurance Company – 

1,280 

• Southern Illinois University School of 

Medicine – 1,200 

• Springfield Clinic, LLP – 900 

• SBC/Ameritech – 900 

• U.S. Postal Service - 900 

Personal income for the county totaled 

$6,532,971,000 in 2005. Per capita personal 

income in 2005 was $33,904. Average 

earnings per job totaled $41,813. 

TOURISM 

The focus of tourism in Springfield is on the 

life, career, and legacy of Abraham Lincoln. 

In addition to Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site, other historic sites or museums 

dedicated to Mr. Lincoln include the 

Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and 

Museum; the Lincoln Tomb State Historic 

Site; the Old State Capitol State Historic Site; 

the Lincoln-Herndon Law Offices State 

Historic Site; the Lincoln Depot (Great 

Western Depot); and Lincoln’s New Salem 

State Historic Site, a reconstruction of the 

town where Lincoln lived as a young man. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

88 

Visitation in Springfield is dominated by the 

Presidential Library and Museum, Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site, and Lincoln 

Tomb State Historic Site. In its first year of 

operation, nearly 550,000 visitors 

experienced the library and museum, which 

is four blocks north and west of Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site. 

Other attractions in Springfield include U.S. 

Route 66; the Illinois State Capitol; the 

Illinois State Museum; the Vachel Lindsey 

State Historic Site; war memorials; and the 

Dana-Thomas State Historic Site, one of the 

best preserved of Frank Lloyd Wright’s early 

“Prairie” houses. 
89 

NPS OPERATIONS 

Situated in the heart of downtown 

Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site consists of a four-square-block 

restored 1860 neighborhood with 14 historic 

homes and numerous outbuildings and a 

modern, 8,400-square-foot visitor center. 

STAFFING 

The NPS staff totals 41.76 FTE (full-time 

equivalent) employees — which includes 

27.52 permanent staff and 14.24 seasonal 

staff. The staffing breakdown is as follows: 

• Superintendent and Administration: 6 

FTE 

• Interpretation: 13.74 FTE 

• Ranger Activities/Protection: 3.50 FTE 

• Maintenance: 15.52 FTE 

• Cultural Resources: 3 FTE 

FACILITIES 

Administrative and interpretive office 

functions are centered in the Lyon, Dean, 

and Beedle houses and two small offices in 

the visitor center. Curatorial staff occupies 

the Corneau House. Three other buildings 

provide curatorial storage space. Law 

enforcement office functions are based in 

the Sprigg House. Maintenance operations 

are dispersed among 11 historic and 

nonhistoric structures within the historic 

site, with offices in the Dubois House. 

The Conference Center provides meeting 

and training space for staff, a TelNet 

communication center, and is available for 

use by local agencies and community groups. 

A physical fitness room for NPS employees 

engaged in law enforcement and fire fighting 

is also in this building. The building also 

serves as the historic site’s living history 

center. 

LEASING PROGRAM 

The Shutt, Robinson, and Cook houses are 

leased with revenues being returned to the 

historic site to cover utility and maintenance 

expenses. The Cook and Robinson houses 

are leased by the federal General Services 

Administration for their regional offices, and 

the Shutt House is leased by U.S Senator 

Durbin as his Springfield offices. The annual 

revenues from these three houses totaled 

$94,000 in 2008 dollars. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

The Springfield Convention Center and 

Visitors Bureau coordinates the scheduling 

of all organized bus tour groups at no cost to 

the national historic site. The State Journal 

Register, which owns the Great Western 

Depot (Lincoln Depot) (where Lincoln gave 

his farewell address to the citizens of 

Springfield), pays the national historic site to 

staff and interpret it. The Abraham Lincoln 

National Heritage Area, which encompasses 

a 42-county area in Central Illinois 

(including Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site), was established in 2008. The historic 

site works cooperatively with the national 

heritage area in interpreting the Lincoln 

story. 
90 

OTHER NPS SITES COMMEMORATING PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN 

AND HIS FAMILY 

The National Park Service manages five 

other sites that honor the life of President 

Abraham Lincoln. All these sites have 

interpretive programs, exhibits, and 

activities that highlight and commemorate 

various aspects of the life and family of 

President Abraham Lincoln. On a regular 

basis, NPS managers make formal and 

informal contacts to coordinate each site’s 

activities to reduce duplication and 

complement stories told at the other sites. 

These activities would be encouraged and 

expanded in alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

presented in this plan. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN BIRTHPLACE 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 

(KENTUCKY) 

This national historical park protects and 

preserves the significant resources of the 

birthplace of Abraham Lincoln. The national 

historical park commemorates the birth and 

early life of Abraham Lincoln and interprets 

the relationship of his background and 

pioneer environment to his service to the 

country as president of the United States 

during the crucial years of the Civil War. 

LINCOLN BOYHOOD NATIONAL 

MEMORIAL (INDIANA) 

Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial 

preserves the site associated with the 

boyhood and family of President Abraham 

Lincoln, including a portion of the original 

Tom Lincoln farm and the nearby gravesite 

of President Lincoln’s mother, Nancy Hanks 

Lincoln. 

MOUNT RUSHMORE NATIONAL 

MEMORIAL (SOUTH DAKOTA) 

This national memorial commemorates our 

national history and progress through the 

visages of Presidents George Washington, 

Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and 

Theodore Roosevelt. The sculpture busts of 

the four presidents are significant as 

commemorations of each of their efforts in 

addition to the unique creative endeavor of 

the carvings themselves. 

LINCOLN MEMORIAL 

(DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) 

The Lincoln Memorial is a tribute to the 

achievements and values of President 

Abraham Lincoln and the freedoms in the 

United States. The memorial is a commemorative monument symbolizing Lincoln’s 

lasting contribution of preserving the Union. 

FORD’S THEATRE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC SITE (DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA) 

This national historic site preserves Ford’s 

Theater, where President Abraham Lincoln 

was shot, and the Peterson House where the 

president died. 
Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

93 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) require that federal agencies 

consider the environmental impacts and 

effects of proposed actions in their decision 

making. In this case the proposed federal 

action would be adoption of a general 

management plan for Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site. The National Environmental 

Policy Act uses the word “impact” to describe 

environmental changes, and the National 

Historic Preservation Act uses the word 

“effect” to describe cultural changes. 

Although these two words may be used 

interchangeably, the analysis that follows uses 

these words according to their respective acts. 

The following portion of this document 

analyzes the environmental impacts of 

implementing the four alternatives on cultural 

resources, the visitor experience, the socioeconomic environment, and NPS operations. 

The analysis is the basis for comparing the 

beneficial and adverse impacts of 

implementing the alternatives. 

Because of the general, conceptual nature of 

the actions described in the alternatives, the 

impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general qualitative terms. Thus, this environmental impact statement should be considered a programmatic analysis. If and when 

site-specific developments or other actions 

are proposed for implementation subsequent 

to this General Management Plan, appropriate 

detailed environmental and cultural compliance documentation will be prepared in 

accord with the NEPA and National Historic 

Preservation Act requirements. 

This chapter begins with a description of the 

methods and assumptions used for analyzing 

each impact topic. Impact analysis discussions 

are organized by alternative and then by impact topic under each alternative. At the end 

of the chapter there is a brief discussion of 

unavoidable adverse impacts; irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources, and 

the relationship of short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The impacts 

of each alternative are briefly summarized at 

the end of chapter 2 in Table 6: Summary of 

Key Impacts of Implementing the 

Alternatives. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A cumulative impact is described in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

Cumulative impacts are incremental 

impacts of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency (federal or nonfederal) or 

person undertakes such other action. 

Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

To determine potential cumulative impacts, 

other projects within and surrounding Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site were identified. 

The area includes Sangamon County and the 

city of Springfield Projects examined as 

potential cumulative actions included any 

planning or development activity that was 

currently being implemented or that would be 

implemented in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. Impacts of past actions were also 

considered in the analysis. 

These actions are evaluated in conjunction 

with the impacts of each alternative to determine if there would be any cumulative impacts 

on a particular cultural resource, visitor 

experience, socioeconomic environment, or 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

94 

NPS operations. This assessment of 

cumulative impacts is required under 36 CFR 

800.5(1) Criteria of Adverse Effect. 

IMPAIRMENT OF NATIONAL 

HISTORIC SITE RESOURCES AND 

UNACCEPTABLE IMPACTS 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the preferred 

and other alternatives, NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (Section 1.4) requires analysis of 

potential impacts to determine whether or not 

proposed actions would impair national 

historic site resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

park system resources and values. NPS 

managers must always seek ways to avoid, or 

to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, 

adverse impacts on national historic site 

resources and values. The laws, however, do 

give the National Park Service the management discretion to allow impacts on national 

historic site resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of 

the national historic site, as long as the impact 

does not constitute impairment of the affected 

resources and values. 

A prohibited impairment is an impact that, in 

the professional judgment of the responsible 

NPS manager, would harm the integrity of 

national historic site resources and values, 

including opportunities that otherwise would 

be present for the enjoyment of those 

resources or values (NPS Management Policies 

2006 1.4.5). An impact on any national historic 

site resource or value may constitute an 

impairment. An impact would be more likely 

to constitute an impairment to the extent it 

affects a resource or value whose conservation 

is 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation of 

the national historic site; 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the national historic site or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

national historic site; or 

• identified as a goal in the national historic 

site’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. 

A determination on impairment is made in 

this chapter in the conclusion section for each 

required impact topic related to the national 

historic site’s resources and values. An evaluation of impairment is not required for topics 

related to visitor use and experience, (unless 

the impact is resource based), the socioeconomic environment, and NPS operations. 

The National Park Service also considers 

whether a proposed action would cause an 

“unacceptable impact,” which NPS Management Policies 2006 describes as “impacts that 

fall short of impairment, but are still not 

acceptable within a particular park’s environment.” 

Should there be an adverse impact on the 

park’s resources or values, the decision maker 

considers the severity, duration, and timing of 

the impact; the direct and indirect effects of 

the impact; and the cumulative effects of the 

impact in question. Criteria from section 

1.4.7.1 of the Management Policies would be 

applied to all minor, moderate, and major 

impacts to determine if an impact is unacceptable. Decision makers considered these 

criteria from section 1.4.7.1 and section 8.2: 

Would any of the impacts individually or 

cumulatively 

• be inconsistent with a park’s purpose or 

values, or impede the attainment of a 

park’s desired future conditions for 

natural and cultural resources as identified 

through the park’s planning process, or 
Introduction 

95 

• create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or employees, or 

• diminish opportunities for current or 

future generations to enjoy, learn about , 

or be inspired by park resources or values, 

or 

• unreasonably interfere with 

9 park programs or activities, or 

9 an appropriate use, or 

9 the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape 

maintained in wilderness and natural, 

historic, or commemorative locations 

in the park, or 

9 NPS concessioner or contractor 

operations or services 
96 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

The planning team based the impact analysis 

and the conclusions in this chapter primarily 

on review of existing literature and studies, 

information provided by experts in the 

National Park Service and other agencies, 

and national historic site staff insights and 

professional judgment. The team’s method 

of analyzing impacts is further explained 

below. It is important to remember that all 

impacts were assessed with the assumption 

that mitigative measures have been implemented to minimize or avoid impacts. If 

mitigative measures described in the 

“Alternatives Including the Preferred 

Alternative” chapter were not applied, the 

potential for resource impacts and the 

magnitude of those impacts would increase. 

