October 2001

 Draft General Management Plan

 Environmental Impact Statement

Little Rock, Arkansas

Little Rock Central High ntral High School

National Historic Sit National Historic Site
Dedicated 

to the Courage 

of the Little Rock Nine

Minnijean Brown

Elizabeth Eckford

Ernest Green

Thelma Mothershed

Melba Pattillo

Gloria Ray

Terrence Roberts

Jefferson Thomas

Carlotta Walls
Draft

General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL

National Historic Site

Little Rock, Arkansas

October 2001

Four alternatives for the future management and use of Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site

(NHS) are presented and analyzed in this document.

• Alternative 1, the existing management direction alternative, reflects ongoing actions at the site and serves as

a basis for comparing the other alternatives. Staffing and funding levels would remain at or near current

levels. Visitor services would remain limited and current laws, policies, and guidelines would guide resource

management actions.

• Alternative 2, the National Park Service’s (NPS) preferred alternative, emphasizes promoting the maximum

possible rehabilitation and preserving the historic fabric, including the preservation of the front façade and

landscape of the high school, the Magnolia Mobil Service Station, and Ponder’s Drug Store to reflect their

appearance in 1957. This alternative calls for requesting an expansion of the site boundary in order to protect

the historic scene. It also calls for developing a new visitor center/park administration and operations facility.

The major stories of the high school would be comprehensive. Visitors to the site would experience

interpreter-led programs. The staff would establish strong partnerships with the owners of cultural resources

within the boundary for preservation and interpretation of the site.

• Alternative 3 calls for sites throughout the City of Little Rock that are associated with the events at Central

High School during 1957 to be interpreted. Partnerships would be created to assist in preservation and

interpretation of these sites. Visitor orientation and park administration would be in leased space located near

the site. A variety of sites would be visited using an existing city shuttle system. Shuttle transport would

permit convenient visitor access to the sites and an uninterrupted interpretive opportunity.

• Alternative 4 calls for the development of an education center/park administration and operations facility,

which would allow for maximum educational media directed to a broad spectrum of learning styles and

levels. Partnerships would be created with national and international Civil Rights sites for interpretation and

education.

The impacts of implementing each of the alternatives are discussed in the “Environmental Consequences” chapter

of this document. They include impacts on cultural resources, natural resources (air quality), visitor experience,

park administration and operations, the socioeconomic environment, and transportation and site access.

Public comments on this document will be through December 26, 2001, or 60 days after the Environmental

Protection Agency publishes its notice of availability for the document in the Federal Register (whichever date is

later). Comments or questions about this document should be sent to the superintendent, Little Rock Central High

School National Historic Site, 2125 Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202; (501) 374-1957.

Please note that the NPS practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available

to the public.* After a 60-day review period, comments will be analyzed and a final plan and environmental

impact statement will be prepared.

*Please be aware that due to public disclosure requirements, the NPS, if requested, is required to make public the names and addresses of

commenters. T his typically occurs in sites i n which there is considerable controversy regarding par k pl ans. If you wish us to withhold your

name and/or addr ess, you must state this pr ominently at the beginning of your comment. The NPS will then determi ne whether the i nfor mation

can be withhel d under the Freedom of Infor mati on Act, and we will honor your request to the extent allowed by law. We will make all

submissions fr om organizati ons or businesses, and from indivi duals i dentifying themsel ves as representatives or officials of organizations or

businesses, available for public inspecti on in their entirety.

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Ser vice
ii
iii

SUMMARY

Congress established the Little Rock Central

High School National Historic Site (NHS) on

November 6, 1998. The purpose of the

legislation is to “preserve, protect, and interpret

for the benefit, education, and inspiration of

present and future generations, Central High

School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and its role in

the integration of public schools and the

development of the Civil Rights movement in

the United States.”

Little Rock Central High School, the symbol of

the end of racially segregated public schools in

the United States, was the site of the first

important test for implementation of the U.S.

Supreme Court’s historic Brown v. Board of

Education of Topeka decision of May 17, 1954,

which declared that segregation in public

education was an unconstitutional violation of

the “equal protection of the laws” clause in the

Fourteenth Amendment. The incidents at the

high school during the autumn of 1957 drew

international attention. Little Rock became the

epitome of state resistance when Arkansas

Governor Orval E. Faubus questioned the

sanctity of the federal court system and the

validity of the Supreme Court’s desegregation

ruling. He challenged the executive branch of

the federal government either to come to the

rescue of the courts or permit a fundamental

deviation from the course of American

federalism. Even more significant, the Little

Rock controversy was the first fundamental test

of the national resolve to enforce black civil

rights in the face of massive southern defiance

during the period following the Brown

decisions. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower was compelled by actions of a mob in

front of the school to use federal marshals and

troops to ensure the right of nine black children

to attend the previously all-white Little Rock

Central High School, he became the first

president since the post-Civil War Reconstruction period to use federal force in support

of black civil rights.

As a result of the Little Rock controversy, the

city became the symbol of southern racist

reaction. Furthermore, the controversy

sharpened political antagonism in the South,

reestablished the front lines of resistance in the

upper South, and became an integral part of the

course of massive resistance. Bowing to the

influence of segregationist and state sovereignty

proponents, Faubus threw up sudden, crude

barricades against national law and created a

major constitutional crisis. Nevertheless, the

controversy ultimately demonstrated the futility

of directly defying federal court orders and

graphically illustrated the economic costs of

total resistance to social change. Little Rock was

the most decisive test of American federalism

during the 1950s.

The boundaries of the national historic site

encompass the high school, its campus, the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station, a former drug

store, and two vacant lots. A major feature of

the cultural landscape is the historic streetscape

that is located along both sides of South Park

Street in front of the school. The private

residences on the east side of South Park Street

are not within the boundary of the NHS. The

buildings closely maintain their 1957 appearance. The surrounding neighborhood maintains

much of its 1957 ambience.

Congress has directed the National Park Service

(NPS) to prepare a general management plan.

The purpose of this plan is to provide general

guidance to site managers during the next 10 to

15 years. The objectives of the plan are to open

the site to the public, manage the site’s

resources, provide preservation assistance to the

school, tell the story of the events of 1957 at the

school, and develop public education programs.
iv

This plan presents for your review and comment

four draft alternative concepts for managing the

site. The draft alternatives resulted from

information gathered and analyzed throughout

the project through site visits, research, and

workshops, and through meetings with the

public, subject-matter experts, partners, and

city, state, and federal agencies. Full implementation of any alternative could take several

years, during which time resource conditions

and opportunities could change; therefore, the

planning alternatives are purposely general to

provide flexibility.

Alternative 1 (No Action) reflects existing

management direction and current activities at

the site. The NPS would continue to preserve

the rehabilitated 1957 Magnolia Mobil Service

Station. Currently, the service station contains

the Central High Museum and Visitor Center,

which is operated by the Central High Museum

Association, Inc. For the purposes of analysis,

under the no-action alternative, it is assumed

that ownership of the service station would be

transferred to the NPS sometime in the fall of

2001. At that time, it is assumed that NPS staff

would begin to operate and maintain the visitor

center.

The high school and its grounds would continue

to be maintained by the school district. No new

development would be necessary to open the

site. Basic operations to manage and maintain

the resources would continue. Partnerships

would continue with the Little Rock School

District for education programs. The University

of Arkansas at Little Rock would continue to

maintain the Little Rock Central High School

archives and museum collections. Interpretation

would remain in the restored 1957 Magnolia

Mobil Service Station and focused on the events

of 1957.

Visitor services would continue to be limited, as

would educational opportunities, which would

not meet public expectations of a national park

system area. The existing staff and resources

would be able to provide only limited technical

assistance to Little Rock Central High School.

Currently the park superintendent is the only

NPS staff on site.

The continued preservation of the front façade

and grounds of the high school and the service

station would provide minor to moderate, longterm beneficial effects on these structures.

However there is expected to be potential minor,

long-term adverse impacts on the cultural

landscape in terms of the historic streetscape

along South Park Street and the Ponder’s Drug

Store, which would be subject to the actions of

individual property owners. Visitors would

receive basic interpretation of the 1957 events in

the service center. Crowding would become

more of a problem and interpretive media would

deteriorate. There would be minimal interpretation of the historic streetscape, resulting in

moderate, long-term adverse impacts on visitor

experience.

No development is necessary to implement

alternative 1. Some additional funding would be

needed for research and other activities to

ensure that this alternative meets the basic

requirements of the legislation and other NPS

policies. Implementation costs are associated

with maintenance and operation and are

estimated to be $450,000 annually. Staffing

under this alternative would increase to 6.5;

some staff would be located off-site owing to

the lack of office space on-site. In order to

implement the existing management direction,

the park is funded for five additional staff and

the continuation of existing cooperative

agreements. During the next 15 years, operation

and maintenance costs would total $6.7 million.

The preservation and interpretation of the Little

Rock Central High School is the central purpose

of the legislation. Under Alternative 2 (The

Site), the NPS’s preferred alternative,

management emphasis would be on the full-
v

scale preservation and rehabilitation of historic

structures within the site’s boundaries and

interpreting those significant structures. The

legislation identifies five reasons why the 1957

events at Central High School, as well as the

building itself, are significant. Visitor services

would be greatly expanded. Comprehensive

interpretation would tell the story of the events

of 1957. In order to preserve the historic scene

and streetscape, the NPS would seek congressional authorization to expand the site boundary

to include the seven privately owned houses

located across from the front of the school.

A visitor center/park administration and operations facility would be built on the northeast

corner vacant lot at Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive

and South Park Street. The new facility and park

headquarters would provide a full range of

visitor services and park headquarters. The

restored Magnolia Mobil Service Station would

be adaptively used on an as-needed basis as a

classroom for visiting student groups. Interpretation in the new visitor center would

provide an in-depth look at the events of 1957

through a variety of media including an

auditorium/theater. Historic structures would be

preserved through partnerships and cooperative

agreements.

Implementation of this alternative would be

expected to have major, long-term beneficial

effect on historic properties and the historic

streetscape. Providing an emotionally compelling interpretive experience, effective orientation, park ranger-led tours, and interpretive

media out-of-doors would result in a moderate

to major, long-term beneficial impact on visitor

experience.

The largest single cost item would be the construction of a visitor center/park administration

and operations facility. Total development costs

for alternative 2 (including construction of the

visitor center) are estimated at $4.3 to 5.7

million. Operation and maintenance costs

including staffing are estimated at $848,000

annually. Staffing would increase by 8 for a

total of 14 full-time employee positions. During

the next 15 years, operation and maintenance

costs would be roughly $12.7 million.

Under Alternative 3 (The City), management

emphasis would allow visitors to experience the

resources within the site boundaries and to visit

and learn about other Civil Rights-related sites

in and around the Little Rock area. The enabling

legislation calls out the role of Central High

School as the most prominent national example

of implementing the Brown decisions. Because

the 1957 events at Central High School occurred

in the state capital, Little Rock, several other

important city and state sites are directly related

to the events of 1957. This alternative concept

allows for the incorporation of the state and

federal aspects of the Civil Rights movement. In

this alternative, through partnerships and

cooperative agreements, the national historic

site would take a stronger role in assisting area

sites with preservation and interpretation.

The orientation center would be located in

leased space in a building near Central High

School. Visitor parking would be available at

this location. The city currently has a shuttle

system, and the national historic site and other

civil rights-related sites in Little Rock could be

added as stops with appropriate interpretation.

The shuttle could provide a high-quality service

for visitors and make more local sites accessible

to more people. This would contribute to longterm resource protection. The shuttle system

would operate through a partnership with the

city. A small staging area would be developed

on the northeast corner vacant lot.

Under this alternative through partnership

efforts, most features of the historic streetscape

would be interpreted, resulting in minor to

moderate beneficial effects on historic

structures. The seven residences would remain

in private ownership. In addition, the
vi

interpretation of civil rights-related sites

throughout the city would result in minor, longterm beneficial impacts on those cultural

resources. Effective on- and off-site orientation,

as well as tours and interpretation along South

Park Street, would provide a minor to moderate

long-term beneficial impact on visitor

experience.

Estimated development costs for this alternative

would be approximately $1.1 to 1.5 million,

which includes the cost of a small shuttle

staging area. Operation and maintenance costs

would be about $1.3 million annually. Staffing

would increase by 10 for a total of 17.5 full-time

employee positions. During the next 15 years

operation and maintenance costs would be

roughly $19 million.

Under Alternative 4 (The Legacy),

management emphasis would provide visitors

with an opportunity for the scholarly study of

the Civil Rights movement in the United States

and its effect on national and international

policy. The enabling legislation recognizes

Central High School’s role in the desegregation

of southern schools as well as in the development of the Civil Rights movements in the

United States. This alternative addresses that

aspect of the legislation by providing an

opportunity for an in-depth, global view of the

Civil Rights movement. The site would partner

in Civil Rights-related symposiums, scholarships, publications, and other appropriate

activities and events.

An education center/park administration and

operations facility would be constructed on the

vacant lot at the northeast corner of Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive and South Park Street. Its

primary function would be as a teaching and

learning facility including classrooms equipped

with state-of-the-art educational media with

real-time visual and audio links to national and

international Civil Rights-related sites. Through

technology, visitors would have an opportunity

to learn about and visit sites that otherwise

would be unavailable. This alternative would

accommodate drop-in visitors and scheduled

visitor and student groups of all ages and

learning abilities. The restored Magnolia Mobil

Service Station would be adaptively used as a

visitor orientation center. Tours would be

available. Visitors would be able to visit the

education center and participate in learning

activities. Parking for cars and buses would be

available on site. Partnerships and cooperative

agreements for educational opportunities would

be established with national and international

academic, local, state, and federal organizations.

Implementation of this alternative would be

expected to have similar minor to moderate,

long-term beneficial effects on cultural

resources as described for alternative 3.

Through partnership efforts most features of the

historic streetscape would be interpreted. The

seven residences would remain in private

ownership. Providing orientation, increased

interpretation, and an educational experience for

students and visitors would result in moderate,

long-term beneficial impacts for participants.

Interpretive facilities and media for the general

public, however, would be limited and would

provide a negligible to minor long-term

beneficial effect.

Estimated development costs for this alternative

would be approximately $4.2 to 4.7 million,

which includes the construction of an education

center/park administration and operations

facility. Operation and maintenance costs,

including staff salaries, are estimated at $1.3

million annually. Staffing would increase by

12.5 for a total of 18.5 employee positions.

During the next 15 years operation and

maintenance costs would be roughly $20.1

million.
vii

CONTENTS

Purpose of and Need for the Plan 3

Introduction 3

Purpose of the Plan 3

Need for the Plan 3

Establishment of the Site 4

Brief Description of the Site 5

Significance of Little Rock Central High

School NHL 8

Adjacent Properties 8

Historic Streetscape 9

Central High School Neighborhood National

Historic District 9

Cultural Landscape 11

Issues and Concerns 11

Issues Beyond the Scope of this Plan 13

Impact Topics 13

Impact Topics Selected for Further Analysis

14

Impact Topics Eliminated from Further

Evaluation 14

Planning Direction and Guidance 16

Purpose and Significance 16

Management Goals 16

Visitor Experience Goals and Interpretive

Themes 17 

Law s, Policies, Mandates, and Agreements

19

Management Decision Points 25

Carrying Capacity 25

Relationship to Other Planning Projects 26

Actions Considered but Eliminated from Further

Study 27

Alternatives 31

Introduction 31

Planning Process 31

Management Prescriptions 31

Visitor Services, Administration, and

Operations Area 32

School Area 32

Contemplative Area 33

Interpretive and Visitor Education Area 33

Historic Scene Area 33

Alternative 1 – No Action 34

Concept 34

Visitor Experience, Orientation,

Interpretation, and Education 34

Cultural Resources 36

Historic Streetscape 36

Archival and Museum Collections 36

Research 36

Northeast Corner Lot 36

Boundary Adjustment 37

Administration and Operations 37

Costs 37

Partner Roles and Responsibilities 38

Alternative 2 – The Site (Preferred Alternative)

38

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 38

Concept 40

Visitor Experience, Orientation,

Interpretation, and Education 40

Cultural Resources 41

Historic Streetscape 42

Archival and Museum Collections 42

Research 42

Northeast Corner Lot 42

Boundary Adjustment 42

Administration and Operations 43

Costs 44

Partner Roles and Responsibilities 44

Alternative 3 – The City 45

Concept 45

Visitor Experience, Orientation,

Interpretation, and Education 45

Cultural Resources 47

Historic Streetscape 47

Archival and Museum Collections 48

Research 48

Northeast Corner Lot 48

Boundary Adjustment 48

Administration and Operations 48

Costs 49

Partner Roles and Responsibilities 49

Alternative 4 – The Legacy 50

Concept 50

Visitor Experience, Orientation,

Interpretation, and Education 50

Cultural Resources 52
viii

Historic Streetscape 53

Archival and Museum Collections 53

Research 53

Northeast Corner Lot 53

Boundary Adjustment 53

Administration and Operations 53

Costs 54

Partner Roles and Responsibilities 55

Estimated Costs of the Alternatives 55

Mitigating Measures 56

Recommendations for Further Research and

Planning 57

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed

Further 57

Affected Environment 69

Cultural Resources 69

Recognition of Significance 69

National Historic Site Resources 69

Cultural Landscape 71

Historic Streetscape 72

Archival and Museum Collections 73

Archeological Resources 73

Northeast and Northw est Vacant Lots 73

Ethnographic Resources 73

Related Sites in Little Rock 74

Natural Resources 76

Air Quality 76

Visitor Experience 77

Administration and Operations 79

Staffing 80

Partnerships 81

Socioeconomic Environment 81

Geographic Study Area 81

Population 83

Local Economy 83

Housing 84

Government and Infrastructure 84

Tourism and Recreation 84

Visitor Spending 85

Land Use 86

Transportation and Site Access 86

Environmental Consequences 91

Cultural Resources 91

Methodology 91

Resource Types 93

Cumulative Impacts 97

Alternative 1 – No Action 97

Alternative 2 – The Site 102

Alternative 3 – The City 107

Alternative 4 – The Legacy 112

Natural Resources 117

Methodology 117

Alternative 1 – No Action 118

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 118

Visitor Experience 119

Methodology 119

Alternative 1 – No Action 121

Alternative 2 – The Site 124

Alternative 3 – The City 126

Alternative 4 – The Legacy 129

Administration and Operations 131

Methodology 131

Alternative 1 – No Action 131

Alternative 2 – The Site 132

Alternative 3 – The City 133

Alternative 4 – The Legacy 134

Socioeconomic Environment 135

Population 135

Local Economy 138

Housing 141

Local Government 142

Tourism and Recreation 144

Visitor Spending 146

Land Use 148

Environmental Justice Policy 150

Methodology 150

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 151

Transportation and Site Access 152

Methodology 152

Alternative 1 – No Action 153

Alternative 2 – The Site 154

Alternative 3 – The City 155

Alternative 4 – The Legacy 156

Other Impacts 156

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 156

Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the

Environment and the Maintenance and

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

157

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of

Resources 157

Impacts on Energy Requirements and

Conservation Potential 157

Consultation and Coordination 157

Scoping and Other Public Involvement

Efforts 157
ix

Agencies and Organizations Receiving a Copy

of this Plan 161

City 161

State 161

Federal 161

Appendixes/Bibliography/Preparers and

Consultants 163

Appendix A – Legislation 165

Appendix B – History Overview 168

Appendix C – Historic District 181

Appendix D – Consultation Letters 183

Appendix E – Site Visitor and Vehicle Counts

189

Appendix F – Related National Sites 192

Bibliography 200

Preparers and Consultants 203

Index 205

Maps

Regional Map 6

Site Map 7

Historic District Map 10

Alternative 1: No Action 35

Alternative 2: The Site 39

Alternative 3: The City 46

Alternative 4: The Legacy 51

Related Interpretive Sites 78

Census Tract 10 82

Figures

Figure 1: Visitors Per Month at Central High

Museum and Visitor Center 80

Figure 2: Past and Projected Annual Visitors

127

Tables

Table 1: Proposed Actions for Each Alternative

54

Table 2: Comparison of Alternative

Development Costs 60

Table 3: Comparison of Annual Operation and

Maintenance Costs 60

Table 4: Summary of Environmental

Consequences 61

Table 5: Population, Pulaski County and

Central High Area 83

Table 6: Central High Area Poverty Rates,

1970-1990 83

Table 7: 1990 Housing Statistics by Area 84

Table 8: Travel Related 1999 Tourism Statistics

85

Table 9: Estimated Visitor Spending in 2000,

Central High Museum 85

Table 10: Traffic Counts Near Central High

School 87

Table 11: Alternative 1 – Projected Visitor

Grow th, 2000-2015 122

Table 12: Comparison of Past and Projected

Visitor Grow th, 1998-2015 125

Table 13: Projected Peak Month (July) Traffic

155
Photo Courtesy of Central High Museum Historical Collection / University of Arkansas at Little Rock Archives

Congress and President Clinton award the Congressional Gold Metal to the Little Rock Nine.

Purpose of and Need for the Plan
2
3

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

INTRODUCTION

This Draft General Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement presents

four draft alternatives to guide future

management and use of Little Rock Central

High School National Historic Site. One of

the alternatives has been identified as the

National Park Service’s (NPS) preferred

future management direction. Potential

consequences and environmental impacts of

all alternatives are identified and assessed in

this document.

Actions proposed in a general management

plan or in subsequent implementation plans

are accomplished over time. Budget

restrictions, requirements for additional data

or legal compliance, and competing national

park system priorities can prevent

immediate implementation of many actions.

Complex or especially costly actions could

be implemented 10 or more years into the

future.

A multi-disciplinary planning team prepared

the general management plan. The park

superintendent, members of the Midwest

Regional Office in Omaha, Nebraska, the

Denver Service Center in Denver, Colorado,

and partners mentioned in the legislation

make up the planning team. The 1998

legislation establishing the site directed the

NPS to prepare this plan in consultation and

coordination with the Little Rock School

District, the City of Little Rock, Central

High Museum, Inc., and other appropriate

organizations and agencies.

The team received suggestions from the

consulting partners mentioned above, the

general public, and city, state, and federal

agencies through official correspondence,

workshops, meetings, newsletters, and

personal contacts. The opinions and ideas of

partners and the public are incorporated into

the draft management alternatives. The

“Consultation and Coordination” section of

this plan describes the public involvement

process in greater detail.

The public is asked to comment on this

Draft General Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement for a 60-

day period. A postage-paid comment form is

included for your convenience. Various

elements of the preferred alternative and

other alternatives might be modified to

address your comments. A final general

management plan and environmental impact

statement will include agency and organization letters and responses to all substantive

comments.

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN

The purpose of this action is to develop a

general management plan for the Little Rock

Central High School National Historic Site

(the site). The site became a unit of the

national park system on November 6, 1998,

pursuant to the provisions of Public Law

105-356 (112 Stat. 3268). (See Appendix A

for the full text of the enabling legislation.)

The general management plan develops a

comprehensive management framework that

will guide resource protection, visitor use,

and administration of the site for the next 15

years. The general management plan will

meet the congressional intent expressed in

the site’s enabling legislation within the

context of the mission of the NPS.

NEED FOR THE PLAN

This plan is especially needed because the

Little Rock Central High School site is a

new unit in the NPS and currently has no

approved, long-term management plan,
4

which is required for all units in the system

(National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978

Public Law 95-625). The site is small in area

and its boundaries encompass a large

functioning high school (more than 2000

students). The site boundaries are shown on

the Site map (page 7), which also shows

Little Rock Central High School and

campus, Magnolia Mobil Service Station,

Ponder’s Drug Store, the proposed

commemorative garden, and the northeast

corner vacant lot. The NPS currently owns

no property within the boundary of the site.

However, the City of Little Rock and the

Central High Museum, Inc., are planning to

transfer ownership of the Central High

Museum and Visitor Center, located in the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station, to the NPS

in late fall 2001. The Central High Museum,

Inc., also has planned the Central High

Commemorative Garden on the northwest

corner vacant lot at Daisy L. Gatson Bates

Drive and South Park Street to commemorate the events at the high school in 1957. It

is assumed that ownership would be transferred to the NPS after development. At that

time, it is intended that the NHS staff would

maintain the garden. Any additional

properties obtained by the NPS would either

be donated or purchased from a willing

seller.

The NPS also has concerns about how the

creation of the park will affect the

preservation of cultural resources, visitor

experience, museum collections, park

operations, and the surrounding Central

High Neighborhood Historic District. The

legislation directs that cooperative

agreements with appropriate public and

private agencies may be used to accomplish

the mission of the site. These constraints and

questions have resulted in more detailed

planning than is typically found in plans for

larger, more established parks. This detail is

intended to ensure adequate guidance in

opening this site.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SITE

The Special Resource Study completed in

August 1998 documented that the proposed

national historic site met the NPS’s criteria

for suitability and feasibility as a unit of the

park system. In order to meet the criteria for

feasibility as a national park service unit, the

“area’s historic setting must be of sufficient

size and appropriate configuration to ensure

long-term protection of the resource and to

accommodate the public.” The Special

Resource Study called out the Magnolia

Mobil Service Station, Ponder’s Drug Store,

the seven houses along South Park Street,

the landscape in front of the school, and the

streetscape of South Park Street between

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and West 16th

Street as appropriate adjacent properties to

be included in, and necessary for, meeting

the feasibility criteria to accommodate the

public and ensure long-term protection of

the Central High School and its story. In

addition, the Special Resource Study team,

with input from the public, recommended

additional properties to accommodate the

expected increase in visitation if the site was

authorized by Congress as a new unit of the

national park system. This resulted in the

inclusion of the northeast and northwest

vacant lots.

Following completion of the congressionally

mandated Special Resource Study of Little

Rock Central High School in 1998,

legislation (Public Law 105-356 (112 Stat.

3268)) was approved on November 6, 1998,

which established the national historic site.

Congress included the high school, its 21-

acre campus, and the adjacent properties

outlined in the Special Resource Study

(except for the seven houses along South

Park Street) within the legislative boundary.

In addition to establishing the site boundary,
5

the legislation states that the site will

“preserve, protect, and interpret for the

benefit, education, and inspiration of present

and future generations, Central High School

in Little Rock, Arkansas, and its role in the

integration of public schools and the

development of the Civil Rights movement

in the United States.”

The legislation also mandates that the site

cannot affect the authority of the Little Rock

School District to administer Central High

School or the authorities of the City of Little

Rock in the neighborhood surrounding the

school.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

The Little Rock Central High School

National Historic Site is located in the

capital City of Little Rock, Arkansas in

Pulaski County. (See Regional map on page

6.) It is surrounded by the Central High

School Neighborhood Historic District. The

school operates as a 4-year public high

school under the administration of the Office

of the Superintendent, Little Rock School

District. Student enrollment is approximately 2,400 students, and the faculty

numbers 115. Today, it is the largest of six

high schools in the Little Rock School

District and the only one located in the inner

city. The student body represents a crosssection of the community, drawing from the

most affluent areas of Little Rock and from

a broad swath of middle- and low-income

areas. Central High School has served the

metropolitan area for many years as an

unofficial magnet school, and it now houses

an International Studies Magnet component

within the school curriculum. Considered a

national model in the field of human

relations, Central High School is a

participant in the Model Schools Program

sponsored by the National Governors

Association.

The total amount of land within the

authorized boundary is 27 acres.* (See Site

map on page 7.) The site boundary

encompasses lands and interests as outlined

in the site’s enabling legislation; those lands

and interests are composed of the following:

1. the Little Rock Central High School

building and its 21-acre campus, which

were designated a national historic

landmark on May 20, 1982

2. the Central High Museum and Visitor

Center (2125 Daisy L. Gatson Bates

Drive), which is located in the restored

Magnolia Mobil Service Station on the

southeast corner of Daisy L. Gatson

Bates Drive and South Park Street

(approximately 1.35 acres)

3. a 1926 commercial building (2121/2123

West 16th Street), currently operating

and privately owned (that housed

Ponder’s Drug Store in 1957) on the

southeast corner of West 16th and South

Park Street (approximately 0.21 acres)

4. a vacant lot on the northwest corner of

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and South

Park Street (owned by the Central High

Museum, Inc., and approximately 0.56

acres)

5. another vacant lot on the northeast

corner of Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive

and South Park Street (privately owned

and approximately 1.31 acres)

In March 1999 the NPS appointed a

superintendent for Little Rock Central High

School National Historic Site. Since that

time, the park superintendent has begun to

prepare for full operation.

*3.91 acres includes sidewalk and

pavements.

W. 15th St. 

N

W. 18th St. 

ht Ave. h 

W. 16th St. 

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Dr.

W. 13th St. 

W. 12th St. W

S. Rice St.

S. Park St. 

Jo

nes 

St.

S. Schil

el r St.

S. Den

nis

o

n

St.

W. 17th St. 

Boundary of National Historic Site

Boundary of National Historic Landmark

Site Map

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • 037 • 20007 • AUG 2001

Little Rock Central High School

National Historic Site

Little Rock Central High School

Ponder's Drug Store

Visitor Center (Magnolia Mobil Service Station)

Vacant Lot

Commemorative Garden

Quigley Stadium

3

4

5

6

1

2

5

6 1

4

2

3
8

Significance of Little Rock Central High

School NHL

Little Rock Central High School, the symbol

of the end of racially segregated public

schools in the United States, was the site of

the first important test for the

implementation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s

historic Brown v. Board of Education of

Topeka decision of May 17, 1954, declaring

that segregation in public education was an

unconstitutional violation of the “equal

protection of the laws” clause in the

Fourteenth Amendment. The incidents at the

high school during the fall of 1957 drew

international attention as Little Rock became

the epitome of state resistance when

Arkansas Governor Orval E. Faubus directly

questioned the sanctity of the federal court

system and the validity of the Supreme

Court’s desegregation ruling. He challenged

the executive branch of the federal

government either to come to the rescue of

the courts or permit a fundamental deviation

from the course of American federalism.

Even more significant, the Little Rock

controversy was the first fundamental test of

the national resolve to enforce AfricanAmerican civil rights in the face of massive

southern defiance during the period

following the Brown decisions. When

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was

compelled by the magnitude of white mob

violence to use federal marshals and troops

to ensure the right of African-American

children to attend the previously all-white

Little Rock Central High School, he became

the first president since the post-Civil War

Reconstruction period to use federal force in

support of African-American civil rights.

As a result of the Little Rock controversy,

the city became the symbol of southern

racist reaction. Furthermore, the controversy

sharpened political antagonisms in the

South, reestablished the front lines of

massive resistance in the upper South, and

became an integral part of the course of

massive resistance. Bowing to the influence

of segregationist and state sovereignty proponents, Gov. Faubus threw up sudden,

crude barricades against national law and

created a major constitutional crisis. Nevertheless, the controversy ultimately demonstrated the futility of directly defying federal

court orders by graphically illustrating the

economic costs of total resistance to social

change. Little Rock was the most decisive

test of American federalism during the

1950s. (See Appendix B for an expanded

historical overview.)

Adjacent Properties

The significance of the properties located

adjacent to the high school, along South

Park Street, rests on the fact that these

properties formed the backdrop against

which these events were played. Historic

photographs taken during the events of 1957

document this backdrop and the events that

happened during this time. The desegregation of Central High School began on

September 4, 1957, when the first AfricanAmerican students entered the all-white high

school. Those nine students are today

referred to as the Little Rock Nine. Eight of

the African-American children attempted to

approach the building only to be refused

admittance by armed National Guardsmen.

One of the Little Rock Nine rode the bus to

school that day and was met by a jeering

mob as she approached Daisy L. Gatson

Bates Drive and South Park Street near the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station. At the

service station the national press had taken

up residence, using the pay phone there to

call in their news stories as events unfolded.

This student attempted to enter the school

and was also refused admittance by the

National Guard. She continued along South

Park Street as the mob heckled and jeered.
9

Crowds surrounded her and watched from

the front yards and porches of the homes

along South Park. She tried to enter Ponder’s Drug Store but was refused admittance there. She finally sat on a bench at the

bus stop near Ponder’s and boarded the city

bus.

Inside the school, the African-American

students were harassed and attacked. Eventually a guard was assigned to each of the

Little Rock Nine inside the school. Troops

were placed around the school to ensure the

safety of the students. Schoolteachers who

befriended the students lost their jobs. Many

individuals and organizations in and around

the city took up the cause for civil rights,

such as Mrs. Daisy Bates, who helped the

children gain access to the high school. On

May 27, 1958, Ernest Green (one of the

Little Rock Nine) became the first AfricanAmerican to graduate from Central High.

The general management plan team reconfirmed that the service station, seven houses,

and the drug store continue to be the

properties necessary for resource protection

and visitor understanding and enjoyment of

the site. In addition, the team reconfirmed

that the two vacant lots on Daisy L. Gatson

Bates Drive were necessary to provide for

projected visitation and a quality visitor

experience. The guidance offered in the

Special Resource Study, the enabling legislation, and the mission and interpretive goals

of the historic site, along with a review of

the events of 1957, all were used as criteria

to make this determination.

Historic Streetscape

The National Park Service acknowledges the

importance of the South Park Street setting

in front of the high school. According to the

draft “Cultural Landscape Inventory”

prepared by the National Park Service, one

of the most significant character-defining

features of the cultural landscape at the site

is the “streetscape” of South Park Street

between Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and

West 16th Street in front of the high school.

The features of the streetscape, including

buildings, structures, roads, sidewalks, and

vegetation, reflect the historic land use

patterns and associative significance of the

site. This block is referred to throughout the

document as the historic streetscape. This

streetscape is bounded on the west by the

high school’s front façade and grounds and

on the east by seven private residential

houses. This historic streetscape is a small

part of the larger, equally important cultural

landscape that surrounds the national historic site. It is the location most recognizable

as the backdrop of the events of 1957. Many

of the historic photographs were taken along

this block, which has remained largely

architecturally intact and unaltered since

1957 (one home was damaged by fire

several years ago). There is a need to

preserve this setting in order to interpret the

events of 1957. The current boundary of the

national historic site is down the center of

South Park Street. The seven residences are

part of the historic streetscape, although they

are not within the boundary of the national

historic site. The National Park Service has

no authority concerning these homes.

Central High School Neighborhood

National Historic District

On August 16, 1996, Central High School

Neighborhood Historic District (boundaries

generally defined by Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr., Drive on the east, mid-block

between Rice and Jones Street on the west,

West 12th Street on the north, and Roosevelt

Road on the south; see the map on page 10)

was listed in the National Register under

Criteria A (because of its association with

events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of American

history: area of significance – community

11

planning and development) and C (because

of its architectural characteristics and

qualities) with local significance. Within

the district, 417 buildings were determined

to be contributing to the district’s significance, while 401 buildings were classified

as noncontributing. Six buildings within the

historic district had previously been listed in

the National Register. This historic district

listing was amended on January 17, 1997, to

include the Wright Avenue Christian Church

(now known as the Church of the Living

God) at 1850 South Park Street. For a

detailed description of the historic district,

please see Appendix C.

Cultural Landscape

The National Park Service recognizes the

national significance of the interior and

exterior of the buildings and grounds of the

entire 21-acre campus of the high school and

the local significance of the surrounding

neighborhood a national historic district.

However, due to the constraints imposed by

the provisions of Public Law 105-356 and

the political realities associated with the

continuing operation of the high school, the

National Park Service has focused this

planning effort primarily on the front façade

of the high school building and its adjacent

front grounds. The National Park Service

has also focused this planning effort on the

historic streetscape along South Park Street,

which includes the front of the high school

as well as the cultural landscape of that

street between Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive

and West 16th Street. A complete description of the cultural landscape can be found

under Cultural Resources in the “Affected

Environment” chapter of this document.

In each of the three draft conceptual alternatives, the National Park Service would

work cooperatively with the Little Rock

School District to develop a preservation

plan/policy for the buildings and grounds of

the entire 21-acre school campus that is

amenable to the school district. Furthermore,

the National Park Service would seek to

work cooperatively with neighborhood

associations and city agencies to develop

preservation strategies for protecting the

documented architectural and cultural

landscape values of the high school’s

surrounding neighborhood.

ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Issues and concerns about the site form the

basis of the impact topics that are analyzed

in this document. The general management

plan provides a strategy for addressing the

following issues within the context of the

draft alternatives.

Neighborhood: The development of a new

national park in a residential area that is directly

across from an operating school raises concerns

about potential impacts on the quality of life for

those who live and work in the area. There are

concerns about safety, noise, congestion, air

quality, and roads.

Visitor Experience: The current visitor center is

extremely small (1,717 sq. ft.). It contains a

small exhibit area, a lobby, and one office. This

facility has reached its capacity (20,000

visitors/year). The exhibit area can comfortably

accommodate 30 visitors at one time. It is a

common occurrence to have 40-50 visitors

inside the exhibit and lobby area at one time.

Because of the extremely limited space, a

reservation system is in place. However, many

tour and coach groups and walk-in visitors arrive

unannounced. There have been occasions when

several unscheduled commercial tour buses have

arrived at the same time. These visitors are not

turned away; they are asked to wait outside the

building until the exhibit area clears. This

situation routinely occurs during the months of

April through October. February (Black History

Month) is also an extremely high visitation

month. Due to this space limitation, many

visitors are unwilling to wait to enter the exhibit;

therefore, they leave without experiencing even

the limited interpretive opportunities available.
12

The NHS is in a residential setting directly

across the street from a high school with

2,000+ students. Visitors may walk the

block in front of the school along South Park

Street without the benefit of a ranger-led

tour. Some visitors are unwilling to walk the

entire two blocks of the NHS because they

perceive possible safety issues.

Education and Interpretation: The service

station has one office. There is no space available to develop the variety and extent of

education and interpretation programs or

outreach activities needed to provide a quality

experience. There is no space for staff to

produce these basic education and interpretive

programs. Because the exhibit area is small

(~500 sq. ft), the existing exhibits are not

comprehensive. Space constraints do not allow

for placing collections on display or for

expanding interpretation opportunities. The

limited size of the exhibit area in the service

station precludes opportunities to provide

visitors with the full story of the historic site.

Cultural Landscape Preservation: The site is

part of, and depends on, a much larger cultural

setting and surrounded by the historic district.

This surrounding cultural landscape is important

for understanding the park’s story. The cultural

landscape is that of a busy high school campus

surrounded by residential housing. It may be

affected by the anticipated growth in private and

commercial development and tourism resulting

from the establishment of the national historic

site.

Boundary Adjustment: The enabling legislation specified the boundary of the national

historic site and identified the properties to be

included within the boundary. Considering current trends in and around the boundary, is there a

need to adjust the boundary to protect significant

resources or enhance interpretation?

Resource Condition and Level of Treatment:

The site presents significant challenges given

limited funds for preservation and development.

With the exception of the Magnolia Mobil

Service Station and the commemorative garden,

which will become U.S. Government property,

NPS does not own any property within the

boundary of the historic site. The enabling

legislation dictates a federal interest in

preservation and interpretation of resources,

focusing on accomplishing that mission through

partnerships. It also directs NPS to identify lands

for acquisition that might be necessary for the

agency to carry out its responsibilities for

resource preservation and interpretation.

Museum Collections: There is no space in the

visitor center for basic exhibit storage. As a

result, the museum collection is located offsite

in several places. There is no staff on the site to

meet minimum standards of collection

management. The collection is expected to grow

as the site becomes more widely known and

research continues. Appropriate facilities need to

be provided to accommodate this increased

collection.

Administration and Park Operations: The

visitor center (1,717 sq. ft), contains a small

exhibit area (~500 sq. ft.), a small lobby, and

one office. There is no space for additional staff,

storage, exhibits, and other necessary

operational functions. No offices or work areas

are available for park rangers and interpreters,

and there is no space for the necessary, essential

staff to perform the basic operations of the

visitor center. Adequate administrative/

headquarters space is required to provide a

quality visitor experience and fulfill the mission

of the historic site.

Partnerships: Other organizations with which

the NPS may develop agreements potentially

play an important role in interpreting the park

story and preserving resources.

ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS

PLAN

The public and our partners offered ideas

about the future of the site during various

meetings and workshops, and through

responses to newsletters. However valid,

some ideas are not related to this plan and

are not within the purview of the NPS. Some
13

of these ideas and suggestions are listed

below.

Central High School: Ideas were offered on

what changes should be made at the school

such as developing a museum, restoring the

reflecting pool, using classrooms in the

school for visitor interpretation, or placing

exhibits in the school. The National Park

Service recognizes the national significance

of the interior and exterior of the school

buildings; however, the legislation clearly

states that the school shall remain

autonomous. The school district and NPS

will work cooperatively to meet the needs of

the school and park site. However, any

changes at the school rest with the

appropriate school authorities

Local Initiatives: Private entities are sponsoring a number of planning efforts. These

efforts encompass a wide range of activities

such as the possibility of building a Civil

Rights Institute, developing a long-range

strategic plan, and other preservation

initiatives by the Central High Neighborhood Association. There are possible future

preservation initiatives by the city and state.

These planning efforts will enhance interpretation and preservation efforts at the site,

in the surrounding community, and throughout the city. The NPS will work cooperatively with all entities to achieve mutual

goals. However, these efforts are independent of the NPS’s planning effort, and

decisions and outcomes remain with the

initiating parties.

IMPACT TOPICS

Laws, policies, and sometimes public input

determine which impact topics need to be

analyzed. However, applicable topics can

and do vary among the various places

administered by the NPS. For instance, the

NPS is required to avoid, to the extent

possible, the adverse impacts associated

with the destruction or modification of

wetlands. At a site such as Little Rock

Central High School, where there are no

wetlands, this impact topic (impacts on

wetlands) can be dismissed. In other words,

to focus analysis of the potential impacts of

implementing the alternatives, specific

impact topics were selected for analysis and

others were eliminated. Relevant impact

topics were selected based on agency and

public concerns, regulatory and planning

requirements, and known resource issues.

Subsequent discussions of the environment

that would be affected (the “Affected

Environment” chapter) and the impacts

related to each alternative action (the

“Environmental Consequences” chapter)

focus on these impact topics. A brief

rationale for selecting these topics is

provided below.
14

Impact Topics Selected for Further

Analysis

The following impact topics were selected

for further analysis: cultural resources,

natural resources, visitor experience, park

administration and operations, the

socioeconomic environment, and

transportation and site access. These impact

topics are analyzed in detail in the

“Environmental Consequences” chapter of

this document.

Impact Topic 1: Cultural Resources

The alternatives have the potential to affect

cultural resources and landscapes.

Impact Topic 2: Natural Resources

All natural resource topics with the

exception of air quality were eliminated

from further evaluation. Increased visitation

and thus increased traffic, which is expected

under all alternatives, has the potential to

affect air quality. The reason for eliminating

other natural resource topics is discussed in

the next section.

Impact Topic 3: Visitor Experience

The alternatives would directly affect the

visitor experience and how many visitors

use the site.

Impact Topic 4: Administration and

Operations

The alternatives would directly affect

administration and operations of the site

with respect to visitor services, staffing, and

maintenance operations.

Impact Topic 5: Socioeconomic

Environment

The alternatives have the potential to impact

the socioeconomic environment, through

changes in land use and the economy of the

surrounding neighborhood and landscapes.

Impact Topic 6: Transportation and Site

Access

The alternatives could affect the way visitors

arrive at the site. Personal vehicles and

school and commercial tour buses must be

accommodated and pedestrian safety

addressed.

Impact Topics Eliminated from Further

Evaluation

The following natural resource impact topics

were eliminated from further evaluation

They have not been analyzed in detail in this

document. These topics are being eliminated

because the site is in an urban area that has

been highly disturbed, and almost no natural

resources remain at the site.

Water Resources, Floodplains, and

Wetlands

No intermittent or perennial streams flow

within or adjacent to the project area. The

implementation of the alternatives would not

noticeably add to local water and wastewater

treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts

on the system’s capacity and the area’s

water quality would be negligible.

According to the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, the project area is not

within either a 100-year or 500-year

floodplain. It is in a zone of no flooding.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s

National Wetland Inventory map indicates

that there are no wetlands within the project
15

area. Standard construction practices will be

employed during construction to control

runoff. No impacts on wetlands would be

anticipated from implementing the

alternatives.

Prime and Unique Farmlands

There are no farmlands in the project area.

Soils

Alternative 2, and 4, call for development of

a building and parking on a vacant lot on the

northeast corner of Daisy L. Gatson Bates

Drive and South Park Street. Alternative 3

calls for development of a small shuttle

staging area on the same lot. Any

construction in any alternative would disturb

soils. These soils are in an urban, developed

area and have been previously disturbed.

Best management practices for erosion

control would be implemented and disturbed

areas would be replanted to minimize soil

erosion. Therefore, construction called for

by any one alternative would have negligible

adverse impacts on soils.