Director’s Order 12, “Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making,” presents an approach to 

identifying the duration (short or long term), 

type (adverse or beneficial), and intensity or 

magnitude of the impact(s), and that 

approach has been used in this document. A 

short-term impact would last less than one 

year. 

Direct and indirect effects caused by an 

action were considered in the analysis. 

Direct effects are caused by an action and 

occur at the same time and place as the 

action. Indirect effects are caused by the 

action and occur later in time or farther 

removed from the place, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

The impacts of the action alternatives 

describe the difference between implementing the no-action alternative (1) and 

implementing the action alternatives (2, 3, 

and 4). To understand a complete “picture”

of the impacts of implementing any of the 

action alternatives, the reader must also take 

into consideration the impacts that would 

occur under the no-action alternative as well 

as actions common to all action alternatives. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Potential impacts on historic structures, 

archeological resources, and cultural landscapes either listed in or are eligible to be 

listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places were identified and evaluated in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations implementing Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 

800, Protection of Historic Properties). 

Under the advisory council’s regulations, a 

determination of either adverse effect or no 

adverse effect must also be made for affected 

national register–listed or national register–

eligible cultural resources. An adverse effect

occurs whenever an impact alters — directly 

or indirectly — any characteristic of a cultural resource that qualifies it for inclusion in 

the national register; the impact diminishes 

the integrity (or the extent to which a 

resource retains its historic appearance) of 

its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse 

effects also include reasonably foreseeable 

effects caused by the alternatives that would 

occur later in time, be farther removed in 

distance, or be cumulative (36 CFR 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects). A determination of no adverse effect means there is an 

effect, but the effect would not diminish the 

characteristics of the cultural resource that 

qualify it for inclusion in the national 

register. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

97 

Definitions of Intensity Levels 

• Negligible — Impact is at the lowest 

levels of detection. The determination of 

effect for Section 106 would be no 

adverse effect. 

• Minor Adverse — Alteration of a 

feature(s) would not diminish the overall 

integrity of the resource. The 

determination of effect for Section 106 

would be no adverse effect. 

• Moderate Adverse — Alteration of a 

feature(s) would diminish the overall 

integrity of the resource. The determination of effect for Section 106 would be 

adverse effect. A memorandum of 

agreement (MOA) is executed among 

the National Park Service and applicable 

state or tribal historic preservation 

officer and, if necessary, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b) in 

order to minimize or mitigate adverse 

effects. 

• Major Adverse — Alteration of a 

feature(s) would diminish the overall 

integrity of the resource. The determination of effect for Section 106 would 

be adverse effect. Measures to minimize 

or mitigate adverse impacts cannot be 

agreed on, and the National Park Service 

and applicable state or tribal historic 

preservation officer and/or Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation are 

unable to negotiate and execute a memorandum of agreement in accordance 

with 36 CFR 800.6(b) Measures identified in the memorandum of agreement 

would minimize or mitigate adverse 

impacts reduce the intensity of impact 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act from major to moderate. An 

adverse effect that is mitigated, however, 

remains an adverse effect. 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

Museum collections (prehistoric and 

historic objects, artifacts, works of art, 

archival documents, and natural history 

specimens) that are generally ineligible for 

listing in the national register are not subject 

to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Potential impacts on 

museum collections are described in terms 

of duration — short-term (less than one 

year), long term (one year or longer), or 

permanent. Identified impacts are also 

described in terms of intensity (the degree or 

severity of impacts is either negligible, 

minor, moderate, or major). The definitions 

of impact intensity for museum collections 

follow: 

• Negligible — Impact is at the lowest 

levels of detection — barely measurable 

with no perceptible consequences, either 

adverse or beneficial, to museum 

collections. 

• Minor — Would affect the integrity of 

few items in the museum collection but 

would not degrade the usefulness of the 

collection for future research and 

interpretation. 

• Moderate — Would affect the integrity 

of many items in the museum collection 

and diminish the usefulness of the 

collection for future research and 

interpretation. 

• Major — Would affect the integrity of 

most items in the museum collection and 

destroy the usefulness of the collection 

for future research and interpretation. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

This impact analysis considers various 

aspects of visitor use and experience at 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site, 

including the effects on the general quality 

of the visitor experience, the overall range of 

visitor opportunities, and the comprehensiveness of interpretive opportunities. The 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

98 

analysis is based on how visitor use and 

experiences would change in the different 

management zones. 

Impacts on visitor use and experience were 

determined considering the best available 

information, including visitor use data, 

opinions from neighbors, and information 

provided by NPS staff. This information was 

supplemented by data gathered through 

public involvement during this planning 

process. 

For analysis purposes, impact duration, 

intensities, and types for visitor experience 

impact topics were defined as follows: 

• Negligible — Visitors would likely be 

unaware of any impacts associated with 

implementing the alternative. 

• Minor — Changes in visitor use and/or 

experience would be slight but detectable, would affect few visitors, and 

would not appreciably limit or enhance 

experiences identified as fundamental to 

the national historic site’s purpose and 

significance. 

• Moderate — Some characteristics of 

visitor use and/or experience would 

change, and many visitors would likely 

be aware of the impacts associated with 

implementation of the alternative; some 

changes to experiences identified as fundamental to the national historic site’s 

purpose and significance would be 

apparent. 

• Major — Multiple characteristics of 

visitor experience would change, 

including experiences identified as 

fundamental to national historic site 

purpose and significance; most visitors 

would be aware of the impacts 

associated with implementation of the 

alternative. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The National Park Service applied logic, 

experience, professional expertise, and 

professional judgment to analyze the 

impacts on the social and economic situation 

resulting from implementing actions 

proposed in each alternative. Economic 

data, historic visitor use data, expected 

future visitor use, and future developments 

of the national historic site were all 

considered in identifying, discussing, and 

evaluating expected impacts. 

Assessments of potential socioeconomic 

impacts were based on comparisons 

between the no-action alternative and each 

of the action alternatives. 

• Negligible — Impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions would be below or at the 

level of detection. There would be no 

noticeable change in any defined 

socioeconomic indicators. 

• Minor — Impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions would be slight but 

detectable. 

• Moderate — Impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent 

and result in changes to socioeconomic 

conditions on a local scale. 

• Major — Impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent, 

resulting in demonstrable changes to 

socioeconomic conditions in the region. 

NPS policy calls for the impacts of the alternatives to be characterized as being beneficial, or adverse in nature. With respect to 

economic and social impacts, few standards 

or clear definitions exist as to what constitute beneficial or positive changes, and those 

considered adverse or negative. For 

example, rising unemployment is generally 

perceived as adverse, while increases in job 

opportunities and average per capita 

personal income are regarded as beneficial. 

In many instances, however, changes viewed 

as favorable by some members of a 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

99 

community are seen as unfavorable by 

others. For example, the impact of growth 

on housing markets and values may be seen 

as favorable by construction contractors and 

many homeowners, but adverse by renters 

and by local government officials and community groups concerned with affordability. 

Consequently, some social and economic 

impacts of the alternatives may be described 

in such a manner to allow the individual 

reviewer to determine whether they would 

be beneficial or adverse (impact is 

indeterminate with respect to “type”). 

NPS OPERATIONS 

The impact analysis evaluated the impacts of 

the alternatives on the following aspects of 

NPS operations, including staffing, infrastructure, visitor facilities, and services. 

The analysis was conducted in terms of how 

NPS operations and facilities might vary 

under the different management alternatives. The analysis is qualitative rather than 

quantitative because of the conceptual 

nature of the alternatives. Consequently 

professional judgment was used to reach 

reasonable conclusions as to the intensity, 

duration, and type of potential impact. 

• Negligible —The impact would be at or 

below the lower levels of detection, and 

would not have an appreciable impact 

on NPS operations. 

• Minor — The impacts would be 

detectable, but would be of a magnitude 

that would not have an appreciable 

impact on NPS operations. 

• Moderate —The impacts would be 

readily apparent and would result in a 

substantial change in NPS operations in 

a manner noticeable to staff and the 

public. 

• Major — The impacts would be readily 

apparent and would result in a substantial change in NPS operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public and 

be markedly different from existing 

operations. 

Type of Impact. Beneficial impacts would 

improve NPS operations and/or facilities. 

Adverse impacts would negatively affect 

NPS operations and/or facilities and could 

hinder the staff’s ability to provide adequate 

services and facilities to visitors and staff. 

Some impacts could be beneficial for some 

operations or facilities and adverse or 

neutral for others. 
100 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 1, THE NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic Structures 

Under the no-action alternative, existing 

structures would be maintained as necessary 

to preserve their historic character and 

integrity. All stabilization and preservation 

efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and seasonal 

maintenance, would be undertaken in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any materials 

removed during restoration efforts would be 

evaluated to determine their value to the 

national historic site’s museum collections 

and/or for their use in guiding future 

preservation work at the site. Stabilization, 

preservation, or restoration of historic 

houses would result in long-term, negligible 

to minor, beneficial impacts on the historic 

structures. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years 

historic structures in the national historic 

site have been adversely impacted by natural 

processes such as weathering and wear and 

tear associated with aging. 

Past development in the national historic 

site, including the removal of historic 

structures and the installation of maintenance operations in historic buildings, also 

adversely affected historic structures by 

removing historic elements and introducing 

incompatible uses to remaining historic 

structures, resulting in long-term, moderate, 

adverse impacts on historic structures. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 1 (no action alternative) would 

result in long-term, negligible to minor, 

beneficial impacts on the historic structures. 

Yet, due to the adverse impacts of other past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions 

the cumulative impact would be long term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse. Alternative 

1, however, would not contribute any 

adverse impacts to those adverse cumulative 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

1 (no action alternative) would result in 

long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial 

impacts on historic structures. Cumulative 

impacts would be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. Alternative 1 would 

not contribute any new adverse impacts to 

the adverse cumulative impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in establishing legislation 

of Lincoln Home National Historic Site; (2) 

key to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

national historic site or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national historic site; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the national historic 

site’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, there 

would be no impairment of the national 

historic site’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of the no-action alternative 

would have no adverse effect on historic 

structures. 

Archeological Resources 

Continued management strategies under the 

no-action alternative would be expected to 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1, The No-Action Alternative 

101 

have permanent, negligible adverse impacts 

on archeological resources. Additional 

archeological surveys and/or monitoring 

would precede any ground disturbance 

associated with stabilization of the historic 

homes. In the extremely unlikely event that 

effects on such resources could not be 

avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy 

would be developed in consultation with the 

Illinois state historic preservation officer. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions in the 

national historic site adversely impacted 

archeological resources at Lincoln Home. 

These actions included the restoration of the 

Lincoln Home; removal of existing modern 

homes in the historic core; construction of 

the visitor center, conference center, 

Lincoln Barn and Carriage House, Carrigan 

Barn, and Arnold Barn; relocation of the 

Arnold and Corneau houses to their historic 

locations; stabilization/rehabilitation and/or 

restoration of the Beedle, Lyon, Dean, 

Sprigg, Dubois, Shutt, Robinson, Cook, and 

Morse houses; and installation of fences and 

boardwalks. These actions resulted in 

permanent, moderate, and adverse impacts. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 1 (no-action alternative) would 

result in permanent, negligible adverse 

impacts on archeological resources. 

Combined with the permanent, moderate, 

adverse impacts of other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions, the cumulative impact would be permanent, moderate, 

and adverse. Implementation of alternative 1 

would only contribute a very small 

component to the overall adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

1 (no-action alternative) would result in 

permanent, negligible, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. Cumulative impacts 

would be permanent, moderate, and adverse 

Any adverse impacts on archeological 

resources resulting from implementation of 

alternative 1 would be a very small component of the adverse cumulative impact. 

There would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in establishing legislation of 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site; (2) key 

to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

national historic site or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national historic site; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the national historic 

site’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. Thus, 

there would be no impairment of the 

national historic site’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that implementation of the no-action alternative would 

have no adverse effect on archeological 

resources. 

In the extremely unlikely event that adverse 

effects on archeological resources that are 

listed in or are eligible for listing in the 

national register could not be avoided, a 

memorandum of agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be negotiated between 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site and 

the Illinois state historic preservation officer 

(and/or the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, if necessary). The memorandum of agreement would stipulate how the 

adverse effects would be mitigated. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Under the no-action alternative, existing 

cultural landscape management actions, 

including maintenance of the remaining 

historic homes in the national register 

historic district and maintenance of streets, 

boardwalks, historic fence lines, and 

plantings would continue. All stabilization 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

102 

efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and seasonal 

maintenance, would be undertaken in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Stabilization and 

maintenance of historic houses and the 

maintenance of other landscape features 

would have long-term, negligible, beneficial 

impacts on cultural landscapes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years the 

cultural landscape has been affected by a 

number of actions, both before and after 

establishment of the national historic site. 

Actions that resulted in beneficial impacts on 

the landscape include rehabilitation and/or 

restoration of historic structures, movement 

of the historic Arnold and Corneau houses 

to their original locations, and the rehabilitation of circulation patterns such as streets 

and boardwalks. Actions that resulted in 

adverse impacts on the landscape include 

the deterioration or removal of historic 

structures, construction of nonhistoric 

replicas of historic elements such as fence 

lines and outbuildings, and the construction 

of the visitor center and conference center. 

The beneficial and adverse impacts resulted 

in long-term, minor, and adverse impacts. 

 

As described above, the potential effects 

associated with implementation of alternative 1 (no action alternative) would result in 

long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts to 

the national historic site’s cultural landscape. 

The negligible beneficial impacts of alternative 1, in combination with the long-term, 

minor, and adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in a long-term, minor, 

and adverse cumulative impact on the 

cultural landscape. Alternative 1, however, 

would not contribute to the overall adverse 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

1 (no-action alternative) would result in 

long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts on 

the cultural landscapes. Alternative 1 would 

not contribute any adverse impacts to the 

overall long-term, minor, and adverse 

cumulative impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in establishing legislation 

of Lincoln Home National Historic Site; (2) 

key to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

national historic site or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national historic site; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the national historic 

site’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, there 

would be no impairment of the national 

historic site’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that implementation of the no-action alternative would 

have no adverse effect on cultural landscapes. 

Museum Collections 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no changes to existing management practices for the national historic site’s museum 

and archival collections. The current facilities require that collections be split between 

the two facilities at the national historic site 

and the NPS Midwest Archeological Center. 

The facilities are inadequate in that they 

allow no room for growth. The national 

historic site could not acquire additional 

artifacts or store any obtained from future 

restoration projects, nor could it store the 

Midwest Archeological Center’s portion of 

its collection if this center required the 

national historic site to take back that 

portion of the collection. However, the 

current level of environmental, security, and 

fire protection standards in the facilities is 

adequate. This situation would continue to 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 1, The No-Action Alternative 

103 

have long-term, negligible, beneficial, 

impacts on collections. 

 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions in the 

national historic site, such as the collection 

of artifacts through archeological research, 

acquisition of artifacts and archival materials, and development of the current curatorial space, have had long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the museum collections at 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site. 

However, because this alternative would 

have no new impacts, it would not contribute to past, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable future actions and there would be no 

cumulative impacts on the museum 

collections. 

Conclusion. Continued management under 

the no-action alternative would result in 

long-term, negligible and beneficial impacts 

on museum collections. There would be no 

cumulative impacts, and there would be no 

impairment of the national historic site’s 

resources and values. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Under the no-action alternative, visitors 

would continue to experience the national 

historic site through tours of the Lincoln 

Home and seeing the films and exhibits in 

the visitor center and the exhibits in the 

Dean and Arnold houses, as well as the 

Lincoln-era neighborhood. These activities 

would result in long-term, minor, beneficial 

impacts on the visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions in the national historic site 

affecting visitor experience include the 

deeding of the Lincoln Home for public use 

and enjoyment; restoration of structures and 

other elements of the historic neighborhood; 

acquisition of the museum collection; construction of the visitor center; and development of the films, exhibits, and other interpretive media — all of which have had a 

long-term beneficial impact on the visitor 

experience. Other factors, such as the 

presence of Lincoln-related sites in Springfield and development of the Abraham 

Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, 

have also influenced the overall visitor 

experience. The impacts of the above 

actions, together with impacts of alternative 

1, would result in long-term, moderate, 

beneficial cumulative impacts. Alternative 1 

would contribute a relatively small increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion

Continued management under the no-action 

alternative would result in long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts on the visitor experience 

at the national historic site. There would be 

moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Alternative 1 would contribute a relatively 

small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Continuation of the current management of 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site would 

not result in any appreciable additional 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment 

of Sangamon County and the city of Springfield. Continuation of NPS operations in the 

historic district would result in long-term, 

negligible, beneficial impacts on the local 

economy. 

Cumulative Impacts 

A number of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions have affected or are 

likely to affect the socioeconomic environment of Sangamon County and the city of 

Springfield. These include establishment of 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site; the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

104 

resulting improvement to the site and addition of NPS employees to the labor force; 

tourism generated by the national historic 

site; establishment of the Abraham Lincoln 

Presidential Library and Museum and the 

increase in regional visitation; and the 

increase in visitation associated with the 

Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial celebration 

of his birth that began in 2009. This visitation 

would result in short-term, minor adverse 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions would have an overall, 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 

The actions under the no-action alternative 

would contribute a very small beneficial 

component to the overall long-term, 

moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts on 

the socioeconomic environment. 

Conclusion 

Continued management under the no-action 

alternative would result in a long-term, 

negligible, beneficial impact on the local 

socioeconomic environment. There would 

be long-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

Under the no-action alternative, current 

management strategies would continue to 

guide operations and administration at the 

national historic site. Administrative and 

interpretive offices would continue to 

occupy the Lyon, Dean, and Beedle houses 

and two small offices in the visitor center. 

Law enforcement operations would remain 

based in the Sprigg House. Curatorial staff 

would remain in the Corneau House, with 

curatorial storage remaining in three other 

buildings. Maintenance operations would 

remain dispersed among 14 historic and 

nonhistoric structures within the national 

historic site and with offices in the Dubois 

House. There would be no increases in 

staffing levels. The leasing program would 

remain limited to three houses in the 

national register historic district. These 

actions would continue to result in longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

No past, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable 

future actions by others would, in combination with the impacts just described, result in 

cumulative impacts on NPS operations. 

Therefore, there would be no cumulative 

impacts on NPS operations under alternative 

1. 

Conclusion

Continued management under the no-action 

alternative would result in long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts on NPS operations. This would be because of ongoing 

inefficiencies resulting from dispersed 

operations, communications, and facilities. 

Existing lease revenues would continue to 

reduce annual operating costs. There would 

be no cumulative impacts on NPS 

operations. 
105 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 2, THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic Structures 

Under the preferred alternative, the remaining historic homes in the historic district 

zones would be rehabilitated or restored. All 

stabilization, rehabilitation, preservation, 

and restoration efforts, as well as daily, 

cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, would 

be undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). Any 

materials removed during rehabilitation or 

restoration efforts would be evaluated to 

determine their value to the national historic 

site’s museum collections and/or for their 

comparative use in future preservation work 

at the site. Stabilization, rehabilitation, 

preservation, or restoration of historic 

houses would have long-term, negligible to 

minor, beneficial impacts on historic 

structures. 

Historic structures could suffer wear and 

tear from increased visitation or the leasing 

program, but monitoring the user capacity of 

historic structures could result in the imposition of visitation levels or other constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors or other 

uses. Few, if any, adverse impacts would be 

anticipated. 

As appropriate, lease agreements under the 

leasing program would require NPS staff to 

maintain and repair the historic structures in 

accordance with applicable Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and other NPS policies, 

guidelines, and standards. No adverse 

impacts would be expected. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years 

historic structures in the national historic 

site have been adversely affected by natural 

processes such as weathering and wear and 

tear associated with aging. Past development 

in the national historic site, including the 

installation of maintenance operations in 

historic buildings, also adversely affected 

historic structures. Together, these past 

actions resulted in long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on historic 

structures. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 2 (preferred alternative) would 

result in long-term, negligible to minor, 

beneficial impacts on the historic structures. 

Combined with the long-term, minor to 

moderate adverse impacts of other past, 

present or reasonably foreseeable actions 

the cumulative impact would be long-term, 

minor, and adverse. Alternative 2, however, 

would not contribute any new adverse 

impacts to that adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

2 (the preferred alternative) would result in 

long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial 

impacts on historic structures. Cumulative 

impacts would be long-term, minor, and 

adverse. Alternative 2 would not contribute 

any new adverse impacts to the overall 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site; (2) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity of the national historic 

site or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

national historic site; or (3) identified as a 

goal in the national historic site’s general 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

106 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the national historic site’s 

resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that implementation of the preferred alternative would 

have no adverse effect on historic structures. 

Archeological Resources 

As required, archeological studies would 

precede any ground disturbance associated 

with excavation and construction of contemporary buildings, restoration and/or 

rehabilitation of historic structures, 

foundation outlines, the development of 

new curatorial and maintenance facilities, 

and/or the installation of wayside exhibits or 

other media. 

Construction of contemporary buildings at 

the Carrigan, Brown, and Burch properties 

would almost certainly affect known archeological resources because of the relatively 

shallow depth of several intact features 

associated with the original houses. If 

adverse impacts to those resources could not 

be avoided during construction, an appropriate archeological data recovery plan 

would be developed in consultation with the 

Illinois state historic preservation officer. 