Vegetation and Wildlife

The project area is situated in a highly

developed urban setting that has been

cleared of natural vegetation. Vegetation and

wildlife species in the area are those

associated with disturbed areas and human

development in large metropolitan areas.

Disturbance related to construction work in

alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would occur on less

than 1.3 acres of previously disturbed

ground and would not affect wildlife habitat.

Therefore, actions called for would not

appreciably impact vegetation or wildlife.

Threatened or Endangered Species or

Species of Special Concern

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission were

contacted in July 2000 to provide

information about the potential occurrence

of species that are threatened, endangered,

or of special concern in the Little Rock

vicinity. No federally listed threatened or

endangered species are known to exist in the

project area. (See Appendix D, Consultation

Letters.)

Ecologically Critical Areas

The project area is composed exclusively of

disturbed habitats in an urban environment.

No ecologically critical areas exist within or

adjacent to the site’s boundary.

Indian Trust Resources and Sacred

Sites

The project area is composed exclusively of

disturbed habitats in an urban environment.

There are no Indian Trust resources or

sacred sites within or adjacent to the site’s

boundary.

Impacts to Little Rock Central High

School Operations

Continued operation of the high school as an

educational institution and avoidance of

conflicts between the school and the site was

considered as a mandate for all alternatives.

The NPS’s enabling legislation specifically

directs that the national historic site not

interfere with the use of the high school as

an educational institution. Therefore, all

alternatives are designed to meet this

mandate, and this topic is not analyzed as an

impact topic specific to NPS actions.
16

PLANNING DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE

Congress, through the enabling legislation,

provides the overall reason for setting the

site aside and provides general direction as

well as specific guidelines for the future. In

addition, planning guidance is given in a

number of laws, policies, mandates, and

guidelines that already exist and must be

followed. All of these avenues provide the

basis for preparing the general management

plan.

The planning team began by reviewing and

interpreting the intent of the legislation that

established the park. With input from the

public and planning partners, the site’s

purpose and significance were identified.

The legislation, purpose, and significance

provided the parameters for formulating the

alternatives.

The following sections define these terms in

greater detail and present the statements

developed specifically for the site.

Purpose and Significance

Purpose

The reason the site was established provides

the most fundamental criteria against which

the appropriateness of actions proposed in

the draft alternatives are tested. The

following purpose statement represents the

team’s interpretation of the legislative

mandate that established the site. The

enabling legislation states that the site was

set aside to:

Preserve, protect, and interpret for the

benefit, education, and inspiration of

present and future generations, Central

High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and to

interpret its role in the integration of public

schools and the development of the Civil

Rights movement in the United States.

Significance

Significance statements define important

attributes that relate to the site’s purpose and

why the site was established. Significance

statements capture the essence of the site’s

importance to the nation’s natural and

cultural heritage. Understanding the site’s

significance helps mangers set protection

priorities and determine desirable visitor

experiences.

Based on the legislation, the following

significance statements were developed.

1. The admission of nine African-American

students to Little Rock Central High

School was the most prominent national

example of the implementation of the

two Supreme Court decisions in Brown

v. Board of Education of Topeka.

2. Central High School was designated a

national historic landmark in recognition

of the events which took place at the

school during the Little Rock crises,

beginning in 1957, and continuing

through the closing and reopening of the

school in 1959.

3. Little Rock Central High School played

a significant role in the desegregation of

public schools in the South.

Management Goals

Management goals have been determined to

be the most important goals for the site.

They stem from the purpose and

significance statements. Given the purpose

and significance, goals were developed to

provide guidance in preserving and

protecting what is significant and

communicating the primary themes to the

visitors. These are immediate and long-term

goals – the actions that would take place

during the life of this plan (10–15 years) to
17

fulfill resource protection, visitor use, and

operational mandates. The goals are:

1. Interpretation: The story of the Little

Rock Central High School National

Historic Site, as portrayed through

interpretive themes, will be effectively

interpreted for diverse audiences in ways

that engage attention and emotion,

provoke thought and reflection, and

relate to contemporary issues.

Educational services incorporate park

themes and school curricula and serve

both on-site and off-site audiences, and

they are based on active partnerships

with educational institutions. Historical

interpretation and education are based on

accurate and contemporary scholarship,

and they represent legitimate differences

in perspective. Electronic, print, and

digital media extend outreach service to

the public locally, nationally, and

internationally.

2. Orientation: A well-defined point (or

points) of arrival, welcome, and site

orientation will be available for site

visitors. Visitors’ choices, including

onsite and offsite opportunities and

related sites, will be well defined.

Visitors feel welcome at all publicly

accessible areas and can clearly

distinguish between public and private

areas. Onsite visitors can get a clear

picture of the appearance and ambience

of the site during 1957–58.

3. Cultural Landscape: The integrity and

ambience of Central High School’s

adjacent historic streetscape, and the

surrounding national historic district

neighborhood, would be protected to the

extent possible to preserve the historic

scene in which the dramatic events of

1957-58 occurred. The NPS, within the

limits of the site’s enabling legislation,

would continue to work with the school

board and district to achieve this goal.

Resource preservation reflects the

historic context within which those

events unfolded, providing an effective

backdrop in scale for interpretation of

this landmark battle in the struggle for

civil rights.

4. Partnerships: The site will encourage

and use a variety of partnerships to

fulfill its mission. These partners will be

involved with site management, resource

protection, interpretation, education, and

visitor experience. One potential partner

is the current students of Central High

School. Partnerships with students

would have to be coordinated through

the school or the school board.

5. Civil Rights: Visitors to the site will be

able to make personal connections to the

meaning of the integrated school since

the 1957–58 events. People are

encouraged to contemplate and

participate in the improvement of race

relations.

Visitor Experience Goals and Interpretive

Themes

This section describes the experiences

visitors could have when they visit Little

Rock Central High School National Historic

Site, its surrounding neighborhood, and the

Little Rock vicinity. While the focus of any

experience would be the high school, related

resources in the neighborhood, city, and

nation would provide variety and richness to

the experience. To satisfy diverse interests, a

range of opportunities would be available

based on the interpretive themes identified

for the site.
18

Visitor Experience Goals

The following are experiences (including

knowledge, attitudes, activities, and sensory

experiences) that the NPS and its partners

want to make available for site visitors.

These goals will influence park operations

and guide the development of interpretive

and educational media and programs.

Visitors will have opportunities to do the

following:

learn about and feel the emotions of the events

surrounding the integration of Central High and

be able to relate those events to the overall civil

rights movement, to current events, and to

themselves

meet (through audiovisual and other media) the

people involved (e.g., Little Rock Nine, white

students, school administrators, soldiers, and

others), feel their emotions, and have access to

their stories

put locations and events in context by walking

or viewing the school grounds, South Park

Street, and the streets of the surrounding

neighborhood; and, if they choose, visiting

related sites

learn about the Constitution and the legal issues

involved in its interpretation and application

learn about other sites and stories associated

with civil rights

have access to related contemporary stories,

such as events at the high school and in Little

Rock today, how the students and residents feel

about past and present events, and the current

racial situation

gain an appreciation for its size, history,

ambiance, and architectural significance

better understand race relations of the past and

present, and be encouraged to think about race

relations in the future

Interpretive Themes

Interpretation is an educational activity that

is designed to provoke thought and

curiosity, convey messages, encourage

emotional connections, and help people

enjoy, appreciate, and protect park resources

and values. Interpretive planning includes

determining what are the key messages,

stories, concepts, and experiences associated

with a park site, and recommending the best

ways to communicate those messages and

stories and provide those experiences.

Interpretive themes are those key messages,

stories, and concepts that are important for

visitors to understand. They provide the

foundation for interpretive programs and

media (although they need not include

everything that is interpreted in the park).

Six primary interpretive themes were

developed for the National Historic Site.

They are described below.

The Event

The integration of Central High was a

landmark battle in the struggle for civil

rights. It forced the people of a city and a

nation to confront themselves on the issue of

discrimination, created an international

problem for the country by exposing racism

in American society, pitted federal

upholding of constitutional civil rights

against states rights of self-governance, and

provided a foundation for supporting and

forging new attitudes of racial tolerance.

Civil Rights Movement

The 1957-58 events at Central High School

constituted one of many battles in the

ongoing struggle for equal rights for all. The

integration of Central High School was the

first prominent implementation of the

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Subsequent events have demonstrated that
19

racial discrimination would not be

obliterated quickly or easily.

Use of Executive Power

President Eisenhower’s issuance of

Executive Order 10730, which provided

“Assistance for the Removal of an

Obstruction of Justice within the state of

Arkansas,” represented a national

commitment to enforce civil rights. It was

one of the few times that a president has

exercised his right to use executive power to

contravene state authority on behalf of civil

rights for African-Americans.

Equal Rights

In the Declaration of Independence, the

United States proclaimed as its founding

philosophy a commitment to certain “self

evident truths,” including the assertion that

“all men are created equal.” Almost 200

years later, and after several Constitutional

amendments that strengthened and clarified

that commitment, events at Little Rock

Central High would put it to a monumental

test.

The School

Central High is more than a building. It is a

symbol of excellence in education, an

architectural achievement, the end of a

segregated school system, and humanity at

its best and worst.

The City and the State

As the relatively progressive capital of a

southern state – with several integrated

institutions including the library, public

buses, parks, and the University of Arkansas

Graduate Center – Little Rock seemed an

unlikely site for civil unrest over the issue of

school integration. However, a series of

events in the state exposed significant white

opposition to desegregation and created an

explosive situation.

Laws, Policies, Mandates, and

Agreements

The NPS must abide by the large body of

laws and policies that apply to all national

park system units. These laws and policies

specify some of the future visitor

experiences and resource conditions at the

park sites. For example, the NPS must assist

in preserving the Central High School

because it is the key element of the purpose

for which the site was established and a

national historic landmark.

Conditions of visitor use, resource

preservation or development of the site often

are specified in enabling legislation. In this

document these conditions are called special

mandates or agreements. At this site, for

example, one mandate in the legislation is to

coordinate visitor interpretation of the site

with the school district and the Central High

School Museum, Inc.

Laws and Policies

The conditions prescribed by laws,

regulations, and policies most pertinent to

the planning and management of the site are

summarized in this section. Although

attaining some of these conditions is

sometimes deferred due to funding or

staffing limitations, the NPS strives to

implement these policies.
20

Partnerships

The site is part of the local neighborhood as well as a part of the greater social, economic, and

cultural system. Current policy requires the following:

Law or Policy Management Direction and Action

NPS Management Policies Because the site is an integral part of larger regional

environments, the National Park Service will work cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve

potential conflicts, to protect site resources, and to

address mutual interests in the quality of life for

community residents. Regional cooperation will involve

federal, state, and local agencies, neighboring

landowners, and all other concerned parties.

The Park Service will continue to establish and foster

partnerships with public and private organizations to

achieve the purposes and mission of the site.

Partnerships will be sought for resource protection,

research, education, and visitor enjoyment purposes.

Site staff will keep landowners, land managers, local

governments, and the general public informed about site

management activities. Periodic consultations will occur

with landowners and communities affected by site visitors

and management actions.

The National Park Service will work closely with local,

state, federal agencies, and partners whose programs

affect, or are affected by, activities at the site.

Impairment

In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the alternatives, Director’s Order

55, Interpreting the National Park Service Organic Act, requires the analysis of potential effects

to determine if actions would impair park resources. Under the NPS Organic Act and the General

Authorities Act, as amended, the NPS may not allow the impairment of park resources and

values, except as authorized specifically by Congress. The NPS must always seek ways to avoid

or minimize, to the greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts on park resources and values.

However, the laws do give the NPS management discretion to allow impacts to park resources

and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as long as the impact

does not constitute impairment to the affected resources and values (Management Policies 1.4.3).
21

Law or Policy Management Direction and Action

1916 Organic Act, General Authorities Act, and

NPS Management Policies

“The primary responsibility of the National Park

Service . . . is to ensure that park resources

and values will continue to exist in a condition

that will allow the American people to have

present and future opportunities for

employment of them.” Park resources and

values are broadly considered to be the

purpose for which the park was established.

The proposed actions will not impair park resources

and values. An analysis of the potential to impair,

preserve or restore park resources and values is

contained in the “Environmental Consequences”

chapter.

Cultural Resources

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved for historic properties

(e.g., buildings, structures, and cultural landscapes) at the site.

Law or Policy Management Direction and Action

National Historic Preservation Act; Executive

Order 11593; Archeological and Historic

Preservation Act; the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for

Archeology and Historic Preservation;

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement

among the National Park Service, the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

and the National Council of State Historic

Preservation Officers (1995); NPS

Management Policies

Historic properties are inventoried and their significance

and integrity are evaluated under National Register of

Historic Places criteria.

The qualities that contribute to the eligibility for listing or

listing of historic properties on the National Register of

Historic Places are protected in accordance with the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (unless it is

determined through a formal process that disturbance or

natural deterioration is unavoidable).

Collections

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved at the site to protect

and preserve site collections (museum objects and archive collections):

Law or Policy Management Direction and Action

National Historic Preservation Act;

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act;

Archeological Resources Protection Act; NPS

Standards for NPS Museum Collections

Management, NPS Museum Handbook, NPS

Records Management Guideline, National

Archives and Records Administration

Standards, NPS Cultural Resources

Management Guideline.

All museum objects and manuscripts are identified and

inventoried, and their significance is determined and

documented.

The qualities that contribute to the significance of

collections are protected in accordance with established

standards.

Natural Resources

Air quality is the only natural resource topic to be addressed in this document. Because the site is

in a highly disturbed urban area, other natural resources would be unaffected by actions proposed

in this management plan.
22

Law or Policy Management Direction and Action

1970 Clean Air Act requires federal land

managers to protect air quality

NPS Management Policies address the need

to analyze air quality during site planning.

The effects of the alternative actions on air quality will be

addressed in accordance with the Clean Air Act and NPS

Management Policies.

Visitor Experience

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in National Park

system units such as this site:

Law or Policy Management Direction and Action

Visitor Safety: NPS Management Policies Visitor and employee safety and health are protected.

Interpretation and Education: NPS Organic Act;

site’s enabling legislation; NPS Management

Policies

Visitors understand and appreciate site values and

resources and have the information necessary to adapt

to site environments; visitors have opportunities to enjoy

the sites in ways that leave resources unimpaired for

future generations.

Visitor Services: NPS Organic Act; site’s

enabling legislation; Title 36 of the Code of

Federal Regulations; NPS Management

Policies

Site recreational uses are promoted and regulated, and

basic visitor needs are met in keeping with site

purposes.

Access: Americans with Disabilities Act;

Architectural Barriers Act; Rehabilitation Act;

NPS Management Policies

To the extent feasible, facilities, programs, and services

are accessible to and usable by all people, including

those with disabilities.

NPS Management Policies; 1998 Executive

Summary to Congress, Recreational Fee

Demonstration Program, Progress Report to

Congress, Volume I – Overview and Summary

(U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau

of Land Management; U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service)

Visitors who use federal facilities and services for

outdoor recreation may be required to pay a greater

share of the cost of providing those facilities and

services than the population as a whole.

Property Ownership and Purchase

The NPS has the authority to purchase property within and outside of the site boundary under

certain circumstances.
23

Law or Policy Management Direction and Action

Section 2(e) of the enabling legislation

authorizes the purchase of :

private property through donation or appropriate

funds only with the consent of the owner and

state property only by donation or exchange.

Central High Museum, Inc., is planning to transfer

ownership of the Magnolia Mobil Service Station

(current visitor center) and its planned

commemorative garden to the National Park Service.

The cooperative agreement provides interpretive

planning participation.

Any property mentioned in the general management

plan can only be purchased with the consent of the

owner.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Policies Act (PL 91-646)

This act provides for uniform and equitable treatment

of persons displaced from their homes, businesses,

or farms by federal and federally assisted programs.

It also established uniform and equitable land

acquisition policies for federal and federally assisted

programs. The act ensures that property owners

receive fair market value based on an appraisal in

addition to most title transfer costs. Displaced owners

and tenants receive assistance in finding comparable

replacement property and compensation for moving

expenses

Enabling Legislation: The plan shall identify

lands or property, if any, that might be

necessary for the National Park Service to

acquire in order to carry out its responsibilities.

Based on the findings of the Special Resource Study

and the enabling legislation, the following were

reconfirmed by the planning team as properties that

would assist in telling the story, provide for

appropriate visitor experiences and resource

protection, and allow for adequate park administration activities: Ponder’s Drug Store, Magnolia Mobil

Service Station, and two vacant lots at the corner of

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and South Park Street.

NPS Management Policies (3.6)

“. . . acquisition outside authorized boundaries is

generally prohibited . . . .”

Only property within the boundary of the NHS can be

considered for purchase by the NPS. The property

must meet specific criteria, comply with all applicable

legislation, congressional guidelines, executive

orders, and policies prior to purchase. Purchase

must be from a willing seller.

Boundary Adjustment

NPS Management Policies (3.5)

“As part of the planning process, the NPS will

identify and evaluate boundary adjustments that

may be necessary or desirable in order to carry

out the purposes of the park unit.”

The general management plan will assess whether a

boundary adjustment is needed to protect significant

resources and values or to enhance opportunities for

public enjoyment related to park purposes. See the

“Affected Environment” for a description of the

historic streetscape.
24

Site Mandates and Agreements

The conditions prescribed by mandates outlined in the enabling legislation and existing

agreements most pertinent to the planning and management of the site are summarized in this

section.

The enabling act (Public Law 105-356 S. 2232) provides for the establishment, administration,

and operation of Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site. It provides that the

Secretary of the Interior shall administer only those lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary,

and that nothing shall affect the authority of the Little Rock School District or the City of Little

Rock to administer the school and neighborhood.

Legislated Mandates Management Direction and Action

Management

♦ The NPS shall administer only those

lands under the direct jurisdiction of the

Secretary in accordance with laws

generally applicable to units of the

national park system, and

♦ The NPS shall not affect the authority of

the Little Rock School District or the

City of Little Rock in the neighborhood

surrounding the school.

The Little Rock Central High School National Historic

Site has established a cooperative agreement with

Central High School, which addresses how the site

and the school can work together to preserve and

interpret the story without interfering with the school’s

autonomy.

Cooperative Agreements:

♦ The NPS shall “enter into cooperative

agreements with appropriate public and

private agencies, organizations, and

institutions (including but not limited to,

the State of Arkansas, the City of Little

Rock, the Little Rock School District,

Central High Museum, Inc., Central

High Neighborhood, Inc., or the

University of Arkansas) in furtherance

of the purposes of this Act,” and

♦ The NPS shall “coordinate visitor

interpretation of the historic site with the

Little Rock School District and the

Central High School Museum, Inc.”

The NPS currently has cooperative agreements with:

3⁄4 The Little Rock School District to develop

education programs and initiatives for Central High

School, conduct interpretive tours inside the school,

review plans and make recommendations on major

proposed changes to the school building and its

historic scene, and provide technical assistance for

preservation.

3⁄4 The University of Arkansas at Little Rock for

developing interpretive programs and providing

technical support for historic research, conference

planning, student interns, and teacher workshops

Partnerships:

♦ The plan for the site shall be “prepared

in consultation and coordination with

the Little Rock School District, The City

of Little Rock, Central High Museum,

Inc., and with other appropriate

organizations and agencies,” and

♦ should include specific roles and

responsibilities for the administration of

the site and its programs.

The NPS will implement the approved management

plan as directed by the legislation. Partnership roles

and responsibilities are outlined under “Partner Roles

and Responsibilities” in each alternative.
25

Legislated Mandates Management Direction and Action

Theme Study:

♦ A National Historic Landmark Theme

Study (Desegregation in Public

Education) was prepared in conjunction

with the General Management Plan.

This theme study identified local and national “sites,

districts, buildings, structures and landscapes that

best illustrate or commemorate . . . racial

desegregation in public education.” As a result of the

study the Daisy Bates House was designated a

national historic landmark.

Management Decision Points

Some management decisions must be made

even though law, policy, or regulations do

not provide clear guidance or limits. For

example, how does the NPS preserve the

high school without interfering with its

operation — by excluding visitors from the

interior, limiting the number of visitors,

limiting visitors to one floor or a small

portion of one floor? Decisions like these,

with more than one possible answer, are

based on the purpose, significance, and the

laws and policies mentioned above. The

tension created by these possible answers, or

ways to manage the site, form the basis for

the range of alternatives. Protection of

significant resources, public expectations

and concerns, resource analysis, an

evaluation of the natural, cultural, and social

impacts of alternative courses of action, and

long-term costs are other considerations.

The following management decisions are the

basis of this general management plan.

Management Decision Point 1

How does the management of the site

protect resources and provide visitor

services in a manner that enhances the

defining features and neighborhood

character of the surrounding historic

district?

Management Decision Point 2

How does the site enter into partnerships to

provide resource protection, visitor services,

and interpretive and educational

opportunities to visitors while promoting

local autonomy?

Management Decision Point 3

How does the site interpret the story of the

Little Rock Central High School to the

visiting public without interfering with the

operation of the high school?

Carrying Capacity

The General Authorities Act of 1970 (PL

91-383), as amended in 1978 (PL 95-625),

and the NPS’s Management Policies require

general management plans to address the

issue of visitor carrying capacity. Carrying

capacity is a measure used by the NPS to

ensure that visitors do not overly impact the

integrity of its resources, and that

overcrowding does not diminish the quality

of the visitor experience. The process is

accomplished in accord with the purpose of

the park and park mission goals.

Establishing carrying capacity assists in

managing visitor activities along with

protecting natural and cultural resources in a

way that is consistent with the park’s

authorizing legislation. Carrying capacity

figures are useful in helping managers to

determine the appropriate type and intensity

of facilities and activities in specific areas of

the park. They also are useful in determining

the number of people that can be

accommodated throughout the site so that

visitors can have a high-quality experience
26

without damaging the fabric of the

resources.

One factor used to determine carrying

capacity is the designed capacity of a

particular structure. The interior of the

service station was redesigned as a visitor

center in 1997. The size of the structure

(1,717 sq. ft.) allowed for a small lobby and

exhibit area that could accommodate 30

people comfortably. Since then, visitation

has steadily increased to the current 20,000

visitors per year. At this time, the number of

visitors routinely exceeds 30 people at one

time. Even though a reservation system is in

place, coach and bus tours routinely arrive

announced, as do walk-in visitors. It is not

uncommon for several tours, both scheduled

and unscheduled, to arrive at the same time.

No visitors are turned away; rather, they are

asked to wait outside until the exhibit area is

cleared. (Please see the Visitor Experience

section in the “Affected Environment”

chapter.) Comparing current visitation

figures against the designed capacity of the

exhibit area (30 people), it is clear that the

current visitor center has already exceeded

its capacity to provide a quality visitor

experience.

Visitation at the new national historic site is

projected to increase over the next 15 years

from the current 20,000 people per year to

approximately 54,000 to 68,000 per year

(see the “Socioeconomic” section of the

“Affected Environment” chapter). These

projected visitation figures were used to

determine the carrying capacity for all new

development called for in each alternative.

In other words, the square footage of

buildings, the approximate size of interior

space, and parking needs were based on the

estimated projection of 54,000 to 68,000

visitors per year. Therefore, the actions

called for under each alternative have

anticipated and adequately addressed future

carrying capacity in order to provide a highquality visitor experience while protecting

the resources.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING

PROJECTS

A number of projects planned by various

entities could help to preserve and interpret

important Civil Rights sites. These entities

and their plans are described below.

Central High Neighborhood Association:

This association is very active in several

initiatives throughout the neighborhood,

including a South Park Street preservation

effort and the establishment of a local

ordinance historic district;. Their efforts

could offer opportunities for mutually

beneficial cooperative activities.

Centennial Neighborhood Association: This

association has several preservation

proposals underway. Their efforts could

offer opportunities for mutually beneficial

cooperative agreements.

William Jefferson Clinton Presidential

Library: A private foundation and the city

are planning construction of the presidential

library. Civil Rights interpretation and

education could be considered as

cooperative opportunities between the

library and the national historic site.

Trolley Line: The city may extend its

existing trolley line into the Central High

School neighborhood. The trolley could

provide an alternative way for visitors to

reach the site.

Daisy Bates House National Historic

Landmark: As a result of the “Desegregation

in Public Education” theme study conducted

in conjunction with the general management

plan, the home of L. C. and Daisy L. Bates
27

was designated a National Historic

Landmark (NHL) on January 3, 2001. This

designation was based on the home’s

association with (1) events that have made a

significant contribution to, and are identified

with, the broad national patterns of United

States history, and (2) the lives of persons

nationally significant in the history of the

United States. The National Park Service

may provide technical assistance to national

historic landmarks if the landmark will be

available for public use. The goal of the

current owners is to rehabilitate the home

and open it to the public as a museum.

Therefore, the National Park Service is now

working with the current owners to provide

technical assistance for rehabilitation and

interpretation.

Civil Rights Institute: The NPS would

encourage and support efforts of

neighborhood associations to construct a

Civil Rights Institute. The NPS itself would

not develop the institute. The NPS could

participate as an interested partner in

advancing institute programs that were

consistent with the purpose of the site.

ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT

ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY

The following are actions that the public and

partners suggested be considered as part of

the general management plan. These actions

were eliminated from further study for a

variety of reasons.

Central High School Interior

Many suggestions were made that the NPS

establish a presence inside the high school.

Suggestions ranged from placing a visitor

center in a wing of the school to placing

exhibits or a museum in an area of the

school. While the NPS acknowledges the

significance of the interior of the high

school, the legislation clearly states that the

school shall remain autonomous. The NPS

has cooperative agreements with the school

district to provide for visitation inside the

school under certain circumstances and for

interpretation of the events of 1957. The

NPS does not have authority to use the

interior of the school or its grounds.

Central High School Exterior

Suggestions were made that the reflecting

pond formerly in front of the school be

reconstructed. The school district decided,

on the basis of factors such as economics,

maintenance, and soils, to remove the

reflecting pond. As stated above, the NPS

does not have authority to demand the use of

the school or its grounds. The reflecting

pond can be interpreted effectively without

reconstruction.

Civil Rights-Related Sites

Members of the public suggested including

other local civil rights-related sites,

particularly the Daisy Bates House NHL, as

part of the national historic site. No civil

rights-related properties were identified by

the planning team as being necessary to

meet the mission of the national historic site.

The NPS acknowledges the need to preserve

and interpret the Daisy Bates House NHL

because of its close association with the

story of civil rights and the national historic

site. At present the Daisy Bates House NHL

is being properly cared for, and the NPS is

helping the current owners prepare to open

the home as a museum.

If conditions should change at some future

date and if opportunities or needs for the

inclusion of properties outside the park

boundary should arise, a special resource

study would be required. This study would

be conducted only with the consent of the

site’s owners. The special resource study

would determine the feasibility and
28

suitability of any property for potential

inclusion as part of the national historic site.

If the property met the criteria for feasibility

and suitability, then Congressional

legislation authorizing the inclusion would

be required. To be suitable for inclusion, an

area must represent a natural or cultural

theme or a type of recreational resource that

is not already adequately represented in the

national park system or is not comparably

represented and protected for public

enjoyment by another land-managing entity.

To be feasible as a new unit or as part of an

existing unit of the national park system, an

area’s natural systems and/or historic

settings must be of sufficient size and

appropriate configuration to ensure longterm protection of the resources and to

accommodate public use, and it must have

potential for efficient administration at a

reasonable cost.

The NPS considered acquisition of

additional Civil Rights-related sites, but

because they do not appear necessary for the

NPS to carry out its responsibilities, other

sites are not included at this time.
Ponder's Drugstore

Magnolia Mobil service station

Little Rock Central High School

Commemorative Garden

Alternatives,

 Including the Preferred Alternative
30
31

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

This section of the document presents three

potential future directions for Little Rock

Central High School National Historic Site.

Alternative 1, the no-action alternative,

describes current management and trends; it

serves as a baseline against which the other

alternatives are compared. Alternative 2, the

NPS’s preferred alternative, focuses on the

high school and immediate surroundings to

interpret the events of September 1957.

Alternative 3 places the events of September

1957 in the context of the City of Little

Rock. Alternative 4 places the events of

September 1957 in a global context and its

effects on the national and international

Civil Rights movements.

PLANNING PROCESS

Before the alternatives were developed,

information on site resources, visitor use,

and visitor preferences was gathered and

analyzed. Information was solicited about

the issues and the scope of the project from

the public, government agencies, legislative

partners, and special interest groups through

newsletters, meetings, workshops and

personal contacts.

An alternatives workshop was held that

included representatives from the city, state

parks and tourism, neighborhood

associations, Central High Museum, Inc.,

and others. (See “Consultation and

Coordination” section for public

involvement.) The development of three

preliminary concepts (alternatives 2, 3, and

4) for the site’s future was the result. Each

of these concepts was intended to support

the site’s purpose and significance, address

issues and concerns, avoid unacceptable

resource impacts, respond to public wishes

and concerns, and meet the site’s long-term

mission goals. In addition, each alternative

incorporates the interpretive themes, meets

the visitor experience goals, and answers the

management decision points. These

preliminary draft concepts were distributed

to the public for review and comment in

Newsletter 2, published July 2000.

Following public review, an evaluation

process, called “Choosing by Advantages,”

was used to evaluate and compare the

alternatives and to develop the NPS’s

preferred alternative.

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS

Management prescription areas describe

what specific visitor experiences and

resource conditions would be achieved and

maintained and the facilities necessary to

achieve them. Grounded in the park’s

purpose, significance, and mission goals,

they are tools for the on-the-ground

integration of visitor use with resource

management. In formulating alternatives for

future park conditions and management,

these prescriptions were placed in different

configurations on each alternative to achieve

the concept of that alternative.

Five management prescriptions were

developed for Little Rock Central High

School National Historic Site. The high

school and its campus have been placed in

the School management prescription area.

This area allows for the continued

autonomous operation of the school. The

out-of-doors contemplative area has been

placed in the Contemplative management

prescription area in each alternative. This

area allows for a quiet experience in a serene

setting. The Historic Scene area consists of

the front façade of the high school building,

the front grounds of the high school
32

building, and the streetscape along South

Park Street. Because the Little Rock Central

High School site is a new park and this is the

first application of management prescription

areas, there are no prescriptions defined for

alternative 1 (No Action). A management

prescription area map accompanies the

description of alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The

following section describes each

management prescription area.

Visitor Services, Administration, and

Operations Area

Visitor Experience

The visitor experience in this area would be

highly social and focused on interpretation,

orientation, visitor comfort, and safety. This

structured environment would be highly

accessible, and contacts with site staff and

other visitors would be common; overcrowding would be avoided. Visitors would

have an opportunity to get an overview of

site resources in a short time with a

minimum of physical exertion. An

opportunity to understand the interpretation

of themes would be an important element.

Visitors would have an opportunity to

purchase materials related to the historic

events. Learning about the park through

media and tours, short walks, and

interpretive programs would be common

activities.

Resource Conditions

The area would be located in adaptively

used historic structures or in areas that were

previously disturbed by development. The

desired resource conditions of these

structures would include such things as

retention and preservation of historic

architectural character, preservation of as

much historic fabric as possible, and

rehabilitation. Although the environment

could be highly modified in this area,

pollutants and other disturbances (e.g.,

storm-water runoff and dust from construction) would be contained and mitigated

before affecting adjoining areas. This area

would tolerate a high degree of impacts

from visitors. Archeological resources

would be salvaged, if necessary.

Facilities

To the greatest degree practical in this area,

facilities would be models of best management practices and sustainable development.

Also, the area would serve as a staging area

for more extended tours. Orientation and

interpretation facilities such as a visitor

center, wayside exhibits, and other

interpretive media would be appropriate.

Support facilities such as restrooms and

first-aid areas, hardened circulation areas,

and parking could be present. Space could

be available for research activities. The area

could include structures and grounds used

for administration and operations. Facilities

for site utilities and communication needs

would be located in this area. Facilities

would provide a safe, efficient, comfortable,

and aesthetic work environment for park

staff.

School Area

Visitor Experience

Visitors would have access inside the school

only by park ranger-guided, scheduled group

tours. These activities would not interfere

with the function of the school. Predominant

activities would be interpretive walks and

talks and viewing of the resource from the

cultural landscape. Students and visitors

would have a high level of contact on the

grounds of the school depending on the time

of day or season of the year; contacts

between visitors and students would be

minimal inside the school building.
33

Resource Conditions

The school would continue to evolve to

meet the needs of the students. Resources to

be maintained by the school district include

school buildings, grounds (particularly in

front of the school), sports fields used as an

encampment area behind the school

buildings, and Quigley Stadium at the back

of the school property.

Facilities

No park facilities would be in this area. The

school district would continue to administer

this area.

Contemplative Area

Visitor Experience

The primary experience in this area would

involve reflection on the history and

significance of the events at the Little Rock

Central High School site. Although adjacent

to higher use areas, this out-of-doors setting

would allow a degree of solitude. Additional

monuments would not be permitted in this

zone. Encounters with park staff would be

low, and encounters with other visitors

would be moderate to low depending on the

time of day and season of the year.

Resource Conditions

Vegetation within this prescription would be

managed to provide for seclusion, safety and

access. The natural resources of the

landscape could be modified, but they would

remain compatible with their surroundings.

Facilities

Facilities could include minimal paths with

benches, shade, and a minimal number of

interpretive signs. This area would be easily

accessible.

Interpretive and Visitor Education Area

Visitor Experience

The primary experience would involve

learning about the significance of the park

and the Civil Rights movement as well as

allowing for special programs. These

experiences would take place in an easily

accessible classroom environment. There

would be a high probability of encountering

other visitors and students of all ages and

learning abilities in a structured

environment. Encounters with site staff

would be frequent.

Resource Conditions

The area would be intensively managed to

ensure protection of cultural resources and

provide for public safety. Areas would be

managed to provide the best and most

appropriate learning environment. Resources

could be modified for essential visitor

services, but they would be changed in a

way that harmonizes with the environment.

Facilities

Either new or adaptively used historic

structures would serve as a structuredlearning environment with appropriate

support facilities (restrooms and storage).

Historic Scene Area

Visitor Experience

Visitors could enter this area and view park

resources preserved to the historic period.

The environment would recreate the

atmosphere of the late 1950s in Little Rock

with as little modern intrusion as possible.

High visitor and student encounters could be

expected in this area depending on the time

of day or season of the year.
34

Resource Conditions

This area would be managed to provide the

most historically accurate environment of all

areas. Resource management techniques

would promote preservation or restoration of

cultural resources. Cultural resources would

be provided with a high degree of

preservation and protection. Natural

resources would be managed to remain

compatible with their surroundings and to

accommodate the needs of the school.

Facilities

Limited visitor amenities that would not

impact cultural resources would be provided

within these areas (such as benches and

unobtrusive wayside exhibits), and

interpretation would be of a type not to

impinge on site resources.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

Concept

This alternative describes those actions that

are ongoing and immediate and would

continue into the near future. No management prescription areas are identified. The

costs that are being or would be incurred to

complete this alternative are considered.

Current operations, with limited space, staff,

and budget, would continue at the site. No

additional property would be acquired or

leased. Visitor facilities would not be

improved. Visitor orientation and interpretation functions would remain in the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station. Archives

are currently maintained by the University

of Arkansas at Little Rock. This arrangement would continue. No onsite space

would exist for storage of additional

collections at the site. The interpretive

program, focused on events at the high

school during September 1957, would not be

expanded. Administrative space at the

visitor center would not be expanded. Under

this alternative staff would increase to six,

three of whom would be located in the

visitor center at the service station. The

remaining three staff would be located in the

Federal Building, several miles from the

site. Partnerships with the school for tours of

the exterior and some portion of the interior

would continue.

Visitor Experience, Orientation,

Interpretation, and Education

Visitors would continue to receive orientation to the site and an overview of the events

of 1957-58 at the Central High Museum and

Visitor Center located in the former Magnolia Mobil Service Station. The NPS would

operate the visitor center. Visitor services

would remain modest; those who come to

the center would view the exhibits, purchase

theme-related items, and speak with

someone about the site and interpretive

story. As part of a self-guided experience,

visitors may walk either side of the block in

front of the high school (including the high

school grounds). Visitors would contact the

school to make reservations to tour the

school. The visitor center coordinates

interior tours of the school for education

groups. Currently the NPS is entering into a

cooperative agreement with the Little Rock

School District to develop educational

experiences related to the site. Interpretation

and visitor services overall would remain at

current levels. Visitors would continue to

arrive at the site in personal cars, vans, and

tour and school buses.
W. 15th St. 

N

W. 16th St. 

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Dr.

W. 13th St. S. Rice St.

S. Park St. 

Jo

n

e

s

St.

S. Schil

el r St.

S. D

e

n

n

si o

n

St.

Little Rock Central High School

Ponder's Drug Store

Visitor Center (Magnolia Mobil Service Station)

Vacant Lot

Commemorative Garden

Quigley Stadium

Boundary of National Historic Site

Boundary of National Historic Landmark

Alternative 1: No Action

Little Rock Central High School

National Historic Site

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • 037 • 20009 • AUG 2001

3

4

5

6

1

2

5

6 1

4

2

3
36

Cultural Resources

Magnolia Mobil Service Station

The exterior of this Magnolia Mobil Service

Station has been rehabilitated to its 1957

appearance, and its interior has been

rehabilitated. Currently the building is

identified as The Central High Museum and

Visitor Center. It is owned by the City of

Little Rock and operated by Central High

Museum, Inc. Ownership of the building

will be transferred to the NPS in 2001. The

building would continue to be maintained in

its current condition. Its function as a visitor

center would continue.

Little Rock Central High School

The NPS, within the limits of the park’s

enabling legislation, would continue to work

with the Little Rock School Board to

maintain the historic character of the entire

national historic landmark property to the

extent possible. The school and its campus

and buildings are maintained by the school

district. The NPS provides limited grant

funding (Save America’s Treasure and

Challenge Cost Share grants) for

maintenance and preservation of the school

building. These arrangements would

continue.

Ponder’s Drug Store

Currently, this privately owned building (the

Capel Building) houses a small

neighborhood commercial operation and is

maintained by its private owner. This would

continue under this alternative.

Historic Streetscape

The historic streetscape consists of the front

façade and grounds of the high school and

the seven residences. The Central High

School building and grounds are currently

maintained by the Little Rock School

District with no involvement by the NPS.

Under this alternative, this arrangement

would continue.

The historic streetscape retains much of its

1957 appearance. The residences would

remain privately owned and outside the

NHS boundary. Under this alternative,

retention of the streetscapes’ appearance

would depend on the actions of the school

and property owners as well as the implementation of city zoning ordinances. Upon

request, the NPS would provide technical

assistance to homeowners for preservation

efforts.

Archival and Museum Collections

The Central High Museum, Inc., archival

and museum collections would continue to

be housed and maintained at the University

of Arkansas at Little Rock and other places

in Little Rock. A Scope of Collections

Statement would be prepared by the NPS to

guide acquisition of future site collections

that could perhaps include acquisition of the

Central High Museum, Inc., collections

located at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock.

Research

Limited historical research and assessment

of the historic streetscape has been

conducted for the site by the NPS.

Significant historical research on the events

of 1957-58 has been undertaken by

academics and journalists. No comprehensive research would be conducted under this

alternative for ethnography or history.

Northeast Corner Lot

Under this alternative, the northeast vacant

lot would remain in private ownership.
37

Boundary Adjustment

There would be no request for boundary

adjustment.

Administration and Operations

The office of the superintendent,

administrative officer, and support staff

would continue to be housed in the Federal

Building. No new space would be leased or

acquired. Currently, the park superintendent

is the only staff member on-site. His office

is located in leased space at the Federal

Building, several miles from the site.

Estimated visitation for the year 2000 is

28,000 visits. The visitor center has reached

capacity.

Staffing

This alternative calls for an increase of 5.5

staff (for a total of 6.5) required to continue

the operations currently performed by

Central High Museum, Inc., when the

ownership of both the visitor center

(Magnolia Mobil Service Station) and also

the fully developed commemorative garden

are transferred to NPS. The site has received

authority to hire these needed 5.5 staff in

order to continue existing conditions and

perform those duties required to met the

laws, policies, and mandates of a new NPS

unit. Staff duties are outlined as follows.

The administrative officer would manage

budget functions, personnel actions,

contracts, property, and agreements. A

historian would oversee the interpretive

program, staff, and visitor center; prepare

primary source documentation; and manage

compliance issues. The historian and

interpretive staff would be located in the

visitor center. They would split their time

between the visitor center information desk

and the Federal Building.

The interpretive staff’s primary focus would

be to maintain a year-round operation of the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station visitor

center by providing information and limited

on–site tours for school groups and the

general public. Maintenance functions for

the visitor center and commemorative

garden would be contracted with local

businesses.

Maintenance contracts for the visitor center

provide for interior cleaning, restroom

maintenance, and exterior painting. A

landscaping contract would maintain the

grass, shrubs, trees and watering for the

visitor center and commemorative garden.

The NPS would continue to work with

Central High and the Little Rock School

Board to manage school tours.

Functions Provided

The current visitor center contains a lobby,

exhibits, sales area, storage, office, lunch

and break area, storage, custodial and

maintenance, and restrooms. This building is

one story and is approximately 1,717 square

feet. Twelve parking spaces are available at

the visitor center, and bus parking is

available at the curb.

Costs

After the transfer of the service station from

the Central High Museum, Inc., to the NPS,

the building would continue to be operated

for site orientation and historic overview.

No expansion of visitor faculties would

occur and there would be no development

cost.

The park is currently funded for $300,000 a

year and has been approved to hire five fulltime equivalent positions in order to continue operations when ownership of the

visitor center and commemorative garden is

transferred to the NPS.
38

Total annual operation and maintenance cost

estimates for alternative 1 is approximately

$450,000. This amount provides for six fulltime equivalent and 0.5 part-time equivalent

positions, maintenance contracts, miscellaneous support costs including utilities, and

funding for cooperative agreements. Annual

salary costs for this alternative are estimated

to be $363,000 annually. Funding increases

for operations and staffing would be

requested annually as needed. Staff positions

would be filled as funding becomes

available. During the next 15 years,

operation and maintenance costs would total

about $6.7 million.

Partner Roles and Responsibilities

The Little Rock School Board, Little Rock

School District, City of Little Rock, the

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and

the Central High Museum, Inc., would

continue to be the primary partners of the

site.

Cooperative agreements with the Central

High Museum, Inc., and the Little Rock

School Board and District would provide for

assistance with the development of the

interpretive and education programs as

outlined in the enabling legislation.

Cooperative agreements are in place with

the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to

develop interpretive programs and

workshops for student interns and to provide

technical support for historic research and

conference planning.

Currently the NPS is entering into a

cooperative agreement with the Little Rock

School District to develop educational

experiences related to the focus of the site.

The City of Little Rock and the Little Rock

School Board and District would continue to

maintain the high school. Central High

Museum, Inc., would continue to maintain

the Magnolia Mobil Service Station and

develop the commemorative garden until

property ownership is transferred to the

NPS.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – THE SITE

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIV E)

The preferred alternative is the plan the NPS

is proposing to implement for the Little

Rock High School site during the next 15-20

years. As with all the alternative concepts,

the preferred alternative is intended to

interpret and preserve the historic scene and

provide a quality visitor experience.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

“Environmentally preferred” is defined as

“the alternative that will promote the

national environmental policy as expressed

in the National Environmental Policy Act’s

section 101.” Ordinarily, this means the

alternative that causes the least damage to

the biological and physical environment. It

also means the alternative that best protects,

preserves, and enhances historic and cultural

resources.

Alternative 2, the NPS’s preferred

alternative, is also the environmentally

preferred alternative. Actions in this

alternative maximize protection of cultural

resources while concurrently attaining the

widest range of neutral and beneficial uses

of the environment without degradation.

This alternative maintains an environment

that supports diversity and variety of

individual choice and achieves a balance

between human population and resources.

40

Concept

This alternative would emphasize an array

of interpretive and visitor services within the

boundaries of the site. The Central High

School and its historic scene would be the

focal point of this concept. A new facility

would be developed on the northeast corner

vacant lot to provide visitors with a full

range of orientation and interpretive services

to understand the events of 1957 and how

those events influence today’s educational

system. Park headquarters would also be

located in this building.

In addition, to provide maximum preservation and interpretation of the historic scene,

the NPS would seek congressional authority

to expand the site’s boundary to include the

seven houses located across from the front

of the school, along South Park Street.

These houses are part of the historic streetscape that served as a backdrop against

which the events of 1957 were played out.