Construction of a contemporary structure 

on the Brown lot must be preceded by archeological inventory and evaluative testing, 

because no archeological investigations have 

been conducted there to date, and the nature 

and condition of the original resource is 

entirely unknown. Additional archeological 

inventory and evaluation would precede any 

ground disturbance associated with restoration of the standing historic homes. The 

construction of foundation outlines on other 

house lots around the national historic site 

would pose a very low risk of impact on 

intact archeological resources, presuming a 

relatively shallow depth of ground 

disturbance would be involved. All ground 

disturbances would be monitored by a 

professional archeologist. The preferred 

alternative would result in permanent, major 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

at the Burch and Carrigan lots and would 

likely result in permanent, major adverse 

impacts on archeological resources at the 

Brown lot. These impacts would result in an 

overall, minor, adverse impact on archeological resources in the national historic site. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions in the 

national historic site adversely affected 

archeological resources at the national 

historic site. These actions include restoration of the Lincoln Home; removal of 

existing historic and modern homes from 

the historic landscape; construction of the 

visitor center, conference center, Lincoln 

Barn, and Carriage House, Carrigan Barn, 

and Arnold Barn; relocation of the Arnold 

and Corneau houses to their historic locations; stabilization/rehabilitation and/or 

restoration of the Beedle, Lyon, Dean, 

Sprigg, Dubois, Shutt, Robinson, Cook, and 

Morse houses; and installation of fences and 

boardwalks. These actions have resulted in 

permanent, moderate, adverse impacts. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 2 (preferred alternative) would 

result in overall, minor adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. Combined with the 

permanent, moderate, adverse impacts of 

other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions, the cumulative impacts would 

be permanent, moderate, and adverse. 

Adverse impacts on archeological resources 

resulting from implementing alternative 2 

would contribute a measureable component 

to the overall adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. The preferred alternative 

would result in overall, minor, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative 

107 

Cumulative impacts would be permanent, 

moderate, and adverse. Adverse impacts on 

archeological resources resulting from 

implementing alternative 2 would contribute 

a measureable component to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts. 

There would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation of 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site; (2) key 

to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

national historic site or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national historic site; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the national historic 

site’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. Thus, 

there would be no impairment of the 

national historic site’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of the preferred alternative 

would have no adverse effect overall on 

archeological resources. 

In the extremely unlikely event that adverse 

effects on archeological resources that are 

listed in or are eligible for listing in the 

national register could not be avoided, a 

memorandum of agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be negotiated between 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site and 

the Illinois state historic preservation officer 

(and/or the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, if necessary). The memorandum of agreement would stipulate how the 

adverse effects would be mitigated. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Under the preferred alternative, existing 

cultural landscape management actions, 

such as the rehabilitation and/or restoration 

of the remaining historic homes in the 

historic district zones and maintenance of 

streets, boardwalks, historic fence lines, and 

plantings would occur. These actions, 

combined with the removal or reduction of 

incompatible uses in the historic district 

such as maintenance functions, would result 

in long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

impacts on the landscape. 

Removal of maintenance operations and 

employee parking from the historic district 

zones would diminish modern intrusions 

into the cultural landscape. Construction of 

contemporary buildings on the Brown, 

Burch, and Carrigan lots and foundation 

outlines on the remaining vacant lots would 

introduce nonhistoric elements into the 

landscape, a long-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impact. The topography, circulation 

features, and land use patterns of the 

existing landscape would remain largely 

unaltered. 

Together, the resulting impacts would be 

long term, minor, and beneficial. 

All stabilization, preservation, and restoration efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and 

seasonal maintenance, would be undertaken 

in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Stabilization, 

preservation, rehabilitation, and/or restoration of historic houses and the maintenance 

of other landscape features would have no 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years the 

cultural landscape has been affected by a 

number of actions, both before and after 

establishment of the national historic site. 

Actions that resulted in beneficial impacts on 

the landscape include rehabilitation and/or 

restoration of historic structures, movement 

of the historic Arnold and Corneau houses 

to their original historic locations, and the 

rehabilitation of circulation patterns such as 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

108 

streets and boardwalks. Actions that resulted 

in adverse impacts on the landscape include 

the deterioration or removal of historic 

structures, construction of nonhistoric 

elements such as fence lines and outbuildings, and the construction of the visitor 

center and conference center. The resulting 

impacts have been long term, minor, and 

adverse. 

As described above, implementing alternative 2 would result in no long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts on cultural landscapes. 

Combined with the long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts of other past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions, the cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape 

would be long term, negligible, and beneficial. Alternative 2, however, would contribute an appreciable component to these 

beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

2 (the preferred alternative) would result in 

long-term, minor beneficial impacts on the 

cultural landscapes. The cumulative impacts 

would be long term, negligible, and beneficial. Alternative 2 would contribute an 

appreciable component to these beneficial 

cumulative impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site; (2) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity of the national historic 

site or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

national historic site; or (3) identified as a 

goal in the national historic site’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the national historic site’s 

resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of the preferred alternative 

would have no adverse effect on cultural 

landscapes. 

Museum Collections 

Under the preferred alternative, the national 

historic site’s museum and archival collections would be consolidated in a new facility. 

This new facility would provide greater 

curatorial storage capacity, enhance operational efficiency, and provide a greater level 

of protection for the collection. The new 

facility would also enable the national 

historic site to acquire additional artifacts 

and store the Midwest Archeological 

Center’s portion of its collection if the center 

required the national historic site to take 

back that portion of the collection. The 

national historic site’s museum collections 

would be acquired, accessioned and 

cataloged, preserved, protected, and made 

available for access and use according to 

NPS standards and guidelines. This would 

result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts on collections. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions in the 

national historic site, such as the collection 

of artifacts through archeological research, 

restoration/rehabilitation projects, acquisition of artifacts and archival materials, and 

development of the current curatorial space, 

have had long-term, minor, beneficial 

impacts on the museum collections at 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 2 (preferred alternative) would 

result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts on museum collections. 

Combined with the long-term, minor, beneficial impacts of other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions, the 

cumulative impact would be long term, 

moderate, and beneficial. Alternative 2 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative 

109 

would contribute a substantial beneficial 

increment to the cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. The preferred alternative 

would result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts on museum 

collections. Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, moderate, and beneficial. 

Alternative 2 would contribute substantially 

to these cumulative beneficial impacts. 

This would not constitute an impairment of 

these resources. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Under the preferred alternative, a number of 

actions in addition to the existing opportunities described in the impacts for alternative 1 

would enhance the visitor experience. 

Restoration of the Lincoln lot, construction 

of contemporary structures on the Brown, 

Burch, and Carrigan lots, and rehabilitation 

of other lots in the historic district would 

enhance visitor understanding, sense, and 

appreciation of the visual relationship of the 

scale, mass, and density among structures in 

the historic Lincoln neighborhood. Visitors 

would have a better sense of what Lincoln 

saw at the core of the site. Expanded 

technology and interpretive programs — 

such as living history programs, curriculumbased educational programs, and self-guided 

tours of the neighborhood — would 

broaden the opportunities available to 

visitors to explore the neighborhood and the 

Lincoln story on their own. Converting the 

conference center into an educational 

center, expansion of the visitor center, and 

developing a new restroom facility with 

drinking fountains would also enhance 

visitor comfort and enjoyment of the site. 

The removal of incompatible activities such 

as maintenance operations would enhance 

the visitor’s sense of retreat from the 

modern world. These actions would result in 

a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on 

the visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions in the national historic site 

affecting visitor experience include the 

donation and acquisition of the Lincoln 

Home for public use and enjoyment; 

restoration of structures and other elements 

of the historic neighborhood; acquisition of 

the museum collection; construction of the 

visitor center; and development of the films, 

exhibits, and other interpretive media — all 

of which have had a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impact on the visitor experience. 

Other factors, such as the presence of 

Lincoln-related sites in Springfield and 

development of the Abraham Lincoln 

Presidential Library and Museum, have also 

influenced the overall visitor experience. 

Combined with the long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts of alternative 2, the cumulative impacts would be long term, major, 

and beneficial. The actions resulting from 

implementing the preferred alternative 

would contribute a substantial beneficial 

component to the overall cumulative 

impacts on the visitor experience. 

Conclusion

Management under the preferred alternative 

would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on the visitor experience at the 

national historic site. Overall cumulative 

impacts would be long term, major, and 

beneficial. Implementing the preferred alternative would contribute a substantial beneficial component to the overall cumulative 

impacts on the visitor experience. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Under the preferred alternative, management of the national historic site would 

undertake a number of actions that could 

result in appreciable impacts on the socioeconomic environment of Sangamon 

County and the city of Springfield. These 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

110 

actions include restoring the remaining 

historic structures in the historic district; 

restoring the Lincoln lot and constructing 

contemporary buildings on the Brown, 

Burch and Carrigan lots; placing foundation 

outlines and period landscaping on the 

remaining vacant lots; converting the conference center into an educational center; 

remodeling the existing visitor center and 

constructing an additional new visitor 

comfort station; constructing new curatorial 

and maintenance facilities for the site; a 

boundary adjustment to expand the national 

historic site’s boundaries; and expansion of 

the site’s interpretive program, which could 

result in increased visitation and some 

impact on local tourism. Employment and 

spending related to the construction activeties at the national historic site would have a 

long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

impact on the local economy. This would be 

offset to a small degree by the fact the land 

acquired in the boundary adjustment would 

be removed from the local property tax rolls, 

but construction of a new NPS facility on 

South Ninth Street appropriately designed 

for this urban context, would contribute to 

civic improvements in this area. Overall, 

these actions would result in a long-term, 

minor, beneficial impact on the socioeconomic environment. 

Cumulative Impacts 

A number of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions have affected or are 

likely to affect the socioeconomic environment of Sangamon County and the city of 

Springfield. These include the establishment 

of Lincoln Home National Historic Site and 

the resulting improvement to the site and the 

addition of NPS employees to the labor 

force; tourism generated by the national 

historic site; establishment of the Abraham 

Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum 

and increase in regional visitation; and the 

increase in visitation associated with the 

Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial celebration 

of his birth that began in 2009. Overall, these 

impacts would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

These long-term, moderate, and beneficial 

actions by others, combined with the longterm, minor, beneficial impact of actions 

proposed in the preferred alternative, would 

result in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impacts. The actions under the 

preferred alternative would contribute an 

appreciable beneficial component to the 

overall long-term, moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment. 

Conclusion 

Management under the preferred alternative 

would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the regional socioeconomic 

environment. Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, moderate and beneficial. The 

actions under the preferred alternative 

would contribute an appreciable beneficial 

component to these beneficial cumulative 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

Under the preferred alternative, most 

administrative functions for the national 

historic site would be consolidated in the 

rehabilitated Stuve House and Stuve 

Carriage House. Curatorial functions and 

storage would be consolidated and moved 

into a new facility constructed in the southeast corner of the existing national historic 

site boundary. Maintenance operations 

would move to a new consolidated facility in 

the expanded site boundary south of 

Edwards Street; employee parking would 

also move to this area. The consolidation of 

NPS operations would allow expansion of 

the leasing program to a total of five additional houses (for a total of eight houses), 

resulting in increased lease revenues and 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative 

111 

reduced annual operating costs for the five 

additional leased historic houses. The 

expansion of the visitor center would 

enhance efficiency in this facility. These 

actions would result in long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts on operations. 

Cumulative Impacts

No past, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable 

future actions by others would, in combination with the impacts just described, result in 

cumulative impacts on NPS operations. 

Conclusion

Management under the preferred alternative 

would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on NPS operations. This 

would be due to increased efficiencies 

resulting from consolidated administrative 

operations and development of modern, 

efficient facilities for maintenance and 

curatorial operations. In addition, increased 

lease revenues would reduce annual 

operating costs for the five additional leased 

historic houses. 

There would be no cumulative impacts on 

NPS operations. 
112 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 3 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic Structures 

Under this alternative, remaining historic 

homes in the historic district would be 

rehabilitated or restored. All stabilization, 

preservation, rehabilitation, and/or restoration efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and 

seasonal maintenance, would be undertaken 

in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any materials 

removed during rehabilitation or restoration 

efforts would be evaluated to determine 

their value to the national historic site’s 

museum collections and/or for their use in 

guiding future preservation work at the site. 

Stabilization, rehabilitation, preservation, or 

restoration of historic houses and the 

removal of incompatible uses such as 

maintenance operations from historic 

structures would have long-term, negligible 

to minor, beneficial impacts on historic 

structures. 

Historic structures could suffer wear and 

tear from increased visitation or the leasing 

program, but monitoring the user capacity of 

historic structures could result in the imposition of visitation levels or other constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors or other 

uses. Few, if any, adverse impacts would be 

anticipated. 

As appropriate, lease agreements under the 

leasing program would require NPS staff to 

maintain and repair the historic structures in 

accordance with applicable Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and other NPS policies, 

guidelines, and standards. No adverse 

impacts would be expected. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years 

historic structures in the national historic 

site have been adversely affected by natural 

processes such as weathering and wear and 

tear associated with aging. Some modern 

structures were removed when the National 

Park Service took over management of the 

site. Past development in the national 

historic site, including the installation of 

maintenance operations in historic 

buildings, also adversely affected historic 

structures. Together, these past actions 

resulted in long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts on historic structures. 

As described above, implementation of alternative 3 would result in long-term, negligible 

to minor, beneficial impacts on the historic 

structures. Combined with the long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts of other 

past, present or reasonably foreseeable 

actions the cumulative impact would be long 

term, minor, and adverse. Alternative 3, 

however, would not contribute any new 

adverse impacts to those adverse cumulative 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

3 would result in long-term, negligible to 

minor, beneficial impacts on historic structures. Cumulative impacts would be long 

term, minor, and adverse. Alternative 3 

would not contribute any new adverse 

impacts to the adverse cumulative impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site; (2) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity of the national historic 

site or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

national historic site; or (3) identified as a 

goal in the national historic site’s general 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

113 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the national historic site’s 

resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of alternative 3 would have 

no adverse effect on historic structures. 

Archeological Resources 

As required, archeological studies would 

precede any ground disturbance associated 

with excavation and construction of contemporary buildings, restoration and/or 

rehabilitation of historic structures, foundation outlines, development of new maintenance and curatorial facilities, and the installlation of wayside exhibits or other media. 

Construction of contemporary buildings on 

the Burch and Carrigan lots would almost 

certainly affect known archeological 

resources because of the relatively shallow 

depth of several intact features associated 

with the original houses. Construction of 

contemporary buildings on the Worthen, 

Niles, Bugg, Irwin, Roll, Jenkins and Brown 

lots would likely affect archeological 

resources. If adverse impacts on those 

resources could not be avoided during 

construction, an appropriate archeological 

data recovery plan would be developed in 

consultation with the Illinois state historic 

preservation officer. Construction of 

contemporary buildings on the Worthen, 

Niles, Bugg, Irwin, Roll, Jenkins and Brown 

lots must be preceded by archeological 

inventory and evaluative testing, because no 

archeological investigations have been 

conducted there to date, and the nature and 

condition of the original resource is entirely 

unknown. Additional archeological inventory and evaluation would precede any 

ground disturbance associated with 

restoration of the standing historic homes. 

The construction of foundation outlines on 

other house lots around the national historic 

site would pose a very low risk of impact on 

intact archeological resources, presuming a 

relatively shallow depth of ground disturbance would be involved. Depending on the 

level of accuracy desired in the outlines, 

archeological research might contribute to 

that effort. All ground disturbances would 

be monitored by a professional archeologist. 

Overall, this alternative would result 

permanent, moderate to major, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions in the 

national historic site adversely affected 

archeological resources at Lincoln Home. 

These actions include restoration of the 

Lincoln Home; removal of existing modern 

and historic homes from the historic landscape; construction of the visitor center, 

conference center, Lincoln Barn and 

Carriage house, Carrigan Barn, and Arnold 

Barn; relocation of the Corneau and Arnold 

houses to their historic locations; stabilization/rehabilitation and/or restoration of the 

Beedle, Lyon, Dean, Sprigg, Dubois, Shutt, 

Robinson, Cook, and Morse houses; and 

installation of fences and boardwalks. These 

actions resulted in long-term, moderate, 

adverse impacts. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 3 would result in permanent, 

moderate to major, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. Combined with the 

adverse impacts of other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions, the cumulative impact would be permanent, major, 

and adverse. Any adverse impacts on 

archeological resources resulting from 

implementation of alternative 3 would be a 

substantial component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

114 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result in 

permanent, moderate to major, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources at the 

national historic site Cumulative impacts 

would be permanent, major, and adverse. 

Adverse impacts on archeological resources 

resulting from implementation of alternative 

3 would be a substantial component of the 

adverse cumulative impact. 

There would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation of 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site; (2) key 

to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

national historic site or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national historic site; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the national historic 

site’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. Thus, 

there would be no impairment of the 

national historic site’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of alternative 3 would have 

an adverse effect on archeological resources. 

In the extremely unlikely event that adverse 

effects on archeological resources that are 

listed in or are eligible for listing in the 

national register could not be avoided, a 

memorandum of agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be negotiated between 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site and 

the Illinois state historic preservation officer 

(and/or the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, if necessary). The memorandum of agreement would stipulate how the 

adverse effects would be mitigated. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Under this alternative, cultural landscape 

management actions, such as the rehabilitation and/or restoration of the remaining 

historic homes, foundation outlines and 

period plantings, and maintenance of streets, 

boardwalks, historic fence lines, and 

plantings, would occur. All stabilization, 

preservation, and restoration and/or 

rehabilitation efforts, as well as daily, 

cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, would 

be undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). 

These actions would result in long-term, 

negligible, beneficial impacts on cultural 

landscapes. 

Removal of most maintenance operations 

from the historic district would diminish 

modern intrusions into the cultural landscape, resulting in long-term, negligible to 

minor beneficial impacts. The construction 

of contemporary buildings and foundation 

outlines would introduce nonhistoric elements into the landscape, but would 

rehabilitate the landscape to more of a 

semblance of the density and scale of the 

historic neighborhood. In addition, the 

contemporary structures would screen the 

historic neighborhood from modern visual 

and auditory intrusions. The topography, 

circulation features, and land use patterns of 

the existing landscape would remain largely 

unaltered. 

Overall, the impacts of implementing 

alternative 3 on the cultural landscape would 

be long term, minor, and beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years the 

cultural landscape has been affected by a 

number of actions, both before and after 

establishment of the national historic site. 

Actions that resulted in beneficial impacts on 

the landscape include rehabilitation and/or 

restoration of historic structures, movement 

of the historic Arnold and Corneau houses 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

115 

to their original locations, and the rehabilitation of circulation patterns such as streets 

and boardwalks. Actions that resulted in 

permanent, moderate, adverse impacts on 

the landscape include the deterioration or 

removal of historic structures, construction 

of nonhistoric elements such as fence lines 

and outbuildings, and the construction of 

the visitor center and conference center. 

As described above, the potential impacts 

associated with implementation of alternative 3 would result in long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts on the national historic 

site’s cultural landscape. Combined with the 

permanent, moderate, adverse impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the cumulative 

impacts would be permanent, minor, and 

adverse. Alternative 3, however, would not 

contribute to these adverse cumulative 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

3 would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the cultural landscapes. 

Cumulative impacts would be permanent, 

minor, and adverse. Alternative 3 would not 

contribute to the adverse cumulative 

impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site; (2) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity of the national historic 

site or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

national historic site; or (3) identified as a 

goal in the national historic site’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the national historic site’s 

resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of alternative 3 would have 

no adverse effect on cultural landscapes. 

Museum Collections 

Under this alternative, the national historic 

site’s museum and archival collections 

would be consolidated in a new facility. This 

new facility would provide greater curatorial 

storage capacity, enhance operational efficiency, and provide a greater level of protection for the collection. The new facility 

would also enable the national historic site 

to acquire additional artifacts through 

donation or purchase or from restoration 

and/or rehabilitation projects. It would also 

allow storage of the Midwest Archeological 

Center’s portion of its collection if the center 

required the national historic site to take 

back that portion of the collection. The 

national historic site’s museum collections 

would be acquired, accessioned and 

cataloged, preserved, protected, and made 

available for access and use according to 

NPS standards and guidelines. This would 

result in long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on collections. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions in the 

national historic site, such as the collection 

of artifacts through archeological research, 

acquisition of artifacts and archival 

materials, and development of the current 

curatorial space, have had long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts on the museum collections at Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site. As described above, implementation of 

this alternative would result in long-term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial impacts on 

museum collections. Combined with the 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts of other 

past, present or reasonably foreseeable 

actions, the cumulative impact would be 

long term, moderate, and beneficial. Alternative 3 would contribute a substantial 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

116 

beneficial increment to the cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result in 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts on museum collections. The 

cumulative impact would be long term, 

moderate, and beneficial. Alternative 3 

would contribute a substantial beneficial 

increment to these beneficial cumulative 

impacts. 

This would not constitute an impairment of 

these resources. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Under this alternative, a number of actions 

in addition to the existing opportunities 

described in the impacts for alternative 1 

would enhance the visitor experience. 