Visitor Experience, Orientation,

Interpretation, and Education

This alternative would emphasize diverse

visitor experiences and comprehensive

interpretation of the site where the events of

1957-58 took place (the site includes both

sides of the block in front of Central High

School). Visitors would learn the full story

of the events, including the larger context

and different perspectives, through a variety

of interpretive techniques. A new visitor

center would be the primary focus of

interpretation. The outdoor appearance of

the streetscape would be maintained to

resemble that of 1957, while still continuing

to support the contemporary functions of

Central High School and the surrounding

neighborhood. The interpretive story,

defined by primary interpretive themes,

would be effectively interpreted for diverse

audiences in ways that engage attention and

emotion, provoke thought and reflection,

and relate to contemporary issues.

Most visitors would begin their park

experience at a well-defined point of arrival,

which would be the new visitor center on the

northeast corner of Daisy L. Gatson Bates

Drive and South Park Street. The new visitor

center would provide site and area orientation, interpretation of all primary park

themes, and basic visitor services such as

rest rooms. Orientation and interpretation

would be provided by personal and nonpersonal services. Personal services would

include an attended information area and

scheduled interpretive talks. Nonpersonal

services would include exhibits, audiovisual

programs in a formal theater, and publications for sale in a bookstore. These interpretive media would provide effective learning

experiences for people of different ages,

backgrounds, learning styles, and interests.

A small learning/media area would support

self-directed learning as well as group activities, through computer-based programs,

databases, oral histories, audiovisual programs, and connections with related sites

and institutions. A theater would host audiovisual programs, interpretive talks, and other

programs.

Visitors would be oriented to the resources

and opportunities of the site. Orientation

would be available on the Internet, through

telephone and mail contacts, at other sites

such as tourism centers, and on site. Visitors

would be encouraged to visit the site, and

having the events interpreted and placed in

context would enhance their visit. The

mixture of public and private ownership in

the neighborhood and the need to support

the ongoing operations of Central High

School would require effective orientation

about where visitors can go and what

opportunities are available. Visitors also

would be oriented to related sites around the

city and elsewhere.
41

Visitors would tour the site on their own or

with guided tours. Wayside (out-of-door)

exhibits and/or interpretive brochures would

help them understand the events that

occurred there. Guided tours would be

scheduled; the timing and frequency would

depend on visitation and staffing levels.

Visitors would be able to quietly

contemplate the events of 1957 in the outof-door commemorative garden. When the

high school is not in session, visitors would

take guided tours inside the school. These

would help visitors understand and

appreciate the experiences of Central High

School students during 1957-58. Ponder’s

Drug Store would be rehabilitated on the

outside and could offer visitor services such

as a soda fountain inside; some

interpretation of the events there would be

available.

Many school groups are expected to visit the

site. Theme-related and curriculum-based

education programs would be conducted

inside the Magnolia Mobil Service Station.

The interior would be rehabilitated to

support educational programming. Groups

would also use the interpretive media in the

new visitor center (especially the

learning/media area), tour the site, and tour

the high school when it is not in session.

Tours for organized school groups may be

conducted while school is in session under

terms and conditions established by the

Little Rock School District. School

programs would include pre-site and postsite information and activities. A moderate

level of teacher workshops would be

available to enhance the value and impact of

education programs and support self-guided

school programs (thus supplementing the

ability of NPS staff to provide programming). The park would seek to develop

curriculum-based education programs in

cooperation with the Little Rock School

District.

Outreach programs would be available to

education, community, service, and other

groups in the metropolitan region.

Cultural Resources

Magnolia Mobil Service Station

The rehabilitated exterior of the Magnolia

Mobil Service Station would be preserved

and maintained by the NPS. In this

alternative, the interior would function as a

classroom for education and special

programs. These programs would be

available on a scheduled basis. In this

alternative the Magnolia Mobil Service

Station is in the Interpretive and Visitor

Education management prescription area.

Little Rock Central High School

The NPS, within the limits of the park’s

enabling legislation, would continue to work

with the Little Rock School Board to

maintain the historic character of the entire

National Historic Landmark property to the

extent possible. The school building, as well

as other structures on the campus, would be

maintained by the school district. In this

alternative the school and its campus are in

the school management prescription area.

Ponder’s Drug Store

The NPS would acquire this building with

the consent of the owner. The exterior would

be rehabilitated to its 1957 appearance; the

interior would be rehabilitated to provide

space for exhibits, visitor services, and

possibly a concession. In this alternative the

drug store is in the Visitor Services,

Administration, and Operations management

prescription area.
42

Historic Streetscape

The historic streetscape consists of the front

façade and grounds of the high school and

the seven private residences along South

Park Street. The grounds at the front of

Central High School facing South Park

Street, which retain much of their 1957

appearance and ambience and would be

preserved through a cooperative agreement

between the Little Rock School District and

the NPS. Maintenance of the Central High

School grounds would likely involve

preparation of a preservation or restoration

treatment plan.

The NPS would take the lead in establishing

agreements with the owners of the seven

residences to preserve and interpret the

homes and maintain the ambience of 1957

streetscape. Under this alternative the NPS

would request adjustment of the NHS

boundary to include the seven residences.

Only property within the boundary can be

considered for purchase by the NPS. If the

houses were within the boundary of the

NHS, then the NPS would consider their

purchase from a willing seller. The intent

would be to preserve their exteriors front

faHades and yards while encouraging their

interior rehabilitation thereby preserving as

much of the interior fabric as possible. The

residences could be adaptively used as park

facilities or continued residential use.

Continued residential use would be accomplished through leasebacks or resale with

deed restrictions. In this alternative the

historic streetscape is in the Historic Scene

management prescription area. The Historic

Scene area is the largest in this alternative. It

is extended to include the houses along

South Park Street.

Archival and Museum Collections

Under this alternative, the NPS would

collect objects for exhibits and

interpretation, and NPS would seek

additional partners for care and storage.

Research

Comprehensive historical research focusing

on the events that occurred both inside and

outside of the high school in 1957-58 would

be conducted. In addition, an assessment of

the school as an ethnographic resource

should be confirmed with an ethnographer.

If the site is determined to be an

ethnographic resource as defined by the

NPS, then comprehensive ethnographic

research relating to the events that occurred

both inside and outside of the high school in

1957-58 would be conducted under this

alternative.

Northeast Corner Lot

The NPS with the consent of the owner

would acquire this vacant lot on the

northeast corner of South Park Street and

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive. A new visitor

center would be developed to accommodate

visitor orientation, interpretation, an

auditorium and theater, and park

administration. The visitor center would

provide full visitor services. Parking for cars

and tour buses would be available at this

location. The new visitor center is in the

Visitor Services, Administration, and

Operations management prescription area.

Boundary Adjustment

Under this alternative, the NPS would seek

Congressional authorization for expansion

of the site boundary to include the seven

privately owned residences located along the

east side of South Park Street across from

the front of the high school.
43

Administration and Operations

The new facility would serve as the park

administration and operations as well as a

visitor services center for the site. The

increased spaced available in the new

facility would allow for all administrative

and most interpretive staff offices to be

located onsite. Onsite management and

contact with the community, historical

resources, and Central High School would

be conducted from this office. Parking

would be available for 40 cars and five

buses.

Staffing

The necessary staffing expertise needed to

manage the site in alternative 2 would be for

interpretation and administration. Staffing

needs might include a chief of interpretation,

historian, education specialist, cultural

resource specialist, facility manager, park

rangers, and interpreters, administrative

officer, clerk, and seasonal employees.

Fourteen to 15 staff would be required. This

is an increase of seven staff as compared

with alternative 1.

Staffing would manage the visitor center, an

expanded interpretive program, the

classroom located in the Magnolia Mobil

Service Station, and the space inside

Ponder’s Drug Store. In addition, staff

would handle cooperative agreements to

assist historic preservation of cultural

resources such as the houses on South Park

Street and the Central High School front

façade and landscape. The chief of

interpretation would supervise the

interpretive program and manage visitor

center operations, and coordinate outreach

activities, publications, and community

programs. An education specialist would

coordinate and develop education activities

and programs with Central High and the

Little Rock School District. A cultural

resource specialist would coordinate

preservation initiatives with partners such as

the school, neighborhood, and city and state

offices, as well as maintenance contracts.

Two park rangers would develop special

events, community programs, exhibit design

work, and education program presentations

to multiple grades and audiences. Additional

seasonal employees would increase staff

during peak visitation periods.

Maintenance would be required at four

locations: the commemorative garden, the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station, Ponder’s

Drug Store, and the new visitor center. The

maintenance function under this alternative

would be contracted with local firms. Costs

would be higher owing to the addition of the

education center and the front façade of

Ponder’s Drug Store. Continuous on-site

maintenance is required for restrooms,

accidents, and general clean up and minor

repairs to the buildings. The uncertainty of

maintenance demands and the need for

flexibility, to meet diverse needs from

window repair to electric outlet replacement,

would require park management to assess

the need for a skilled maintenance worker.

As in alternative 1, maintenance contracts

would be determined by function: general

cleaning, landscaping, and servicing the

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

system. Specific repairs would be completed

on a project basis.

Functions Provided

The proposed new facility is viewed as a

small, two-story building of approximately

11,000-12,000 square feet. The increased

size of this new facility would allow space

for a lobby, exhibits, sales/office and

storage, theater, offices, work space, lunch

and break area, storage, custodial and

maintenance, restrooms, circulation, and a

meeting room. It is estimated that parking
44

for 40 cars and five buses would be

available next to the building.

This alternative also calls for rehabilitating

the interiors of the Magnolia Mobil Service

Station and Ponder’s Drug Store. As stated

in alternative 1, the service station is

approximately 1,717 square feet. This space

would be rehabilitated for classroom use.

The drug store is approximately 1,815

square feet. The interior would be rehabilitated and used for exhibit space, visitor

services, and possibly concessions.

Costs

The total estimated development cost for

alternative 2 is $4.3 to 5.7 million. This

includes the construction of a new visitor

center/park administration and operation

facility with associated utilities, parking, and

landscaping; the rehabilitation of the interior

of the service station; the rehabilitation to

1957 of the exterior of the drug store, the

rehabilitation of the interior of the drug

store; and development of an interpretive

film and wayside exhibits.

Total operation and maintenance cost

estimates are $848,000 annually. This

amount provides for salaries, maintenance

contracts, miscellaneous support costs

including utilities, and funding for cooperative agreements. Salary costs for this

alternative are estimated at $690,000

annually. During the course of the next 15

years, this cost would result in the

expenditure of roughly $12.7 million in

federal funds for facility operation and

maintenance, including salaries, supplies

and other payments.

Partner Roles and Responsibilities

The exterior front façade and grounds of

Central High School would continue to be

preserved by the Little Rock School District.

The NPS would provide technical assistance

for interpretation and resource preservation.

The NPS would seek and employ federal

and other grants and limited park funding

sources to support the preservation and

interpretation of Central High School.

As outlined in the legislation, the NPS

would enter into partnerships with the Little

Rock School Board and District for the

development of education and interpretive

programs. Cooperative agreements for

education and interpretation would also be

developed with the Central High Museum,

Inc., and the University of Arkansas at Little

Rock. In addition to interpretative programs

on the events that took place at Central High

School in 1957-58, educational programs for

the preservation of historic properties would

be developed.

Partnerships would be established with the

Central High Neighborhood Association to

assist with development of neighborhood

preservation initiatives and establish

working relationships with neighbors.

The NPS would take the lead in establishing

partnerships for the preservation and

interpretation of intangible cultural

resources (such as oral histories and

personal experiences) with organizations

such as the Little Rock Nine Foundation and

the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

The NPS would follow the direction

provided by the theme study to establish

linkages between other identified sites and

the Central High School site.

The NPS would take the lead in establishing

agreements with the owners of the seven

residences that face the high school and with

the city and state preservation offices to

preserve the exterior façades to maintain the

ambience of the 1957 South Park Street
45

historic scene. The NPS could provide some

financial and technical assistance to preserve

the façades.

ALTERNATIVE 3 – THE CITY

Concept

This alternative provides an overview of the

1957 events at the high school and the

relationship of these events to other Civil

Rights sites located in and around the City

of Little Rock. Visitors would have the

opportunity to learn about the events that

took place not only at the high school but

also at related sites throughout the City of

Little Rock. A city shuttle system would

connect the sites. This alternative calls for

development of a small shuttle staging area

on the northeast corner lot. Visitor Services,

orientation, interpretation, and park

administration and operations would be

located in nearby leased space. (Please see

the map and description in the Related Sites

in Little Rock in the “Affected Environment” chapter of this document.)

Visitor Experience, Orientation,

Interpretation, and Education

This alternative would emphasize visitor

access to related sites around the city and

interpretation of the sites’ role in the events

of 1957-58. Sites could include the

Governor’s Mansion, Dunbar Junior High

School, Daisy Bates House National

Historic Landmark, Terry Mansion, the

Arkansas State Capitol, and other sites. Most

people would begin their visit at an

orientation center, which would be located

near Central High School, in leased space.

The current on-site visitor center would

remain as at present, concentrating on the

story of the 1957-58 events at Central High

School. The overall interpretive story,

emphasizing a citywide perspective, would

be interpreted in the nearby orientation

center with interpretive media and personal

services, and at the various sites through a

variety of means. The orientation center

would also provide site and area orientation,

and basic visitor services such as rest rooms.

A multipurpose room would be used as a

theater as well as for a variety of other

programs and activities.

The NPS would strive to maintain the

outdoor appearance of the historic streetscape to resemble that of 1957, while still

continuing to support the contemporary

functions of Central High School and the

surrounding neighborhood. The NPS would

work with the city, Central High School, and

neighbors (especially homeowners along the

block in front of the school) and neighborhood groups to maintain the area’s overall

historic appearance and support the contemporary functions of the area.

Visitors would be oriented to the resources

and opportunities of the site and the other

sites in the city. Orientation would emphasize how these other sites relate to the

overall historic site story, and what opportunities there are for visiting the sites. Visitors could take a shuttle to and from the site

to Civil Rights-related sites located in the

city. Several of these other sites are open to

the public and offer tours. Interpretation

could be provided on the shuttle. Orientation

would be available on the Internet, through

telephone and mail contacts, at other sites

such as tourism centers, and at the orientation and visitor centers. The mixture of

public and private ownership in the various

neighborhoods and the need to support the

ongoing operations of Central High School

would require effective orientation about

where visitors can go and what opportunities

are available.

47

 Visitors would tour the historic site on their

own or with guided tours. Wayside exhibits

or interpretive brochures would help them

understand the events that occurred there.

Guided tours would be offered on a

scheduled basis; the timing and frequency

would depend on visitation and staffing

levels. Visitors would be able to quietly

contemplate the events of 1957 in the

outdoor commemorative garden. When the

high school is not in session, visitors could

take guided tours inside the school. These

would help visitors understand and

appreciate the experiences of Central High

School students during 1957-58. Ponder’s

Drug Store would be rehabilitated and used

for education programs with school groups.

Many school groups are expected to visit the

site and other sites in the city. Theme-related

and curriculum-based education programs

would be conducted at Ponder’s Drug Store.

Groups would also visit the orientation

center and on-site visitor center, where the

exhibits and other interpretive media could

be incorporated into their programs. Groups

would also tour the site and tour the high

school when it is not in session. School

programs would include pre-site and postsite information and activities. A minimal

level of teacher workshops would enhance

the value and impact of education programs

and support self-guided school programs

(thus supplementing the ability of NPS staff

to provide programs).

Outreach programs would be available to

education, community, service, and other

groups in the metropolitan region.

Cultural Resources

The roles and responsibilities for

implementing these actions are described

under Partner Roles and Responsibilities.

Magnolia Mobil Service Station

As in alternative 2, the exterior of the

service station would be preserved and

maintained as it exists today. However, in

this alternative the interior of the building

would be used for interpretation and visitor

contact services. The service station is

located in the visitor services, administration, and operations management prescription area.

Little Rock Central High School

The NPS, within the limits of the park’s

enabling legislation, would continue to work

with the Little Rock School Board to

maintain the historic character of the entire

National Historic Landmark property to the

extent possible. The school building, as well

as other structures on the campus, would be

maintained by the school district. In this

alternative the school and its campus are in

the school management prescription area.

Ponder’s Drug Store

As described in alternative 2, the building

would be acquired with the consent of the

owner and the exterior rehabilitated to its

1957 appearance, and interior rehabilitation

would be encouraged to provide space for

education and special programs. In this

alternative the drug store is located in the

interpretive education management

prescription area.

Historic Streetscape

The front landscape of the school would be

maintained by the school district and the

NPS (as in alternative 2). As in alternative 1,

the streetscape appearance (relating to the

seven privately owned residences along the

East Side of South Park Street) would

depend on the actions of the owners and city

zoning.
48

The NPS would seek, in cooperation with

the city and neighborhood association,

preservation efforts to preserve and interpret

the front faHades and yards of the homes to

their 1957 appearance.

Archival and Museum Collections

Under this alternative, the NPS would

undertake minimal collection of objects for

exhibits. The NPS would assist partners in

developing finding aids for archival

collections and facilitating access to archival

resources.

Research

Historical research would focus on the

historic context (city, region, and nation) of

the 1957-58 events at Central High School.

In addition, an assessment of the school as

an ethnographic resource should be confirmed with an ethnographer. If the site is

determined to be an ethnographic resource

as defined by the NPS, comprehensive

ethnographic research relating to the historic

context of the 1957-58 events would be

conducted under this alternative.

Northeast Corner Lot

Under this alternative, a facility to support

the city’s shuttle system and serve as a

parking area for the commemorative garden

would be developed on this vacant lot. In

this alternative the shuttle facility would be

located in the visitor services, administration, and operations management prescription area.

Boundary Adjustment

Under this alternative there would be no

request for a boundary adjustment.

Administration and Operations

Staffing

The necessary staffing expertise needed to

manage the site in alternative 3 would be for

interpretation and administration. Staffing

needs might include a chief of interpretation,

historian, education specialist, community

planner, facility manager, park rangers, park

guides, an administrative officer, a clerk,

and seasonal employees. Seventeen to 18

staff would be required. This number is 10

to 12 staff more than is required by

alternative 1.

The addition of a community planner would

be required to coordinate activities between

sites, serve as site public information officer,

develop community program initiatives, and

to represent the site at local meeting and

workshops. The facilities manager would

provide technical assistance to national

historic landmarks and national register

properties, manage maintenance contracts,

and coordinate restoration and repair of

historic resources.

Maintenance requirements would involve

five locations: Central High School front

façade, Central High School front grounds,

new orientation center, service station, and

drug store front façade. Technical assistance

for interpretation and preservation would be

offered to support the about ten related civil

rights sites. Cooperative agreements would

be established with the related sites for

interpretation.

Functions Provided

Park administration, visitor services, and

interpretation would be located in nearby

leased space. Staff requirements would

include operating the orientation center,

developing and presenting education
49

programs, overseeing the shuttle operation,

and supporting programs at related sites.

Staffing duties for this alternative would

require coordinating interpretive operations

and program development with about ten

related sites located from one-half mile to

two miles distance from the site. Cooperative agreements and a joint comprehensive

interpretive plan would be needed to coordinate and integrate programming for local

events, joint conferences, tours, and general

seasonal programming if funding, staffing,

or program priorities would permit. Additional funding would be required for cooperative agreements to develop joint programs and to support the shuttle system

connecting the various sites.

The extent of the education programs would

be similar to those described in alternative 2.

The service station, used for orientation in

this alternative, would be staffed and the site

would present traditional programs such as

walks and talks and special events. Staff

would be available at the drug store, used as

classroom space in this alternative, on a

scheduled basis. Program staff would also

be available at cooperating related sites.

The space requirement in a nearby leased

building is estimated to be 9,000-10,000

square feet. The leased area would contain

space for a lobby, exhibits, sales/office and

storage, theater and multipurpose room,

offices, work space, lunch and break area,

storage, custodial and maintenance needs,

restrooms, circulation, and a meeting room.

There would be parking for 40 cars and five

recreational vehicles or buses at the leased

space, and 12 spaces for parking at the

service station, plus a small shuttle staging

area on the northeast corner lot.

Costs

The total estimated development cost of

alternative 3 is $1.1 to 1.5 million. This

includes construction of a small shuttle

staging area with associated parking and

landscaping, the rehabilitation of the interior

of the service station, the rehabilitation to

1957 of the exterior of the drug store, the

rehabilitation of the interior of the drug

store, and development of an interpretive

film and wayside exhibits.

Total estimated operation and maintenance

costs would be $1.3 million annually. Staffing cost would be about $888,000 per year.

During the course of the next 15 years, operation and maintenance costs would result

in the expenditure of roughly $19 million in

funds for facility operations and maintenance, including salaries, leasing nearby

space, supplies, and other payments.

Partner Roles and Responsibilities

As in alternative 2, the Little Rock School

Board and District and the City of Little

Rock would be the NPS’s cooperating partners for the preservation of the high school

front façade and front grounds. The NPS

would provide some financial and technical

assistance for this effort as outlined in

alternative 2.

As outlined in the legislation, cooperative

agreements with the Little Rock School

Board and District and the Central High

Museum, Inc., would be developed for

interpretive and education programs. Agreements would continue with the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock to develop interpretive programs and workshops for student

interns and to provide technical support. Intangible cultural resources (such as oral

histories and personal experiences) would be

preserved through cooperating partnership

with organizations such as the Little Rock
50

Nine Foundation and the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock.

The NPS would take the lead in establishing

cooperative agreements and establish the

linkages between Civil Rights-related sites

as outlined in the theme study. The agreements would be for interpretation and

preservation technical assistance.

Partnerships would be established with the

Central High Neighborhood Association and

other neighborhood associations to assist

with development of neighborhood preservation initiatives and establish working

relationships with neighbors.

The NPS would take the lead in creating

cooperative agreements with the City of

Little Rock and the Little Rock Convention

and Visitors Bureau for the city shuttle and

marketing of Civil Rights-related tours

throughout the city.

ALTERNATIVE 4 – THE LEGACY

Concept

This alternative includes elements of traditional on-site visitation combined with emphasis on scholarly study of the events at

Central High School, the Civil Rights movement in the United States, and their effect on

the national and international Civil Rights

movement. To achieve this concept an

education/park administration and operations facility would be developed on the

northeast corner vacant lot. Partnerships

would be created with Civil Rights-related

national and international academic institutions, organizations, foundations and other

appropriate entities for Civil Rights-related

conferences, symposiums, publications, and

other appropriate activities and events. This

alternative provides a wide range of educational tools for students and visitors. The

NPS would strive to serve the national and

international audiences of the site by

creating an exciting, provocative experience

for students all over the world.

Visitor Experience, Orientation,

Interpretation, and Education

This alternative would emphasize scholarly

research, education, and outreach with educational groups and scholars throughout the

world. A new education center would be

built at the corner of Daisy L. Gatson Bates

Drive and South Park Street. Interpretation

for the public would be provided in the current visitor center through existing exhibits

and personal services. Organized groups and

the public would visit the site where the

dramatic events of 1957-58 took place (the

site includes both sides of the block in front

of Central High School — the historic

streetscape).

Students would delve into the full story of

the events, including the larger context and

different perspectives, through a variety of

educational techniques. Theme-related and

curriculum-based education programs would

be conducted in the new education center.

Educational experiences would be supported

by a variety of educational media including

interactive learning centers, video- and webbased teleconferencing with other groups

and sites, databases, oral histories, and audiovisual programs. Personal services and

educational activities would include drama,

lectures, discussions, and group projects. A

major learning and media area would be

available for students to conduct research

and other self-directed learning activities.

Groups would also tour the site and tour the

high school when it is not in session. School

programs would include pre-site and postsite information and activities. Teacher

workshops would be emphasized to enhance

the value and impact of education programs

and support self-guided school programs

(thus supplementing the ability of

52

NPS staff to provide programming).

Vigorous partnerships would extend

educational services.

Outreach programs would be emphasized

and supported by additional interpretive

staff and educational media. Programs

would be actively marketed to education,

community, service, national, international,

and other groups.

Most public visitors would begin their site

experience at the current visitor center

(former Magnolia Mobil Service Station).

Using interpretive media and fixtures

currently in place, the visitor center would

provide site and area orientation, overview

interpretation of the events of 1957-58, and

basic visitor services such as rest rooms.

Some rehabilitation of the exhibits and other

fixtures could be provided, particularly for

site orientation. Orientation would be

available on the Internet, through telephone

and mail contacts, at other information

sources such as tourism centers, and on site.

The mixture of public and private ownership

in the neighborhood and the need to support

the ongoing operations of Central High

School would require effective orientation

about where visitors could go and what

opportunities are available.

Visitors would tour the site on their own or

with limited guided tours. Wayside exhibits

or interpretive brochures would help visitors

understand the events that occurred there.

The outdoor appearance of the historic

streetscape would be maintained to resemble

that of 1957. The NPS would work with the

city, Central High School, and with

neighbors (especially the seven homeowners

along the block in front of the school) and

neighborhood groups to maintain the overall

historic appearance and support the

contemporary functions of the area.

Visitors would be able to quietly

contemplate the events of 1957 in the outof-doors commemorative garden. When the

high school is not in session visitors could

take guided tours inside the school. These

would help visitors understand and

appreciate the experiences of Central High

School students during 1957-58. Ponder’s

Drug Store would be interpreted.

Cultural Resources

Magnolia Mobil Service Station

The rehabilitated 1957 exterior of this

structure would be maintained in its current

condition as described in alternative 2.

However, in this alternative the interior of

the building would function as an orientation

and visitor contact station. In this alternative

the Magnolia Mobil Service Station is

located in the visitor services,

administration, and operations management

prescription area.

Little Rock Central High School

The NPS, within the limits of the park’s

enabling legislation, would continue to work

with the Little Rock School Board to

maintain the historic character of the entire

national historic landmark property to the

extent possible. The school would be

maintained by the Little Rock School

District, and the NPS would provide

technical assistance for its preservation. As

in alternative 2, the school and its campus

are located in the school management

prescription area.

Ponder’s Drug Store

The NPS would purchase a façade easement

on the privately owned building. As in

alternative 2, the exterior of the structure

would be rehabilitated to its 1957

appearance, but in this alternative the
53

interior use would remain private. In this

alternative the drug store becomes part of

the historic scene management prescription

area.

Historic Streetscape

As described in alternative 2, the high

school and grounds would be maintained to

their 1957 appearance by the school district

and the NPS. The NPS would provide only

technical assistance for grounds preservation. As in alternative 3, NPS would seek, in

cooperation with the city and neighborhood

associations, preservation efforts to preserve

and interpret the front faHades and yards of

the homes to their 1957 appearance. Preservation of the front faHades and yards of the

seven privately owned homes would depend

on the actions of the owners.

Archival and Museum Collections

The NPS would actively collect primary and

secondary historical materials. The archival

collections would be housed and maintained

at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Research

Historical research would focus on the

national and international implications of the

1957-58 events at Central High School. In

addition, an assessment of the school as an

ethnographic resource should be confirmed

with an ethnographer. If the site is

determined to be an ethnographic resource

as defined by the NPS, comprehensive

ethnographic research relating to the

national and international implications of the

1957-58 events would be conducted under

this alternative.

Northeast Corner Lot

In this alternative the northeast corner

vacant lot would be acquired with the

consent of the owner. An education center/

park administration and operations facility

would be developed at this location. The

facility would be located in the Interpretive

and Visitor Education management

prescription area.

Boundary Adjustment

Under this alternative there would be no

request for a boundary adjustment

Administration and Operations

Administration and park operations would

be located in the new facility on the northeast corner of Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive

and South Park Street. Parking for 40 cars

and 6 recreational vehicles or buses would

be available at this location.

Maintenance requirements would involve

four locations: commemorative garden, the

education center, service station, and front

façade of the drug store. Varying degrees of

technical assistance on preservation and

maintenance methods would be provided to

the school and Ponder’s Drug Store.

Continuous on-site maintenance is required

for restrooms, accidents, general clean-up,

and minor repairs to the buildings. The

uncertainty of maintenance demands and the

need for flexibility, to meet multiple needs

from window repair to electric-outlet

replacement, would require park

management to assess the need for a skilled

maintenance worker. As in alternative 1,

maintenance contracts would be determined

by function: general cleaning, landscaping,

and servicing the heating, ventilation, and

air conditioning system. Specific repairs

would be completed on a project basis.
54

Staffing

The necessary staffing expertise needed to

manage the site in alternative 4 would be for

interpretation and administration. Staffing

needs might include an Internet specialist,

historian, education director, web master,

facility manager, park rangers (interpretation

and education), park guides, administrative

officer, clerks, and seasonal employees. Two

technology positions would be required—

one position skilled in maintaining

technology “hardware” and another position

skilled in developing technology

“software”—to assure operational

efficiencies and coordination and interface

with varying degrees of global technologies.

An extensive web site would be developed

to support curriculum-based programs,

classroom exercises and to provide

communication with schools and

universities for research and program

development. A director of education would

coordinate and plan the overall education

program that would serve regional schools

extending into neighboring states and

provide classroom experiences from grades

four through twelve. The site would offer

multiple workshops (classes) for schools to

select from and present three workshops

each day from October through June. Five

park rangers would be required to present

classroom programs. An additional clerk

would manage the scheduling system.

Eighteen to 19 staff would be required. This

number is 12 to 13 more staff than are called

for in alternative 1.

Functions Provided

The proposed new education center and

administration and park operations facility is

viewed as a two-story building of

approximately 13,000-14,000 square feet.

The building would contain space for a

lobby, exhibits (learning media center),

sales/office and storage, theater/

multipurpose, four classrooms, offices, work

space, lunch/break area, storage, custodial/

mechanical, restrooms, circulation, and a

meeting room. It is estimated that parking

for 30 cars and six buses would be available

next to the building.

As in alternative 2, the exterior of the

service station would be maintained in its

current rehabilitated condition. The interior

(1,717 sq ft), however, would be

rehabilitated for visitor orientation. The

exterior (1,815 sq ft) only of the drug store

would be rehabilitated to its 1957

appearance through a fee easement. The

interior would remain in private ownership.

Costs

The total estimated development cost of

alternative 4 is approximately $4.2 to $4.7

million. This amount includes development

of an education center/park administration

and operations facility, associated parking

and landscaping, fee easement for the drug

store, rehabilitation of the exterior of the

drug store, rehabilitation of the interior of

the service station, development of an

interpretive film, and funding for

cooperative agreements.

Operating and maintenance costs are

estimated at $1.3 million annually. This

amount provides for salaries, maintenance

contracts, miscellaneous support costs

including utilities, and funding for

cooperative agreements. Staffing costs

would be about $1.1 million annually.

During the course of the next 15 years, this

alternative would result in the expenditure of

roughly $20.1 million in federal funds for

facility operations and maintenance,

including salaries, supplies and other

payments.
55

Partner Roles and Responsibilities

In this alternative the Central High Museum,

Inc., the Little Rock School District, Central

High School, the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock, the City of Little Rock and

numerous national and international

academic and cultural organizations with

ties to Civil Rights would be cooperating

partners for education and interpretation.

See appendix F for descriptions and a map

of potential related national Civil Rights

sites.

As in alternative 2, the Little Rock School

Board and District and the City of Little

Rock would be the cooperating partners for

the preservation of the high school front

façade and front grounds. The NPS would

provide technical assistance for

interpretation and preservation.

As outlined in the legislation, cooperative

agreements with the Little Rock School

Board and District, and the Central High

Museum, Inc., would continue for

development of interpretive and education

programs. Agreements would continue with

the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to

develop interpretive programs and

workshops for student interns and to provide

technical support.

Partnerships would be established with the

Central High Neighborhood Association to

assist with development of neighborhood

preservation initiatives and establish

working relationships with neighbors. The

NPS would take the lead in developing

cooperative agreements with the owners of

the residences along South Park Street for

preservation of those residences as part of

the historic scene.

Intangible cultural resources (such as oral

histories) and personal experiences would be

preserved through cooperating partnership

with organizations such as the Little Rock

Nine Foundation and the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock.

The NPS would follow the direction

provided by the Desegregation in Public

Education Theme Study for establishing

linkages between identified Civil Rightsrelated sites and the national historic site,

and with other existing units of the national

park system to maximize opportunities for

public education and scholarly research on

desegregation in public education.

Partnerships would be created with related

national and international academic

institutions, organizations, foundations and

other appropriate entities for Civil Rightsrelated conferences, symposiums,

publications, and other appropriate activities

and events. Partnerships would be created

for satellite broadcasting.

ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE

ALTERNATIVES

General management plans provide a

framework for proactive decision-making,

including decisions on visitor use, natural

and cultural resource management, and site

development. The management plan

prescribes resource conditions and visitor

experiences that are to be achieved and

maintained over time. Site development is

considered in general rather than specifics.

For the purposes of cost estimating, general

assumptions are made regarding amounts

and sizes of development. These

assumptions are then carried across to all

alternatives so that comparable costs can be

considered for each alternative. Initial

development costs are costs associated with

construction and rehabilitation.

Costs in this document are not intended to

replace more detailed consideration of

needs, sizes, and amount of future
56

development. They should not be used as a

basis for funding requests; further analysis

must be completed first.

Preliminary development costs range from

$1.1 to $1.5 million for alternative 3 to $4.3

to 5.7 million for alternative 2. Increased

visitor services and protection of the

resources align closely with the costs.

Annual operation and maintenance costs

range from $450,000 for alternative 1 (No

Action) to $1.3 million for alternative 4.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose new

interpretive exhibits and film. Development

costs could be reduced in this area. (Please

refer to the notes at the bottom of Table 2.)

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative,

calls for some limited growth that would be

expected for any new site.

Alternative 2, the preferred alternative,

proposes the construction of a new visitor

center/park administration and operations

facility on the northeast corner vacant lot.

This facility would provide space for

orientation, exhibits, a theater with

audiovisual programs, restrooms, a sales

area, and park offices. In addition, the

proposed changes to the archives would

expand the audience that could be reached

via electronic media. Administrative

functions would be efficient and separate

from the visitor areas.

Alternative 3 proposes leasing nearby space

offsite for orientation, interpretation, and

administrative offices while accommodating

bus and shuttle activities. Visitor services

would be increased to a broader audience —

those people who would be visiting the City

of Little Rock and would like an allinclusive tour of Civil Rights-related sites.

Alternative 4 proposes building an education

center/park administration and operations

facility on the northeast corner vacant lot.

This structure would provide for the same

type of administrative, storage, orientation,

learning media center, sales area, and

restrooms called for in alternative 2;

however, the visitor experience would be

expanded to include a structured, classroom

environment. Thus, implementation of

alternative 4 would increase classroom

space and provide space for Internet access

and other state-of-the-art technology-based

learning aids.

Comparative development costs of the four

alternatives are summarized in Table 2.

Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for

each alternative are presented in Table 3.

MITIGATING MEASURES

Before performing any alternative actions

the NPS would prepare studies as prescribed

in the NPS Management Policies and

Cultural Resource Management Guideline

(DO-28). The NPS would consult with the

state historic preservation officer for the

State of Arkansas in compliance with the

1995 Programmatic Agreement among the

NPS, the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, and the National Conference

of State Historic Preservation Officers.

For archeological resources, mitigation

includes avoidance of sites through project

design, or recovery of information that

makes sites eligible for inclusion in the

National Register of Historic Places. The

NPS would consult with various city

agencies and neighborhood associations and

organizations in Little Rock to develop

appropriate strategies to mitigate impacts on

ethnographic resources. Mitigation measures

related to museum collections consist of

preventive conservation of a collection

through proper storage, handling, and

exhibit of objects.
57

A site-specific transportation plan would be

developed prior to implementation of major

actions to address pedestrian safety

concerns, parking, and other site-access

issues.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER

RESEARCH AND PLANNING

Priorities for research would be based on the

site’s primary purpose—to preserve the high

school and interpret its role in the

integration of public school and the Civil

Rights movement. The purpose of these

plans would be to gain information and

provide guidance. To prevent long-term

adverse impacts on the site and its resources,

the following site-specific studies must be

undertaken and site-specific plans

developed. Such studies and plans would be

required under all alternatives:

1. historic structure report to provide

guidance and support for treatment of

the cultural resources,

2. historic resource study to provide a

historical overview and to identify and

evaluate cultural resources within the

historic context,

3. cultural landscape report to guide

treatment and use of cultural resource

features and of the landscape,

4. site administrative history to document

how the site was establish and managed

to the present day,

5. scope of collections statement to guide

acquisition and preservation of museum

objects that directly contribute to

interpretation, and a

6. collections management report to

identify what collection items are still

required and to request staffing and

funding for continued collections.

7. a site-specific transportation plan

addressing pedestrian safety concerns

and access to and from the site.

Standardized direction for preservation

maintenance of historic structures would be

provided by work procedures contained in

the Historic Preservation Database. The

following plans are to be completed to help

implement the recommendations of this

general management plan:

1. collection management plan to guide

preservation of archival collections and

museum objects

2. collection storage plan to guide

collection storage at the site

3. long-range interpretive plan and a visitor

experience implementation plan that a)

describes specific visitor experience

goals, interpretive themes, and relevant

issues and background information, and

b) recommends specific action

(including interpretive media and

programs) for achieving the goals and

interpreting the themes; this plan would

incorporate the actions called for in the

“Desegregation in Public Education”

theme study.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT

ANALYZED FURTHER

No additional alternatives were considered.
58

Table 1: Proposed Actions for each Alternative

Common to All Alternatives:• Central High School: Partnership between school district and NPS to maintain the front façade and grounds; school district continues to own and op• Commemorative garden: Developed by Museum Board; ownership transferred to NPS, then maintained by the NPS.• Magnolia Mobil Service Station: Developed by Museum Board; ownership transferred to the NPS, then maintained by the NPS.• Exterior of Magnolia Mobil Service Station: Remains as it is today (rehabilitated to 1957 appearance).

ALTERNATIVE 1

– NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

– THE SITE

ALTERNATIVE 3

– THE CITY

InterpretiveFocus

The 1957 events at the high school. The events of 1957 at the site and

how those events influence theeducational system of today.

An in-depth look at the Civil Rightsissue in relation to state and federallegislation. Visitors would have theopportunity to visit the site and relatedsites within the City of Little Rock.

A scholamovemennational a

ParkAdministration

Magnolia Mobil Service Station andFederal Building.

Newly constructed facility. Leased space in nearby building. Newly co

Interpretive/Visitor Education

Remains at current level. School-based curriculum programs

and Central High School educationprograms; media presentations.

Expand education programs to includethe development of school district-wideprograms fro m elementary throughsenior high. Interpret Civil Rightsrelated sites.

Presentatlinks to afor telecopresentat

Tours Self-guided tours of the site. Tours

inside of high school (for groupsonly) made through the school.

Guided and self-guided tours of site.Tours inside of the high schoolthrough NPS and school.

Same as alternative 2 plus shuttle toursof Civil Rights-related sites.

Same as a

Ethnography/History

Focused on 1957 events. Same as alternative 1 but expanded

and comprehensive.

Focused on historic context (city,region, and nation) of 1957 events.

Focused implicatio

MuseumCollection andArchives

Archives housed and maintained atUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rockand other city locations.

Same as alternative 1 plusNPS collects objects for exhibit andinterpretation.

Same as alternative 1 plusNPS minimal collection of exhibitobjects, assist in developing findingaids and facilitate access to archivalresources.

Same as aNPS activhistorical 

58
59

ALTERNATIVE 1

– NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

– THE SITE

ALTERNATIVE 3

– THE CITY

ResourceCondition andFunction

High school exterior front façade:maintained as today by schooldistrict.High school front grounds:maintained as today by schooldistrict.Magnolia Mobil Service Station:Exterior maintained as today; interioras today. Functions as visitor center.

Drug Store: Remains in privateownership.Historic Streetscape: Sevenresidences remain in privateownership. NPS would providetechnical assistance upon request.

High school exterior front façade;maintained as today by school districtand NPS. NPS provides somefinancial and technical assistance.High school front grounds:maintained as today by school districtand NPS. NPS provides somefinancial and technical assistance.Magnolia Mobil Service Station:Interior rehabilitated for classroomspace.Drug Store: Acquire, exteriorrehabilitated to 1957, interiorrehabilitated for exhibits, visitorservices/ concession.Historic Streetscape: Requestboundary expansion to include sevenhouses; establish agreements withhomeowners to preserve and interpretto their 1957 appearance.

Same as alternative 2.Same as alternative 2.Magnolia Mobil Service Station:Interior rehabilitated for interpretationand visitor contact.Drug Store: Acquire; exterior same asalternative 2; interior rehabilitated foreducation and special programs.Historic Streetscape: Cooperate withcity and neighborhood associations topreserve and interpretRelated Sites in Little Rock: preserveand interpret through partnerships

High schmaintaineand NPSassistancHigh schas today bNPS provMagnolia Interior rcenter.Drug Sto1957 throremains iHistoric Salternativ

Development • No new construction. • Construct new visitor center/park

administration and operationsfacility with auditorium/theater

• Magnolia Mobil Service Station:

Rehabilitate interior

• Drug Store: Rehabilitate exterior to

1957, rehabilitate interior

• Leased space in nearby building.

• Magnolia Mobil Service Station:

Same as alternative 2

• Drug store: Same as alternative 2.

• Small Shuttle staging area.

• Constr

adminifacility

• Magno

Same a

• Drug s

1957.

Current andPotentialPartners

• Central High School• Little Rock School District• Central High Museum, Inc.• University of Arkansas at Little 

Rock

• Daisy Bates House NHL

Same as alternative 1 plus• City of Little Rock

• Little Rock Nine Foundation

• Cooperating Associations

• Owners of 7 residences along South

Park Street

• Neighborhood Associations

Same as alternative 1 plus• City of Little Rock

• Little Rock Convention and 

Visitors Bureau

• Little Rock Nine Foundation

• Neighborhood Associations

• Managers and owners of Civil

Rights-related sites in the city

Same as a• AETN 

• Neighb

• Owner

• Nation

Rightslibrariedistrict

• Confer

publica

59
60

Table 2: Comparison of Estimated Alternative Development Costs

DEVELOPMENT ITEM ALT. 2 – THE SITE ALT. 3 – THE CITY ALT. 4 – TH

Visitor Center/park administration and operationsfacility 11,000 – 12,000 sq ft (includes utilities,parking and landscaping)

3,100,000 - 3,400,000 0 - 0 0 - 0

Shuttle Staging Area* (includes utilities andlandscaping)

0 – 0 200,000 - 250,000 0 - 0

Education center/park administration and operationsfacility 13,000-14,000 sq ft (includes utilities, parking,and landscaping)

0 – 0 0 - 0 3,000,000 - 

Interpretive Exhibits** (including interpretive filmand wayside exhibits***

1,000,000 - 2,000,000 700,000 - 900,000 1,000,000 - 

Gas Station: Rehabilitate Interior 100,000 - 125,000 100,000 - 125,000 100,000 - Drug Store: Rehabilitate exterior and interior 150,000 - 200,000 150,000 - 200,000 60,000 - Total Estimated Development Costs 4,350,000 - 5,725,000

(4.3 M) - (5.7 M)

1,150,000 - 1,475,000

(1.1 M) - (1.5 M)

4,160,000 - 

(4.2 M)- (

Note: This table currently displays gross construction costs using year 2000 class C estimates which means they are comparable to similar NPS construction costcosts are for purposes of comparison only. Alternative 1 is “no action" and therefore has no development costs. Landscape development is a percentage of buildincosts. It covers sidewalks, plazas, signs, outdoor lighting, landscape plantings, and irrigation costs. Square footages are approximates. Surveys will be required *Shuttle staging area includes parking for 10 cars, 1 bus pullout, 1,000 square feet shade structure.**Interpretive exhibits for alternatives 2 and 4 are heavily interactive and multimedia; exhibits for alternative 3 are largely graphic panels and text.

Table 3: Comparison of Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

COST ITEM ALT. 1 – NO ACTION ALT. 2 – THE SITE ALT. 3 – THE CITY AL

Leased Space $ 10,000 -- $198,450 Staffing 363,294 $690,366 888,022 Miscellaneous Support Costs 43,595 82,843 106,562 Cooperative Agreement w/CEHS (a) 2,000 5,000 5,000 Cooperative Agreement Others 7,000 10,000 30,000 Maintenance Contract 23,000 60,000 40,000 One Year O&M Costs $449,889 $848,209 $1,268,034 15 Year O&M Costs (6.7 M) $6,748,335 (12.7 M) $12,723,135 (19 M) $19,020,510 (2

(a) Central High School

60
61

Table 4: Summary of Environmental Consequences

ALTERNATIVE 1

– NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

– THE SITE

ALTERNATIVE 3

– THE CITY

ALTE

– THE 

Cultural Resources

Because no archeological surveyshave been conducted, the impact ofactions on archeological sites isunknown. However, the probability offinding archeological sites is lowbecause the area has been associatedwith urban development and siteclearance. The site would strive toavoid or otherwise mitigate impacts,in accordance with the “ Mitigation ofImpacts” section for “ ArcheologicalResources.”

Same as for alternative 1. Same as for alternative 1. Same as for alt

Because no ethnographic overviewand assessment studies have beenconducted, the impact of actions onethnographic resources under thisalternative is unknown. However theprobability of such impacts isconsidered to be low. The NPS wouldstrive to avoid or otherwise mitigateimpacts, in accordance with the“Mitigation of Impacts” section for“ Ethnographic Resources.”

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as altern

Actions under this alternative topreserve the historic streetscapewould result in long-term minorbeneficial impacts on the high schoolbecause the NPS has provided limitedgrand funding for the front façade andgrounds. The NPS is also maintainingthe Magnolia Mobil Service Stationexterior. This alternative would resultin long-term minor to moderateadverse impacts on the exterior of the

Actions under this alternative wouldhave long-term, minor beneficialimpacts on the high school becausethe NPS would partner with theschool district and board to preservethe front façade and grounds. TheNPS would preserve the front exteriorof the Magnolia Mobil ServiceStation, and it would rehabilitate theexterior and the interior of the CapelBuilding, resulting in long-term minor

Actions under this alternative to thehigh school, service station, and drugstore would be the same as inalternative 2. Lack of a comprehensivemanagement program to preserve andprotect historic streetscape features inthe site could have long-term minoradverse impacts on some landscapeelements.Although selection of this alternative

Actions under high school anwould be the s2. The NPS woexterior of the 1957-era appealong-term minbeneficial impstructure. Lack management pand protect his

61
62

ALTERNATIVE 1

– NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

– THE SITE

ALTERNATIVE 3

– THE CITY

ALTE

– THE 

Capel Building. Lack of acomprehensive management programto preserve and protect historicstreetscape features in the site couldpotentially have long-term minor tomoderate adverse impacts on somelandscape features.

to moderate beneficial effects on thishistoric structure. Expansion of theboundary and cooperative agreementsbetween the NPS and owners of theseven private residences would resultin long-term major beneficial impactson the integrity of those structures aswell as significant features of thehistoric streetscape.

would potentially result in long-termminor beneficial impacts on thepreservation and protection of CivilRights-related sites in the City of LittleRock, increased visitor use at thesesites could result in long-term minoradverse impacts.

features in the term minor advlandscape featu

The museum collection and archivaland library materials to be establishedby the NPS would be managed andprotected to the extent allowableunder current funding and staffinglevels. Nevertheless, the materialswould face potential long-term minorto moderate adverse impacts becauseof inadequate storage and curatorialfacilities and protection measures.Acquisition of the extant Central HighMuseum, Inc., museum collection bythe NPS would result in continuinglong-term beneficial effects for theresource materials if the collectionremained at the library of theUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock.However, maintenance of thecollection at an off-site facility wouldresult in logistical and staffingproblems that could impede effectivemanagement.

The NPS would collect objects forexhibits and interpretation, and NPSwould seek partners for care andstorage.Establishment of the site’s museumcollection and archives and libraryand placement of the collection in thelibrary at the University of Arkansasat Little Rock, would have long-termmoderate beneficial impacts on thecollection.Acquisition of the extant Central HighMuseum, Inc., museum collection bythe NPS and continuing placement ofthe collection in the library at theUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock,would have continuing long-termmoderate beneficial impacts on thecollection.

Same as for alternative 2. Same as for alt

62
63

ALTERNATIVE 1

– NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

– THE SITE

ALTERNATIVE 3

– THE CITY

ALTE

– THE 

Natural Resources

The area is in attainment for airquality at current traffic levels.Traffic emissions caused by anincrease of 74 cars per day equate toabout 2% above current levels.Therefore, impacts on air qualityassociated with traffic emissions areexpected to be negligible, long-term,and adverse. No new construction iscalled for in this alternative.

The expected traffic would result inincreased emissions. However, thisincrease would not exceed applicablecriteria pollutant levels. Impacts to airquality are expected to result ineffects that are minor, long term, andslightly adverse.Air quality would be temporarily andminimally affected by constructiondust. Standard construction practiceswould be used to minimize airbornedust levels in the work area. Longterm impacts on air quality from theproposed development would benegligible and adverse.

Same as alternative 2 Same as alternat

Visitor Experience

A moderately increasing number ofvisitors would continue to receivebasic interpretation of the story of the1957-58 events in the existing visitorcenter (service station); crowdingwould increase and interpretive mediawould deteriorate and becomeobsolete over the long term. A smallernumber of visitors would tour the sitein front of the high school, withminimal interpretation of the historicstreetscape, the 1957-58 events, ortheir contexts and meanings. Othersites and initiatives relating to CivilRights would increase interest in andawareness of sites such as Little RockCentral High School NationalHistorical Site. However,perpetuation of the existing conditionswould result in moderate long-termadverse impacts on visitor experience.

Alternative 2 (the preferred) would beexpected to provide an educationaland emotionally compellingexperience for a wide variety ofvisitors. Effective orientation wouldencourage access to the site as well asrelated sites around the city andelsewhere; most visitors would beadequately prepared to safely visitareas with public and privateownership. Overall, this alternativewould provide moderate to majorlong-term beneficial impacts onvisitor experience for visitors to thesite.

Alternative 3 would be expected toprovide educational, varied, andinteresting experiences for a varietyof visitors. Effective orientationwould encourage access to the site aswell as related sites around the cityand elsewhere; most visitors would bewell prepared for visiting areas withpublic and private ownership. Overall,this alternative would provide minorto moderate long-term beneficialimpacts on visitor experience forvisitors to the site.

This alternative provide an intereemotionally comexperience for meducational facilprograms would long-term benefiprogram participinterpretive facilthe general publwould provide nlong-term benefivisitor experiencto the site.

63
64

ALTERNATIVE 1

– NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

– THE SITE

ALTERNATIVE 3

– THE CITY

ALTE

– THE 

Administration and Operations

Having staff in two locations wouldhave a minor, long-term adverseeffect on site administration andoperations because staff would needto commute several miles.As visitation increases, the small sizeof the visitor center, limited parking,and employment of only basic staffwould have a major, long-termadverse effect on administration andoperations. Visitation demands wouldbecome a staff priority allowing littletime for administrative activities.Limited development of partnershipswould result in moderate, long-termbeneficial impacts to preserving onlythe front façade and grounds of thehigh school.

Development of a new visitorcenter/park administration andoperations facility, reducing visitoruse of the service station and theaddition of visitor use in the drugstore would result in major, longterm, beneficial impacts to sitefacilities.Development of the new facilitywould provide a major long-termbeneficial impact on administrationbecause adequate offices, storage, andwork areas would be available.Staffing to operate, interpret, andmaintain the site would be on-site andadequate, resulting in major, longterm beneficial effects on siteoperations.Partnerships in this alternativeprovide the greatest preservation andinterpretation opportunities for all onsite resources because the sevenresidences and the drug store wouldbe included, resulting in a major,long-term beneficial impact to siteresources.

Leasing nearby orientation andheadquarters space and therebyreducing visitor use of the servicestation and the drug store would resultin major, long-term beneficial impactson facilities because most visitorswould spend their time at theorientation center.Leasing nearby space would provideadequate offices, storage, and workareas, resulting in moderate, longterm beneficial impact.Locating staff a few blocks from thesite could result in a minor, long-termadverse effects on staff efficiency andcommunications, but this locationwould be much closer than that inalternative 1.Partnerships focused on interpretationand preservation of Civil Rightsrelated sites throughout the city wouldresult in major, long-term beneficialpreservation impacts to those sitesbecause sites would work towardsimilar goals. The shuttle partnershipwould have a moderate, long-termbeneficial impact to theneighborhoods because randomvisitation would be reduced therebyeliminating traffic, safety, and privacyconcerns in residentialneighborhoods.

Development of center/park admoperations facilivisitor use of the would result in mbeneficial effectThe new facility long-term benefiadministration athe center would offices, storage, space. Staffing tand maintain the and adequate to cooperative agreeducational oppomajor, long-term site resources.

64
65

ALTERNATIVE 1

– NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

– THE SITE

ALTERNATIVE 3

– THE CITY

ALTE

– THE 

Socioeconomics

Negligible, long-term adverse effectswould result from the increase inpopulation cause by implementationof this alternative. The smallpopulation growth that is expectedwould represent a negligiblepercentage of total projected growthin Pulaski County through the year2025.

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alterna

Moderate to major, long-termbeneficial effects would occur to thelocal economy as a result ofimplementing this alternative. Thesmall increases in jobs and incomeexpected with this alternative wouldbe minor and well below a 1%increase compared with countywidelevels.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternat

Housing required by the site wouldbe primarily connected with newstaff. The highest number of staff is20. The purchase of 20 homes wouldresult in a negligible, long-termadverse effect on the housing supplybecause there is ample housingavailable in the immediateneighborhood as well as in the greaterLittle Rock area

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternat

Because the maximum long- andshort-term employment generated bythe site would be 40, there would belittle or no increase in the residentpopulation. Therefore the effect to theinfrastructure of the localgovernment would be negligible,long-term, and slightly adverse.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternat

65
66

ALTERNATIVE 1

– NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

– THE SITE

ALTERNATIVE 3

– THE CITY

ALTE

– THE 

Increased visitation would cause anegligible, long-term, and adverseimpact due to reduction in someservices as more visitors stay at hotelsor motels in the Little Rock area.An increase in tourism andrecreation is expected through theyear 2015. However, such tourismwould likely only contribute from 1%to 2% of expected total tourism in thecounty for that year. Therefore, therewould be a minor, long-termbeneficial effect on tourism andrecreation

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternat

Regardless of the alternative, aconsiderable increase in visitorspending is expected through the year2015. However, such spending wouldlikely only contribute from 1% to 2%of expected total tourist spending inthe county for that year.Because of the small amount of landowned by the NPS there is anticipatedto be a negligible, long-term adverseeffect in any land use changes in thearea.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternat

Transportation and Access

Effects to transportation and accessare expected to be negligible, longterm and adverse because of therelatively small increase in projectedadditional cars and buses. Ampleaccess to the site would be maintainedand additional parking would reducethe congestion of on-street parking.

Same as alternative 1. Atransportation plan would bedeveloped to address parking,circulation, and safety concerns.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternat

66
Segregationists rally at the Governor's Mansion.

Photo Courtesy of Will Counts

Home of L.C. and Daisy Bates.

Photo Courtesy of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program

Photo Courtesy of Central High Museum Historical Collection / University of Arkansas at Little Rock Archives

National Guard troops establish perimeter across the street from Central High School.

Affected Environment
68
69

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Recognition of Significance

Little Rock Central High School

Little Rock Central High School was listed

in the National Register of Historic Places

on August 19, 1977, under Criterion A

(because of its association with events that

have made a significant contribution to the

broad patterns of American history) and

Criterion Consideration G (because it

achieved significance within the previous 50

years). On May 20, 1982, it was designated

a national historic landmark by the Secretary

of the Interior.

Little Rock Central High School Today

Since the fall term of the 1959-60 school

year, Central High has been operated as a

four-year public high school with an average

enrollment of approximately 1,800 students

and a faculty of approximately 115. Today,

it is the largest of six high schools in the

Little Rock School District and the only one

located in the inner city. The school has an

African-American principal, and the student

body is a cross-section of the community,

drawing from the most affluent areas of

Little Rock and from a broad swath of

middle- and low-income areas. Racially,

62% of the student body is AfricanAmerican, 36% are white, and 2% are

“other,” mainly Asian. Central has served

the metropolitan area for many years as an

unofficial magnet school, and it now houses

an International Studies Magnet component

within the school curriculum. The school

offers approximately 125 courses, including

13 advanced placement courses and six

foreign language courses.

Central High School is considered a national

model in the field of human relations. It is a

participant in the Model Schools Program

sponsored by the National Governors

Association. In 1990, when the Little Rock

School Board was making a list of the

strengths and weaknesses in its system,

Central High was listed as the number one

strength of the school district.

National Historic Site Resources

Little Rock Central High School

(1500 South Park Street)

Little Rock Central High School consists of

a 21-acre campus bounded by Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive on the north, Jones

Street on the west, West 16th Street on the

south, and South Park Street on the east.

Architecturally unique among Arkansas

school structures, the high school was

designed in the neo-gothic revival style by

associated architects George R. Mann,

Eugene John Stern, John Parks Almand,

George H. Wittenberg, and Lawson L.

Delony. The four-story building with its

irregular but generally Y-shaped plan was

completed in 1927. The plan can be divided

into five distinct sections — a dominant

central portion that exhibits significant

architectural features and contains a 2,000-

seat auditorium, and four relatively

unadorned classroom wings, two per side,

wrapping around a centered concrete

courtyard (originally a reflecting pool was

located in the courtyard area) in the

building’s foreground. The school’s plan

and elevation are symmetrical about this

central axis, which bisects the lawn and

courtyard area and the building’s central

section.
70

The high school’s structure, of brick, loadbearing walls and steel frame, is faced with

tan or buff brick. The school’s elevations

consist of systems of brick pilasters and

spandrels of varying vertical scale separated

by horizontal bands of paired window

openings. Window frames are double-hung

with 12 lights per sash. All pilasters rise

above the parapet level and are capped with

cut stone. The pilasters composing the main

entry elevation continue a full 11⁄2 stories

above the main parapet and create a

towering stepped façade capped and

decorated in cut stone. Parapets of the main

section are lined with medieval shields and

crests of cut stone. Gothic pointed arches of

cut stone span between broad pilasters at the

façade’s pinnacle and round arched

colonnades of cut stone decorate the next

lower level.

From the main entry esplanade, at ground

floor level, double steps rise at either side in

two flights to a terrace at the second floor

(main) entry. A round arched colonnade

supports this terrace, with masonry arches

springing from stone Corinthian columns.

The inlaid Tiger frieze was installed in the

wall under the terrace during 1962-63.

The main entry consists of three pairs of

doors set between four broad pilasters with

tall round-arched glazed openings above.

Each of the pilasters is decorated with

statuary of Greek goddesses depicting the

themes of Ambition, Personality,

Opportunity, and Preparation. Large iron

Gothic lanterns on the pilasters illuminate

the entry.

The interior corridors of the school are

arched at bearing walls and are finished with

a glazed ceramic floor and wainscot. Walls

and ceilings of corridors, as well as walls

and ceilings of other areas, are plastered. All

other floors are wooden with the exception

of finished concrete in shop areas.

During the early 1980s, the school building

underwent extensive rehabilitation. The

improvements included waterproofing the

building, installing a new roof and new

plumbing fixtures, replacing windows,

reconstructing the restrooms, and repainting.

The reflecting pool in front of the school

was removed and replaced with the extant

concrete courtyard. The brickwork for the

fountain in front of the reflecting pool was

retained although the natural spring that had

fed the fountain and pool had long since

dried up.

Since the school was completed in 1927,

various facilities have been added to the

campus. The12,000-seat Quigley Stadium

was constructed on the west side of the

campus along Jones Street in 1936. During

1948-49, the Campus Inn, which included a

snack bar and dance floor, was constructed

west of the main school building along West

16th Street. The structure, which was closed

in the late 1980s or early 1990s and

demolished in 2000, consisted of World War

II Quonset huts that had been declared

military surplus property and moved to the

site from a military base after the war. A

field house was added to the campus in 1951

to update and expand the school’s athletic

facilities. In 1969, a new library-media

center named for Jess W. Matthews was

constructed northwest of the main school

building. This addition is largely hidden

from view from South Park Street and was

designed to be architecturally compatible

with the original school building. Athletic

fields, which served as the encampment area

for the troops during the events of 1957,

cover much of the campus between the main

school building and Quigley Stadium.
71

Little Rock Central High School retains a

high degree of its original architectural

design and it continues to serve its original

purpose as a large urban high school. The

main school building is a testament to its

functional design and the strengths of its

materials and construction.

Ponder’s Drug Store

(2121 and 2123 West 16th Street)

Located on the southeast corner of West

16th Street and South Park Street, this

modest one-story brick commercial building

blends with its residential surroundings.

Constructed as the Capel Building in 1926,

this structure, which retains a high degree of

integrity, housed Ponder’s Drug Store in

1957.

This building gained notoriety on

September 4, 1957, when Elizabeth Eckford,

one of the Little Rock Nine, arrived at

Central High School and was met by a

jeering mob as she alighted from a bus at

12th and Park Streets. Seeing National

Guardsmen in front of the school, she

hurried in their direction. She was not

allowed to pass the soldiers and was forced

to return through the growing mob to her

bus stop. As members of the mob crowded

around her with taunting remarks, she

proceeded in the direction of Ponder’s Drug

Store to escape. A store employee saw her

coming and locked the door. She then went

to sit on a bench at the bus stop on the

northwest side of 16th and Park Street with a

howling mob around her. Finally, aided by a

sympathetic white woman, she boarded a

city bus to leave the area.

Magnolia Mobil Service Station

(2125 Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive)

Located on the southeast corner of Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive and South Park Street,

the Central High Museum and Visitor

Center is operated by Central High Museum,

Inc. In 1997, the Magnolia Mobil Service

Station that had been constructed in 1926

was rehabilitated to house visitor orientation

and gift sales facilities and multi-media

exhibits relating to the significant events that

occurred at Central High School in 1957. A

buff brown brick extension was added to the

rear (south side) of the structure to provide

increased office space.

This building, located across the street from

Central High School, was significant during

the crisis in 1957, because news media

representatives used its telephones to call in

their reports of the events at the school.

Northw est Corner Lot

This vacant lot located on the northwest

corner of Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and

South Park Street was once the site of

several residences. It has been selected by

the Central High Museum, Inc., as the future

site of a commemorative garden.

Northeast Corner Lot

This vacant lot located on the northeast

corner of Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and

South Park Street was once the site of a

greenhouse, the foundations of which

remain extant. At present, the lot provides

space for a small parking strip along Daisy

L. Gatson Bates Drive.

Cultural Landscape

Although the cultural landscape at the site

has not been formally evaluated under

National Register criteria for listing in the
72

National Register of Historic Places, the

Midwest Regional Office of the NPS

prepared a draft Cultural Landscape

Inventory in July 1999. According to the

draft study, Little Rock Central High School

and its adjacent landscape are culturally

significant to the Civil Rights movement in

the United States. Adjacent landscapes, as

defined by the boundaries of the National

Register-listed Central High School

Neighborhood Historic District, contribute

to the significance of the cultural landscape

at the site. Features within the contributing

landscape, such as residences, commercial

buildings, roads, sidewalks, and vegetation,

retain a moderate level of their 1950s-era

appearance and thus reinforce the overall

integrity of the site’s cultural landscape. The

site’s cultural landscape is indicative of the

historic vernacular character of landscapes

associated with Little Rock schools from the

1920s to the 1950s. Overall, the buildings

and features that compose the cultural

landscape at the site and its surrounding area

have undergone little change since the site’s

period of significance (1957-58) and thus

retain moderate integrity in terms of

location, design, setting, materials,

workmanship, feeling, and association.

The high school is located on a 21-acre

campus in a mixed residential and

commercial urban area. Principal features of

the 21-acre campus include the main school

building, the plaza in front of the school

along South Park Street, Quigley Stadium, a

field house, library, rear seating plaza

adjacent to the cafeteria to the south, a small

plaza adjacent to the cafeteria to the north,

sports fields, and parking lots. The school

campus and its associated features retain a

moderate level of integrity in terms of

location, setting, and association.

The cultural landscape of the neighborhood

adjacent to the school campus includes

features both within and adjacent to the

boundaries of the site. Principal features

within the boundaries of the site include the

rehabilitated Magnolia Mobil Service

Station (which currently serves as a visitor

center and museum operated by Central

High Museum, Inc.), the Capel Building,

and two vacant lots on the northwest and

northeast sides of the intersection of Daisy

L. Gatson Bates Drive and South Park

Street. In 1997 the front exterior of the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station was

rehabilitated to its 1950s-era appearance; the

interior was rehabilitated into exhibits and

visitor service features. Ponder’s Drug Store

(The Capel Building), a privately owned

structure currently used for commercial

purposes, retains a moderate degree of its

1950s-era structural integrity. The

aforementioned northwest and northeast

vacant lots were once the site of three

residences and a greenhouse, respectively,

all of which have been demolished.

Historic Streetscape

Principal features of the cultural landscape

associated with the site that are outside of

the site’s boundaries include seven

residential structures across South Park

Street from the front of the high school.

With the exception of one of these structures

that was recently damaged by fire, the

structures retain a moderate degree of their

1950s-era structural integrity. Two

residences on the northeast corner of South

Park Street and West 16th Street were

demolished and replaced by a church in

1971. Although not contributing to the

cultural landscape, the church building is

generally compatible with surrounding

structures in the neighborhood and thus does

not detract from the quality of the area’s

setting.
73

When the Special Resource Study was

completed, these seven residences had met

the criteria for suitability and feasibility.

However, these homes were not included in

the boundary of the park. The GMP team

analyzed current trends and what has

changed since the completion of the Special

Resource Study. This analysis indicates

there are some potential new threats to these

cultural resources. One home was damaged

by fire. There is a renewed interest in the

neighborhood. Some nearby neighborhood

homes have been raised to make way for

new construction. Several of the seven

residences are rental units. Preservation

efforts are dependent on the interest and

resources of individual homeowner. Visitors, either through self-guided or ranger

lead tours, walk the block in front of these

homes in order to obtain an understanding of

the events of 1957.

According to the draft Cultural Landscape

Inventory, one of the most significant

character-defining features of the cultural

landscape at the site is the “streetscape” of

South Park Street between Daisy L. Gatson

Bates Drive and West 16th Street in front of

the high school. The features of the

streetscape, including buildings, structures,

roads, sidewalks, and vegetation, reflect the

historic land use patterns and associative

significance of the site.

Archival and Museum Collections

The Central High Museum, Inc., collection,

housed at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock, consists of photographs and

negatives, news clippings, videotapes,

scrapbooks, school yearbooks, periodicals

and periodical articles, postcards,

correspondence, literature, buttons and other

memorabilia associated with the events at

Little Rock Central High School during

1957-58. A few items in the collection

predate the1957-58 events, and some relate

to the 40th anniversary commemoration of

the events.

Currently the small collection of threedimension objects is housed at the UALR

archives and at other places in Little Rock.

Apart from the archives storage facility,

which itself is not prepared to house a larger

collection of nonarchival objects, the other

locations are not adequate to properly care

for these items.

Archeological Resources

Little Rock Central High School National

Historic Site has not been surveyed for

archeological resources. The site, and its

surrounding area, has been disturbed by

activities associated with subdivision,

development, and construction as part of the

urban expansion of Little Rock beginning

during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Northeast and Northwest Vacant Lots

During the late 1990s, a residential structure,

located on the northwest corner of Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive and South Park Street,

was demolished, creating a vacant lot where

the commemorative garden will be

developed. A greenhouse and perhaps other

structures, all since demolished, once stood

on the vacant lot on the northeast corner of

the aforementioned intersection.

Ethnographic Resources

An assessment of the school as an

ethnographic resource should be confirmed

with an ethnographer. African-Americans

are identified as a group traditionally

associated with the site. The 1957-58 events

at Central High constituted a landmark battle

in the ongoing struggle for Civil Rights, and

integration of the high school was the first

prominent implementation of the Brown v.

Board of Education of Topeka decisions by
74

the U.S. Supreme Court. The site has

significance for African-Americans, because

it is linked with their sense of purpose,

existence as a community in the struggle to

achieve Civil Rights, and development as an

ethnically distinctive people. Thus, they

represent a special client population with

long-term stakes in the integrity of the site’s

resources and outcomes of management

decisions that affect resources associated

with them.

Related Sites in Little Rock

Dunbar Junior High School

Dunbar Junior and Senior High School was

dedicated on April 14, 1930 as the Negro

School of Industrial Arts. It replaced Gibbs

High School as Little Rock’s AfricanAmerican high school. In 1932, Dunbar

became one of only two industrial arts

schools in the South to receive a junior

college rating, and its curriculum was

accepted as the basis for admission to

colleges and universities throughout the

United States. During the years the school

has hosted many prominent visitors,

including Eleanor Roosevelt, Duke

Ellington, Count Basie, and General

Benjamin O. Davis.

In 1943, the school was involved in a

dispute concerning equal pay for AfricanAmerican and white teachers in the Little

Rock school system. The dispute was

resolved in the case Morris v. Williams,

heard before the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court

of Appeals, which established the principle

of “equal pay based on professional

qualifications and services rendered.”

Dunbar Senior High School was closed at

the end of the 1954-55 school year, and its

students were transferred to Horace Mann,

the new senior high school for AfricanAmericans in Little Rock. Because the new

school was not completed, students attended

Horace Mann in the Dunbar building during

the 1955-56 school year. However, Dunbar

Junior High School remained open and

continues to function as an operating school.

The school was listed in the National

Register of Historic Places in 1980.

Daisy Bates House National Historic

Landmark

In 1941 Daisy Bates and her husband, L. C.

Bates, moved to Little Rock. They

established the Arkansas State Press, an

African-American newspaper of which L. C.

Bates was the publisher and editor. In 1957,

Daisy Bates was the president of the

Arkansas Chapter of the National

Association for the Advancement of Colored

People and served as coordinator of the plan

to enroll the Little Rock Nine at Central

High School. After federal troops were

dispatched to Little Rock to enforce

integration of Central High School, the

teenagers were taken from the Bates’ home

to the school under military escort. During

the turmoil surrounding the integration of

Central High School, various incidents

occurred at the Bates’ home: (1) August 23,

1957 — a rock with a threatening message

was thrown through the front window of the

residence; (2) August 25, 1957 — an eightfoot-high cross was burned on the front

yard; and (3) July 7, 1959 — a bomb was

thrown on the front lawn. The Daisy Bates

Home was designated a national historic

landmark on January 3, 2001.

The Daisy Bates Home National Historic

Landmark is nationally significant for its

role as the de facto command post for the

Central High School desegregation crisis in

Little Rock, Arkansas, during 1957-58. Mrs.

Bates guided, from her home, the integration

of the Little Rock Nine into Central High

School. The national significance of the

Daisy Bates Home was recognized by its
75

designation as a national historic landmark

on January 3, 2001, because of its

association with (1) events that have made a

significant contribution to, and are identified

with, the broad national patterns of United

States history, and (2) the lives of persons

nationally significant in the history of the

United States.

Horace Mann Junior High School

Located on the southeast side of Little Rock,

Horace Mann was opened in the fall of 1956

as the new senior high school for AfricanAmericans in the city. Because Dunbar

Senior High School had been closed at the

end of the 1955-56 school year and the

Horace Mann buildings were not ready for

occupancy until the fall of 1957, the 1956-

57 school year classes for the new school

were held at Dunbar. The Little Rock Nine

students who integrated Little Rock Central

High School in 1957 transferred from

Horace Mann and Dunbar. The campus was

later converted to a junior high school, and it

continues to operate in that capacity.

Terry Mansion

After the U.S. Supreme court ruled on

September 12 that Little Rock must continue

with its integration plan, Governor Faubus

had signed a school closing bill, ordering the

four Little Rock high schools closed as of

September 15. The Women’s Emergency

Committee to Open Our Schools, led by

Mrs. Adolphine Terry, was established at the

Terry Mansion on September 17, 1958. The

committee helped campaign to reopen Little

Rock’s high schools in a special election to

be held on September 27, 1958.

Originally constructed in 1840 by Albert

Pike, philosopher, scholar, poet, and soldier,

this eclectic style 2-1/2-story brick mansion

underwent major additions and alterations

during the 1870s and in 1889. It was

partially rehabilitated to its original

appearance and remodeled with neoclassical revival elements in 1916 by

architect George R. Mann. The mansion has

been the home of Captain John Fletcher,

banker and politician; John Gould Fletcher,

Pulitzer prize-winning poet; and David

Terry, U.S. Congressman. Today the

mansion serves as the Decorative Arts

Museum, a component of the Arkansas Arts

Center in Little Rock. In 1972, the mansion

was listed in the National Register of

Historic Places as the Pike-Fletcher-Terry

House.

Governor’s Mansion

Constructed in 1950, this two-story brick

Georgian colonial mansion is located at

1800 Center Street on 6-3/4 acres in the

south central part of Little Rock. Serving as

the executive residence of Arkansas

governors for nearly four decades, it drew

international attention during the dramatic

events of 1957 surrounding the integration

of Little Rock Central High School. The

mansion was listed in the National Register

of Historic Places as part of the Governor’s

Mansion Historic District in 1978.

U.S. Courthouse

Located in downtown Little Rock, this

ornate early 1930s-era building housed the

chambers where the judicial proceedings

surrounding the integration of Little Rock

Central High School were conducted.

Arkansas State Capitol

Constructed during 1899-1916, the Arkansas

State Capitol houses the offices of the state’s

governor and the chambers of the state

legislature. The building was designed in the

neo-classical revival style by architects

George R. Mann and Cass Gilbert. A

rectangular 3-1/2–story structure constructed
76

with Arkansas marble and granite, the state

capitol is patterned after the U.S. Capitol in

Washington, D.C. It has a large central

dome set on a square base that features a

colonnaded drum and ribbed dome

surmounted by a cupola and a pedimented

center entrance section with Ionic portico in

antis. Side wings feature a balustraded

parapet, small dome, colonnaded façade, and

end section with three pedimented faces.

The state capitol was listed in the National

Register of Historic Places in 1974.

Bethel A.M.E. Church

Located several blocks from Dunbar Junior

High School, this church was constructed

about 1897. It was attended by most of the

Little Rock Nine students and their families.

Thus, the church served as a key element in

their community life and support system

during the tension-filled events surrounding

the integration of Little Rock Central High

School.

Philander Smith College

Philander Smith College, founded in 1877,

is a small, privately supported, historically

African-American, four-year liberal arts

college, related to the Board of Higher

Education and Ministry of the United

Methodist Church. The college comprises a

campus of approximately 25 acres in the

heart of Little Rock. It offers instruction

through six major divisions: Business and

Economics, Education, Humanities, Natural

and Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, and

Continuing Education.

Ernest Green House

The Ernest Green House, located at 1224

West 21st Street, is the boyhood home of

Ernest Green, the first of the Little Rock

Nine to graduate from Central High School

at the end of the 1957-58 school year. After

graduation from Central High School in

May 1958, Green would later become an

assistant secretary of labor and is currently a

managing director at a major investment

firm in Washington, D.C. The house, which

is still owned by Green, was listed in the

National Register of Historic Places as part

of the Historically Black Properties in Little

Rock’s Dunbar School Neighborhood

Multiple Property Survey in 1999.

NATURAL RESOURCES

Air Quality

The 1970 Clean Air Act requires federal

land managers to protect air quality, whereas

the NPS Management Policies address the

need to analyze air quality during site

planning. The standards are levels of air

quality necessary to protect public health

and prevent any degradation or harm to the

total environment.

The State of Arkansas has no class

designation because it is in attainment for all

criteria pollutants except ozone. Crittenden

County (West Memphis) was in

nonattainment or exceeded the ozone

standard in 1999. Official ozone

designations from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency will not occur until after

the Supreme Court decides on its case.

However, preliminary numbers indicate that

central Arkansas, including Little Rock,

exceeded the ozone standard in 2000.

The state monitors for carbon monoxide

(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), PM10

particulates, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and

volatile organic compounds. Monitors are

placed throughout the state. In central

Arkansas, both PM2.5 and CO monitors are

located in Little Rock. There are NOx, SO2,

PM2.5, PM10, and ozone monitors in North

Little Rock. The following are the readings

from those monitors (Arkansas Department

of Environmental Quality).
77

The 8-hour (hr) average (2nd high) for CO in micrograms

per cubic meter is 5496.9 for Little Rock.

The 1-hr average (2nd high) for CO in micrograms per

cubic meter is 16834.4 for Little Rock.

The annual average for NOx in micrograms per cubic meter

is 20.7 for North Little Rock.

The annual average of PM10 is 34.2 micrograms per cubic

meter for Little Rock.

The 24-hr average of PM10 is 96 micrograms per cubic

meter for Little Rock.

The annual average for SO2 in micrograms per cubic meter

is 2.6 for North Little Rock.

The 24 hr average (2nd high) for SO2 in micrograms per

cubic meter is 15.7 for North Little Rock.

The 3-hr average (2nd high) for SO2 in micrograms per

cubic meter is 49.7 for North Little Rock.

The 1-hr average (2nd high) for ozone in ppb is 96.5 for

North Little Rock.

In 2001, there is no construction in the area.

An estimated 17,500 vehicles were

associated with all visitors. This estimate

includes private vehicles and buses for

group events.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

The Magnolia Mobil Service Station serves

as the current visitor center: the Central

High Museum and Visitor Center. The

station has been rehabilitated to its 1957

appearance. It is approximately 1,717 sq. ft.

Its visitor area contains a small lobby and

sales area, a ~500 sq.ft. exhibit area, and

restrooms. “All the World is Watching Us:

Little Rock and the 1957 crisis” is the

permanent exhibit. There is no charge to

enter the visitor center. A commemorative

garden is scheduled to open in 2001.

The exhibit and lobby area can accommodate one tour group or approximately 30

people comfortably. The area has accommodate a maximum of 50 visitors but this

does not provide a quality visitor experience. Because of the small space, a reservation system is in place. However, routinely, from April through November, and

during February (Black History Month),

several unannounced coal and bus tours

arrive at one time while a scheduled group is

in the visitor center. Throughout the year,

most walk-ins have not obtained reservations. No visitors are turned away. They

are asked to wait outside until the exhibit

area has cleared. Many unannounced tours

and walk-ins choose not to wait and leave

without benefit of learning about the history

of the site. Parking for 12 cars is available.

About 17 cars per day visit the site. Parking

is difficult to find especially during the

school season. Approximately 150 buses

annually deliver students and seniors for

tours. There is no designated area for bus

loading and unloading; buses load and

unload on Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive.

Visitors look at exhibits, talk to the staff,

and purchase books and souvenirs. Exhibits

are professionally designed and fabricated;

they provide an attractive and interesting

summary of the events of 1957-58. Some

visitors operate a computer in the lobby that

is connected to the Central High School

website and linked to related sites. Formal

educational talks and tours of the exhibits

are given to school groups.

Education programs are the focus of the

interpretive program at the visitor center.

Approximately 238 education programs

were presented to approximately 7,000

students in 1999. Interior tours at the visitor

center are offered for grades four through

twelve and use displays and photos to

illustrate the story. Few off-site programs

are presented to professional and civic

organizations. Interior tours of the high

school began in October 2000 and are

offered on Tuesday and Thursday from

October through April, except in December.

79

An unknown number of visitors walk the

block in front of Central High School to

view the school and historic scene. There are

no signs or brochures that explain the events

that happened there. The staff conducts

occasional tours of the site for groups by

reservation. Other than these occasional

tours, there is no NPS presence once visitors

exit the visitor center. There is no distinction

between site resources and private property.

The area is a neighborhood of private

homes; there are no restaurants or other

public amenities nearby. Some visitors have

limited the extent of their walks across from

the high school due to perceived safety

concerns.

Visitation at the site would likely increase if

marketing, signs, and on site infrastructure

were improved. The site needs better

marketing so that people know there is

something to visit. Signs and directions to

the site are not easily recognizable.

In 1999, about 22,000 people visited the

Central High Museum and Visitor Center.

Since opening in 1997, it is estimated that

approximately 54,000 people have visited

the center (data are through July 2000). This

estimate includes 11,000 persons on group

tours and 43,000 individual visitors. Thus

far, about 20% of all visitors have been part

of guided group tours and about 80% have

been individuals who simply “walk-in”

without a reservation. They have come from

all 50 states (Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma

and Missouri are most frequently

represented) and more than 70 countries.

Historic growth in visitation is illustrated in

the figure below, which shows numbers of

visitors by month. The trend line in this

figure generally shows how tourism is

increasing during an average month, and

takes into account high and low months.

Visitation tends to be cyclical, and more

visitors are generally attracted during spring

and early summer months, compared with

winter months. Detailed historic information

on site visitors and vehicle counts by year

and month is presented in tables 15 and 16

in Appendix E.

ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS

The twenty-five-member board of Central

High School Museum, Inc., (the museum

board) was instrumental in the establishment

of the site. It raised funding to rehabilitate

and open the Central High Museum and

Visitor Center (visitor center) in two years

from 1995 to 1997.

The museum board currently operates the

visitor center. The building and its adjacent

parking lot are owned by the City of Little

Rock and leased to the museum board. In

2001 the city will donate the building and

property to the NPS, and the NPS will then

assume ownership and operational

responsibility. A cooperative agreement

provides for funding for the transition of the

property to the NPS.

The visitor center is located in a 1920s era

Magnolia Mobil Service Station. The

museum board rehabilitated the exterior to

its 1957 appearance. The interior consists of

approximately 1,700 square feet that

includes an information desk, restrooms,

two closets, and one office.

A commemorative garden has been commissioned and funded by the museum board. It

will be located the northwest corner of

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and South Park

Street. Construction of the area began November 2000, and completion is scheduled

for fall 2001. The property is currently

owned by the city and the museum board

and will be donated to the NPS. At that time

the NPS will assume operational and interpretation responsibility. The commemorative garden will serve as a place for visitors

to contemplate the lessons of 1957.
80

The administrative functions of the site are

located in leased space at the Federal Center.

The site is currently funded for $300,000 a

year. Total cost for visitor center operation

is $142,944. Maintenance for cleaning and

mowing is $23,876 and contracted through a

local business. The Central High Museum,

Inc., operates the information desk, which

offers approximately fifteen book titles and

an assortment of Civil Rights-related retail

items. Sale of these items generates an

annual gross income of approximately

$15,000. The Central High Museum, Inc.,

has applied for approval to become a

cooperating association to continue

operation of the information desk.

The site operates seven days a week,

provides tours of the interior of the high

school and summer walking tours, presents

education programs, develops primary

source documentation, and provides a

limited number of off-site presentations.

Staffing

Employees of Central High Museum, Inc.,

are located in the visitor center. An

executive director manages the visitor center

providing staff supervision, cost accounting,

and programming. The staff consists of one

permanent full-time employee, student

volunteers, and one graduate assistant from

University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Staffing costs are $78,200.
81

The superintendent is the only NPS staff on

site at this time. The site is approved to hire

five full-time equivalent positions in order to

begin fundamental administrative work,

baseline research, establish an on-site

presence for visitor safety and interpretation,

and continue operations when property is

turned over to the NPS. The five staff will

include a historian, administrative officer,

three park guides, two seasonal positions,

and one graduate assistant from University

of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Partnerships

Partnerships are an integral part of achieving

the preservation, interpretation, and

educational goals of the site. The enabling

legislation gives the NPS authority to enter

into partnerships and cooperative

agreements with appropriate public and

private agencies, organizations, and

institutions to achieve the purposes of the

site. The legislation also states that the

General Management Plan should identify

the roles and responsibilities “of other

entities in administering the site and its

programs.” To that end, opportunities for

partnerships or cooperative agreements will

become an important element of site

administration and operations.

To date, cooperative agreements have been

developed with four entities: Little Rock

School District, University of Arkansas at

Little Rock, Little Rock Central High

School, and Central High Museum and

Visitor Center, Inc. These agreements provide for interpretive program planning,

historic preservation review and initiatives,

workshops and conferences, student internship programs, Central High School tours,

education program development, and

research documentation.

The site is currently working with the museum board to define roles as cooperating

association and friends group to continue

operation of the information desk and provide volunteer assistance; outline historic

preservation policy with the Central High

School and State Historic Preservation

Office; and develop Government Performance and Results Act goals, strategic planning documentation, position management

guides, funding formulation, and comprehensive interpretive planning.

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONM ENT

Geographic Study Area

Where current data are available, the description presented in this section focuses on

the immediate area of the Little Rock Central High School. This area (designated as

Tract 10 by the Census Bureau) is approximately 12 blocks by 14 blocks in size and

includes the Little Rock Central High

School. It is roughly bounded on the north

by Interstate Highway 630, on the east by

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, on the

south by Wright Avenue, and on the west by

the Union Pacific railroad. Tract 10 generally represents the geographic region within

which many socioeconomic effects are likely to occur. Throughout this section, this

area is referred to as the “area” or the “Central High area.” Where appropriate, data are

also presented for larger areas, including the

City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, and Arkansas. The description of the affected environment includes data on the following

topics:

Population (including ethnicity)

Local Economy

Housing

Local Government

Tourism and Recreation

Visitor Spending

Land Use

83

Population

Population growth in Pulaski County has

been relatively slow since the 1980s and it is

estimated that from 1990 to 2000, the county

population increased by less that 7% for the

decade. By comparison, during the same

period, population in the Central High area

dropped from 3,181 to 2,700 individuals

(15%). Since 1970, the area population

decreased by approximately 40% (Bureau of

the Census, 1980 and 1990, and

METROPLAN, 1998). Population decreases

are generally attributed to the trend of many

individuals moving to suburban areas that

are perceived to be safer. Table 5 illustrates

projected population growth for the county

and the area through the year 2025 and

shows that while county population is

expected to increase by 38,000 persons, the

area population is projected to decline and

remain flat.

Table 5: Population, Pulaski County and

Central High Area

Year County

Population

Central High

Area

Population(a)

1990 349,660 3,181

1995 363,088 NA

2000 373,631 2,700

2005 382220 NA

2010 389,809 2,600

2015 397,428 NA

2020 405,079 2,500

2025 411,811 2,500

Source: METROPLAN, 1998

(a) The Central High Area is Bureau of the Census Tract

10. This area is bounded by I-630, Martin Luther King Jr.

Drive, Wright Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad.

In 1990, there were 649 families and 1,098

households in the area. Nearly 60% of

residents were female and 90% were

African-American. Approximately 42% of

individuals in the area were 21 years of age

or younger while only 12% of residents

were 65 years or older. In 1998, the number

of households in the area had decreased to

918, a drop of more than 15% as compared

with the 1990 level. By comparison, for

Little Rock, the 1990 census showed that

one-third of residents were AfricanAmerican and two-thirds were white. About

55% of all city residents were female. For

Pulaski County, 72% of residents were

white in 1990 (Bureau of the Census, 1990).

Local Economy

The 1990 Central High area per capita

income was $5,826, which was much lower

than that of Little Rock ($15,307) or the

county ($13,760). Approximately 40% of

area households were at or below the

poverty level. The historic trend for poverty

rates in the area is shown below in Table 6.

Table 6: Central High Area Poverty

Rates, 1970-1990

1970 1980 1990

27.1 % 28.4 % 40.7 %

 Source: METROPLAN, December 1998

Compared with the Central High area,

Pulaski County has considerably stronger

economic conditions. It offers relatively

high-paying jobs and attracts a significant

number of commuters from adjacent

counties. In particular, the economic sectors

of business services and health care are

growing rapidly. It is projected that through

2025, approximately 98,000 additional jobs

will be generated in the county

(METROPLAN, 1998). Between 1990 and

1997, per capita income in the county

increased by more than 40%, about the same

rate as for the state. In 1998, 182,825

individuals were employed in the county,

and the unemployment rate was only 4%

(Metrotrends, 1999).
84

Major non-manufacturing employers in the

greater Little Rock area include the

following (numbers of employees are shown

in parenthesis): State of Arkansas (26,700),

federal government (10,000), Pulaski

County Special School District (8,000),

Little Rock Air Force Base (6,890), and the

University of Arkansas Medical Sciences

(5,392). Major manufacturing companies

include (with employees): Maybelline

Company (1,150), Delux Video Services

(800), Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Newspaper (800), Molex, Inc. (600), Orbit

Valve Company (506) and Lucent

Technologies (500).

Housing

In 1990, there were 1,473 total housing units

in the Central High area and 361 of these

units (25%) were vacant. Among all

occupied housing units, approximately 40%

were owner occupied and 60% were renter

occupied. In general, housing rental rates

and values in the area are substantially lower

compared with the city or the county, as

Table 7 illustrates.

Government and Infrastructure

The City of Little Rock operates under a city

manager form of government. The board of

directors is composed of 11 individuals:

seven elected from various wards, three atlarge positions, and a directly elected mayor.

Complete public services are provided in the

Little Rock area, including police protection

(560 sworn officers in Little Rock and 180

officers in North Little Rock) and fire

protection (536 fire fighters). The Pulaski

County Sheriff’s Department provides

protection with 479 deputies. The city and

surrounding area also offers more than 1,500

licensed health care professionals and 20

modern hospitals.

Little Rock operates 35 elementary schools,

eight junior high schools, and five senior

high schools. The total enrollment is

approximately 25,000 students. North Little

Rock operates 18 schools with a total

enrollment of more than 9,000 students.