Construction of contemporary buildings in 

the historic district would give visitors a 

more literal sense of the historic Lincoln 

neighborhood. Expanded interpretive 

programs, such as living history programs, 

multiday curriculum-based educational 

programs, and media for self-guided tours of 

the neighborhood, would broaden the 

opportunities available to visitors to explore 

the neighborhood and the Lincoln story on 

their own. Converting the conference center 

into an education center and developing 

additional new restrooms facilities with 

drinking water on the east side of the 

historic would enhance visitor comfort and 

enjoyment of the site. Removal of incompatible activities such as employee parking 

and maintenance operations would enhance 

the visitor’s sense of removal from the 

modern world. These actions would result in 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on 

the visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions in the national historic site 

affecting visitor experience include the 

donation and acquisition of the Lincoln 

Home for public use and enjoyment; 

restoration of structures and other elements 

of the historic neighborhood; acquisition of 

the museum collection; construction of the 

visitor center; and development of the films, 

exhibits, and other interpretive media, all of 

which have had a long-term beneficial 

impact on the visitor experience. Other 

factors, such as the presence of Lincolnrelated sites in Springfield and development 

of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library 

and Museum, have also influenced the 

overall visitor experience. These overall 

impacts would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

The combination of these actions and the 

impacts resulting from implementing the 

alternative 3 would result in long-term, 

major, beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Alternative 3 would contribute a substantial, 

beneficial component to the overall longterm, major, beneficial cumulative impacts 

on the visitor experience. 

Conclusion

Management under alternative 3 would 

result in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts on the visitor experience at the 

national historic site. Cumulative impacts on 

the visitor experience would be long term, 

major and beneficial. Alternative 3 would 

contribute a substantial beneficial component to the overall beneficial cumulative 

impacts on the visitor experience. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Under this alternative, management of the 

national historic site would undertake a 

number of actions that could result in 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

117 

appreciable impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment of Sangamon County and the 

city of Springfield. These actions include 

restoring the remaining historic structures 

in the national register historic district; 

constructing contemporary buildings in the 

historic district; placing foundation outlines 

and period landscaping on the remaining 

vacant lots; remodeling the existing visitor 

center and constructing an additional new 

visitor comfort station with drinking water 

on the east side of the historic site; converting the conference center into an educational center; constructing new curatorial 

and maintenance facilities for the site; and 

expanding the interpretive program, which 

could result in increased visitation and a 

resultant beneficial impact on local tourism. 

The construction activities at the national 

historic site would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial impact on the local 

economy as a result of expenditures for 

construction, employment, and improvements to the South Ninth Street streetscape. 

Cumulative Impacts 

A number of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions have affected or are 

likely to affect the socioeconomic environment of Sangamon County and the city of 

Springfield. These include the establishment 

of Lincoln Home National Historic Site, the 

resulting improvement to the site and addition of NPS employees to the labor force, 

tourism generated by the national historic 

site, establishment of the Abraham Lincoln 

Presidential Library and Museum and an 

increase in regional visitation, and the 

increase in visitation associated with the 

Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial celebration 

of his birth that began in 2009. Overall, these 

impacts would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Combined with the long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts of alternative 3, 

the actions described above would have a 

long-term, major, beneficial cumulative 

impact on the socioeconomic environment. 

Alternative 3 actions would contribute an 

appreciable beneficial component to these 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion 

Management under alternative 3 would 

result in long-term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial impacts on the local socioeconomic environment. Cumulative impacts 

would be long-term, major, and beneficial. 

Alternative 3 actions would contribute an 

appreciable beneficial component to these 

cumulative impacts. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

Under alternative 3, most administrative 

functions for the national historic site would 

be consolidated in the rehabilitated Stuve 

House and Stuve Carriage House. Curatorial 

functions and storage would be moved into a 

new facility constructed on the Worthen, 

Niles, and Bugg lots. Maintenance operations would move to two new facilities, one 

in the historic district on the Roll and 

Jenkins lots and one in the boundary 

expansion area. Consolidation of NPS 

operations would allow expansion of the 

leasing program into an additional six 

houses (for a total of nine houses), which 

would increase lease revenues and reduce 

annual operating costs. These actions would 

result in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts on operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

No past, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable 

future actions by others would, in combination with the impacts just described, result in 

cumulative impacts on NPS operations. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

118 

Conclusion

Management under alternative 3 would 

result in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts on NPS operations. This would be 

due to increased efficiencies resulting from 

consolidated administrative operations and 

development of modern, efficient facilities 

for maintenance and curatorial operations. 

Increased lease revenues would reduce 

annual operating costs for the six additional 

leased historic houses. 

There would be no cumulative impacts on 

NPS operations. 
119 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 4 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic Structures 

Under alternative 4, the remaining historic 

homes in the historic district zones would be 

rehabilitated or restored. All stabilization, 

preservation, rehabilitation and/or restoration efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and 

seasonal maintenance, would be undertaken 

in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any materials 

removed during rehabilitation or restoration 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the national historic site’s museum 

collections and/or for their use in guiding 

future preservation work at the site. Stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation and/or 

restoration of historic houses and the 

removal of incompatible uses such as maintenance operations from historic structures, 

would have long-term, negligible to minor, 

beneficial impacts on historic structures. 

Historic structures could suffer wear and tear 

from increased visitation or the leasing 

program, but monitoring the user capacity of 

historic structures could result in the imposition of visitation levels or other constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors or other 

uses. Few, if any, adverse impacts would be 

anticipated. 

As appropriate, lease agreements under the 

historic leasing program would require NPS 

staff to maintain and repair the historic 

structures in accordance with applicable 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

other NPS policies, guidelines, and 

standards. No adverse impacts would be 

expected. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years 

historic structures in the national historic 

site have been adversely affected by natural 

processes such as weathering and wear and 

tear associated with aging. Some modern 

structures were removed when the National 

Park Service took over management of the 

site. Past development in the national 

historic site, including installation of maintenance operations in historic buildings, 

also adversely affected historic structures. 

Together, these past actions resulted in 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on historic structures. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 4 would result in long-term, 

negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on 

the historic structures. Combined with the 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts of other past, present or reasonably 

foreseeable actions, the cumulative impact 

would be long term, long term, minor, and 

adverse. Alternative 4, however, would not 

contribute any new adverse impacts to these 

adverse cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

4 would result in long-term, negligible to 

minor, beneficial impacts on historic 

structures. Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, minor, and adverse. Alternative 4 

would not contribute any new adverse 

impacts to the adverse cumulative impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site; (2) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity of the national historic 

site or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

national historic site; or (3) identified as a 

goal in the national historic site’s general 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

120 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the national historic site’s 

resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative 4 would have no adverse effect 

on historic structures. 

Archeological Resources 

As required, archeological studies would 

precede any ground disturbance associated 

with excavation and construction, the 

rehabilitation and/or restoration of historic 

structures, the rehabilitation of the historic 

landscape, the placement of foundation 

outlines, the development of new maintenance and curatorial facilities, and the 

installation of wayside exhibits or other 

media. Archeological resources that are listed 

in or are eligible for listing in the national 

register would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible. Permanent, minor, adverse 

impacts would be anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions in the 

national historic site impacted archeological 

resources. These actions include restoration 

of the Lincoln Home; removal of existing 

historic and modern homes from the historic 

landscape; construction of the visitor center, 

conference center, Lincoln Barn and 

Carriage House, Carrigan Barn, and Arnold 

Barn; relocation of the Arnold and Corneau 

Houses to their historic locations; stabilization/rehabilitation and/or restoration of the 

Beedle, Lyon, Dean, Sprigg, Dubois, Shutt, 

Robinson, Cook, and Morse houses; and 

installation of fences and boardwalks. The 

resulting impacts have been permanent, 

moderate, and adverse. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 4 would result in permanent, 

minor, adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. Combined with the permanent, 

moderate, adverse impacts of other past, 

present or reasonably foreseeable actions, 

the cumulative impact would be permanent, 

moderate, and adverse. However, any 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

resulting from implementation of alternative 

4 would be a very small component of the 

adverse cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would have 

permanent, minor, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. The cumulative 

impacts would be permanent, moderate, 

and adverse. Adverse impacts on 

archeological resources resulting from 

implementation of alternative 4 would be a 

very small component of the adverse 

cumulative impacts. 

There would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation 

is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation of 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site; (2) 

key to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

national historic site or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national historic site; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the national historic 

site’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. Thus, 

there would be no impairment of the 

national historic site’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of alternative 4 would have 

no adverse effect on archeological resources. 

In the extremely unlikely event that adverse 

effects on archeological resources that are 

listed in or are eligible for listing in the 

national register could not be avoided, a 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 

121 

memorandum of agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be negotiated between Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site and the Illinois 

state historic preservation officer (and/or the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if 

necessary). The memorandum of agreement 

would stipulate how the adverse effects 

would be mitigated. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Under alternative 4, cultural landscape 

management actions, including the 

rehabilitation and/or restoration of the 

remaining historic homes in the historic 

district; placement of foundation outlines 

and period plantings; and maintenance of 

streets, boardwalks, historic fence lines, and 

plantings would occur. Removal of maintenance operations from the historic district 

would diminish modern intrusions into the 

cultural landscape. Rehabilitation of the 

historic landscape, including foundation 

outlines, would introduce nonhistoric 

elements into the landscape, but would 

return the landscape to more of a semblance 

of its historic appearance and would enhance 

visitor understanding of the historic landscape. These actions would result in longterm, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts 

on cultural landscapes. The topography, 

circulation features, and land use patterns of 

the existing landscape would remain largely 

unaltered 

All stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, 

and restoration efforts, as well as daily, 

cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, would be 

undertaken in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Stabilization, 

preservation, or restoration of historic 

houses and rehabilitation of other landscape 

features, combined with the other actions 

described above, would have no adverse 

impacts on cultural landscapes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years the 

cultural landscape has been affected by a 

number of actions, both before and after 

establishment of the national historic site. 

Actions that resulted in beneficial impacts 

on the landscape include rehabilitation 

and/or restoration of historic structures, 

movement of the historic Arnold and 

Corneau houses to their original historic 

locations, and the rehabilitation of circulation patterns such as streets and boardwalks. Actions that resulted in adverse 

impacts on the landscape include the 

deterioration or removal of historic structures, construction of nonhistoric elements 

such as fence lines and outbuildings, and the 

construction of the visitor center and 

conference center. The resulting impacts 

have been long term, minor, and adverse. 

As described above, the potential impacts 

associated with implementing alternative 4 

would result in long-term, negligible to 

minor, beneficial impacts on the national 

historic site’s cultural landscape. Combined 

with the long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

long-term, negligible, beneficial cumulative 

impacts. Alternative 4, however, would not 

contribute any adverse impacts to the 

overall adverse cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

4 would result in long-term, negligible to 

minor, beneficial impacts on the national 

historic site’s cultural landscapes. The 

cumulative impacts would be long term, 

negligible, and beneficial. Alternative 4 

would not contribute any adverse impacts 

to these overall adverse cumulative impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the national historic site 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

122 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

national historic site; or (3) identified as a 

goal in the national historic site’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the national historic site’s 

resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative 4 would have no adverse effect 

on cultural landscapes. 