Arkansas does not have a county property

tax. The Arkansas sales tax is 4.625% plus

county and city sales taxes for a total of

6.125% of gross receipts from the sale of

tangible personal property and certain

services, including the sale of natural gas,

electricity, water, and telephone services.

Tourism and Recreation

In 1999, Arkansas tourism related travel

expenditures increased from $3.4 billion to

$3.6 billion, an increase of 6%. The number

of Arkansas visitors grew from 19.1 million

to 19.8 million. A major factor in the

increased statewide tourism is the 1989

Tourism Initiative, which provided

increased advertising funding (Arkansas 

Table 7: 1990 Housing Statistics by Area

Indicator Central High Area Little Rock Pulaski County

Housing Units 1,437 80,985 151,538

Occupied 1,112 72,566 137,209

Vacant 361 8,419 14,329

Median Year Built 1952 1968 1970

Median Rent $306 $415 $403

Median Value $37,900 $63,200 $60,700

Source: Bureau of the Census, 1990
85

Department of Parks and Tourism, 2000).

The top five states providing visitors to

Arkansas tourist information centers were

Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, and

Louisiana. Table 8 summarizes 1999 travelrelated statistics for Pulaski County and

Arkansas.

Table 8: Travel Related 1999

Tourism Statistics

Pulaski County and Arkansas

Indicator Pulaski County Arkansas

Visitors 4,098,817 19,801,000

Expenditures $858,515,596 $3,622,218,600

Payroll $147,956,450 $ 623.018,000

Employment

(persons)

10,379 48,723

State Taxes $ 29,495,810 $ 162,999,000

Local Taxes $ 16,018,431 $ 68,822,000

Source: Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, 2000

In 1999, Pulaski County ranked as the third

most visited county in the state. The average

distance driven to reach a destination in

Arkansas was 624 miles and the most

popular activities or destinations consisted

of sightseeing, shopping, attractions, historic

sites and museums. Average trip

expenditures were $183 and the average

family income of tourists was $46,000

(Arkansas Department of Parks and

Tourism, 2000). Among international

visitors to Arkansas, the top countries of

origin were Canada (45%), Germany (14%),

Mexico (5%), and England (7%).

Visitor Spending

Based on registration information at the

visitor center, it is estimated that about 40%

of all visitors come from within Arkansas,

about 50% from other states and 10% from

other countries (Central High Visitor Center

and Museum, 2000). To date, visitors have

come from more than 70 countries. As with

recreation statistics for all international

visitors to Arkansas (described above), the

countries of Canada, Germany, Mexico, and

Great Britain provide a majority of

international guests. It is assumed that outof-state spending levels throughout

Arkansas generally characterize spending by

out-of-state visitors coming to the Central

High Museum.

In the year 2000, it is estimated that there

may be roughly 28,000 total visitors to the

site: about 17,000 from out of state, about

6,000 from the Little Rock area, and about

6,000 from elsewhere within Arkansas.

Based on figures provided by the Arkansas

Department of Parks and Tourism it is

expected that visitor expenditures for the

year 2000 would total about $3.4 million.

Table 9 summarizes visitor expenditures for

the year 2000.

Table 9: Estimated Visitor Spending in 2000, Central High Museum

Origin

Share

(percent)

Number of

Visitors (c)

Amount Spent

per Person ($)

Total Spent

($)

Out of State (a) 60 16,800 182.93(d) 3,073,224

In-City (b) 20 5,600 5.00 (e) 28,000

In-State (b) 20 5,600 50.00 (f) 280,000

Total 100 28,000 NA 3,381,224

Sources:

(a) Based on visitor records at the Little Rock Central High Museum and Visitor Center.

(b) The simplifying assumption made was that as many tourists come fro m Little Rock area as from rest of the state.

(c) Based on an assumed 28,000 visitors in year 2000.

(d) Arkansas Department of Parks and Recreation, 2000.

(e) Approximation based on opinion of staff at the Little Rock Central High Museum and Visitor Center.

(f) Arbitrary estimate made by the consulting firm of engineering-environmental Management, Inc (e2

M).
86

Economic modeling was not performed for

this analysis. However, it is reasonable to

assume that for each dollar spent by a

tourist, an additional one or two dollars of

secondary income would potentially be

generated. Secondary income refers to

additional income created as money is respent in the local economy, and most

secondary income is associated with retail

spending and services. Secondary income

combined with current visitor spending

could potentially be around $10 million.

Land Use

Land uses in the Central High area are

predominately residential, with some mixed

retail and commercial areas. The northeast

corner vacant lot (site of the proposed visitor

center, shuttle staging area or education

center) is currently zoned as “planned office

development.” The proposed

commemorative garden would be

constructed on the northwest corner vacant

lot of the intersection of Daisy L. Gatson

Bates Drive and Park Street. This area is

also zoned as ”planned office development.”

Both the northeast and northwest vacant lots

are surrounded by land that is zoned R-3,

which is suitable for residential development

with conditional uses.

The City of Little Rock planning and zoning

staff has indicated that the proposed new

visitor center and commemorative garden

site are currently zoned as “planned office

development.” Staff was unsure whether a

zoning change would be necessary before

construction of the proposed facility in this

location but felt that an administrative action

necessary for a rezoning would not be

lengthy.

TRANSPORTATION AND SITE ACCESS

Numerous airlines, railroad companies,

buses, and freight companies serve Pulaski

County and Little Rock. Inter-city

transportation is provided by publicly owned

and operated Central Arkansas Transit,

which currently operates 49 buses along 21

local routes and nine express routes.

More than 97% of Pulaski County residents

also commute to work in the same county.

Approximately one-fourth of residents in

neighboring Faulkner County commute to

work in Pulaski County. Direction signs

from US 630, which traverses the center of

Little Rock, guide visitors through a

residential neighborhood to the visitor

center. During the period 1990-1997, traffic

along Interstate Highway 630 has increased

by about 16%.

This transportation section also addresses

current traffic levels at selected points in the

vicinity of Central High School area. The

identification of traffic levels near the school

is necessary to later estimate the potential

effect of additional vehicles associated with

new or larger visitor facilities. Two-way, 24-

hour traffic counts were obtained directly

from the Arkansas State Highway and

Transportation Department and the City of

Little Rock Public Works. Table 10

illustrates recent traffic counts near the

school.
87

Table 10. Traffic Counts Near Central High School

Location Date of

Count

Approximate

Distance from

School

Average Daily

Count

13th Street and west of railroad (a) 1999 3 blocks 8,800

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive Street and west of

railroad (a)

1999 1 block 5,100

13th Street and east of railroad (a) 1999 2 blocks 1,500

16th Street and west of railroad (a) 1999 1 block 350

Wright Avenue near Summit Street (a) 1999 5 blocks 11,000

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive St. near High Street (a) 1999 7 blocks 6,100

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive Street between Park

and Schiller Street (b)

2000 <1 block 4,404

(a) Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, April 2000.

(b) City of Little Rock, Department of Public Works. August 2000.

Since the site opened, an estimated total of

17,500 vehicles was associated with all

visitors. This estimate has included buses for

group events and private vehicles for

individuals. The simplifying assumption was

made that each private vehicle contains

about 2.5 individuals. During the period

October 1997 through July 2000, average

traffic to the site was roughly equivalent to

an average traffic level of about 17 vehicles

per day, which is much less than 1% of all

daily traffic (5,100 vehicles) along Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive.
Photo Courtesy of Central High Museum Historical Collection / University of Arkansas at Little Rock Archives

Segregationists placed this sign in front of Central High School to show their belief that the federal government was 

responsible for closing Little Rock High School during the 1958-59 school year.

Environmental Consequences
90
91

ENVIRONM ENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Methodology

The impact analysis methodology described

here applies to four basic types of cultural

resources: archeological sites, ethnographic

resources, cultural landscape resources

(including individually significant historic

structures), and museum collections.

Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act requires a federal agency to

take into account the effects of its

undertakings on properties included in,

eligible for inclusion in, or potentially

eligible for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places, and it provides

the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation the reasonable opportunity to

comment. Accordingly, the NPS takes into

account the effects of site planning and

operations on historic properties under the

provisions of the 1995 Programmatic

Agreement among the NPS, the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, and the

Conference of State Historic Preservation

Officers. Applicable legislation and

regulations and specific management

procedures regarding cultural resources are

detailed in the NPS’s Cultural Resource

Management Guideline, Director’s Order

No. 28, Release No. 5, 1998.

The methodology for assessing impacts to

historic resources is based on regulations of

the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (36 CFR 800) implementing

Section 106. It includes (1) identifying areas

that could be impacted; (2) assessing the

information regarding historic properties

within this area and conducting any

necessary inventories and resource

evaluations; (3) comparing the location of

the impact area with that of resources listed,

eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in

the National Register of Historic Places; (4)

identifying the extent and type of effects; (5)

assessing those effects according to

procedures established in the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation’s

regulations; and (6) considering ways to

avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects.

Cultural resource impacts in this document

are described in terminology consistent with

the regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ), and in

compliance with the requirements of both

the National Environmental Policy Act and

Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act. The Section 106

determination of effect for the undertaking

(implementation of the alternative) is

included in the “Section 106 Summary” for

each alternative.

Intensity

The intensity of an impact on a cultural

resource can be defined as negligible, minor,

moderate, or major.

Negligible impacts were considered so slight as

to be difficult to measure or perceive, and they

have no meaningful implications.

Minor impacts would be perceptible and

noticeable, but would remain localized and

confined to a single element or significant

characteristic of a historic property (such as a

single archeological site containing low data

potential within a larger archeological district, or

a single contributing element of a larger historic

district).

Moderate impacts would be sufficient to cause a

noticeable but not substantial change in

significant characteristics of a historic property

(such as an archeological site with moderate data
92

potential or a small group of contributing

elements within a larger historic district).

Major impacts would result in substantial and

highly noticeable changes in significant

characteristics of a historic property (such as an

archeological site with high data potential or a

large group of contributing elements within a

larger historic district).

Duration

Impacts to historic properties (cultural

resources) could be of short term, long term,

or permanent duration. Analysis of the

duration of impacts is required under the

National Environmental Policy Act, but is

not required and is not usually considered in

assessing effects in terms of the National

Historic Preservation Act.

Type

Impacts are considered to be either adverse

or beneficial to historic properties (cultural

resources) when analyzed under the

National Environmental Policy Act.

However, impact type is not viewed this

way when analyzed under Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act. For the

purposes of assessing effects to historic

properties under the National Historic

Preservation Act, effects are either adverse

or not adverse. Effects under both the

National Environmental Policy Act and the

National Historic Preservation Act are

considered adverse when they diminish the

significant characteristics of a historic

property.

Impacts can be either direct or indirect.

Direct impacts result from specific actions,

such as demolition of historic structures.

Indirect impacts generally occur after

project completion and are a result of

changes in visitor-use patterns or

management of resources fostered by

implementation of an action.

Impairment to Park Resources and

Values

Impairment is an impact that, in the

professional judgment of the responsible

NPS manager, would harm the integrity of

park resources or values, including the

opportunities that otherwise would be

present for the enjoyment of those resources

or values. An impact would be more likely

to constitute an impairment to the extent that

it affects a resource or value whose

conservation is necessary to fulfill specific

purposes identified in the establishing

legislation or proclamation of the park; is

the key to the natural or cultural integrity of

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of

the park; or is identified as a goal in the

park’s general management plan or other

relevant NPS planning documents. An

impact would be less likely to constitute an

impairment to the extent that it is an

unavoidable result, which cannot be

reasonably further mitigated, of an action

necessary to preserve or restore the integrity

of park resources or values.

Mitigation

The National Environmental Policy Act also

calls for a discussion of the

“appropriateness” of mitigation and an

analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation. A

reduction in intensity of impact from

mitigation is an estimate of the effectiveness

of this mitigation under the National

Environmental Policy Act. It does not

suggest that the level of effect, as defined by

implementing regulations for Section 106 of

the National Historic Preservation Act, is

similarly reduced. Although adverse effects

under Section 106 may be mitigated, the

effects remain adverse.

Mitigation in this document is based on the

regulations of the Advisory Council on
93

Historic Preservation and includes the

avoidance of adverse effects or the

application of one or more standard

mitigation measures as described in the

regulations. Avoidance strategies may

include the application of The Secretary of

the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for

Archeology and Historic Preservation,

design methods such as vegetation screening

when placing new facilities in a historic

district, and the development of guidelines

to ensure compatibility between new and

existing facilities.

Presented below are the specific discussions

of intensity, duration, and type of impacts to

cultural resources and a description of

typical mitigation measures.

Resource Types

Archeological Resources

Archeological resources are typically

considered eligible for inclusion in the

National Register of Historic Places because

of the information they provide or may be

likely to yield.

No archeological surveys have been

conducted at the site, and no archeological

sites have been identified and inventoried.

However, the probability of finding

archeological sites within the historic site’s

boundaries is low, because the area has been

subjected to ground-breaking activities

associated with urban development and

clearance. For instance, structures once

located on the vacant lots on the northwest

and northeast corners of the intersection of

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and South Park

Street have been demolished. If

archeological sites are discovered as a result

of actions undertaken pursuant to this plan,

work will be stopped immediately, and the

NPS will consult with the Arkansas state

historic preservation officer under the

provisions of Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act and the 1995

Programmatic Agreement. Mitigation

measures that help to preserve archeological

resources include efforts either to avoid sites

that have been discovered and identified or

to implement data recovery to retrieve

important information.

Any change in the physical attributes of an

archeological site is irreparable and

considered adverse and of permanent

duration. Adverse impacts to archeological

resources most often occur as a result of

earthmoving activities within an

archeological site area, soil compaction or

increased erosion, unauthorized surface

collection, or vandalism. Beneficial impacts

to archeological resources can occur when

patterns of visitor use or management action

are changed in the vicinity of archeological

resources such that an ongoing impact,

which would otherwise continue to degrade

archeological resources, is reduced or

arrested. Direct impacts can occur as a result

of grading, trenching, or other activities that

damage the structure of an archeological

site. Indirect impacts can occur as a result of

increasing visitor activity or management

action in the vicinity of an archeological

site, leading to things such as artifact

collection, accelerated soil compaction, and

erosion.

The intensity of impact to an archeological

resource would depend upon the potential of

the resource to yield important information,

and on the extent of the physical disturbance

or degradation. For example, major

earthmoving at an archeological site with

low data potential might result in a minor,

adverse impact. Negligible impacts would

be barely perceptible and not measurable,

and would usually be confined to

archeological sites with low data potential.

Minor impacts would be perceptible and
94

measurable, and would remain localized and

confined to archeological sites with low to

moderate data potential. Moderate impacts

would be sufficient to cause a noticeable

change, and would generally involve one or

more archeological sites with moderate to

high data potential. Major impacts would

result in substantial and highly noticeable

changes, involving archeological sites with

high data potential.

For archeological resources, mitigation

includes avoidance of sites through project

design, or recovery of information that

makes sites eligible for inclusion in the

National Register of Historic Places.

Ethnographic Resources

Ethnographic resources are considered

eligible for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places as traditional

cultural properties when (1) they are rooted

in a community’s history and are important

for maintaining the continuing cultural

identity of the community, and (2) they meet

National Register criteria for significance

and integrity.

Impacts to ethnographic resources occur as a

result of changes in the physical

characteristics of, access to, or use of

resources, such that the cultural traditions

associated with those resources are changed

or lost. Beneficial impacts can occur when

intrusive facilities, or visitor or management

activities, are removed from a traditional use

area or when ecological conditions are

improved at a gathering area such that the

traditionally used resource is enhanced.

Adverse impacts occur when physical

changes to a traditionally used resource or

its setting degrade the resource itself, or

degrade access to or use of a resource.

Impacts are considered short term if they

represent a temporary change in important

vegetation or temporarily restrict access to

an important resource, and if they do not

disrupt the cultural traditions associated with

that resource for a noticeable period of time.

They are considered long term if they

involve a change in important vegetation or

cultural features, or addition of a new

facility or visitor use that would change the

physical character of or access to a resource

for a noticeable period of time. This period

of time would vary by resource type and

traditional practitioners. These long-term

changes would disrupt cultural tradition(s)

associated with the affected resource, but the

disruption would not alter traditional

activities to the extent that the important

cultural traditions associated with the

resource are lost. Permanent impacts to

ethnographic resources would involve

irreversible changes in important resources

such that the ongoing cultural traditions

associated with those resources are lost.

The intensity of impacts to an ethnographic

resource would depend on the importance of

the resource to an ongoing cultural tradition,

as well as the extent of physical damage or

change. Negligible impacts would be barely

perceptible and not measurable, and would

be confined to a small area or single

contributing element of a larger National

Register District. Minor impacts would be

perceptible and measurable, and would

remain localized and confined to a single

contributing element of a larger National

Register District. Moderate impacts would

be sufficient to cause a change in a

significant characteristic of a National

Register District or property, and/or would

generally involve a small group of

contributing elements in a larger National

Register District. Major impacts would

result in substantial and highly noticeable

changes in significant characteristics of a

National Register District or property,

and/or would involve a large group of
95

contributing elements in a larger National

Register District and/or an individually

significant property.

The NPS would consult with various city

agencies and neighborhood associations and

organizations in Little Rock to develop

appropriate strategies to mitigate impacts on

ethnographic resources.

Cultural Landscape Resources

(including individually significant historic

structures and the historic streetscape)

Impacts to cultural landscape resources

result from physical changes to significant

characteristics of a resource or its setting.

Beneficial impacts can occur as a result of

restoration or rehabilitation of resources, or

removal of incompatible or noncontributing

facilities. Direct, adverse impacts generally

occur as a result of modifying a significant

characteristic of a historic structure or

landscape resource; removal of a significant

structure or landscape resource; or addition

of new, incompatible facilities in proximity

to a historic site or structure. Indirect

adverse impacts can also occur following

project completion. These impacts are

generally associated with changes in historic

vegetation or continued deterioration of

historic structures. They are considered

indirect impacts as they are not directly

associated with project construction, but

rather result from increased visitor use or

change in management of resources fostered

by the completed plan.

Impacts to historic structures and cultural

landscape resources are considered short

term if they involve activities such as

temporary removal of vegetation or other

contributing resources or road closures

where the impacts are noticeable for a

period of one to five years. Other examples

of short-term impacts to historic structures

include constructing scaffolding surrounding

a building during rehabilitation work, or

minor deterioration in historic fabric that is

repairable as part of routine maintenance

and upkeep. Impacts are considered long

term if they involve a reversible change,

lasting from five to 20 years, in a significant

characteristic of a historic structure or

landscape. These changes could include

such actions as alteration of contributing

resources or construction of an incompatible

building addition or adjacent facility.

Permanent impacts to a historic structure or

landscape resources would include

irreversible changes in significant

characteristics, such as removal of

contributing resources; restoration of natural

systems and features; irreversible removal of

historic fabric that changes the historic

character of a property; or demolition of a

historic structure.

Negligible impacts would be barely

perceptible and not measurable and would

be confined to small areas or a single

contributing element of a larger National

Register District. Minor impacts would be

perceptible and measurable but remain

localized and confined to a single

contributing element of a larger National

Register District. Moderate impacts would

be sufficient to cause change in a significant

characteristic of an individually significant

historic structure, or would generally

involve a single or small group of

contributing elements in a larger National

Register District. Major impacts would

result from substantial and highly noticeable

changes in significant characteristics or an

individually significant historic structure, or

would involve a large group of contributing

elements in a National Register District.

Mitigation measures for historic structures

and cultural landscape resources include

measures to avoid impacts, such as

rehabilitation and adaptive use, designing

new development to be compatible with
96

surrounding historic resources, and

screening new development from

surrounding historic resources. In situations

where a historic structure was proposed for

removal, the NPS would first consider

options for relocating the structure to

another location in the site for adaptive use.

Standard mitigation measures include

documentation according to standards of the

Historic American Buildings Survey and the

Historic American Engineering Record

(HABS/HAER) as defined in the ReEngineering Proposal (October 1, 1997).

The level of this documentation, which

includes photography and a narrative

history, would depend on the significance of

a resource (national, state, or local) and the

nature of the resource (such as an

individually significant structure,

contributing elements in a cultural landscape

or historic district). When a historic

structure is slated for demolition,

architectural elements and objects may be

salvaged for reuse in rehabilitating similar

structures, or they may be added to the site’s

museum collection. In addition, the

historical alteration of the human

environment and reasons for that alteration

would be interpreted to site visitors.

Museum Collection

(including archives and library)

Museum collections are important for their

historic, scientific, artistic, and interpretive

value. In addition, ethnographic objects and

records are of particular cultural value to

residents and organizations in local

communities. For the purposes of this plan,

impact analysis for the museum collection

focuses on the storage and management of

the collection. Treatment or management of

individual objects within the collection is

beyond the scope of this general

management plan. In this context, duration

of impacts to museum collections are either

short term or long term. Short-term impacts

would involve reversible actions that last up

to five years. Changes in museum

collections that would result in short-term

impacts include placement of objects on

public exhibition under environmentally

controlled conditions, or carefully controlled

transportation of objects from one location

to another. Long-term impacts include

actions or conditions that place the

collections at continued risk, lasting from

five to 20 years, such as storing collections

in a facility that does not meet NPS

standards for security and environmental

controls. Fragmenting the collection among

several repositories, thus making effective

management of the collection difficult,

would also be considered a long-term

impact.

Negligible impacts to museum collections

would be barely perceptible, such as the

placement of objects on public exhibit with

appropriate lighting, security, and

environmental controls. Minor impacts to

the collection are measurable and

perceptible, and would involve individual

components of the collection. Moderate

impacts are measurable, and would result in

noticeable change involving several

components of the collection. Major impacts

would result in highly noticeable change in

treatment or management of the entire

collection.

Beneficial impacts occur when ongoing

degradation of the collection is alleviated, or

unsatisfactory conditions for managing the

collection are remedied. These beneficial

impacts can occur when the collection,

which would otherwise continue to be stored

in facilities that place it at risk, is placed in

storage or exhibit facilities that adequately

control security, lighting, temperature, and

humidity. Adverse impacts can occur when

the collection is subject to degradation as a

result of inadequate security and
97

environmental controls, or when

management of the collection is hampered.

Mitigation measures related to museum

collections consist of preventive

conservation of a collection through proper

storage, handling, and exhibit of objects.

Cumulative Impacts

A cumulative impact is described in the

Council on Environmental Quality

regulations (1508.7) as follows:

“Cumulative impact” is the impact on the

environment that results from the

incremental impact of the action when

added to other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions regardless of

what agency (federal or non-federal) or

person undertakes such other actions.

Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place during a

period of time.

To assist in evaluating potential cumulative

impacts, reasonably foreseeable future

projects within the Little Rock, Arkansas,

metropolitan area were identified.

Reasonably foreseeable future projects

include any planning or development

activity that was currently being

implemented or was being proposed for

implementation in the reasonably

foreseeable future.

The following list comprises projects that

may have potential cumulative impact when

considered along with actions called for in

this general management plan. This list of

projects includes Centennial Neighborhood

Association preservation proposals, Central

High Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals for establishment of a

local ordinance historic district, construction

and development of the William Jefferson

Clinton Presidential Library, designation of

the Daisy Bates Home as a national historic

landmark, and proposals to construct a Civil

Rights Institute within the boundaries of the

site. The purpose of this scenario is to

evaluate (1) whether the resources and

human community have already been

affected by past or present activities, and (2)

whether other agencies or the public have

plans that may affect resources in the future.

Actions associated with these projects are

evaluated in the cumulative impact analysis

in conjunction with the impacts of each

alternative to assess whether they have any

additive effects on a particular

environmental, cultural, or social resource.

Because most of these cumulative actions

are in the early planning stages, the

evaluation of cumulative impacts has been

based on a general description of their

project.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Archeological Resources

Analysis

No archeological surveys have been

conducted at the site, and no archeological

sites have been identified and inventoried.

Thus, the impact of actions on archeological

sites under this alternative is unknown. If

archeological sites are discovered as a result

of actions undertaken pursuant to this

alternative, impacts would be mitigated as

described in the “Mitigation of Impacts”

section of “Archeological Resources,”

above.
98

Cumulative Impacts

Archeological resources are subject to

damage from development, vandalism,

visitor access, and natural processes.

Although the impacts of this alternative on

archeological resources is unknown, the

probability of finding such sites within the

boundaries of the historic site is low.

One additional proposed project under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) could impact

archeological resources in the site from

grading and ground disturbance. However, it

is not possible to assess accurately the

impacts until archeological surveys have

been conducted and resource inventory and

design information is available.

If significant archeological sites could not be

avoided as part of planning and

implementation of actions within the site,

the data they possess would be recovered in

accordance with the “Mitigation of Impacts”

section of “Archeological Resources,”

above.

Conclusion

The impact of actions on archeological sites

under this alternative is unknown, but the

site would strive to avoid or otherwise

mitigate impacts, in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Archeological Resources,” above. With

mitigation, impairment of archeological

resources is not anticipated.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis

No ethnographic overview and assessment

studies have been conducted at the site, and

no ethnographic resources have been

identified and inventoried. Thus, the impact

of actions on ethnographic resources under

this alternative is unknown. If research and

assessment studies identify ethnographic

sites in the site, the NPS would consult with

city agencies and neighborhood associations

and organizations to mitigate potential

impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

Ethnographic resources at the site are

subject to loss or damage from development,

visitor use, and disruption of community

cultural traditions. Although the impacts of

this alternative on ethnographic resources

are unknown, the probability of such

impacts is considered to be low.

Three additional proposed projects under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

Centennial Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals; Central High

Neighborhood Association preservation

proposals for establishment of a local

ordinance historic district; and proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) could impact

ethnographic resources at the site. However,

it is not possible to accurately assess the

impacts until ethnographic assessment

studies have been conducted and resource

inventory and design information is

available.

The NPS would consult concerned city

agencies and neighborhood associations and

organizations should unforeseen impacts to

ethnographic resources arise. If resource

avoidance could not be achieved,
99

appropriate mitigation would be

implemented in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Ethnographic Resources,” above.

Conclusion

The impact of actions on ethnographic

resources under this alternative is unknown,

but the NPS would strive to avoid or

otherwise mitigate impacts, in accordance

with the “Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Ethnographic Resources,” above. With

mitigation, impairment of ethnographic

resources is not anticipated.

Cultural Landscape Resources

(including individually significant historic

sites and structures and the historic

streetscape)

Analysis

Limited grant funding is provided by the

NPS for maintenance of the front façade of

the main high school building in conjunction

with a cooperative agreement between the

NPS and the Little Rock School District to

preserve the integrity and character of the

front façade and its adjacent grounds along

South Park Street. This funding would

potentially have long-term minor beneficial

impacts on that national historic landmark

structure and its immediate surroundings.

Because the integrity and character of the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station exterior

would continue to be maintained to the

greatest extent permitted under current NPS

policies, this alternative would result in

continuing long-term minor beneficial

effects on that rehabilitated structure.

Because the privately owned Capel Building

(Ponder’s Drug Store) would not undergo

rehabilitation, this alternative would result in

long-term minor to moderate adverse

impacts on the architectural integrity of that

historic structure. While efforts to protect

the integrity and character of the Magnolia

Mobil Service Station exterior, as well as the

front façade of the main high school

building and its adjacent grounds, would be

undertaken under this alternative, lack of a

comprehensive management program to

preserve and protect the historic streetscape

could potentially result in the loss of some

landscape elements, and thus have long-term

minor to moderate adverse impacts on those

resources.

Cumulative Impacts

Historic structures and cultural landscape

resources have been lost or damaged in the

site through past urban development, lack of

building maintenance and preservation

treatment, and site clearance. Several

residential structures once located on the

northwest corner of Daisy L. Gatson Bates

Drive and South Park Street have been

demolished, and a greenhouse once located

on the northeast corner of that intersection

has been removed. Although the Magnolia

Mobil Service Station has been restored to

its 1957-era appearance, the Capel Building

has been subjected to little, if any,

preservation treatment, resulting in some

structural deterioration. Although the

cultural landscape at the site retains a

moderate degree of integrity, the grounds in

front of the main high school building have

been modified, the most notable change

being replacement of the historic reflecting

pool with the present concrete plaza.

Three additional proposed projects under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

Centennial Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals; Central High

Neighborhood Association preservation

proposals for establishment of a local

ordinance historic district; and proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) have potential to
100

affect cultural landscape resources,

including historic structures, in the site.

Although the Centennial Neighborhood

Association preservation proposals and

Central High Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals for establishment of a

local ordinance historic district could have

long-term minor beneficial effects on the

cultural landscape features and historic

structures in the site, it is not possible to

accurately determine the nature of impacts

without detailed information. Construction

of a Civil Rights Institute at the site would

result in the introduction of a non-historic

facility within the boundaries of the site.

Although such construction could result in

long-term minor to moderate adverse

impacts on the cultural landscape, it is not

possible to accurately determine the nature

of impacts without detailed information.

This alternative would generally have

cumulative long-term minor beneficial

impacts on historic structures and cultural

landscape resources in the site (as discussed

in the conclusion section above) in

conjunction with other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future undertakings

by city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (as discussed

above). The intensity of adverse impacts to

cultural landscape resources would be

reduced by documenting resources as

discussed in the “Mitigation of Impacts”

section of “Cultural Landscape Resources,

Including Individually Significant Historic

Structures.” The intensity of potential

adverse impacts from the proposed

construction of the Civil Rights Institute

would be reduced by ensuring that its design

was compatible with the historic setting of

the cultural landscape.

Under this alternative, the legislative

mandates for the site would not be fully met.

Visitors would not have the full opportunity

to experience and understand the

significance of the events that occurred at

the site. Although some limited actions

would continue to preserve aspects of the

cultural landscape, No Action would

potentially lead to an impairment of park

resources and values.

Conclusion

Actions under this alternative would result

in long-term minor beneficial impacts on the

front façade of the main high school

building, the grounds in front of the school

facing South Park Street, and the Magnolia

Mobil Service Station exterior. Selection of

this alternative would result in long-term

minor to moderate adverse impacts on the

exterior of the Capel Building, and lack of a

comprehensive management program to

preserve and protect cultural landscape

features in the site could potentially have

long-term minor to moderate adverse

impacts on some landscape features.

Museum Collection

(including archives and library)

Analysis

Under this alternative, the Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection and

archives and library would continue to be

housed and maintained in the library

facilities at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock. A Scope of Collections

Statement would be prepared by the NPS to

guide acquisition of resource materials for

establishment of the site’s museum

collection and archives and library materials.

The Scope of Collections Statement would

consider NPS acquisition of the Central

High Museum, Inc., museum collection.

Establishment of a site museum collection

and archives and library would place

acquired resource materials at risk from
101

damage, deterioration, and loss, because the

NPS currently has inadequate space and

curatorial facilities to house and preserve

such materials. Consequently, it would be

difficult for the site to comply with the

protection and preservation guidelines and

standards for such facilities as prescribed by

the NPS’s Museum Handbook and Cultural

Resource Management Guideline, Director’s

Order No. 28, Release No. 5, 1998.

If the NPS acquired the extant Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection, materials

in the collection would continue be

preserved according to the protection and

preservation guidelines if they remained

housed at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock. However, maintenance of the

collection at an off-site facility would result

in logistical and staffing problems that could

impede effective management.

Cumulative Impacts

Because the NPS currently has inadequate

storage and curatorial facilities to house and

preserve such materials, selection of this

alternative, providing for establishment of a

site museum collection and archives and

library, would have potential long-term

minor to moderate adverse impacts on the

acquired resource materials.

One additional proposed project under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) would have long-term

moderate to major beneficial impacts on the

museum collection and archives and library

at the site, because the institute, as proposed,

would include modern storage and curatorial

facilities to house a museum and archives

and library. Thus, a modern storage and

research facility meeting present-day

museum and archival standards would be

located on-site, providing for the protection,

preservation, and effective management of

the collections by a consortium of city

agencies and neighborhood associations and

organizations that would include the NPS.

Although establishment of an NPS museum

collection and archives and library would

have potential long-term minor to moderate

adverse impacts on the acquired source

materials, establishment of the collection, in

conjunction with the proposed development

of the Civil Rights Institute, could have

cumulative long-term moderate to major

beneficial impacts on the museum collection

and archives and library at the site.

Conclusion

The museum collection and archival and

library materials to be established by the

NPS would be managed and protected to the

extent allowable under current funding and

staffing levels. Nevertheless, the materials

would face potential long-term minor to

moderate adverse impacts because of

inadequate storage and curatorial facilities

and protection measures. During the long

term this could lead to further deterioration

and potential impairment of these resources.

Acquisition of the extant Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection by the

NPS would result in continuing long-term

beneficial effects for the resource materials

if the collection remained at the library of

the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

However, maintenance of the collection at

an off-site facility would result in logistical

and staffing problems that could impede

effective management.

Section 106 Summary

Under regulations of the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.9)

addressing the criteria of effect and adverse

effect, the NPS finds that the selection of
102

this alternative would result in adverse

effects to certain historic properties listed in

or eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places. Making no

concerted effort to preserve either the Capel

Building or significant features of the

cultural landscape, other than the grounds in

front of the main high school building,

would adversely affect these properties as

they slowly deteriorated and eventually

would be lost. This loss could potentially

lead to an impairment of site resources and

values. Proposals to construct a new

building to house a Civil Rights Institute

within the boundaries of the site could have

an adverse impact on cultural landscape

resources. The site’s museum collection and

archives and library would be adversely

affected by inadequate storage and curatorial

facilities and lack of protection measures.

The impacts of this alternative on

ethnographic resources is unknown, but the

NPS would strive to avoid or mitigate

impacts as described in the “Mitigation of

Impacts” section of “Ethnographic

Resources,” above. The impacts of this

alternative on archeological sites is

unknown, but the site would strive to avoid

or otherwise mitigate impacts as discussed

in the “Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Archeological Resources,” above.

In accordance with NPS policies and

procedures, the site would continue to

protect cultural resources to the greatest

extent allowable under present funding and

staffing levels. Disturbance of significant

resources would be avoided wherever

possible, but in instances where avoidance

or preservation could not be achieved,

appropriate mitigation measures as

described above would be carried out in

consultation with the Arkansas state historic

preservation officer.

Alternative 2 – The Site

Archeological Resources

Analysis

No archeological surveys have been

conducted at the site, and no archeological

sites have been identified and inventoried.

Thus, the impact of actions on archeological

sites under this alternative is unknown. If

archeological sites are discovered as a result

of actions undertaken pursuant to this

alternative, impacts would be mitigated as

described in the “Mitigation of Impacts”

section of “Archeological Resources,”

above.

Cumulative Impacts

Archeological resources are subject to

damage from development, vandalism,

visitor access, and natural processes.

Although the impacts of this alternative on

archeological resources are unknown, the

probability of finding such sites within the

boundaries of the historic site is low.

One additional proposed project under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) could impact

archeological resources in the site from

grading and ground disturbance. However, it

is not possible to assess accurately the

impacts until archeological surveys have

been conducted and resource inventory and

design information is available.

If significant sites could not be avoided as

part of planning and implementation of

actions within the site, the data they possess

would be recovered in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Archeological Resources,” above.
103

Conclusion

The impact of actions on archeological sites

under this alternative is unknown, but the

site would strive to avoid or otherwise

mitigate impacts, in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Archeological Resources,” above. With

mitigation, impairment of archeological

resources is not anticipated.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis

No ethnographic assessment studies have

been conducted at the site, and no

ethnographic resources have been identified

and inventoried. Thus, the impact of actions

on ethnographic resources under this

alternative is unknown. If research and

assessment studies identify ethnographic

resources in the site, the NPS would consult

with city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations to mitigate

potential impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

Ethnographic resources at the site are

subject to loss or damage from development,

visitor use, and disruption of community

cultural traditions. Although the impacts of

this alternative on ethnographic resources

are unknown, the probability of such

impacts is considered to be low.

Three additional proposed projects under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

Centennial Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals; Central High

Neighborhood Association preservation

proposals for establishment of a local

ordinance historic district; and proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) could impact

ethnographic resources at the site. However,

it is not possible to assess accurately the

impacts until ethnographic assessment

studies have been conducted and resource

inventory and design information is

available.

The NPS would consult concerned city

agencies and neighborhood associations and

organizations should unforeseen impacts to

ethnographic resources arise. If resource

avoidance could not be achieved,

appropriate mitigation would be

implemented in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Ethnographic Resources,” above.

Conclusion

The impact of actions on ethnographic

resources under this alternative is unknown,

but the NPS would strive to avoid or

otherwise mitigate impacts, in accordance

with the “Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Ethnographic Resources,” above. With

mitigation, impairment of ethnographic

resources is not anticipated.

Cultural Landscape Resources

(including individually significant historic

sites and structures and the historic

streetscape)

Analysis

Efforts to maintain the integrity and

character of the front façade of the main

high school building and adjacent grounds

via a cooperative agreement between the

NPS and the Little Rock School District,

along with financial and technical assistance

provided by the NPS, would potentially

have long-term minor beneficial impacts on

the national historic landmark structure and

its immediate surroundings. Because the

integrity of the Magnolia Mobil Service

Station exterior would continue to be
104

preserved in accordance with NPS historic

preservation policies and regulations after

transfer to the NPS, this alternative would

result in long-term minor beneficial impacts

on that rehabilitated structure. Acquisition of

the Capel Building (Ponder’s Drug Store) by

the NPS and rehabilitation of its exterior to

its 1957-era appearance would result in

long-term minor to moderate beneficial

effects on that historic structure.

Expansion of the boundary of the site to

include the seven private residences on the

east side of South Park Street across from

the front of the high school, in conjunction

with cooperative agreements between the

NPS and the owners of those structures to

preserve their exterior front faHades and

yards, could potentially have long-term

minor beneficial impacts on preservation of

the architectural integrity of the buildings as

well as significant features of the cultural

landscape along South Park Street between

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and West 16th

Street.

Construction of a visitor center in alternative

2 would result in the introduction of a nonhistoric facility within the boundaries of the

national historic site. Although such

construction would result in long-term

minor to moderate adverse impacts on the

cultural landscape, it is not possible to

accurately determine the nature of impacts

without detailed information.

Cumulative Impacts

Historic structures and cultural landscape

resources have been lost or damaged in

Little Rock Central High School National

Historic Site through past urban

development, lack of building maintenance

and preservation treatment, and site

clearance. Several residential structures once

located on the northwest corner of Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive and South Park Street

have been demolished, and a greenhouse

once located on the northeast corner of that

intersection has been removed. Although the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station has been

rehabilitated to its 1957-era appearance, the

Capel Building has been subjected to little,

if any, preservation treatment, resulting in

some structural deterioration. Although the

cultural landscape at the site retains a

moderate degree of integrity, the grounds in

front of the main high school building have

been modified, the most notable change

being replacement of the historic reflecting

pool with the present concrete plaza.

Three additional proposed projects under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

Centennial Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals; Central High

Neighborhood Association preservation

proposals for establishment of a local

ordinance historic district; and proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) have potential to

affect cultural landscape resources,

including historic structures, in the site.

While the Centennial Neighborhood

Association preservation proposals and

Central High Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals for establishment of a

local ordinance historic district could have

long-term minor beneficial effects on the

cultural landscape features and historic

structures in the site, it is not possible to

accurately determine the nature of the

impacts without detailed information.

Construction of a Civil Rights Institute at

the site would result in the introduction of a

non-historic facility within the boundaries of

the site. Although such construction could

result in long-term minor to moderate

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape, it

is not possible to accurately determine the

nature of impacts without detailed

information.
105

Selection of this alternative would generally

have cumulative long-term minor to

moderate beneficial impacts on historic

structures and cultural landscape resources

at the site (as discussed in the conclusion

section above) in conjunction with other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future undertakings by city agencies and

neighborhood associations and organizations

(as discussed above). The intensity of

potential adverse impacts from the proposed

construction of the Civil Rights Institute

would be reduced by ensuring that its design

was compatible with the historic setting of

the cultural landscape.

Conclusion

Actions under this alternative would have

long-term minor beneficial impacts on the

front façade of the main high school

building, the grounds in front of the school

facing South Park Street, and the Magnolia

Mobil Service Station exterior.

Rehabilitation of the exterior of the Capel

Building to its 1957-era appearance would

result in long-term minor to moderate

beneficial effects on that historic structure.

Expansion of the boundary of the site, in

conjunction with cooperative agreements

between the NPS and the owners of the

seven private residences on the east side of

South Park Street, would result in long-term

minor beneficial impacts on the integrity of

those structures as well as significant

features of the historic streetscape along

South Park Street between Daisy L. Gatson

Bates Drive and West 16th Street. Taking

these actions under alternative 2 would help

protect the cultural landscape in accordance

with the site’s enabling legislation, mission,

and objectives. Alternative 2 would therefore help insure that these resources are left

unimpaired. Although some limited actions

would continue to preserve aspects of the

cultural landscape, no action would

potentially lead to an impairment of park

resources and values.

Construction of a visitor center in alternative

2 would result in the introduction of a nonhistoric facility within the boundaries of the

national historic site. Although such

construction would result in long-term

minor to moderate adverse impacts on the

cultural landscape, it is not possible to

accurately determine the nature of impacts

without detailed information.

Museum Collection

(including archives and library)

Analysis

Under this alternative, the Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection and

archives and library would continue to be

housed and maintained in the library

facilities at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock.

Additionally, a Scope of Collections

Statement would be prepared by the NPS to

guide acquisition of resource materials for

establishment of the site’s museum

collection and archives and library. The

statement would not only emphasize

acquisition of resource materials for

research but also the collection of objects for

exhibit and interpretation. The site collection

would be housed in the library at the

University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

During preparation of the statement,

acquisition of the extant Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection by the

NPS would be considered.

Establishment of a site museum collection

and archives, including objects for

interpretation and exhibit, and their

placement in the library at the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock, would have longterm moderate beneficial impacts the
106

collection. Placement of the collection in

this repository would enable the NPS to

comply with the protection and preservation

guidelines and standards for such facilities

prescribed by the NPS’s Museum Handbook

and Cultural Resource Management

Guideline, Director’s Order No. 28, Release

No. 5, 1998.

If the NPS acquired the extant Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection, materials

in the collection would continue to be

housed in the library at the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock. Thus, actions under

this alternative would have long-term

moderate beneficial impacts on the extant

Central High Museum, Inc., museum

collection and archives and library, because

they would be preserved according to the

NPS’s protection and preservation

guidelines and standards.

Cumulative Impacts

Establishment of the site’s museum

collection, including archives and library,

and placement of the collection in the library

at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock,

would have long-term moderate beneficial

impacts on the collection. Location of the

collection at an off-site facility, however,

could result in minor logistical and staffing

problems that could impede effective

management.

One additional proposed project under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

proposals to construct a Civil Rights

Institute within the boundaries of the site)

would have long-term moderate to major

beneficial impacts on the museum collection

and archives and library at the site, because

the institute, as proposed, would include

storage and curatorial facilities to house

museum and archives and library collections

relating to the events at Central High School

during 1957-58. Thus, a modern storage and

research facility meeting museum and

archival standards would be located on-site,

providing for the protection, preservation,

and effective management of the collections

by a consortium of local agencies and

neighborhood associations and organizations

with which the NPS would collaborate via a

cooperative agreement. Selection of this

alternative, in conjunction with the

development of the proposed Civil Rights

Institute, would have cumulative long-term

moderate to major beneficial impacts on the

site’s museum collection and archives and

library.

Conclusion

Establishment of the site’s museum

collection and archives and library and

placement of the collection in the library at

the University of Arkansas at Little Rock,

would have long-term moderate beneficial

impacts on the collection.

Acquisition of the extant Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection by the

NPS and continuing placement of the

collection in the library at the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock, would have

continuing long-term moderate beneficial

impacts on the collection. These actions

would further protect resources from

potential impairment.

Although maintenance of the site’s museum

collection in the library at the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock would have longterm beneficial impacts on the collection,

location of the collection at an off-site

facility could result in logistical and staffing

problems that might impede effective

management.
107

Section 106 Summary

Under regulations of the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.9)

addressing the criteria of effect and adverse

effect, the NPS finds that the selection of

this alternative would not result in adverse

effects to historic properties listed in or

eligible for listing in the National Register

of Historic Places. Rehabilitation and

adaptive use of historic buildings, such as

the Capel Building, and significant elements

of the cultural landscape would have no

adverse effect on historic properties.

Rehabilitation would be carried out in

accordance with The Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties. Construction of a new

building to house the proposed Civil Rights

Institute within the boundaries of the site

could have an adverse impact on cultural

landscape resources.

No adverse impacts to the site’s museum

collection and archives and library would

result from housing materials in the library

of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

The impact of this alternative on

ethnographic resources is unknown, but the

NPS would strive to avoid or mitigate

impacts as described in the “Mitigation of

Impacts” section of “Ethnographic

Resources,” above.

The impacts of this alternative on

archeological sites are unknown, but the site

would strive to avoid or otherwise mitigate

impacts as discussed in the “Mitigation of

Impacts” section of “Archeological

Resources,” above.

For project areas lacking sufficient cultural

resource data or design information to

adequately assess effects, the site would

carry out inventories, evaluate identified

resources for National Register significance,

and, in consultation with the Arkansas state

historic preservation officer, determine

avoidance or appropriate treatment and

standard mitigation measures prior to

construction disturbance. Actions included

under this alternative would help protect

cultural resources from potential impairment

while meeting the mandates of Section 106.

Alternative 3 – The City

Archeological Resources

Analysis

No archeological surveys have been

conducted at the site, and no archeological

sites have been identified and inventoried.

Thus, the impact of actions on archeological

sites under this alternative is unknown. If

archeological sites are discovered as a result

of actions undertaken pursuant to this

alternative, impacts will be mitigated as

described in the “Mitigation of Impacts”

section of “Archeological Resources,”

above.

Cumulative Impacts

Archeological resources are subject to

damage from development, vandalism,

visitor access, and natural processes.

Although the impacts of this alternative on

archeological resources are unknown, the

probability of finding such sites within the

boundaries of the historic site is low.

One additional proposed projects under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

proposals to construct a Civil Rights

Institute within the boundaries of the site)

could impact archeological resources at the

site from grading and ground disturbance.

However, it is not possible to assess

accurately the impacts until archeological

surveys have been conducted and resource
108

inventory and design information is

available.

If significant archeological sites could not be

avoided as part of planning and

implementation of actions within the historic

site, the data they possess would be

recovered in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Archeological Resources,” above.

Conclusion

The impact of actions on archeological sites

under this alternative is unknown, but the

site would strive to avoid or otherwise

mitigate impacts, in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Archeological Resources,” above.

Impairment of archeological resources under

this alternative is not anticipated.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis

No ethnographic assessment studies have

been conducted at the site, and no

ethnographic resources have been identified

and inventoried. Thus, the impact of actions

on ethnographic resources under this

alternative is unknown. If research and

assessment studies identify ethnographic

resources in the site, the NPS would consult

with city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations to mitigate

potential impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

Ethnographic resources at the site are

subject to loss or damage from development,

visitor use, and disruption of community

cultural traditions. Although the impacts of

this alternative on ethnographic resources

are unknown, the probability of such

impacts is considered to be low.

Three additional proposed projects under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

Centennial Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals; Central High

Neighborhood Association preservation

proposals for establishment of a local

ordinance historic district; and proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) could impact

ethnographic resources at the site. However,

it is not possible to assess accurately the

impacts until ethnographic assessment

studies have been conducted and resource

inventory and design information is

available.

The NPS would consult concerned city

agencies and neighborhood associations and

organizations should unforeseen impacts to

ethnographic resources arise. If resource

avoidance could not be achieved,

appropriate mitigation would be

implemented in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Ethnographic Resources,” above.

Conclusion

The impact of actions on ethnographic

resources under this alternative is unknown,

but the NPS would strive to avoid or

otherwise mitigate impacts in accordance

with the “Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Ethnographic Resources,” above.

Impairment of these resources is not

anticipated.

Cultural Landscape Resources

(including individually significant historic

sites and structures)

Analysis

Limited grant funding provided by the NPS

for the maintenance of the front façade of

the main high school building, in
109

conjunction with a cooperative agreement

between the NPS and the Little Rock School

District to preserve the integrity and

character of the front façade and its adjacent

grounds along South Park Street, would

potentially have long-term minor beneficial

impacts on that national historic landmark

structure and its immediate surroundings.

Because the integrity and character of the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station would

continue to be maintained to the greatest

extent permitted under current NPS policies

after transfer to the NPS, this alternative

would result in continuing long-term minor

beneficial effects on that rehabilitated

structure. Acquisition of the Capel Building

(Ponder’s Drug Store) by the NPS and

rehabilitation of its exterior to its 1957-era

appearance would result in long-term minor

to moderate beneficial impacts on the

architectural integrity of that historic

structure.

Lack of a comprehensive management

program to preserve and protect historic

streetscape features in the site could result in

the loss of some significant landscape

elements, and thus have long-term minor to

moderate adverse impacts on those

resources.

Establishment of cooperative agreements

between the NPS and the owners of Civil

Rights-related sites and structures in the City

of Little Rock, along with technical assistance provided by the NPS for the

preservation and interpretation of those sites,

would potentially result in long-term minor

beneficial impacts on the sites and structures. Increased visitor use of these sites,

however, could result in long-term minor

adverse impacts to their integrity.

Cumulative Impacts

Historic structures and cultural landscape

resources have been lost or damaged in

Little Rock Central High School National

Historic Site through past urban

development, lack of building maintenance

and preservation treatment, and site

clearance. Several residential structures once

located on the northwest corner of Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive and South Park Street

have been demolished, and a greenhouse

once located on the northeast corner of that

intersection has been removed. Although the

front exterior of the Magnolia Mobil Service

Station has been rehabilitated to its 1957-era

appearance, the Capel Building has been

subjected to little, if any, preservation

treatment, resulting in some structural

deterioration. Although the historic

streetscape at the site retains a moderate

degree of integrity, the grounds in front of

the main high school building have been

modified, the most notable change being

replacement of the historic reflecting pool

with the present concrete plaza.

Three additional proposed projects under the

control of city agencies, neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

Centennial Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals; Central Hill

Neighborhood Association preservation

proposals for establishment of a local

ordinance historic district; and proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) have potential to

affect cultural landscape resources,

including historic structures, in the site.

Although the Centennial Neighborhood

Association preservation proposals and

Central High Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals for establishment of a

local ordinance historic district could have

long-term minor beneficial effects on the

cultural landscape features and historic

structures in the site, it is not possible to

accurately determine the nature of impacts

without detailed information. Construction

of a Civil Rights Institute would introduce a
110

nonhistoric facility within the cultural

landscape. Although such construction could

result in long-term minor to moderate

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape, it

is not possible to accurately determine the

nature of impacts without detailed

information.

Selection of this alternative would generally

have cumulative long-term minor to

moderate beneficial impacts on historic

structures and cultural landscape resources

in the site (as discussed in the conclusion

section above) in conjunction with other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future undertakings by city agencies and

neighborhood organizations and associations

(as discussed above). The intensity of

adverse impacts on cultural landscape

resources would be reduced by documenting

resources as discussed in the “Mitigation of

Impacts” section of “Cultural Landscape

Resources, Including Individually

Significant Historic Structures.” The

intensity of potential adverse impacts from

the proposed construction of the Civil Rights

Institute would be reduced by ensuring that

its design was compatible with the historic

setting of the cultural landscape.

Conclusion

Actions under this alternative would have

long-term minor beneficial impacts on the

front façade of the main high school

building, the grounds in front of the school

facing South Park Street, and the front

exterior of the Magnolia Mobil Service

Station. Rehabilitation of the exterior of the

Capel Building to its 1957-era appearance

would result in long-term minor to moderate

beneficial effects on that historic structure.

Although selection of this alternative would

potentially result in long-term minor

beneficial impacts on the preservation and

protection of related Civil Rights-era sites in

the City of Little Rock, increased visitor use

at these sites could result in long-term minor

adverse impacts. These impacts, while

adverse, are not anticipated to impair site

resources and values over the long term.

Museum Collection

(including archives and library)

Analysis

Under this alternative, the Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection and

archives and library would continue to be

housed and maintained in the library

facilities at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock. Additionally, a Scope of

Collections Statement would be prepared by

the NPS to guide acquisition of resource

materials for establishment of the site’s

museum collection and archives and library.

The statement would emphasize acquisition

of resource materials for research as well as

the minimal collection of objects for

exhibits. The site collection would be

housed at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock. During preparation of the

statement, acquisition of the extant Central

High Museum, Inc., museum collection by

the NPS would be considered. Under this

alternative, the NPS would assist partners in

developing finding aids for archival

collections and facilitating access to archival

resources throughout the United States, thus

enabling the site to serve as a focal point for

scholarly research related to the events at

Central High School during 1957-58.

Establishment of a site museum collection

and archives, including minimal collection

of objects for exhibit, and their placement in

the library at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock, would have long-term,

moderate to major, beneficial impacts on the

collection. Placement of the collection in

this repository would enable the NPS to

comply with the protection and preservation
111

guidelines and standards prescribed by the

NPS’s Museum Handbook and Cultural

Resource Management Guideline, Director’s

Order No. 28, Release No. 5, 1998.

If the NPS acquired the extant Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection, materials

and objects in the collection would continue

to be housed in the library at the University

of Arkansas at Little Rock. Thus, actions

under this alternative would have long-term,

moderate to major, beneficial impacts on the

extant Central High Museum, Inc., museum

collection, because it would be preserved

according to the NPS’s protection and

preservation guidelines and standards.

Cumulative Impacts

Establishment of the site’s museum

collection, including archival and library

materials, and placement of the collection in

the library at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock, would have long-term moderate

to major beneficial impacts on the

collection. Location of the collection at an

off-site facility, however, could result in

ongoing minor logistical and staffing

problems that could impede effective

management.

One additional proposed project under the

control of local agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

proposals to construct a Civil Rights

Institute within the boundaries of the site)

would have long-term moderate to major

beneficial impacts on the museum collection

and archives and library at the site, because

the institute, as proposed, would include

storage and curatorial facilities to house

museum and archival and library collections

relating to the events at Central High School

during 1957-58. Thus, a modern storage and

research facility meeting museum and

archival standards would be located on-site,

providing for the protection, preservation,

and effective management of the collection

by a consortium of local agencies and

neighborhood associations and organization

with which the NPS would collaborate via a

cooperative agreement. Selection of this

alternative, in conjunction with development

of the Civil Rights Institute, would have

cumulative long-term moderate to major

beneficial impacts on the site’s museum

collection and archives and library.

Conclusion

Establishment of the site’s museum

collection and archives and library and

placement of the collection in the library at

the University of Arkansas at Little Rock,

would have long-term, moderate to major,

beneficial impacts on the collection. These

actions would help protect resources from

potential impairment.

Acquisition of the extant Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection by the

NPS and continuing placement of the

collection in the library at the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock, would have longterm, moderate to major, beneficial impacts

on the collection. These actions would help

protect these resources from impairment in

the long term.

Section 106 Summary

Under regulations of the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.9)

addressing the criteria of effect and adverse

effect, the NPS finds that the selection of

this alternative could result in adverse

effects to certain historic properties listed in

or eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places. Making no

concerted effort to preserve significant

features of the cultural landscape, other than

the grounds in front of the main high school

building, could adversely affect those
112

properties as they slowly deteriorated, and

eventually could be lost.

Rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic

buildings, such as the Capel Building, would

have no adverse effect on historic properties.

Rehabilitation would be carried out in

accordance with The Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties. Proposed construction

of a new building to house a Civil Rights

Institute within the boundaries of the site

could have an adverse impact on cultural

landscape resources.

The impact of this alternative on

archeological sites is unknown, but the site

would strive to avoid or otherwise mitigate

impacts as discussed in the “Mitigation of

Impacts” section of “Archeological

Resources,” above.

The impact of this alternative on

ethnographic resources is unknown, but the

NPS would strive to avoid or mitigate

impacts as described in the “Mitigation of

Impacts” section of “Ethnographic

Resources,” above.

For project areas lacking sufficient cultural

resource data or design information to

adequately assess effects, the site would

carry out inventories, evaluate identified

resources for National Register significance,

and, in consultation with the Arkansas state

historic preservation officer, determine

avoidance or appropriate treatment and

standard mitigation measures for

construction disturbance.

No adverse effects to the site’s museum

collection and archives and library would

result from housing materials in the library

of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Overall, actions included under this

alternative would help protect some cultural

resources from potential impairment while

meeting the mandates of Section 106.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Archeological Resources

Analysis

No archeological surveys have been

conducted at the site, and no archeological

sites have been identified and inventoried.

Thus, the impact of actions on archeological

sites under this alternative is unknown. If

archeological sites are discovered as a result

of actions undertaken pursuant to this

alternative, impacts will be mitigated as

described in the “Mitigation of Impacts”

section of “Archeological Resources,”

above. With mitigation, impacts to

archeological resources would not lead to

impairment.

Cumulative Impacts

Archeological resources are subject to

damage from development, vandalism,

visitor access, and natural processes.

Although the impacts of this alternative on

archeological resources are unknown, the

probability of finding such sites within the

boundaries of the site is low.

One additional proposed project under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

proposals to construct a Civil Rights

Institute within the boundaries of the site)

could impact archeological resources at the

site from grading and ground disturbance.

However, it is not possible to assess

accurately the impacts until archeological

surveys have been conducted and resource

inventory and design information is

available.
113

If significant archeological sites could not be

avoided as part of planning and

implementation of actions within the historic

site, the data they possess would be

recovered in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Archeological Resources,” above.

Conclusion

The impact of actions on archeological sites

under this alternative is unknown, but the

site would strive to avoid or otherwise

mitigate impacts, in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Archeological Resources,” above. With

mitigation, impacts to archeological

resources would not lead to impairment.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis

No ethnographic assessment studies have

been conducted at the site, and no

ethnographic resources have been identified

and inventoried. Thus, the impact of actions

on ethnographic resources under this

alternative is unknown. If research and

assessment studies identify ethnographic

resources in the site, the NPS would consult

with city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations to mitigate

potential impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

Ethnographic resources at the site are

subject to loss or damage from development,

visitor use, and disruption of community

cultural traditions. Although the impact of

this alternative on ethnographic resources is

unknown, the probability of such impacts is

considered to be low.

Three additional proposed projects under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

Centennial Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals; Central High

Neighborhood Association preservation

proposals for establishment of a local

ordinance historic district; and proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) could impact

ethnographic resources at the site. However,

it is not possible to assess accurately the

impacts until ethnographic assessment

studies have been conducted and resource

inventory and design information is

available.

The NPS would consult concerned city

agencies and neighborhood associations and

organizations should unforeseen impacts to

ethnographic resources arise. If resource

avoidance could not be achieved,

appropriate mitigation would be

implemented in accordance with the

“Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Ethnographic Resources,” above.

Conclusion

The impact of actions on ethnographic

resources under this alternative is unknown,

but the NPS would strive to avoid or

otherwise mitigate impacts in accordance

with the “Mitigation of Impacts” section of

“Ethnographic Resources,” above.

Impairment of ethnographic resources is not

anticipated under this alternative.

Cultural Landscape Resources

(including individually significant historic

sites and structures)

Analysis

Limited grant funding provided by the NPS

for the maintenance of the front façade of

the main high school building, in
114

conjunction with a cooperative agreement

between the NPS and the Little Rock School

District to preserve the integrity and

character of the front façade of the structure

and its adjacent grounds along South Park

Street, would potentially have long-term

minor beneficial impacts on that national

historic landmark building and its immediate

surroundings. Because the integrity and

character of the Magnolia Mobil Service

Station would continue to be maintained to

the greatest extent permitted under current

NPS policies, this alternative would result in

continuing long-term minor beneficial

effects on that rehabilitated structure.

Rehabilitation of the Capel Building’s

exterior to its 1957-era appearance would

result in long-term minor to moderate

beneficial impacts on the architectural

integrity of that historic structure.

Construction of an education center in

alternative 4 would result in the introduction

of a non-historic facility within the

boundaries of the national historic site.

Although such construction would result in

long-term minor to moderate adverse

impacts on the cultural landscape, it is not

possible to accurately determine the nature

of impacts without detailed information.

Cumulative Impacts

Historic structures and cultural landscape

resources have been lost or damaged in

Little Rock Central High School National

Historic Site through past urban

development, lack of building maintenance

and preservation treatment, and site

clearance. Several residential structures once

located on the northwest corner of Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive and South Park Street

have been demolished, and a greenhouse

once located on the northeast corner of that

intersection has been removed. Although the

front exterior of the Magnolia Mobil Service

Station has been rehabilitated to its 1957-era

appearance, the Capel Building has been

subjected to little, if any, preservation

treatment, resulting in some structural

deterioration. Although the cultural

landscape at the site retains a moderate

degree of integrity, the grounds in front of

the main high school building have been

modified, the most notable change being

replacement of the historic reflecting pool

with the present concrete plaza.

Three additional proposed projects under the

control of city agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

Centennial Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals; Central High

Neighborhood Association preservation

proposals for establishment of a local

ordinance historic district; and proposals to

construct a Civil Rights Institute within the

boundaries of the site) have potential to

affect cultural landscape resources,

including historic structures, in the site.

While the Centennial Neighborhood

Association preservation proposals and

Central High Neighborhood Association

preservation proposals for establishment of a

local ordinance historic district could have

long-term minor beneficial effects on the

cultural landscape features and historic

structures in the site, it is not possible to

accurately determine the nature of impacts

without detailed information. Construction

of a Civil Rights Institute would result in the

introduction of a non-historic facility within

the cultural landscape. Although such

construction would result in long-term

minor to moderate adverse impacts on the

cultural landscape, it is not possible to

accurately determine the nature of impacts

without detailed information.

Selection of this alternative would generally

have cumulative long-term minor to

moderate beneficial impacts on historic

structures and cultural landscape resources

in the site (as discussed in the conclusion
115

section above) in conjunction with other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future undertakings by city agencies and

neighborhood associations and organizations

(as discussed above). The intensity of

adverse impacts on cultural landscape

resources would be reduced by documenting

resources as discussed in the “Mitigation of

Impacts” section of “Cultural Landscape

Resources, Including Individually

Significant Historic Structures.” The

intensity of adverse impacts from the

proposed construction of the Civil Rights

Institute would be reduced by ensuring that

its design was compatible with the historic

setting of the cultural landscape.

Conclusion

Actions under this alternative would have

long-term minor beneficial impacts on the

front façade of the main high school

building, the grounds in front of the school

facing South Park Street, and the Magnolia

Mobil Service Station exterior.

Rehabilitation of the exterior of the Capel

Building to its 1957-era appearance would

result in long-term minor to moderate

beneficial impacts on that historic structure.

While some features of the site would be

protected, others would not receive the same

treatment; but overall, site resources and

values would be protected from potential

impairment.

Construction of an education center in

alternative 4 would result in the introduction

of a non-historic facility within the

boundaries of the national historic site.

Although such construction would result in

long-term minor to moderate adverse

impacts on the cultural landscape, it is not

possible to accurately determine the nature

of impacts without detailed information.

Museum Collection

(Including Archives and Library)

Analysis

Under this alternative, the Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection and

archives and library would continue to be

housed and maintained in the library

facilities at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock. Additionally, a Scope of

Collections Statement would be prepared by

the NPS to guide acquisition of resource

materials for establishment of the site’s

museum collection and archives and library.

The statement would emphasize acquisition

of resource materials for research,

particularly secondary historical materials

relating to the events at Central High School

during 1957-58. The site collection would

be housed at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock. During preparation of the

statement, acquisition of the extant Central

High Museum, Inc., museum collection by

the NPS would be considered.

Establishment of a site museum collection

and archives and library, including active

collection of secondary historical materials,

and their placement in the library at the

University of Arkansas at Little Rock,

would have long-term moderate to major

beneficial impacts on the collection.

Placement of the museum collection and

archives and library in this repository would

enable the NPS to comply with the

protection and preservation guidelines and

standards for such facilities as prescribed in

the NPS’s Museum Handbook and Cultural

Resource Management Guideline, Director’s

Order No. 28, Release No. 5, 1998.

If the NPS acquired the extant Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection, materials

in the collection would continue to be

housed in the library at the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock. Thus, actions under

this alternative would have continuing long-
116

term, moderate to major, beneficial effects

on the extant Central High Museum, Inc.,

museum collection, because it would be

preserved according to the NPS’s protection

and preservation guidelines and standards.

Cumulative Impacts

Establishment of the site’s museum collection, including archives and library, and

their placement in the library at the

University of Arkansas at Little Rock,

would have long-term moderate to major

beneficial effects on the collection. Location

of the collection at off-site facility, however,

could result in ongoing minor logistical and

staffing problems that could impede

effective management.

One additional proposed project under the

control of local agencies and neighborhood

associations and organizations (e.g.,

proposals to construct a Civil Rights

Institute within the boundaries of the site)

would have long-term moderate to major

beneficial impacts on the museum collection

and archives and library at the site, because

the institute, as proposed, would include

storage and curatorial facilities to house

museum and archival and library collections

relating to the events at Central High School

during 1957-58. Thus, a modern storage and

research facility meeting museum and

archival collection standards would be

located on-site, providing for the protection,

preservation, and effective management of

the collections by a consortium of local

agencies and neighborhood associations and

organizations with which the NPS would

collaborate via a cooperative agreement.

Selection of this alternative, in conjunction

with the development of the proposed

institute, would have cumulative long-term

moderate to major beneficial impacts on the

site’s museum collection and archives and

library.

Conclusion

Establishment of the site’s museum collection and archives and library, and their

placement in the library at the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock, would have longterm, moderate to major, beneficial impacts

on the collection.

Acquisition of the extant Central High

Museum, Inc., museum collection by the

NPS and continuing placement of the

collection in the library at the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock, would have

continuing long-term, moderate to major,

beneficial impacts on the collection.

Although maintenance of the site’s museum

collection and archives and library in the

library at the University of Arkansas at

Little Rock, would have long-term moderate

to major beneficial effects on the collection

materials, location of the collection at an

off-site facility could result in logistical and

staffing problems that could impede

effective management.

Section 106 Summary

Under regulations of the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.9)

addressing the criteria of effect and adverse

effect, the NPS finds that the selection of

this alternative would result in adverse

effects to certain historic properties listed in

or eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places. Making no

concerted effort to preserve significant

features of the cultural landscape, other than

the grounds in front of main high school

building, would adversely affect these

properties as they slowly deteriorated, and

eventually would be lost.

Rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic

buildings, such as the Capel Building, would

have no adverse effect on historic properties.

Rehabilitation would be carried out in
117

accordance with The Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties. Proposed construction

of a new building to house a Civil Rights

Institute within the boundaries of the site

could have an adverse impact on cultural

landscape resources.

The impact of this alternative on

archeological sites is unknown, but the site

would strive to avoid or otherwise mitigate

impacts as discussed in the “Mitigation of

Impacts” section of “Archeological

Resources,” above.

The impact of this alternative on

ethnographic resources is unknown, but the

NPS would strive to avoid or mitigate

impacts as described in the “Mitigation of

Impacts” section of “Ethnographic

Resources,” above.

For project areas lacking sufficient cultural

resource data or design information to

adequately assess effects, the site would

carry out inventories, evaluate identified

resources for National Register significance,

and, in consultation with the Arkansas state

historic preservation officer, determine

avoidance or appropriate treatment and

standard mitigation measures to construction

disturbance.

No adverse effects to the site’s museum

collection and archives and library would

result from housing materials in the library

of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Overall, actions described in this alternative

would help protect cultural resources from

impairment while meeting the mandates of

section 106.

NATURAL RESOURCES

Methodology

All natural resource topics, with the

exception of air quality, have been

dismissed from further analysis because the

project area is in a highly disturbed, urban

environment.

The impacts of the alternatives and other

actions on air quality were determined by

examining:

the effects of increased traffic emissions caused

by increased visitation to the site,

the effects of constructing new facilities

and the restoration and rehabilitation of

cultural resources.

Intensity

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible impacts were considered

undetectable and would have no discernible

effect on air quality.

Minor impacts were effects on air quality that

would be slightly detectable but not expected to

have an overall effect on the site,

Moderate impacts would be clearly detectable

and could have an appreciable effect on air

quality.

Major impacts would have a substantial

influence on air quality and include impacts that

would reduce the air quality at the site

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur

for a short term and be temporary in nature, and

associated with transitional types of activities, or

over a long term and have a permanent effect on

air quality.
118

Type

Impacts are evaluated in terms of whether

the impacts on air quality would be

beneficial or adverse.

Beneficial impacts would improve air quality.

Adverse impacts would negatively affect air

quality.

Impairment to Park Resources and

Values

Impairment is an impact that, in the

professional judgment of the responsible

NPS manager, would harm the integrity of

park resources or values, including the

opportunities that otherwise would be

present for the enjoyment of those resources

or values. An impact would be more likely

to constitute an impairment to the extent that

it affects a resource or value whose

conservation is necessary to fulfill specific

purposes identified in the establishing

legislation or proclamation of the park; is

the key to the natural or cultural integrity of

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of

the park; or is identified as a goal in the

park’s general management plan or other

relevant NPS planning documents. An

impact would be less likely to constitute an

impairment to the extent that it is an

unavoidable result, which cannot be

reasonably further mitigated, of an action

necessary to preserve or restore the integrity

of park resources or values.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Currently, the site has approximately 17,500

vehicles (including buses for groups) per

year. Most of these visits occur during the

month of July. School is not in session

during June through August. Traffic

associated with the high school causes the

most vehicular movement. Vehicular

movement is extremely high during school

starting, ending, and lunch hours. According

to the transportation and site access analysis

in the affected environment section of this

document, current visitation equates to 17

vehicles per day “which is much less than

1% of all daily traffic along Daisy L. Gatson

Bates Drive.”

Currently there is no construction occurring

in the area.

Cumulative Impacts

There are no expected cumulative impacts

associated with this alternative.

Conclusion

The area is in attainment for air quality at

current traffic levels. Therefore, there are no

long or short-term, major adverse impacts

on air quality associated with traffic or

construction for this alternative. Impairment

of air resources should not occur.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Analysis

Visitor projections for these three

alternatives are the same: 54,000 to 68,000

visitors per year by 2015. According to the

transportation and site access affected

environment section of this document,

within 15 years implementation of these

alternatives would generate an additional 37

cars and 3 buses per day along Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive.

Alternatives 2 and 4 both call for

construction of an approximately 12,000

square foot, two-story facility, including

landscaping and parking lots on the

northeast corner. This lot is currently vacant;

therefore, there would be no construction
119

debris associated with the removal of

buildings. Alternative 3 calls for the

construction of a one-bus, 10-car, 3,000-

square-foot shuttle staging area including a

1,000-square-foot shade structure for

visitors.

There would be some construction debris

associated with the rehabilitation of the

exterior of Ponder’s Drug Store in

alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Alternatives 2 and 3

call for the rehabilitation of the interior of

both Ponder’s Drug Store and the Magnolia

Mobil Service Station.

Cumulative Impacts

The school is expected to continue to

accommodate no more than its current

2000+ population. Current visitation trends

and patterns indicate most visitation would

occur during the summer months when

school is not in session. Assuming a

continuation of these trends and patters,

during the next 15 years a large portion of

the projected increase in cars and buses (37

cars and 3 buses per day) are expected to

visit the site during the summer months.

Vehicle emissions associated with site

visitors, therefore, would occur primarily

during the summer. These emissions would

not be in addition to student traffic.

Therefore, there is expected to be minor,

long-term adverse effect on air quality

caused by school and site traffic.

Conclusion

Any traffic emission caused by increased

visitation to the site is expected to occur

primarily in the summer months. Traffic

emissions during the winter months are

expected to be associated with school

students. Site summer visitation traffic

emissions would not add to school traffic

emissions. In addition, school traffic is

heaviest during certain hours such as school

opening, closing and lunch hours. There is

minimal school traffic on weekends when

most visitors come to the site. Therefore, the

air quality of the area is expected to stay

roughly in the same range throughout the

year. Winter visitation coupled with school

traffic would result in minor, long-term

adverse impacts to air quality. In the

summer months, with the absence of school

traffic, impacts to air quality are expected to

result in negligible, long-term adverse

impacts to air quality.

Under alternatives 2, 3, and 4, local air

quality would be temporarily and minimally

affected by construction dust and vehicle

emissions. Standard construction practices

would be used to minimize airborne dust

levels in the work area. Long-term impacts

on air quality from the proposed

development would be negligible.

Impairment of air resources is not

anticipated.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Methodology

The category of visitor experience includes

what visitors do (visitor use), know, feel,

and sense while in or around the site,

interpretation (programs and media that

communicate site themes to public

audiences), and education (programs and

media that communicate site themes to

organized groups, especially school groups).

There is considerable overlap among these

three subsets, and they are analyzed together

in the category of visitor experience.

There are two general sources for predicting

the consequences to visitor experience of the

various alternatives: experience and

research. A vast reservoir of experience has

accumulated from the more than 80 years of

operations of national parks, and the
120

experiences of other parks, museums, and

similar sites. These experiences are directly

observed by planners who have worked in

parks, and are shared formally in

conferences and publications and informally

through personal contacts. The accuracy of

predictions based on experience is

significantly enhanced by formal research.

Visitor research validates and extends the

predictive value of experience. There is an

increasing body of knowledge accumulated

through formal research in parks, museums,

and zoos; research results are disseminated

through conferences and publications.

Organizations such as the Visitor Studies

Association, the American Association of

Museums, and the National Association for

Interpretation encourage and publicize

research relating to visitors. Education

research is conducted and disseminated by a

large number of organizations and schools.

The NPS has become increasingly active in

researching visitor use of parks and

determining the outcomes of different

media, programs, and activities. Examples

are the Visitor Services Project, which

surveys visitors to ten or more parks each

year; the Post-Occupancy Evaluation

Program, which assesses the effectiveness of

NPS visitor facilities; ongoing research by

the Stephen Mather Employee Development

Center and the University of West Virginia

on the effectiveness of interpretive

programs; and numerous studies recently

sponsored by the Harpers Ferry Center,

including formative and summative

evaluations of interpretive media, and a

literature review of research relating to the

effectiveness of interpretive media.

The visitor experience also reflects the total

number of visitors who are expected to tour

the site. The first step in determining the

effects of implementing the alternatives on

visitor experience was to construct a visitor

forecast. Past monthly visitation at the site

was compiled and graphed. Based on past

visits, future visits were estimated through

the year 2015 using a logarithmic trend line.

A trend line provides a “best fit” among a

scattered group of data points and allows

basic forecasts to be made. This type of

trend line was considered appropriate,

because it described a rate of increase in

visitation that would slow over time. Other

trend lines were also considered but most

(such as a straight-line method) produced

future values in later years that were clearly

too high.

To estimate visitation projections, the staff

members of two facilities were interviewed:

The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, and

The Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. National

Historic Site.

These facilities were selected because they

are in cities with interstate highway access

generally similar to that of Little Rock. Staff

was asked how visitation had initially

increased when the site opened and also how

visitation increased when the facility was

well established.

The informal sampling results of the four

facilities showed that when first opened,

visitation increased rapidly, but later grew at

a much lower annual rate of around 3% to

5%. This pattern appeared to fit the forecast

trend line used in this analysis reasonably

well. Some individuals contacted also felt

that a projected visitation increase of around

20 or 25% was probably reasonable for a

proposed new facility located near an

existing, growing visitor center within a

large city.
121

Intensity

The intensity of an impact is described as

negligible, minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible impacts were considered so slight as

to be difficult to measure or perceive, and they

have no meaningful implications.

Minor impacts would be slightly detectable by

some visitors, but not expected to have a

noticeable effect on visitor experience.

Moderate impacts would be detectable by many

visitors and could have a noticeable effect on

visitor experience.

Major impacts would be detected by most

visitors and have a substantial and noticeable

effect on visitor experience.

Duration

The duration of an impact on visitor

experience is described as

short term when the impact is temporary and

occurs for less than one year, or

long-term when impact occurs for more than one

year. The period of one year is chosen since the

effects of most actions (e.g., changes to visitor

facilities, media, programs, or other activities)

would stabilize after about one year.

Type

Impacts are evaluated in terms of whether

they are beneficial or adverse to visitor

experience.

Beneficial impacts are those that would be

perceived as positive by visitors or would

contribute to the achievement of NPS goals for

visitor experience.

Adverse impacts would be perceived as negative

by visitors or impair the achievement of visitor

experience.

Impairment to Park Resources and

Values

Impairment is an impact that, in the

professional judgment of the responsible

NPS manager, would harm the integrity of

park resources or values, including the

opportunities that otherwise would be

present for the enjoyment of those resources

or values. An impact would be more likely

to constitute an impairment to the extent that

it affects a resource or value whose

conservation is necessary to fulfill specific

purposes identified in the establishing

legislation or proclamation of the park; is

the key to the natural or cultural integrity of

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of

the park; or is identified as a goal in the

park’s general management plan or other

relevant NPS planning documents. An

impact would be less likely to constitute an

impairment to the extent that it is an

unavoidable result, which cannot be

reasonably further mitigated, of an action

necessary to preserve or restore the integrity

of park resources or values.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Visitor use (including school tours) at the

site would likely grow moderately during

the next 15 years, even if new visitor

facilities were not constructed. Visitor

services would continue to be limited due to

the lack of adequate space inside the visitor

center. Visitors would continue to wait to

see the exhibits. Because the two-person

information desk serves as a retail and

orientation area, confusion between visitors

wishing information on the site and visitors

making purchases would occur during high

visitation times. Parking for cars and buses

would remain limited causing visitors to

compete with students for parking, on side

streets in front of residences. Because there

is no designated area for bus loading and
122

unloading, buses would continue to load and

unload on Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive.

Increased visitation would have a moderate

long-term adverse impact on crowding in the

current visitor center (Magnolia Mobil

Service Station). The interpretive story

would continue to be told primarily by the

exhibits in the visitor center, which

summarize the basic events of 1957-58, but

are limited in scope and depth. Exhibits

would deteriorate over time and become

obsolete; they would require rehabilitation

or replacement. The commemorative garden

would provide a place for quiet reflection.

There would be minimal indication of an

NPS presence along South Park Street once

visitors exited the visitor center to begin

their self-guided walk. Outdoor

interpretation of the site itself would

continue to be limited, with the possible

addition of brochures or wayside (outdoor)

exhibits. Without a clear NPS presence on

site (park rangers or wayside exhibits)

visitors may perceive there are personal

safety concerns, be unable to distinguish

between site resources and private property,

and possibly be uncomfortable with visitor

and student contacts. This could result in

visitors shortening their self-guided tour. As

visitation continues to increase, visitor

services would not meet the expectations of

visitors.

It is estimated that the number of visitors

would potentially increase from around

28,000 per year in 2000 to about 54,000 in

2015. This is equivalent to an annual

average growth rate of approximately 4.5%.

After 2015, the growth in tourism would

increase by a much lower annual rate or

would remain flat. The projected number of

future visitors for alternative 1 is shown

below, in Table 11.

Table 11: Alternative 1 - Projected Visitor Growth, 2000 – 2015(a)

Year Annual Visitation

Alternative 1 Year Annual VisitationAlternative 1

 2000(b) 28,000 2008 46,700

2001 31,400 2009 48,000

2002 34,700 2010 49,000

2003 37,500 2011 50,000

2004 39,800 2012 51,000

2005 41,900 2013 52,000

2006 43,600 2014 53,000

2007 45,200 2015 54,000

(a) It is assumed that new facilities, regardless of alternative, are constructed and open by the year 2002. A delay in

construction would not appreciably affect overall visitation projections.

(b) Data for 2000 are actual through July and estimated for August through December.

Some numbers are rounded.
123

Cumulative Impacts

In alternative 1, the appearance of the site

and surrounding neighborhood would

undergo visual changes as the residences

along South Park Street and the Capel

Building (Ponder’s Drug) deteriorate, are

replaced, or are changed in appearance.

These changes would have a moderate

adverse long-term impact on visitors’

abilities to picture the original setting for the

key events of 1957-58. The appearance of

the high school front façade and landscaping

would not be expected to undergo changes.

Visits to the site and to related sites around

the city would be expected to undergo

moderate increases due to increased public

awareness, continuing partnership activities,

and the opening of the William Jefferson

Clinton Presidential Library. The Arkansas

Department of Parks and Tourism

(Department) has indicated that total tourist

visits (person-trips) to Pulaski County

increased by about 3.3% per year between

1990 and 1999. If tourism continues to grow

at this pace, between 2000 and 2015 total

county tourism would increase by an

additional 2.6 million person-trips. The

cumulative effects of alternative 1 on area

tourism would be minor, long-term and

beneficial. This can be demonstrated by

comparing additional future tourism at the

museum with additional future tourism that

is expected throughout the county. On this

basis, increased tourism at the museum

would represent only about 2% of total

increased county tourism in 2015. This

percentage would be even smaller if the

Clinton Library (with an estimated 250,000

visitors per year) is explicitly included.

Several national historic areas, trails, and

initiatives relating to Civil Rights have been

established in the last decade or so and are

being developed (e.g., Brown v. Board of

Education, Selma to Montgomery Trail,

Underground Railroad). Other existing sites

such as the Civil Rights Institute and Martin

Luther King National Historic Site continue

to expand or enhance their operations. Other

actions relevant to Civil Rights include the

convening by the President of a national

dialogue on Civil Rights. These actions may

have an overall minor long-term beneficial

effect on public awareness, attitudes, and

behavior related to Civil Rights; and with

those directly involved, a minor to moderate

long-term beneficial effect on awareness,

attitudes, and behavior related to Civil

Rights.

Conclusion

A moderately increasing number of visitors

would continue to receive basic

interpretation of the story of the 1957-58

events in the existing visitor center

(Magnolia Mobil Service Station); crowding

would become more of a problem and

interpretive media would deteriorate and

become obsolete over the long term. A

smaller number of visitors would tour the

site in front of the high school, with minimal

interpretation of the historic streetscape, the

1957-58 events, or their contexts and

meanings. Other sites and initiatives relating

to Civil Rights would increase interest in

and awareness of sites such as Little Rock

Central High School National Historic Site.

However, perpetuation of the existing

conditions would result in moderate longterm adverse impacts on visitor experience.

Under this alternative, the potential for

impairment of some site resources, namely

the streetscape and museum collections,

would also affect visitor opportunities to

experience the full significance of the site.
124

Alternative 2 – The Site

Analysis

The designation of the site would be

followed within a few years by the

completion of a new visitor center. The

visitor center, with appropriate signs on the

interstate highway and along city streets,

would provide an effective and accessible

point of arrival. This center would be large

enough to accommodate the anticipated

increase in visitation. Added space would

improve circulation patterns, particularly for

groups, and restroom facilities would be

adequate and easily accessible. In addition,

parking for cars and buses would be

available next to the visitor center resulting

in convenience for staff and visitors.

The new center would contain varied

exhibits and other interpretive media that

could tell the interpretive story to a variety

of audiences in a compelling and accurate

manner. The increase in interpretive staff

would provide substantially more programs

(both on-site and outreach) as well as

increasing program effectiveness through

enhanced training, program research and

preparation, and evaluation. These factors

would result in major long-term beneficial

impacts on visitor experience.

Compared with alternative 1, the No Action

alternative, the number and effectiveness of

education programs would be significantly

enhanced by an increase in staffing levels

and the use of both the new visitor center

and the current visitor center (Magnolia

Mobil Service Station) for on-site school

programs. The new visitor center would

offer a multimedia learning area for selfdirected educational activities. The number

of tours in the high school would remain

limited as at present. The further development of the partnership between the site and

Central High School would be expected to

enhance the quality and variety of services

for students (e.g., new curricula that

encompass other related sites; internships;

education programs for Central High; and

the use of multimedia learning area at the

site). The increase in partnerships and

program development would result in major

long-term beneficial impacts on experiences

for schools and other organized groups such

as scouts and community groups.

There would be a high-level of NPS

presence along the historic streetscape.

Visitors would be able to walk the block in

front of the high school; wayside exhibits,

tours, and other interpretive efforts would

enhance their understanding and

appreciation of the events that occurred

there; enhanced interpretation and

orientation in the visitor center would

prepare them for the outdoor experience.

Visitors would feel safe to walk in public

areas due to increased presence of staff,

outdoor media, improved orientation, and

partnership activities (e.g., with the high

school, city, and neighborhood groups).

Guided tours would reduce visitor and

student contacts. There would be a clear

distinction between site resources and

private property. Incorporating and

interpreting the seven residences and

Ponder’s Drug Store would maintain the

cultural landscape, give visitors a sense of

the 1957-58 appearance, and provide an

easily identifiable visual boundary to the

site. Increased outdoor and visitor center

interpretation and preservation of the

cultural landscape would result in a

moderate long-term beneficial impact on

visitor experience.

The increased publicity and number of onsite facilities and activities would bring

more visitors to the site. Based on the

experience of comparable NPS sites, the

increase is expected to be greater than if
125

existing conditions (alternative 1) would

continue. The projected number of future

visitors in relationship to alternative 1 is

shown below in Table 12 and Figure 2. The

table shows that although total forecasted

visitation would increase to 68,000 in 2015,

the portion of that increase attributable to

alternative 2 alone would only be an

estimated additional 14,000 persons. This is

equivalent to an annual average growth rate

of approximately 6%. As is true for the No

Action alternative, after 2015, growth in

tourism is expected to increase either at a

much lower annual rate or become flat.

Table 12: Past and Projected Annual Visitation, 1998-2015

Year Alternative 1

Annual Visitation

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Annual Visitation

Difference

Attributed

 1998 (b) 10,952 10,952 0

 1999 (b) 19,298 19,298 0

 2000 (c) 28,000 28,000 0

2001 31,400 31,400 0

2002 34,700 43,400 8,700

2003 37,500 46,900 9,400

2004 39,800 49,800 10,000

2005 41,900 52,400 10,500

2006 43,600 54,500 10,900

2007 45,200 56,500 11,300

2008 46,700 58,400 11,700

2009 48,000 60,000 12,000

2010 49,000 61,000 12,000

2011 50,000 63,000 13,000

2012 51,000 64,000 13,000

2013 52,000 65,000 13,000

2014 53,000 66,000 13,000

2015 54,000 68,000 14,000

(a) It is assumed that new facilities, regardless of alternative, are constructed and open by the year 2002. A delay in

construction would not appreciably affect overall visitation projections.

(b) Data for 1998 and 1999 are actual counts.

(c) Data for 2000 are actual through July and estimated for August through December.

(d) The growth rate applies to all alternatives and is 25% greater than the No Action case.

Some numbers are rounded.

Cumulative Impacts

The appearance of the site and surrounding

neighborhood would undergo minor, longterm improvement as the appearance of

seven houses across from the high school

(which would be within the boundary in this

alternative) and the Capel Building

(Ponder’s Drug Store) is rehabilitated to that

of 1957. These changes would have a minor,

long-term beneficial impact on visitors’

ability to picture the original setting for the

key events of 1957. The appearance of the

high school would not be expected to

undergo long-term changes.

Visits to the site and to related sites around

the city would be expected to undergo

moderate increases due to increased public

awareness, expanded partnership activities,
126

the expansion of the city shuttle system, and

the opening of the William Jefferson Clinton

Presidential Library. As described in

alternative 1, total tourist visits (persontrips) to Pulaski County increased by about

3.3% per year between 1990 and 1999;

tourism is expected to increase to 2.6 million

person-trips by 2015. The cumulative effects

of tourism growth for alternative 2 would be

minor, long-term and beneficial. This can be

demonstrated by comparing additional

future tourism at the museum with

additional future tourism that is expected

throughout the county. On this basis,

increased tourism at the museum would

represent only about 2.5% of total increased

county tourism in 2015. This is slightly

greater compared with alternative 1. This

percentage would be even smaller if the

Clinton Library (with an estimated 250,000

visitors per year) is explicitly included.

Several national historic areas, trails, and

initiatives relating to Civil Rights have been

established in the last decade or so and are

being developed (e.g., Brown v. Board of

Education, Selma to Montgomery Trail,

Underground Railroad). Other existing sites

such as the Civil Rights Institute and Martin

Luther King National Historic Site continue

to expand or enhance their operations. Other

actions relevant to Civil Rights include the

convening by the President of a national

dialogue on Civil Rights. These actions may

have an overall minor long-term beneficial

effect on public awareness, attitudes, and

behavior related to Civil Rights; and with

those directly involved, a minor to moderate

long-term beneficial effect on awareness,

attitudes, and behavior related to Civil

Rights.

Conclusion

Alternative 2 would be expected to provide

an educational and emotionally compelling

experience for a wide variety of visitors.

Effective orientation would encourage

access to the site as well as related sites

around the city and elsewhere; most visitors

would be adequately prepared to safely visit

areas with public and private ownership.

Overall, this alternative would provide

moderate to major long-term beneficial

impacts on visitor experience for visitors to

the site. Visitor experience would be

enhanced as site resources and values are

provided protection from potential

impairment during the long term.

Alternative 3 – The City

Analysis

The designation of the site would be

followed within a few years by the opening

of an orientation center in leased space near

the site. The orientation center, with

appropriate signs on the interstate highway

and along city streets, would provide an

effective and accessible point of arrival.