Museum Collections 

Under this alternative, the national historic 

site’s museum and archival collections would 

be consolidated in a new facility. This new 

facility would provide greater curatorial 

storage capacity, enhance operational 

efficiency, and provide a greater level of 

protection for the collection. The new facility 

would also enable the national historic site to 

acquire additional artifacts through donations or purchase or from restoration and/or 

rehabilitation projects. It would also allow 

the storage of the Midwest Archeological 

Center’s portion of its collection if the center 

required the national historic site to take 

back that portion of the collection. The 

national historic site’s museum collections 

would be acquired, accessioned and 

cataloged, preserved, protected, and made 

available for access and use according to NPS 

standards and guidelines. This would result 

in long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

impacts on the collections. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past actions in the 

national historic site, such as the collection of 

artifacts through archeological research, 

restoration/rehabilitation projects, acquisition of artifacts and archival materials, and 

development of the current curatorial space, 

have had long-term minor, beneficial impacts 

on the museum collections at Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site. 

As described above, implementation of this 

alternative would result in long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial impacts on museum 

collections. Combined with the long-term, 

minor beneficial impacts of other past, 

present or reasonably foreseeable actions, 

the cumulative impact would be long-term, 

moderate, and beneficial. Alternative 4 

would contribute a substantial beneficial 

increment to the cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would result in 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts on museum collections. The 

cumulative impact would be long term, 

moderate, and beneficial. Alternative 4 

would contribute a substantial beneficial 

increment to the cumulative impact. 

This would not constitute an impairment of 

these resources. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Under this alternative, actions to enhance 

the visitor experience would include 

restoration of historic structures described 

under the no-action alternative. Some new 

electronic technology for visitor interpretation and interpretive information for each 

property would be added. Lots would be 

rehabilitated to enhance a sense of discovery of the neighborhood through the 

placement of foundation outlines and 

period landscaping on vacant lots. Redevelopment of space in the visitor center and 

developing additional restroom facilities 

with drinking water on the east side of the 

historic site would enhance visitor comfort 

and enjoyment of the site. These actions 

would result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience. 

 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 4 

123 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions in the national historic site 

affecting visitor experience include the 

donation and acquisition of the Lincoln 

Home for public use and enjoyment; 

restoration of structures and other elements 

of the historic neighborhood; acquisition of 

the museum collection; construction of the 

visitor center; and development of the films, 

exhibits, and other interpretive media — all 

of which have had a beneficial impact on the 

visitor experience. Other factors, such as the 

presence of Lincoln-related sites in Springfield and the development of the Abraham 

Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, 

have also influenced the overall visitor 

experience. The overall result of these 

actions has been a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impact on the visitor experience. 

Combined with the actions proposed in 

alternative 4, the cumulative impacts would 

be long term, moderate, and beneficial. The 

actions resulting from implementing this 

alternative would contribute a very small 

beneficial component to the overall cumulative impacts on the visitor experience. 

Conclusion 

Management under this alternative would 

result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts on the visitor experience 

at the national historic site. The overall 

cumulative impacts would be long term, 

moderate, and beneficial. The actions 

resulting from implementing this alternative 

would contribute a very small beneficial 

component to the overall cumulative impacts 

on the visitor experience. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Under this alternative, management of the 

national historic site would undertake some 

actions that could result in impacts on the 

socioeconomic environment of Sangamon 

County and the city of Springfield. 

Restoring or rehabilitating the remaining 

historic structures in the national register 

historic district, placing foundation outlines 

and period landscaping on the remaining 

vacant lots, expanding the existing visitor 

center, developing an additional new 

comfort station with drinking water on the 

east side of the historic site, and constructing new curatorial and maintenance 

facilities for the site could result in longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts 

on the local economy from construction 

costs , increased employment, and improvements along Ninth Street, an important city 

streetscape. 

Cumulative Impacts 

A number of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions have affected or are 

likely to affect the socioeconomic environment of Sangamon County and the city of 

Springfield. These include the establishment 

of Lincoln Home National Historic Site, the 

resulting improvement to the site and the 

addition of NPS employees to the labor 

force, tourism generated by the national 

historic site, establishment of the Abraham 

Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum 

and an increase in regional visitation, and 

increase in visitation associated with the 

Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial celebration 

of his birth that began in 2009. Overall, these 

impacts would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Combined with the long-term, minor to 

moderate, and beneficial impacts described 

above, the actions under this alternative 

would result in a long-term, major, 

beneficial, cumulative impact. Alternative 4 

would contribute an appreciable component to these overall cumulative impacts 

on the socioeconomic environment. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

124 

Conclusion 

Management under alternative 4 would 

result in a long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on the local socioeconomic 

environment. Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, major, and beneficial. Alternative 

4 would contribute an appreciable component to these overall cumulative impacts 

on the socioeconomic environment. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

Under this alternative, most administrative 

functions for the national historic site would 

be consolidated in the Stuve House and 

Stuve Carriage House. Curatorial functions 

and storage would be consolidated and 

moved into a new facility in the northeast 

corner of the site. Maintenance operations 

would be consolidated and moved to a new 

facility in the southeast corner of the site. 

Consolidation of NPS operations would 

allow for expansion of the leasing program 

into five additional houses (for a total of eight 

houses) and increased lease revenues would 

reduce annual operating costs. Expansion of 

the visitor center would enhance efficiency 

in this facility. These actions would result in 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on 

operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

No past, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable 

future actions by others would, in combination with the impacts just described, result 

in cumulative impacts on NPS operations. 

Conclusion 

Management under this alternative would 

result in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts on NPS operations. This would be 

due to increased efficiencies resulting from 

consolidated administrative operations and 

development of modern, efficient facilities 

for maintenance and curatorial operations. 

Increased lease revenues would reduce 

annual operating costs for the five additional leased historic houses. There would 

be no cumulative impacts on NPS 

operations. 
125 

OTHER IMPACTS 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

There would be unavoidable adverse impacts 

on archeological resources in alternatives 2 

and 3. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Every effort would be made during 

construction activities to avoid impacting 

archeological resources either listed in or 

eligible to be listed in the National Register 

of Historic Places. Because archeological 

resources are nonrenewable resources, 

impacts resulting in the loss of archeological 

resources would be an irretrievable 

commitment of resources. As a mitigation 

measure, archeological data recovery would 

occur before an irreversible action. 

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORTTERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE 

AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

For visitors, the short-term visual intrusions 

from construction of new facilities and 

restoration of historic structures would give 

way to long-term improvements in the 

historic character of the national historic 

site, and therefore an enhanced visitor 

experience. 

Chapter 5

Consultation and Coordination

129 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site represents input 

from NPS staff, public agencies, elected 

officials, and the public. Consultation and 

coordination among the agencies and the 

public were vitally important throughout the 

planning process. The public had three 

primary avenues to participate during the 

development of the plan — participation in 

public meetings, responses to newsletters, and 

comments entered on the NPS planning 

website. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

AND NEWSLETTERS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used to 

keep the public informed and involved in the 

planning process. A mailing list was compiled 

that consisted of members of governmental 

agencies, organizations, businesses, legislators, 

local governments, and interested citizens. 

The public involvement process began with a 

notice of intent to prepare the General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement that was published in the Federal 

Register on July 21, 2005. 

The first newsletter, issued in November 2005, 

described the planning effort and solicited 

public input. Scoping meetings with 

stakeholders and the public were held during 

November 2005 in Springfield and were 

attended by a total of 25 people. 

The National Park Service received comments 

in the meetings and in response to the first 

newsletter. Commenters recommended that 

the national historic site should maintain the 

current condition of the Lincoln Home, 

restore other existing historic homes at the 

site, reconstruct missing houses from the 

Lincoln era, bring the neighborhood alive 

with living history/costumed staff, and 

integrate the experience at Lincoln Home 

with other Lincoln-related sites in the 

Springfield area. Others recommended that 

NPS staff work with the local community to 

promote the historical context of the region, 

including the African-American story in 

Springfield. Other reviewers emphasized the 

need to buffer the site from modern intrusion 

in the surrounding city, and some requested 

that the site acquire some of the land to the 

south. The staff also needs to be ready for 

commemorating the bicentennial of Lincoln’s 

birth in 2009. These comments were taken 

into consideration when deciding on issues 

for the plan to address. 

A second newsletter distributed in November 

2006 described the preliminary alternative 

concepts for managing the national historic 

site. After the newsletter was mailed, three 

public meetings were held in Springfield to 

obtain additional public comment on the 

preliminary alternatives. A total of 37 people 

attended these meetings. Responses to the 

newsletter and at the meetings combined 

support for one alternative or another with 

comments about specific components of the 

alternatives. Some reviewers expressed 

support for the boundary expansion. Other 

expressed their support for expanded interpretive programs. There were expressions 

both of support and concern regarding the 

potential reconstructions of missing houses. 

Other concerns focused on the costs associated with development proposed under the 

alternatives. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

130 

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER 

AGENCIES/OFFICIALS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS 

Illinois Historic Preservation Officer, 

Section 106 Consultation 

Agencies that have direct or indirect jurisdiction over historic properties are required 

by Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 

270, et seq.), to take into account the effect of 

any undertaking on properties eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. To meet the requirements of 36 CFR 

800, the National Park Service consulted with 

the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, state 

historic preservation officer, during the 

planning process. In addition to consultation 

meetings, the deputy state historic preservation officer also participated, along with other 

federal, state, and local government officials, 

in the development of management alternatives in a workshop held at the national 

historic site in the summer of 2006. Copies of 

consultation letters are shown in appendix D.
131 

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A COPY OF 

THIS DOCUMENT 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission 

OTHER NPS OFFICES 

Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National 

Historical Park 

Ford’s Theater National Historic Site 

Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial 

Mount Rushmore National Memorial 

The National Mall and Memorial Parks 

STATE OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES 

Honorable Patrick Quinn, Governor 

Honorable Larry Bomke, State Senator, 50th 

District 

Honorable Bill Brady, State Senator, 44th 

District 

Honorable Rich Brauer, State Representative, 

100th District 

Honorable Bill Mitchell, State Representative, 

87th District 

Honorable Raymond Poe, State 

Representative, 99th District 

Illinois Board of Education 

Illinois Department of Commerce and 

Economic Opportunity — Bureau of 

Tourism 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources — 

Bureau of Parks and Recreation 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources — 

Bureau of State Museums 

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

LOCAL AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, 

AND HISTORIC SITES 

City of Springfield Office of Planning and 

Economic Development 

City of Springfield, Downtown Springfield 

Inc. 

Land of Lincoln Planning Commission 

Office of the Mayor of Springfield, IL 

Sangamon County Historic Preservation 

Commission 

Springfield City Council 

Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Springfield Historic Site Commission 

Springfield-Sangamon County Regional 

Planning Commission 

SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES 

Honorable Roland Burris, U.S. Senator 

Honorable Richard Durbin, U.S. Senator 

Honorable Ray LaHood and Honorable 

Aaron Schock, U.S. Representatives, 18th 

District 

Honorable John M. Shimkus, U.S. 