This center would be large enough to

accommodate the anticipated increase in

visitation. The space would provide

appropriate circulation areas for groups.

Interpretation, orientation, a sales area, and

restrooms would be sufficient in size and

easily accessible. Parking for cars and buses

would be available off-site at the leased

space, with limited on-site parking available

at the shuttle staging area, the contact

station, and Ponder’s Drug Store.

The orientation center would contain

exhibits and other interpretive and

orientation media that would tell the basic

interpretive story and accurately orient

visitors to related sites around the city. The

increase in interpretive staff would provide a

moderate increase in the number of

programs (both on-site and outreach) as well

as moderately increasing program

effectiveness through enhanced training,
127

program research and preparation, and

evaluation. These factors would result in

moderate long-term beneficial impacts on

visitor experience.

The number and effectiveness of education

programs would be moderately enhanced by

an increase in staffing levels, the use of the

Capel Building (Ponder’s Drug Store) for

on-site school programs, and the use of

related sites around the city. The number of

tours in the high school would remain

limited as at present. The further

development of the partnership between the

site and Central High School would be

expected to enhance the quality and variety

of services for students (e.g., new curricula

that encompass other NPS and additional

related sites; internships; education

programs for Central High). The moderate

increase in number and quality of programs,

space for indoor education activities,

partnerships, and program development

would result in moderate long-term

beneficial impacts on experiences for

schools and other organized groups such as

scouts and community groups.

As in alternative 2, there would be a high

level of NPS presence out-of-doors via

ranger-guided tours, interpretive wayside

exhibits, Ponder’s Drug Store, and the

shuttle staging area. Visitors would be able

to walk the block in front of the high school;
128

wayside exhibits, tours, and other

interpretive efforts would enhance their

understanding and appreciation of the events

that occurred there; moderately enhanced

interpretation orientation in the visitor center

would prepare them for the outdoor

experience. Visitor safety would be

enhanced by increased presence of NPS staff

and partnership activities (e.g., with the high

school, city, and neighborhood groups).

Incorporating and interpreting Ponder’s

Drug Store would provide an easily

identifiable visual boundary to the site.

Guided tours would reduce visitor and

student contacts. There would be clear

distinctions between public and private

property. Having the seven residence remain

in private ownership may result in no

improvements to the visual appearance of

the streetscape, which could diminish the

enjoyment of tours for some visitors.

The historic streetscape would be maintained through partnerships and cooperative

agreements to give visitors a sense of the

1957-58 appearance. Additional partnership

activities and new interpretation and

orientation media would increase visitation

to related sites around the city, and enhance

the variety and quality of visitor services.

Increased outdoor and visitor center

interpretation, preservation of the cultural

landscape, and enhanced access to quality

services at related sites around the city

would result in moderate long-term

beneficial impacts on visitor experience.

The increased publicity and number of

accessible related facilities and activities

around the city would bring more visitors to

the site. As in alternative 2, after 2015,

tourism should increase at a much lower

annual rate or become flat. Based on the

experience of comparable NPS sites, the

increase is expected to be greater than if

existing conditions would continue. The

projected number of future visitors is shown

in Table 12 and in Figure 2 (see alternative

3). The table shows that although total

forecasted visitation would increase to

68,000 in 2015, the portion of that increase

attributable to alternative 3 would only be an

estimated additional 14,000 persons. This is

equivalent to an annual average growth rate

of approximately 6% (compared with the

alternative 1 growth rate of about 4.5%). No

compelling data were found to support a

different growth forecast for alternative 3 as

compared with alternative 2.

The increase in indoor space available for

visitors and interpretation would have a

minor long-term beneficial impact on the

crowding that is periodically experienced

under existing conditions.

Cumulative Impacts

The appearance of the site and surrounding

neighborhood would undergo minor longterm improvement as the appearance of

seven houses across from the high school

and of the Capel Building (Ponder’s Drug

Store) is maintained or rehabilitated to that

of 1957-58. Improvements would occur

through active partnerships with

homeowners, the neighborhood association,

the City of Little Rock, and the high school.

These changes would have a minor longterm beneficial impact on visitors’ abilities

to picture the original setting for the key

events of 1957-58. The appearance of the

high school would not be expected to

undergo long-term changes.

Visits to the site and to related sites around

the city would be expected to undergo

moderate increases due to increased public

awareness, expanded partnership activities,

the expansion of the city shuttle system, and

the opening of the William Jefferson Clinton

Presidential Library. As described in

alternative 1 the cumulative effects of
129

tourism growth for alternative 3 would be

the same as for alternative 2: 2.5% of total

increased county tourism in 2015 resulting

in a minor, long-term and beneficial effect.

Several national historic areas, trails, and

initiatives relating to Civil Rights have been

established in the last decade or so and are

being developed (e.g., Brown v. Board of

Education, Selma to Montgomery Trail,

Underground Railroad). Other existing sites

such as the Civil Rights Institute and Martin

Luther King National Historic Site continue

to expand or enhance their operations. Other

actions relevant to Civil Rights include the

convening by President Clinton of a national

dialogue on Civil Rights. These actions may

have an overall minor long-term beneficial

effect on public awareness, attitudes, and

behavior related to Civil Rights; and with

those directly involved, a minor to moderate

long-term beneficial effect on awareness,

attitudes, and behavior related to Civil

Rights.

Conclusion

Alternative 3 would be expected to provide

educational, varied, and interesting

experiences for a variety of visitors.

Effective orientation would encourage

access to the site as well as related sites

around the city and elsewhere; most visitors

would be well prepared for visiting areas

with public and private ownership. This

alternative would provide minor to moderate

long-term beneficial impacts on visitor

experience for visitors to the site. Overall,

site resources and values would be protected

from impairment, and visitor experience

goals and objectives would be met.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Analysis

The designation of the site would be

followed within a few years by the

completion of a new education center. This

center would contain state-of-the-art

educational media that would engage

students of all ages in the core story of the

1957-58 events, plus the larger context and

related subjects. Interpretive staff would

engage in active partnerships with national

and international educational institutions to

provide high-quality educational

programming. Classrooms, self-directed

interactive educational media, and research

facilities would support greatly expanded

educational programming. Parking for cars

and buses would be available next to the

visitor center resulting in convenience for

staff and visitors.

The current visitor center (Magnolia Mobil

Service Station) would be the initial point of

arrival and orientation for the general public,

and would continue to provide limited

interpretation of the core site story and

orientation to opportunities and resources at

the site. Interpretive media would remain

largely the same as the existing condition;

increased staffing would result in negligible

to minor long-term beneficial impacts to

those visiting the center.

The development of partnerships between

the site and the high school would be

expected to enhance the quality and variety

of services for students (e.g., new curricula

that encompasses other related NPS and

national sites; internships; education

programs for Central High; use of the digital

and other education media at the site). The

number of high school tours would be

limited as at present. The educational

components of this alternative would result

in major long-term beneficial impacts on
130

regional schools (that are within field-trip

distance of the site), and minor long-term

beneficial impacts on other schools that can

participate in educational activities through

the internet and distance learning.

There would be a high level of NPS

presence out-of-doors via park-rangerguided tours, wayside exhibits, and the

rehabilitated exterior of Ponder’s Drug

Store. Visitors would be able to walk the

block in front of the school; wayside

exhibits, tours, and other interpretive and

educational efforts would enhance their

understanding and appreciation of the events

that occurred there. Increased NPS presence

would enhance visitor safety. These actions

under this alternative would result in minor

long-term beneficial impacts to visitors who

choose to tour the outdoor resources of the

site. The active partnerships and the

educational on-site facilities and activities

would encourage a significant increase in

school group visitation.

The increased publicity and number of

accessible related facilities and activities

around the city would bring more visitors to

the site. As in alternatives 2 and 3, after

2015 tourism should increase at a much

lower annual rate or become flat. Based on

the experience of comparable NPS sites, the

increase is expected to be greater than if

existing conditions were to continue. The

projected number of future visitors is shown

in Table 13 and in Figure 2 (see alternative

4). The table shows that although total

forecasted visitation would increase to

68,000 in 2015, the portion of that increase

attributable to alternative 4 would only be an

estimated additional 14,000 persons. This is

equivalent to an annual average growth rate

of approximately 6% (compared with the

alternative 1 growth rate of about 4.5%). No

compelling data were found to support a

different growth forecast for alternative 4,

compared with alternative 2 and 3.

Cumulative Impacts

The appearance of the site and surrounding

neighborhood would undergo minor longterm improvement as the appearance of

seven houses across from the high school

and of the Capel Building (Ponder’s Drug

Store) is maintained or rehabilitated to that

of 1957-58. Improvements would occur

through active partnerships with homeowners, the neighborhood association, the

City of Little Rock, and the high school.

These changes would have a minor longterm beneficial impact on visitors’ abilities

to picture the original setting for the key

events of 1957-58. The appearance of the

high school would not be expected to

undergo long-term changes.

Visits to the site and to related sites around

the city would be expected to undergo

moderate increases due to increased public

awareness, expanded partnership activities,

and the opening of the William Jefferson

Clinton Presidential Library. These actions

would have a minor long-term beneficial

impact on visitation and visitor experience at

these sites. As described in alternative 1 the

cumulative effects of tourism growth for

alternative 4 would be the same as for

alternatives 2 and 3: 2.5% of total increased

county tourism in 2015 resulting in a minor,

long-term and beneficial effect.

Several national historic areas, trails, and

initiatives relating to Civil Rights have been

established in the last decade or so and are

being developed (e.g., Brown v. Board of

Education, Selma to Montgomery Trail,

Underground Railroad). Other existing sites

such as the Civil Rights Institute and Martin

Luther King National Historic Site continue

to expand or enhance their operations. Other

actions relevant to Civil Rights include the

convening by the President of a national

dialogue on Civil Rights. These actions may

have an overall minor long-term beneficial
131

effect on public awareness, attitudes, and

behavior related to Civil Rights; and with

those directly involved, a minor to moderate

long-term beneficial effect on awareness,

attitudes, and behavior related to Civil

Rights.

Conclusion

This alternative would be expected to

provide an interesting, relevant, and

emotionally compelling educational

experience for most visitors and students.

The educational facilities, media, and

programs would result in moderate longterm beneficial impacts among program

participants. With limited interpretive

facilities and media for the general public,

this alternative would provide negligible to

minor, long-term beneficial impacts on

visitor experience for public visitors to the

site.

ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS

Methodology

The impacts on administration and

operations were determined by examining:

the effects of changes on administration,

operations, facilities, and staffing, and

the role of partnerships in preservation and

interpretation.

Intensity

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible impacts were considered so slight as

to be difficult to measure or perceive, and they

have no meaningful implications.

Minor impacts were effects that would be

slightly detectable but not expected to have an

overall effect on park administration and

operations.

Moderate impacts would be clearly detectable

and could have an appreciable effect on park

administration and operations.

Major impacts would have a substantial

influence on park administration and operations.

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur

for a short term and be temporary in nature, and

associated with transitional types of activities, or

over a long term and have a permanent effect on

the administration and operations.

Type

Impacts are evaluated in terms of whether

the impacts on park administration and

operations would be beneficial or adverse.

Beneficial impacts would improve park

administration and operation.

Adverse impacts would negatively affect park

administration and operation and could hinder

the site’s ability to provide adequate services

and facilities to visitors and staff.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Under the No Action alternative there would

be two on-site facilities: the current visitor

center (Magnolia Mobil Service Station) and

the contemplative area. The visitor center

would continue to be too small to

accommodate visitors and on-site staff for

visitor protection, maintenance,

interpretation and orientation. Concentrating

visitors in one facility would cause an

increase in maintenance and repair on that

structure. Administrative efficiency will be

improved with sufficient storage,

workrooms, and office space located offsite. Operational efficiency will meet basic

requirements due to lack of space on-site.
132

Alternative 1 calls for an increase in staff to

6.5 employees. This would be the minimal

staff necessary to operate the visitor center,

maintain the commemorative garden, and

perform basic administration and operation

activities. Off-site staff would be adequate

to fulfill basic requirements for cooperative

agreements for preservation of the front

façade and grounds of the high school,

developing education and interpretive, and

perform outreach activities. On-site staff

would be adequate to provide for limited

guided tours and interpretation. The

additional space available at the Federal

Building would improve staff efficiency and

productivity; however, locating park

administration several miles from the site

could cause some communication problems

and slower response to on-site needs. As

visitation increases the staff would

experience an increased workload.

Partnerships in this alternative would remain

limited, concentrating on preserving the

front façade and landscape of the high

school. The site would continue to

effectively work with Central High School

and the Little Rock School Board to manage

school tours. There would be minimal NPS

funding and technical assistance available

for preservation and interpretation.

Cumulative Impacts

Independent community and city efforts to

develop preservation and interpretive

initiatives related to Civil Rights could

provide additional opportunities for

partnerships. These partnership

opportunities could result in moderate, longterm beneficial effects on preservation

efforts at other Civil Rights-related sites.

The opening of the William Jefferson

Clinton Presidential Library could raise the

level of awareness of Civil Rights sites

resulting in increased visitation to the site.

Conclusion

Having staff in two locations would have a

minor, long-term adverse effect on park

administration and operations because staff

would need to commute several miles. As

visitation increases, the small size of the

visitor center, limited parking, and

employment of only basic staff would have

a major, long-term adverse effects on

administration and operations because

visitation demands would become a staff

priority allowing little time for

administrative activities. Minimal

partnerships would result in moderate, longterm beneficial impacts to preserving only

the front façade and grounds of the high

school.

Alternative 2 – The Site

Analysis

In this alternative there would be four onsite facilities: a new visitor center, the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station, the

commemorative garden, and Ponder’s Drug

Store. These facilities would provide

adequate on-site space for visitor protection,

maintenance, interpretation and orientation.

The drug store also would potentially

provide an area for a concession operation

such as a food area and/or a cooperating

association area for a retail operation. As

most visitors would spend their time in the

new visitor center there would be less wear

and tear placed on the smaller service station

and drug store. Present-day levels of

operational efficiency would be improved

with sufficient storage, workrooms, and

office space. Having administration and

operation functions on-site would greatly

improve communication between staff
133

members and coordination between

functions compared with alternative 1.

Alternative 2 calls for 14.5 employees to

operate the site. This increase in staff would

provide more interpretation opportunities for

visitors, improved maintenance of grounds

and structures, and provide outreach

programs. The workload would be evenly

distributed with adequate office equipment

and space for quality and efficiency.

Expanded cooperative agreements and

partnerships would ensure interpretation and

preservation of all on-site resources: the

front façade and grounds of the high school,

the front façades of the seven residences,

and the exteriors and interiors of the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station and

Ponder’s Drug Store.

Cumulative Impacts

As in alternative 1, independent community

and city efforts to develop preservation and

interpretive initiatives related to Civil Rights

could provide additional opportunities for

partnerships. These partnership

opportunities could result in moderate, longterm beneficial effects on preservation

efforts at other Civil Rights-related sites.

The opening of the William Jefferson

Clinton Presidential Library could raise the

level of awareness of Civil Rights sites

resulting in increased visitation to the site.

Conclusion

Development of a new visitor center,

reducing visitor use of the Magnolia Mobil

Service Station and the addition of visitor

use in Ponder’s Drug Store for would result

in major, long-term, beneficial impacts to

site facilities. Development of the new

visitor center would provide a major longterm beneficial impact on administration

because adequate offices, storage, and work

areas would be available. Staffing to

operate, interpret, and maintain the site

would be on-site and adequate, resulting in

major, long-term beneficial effects on site

operations. Partnerships in this alternative

would result in major, long-term beneficial

effects on preservation and interpretation for

all on-site resources because the seven

residences and the Capel Building (Ponder’s

Drug Store) are included.

Alternative 3 – The City

Analysis

This alternative would have four on-site

facilities: the Magnolia Mobil Service

Station, Ponder’s Drug Store, the

commemorative garden, and a shuttle

staging area. The orientation center and site

headquarters would provide adequate space

for visitor protection, maintenance,

interpretation, orientation and staff

workspace. Because most visitors would

spend their time in the orientation center,

there would be less wear and tear on the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station and drug

store. Having administration and operation

functions off-site, but nearby and in one

location, would improve communication and

coordination compared with alternative 1.

This alternative calls for 18.5 staff members

to operate the site. Increased staff would be

adequate to conduct interpretation and

preservation activities, and extensive

outreach programs for both on- and off-site

resources. Staff would be adequate to

administer the cooperative agreements with

other Civil Rights-related sites throughout

the city. The workload would be evenly

distributed with adequate office equipment

and space for quality and efficiency

Partnerships would assist in preserving and

interpreting both on-site and about 10 offsite resources. The shuttle system

partnership would provide a convenience for
134

visitors, coordinate interpretation among

sites, and control undirected visitation to

private neighborhoods.

Cumulative Impacts

As in alternative 1, independent community

and city efforts to develop preservation and

interpretive initiatives related to Civil Rights

could provide additional opportunities for

partnerships. These partnership

opportunities could result in moderate, longterm beneficial effects on preservation

efforts at other Civil Rights-related sites.

The opening of the William Jefferson

Clinton Presidential Library could raise the

level of awareness of Civil Rights sites

resulting in increased visitation to the site.

Conclusion

Leasing nearby orientation and headquarters

space and thereby reducing visitor use of the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station and

Ponder’s Drug Store would result in major,

long-term beneficial impacts on facilities

because most visitors would spend their time

at the orientation center. However, locating

staff a few blocks from the site could result

in a minor, long-term adverse effect to

administration and operations. The leased

space would provide a moderate, long-term

beneficial impact on administration because

while adequate offices, storage and work

areas would be available staff would be

located several blocks from the site.

Partnerships focused on interpretation and

preservation of Civil Rights-related sites

throughout the city would result in major,

long-term beneficial preservation impacts to

those sites because sites would work toward

similar goals. The shuttle partnership would

have a moderate, long-term beneficial

impact to neighborhoods because random

visitation would be reduced thereby

eliminating traffic, safety, and privacy

concerns in residential neighborhoods.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Analysis

In this alternative there would be three onsite facilities: a new education center, the

Magnolia Mobil Service Station and the

commemorative garden. Locating

administration and operations in the new

education center would provide adequate

on-site space for visitor protection,

maintenance, interpretation and orientation.

Because most visitors would spend their

time in the new education center there

would be less wear and tear placed on the

smaller Magnolia Mobil Service Station.

Operational efficiency would be improved

with sufficient storage, workrooms, and

office space. Having administration and

operation functions on-site, in one location,

would vastly improve communication

between staff members and coordination

between functions compared with alternative

1.

This alternative calls for 20 employees to

operate the site. This increase in staff would

be adequate to provide more educational

opportunities for visitors, maintain grounds

and structures, and provide outreach

programs. The staff would be adequate to

administer the cooperative agreements with

extensive national and international

programs. The workload would be evenly

distributed with adequate office equipment

and space for quality and efficiency.

Partnerships in alternative 4 would be

ambitious and require a high level of

commitment by partners to provide

educational opportunities.

Cumulative Impacts
135

As in alternative 1, independent community

and city efforts to develop preservation and

interpretive initiatives related to Civil Rights

could provide additional opportunities for

partnerships. These partnership

opportunities could result in moderate, longterm beneficial effects on preservation

efforts at other Civil Rights-related sites.

The opening of the Presidential Library

could raise the level of awareness of Civil

Rights sites resulting in increased visitation

to the site.

Conclusion

Development of an education center and

reducing visitor use of the Magnolia Mobil

Service Station would result in major, longterm beneficial effects on site facilities. The

education center would have a major, longterm beneficial impact on administration and

operations because the center would provide

adequate offices, storage, and administrative

space. Staffing to operate, interpret, and

maintain the site would be on-site and

adequate to provide extensive cooperative

agreements necessary for educational

opportunities, resulting in major, long-term

beneficial effects to site resources.

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONM ENT

Population

Methodology

The assessment of population effects refers

to a potential for increases in the local

population caused by (1) facility

construction, (2) facility operation (NPS

staff and families), and (3) additional

tourism. Population changes are essential to

identify because long-term population

increases from outside the local area can

lead to increased demands on local services

and infrastructure, such as police and fire

protection, water treatment, housing, school

systems and medical care. Such effects can

also burden the ability of a community to

balance revenues with public improvement

costs. The possible effects of greater

population associated with tourists are

described separately in sections on “Visitor

Use” and “Transportation and Site Access.”.

Intensity

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible impacts were considered so slight as

to be difficult to measure or perceive, and they

have no meaningful implications.

Minor impacts are considered detectable by

some residents and would have only a small

effect on the local infrastructure. Mitigation is

not normally required

Moderate impacts would be clearly detectable

and could have an appreciable effect on local

public services.

Major impacts would have a substantial

influence on and could permanently alter the

socioeconomic environment. A major impact

may occur if some public services reaches

capacity and residents are unable to obtain

services such as suitable housing, schools, or

water hook-ups. For a community the size of

Little Rock, moderate impacts may occur if the

permanent population increased by more than

5%.

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur

for a short term and be temporary in nature and

associated with transitional types of activities, or

over a long term and have a permanent effect on

the socioeconomic environment.

Type
136

The impacts are evaluated in terms of

whether the impact would be beneficial or

adverse to the socioeconomic environment.

Beneficial socioeconomic impacts would

improve the social or economic conditions in the

county or region and may include more jobs and

higher salaries.

Adverse socioeconomic impacts would

negatively alter social or economic conditions in

the county or region and could result in outmigration or increased unemployment.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Because there would not be construction of

a new visitor center or other facilities, the

population effect would be negligible to

minor, long-term, and generally beneficial

(see description of “visitor spending”).

Several additional positions could be added

to the existing facility, but this would not be

noticeable. Few tourists who visit the

Central High Center would decide to

relocate to the Little Rock area.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative population effects would be

negligible and long term. The Pulaski

County population is projected to reach

nearly 412,000 by the year 2025. However,

implementation of alternative 1 would not

noticeably influence this increase.

Conclusion

Impacts to population rate of growth and

demographics would be negligible during

the long term.

Alternative 2 – The Site

Analysis

Construction of the new visitor center

would, at peak, require approximately 15 to

20 construction workers. The population

effect of facility construction would be

negligible and short-term, because it is

expected that most such workers already live

in the Little Rock area. Depending on the

contractor selected to build the new center, a

small number of workers may temporarily

come from outside the area. These workers

would normally return home when the

project is completed.

Long-term operation of the visitor center

would generate approximately 14 new

positions associated with administration,

clerical, interpreters, park rangers, park

guides, seasonal workers, and other staff. If

most such positions were filled from outside

the area, the total population increase would

be around 15 individuals, including family

members. This increase would be negligible,

long term, and slightly beneficial.

The population increase associated with

additional tourists is expected to be small.

Few tourists who visit the Central High

Center would later decide to relocate to the

Little Rock area.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative population effects would be

negligible and long term. The Pulaski

County population is projected to reach

nearly 412,000 by the year 2025. However,

implementation of alternative 2 would not

noticeably influence this increase.

Conclusion

Impacts to population rate of growth and

demographics would be negligible during

the long term.

Alternative 3 – The City
137

Analysis

Construction and rehabilitation activities

would, at peak, require approximately 10 to

15 construction workers. The population

effect of facility construction would be

negligible and short-term, because it is

expected that most such workers already live

in the Little Rock area. Depending on the

contractor selected to build the new center, a

small number of workers may temporarily

come from outside the area. These workers

would normally return home when the

project is completed.

Long-term operation of the visitor center

would generate approximately 18 new

positions associated with administration,

clerical, interpreters, park rangers, park

guides, seasonal workers, and other staff. If

most such positions were filled from outside

the area, the total population increase would

be around 15 individuals, including family

members. This increase would be negligible,

long-term and slightly beneficial.

The population increase associated with

additional tourist is expected to be small.

Few tourists who visit the Central High

Center would later decide to relocate to the

Little Rock area.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative population effects would be

negligible and long term. The Pulaski

County population is projected to reach

nearly 412,000 by the year 2025. However,

implementation of alternative 3 would not

noticeably influence this increase.

Conclusion

Impacts to population rate of growth and

demographics would be negligible during

the long term.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Analysis

Construction and rehabilitation activities

would, at peak, require approximately 15-20

construction workers. The population effect

of facility construction would be negligible

and short-term, because it is expected that

most such workers already live in the Little

Rock area. Depending on the contractor

selected to build the new center, a small

number of workers may temporarily come

from outside the area. These workers would

normally return home when the project is

completed.

Long-term operation of the visitor center

would generate approximately 20 new

positions associated with administration,

clerical, interpreters, park rangers, park

guides, seasonal workers and other staff. If

most such positions were filled from outside

the area, the total population increase would

be around 15 individuals, including family

members. This increase would be negligible,

long-term and slightly beneficial.

The population increase associated with

additional tourist is expected to be small.

Few tourists who visit the Central High

Center would later decide to relocate to the

Little Rock area.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative population effects would be

negligible and long term. The Pulaski

County population is projected to reach

nearly 412,000 by the year 2025. However,

implementation of alternative 3 would not

noticeably influence this increase

Conclusion
138

Under alternative 4, impacts to population

rate of growth and demographics would be

negligible during the long term.

Local Economy

Methodology

The assessment of impacts to the local

economy generally determines if

implementation of any alternative could

result in the creation of additional local

income or jobs, or could provide other

economic benefit. This would include any

reduction in the local poverty rates in the

Central High area. To estimate such

potential impacts, it was necessary to first

identify the construction operations and

tourism-related effects of each alternative.

This section describes expected capital costs

and operations and maintenance costs and

compares that data with current regional

employment and income levels. The

economic contribution of visitor spending is

described later in this chapter under “Visitor

Spending.”

Intensity

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible economic impacts are considered to

be undetectable and would have little or no

discernible effect on the socioeconomic

environment. Normally, an economic change

that is not noticed by local residents is

considered to be negligible. Local poverty rates

are unchanged.

Minor impacts are considered detectable but

small (some jobs are created in the local area)

but the additional jobs and income would have

only a small effect on the local economy. A

minor effect would be detectable but the

increase in jobs or income would be less than

1%, compared with Pulaski County levels. Local

poverty rates are only slightly improved.

Moderate impacts would be clearly detectable

and could have an appreciable effect on the local

economy. A significant number of new jobs are

created, many of which are provided for local

residents. A moderate effect could also occur if

housing prices in the Central High area

increased noticeably.

Major impacts would have a substantial

influence on the local economy and could

permanently alter the socioeconomic

environment. A major effect would result if a

substantial number of jobs were created, or if

housing prices in the Central High area

increased significantly, to the point where some

residents were forced to relocate.

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur

for a short term and be temporary in nature and

associated with transitional types of activities, or

over a long term and have a permanent effect on

the socioeconomic environment.

Type

The impacts are evaluated in terms of

whether the impact would be beneficial or

adverse to the socioeconomic environment.

Beneficial economic impacts would improve the

social or economic conditions in the county or

region and may include more jobs and higher

salaries.

Adverse economic impacts would negatively

alter social or economic conditions in the county

or region and could result in out-migration or

increased unemployment.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Because there would not be construction of

a new visitor center or other facilities, the

effect to the local economy would be

negligible, long-term, and slightly beneficial

(additional economic benefits are described
139

in the ”Visitor Spending” section). Several

additional positions could be added to the

existing facility, but this would not be

noticeable in the context of the Little Rock

economy. There would be no capital costs

associated with this alternative and the

ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M)

costs would be about $450,000 per year.

These costs would include leasing charges,

salaries, other support costs, cooperative

agreements and maintenance fees. Through

2015, total O&M costs would be expected to

reach $6.7 million.

Cumulative Impacts

The combined effect upon the local

economy of several new jobs at the existing

visitor facility would be negligible,

considering the fact that there are currently

more than 190,000 persons employed in

Pulaski County.

Conclusion

The small increases in jobs and income

expected with this alternative would be

minor and well below a 1% increase

compared with countywide levels.

Negligible impacts to the local economy are

expected.

Alternative 2 – The Site

Analysis

Construction of a new visitor center,

interpretive exhibits, parking area and

restoration of Ponder’s Drug Store would

likely require about 15 to 20 workers onpeak and an estimated capital cost of about

$5.2 million. Projected O&M costs would be

$848,000 per year or $12.7 million through

2015. O&M costs would include leasing

charges, salaries, other support costs,

cooperative agreements, and maintenance

fees. Many supplies and equipment needed

for construction and maintenance would be

purchased from the local area, further

enhancing the economy. There would be a

total staff of about 14 individuals with an

annual payroll of $690,000.

The economic effect of implementing

alternative 2 would be considered minor,

beneficial and long term. This is because,

with a 1990 county aggregate household

income of $3.6 billion, the effect of an

additional $690,000 would represent an

increase of less than 0.1%. The addition of

15 or so jobs would also be minor,

considering that the total 1996 civilian labor

force in Pulaski County was 198,525

persons. The addition of 15 new jobs would

represent an increase of less than 0.1%,

compared with countywide employment.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative economic effects to the local

economy would be minor and long term

because the increase in jobs and income

would be less than 0.1% compared with

county levels.

Conclusion

The small increases in jobs and income

expected with this alternative would be

minor and well below a 1% increase

compared with countywide levels.

Negligible impacts to the local economy are

expected.

Alternative 3 – The City

Analysis

Construction of interpretive exhibits,

rehabilitation of the existing Magnolia

Mobil Service Station museum and visitor
140

center, rehabilitation of Ponder’s Drugstore

exterior, and rehabilitation of the drugstore

interior would likely require about 10 to 15

workers on-peak and an estimated capital

cost of about $1.4 million. Projected O&M

costs would be $1.3 million per year or

$19.0 million through 2015. O&M costs

would include leasing charges, salaries,

other support costs, cooperative agreements

and maintenance fees. Many supplies and

equipment needed for construction and

maintenance would be purchased from the

local area, further enhancing the economy.

There would be a total staff of about 20

individuals with an annual payroll of

$890,000.

The economic effect of implementing

alternative 3 would be similar to alternative

2 and effects would be minor, beneficial and

long term. As with alternative 2, the annual

effect of an additional $890,000 would

represent an increase of less than 0.1%. The

addition of 15 or so long-term jobs would

also be minor, considering that the total

1996 civilian labor force in Pulaski County

was 198,525 persons. The addition of 15

new jobs would represent an increase of less

than 0.1%, compared with countywide

employment.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative economic effects to the local

economy would be minor and long term

because the increase in jobs and income

would be less than 0.1% compared with

county levels.

Conclusion

The small increases in jobs and income

expected with this alternative would be

minor and well below a 1% increase

compared with countywide levels.

Negligible impacts to the local economy are

expected.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Analysis

Construction of a new educational center,

interpretative exhibits, and rehabilitation or

restoration of other facilities would likely

require about 15 to 20 workers in peak times

and an estimated capital cost of about $4.5

million. Projected O&M costs would be $1.3

million per year or $20.1 million through

2015. O&M costs would include leasing

charges, salaries, other support costs,

cooperative agreements, and maintenance

fees. Many supplies and equipment needed

for construction and maintenance would be

purchased from the local area, further

enhancing the economy. There would be a

total staff of about 25 individuals with an

annual payroll of $1.1 million.

The economic effect of implementing

alternative 4 would be considered minor,

beneficial and long term. This is because,

with a 1990 county aggregate household

income of $3.6 billion, the effect of an

additional $1.1 million would represent an

increase of less than 0.1%. The addition of

25 or so jobs would also be minor,

considering that the total 1996 civilian labor
141

force in Pulaski County was 198,525

persons. The addition of 25 new jobs would

represent an increase of less than 0.1%,

compared with countywide employment.

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative effects for alternative 4 are

the same as for alternative 3. Cumulative

economic effects to the local economy

would be minor and long term because the

increase in jobs and income would be less

than 0.1% compared with county levels.

Conclusion

The small increases in jobs and income

expected with this alternative would be

minor and well below a 1% increase

compared with countywide levels.

Negligible impacts to the local economy are

expected.

Housing

Methodology

The analysis in this section determines if

construction or operation of visitor facilities

would adversely affect the quality or number

of houses in the local area. This was

achieved by comparing the current housing

supply with the anticipated new housing

needs, including accommodations for

visitors.

Intensity

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible housing impacts are considered to be

undetectable and would have little or no

discernible effect on the housing supply.

Minor housing impacts are considered to be

detectable but small in magnitude. For example,

a minor housing impact could occur if the

supply of available housing decreased (as a

result of program adoption) by 5%.

Moderate housing impacts are considered to

occur if the supply of available housing

decreased (as a result of program adoption) by

10%.

Major housing impacts are considered to occur if

the supply of available housing decreased (as a

result of program adoption) by 25%.

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur:

for a short term and be temporary in nature and

associated with transitional types of activities, or

if over a long term and have a permanent effect

on the socioeconomic environment.

Type

The impacts are evaluated in terms of

whether the impact would be beneficial or

adverse to the socioeconomic environment.

Beneficial economic impacts would improve the

supply and condition of the local housing stock.

Adverse economic impacts would degrade the

supply and condition of the local housing stock.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

The housing supply in the Central High area

would initially be unaffected by alternative

1, because no facility construction is

planned. Over time, as the number of

visitors to the existing site increases,

additional demands would be placed on

hotels and motels in the Little Rock area.

This impact is considered to be negligible,

long-term, and beneficial. Ample space is

available in the area for all additional

tourists visiting the site.

Cumulative Impacts
142

Cumulative impacts to the housing supply

are not expected.

Conclusion

A negligible impact to the housing supply is

anticipated.

Alternative 2 – The Site

Analysis

Construction of the new visitor center and

other facilities would be accomplished by

the local workforce and there would be little

or no in-migration to the area. Therefore,

there would be a negligible construction

effect to housing. Several individuals would

be hired to manage or maintain the new

facilities and most would likely come from

outside the Little Rock area. This small

number of “newcomers” to the area would

also have an unnoticeable effect on the

supply of available houses.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts to the housing supply

are not expected. This is because there are

approximately 90,000 housing units in the

Little Rock area. The impact on the housing

market of a few units would not be noticed

nor would it have an effect on the selling

prices of any homes.

Conclusion

A negligible impact to the housing supply is

anticipated.

Alternative 3 – The City

Analysis

There would be no noticeable effect on the

housing supply. This is the same as for

alternatives 1 and 2.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are the same as for

alternative 2.

Conclusion

A negligible impact to the housing supply is

anticipated.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Analysis

There would be no noticeable effect on the

housing supply. This conclusion is the same

as for alternative 3.

Cumulative Impacts

There would be no noticeable effect on the

housing supply. This conclusion is the same

as for alternative 3.

Conclusion

Alternative 4 proposes the highest number

of staff (20 people) among the alternatives.

Even if all new staff purchased housing it

would result in a minor, long-term adverse

effect on the housing supply because there is

ample housing available in the immediate

neighborhood as well as in the greater Little

Rock area.
143

Local Government

Methodology

The analysis in this section determines if

construction or operation of visitor facilities

would adversely affect local public services.

This was achieved by comparing the

capability of local infrastructure with

anticipated new population and additional

demand for services.

Intensity

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible infrastructure impacts are considered

to be undetectable and would have no

discernible effect on public services.

Minor infrastructure impacts would be

noticeable but would have small effects on

public services. There would be no disruption of

any service.

Moderate infrastructure impacts would be

noticeable and in some instance, may cause

service capabilities to reach capacity. There

would be no disruption of any service.

Major infrastructure impacts would be

substantial and in some instance, would cause

service capabilities to be exceeded. Inadequate

services such as medical service, water

treatment, or education facilities would likely

result and some services would be disrupted.

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur

for a short term and be temporary in nature and

associated with transitional types of activities, or

over a long term and have a permanent effect on

the socioeconomic environment.

Type

The impacts are evaluated in terms of

whether the impact would be beneficial or

adverse to the socioeconomic environment.

Beneficial infrastructure impacts would not

burden existing community services. An

infrastructure impact type of “not adverse” is

also appropriate in this context.

Adverse infrastructure impacts would place

additional demand on existing community

services.

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Analysis

Population increases are associated with

new site staff (maximum 20) and

construction workers (maximum 15-20). If

both staff and construction workers

(maximum 40) moved into the Little Rock

area the increase in numbers would be so

minor as to have little or no resident

population increase associated with any

alternative, the effect to the local

infrastructure would be negligible. All

public services would continue functioning

without any noticeable change. Unused

capacity exists for all public services,

including police and fire protection, waterwastewater treatment, education, health

care, housing, and recreation. As visitation

at the existing site increases, there would be

a long-term, negligible adverse impact to

some services as more visitors stay at hotels

or motels in the Little Rock area. The

demand on public services caused by

increased tourism would generally not be

noticeable and no additional staff would be

required at area police departments, fire

stations, or hospitals.

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative effects to infrastructure

would be long term and negligible and

slightly adverse.
144

Conclusion

Because there would be little or no resident

population increase associated with any

alternative, the effect to the local

infrastructure would be long term, negligible

and slightly adverse. As visitation at the

existing site increases, there would be a

long-term, negligible adverse impact to

some services as more visitors stay at hotels

or motels in the Little Rock area.

Tourism and Recreation

Methodology

Potential effects were estimated by

identifying the number of expected future

visitors to the site and comparing that

increase to current and projected tourism

levels in Pulaski County. Based on past

visitation levels at the site, a trend line was

established that projected future visitors.

The forecast of future visitors is described in

more detail in the section on “Visitor

Experience.”

Intensity

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible tourism impacts are considered to be

undetectable and would have little or no

discernible effect on area tourism and recreation.

Minor tourism impacts are considered to be

detectable and would some effect on area

tourism and recreation.

Moderate tourism impacts are considered to be

detectable and would have an obvious effect on

area tourism and recreation.

Major tourism impacts would have a substantial

effect on area tourism and recreation.

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur:

for a short term and be temporary in nature and

associated with transitional types of activities, or

a long term and have a permanent effect on the

socioeconomic environment.

Type

The impacts are evaluated in terms of

whether the impact would be beneficial or

adverse to the socioeconomic environment.

Beneficial tourism impacts would contribute to

local tourism and recreation.

Adverse tourism impacts would detract from

local tourism and recreation.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

By the year 2015, tourism at the site is

projected to increase to approximately

54,000 individuals per year (an increase of

about 26,000 individuals over the 2000

level). This effect is considered to be minor

to moderate, long term, and beneficial.

Conclusion
145

An increase in tourism is expected through

the year 2015. Tourism associated with the

actions in this alternative, however, would

contribute only 1 to 2% of the total

increased county tourism in 2015.

Therefore, the impacts would be negligible

but slightly beneficial over the long term.

Cumulative Impacts

Between 2000 and 2015, total tourism in

Pulaski County would likely increase by an

additional 2.6 million person-trips. Increased

tourism at the site would represent only

about 1% of total increased county tourism

in 2015.

Alternative 2 – The Site

Analysis

By the year 2015, tourism at the site is

projected to increase to approximately

68,000 individuals per year (an increase of

about 40,000 individuals over the 2000

level). This effect is considered to be minor

to moderate, long-term and beneficial.

Cumulative Impacts

Between 2000 and 2015, total tourism in

Pulaski County would likely increase by an

additional 2.6 million person-trips.

Therefore, increased tourism at the site

would represent only about 2% of total

increased county tourism in 2015.

Conclusion

An increase in tourism is expected through

the year 2015. Tourism associated with the

actions in this alternative, however, would

contribute only 1 to 2% of the total

increased county tourism in 2015.

Therefore, the impacts would be negligible

but slightly beneficial over the long term.

Alternative 3 – The City

Analysis

By the year 2015, tourism at the site is

projected to increase to approximately

68,000 individuals per year (an increase of

about 40,000 individuals over the 2000

level). This effect is considered to be minor

to moderate, long term, and beneficial. This

is the same effect as for alternative 2.

Cumulative Impacts

Between 2000 and 2015, total tourism in

Pulaski County would likely increase by an

additional 2.6 million person-trips.

Therefore, increased tourism at the site

would represent only about 2% of total

increased county tourism in 2015. This is the

same effect as for alternative 2.

Conclusion

An increase in tourism is expected through

the year 2015. Tourism associated with the

actions in this alternative, however, would

contribute only 1 to 2% of the total

increased county tourism in 2015.

Therefore, the impacts would be negligible

but slightly beneficial over the long term.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Analysis

By the year 2015, tourism at the site is

projected to increase to approximately

68,000 individuals per year (an increase of

about 40,000 individuals over the 2000

level). This effect is considered to be minor

to moderate, long-term and beneficial. This

is the same effect as for alternative 2 and 3.
146

Cumulative Impacts

Between 2000 and 2015, total tourism in

Pulaski County would likely increase by an

additional 2.6 million person-trips.

Therefore, increased tourism at the site

would represent only about 2% of total

increased county tourism in 2015. This is the

same effect as for alternative 2 and 3.

Conclusion

An increase in tourism is expected through

the year 2015. Tourism associated with the

actions in this alternative, however, would

contribute only 1 to 2% of the total

increased county tourism in 2015. Not all of

these expenditures would result from

designation of the site. Therefore, the

impacts would be negligible but slightly

beneficial over the long term.

Visitor Spending

Methodology

The estimation of future visitor spending is

based on projected visitor numbers at the

site combined with visitor origin. Data

provided by the site visitor center indicate

that about 40% of visitors currently come

from Arkansas, 50% currently come from

other states, and 10% currently come from

other countries. For the impact assessment,

it is assumed that this visitor breakdown by

origin would also characterize future

visitation.

It was also assumed that out-of-state visitors

would spend $182.93 (1999 dollars), which

includes lodging, food, travel and all other

purchases (Arkansas Department of Parks

and Tourism, 2000). In order to estimate

total visitor spending it was assumed that all

in-state visitors view the site as part of a day

trip and do not stay overnight. In-city

visitors probably spend an average of not

more than $5 per person (perhaps buying a

souvenir at the gift shop) and visitors

coming from elsewhere in Arkansas may

spend about $50 each, which includes two

meals, gasoline, and some souvenirs.

Intensity

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible tourist spending impacts are

considered to be undetectable and would have

little or no discernible effect on the

socioeconomic environment.

Minor tourist spending impacts are considered to

be detectable and would have a discernible

effect on the socioeconomic environment

Moderate tourist spending impacts are

considered to be detectable and would an

obvious effect on the socioeconomic

environment.

Major tourist spending impacts would be

detectable and would have a substantial effect on

the socioeconomic environment

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur:

for a short term and be temporary in nature and

associated with transitional types of activities, or

a long term and have a permanent effect on the

socioeconomic environment.
147

Type

The impacts are evaluated in terms of

whether the impact would be beneficial or

adverse to the socioeconomic environment.

Beneficial tourist spending impacts would

improve the social or economic conditions in the

county or region.

Adverse tourist spending impacts would

negatively alter social or economic conditions in

the county or region.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

In 2015, an estimated 54,000 individuals

would visit the site. Of this total, about

32,000 would be from out of state, 11,000

from the Little Rock area and 11,000 from

Arkansas (other than Little Rock). This

would be expected to generate $6.5 million

in total direct visitor spending. As this

revenue is re-spent in the local economy, it

would generate additional income. This

effect would be minor to moderate, long

term and beneficial.

Cumulative Impacts

Direct site tourist expenditures in 2015

would represent about 1% of the projected

Pulaski County total. Therefore, the

cumulative effect of visitor spending would

be minor to moderate.

Conclusion

An increase in tourist spending is expected

through the year 2015. Such spending

associated with the site, however, would

likely contribute only 1 to 2% of expected

total tourist spending in the county for that

year.

Alternative 2 – The Site

Analysis

In 2015, an estimated 68,000 individuals

would visit the site. Of this total, about

40,000 would be from out of state, 14,000

from the Little Rock area and 14,000 from

Arkansas (other than Little Rock). This

would be expected to generate $8.2 million

in total direct visitor spending. As this

revenue is re-spent in the local economy, it

would generate additional income. This

effect would be minor to moderate, long

term, and beneficial.

Cumulative Impacts

Direct site tourist expenditures in 2015

would represent about 2% of the projected

Pulaski County total. Therefore, the

cumulative effect of visitor spending would

be minor to moderate.

Conclusion

An increase in tourist spending is expected

through the year 2015. Such spending

associated with the site, however, would

likely contribute only 1 to 2% of expected

total tourist spending in the county for that

year.

Alternative 3 – The City

 Analysis

In 2015, there would be an estimated 68,000

individuals who visit the site. Of this total,

about 40,000 would be from out of state,

14,000 from the Little Rock area and 14,000

from Arkansas (other than Little Rock). This

would be expected to generate $8.2 million

in total direct visitor spending. As this

revenue is re-spent in the local economy, it

would generate additional income. This
148

effect would be minor to moderate, long-term

and beneficial. This is the same as alternative 2.