Representative, 19th District 

Appendixes, References, Preparers, 

Consultants and Index

135 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 
136 

APPENDIX B: CRITERIA FOR SELECTING THE ENVIRONMENTALLY 

PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

NEPA Criterion for 

Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

(1.) fulfill the 

responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of 

the environment for 

succeeding generations; 

Fully satisfies criterion Fully satisfies criterion Fully satisfies 

criterion 

Fully satisfies 

criterion 

(2.) assure for all 

Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings; 

Somewhat satisfies 

criterion 

Fully satisfies criterion Fully satisfies 

criterion 

Somewhat satisfies 

criterion 

(3.) attain the widest range 

of beneficial uses of the 

environment without 

degradation, risk to health 

or safety, or other 

undesirable and 

unintended consequences; 

Somewhat satisfies 

criterion 

Fully satisfies criterion Fully satisfies 

criterion 

Fully satisfies 

criterion 

(4.) preserve important 

historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our 

national heritage, and 

maintain, wherever 

possible, an environment 

which supports diversity, 

and variety of individual 

choices; 

Somewhat satisfies 

criterion 

Fully satisfies criterion Somewhat satisfies 

criterion 

Somewhat satisfies 

criterion 

(5.) achieve a balance 

between population and 

resource use which will 

permit high standards of 

living and a wide sharing 

of life’s amenities; and 

Fully satisfies criterion Fully satisfies criterion Fully satisfies 

criterion 

Fully satisfies 

criterion 

(6.) enhance the quality of 

renewable resources and 

approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of 

depletable resources. 

Fully satisfies Somewhat satisfies Somewhat satisfies, 

but to a lesser extent 

given the potential 

for more building. 

Somewhat satisfies 
137 

APPENDIX C: ARCHEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS AT THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC SITE 
138 

APPENDIX D: CONSULTATION LETTERS 
Appendix D: Consultation Letters 

139 
APPENDIXES

140 
141 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Congressional Record — House of 

Representatives, Subcommittee on National 

Parks and Recreation of the Committee on 

Interior and Insular Affairs. 

1971 Congressional Hearing to Authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to 

Establish the Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site in the State of 

Illinois and for Other Purposes, 

Friday, August 3, 1971. 

Congressional Record — Senate 

1971 Congressional Hearing on Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site, August 

3, 1971. 

Conzen, Michael P., editor 

1991 The Making of the American 

Landscape. Harper Collins 

Academic, London, U.K. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior 

1969 Historical Base Map, Proposed 

Lincoln Home National Historical 

Park, Springfield, Illinois” by Edwin 

C. Bearss. Division of History, Office 

of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation. Denver Service 

Center, Denver, CO. 

1970 Master Plan: Lincoln Home National 

Historic Site, Illinois. Prepared by the 

Eastern Service Center. U.S. 

Government Printing Office: 

Washington, D.C. 

1977 “Historic Resource Study and 

Historic Structure Report, 

Historical Data, Blocks 6 and 11, 

Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site, Illinois,” by Edwin C. Bearss. 

Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. 

1985-86 “Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site: Various Measured Drawings.” 

Prepared by the Historic American 

Building Survey for the Library of 

Congress. Washington, D.C. 

1990 “Land Protection Plan for Lincoln 

Home National Historic Site.” 1983, 

amended 1990. Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site for NPS 

Midwest Region. 

1995 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. Washington, D. C. 

1996 The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties, with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. Washington, D. C. 

2001 “Archeological Overview and 

Assessment of Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site, Sangamon 

County, Springfield, Illinois.” 

Prepared by Alan J. Osborn for the 

NPS Midwest Archeological Center. 

2005 General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Lincoln Boyhood Home National 

Memorial. Denver Service Center. 

Denver, CO. 

2005 “Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site Visitor Study.” Social Science 

Program. University of Idaho Park 

Studies Unit for the National Park 

Service. 

2006a General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Abraham Lincoln Birthplace 

National Historic Site. Denver 

Service Center. Denver, CO. 

2006b “Management Considerations for 

the Legacy Gardens and the 

Informal Gardens at Lincoln Home 

National Historic Site, Springfield, 

Illinois (draft).” Denver Service 

Center, Denver, CO. 

2006c Management Policies 2006. 

Washington, D.C. 

2006d “Museum Collection Storage Plan.” 

Midwest Region. 
SELECTED REFERENCES

142 

2007a “List of Classified Structures, 

Lincoln Home National Historic 

Site.” Midwest Regional Office. 

2007b “Park Museum Collection Storage 

Plan.” 

Office of Planning and Economic 

Development: Springfield Business Climate 

(webpage) 

2007a Accessed on the Internet at 

http://www.springfield.il.us/ 

Oped/climate.htm 

2007b Accessed on the Internet at 

http://www.springfield.il.us/ 

Oped/employers.htm 

Sammons/Dutton LLC. 

2006 “Review of Market Conditions 

Regarding Leasing Buildings within 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site to 

Private Sector Tenants.” Prepared for 

the National Park Service, Denver, CO. 

Springfield-Sangamon County Regional 

Planning Commission 

2003 “Springfield Comprehensive Plan 

2020.” Amended, November 19, 

2003. Springfield, IL. 

2004 2000 Census Analysis, Springfield 

and Sangamon County, Illinois. 

2005a “Springfield Area Transportation 

Study: Parking Survey.” Springfield, 

IL. 

2005b Springfield Area Transportation 

Study, Transportation Improvement 

Program, Fiscal Years 2006-2008.” 

Springfield, IL. 

2005c Springfield Area Transportation 

Study, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan.” Springfield, IL. 

2005 City of Springfield 2005–2009 

Consolidated Plan 
143 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

Denver Service Center 

Tom Thomas, Project Manager/Cultural 

Resource Specialist — Project 

coordination, impact analysis, 

socioeconomic analysis; 18 years with the 

Department of the Interior; Ph.D., History 

Ian Shanklin, Landscape Architect (former) —

Land use planning, public involvement; 9 

years with the Department of the Interior; 

B.A., Landscape Architecture 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site 

James A. Sanders, Superintendent 

Kathy Dehart, Chief of Operations 

Tim Townsend, Historian 

Susan Haake, Curator 

James Cagle, Facility Manager 

Jack Connor, Maintenance Supervisor 

Vee Pollock, Maintenance Supervisor 

Teri Gage, Administrative Officer 

Laura Gundrum, Chief, Interpretation, 

Education, and Visitor Services Division 

Mike T. Ryan, Supervisory Park Ranger 

(Interpretation) 

Midwest Region 

Sändra Washington, Chief of Planning 

Ruth Heikkinen, Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Gary Candelaria, Associate Regional Director 

(retired), Cultural Resources 

Steve Adams, Associate Regional Director, 

Cultural Resources 

Publication Services 

Jim Corbett, Visual Information Specialist, 

NPS Denver Service Center 

Christy Fischer, Writer-Editor, NPS Denver 

Service Center 
144 

INDEX 

air quality, 20, 21 

Aitken Barn, 43, 57, 59, 79, 83 

Arnold House, 11, 17, 37, 38, 39, 44, 49, 53, 54, 

65, 66, 67, 78, 79, 84, 85, 101, 102, 103, 106, 

107, 113, 114, 120, 121 

Beedle House, 47, 50, 54, 78, 79, 89, 101, 104, 

106, 113, 120 

Brown House, 11, 44, 49, 50, 58, 59, 65, 66, 68, 

106, 107, 109, 110, 113 

Bugg lot, 50, 59, 68, 113, 117 

Burch House, 11, 44, 49, 50, 58, 59, 66, 68, 84, 

106, 107, 109, 110, 113 

bus, 18, 40, 43, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 59, 60, 70, 89 

Carrigan Barn, 101, 106, 113, 120 

Cook House, 18, 39, 43, 78, 79, 84, 89, 101, 

106, 113, 120 

Corneau House, 11, 39, 44, 49, 53, 65, 66, 68, 

69, 78, 79, 84, 89, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 

113, 114, 120, 121 

cultural resources, 12, 19, 20, 28, 62, 63, 93, 

94, 96 

curatorial facility, 47, 53, 58, 61 

Dean House, 17, 37, 38, 39, 44, 50, 53, 65, 66, 

68, 69, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 89, 101, 103, 

104, 106, 113, 120 

dropoff, 18, 40, 43, 47, 50, 54, 60, 70 

Dubois House, 47, 50, 54, 80, 83, 84, 89, 101, 

104, 106, 113, 120 

environmental justice, 23, 24 

floodplains, 21 

Indian trust resources, 23 

indicators and standards, 35 

interpretation, 11, 12, 39, 49, 65, 86, 97, 105, 

112, 119, 122 

Irwin lot, 50, 59, 68, 77, 113 

Irvin House, 50, 69 

Jenkins lot, 39, 50, 59, 67, 68, 77, 113, 117 

lightscape, 22 

Lyon House, 47, 50, 54, 81, 83, 89, 101, 104, 

106, 113, 120 

maintenance facility, 47, 53, 58, 60, 61 

Miller lot, 43, 47, 50, 54, 57, 59, 81, 83, 84 

Morse House, 43, 47, 50, 54, 81, 83, 84, 101, 

106, 113, 120 

National Environmental Policy Act, 12, 19, 

23, 61, 62, 64, 93, 96, 97 

National Historic Preservation Act, 12, 13, 14, 

19, 61, 62, 63, 93, 96, 97, 130 

National Register of Historic Places, 14, 78, 

96, 125, 130 

natural resources, 22, 145 

Niles lot, 50, 59, 68, 69, 113, 117 

orientation, 31, 33, 34, 44, 49, 53, 67, 86 

parking, 17, 18, 34, 39, 40, 43, 47, 49, 50, 53, 

54, 59, 60, 70, 107, 110, 116 

pickup, 18, 43, 47, 50, 54, 59, 60, 70 

Robert Todd Lincoln, 4, 78 

Robinson House, 18, 39, 43, 82-84, 89, 101, 

106, 113, 120 

Roll lot, 50, 59, 68, 113, 117 

Shutt House, 18, 39, 43, 82-84, 89, 101, 106, 

113, 120

soundscape, 22, 95 

Sprigg House, 47, 50, 69, 82-84, 89, 101, 104, 

106, 113, 120 

Stuve House, 40, 43, 47, 50, 53, 57, 59, 60, 68, 

69, 70, 82, 110, 117, 124 

Stuve Carriage House, 43, 47, 53, 57, 59, 68, 

69, 82, 110, 117, 124 

threatened or endangered species, 22 

traffic, 17, 47, 54, 63 
Index 

145 

user capacity, 35, 105, 112, 119 

visitor center, 17, 18, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 47, 

49, 50, 53, 54, 58, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 

85, 86, 89, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 

110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 

123, 124 

visitor experience, 3, 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 30, 35, 

38, 39, 62, 64, 73, 93, 97, 98, 103, 109, 116, 

122, 123, 125 

wetlands, 12, 21 

wildlife, 12, 22, 145 

Worthen lot, 50, 59, 68, 69, 77, 113, 117 
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of 

our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the 

enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration. 

NPS 449/101700 May 2010 This document was printed on recycled paper. 

All photos in this document are NPS photos. 

U S. . DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MARCH 3, 1849
N a t i o n a l P a r k S e r v i c e • U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e I n t e r i o r

L i n c o l n H o m e N a t i o n a l H i s t o r i c S i t e • S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s