Cumulative Impacts

Direct site tourist expenditures in 2015

would represent about 2% of the projected

Pulaski County total. Therefore, the

cumulative effect of visitor spending would

be minor to moderate.

Conclusion

An increase in tourist spending is expected

through the year 2015. Such spending

associated with the site, however, would

likely contribute only 1 to 2% of expected

total tourist spending in the county for that

year.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Analysis

In 2015, an estimated 68,000 individuals

would visit the site. Of this total, about

40,000 would be from out of state, 14,000

from the Little Rock area and 14,000 from

Arkansas (other than Little Rock). This

would be expected to generate $8.2 million

in total direct visitor spending. As this

revenue is re-spent in the local economy, it

would generate additional income. This

effect would be minor to moderate, long

term, and beneficial. This is the same as

alternatives 2 and 3.

Cumulative Impacts

Direct site tourist expenditures in 2015

would represent about 2% of the projected

Pulaski County total. Therefore, the

cumulative effect of visitor spending would

be minor to moderate.

Conclusion

An increase in tourist spending is expected

through the year 2015. Such spending

associated with the site, however, would

likely contribute only 1 to 2% of expected

total tourist spending in the county for that

year.

Land Use

Methodology

Potential land use effects are estimated by

comparing current land use patterns and

zoning in the Central High School area with

expected land use changes.

Intensity

The intensity of the land use impact

considers whether the impact would be

negligible, minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible land use impacts are considered to be

undetectable and would have little or no

discernible effect on the socioeconomic

environment.

Minor land use impacts are considered to be

detectable and would have a slight discernible

effect on the socioeconomic environment

Moderate land use impacts are considered to be

detectable and would have little some apparent

effect on the socioeconomic environment.

Major land use impacts are considered to be

obvious and would have a substantial effect on

the socioeconomic environment

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur for a short

term and be temporary in nature and

associated with transitional types of

activities, or over a long term and have a

permanent effect on the socioeconomic

environment.
149

Type

The impacts are evaluated in terms of

whether the impact would be beneficial or

adverse to the socioeconomic environment.

Beneficial land use effects could result in lower

crime, improved neighborhood cohesion, and an

increase in the number of owner-occupied

homes in the Central High area.

Adverse land use impacts could result in more

commercial or industrial uses, higher crime,

degraded neighborhood cohesion, and fewer

owner-occupied homes in the Central High area.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Under this alternative, land ownership and

zoning patterns near the site are not

expected to noticeably change. As tourism

increases, several additional convenience

stores or service stations could be

constructed in the area. However, no

significant change in overall land uses is

expected. Increased tourism could lead to

improvements in safety along Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive or Park Avenue and

may tend to gradually improve housing

values in the neighborhood. This beneficial

effect is considered to be negligible to minor

and long term. It is important to note that the

city retains zoning authority in the

neighborhoods surrounding Central High

School. Retail or commercial facilities

cannot be constructed unless they are

consistent with the city's zoning code (or,

unless they receive a variance from that

code).

Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of this alternative would

have negligible effects on land use trends in

the area.

Conclusion

This alternative would result in negligible

beneficial, long-term land use effects in the

area.

Alternative 2 – The Site

Analysis

Similar to alternative 1, alternative 2 would

not be expected to significantly affect local

land use patterns, primarily because only

one structure (the new visitor center) with

parking facilities would be constructed. This

alternative calls for the development of a

new visitor center and parking and the

acquisition of the Capel building (Ponder’s

Drug Store), which would convert

approximately 3.75 acres from private to

public land. The slight increase in

convenience stores could cause some land

use to be rezoned. Small businesses would

be compatible with this residential

neighborhood. This action may slightly

improve some property values. Zoning

changes, if needed, would be minor and

straightforward. This beneficial effect is

considered to be negligible to minor and

long term. It is important to note that the city

retains zoning authority in the neighborhoods surrounding Central High School.

Retail or commercial facilities cannot be

constructed unless they are consistent with

the city’s zoning code (or, unless they

receive a variance from that code).

Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of this alternative would

have negligible effects on land use trends in

the area.
150

Conclusion

This alternative would result in negligible

beneficial, long-term land use effects in the

area.

Alternative 3 – The City

Analysis

Effects would be similar to those of

alternative 2. It is important to note that the

city retains zoning authority in the

neighborhoods surrounding Central High

School. Retail or commercial facilities

cannot be constructed unless they are

consistent with the city’s zoning code (or,

unless they receive a variance from that

code).

Cumulative Impacts

The same effects as alternative 2.

Conclusion

This alternative would result in negligible

beneficial, long-term land use effects in the

area.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Analysis

Effects would be similar to those in

alternative 2. It is important to note that the

city retains zoning authority in the

neighborhoods surrounding Central High

School. Retail or commercial facilities

cannot be constructed unless they are

consistent with the city’s zoning code (or,

unless they receive a variance from that

code).

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts of this alternative

are same as in alternative 2.

Conclusion

This alternative would result in negligible

beneficial, long-term land use effects in the

area.

ENVIRONM ENTAL JUSTICE POLICY

Under a policy established by the Secretary

of the Interior to comply with Executive

Order 12898 (“Federal Actions to Address

Environmental justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”),

departmental agencies should identify and

evaluate, during the scoping and/or planning

processes, any anticipated effects, direct or

indirect, from the proposed project or action

on minority and low-income populations

and communities, including the equity of the

distribution of the benefits and risks. If any

significant impacts on minority and lowincome populations and communities were

identified during the scoping and/or

planning processes, the environmental

document should clearly evaluate and state

the environmental consequences of the

proposed project or action on minority and

low-income populations and communities.

Methodology

The methodology used to evaluate the

presence of possible Environmental justice

effects was to identify income and ethnicity

in the Central High area and then compare

those levels to the city and Pulaski County.

Significant deviations could be considered a

basis for determining that disproportionate

effects could occur to low-income or

minority populations.

Intensity
151

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible environmental justice impacts would

occur if local income and ethnicity studies

showed that the area of proposed development

had similar income and ethnicity patterns

compared with the city and the county.

Minor environmental justice impacts would

occur if local income and ethnicity studies

showed that the area of proposed development

had somewhat different income and ethnicity

patterns compared with the city and the county.

Moderate environmental justice impacts would

occur if local income and ethnicity studies

showed that the area of proposed development

had noticeably different income and ethnicity

patterns compared with the city and the county.

Major environmental justice impacts would

occur if local income and ethnicity studies

showed that the area of proposed development

had substantially different income and ethnicity

patterns compared with the city and the county.

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur for a short

term and be temporary in nature and

associated with transitional types of

activities, or over a long term and have a

permanent effect on the socioeconomic

environment.

Type

The impacts are evaluated in terms of

whether the impact would be beneficial or

adverse to the socioeconomic environment.

Beneficial economic impacts would improve

environmental justice conditions in the area of

proposed development.

Adverse economic impacts would worsen

environmental justice conditions in the area of

proposed development.

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Analysis

As described in the socioeconomic affected

environment, the area of the Central High

School is currently both low-income and

disproportionately minority compared with

all of Little Rock. Per capita income is onethird of the citywide average and 90% of

residents near the school are AfricanAmerican (only one-third of all city

residents were African-American in 1990).

Despite this circumstance, the NPS has

determined that none of the actions of the

alternatives considered in the Draft General

Management Plan / Environmental Impact

Statement would result in significant direct

or indirect adverse effects on any minority

or low-income population or community.

However, if the NPS acquired any relatively

low rent property in the neighborhood that

could result in a minor, long-term adverse

impact on a minority or low-income

population.

The following information contributed to the

determination that none of the actions of the

alternatives would result in significant direct

or indirect adverse effects on any minority

or low-income population or community:
152

1. The actions proposed in the alternatives

would not result in any identifiable

adverse human health effects. Therefore,

there would be no direct or indirect

adverse effects on any minority or lowincome population or community.

2. The impacts on the physical

environment that would result from

implementing the alternatives would

have negligible adverse effects on any

minority or low-income population or

community.

3. The preferred alternative (alternative 2)

would not result in any identified

adverse effects that would be specific to

any minority or low-income community.

4. The NPS has had an active public

participation program and has equally

considered all public input from persons

regardless of age, race, income status, or

other socioeconomic or demographic

factors.

5. No minority groups in the Central High

neighborhood, or the City of Little Rock,

or the surrounding region would be

disproportionately affected.

6. Effects on the Central High

neighborhood, the City of Little Rock,

and the surrounding regional

socioeconomic environment because of

implementing alternative 2 would be

negligible, and in the long term,

beneficial. Impacts on the

socioeconomic environment would not

be expected to alter the physical and

social structure of the county or region.

7. The visitor center’s educational role in

the community would result over time in

increasing community pride and

understanding of the 1957 events at

Central High as well as an overall

understanding of the Civil Rights

movement. The visitor center would

have a major, long-term beneficial effect

on documenting the legacy of those

events and the role of individuals who

were denied access to the school.

Operation of the center would also help

build pride in (and support for) the Civil

Rights movement.

Cumulative Impacts

For the above reasons, there are no

cumulative impacts.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, there are no

Environmental justice effects.

TRANSPORTATION AND SITE ACCESS

Methodology

Potential effects to transportation were

estimated by first identifying future traffic

associated with each alternative and then

comparing those traffic levels to current

traffic counts near the Central High School.

Current (year 2000) traffic counts that were

used measured 24-hour, two-way vehicles.

The increase in forecasted traffic was

expressed as a percentage of current traffic.

To ensure that results were not understated,

2015 projections were for July (historically,

the busiest month visitor month at the visitor

center). Traffic impacts for other months

would be somewhat less adverse.

Intensity

The intensity of the impact considers

whether the impact would be negligible,

minor, moderate, or major.
153

Negligible impacts were considered

undetectable and would have no discernible

effect on traffic and access.

Minor impacts were effects on traffic and access

that would be slightly detectable but not

expected to have an overall effect on the site.

Moderate impacts would be clearly detectable

and could have an appreciable effect on traffic

and access.

Major impacts would have a substantial

influence on traffic and access.

Duration

The duration of the impact considers

whether the impact would occur.

for a short term and be temporary in nature, and

associated with transitional types of activities, or

over a long term and have a permanent effect on

traffic and access.

Type

Impacts are evaluated in terms of whether

the impacts on air quality would be

beneficial or adverse.

Beneficial impacts would improve traffic and

access.

Adverse impacts would negatively affect traffic

and access.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Visitation at the existing visitor center is

expected to increase substantially even if

additional facilities are not constructed. It is

projected that through the year 2015, total

visitation at the existing visitor center would

potentially grow by around 4.5% per year,

for a 2015 total of approximately 54,000

individuals.

Compared with the estimated visitor total of

28,000 for 2000, this would represent an

increase of 26,000 persons in 2015. This is

an estimated value and the exact number

will later depend on such factors as

expenditures for marketing and advertising,

the success the William Jefferson Clinton

Library and the strength of the local

economy.

This level of tourism at the Center would

translate to about 74 additional round-trip

vehicles per day in July 2015. As with other

alternatives analyzed in this section, July

2015 was used because visitation in that

month has historically been higher than

other months. In other words, traffic impacts

in other months of the year would be less

adverse, compared with July.

The traffic increase associated with this

number of vehicles would represent an

increase of about 2% over the 2000 traffic

counts. An increase of this magnitude would

be noticeable by most Central High area

residents, but probably not by residents

elsewhere in Little Rock.

This traffic impact is considered to be minor

and long term. It would also be slightly

adverse, because it would add to traffic

congestion and noise in the area. Despite

this projected increase, traffic along

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive would still be

well within safe operational limits and the

level of service is not expected to decrease

(the level-of-service rating is a measure of

traffic congestion used by the Arkansas

State Highway and Transportation

Department).

Cumulative Impacts

Traffic projections are not available for

streets in the Central High area. However,

the Arkansas Highways and Transportation

Department has detailed historic traffic

counts from 1987 through 2000. These data

show that traffic near the school has steadily

declined since 1987. For example, at Daisy
154

L. Gatson Bates Drive and High Street

(about seven blocks east of the school),

Arkansas Highway and Transportation

Department records show that average daily

traffic has decreased by about 3.9 per cent

per year. The cumulative traffic effect of

alternative 1 would not be expected to

substantially alter this ongoing trend. Even

with 74 additional daily vehicles at the

visitor center, the total daily traffic along

Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive would be

substantially lower than 1987 levels.

Alternative 2 – The Site

Analysis

It is assumed that visitation in July, 2002

attributed to alternative 2 may reach 2,175

persons (this number is calculated as

follows: approximately 8,700 visitors

attributed to alternative 2 times 25% = 2,175

individuals). Based on current and past

numbers of private automobiles and buses at

the site, it is estimated that about 20% of all

visitors would arrive by bus and about 80%

by car. Therefore, in July 2002, it is

estimated that implementation of this

alternative would generate an additional 700

car round-trips or about 23 round-trips per

day (this assumes that there are 2.5 persons

per automobile on the average). Added to

this total would be approximately 435

persons who are part of guided tours. At an

average tour group size of around 10

persons, this would mean an additional 44

buses or so in that month, or about one

additional bus per day in July 2002,

compared with No Action. The combined

vehicle increase in that month (cars and

buses) associated with alternative 2 is

therefore about 24 round-trips each day (48

two-way vehicles).

Over time, the traffic associated with the

new visitor center, the rehabilitated Ponder’s

Drug Store, and other improvements would

increase. For example, by 2015 it is

estimated that compared with alternative 1

(No Action), there would be an additional

14,000 visitors at the visitor center (this

refers only to those visitors attributed to

alternative 2, not the combined total). Again

looking at July as a “worst case” month and

assuming that all visitors used Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive to the visitor center, it is

estimated that there would be an additional

37 cars and 3 buses each day, totaling 40

round-trip vehicles per day in July. The

traffic increase associated with this number

of vehicles would represent an increase of

about 2% over the 2000 traffic counts. An

increase of this magnitude would be

noticeable by most Central High area

residents, but not by residents elsewhere in

Little Rock.

For potential traffic increases, only those

vehicles attributed to the selected alternative

were used in calculations. As presented in

the Affected Environment (Table 11), the

current (2000) two-way, 24-hour traffic

volume on Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive,

between Park and Schiller streets is 4,404

vehicles. If all vehicle traffic in the peak

month (July 2002) accessed Daisy L. Gatson

Bates Drive to reach the visitor center and

Ponder’s Drug Store, the resulting 24 roundtrip vehicles would represent an increase of

only about 1% over the current daily traffic.

This potential traffic increase is shown in

Table 13.

This traffic impact is considered to be minor

and long term. It would also be slightly

adverse, because it would add to traffic

congestion and noise in the area. Despite

this projected increase, traffic along Daisy

L. Gatson Bates Drive would still be well
155

within safe operational limits and the level

of service is not expected to decrease (the

level-of-service rating is a measure of traffic

congestion used by the Arkansas State

Highway and Transportation Department).

Table 13: Projected Peak Month (July) Traffic

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 (a)

Year Total July

Visitors (b)

Average July

Visitors

Per Day (c)

Average July

Vehicle Trips

Per Day (d)

Current Traffic

Bates Drive and

Park St. (e)

Increase

Caused By

Project (f)

(Percent)

2002 (g) 2,175 73 24 4,404 1

2015 (h) 3,500 117 40 4,404 2

Source for current traffic near the school: City of Little Rock, Department of Public Works; August 30, 2000.

(a) July is selected because it is typically the busiest month of the year.

(b) About 25% of annual visitation is assumed to occur in July. Only visitation attributed to the alternatives are counted. Future

increases in visitation attributed to “No Action” are not included. For 2002, this value equals 8,700 times 25%. For 2015, the

value equals 14,000 times 25%.

(c) Total visitor per month divided by 30.

(d) Based on 80% of visitors using personal vehicles and 20% busing to the visitor center. Also assumes that an average bus or

van seats about 10 people and that the average car carries 2.5 individuals.

(e) Current daily traffic is the 24-hour, two-way total of all vehicles, including trucks. August 2000 vehicle counts were

measured just north of the existing visitor center on Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive, between Park and Schiller Streets.

(f) Average vehicle trips per day times 2 (to account for total vehicle trips, not round-trips), divided by current traffic levels.

(g) The first year of the forecast period.

(h) The last year of the forecast period.

Cumulative Impacts

Traffic projections are not available for

streets in the Central High area. However,

the Arkansas Highway and Transportation

Department has detailed historic traffic

counts from 1987 through 2000. These data

show that traffic near the school has steadily

declined since 1987. For example, at Daisy

L. Gatson Bates Drive and High Street

(about seven blocks east of the school),

Arkansas Highway and Transportation

Department records show that average daily

traffic has decreased by about 3.9 per cent

per year. The cumulative traffic effect of

alternative 2 would not be expected to

substantially alter this ongoing trend. Even

with 40 additional daily vehicles at the

Center, the total daily traffic along Daisy L.

Gatson Bates Drive would be substantially

lower than 1987 levels.

Alternative 3 – The City

Analysis

The total increase in visitors and traffic for

alternative 3 was assumed to be about the

same as for alternative 2. However, because

of the off-site orientation center, shuttle

staging area and the dispersed nature of the

other historic Civil Rights facilities

throughout the city, traffic impacts would be

less concentrated. Near the existing visitor

center, traffic impacts would be less adverse,

compared with alternative 2. These effects

would be minor, long-term and slightly

adverse. At the shuttle staging area and

along the “tour” route for other historic sites,

traffic increases would be negligible to

minor, long-term and slightly adverse. As

with alternative 2, the small increase in

traffic (an increase of about 2% compared

with current area traffic counts) would not

exceed safety standards on any street and

would not cause the level of service to be
156

downgraded.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative traffic effects would be minor

and would be similar to alternative 2. Even

with the addition of shuttle buses, the

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation

Department has indicated that the total

average daily traffic on area streets would be

less than 1987 levels.

Alternative 4 – The Legacy

Analysis

The total increase in visitors and traffic for

alternative 4 was assumed to be about the

same as for alternatives 2 and 3. With respect to the distribution of traffic effects,

alternative 4 is considered to be most similar

to alternative 2, because the education center

would be constructed at the northeast corner

of Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and Park,

diagonally across from the school. Traffic

impacts would be minor, long term, and

slightly adverse. During July (normally the

busiest month at the existing visitor center),

traffic associate with alternative 4 would

only be about 2% less compared with current (2000) traffic counts. As with alternative 2, the small increase in traffic would

not exceed safety standards and would not

cause the level of service to be downgraded.

Cumulative Impacts

Potential traffic effects would also be the

same as for alternative0 2 and 3. The

combined effect of alternative 4 with longterm traffic trends would result in total

traffic near Central High that is lower than

1987 levels.

Conclusion

Substantial adverse traffic effects would not

occur, because of the relatively small

increase in projected additional cars and

buses coming to the visitor center. Ample

access to the education center would be

maintained and additional parking would

reduce the congestion of on-street parking.

OTHER IMPACTS

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Unavoidable adverse socioeconomic effects

would be associated with more traffic,

congestion, and noise for residents near

Central High. As traffic increases, some

residents may feel as though they are “on

display,” and potentially higher property

values and taxes could negatively affect

some residents.
157

Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the

Environment and the Maintenance and

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

Public and private resources used for visitor

and educational programs would directly

benefit some local individuals and

businesses. However, over the long term,

such investment would contribute to the

overall enhancement of regional economic

productivity.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

of Resources

The implementation of these alternatives

would involve a significant commitment of

capital to construct and maintain visitor and

educational facilities and provide financial

and technical assistance. These costs range

from $6.6 million (alternative 1) to $19

million (alternative 3). Some indirect effects

would be local economic activities

stimulated by visitation. These would likely

be associated with tourism and service

sector opportunities that would also be

derived from the commitment of capital,

energy, materials, and labor.

Impacts on Energy Requirements and

Conservation Potential

Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources

would be used for construction projects,

including rehabilitation, renovation, or

preservation of the buildings and landscape

(alternative 2 and 4). This expenditure of

energy would be short term and negligible

and include fuel for construction vehicles,

construction materials, and energy used in

manufacturing materials.

An increase in energy expenditure would

occur when the Archival Collections would

be placed in an on-site off-site repository.

The increase would result from the transfer

of the collections as well as staff and

researcher transportation between the site

(alternative 2 and 4). The same energy

expenditure would occur if the archival

collection were placed in the off-site facility

(alternative 3).

The presence of a visitor center and/or

educational center would eventually have

some effect on the growth of private

development in Little Rock and it is likely

that more retail facilities such as service

stations or restaurants would be built. All

visitor facilities would be constructed using

energy efficient technology reducing the

energy requirements for heating and cooling.

alternative 3 would be expected to slightly

reduce the consumption of gasoline, because

of the reliance on shuttle buses to outlying

Civil Rights sites around the city. The

increased use of potable water, electricity,

natural gas or wastewater associated with

any alternative would be negligible.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Scoping and Other Public Involvement

Efforts

The State Historic Preservation Officer and

the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation were formally notified of the

initiation of the general management plan on

April 26, 1999, in compliance with the

Programmatic Agreement of 1995.

Subsequently, on May 12, 1999, copies of

the finalized project agreement for the plan

were transmitted to both offices. The

Advisory Council responded formally on

June 1, 1999 (see Appendix D). Meetings

were held with the State Historic

Preservation Officer on May 4, 1999.

Five scoping meetings were held May 4 and

5, 1999 in the City of Little Rock. Individual

meetings were held with the Central High
158

Institute Planning Committee, the State

Historic Preservation Officer, and students

of Central High School. In addition, an open

house was held at the high school. These

groups were asked to provide the planning

team with their ideas on what the site should

accomplish and any concerns they had about

the establishment of the site. The following

are some of the comments received from the

public at these meetings.

“The National Park Service was urged to

integrate the operation of the site within the

framework of a public high school that

continues to operate in a viable

neighborhood.”

Disruption of educational programs as well

as school and neighborhood security were

concerns of participants. They felt that

nothing should interfere with the school’s

classes and programs and that the school and

grounds should be repaired or rehabilitated

and made accessible for people with

disabilities.

“The site should benefit the neighborhood

and demonstrate a positive example of

neighborhood cleanup, but the

neighborhood should not be ‘sanitized’.”

Fears were expressed that parking lots might

take over the neighborhood. Some expressed

the need for better signs to direct visitors to

the site, while others urged that visitors be

taken to the site via public transportation

from outlying parking facilities to minimize

congestion in the neighborhood.

“There is need for a larger visitor center to

accommodate visitor orientation and house

more comprehensive exhibits, but any

structure that the NPS builds should be

architecturally compatible with the

structures in the surrounding neighborhood.”

Some thought that the streetscape in front of

the school should be preserved and that the

houses across the street should be acquired

and adaptively used for interpretation, park

administration, or other site-related

purposes; others wanted the reflecting pool

in front of the school reconstructed to ensure

a historically (1957) accurate landscape.

Restoration of the Campus Inn to house a

snack bar, interpretive exhibits, or site

offices and of Ponder’s Drugstore as a

drugstore and soda fountain were considered

high priorities.

“Interpretation should be located in a

building either on or adjacent to the school

campus with an emphasis on the historic

context of the 1957 crisis.”

A number of comments and suggestions

were made regarding interpretation at the

school. Some visitors should have access to

the high school to experience the feeling of

the “crisis” from the inside. Tours should

use headphones to ensure that school

operations are not interrupted. The stories of

all groups involved in the crisis need to be

told to provide visitors with a

comprehensive understanding of the

significance of the events. The pre-1957 and

post-1957 historic development of the

school, including its academic and sports

programs and its architectural significance,

should be included. Media techniques, such

as videos, sights and sounds, simulations,

reenactments, virtual reality techniques,

dramas, and old television footage, could

serve as interpretive tools. The Little Rock

Nine and other 1957 participants could be

interviewed and videotaped. It was also

suggested that current students could be tour

guides and participate in “changeable”

exhibits at the visitor center. For those

unable to visit the site, a website could be

posted about the activities and ongoing

changes at the high school.
159

“The commemorative garden proposed for

construction and funded by private

donations across from the school should

provide a setting for contemplation, and it

should convey the promise of a better future

in race relations by using abstract elements,

statues, or other ornamentation.”

“A Civil Rights Institute that includes an

archives and library facility and a venue for

various educational efforts should be

developed and operated at the site via a

partnership to promote improved race

relations in American society.”

The first newsletter was distributed in March

2000. This newsletter provided the

background and status of the project to date

and presented the results of the meetings

held in May 1999. (The lapse in time was

due to the project being placed on hold from

June 1999 to March 2000 while awaiting the

selection and appointment of a

superintendent.)

The following month, the planning team

held a partnership workshop. Twenty

individuals attended representing legislated

partners, and local, city, and state

organizations and agencies. The purpose of

this workshop was to reconfirm the work

that had been accomplished on the project to

date and to develop draft alternative

concepts. The three draft alternatives

presented in this document were the results

of that workshop.

In July 2000, the second newsletter was

distributed to approximately 300 names and

addresses on the mailing list. In addition,

several hundred copies of the newsletter

were hand delivered to schools, libraries,

public agency offices, and other locations.

This newsletter provided the status of the

planning project to date and outlined the

draft alternatives. The public was provided

with a postage-paid, return mail comment

form. The people were asked to comment on

the purpose and significance statements and

on the interpretive themes. The draft

conceptual alternatives were outlined in this

newsletter, and the public was asked to

comment on them and to provide the

planning team with any additional ideas or

comments. Forty one comment forms were

returned to the planning team. The public

favored alternative 4 by a small margin,

followed by alternative 2 (the preferred).

The following present the questions that

were asked of the public and summary of

their response.

“Do you have any comments about the

purpose and significance statements, or the

interpretive themes?”

Not significant enough. Forced AfricanAmericans and whites to recognize their

differences for what they were and to challenge

us all to learn to live with them, to solve and

heal them, and to respect each other. It wasn’t,

isn’t and never will be about “the south.” It’s

about respecting each other nationally and

internationally. It is our single greatest challenge

and opportunity.

Little Rock Central High School continues to

play a significant role in desegregation.

The themes of executive power and city/state

will be more difficult for visitors to understand.

The phrase “city and state” could become a

debate about why events happened when should

not have happened.

Add the city and state as contextual starting

place.

International alternative is too broad.

Focusing on the site alone is too narrow.

Tie in with local and state political issues of the

time.

Missing is an analysis of what this did to Little

Rock. How it held us back. The years of shame.

The unwillingness to accept the past and

confront this. The players and motives involved

in “rediscovering” Central’s role and getting this

monkey off the back of Little Rock. These are

valuable lessons for anyone and any community.
160

How much longer would this be “ignored” if

Abernathy and the others hadn’t stepped

forward?

Central High School is a success story, not just a

piece of dead history.

NPS is not isolated from Centennial Long Range

Strategic Plan. Work closely with community to

rebuild. Isolate yourself and you only add to the

racism.

Civil Rights Institute is critical to tell the story.

Emphasize historic preservation in the

neighborhood.

Other sites (e.g., Dunbar Junior High School and

Daisy Bates Home National Historic Landmark)

are necessary for telling story.

Add well-planned tour of select sites in city as

part of standard interpretation, with NPS

operating the Daisy Bates Home National

Historic Landmark.

Alternative 4 would be more “saleable” to “forprofit” partners, especially those involved in

distance learning, technology, and other current

trends in supplemental education.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock was not

part of 1957 history, back-pedal turning archives

over to them, keep emphasis in immediate area.

Add each of the family homes of the Little Rock

Nine.

“Do you have any other ideas that were not

presented in the alternatives? If yes, please

describe them.”

You haven’t stated that the spirit of the museum

should be the effort to bring harmony and

respect for people. You haven’t considered what

it did to Little Rock and how we coped with the

event. The fight is not over, the target is still

moving, and we are still evolving.

Use Central as a catalyst for upgrading the area

surrounding the school.

Use interactive displays that bring the lesson

from the past into focus with today’s youth.

Rezone area as “commercial”, have shops,

eatery, etc., develop police sub-station near area.

NPS should operate the Daisy Bates Home

National Historic Landmark.

Include some preservation/restoration of houses

located across from school.

Concerns

There will be added parking and congestion

(activities at high school already taking a toll on

residents. Most residents are retired.

NPS partnered in removal of Campus Inn. List

service to cooperation.

A Federal Register notice and media

announcement initiated the beginning of a

formal public comment period on this draft

plan. All interested agencies, groups, and

individuals are invited to review this

document and submit comments. Public

meetings on the draft plan will be held at the

end of this review period. The public will be

notified of the location, dates, and times of

these meetings.

As directed by the legislation this Draft

General Management Plan was developed

by the NPS in consultation with the

principal of the Central High School and

representatives from the State of Arkansas,

the City of Little Rock, the Little Rock

School District, Central High Museum, Inc.,

Central High Neighborhood Inc., and the

University of Arkansas at Little Rock and

other appropriate entities.
161

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS PLAN

City

Walter Malone (Planning Manager),

City of Little Rock Department of

Planning and Zoning

Mary McFarland (Coordinator of

Information Services), University of

Arkansas at Little Rock, Institute for

Economic Advancement, Census

State Data Center.

Greater Little Rock Chamber of

Commerce.

Brian Vines (Traffic Systems Manager),

City of Little Rock, Department of

public works.

State

Arkansas Department of Parks and

Recreation

Arkansas State Highway and

Transportation Department

Federal

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department

of Commerce

National Park Service, U.S. Department

of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
September 25, 1997: President Clinton, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey welcome 

the Little Rock Nine back to Central High for the 40th Anniversary Commemorative Ceremony.

Photo Courtesy of 1997 Camera Work, Inc.

Appendixes, Bibliography, Preparers,

and Consultants
164
165

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION

S.2232

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand

nine hundred and ninety-eight An Act

To establish the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site in the State of Arkansas, and for

other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds that—

(1) the 1954 United States Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education, which

mandated an end to the segregation of public schools, was one of the most significant Court

decisions in the history of the United States.

(2) the admission of nine African-American students, known as the ‘Little Rock Nine,’ to Little

Rock’s Central High School as a result of the Brown decision, was the most prominent national

example of the implementation of the Brown decision, and served as a catalyst for the integration

of other, previously segregated public schools in the United States;

(3) 1997 marked the 70th anniversary of the construction of Central High School, which has been

named by the American Institute of Architects as `the most beautiful high school building in

America';

(4) Central High School was included on the National Register of Historic Places in 1977 and

designated by the Secretary of the Interior as a National Historic Landmark in 1982 in recognition

of its national significance in the development of the Civil Rights movement in the United States;

and

(5) the designation of Little Rock Central High School as a unit of the National Park System will

recognize the significant role the school played in the desegregation of public schools in the South

and will interpret for future generations the events associated with early desegregation of southern

schools.

(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is to preserve, protect, and interpret for the benefit, education,

and inspiration of present and future generations, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and its

role in the integration of public schools and the development of the Civil Rights movement in the

United States.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT- The Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site in the State of

Arkansas (hereinafter referred to as the ‘historic site’) is hereby established as a unit of the National

Park System. The historic site shall consist of lands and interests therein comprising the Central High

School campus and adjacent properties in Little Rock, Arkansas, as generally depicted on a map

entitled ‘Proposed Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site,’ numbered LIRO-20,000
166

and dated July, 1998. Such map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate

offices of the National Park Service.

(b) ADMINISTRATION OF HISTORIC SITE- The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘Secretary’) shall administer the historic site in accordance with this Act. Only those lands under

the direct jurisdiction of the Secretary shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of law

generally applicable to units of the National Park System including the Act of August 25, 1916 (16

U.S.C. 1, 2-4) and the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461-467). Nothing in this Act shall affect the

authority of the Little Rock School District to administer Little Rock Central High School nor shall this

Act affect the authorities of the City of Little Rock in the neighborhood surrounding the school.

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS- (1) The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with

appropriate public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions (including, but not limited to,

the State of Arkansas, the City of Little Rock, the Little Rock School District, Central High Museum,

Inc., Central High Neighborhood, Inc., or the University of Arkansas) in furtherance of the purposes of

this Act. (2) The Secretary shall coordinate visitor interpretation of the historic site with the Little

Rock School District and the Central High School Museum, Inc.

(d) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN- Within three years after the date funds are made available,

the Secretary shall prepare a general management plan for the historic site. The plan shall be prepared

in consultation and coordination with the Little Rock School District, the City of Little Rock, Central

High Museum, Inc., and with other appropriate organizations and agencies. The plan shall identify

specific roles and responsibilities for the National Park Service in administering the historic site, and

shall identify lands or property, if any, that might be necessary for the National Park Service to acquire

in order to carry out its responsibilities. The plan shall also identify the roles and responsibilities of

other entities in administering the historic site and its programs. The plan shall include a management

framework that ensures the administration of the historic site does not interfere with the continuing use

of Central High School as an educational institution.

(e) ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY- The Secretary is authorized to acquire by purchase with donated

or appropriated funds by exchange, or donation the lands and interests therein located within the

boundaries of the historic site: Provided, That the Secretary may only acquire lands or interests therein

within the consent of the owner thereof: Provided further, That lands or interests therein owned by the

State of Arkansas or a political subdivision thereof, may only be acquired by donation or exchange.

SEC. 3. DESEGREGATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION THEME STUDY.

(a) THEME STUDY- Within two years after the date funds are made available, the Secretary shall

prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the

Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives a National Historic Landmark Theme Study

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘theme study’) on the history of desegregation in public education. The

purpose of the theme study shall be to identify sites, districts, buildings, structures, and landscapes that

best illustrate or commemorate key events or decisions in the historical movement to provide for racial

desegregation in public education. On the basis of the theme study, the Secretary shall identify possible

new national historic landmarks appropriate to this theme and prepare a list in order of importance or

merit of the most appropriate sites for national historic landmark designation.

(b) OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH- The theme study shall identify

appropriate means to establish linkages between sites identified in subsection (a) and between those sites

and the Central High School National Historic Site established in section 2, and with other existing units

of the National Park System to maximize opportunities for public education and scholarly research on

desegregation in public education. The theme study also shall recommend opportunities for cooperative

arrangements with State and local governments, educational institutions, local historical organizations,

and other appropriate entities to preserve and interpret key sites in the history of desegregation in public

education.
167

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS- The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with one or

more educational institutions, public history organizations, or civil rights organizations knowledgeable

about desegregation in public education to prepare the theme study and to ensure that the theme study

meets scholarly standards.

(d) THEME STUDY COORDINATION WITH GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN- The theme study

shall be prepared as part of the preparation and development of the general management plan for the

Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site established in section 2.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

END
168

APPENDIX B – HISTORY OVERVIEW

Establishment of Little Rock Central High

School

The opening of Little Rock Central High School

in 1927 marked a new high point in the history

of public education in the Arkansas State

Capital. (Until 1953, it was known as Little Rock

Senior High School.) In 1853, a decade after

enabling legislation was passed, the first public

school was opened in Little Rock, offering six

years of free education. The curriculum and

terms of the city’s public schools grew

gradually; within 20 years the city offered 12

years of instruction.

Central High traces its beginning to 1869 when

the city’s high school, located in a wood frame

structure at Eighth and Sherman Streets, was

known as Sherman High School. However, it

was not until June 13, 1873, that the school

produced its first graduating class. In 1885 the

city high school was moved to the corner of 14th

and Scott Streets, where it was named Scott

Street School, although it was generally called

City High School. The high school was moved

again in 1890 to the corner of Capitol and Gaines

Streets and named Peabody High School in

honor of philanthropist George Peabody, who

donated millions of dollars to southern states

after the Civil War for building school systems.

Little Rock received nearly $200,000 from

Peabody; this was the largest sum received by

any southern city. In 1905, Peabody High School

was abandoned, and a new high school, named

Little Rock Senior High, opened at 14th and

Scott Streets. By the 1920s, the growing student

population necessitated a larger building. The

far-sighted plans of the school board resulted in

construction of a new high school on a site in

Civitan Park at 14th and Park Streets.

Central High was designed in the Neo-Gothic

Revival style by Little Rock architects George R.

Mann, Eugene John Stern, John Parks Almand,

George H. Wittenberg, and Lawson L. Delony.

Gordon Walker of Salina, Kansas, was the

general contractor for the building, while the

landscape architect for the site was John

Highberger of Memphis, Tennessee. When it

was completed in 1927, the $1.5 million fivestory buff-brick building, with its irregular but

generally Y-shaped plan, was the nation’s largest

high school and the state’s second largest

structure, ranking only behind the State Capitol.

Architecturally unique among Arkansas school

structures, the American Institute of Architects

labeled it as ”America’s Most Beautiful High

School.” Among the most impressive features of

the new building were the four statues of Greek

goddesses located over the front entrance, which

represented Ambition, Personality, Opportunity,

and Preparation. Three thousand pupils, with a

recessed locker for each, could be

accommodated in the 100 classrooms of the new

school, and its auditorium, seating 2,000 people,

had the largest stage in the state.

Setting the pace for state education, Central High

was the first school to offer comprehensive

vocational/business education training and

foreign language instruction. Two student

organizations at Central -- the Quill and Scroll

Society and Cum Laude -- are charter members

of their national organizations. In 1931 a team of

prominent educators from eastern colleges

referred to the school as “perhaps the best and

most complete high school in the world.” The

school’s student newspaper, the Tiger, became

widely recognized, and it has been the recipient

of numerous national awards.

When 12,000-seat Quigley Stadium (named for

Earl Quigley who was a coach for Tiger football

teams from 1914 until 1935) was constructed on

the campus in 1936, it was the state’s largest

stadium and one of the largest in the South. The

Tiger fieldhouse was constructed in 1951 to

provide updated facilities for the basketball

teams, who had been using the auditorium stage

for their games.

In 1969, a new library-media center, named for

Jess W. Matthews who served as principal of

Central High from 1945 to 1965, was

constructed on Central’s campus. Other new

additions to the high school in recent years

include modern instrumental music facilities, a

vocal musical center, a guidance center, and a

business education facility for simulated office

practice.

Little Rock Crises

Influence of Brown v. Board of Education of

Topeka

Two cases (Brown v. Board of Education of

Topeka), concerned with the legality of

separation by race in public education, reached
169

the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 and 1955. In the

first case (347 U.S. 483), often referred to as

Brown I, the Court held that segregation in

public schools at all levels was unconstitutional.

While the Brown I decision on May 17, 1954,

reversed Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), with its

“separate but equal” ruling on railroad

accommodations, the 1954 ruling was the

culmination of the legal debate on segregation in

education that had been before the courts since

1938. The Court held that to separate African

American school children by race induces a

sense of inferiority that retards educational and

mental development, that “separate education

facilities are inherently unequal,” and that the

plaintiffs were “by reason of the segregation

complained of, deprived of the equal protection

of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth

Amendment.”

In the second Brown case (349 U.S. 294), often

referred to as Brown II, on May 31, 1955, the

Court held that the pace of desegregation in

schools was the responsibility of school

authorities, would depend on the problems and

conditions facing individual communities, and

should be carried out “with all deliberate speed.”

After the 1955 decision, the case was returned to

federal district courts for implementation.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to require

immediate implementation of its decision in

Brown I and its adoption of the “all deliberate

speed” standard in 1955 provided notice that the

struggle to gain the promised right to equal

educational opportunity would be long and

difficult. Nevertheless, the Brown decisions

became the symbol of racial equality and led to

the dismantling of overt racial segregation

policies that marked every important public

function in much of the country. It sparked major

reform in racial laws, policies, and even patterns

of thought and behavior. Moreover, it heightened

the expectations of African Americans,

particularly those of an expanding middle class,

thus contributing enhanced vitality to the ongoing civil rights movement.

After marking time for some months after the

Brown II decision, during which limited progress

toward school integration was made in the border

states and upper South, segregationists began

actively to obstruct implementation of the

Supreme Court’s ruling in early 1956. The

unanticipated action of lower courts in upholding

the Supreme Court’s ruling bred widespread

panic among many southern whites and gave rise

to a pervasive mood of defiance in the region.

Politicians in Virginia urged massive resistance

to the Court’s orders and invoked the doctrine of

interposition, claiming that the state had a right

to interpose its authority against an alleged

violation of the Constitution by the Supreme

Court. One hundred Congressmen issued a

“southern manifesto” in March 1956, censuring

the Supreme Court and praising state efforts to

resist forced integration by lawful means. White

citizens’ councils sprang up in numerous

southern communities, ostensibly to protect the

constitutional rights of whites, but actually to

prevent free access of African Americans to

public schools. Given a new lease on life by the

mood of resistance sweeping the South, a

revived Ku Klux Klan found considerable

support among hard-core segregationists ready to

commit or condone virtually any activities to

preserve white supremacy in America.

Emergence of the Crisis: May 1954 - August

1957

Surprisingly, the great test for the resurrected

doctrine of interposition came in Little Rock. Of

all southern cities, Little Rock was among the

least likely scenes for a dramatic confrontation

between state and federal power. This

comparatively progressive upper-South capital

city had been among the first communities in the

border states and the former Confederacy to

make preparations for compliance with the

Brown I and II decisions. The percentage of

African American students in Little Rock public

schools was less than that of Wilmington,

Louisville, Washington, Baltimore, or St. Louis -

- all of which had previously abandoned “Jim

Crow” educational facilities. The Little Rock

school system also contained relatively fewer

African Americans than did those of Nashville,

Charlotte, Greensboro, or Winston-Salem -- the

southern cities that joined Little Rock in

desegregating in the fall of 1957.

One day after the May 17, 1954, Brown decision,

the Little Rock school board instructed

Superintendent of Schools Virgil T. Blossom to

draw up a plan for compliance. Although less

than enthusiastic about the change, neither

Blossom nor any school board member

suggested defiance of the Supreme Court’s

ruling. Later in May 1954, school authorities

made public their decision and announced that
170

planning for school desegregation would begin

immediately.

During the following year, Blossom formulated

and reformulated desegregation arrangements.

Originally conceived as a plan for substantial

integration beginning at the elementary school

grade level, the Little Rock Phase Program,

known as the Phase Program Plan, that emerged

in May 1955 provided for token desegregation

starting in September 1957 at one senior high

school -- Central. The second phase would

extend tokenism to junior high schools by 1960,

with the final step of desegregation on the

elementary level tentatively scheduled for the

fall of 1963. A transfer provision would permit

students to escape from districts where their race

was in the minority; thus assuring that the

heavily African American Horace Mann Senior

High School zone would remain segregated. A

rigid screening process eliminated most of those

remaining African American students who were

eligible and who wanted to attend the formerly

white Central High School.

By August 1957, having further reduced the

number of African American children who might

possibly attend Central High School during the

1957-58 school year, the school board gave

tentative approval for approximately 25 African

American students to enroll at Central -- a figure

that was about 10 percent of the number it had

told the federal district court would be attending.

By the time that school started, it developed that

only nine children between the ages of 14 and

16, with their parents’ consent, decided to make

the effort to attend Central High School in the

face of continuing opposition. These nine

students -- Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford,

Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba

Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson

Thomas, and Carlotta Walls -- would become

known as “The Little Rock Nine,” and in 1958

they would be awarded the prestigious Spingarn

Medal by the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

In its final form, the Phase Program plan,

although consistent with the gradual, token

approach set out in the Supreme Court’s Brown

II decision, contained a questionable approach to

the problems of desegregation. The plan

contained a key flaw. Desegregation was delayed

until 1957 specifically to allow time for

construction of two new city high schools -- Hall

High School in west Little Rock for whites, and

Horace Mann High in east Little Rock for

African Americans. With the exception of

limited facilities for technical training, Little

Rock had traditionally operated two senior high

schools -- one (Dunbar) for African Americans

and one (Central) for whites. Located at the

corner of 11th Street and Wright Avenue, the

Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School had

been dedicated on April 14, 1930, to replace

Gibbs High School as Little Rock’s African

American high school. During 1931-32, Dunbar

became one of only two industrial arts schools in

the South to receive a junior college rating.

Upon completion, Hall, located in the western

part of the city, enrolled students from the

Pulaski Heights area, the status residential area

and home of Little Rock’s most influential

people. Central, situated geographically between

the two new schools and the only school to be

desegregated, was left with pupils drawn

primarily from the city’s lower and middle

classes. This arrangement added an element of

class conflict to the racial controversy and

allowed segregationist spokesmen to charge that

integrationists were sacrificing the common

citizen while protecting the wealthy. More

important, it removed the center of white

moderation from direct involvement in the

desegregation efforts.

In January 1956, 27 African American students

attempted to enroll in Little Rock’s white public

schools. When they were denied admittance, the

NAACP filed suit. On August 27, 1956, in

Aaron v. Cooper (143 F. Supp. 855; E.D. Ark.

1956), Judge John E. Miller rejected the

NAACP’s argument and upheld the Phase

Program Plan on the grounds that it was in

compliance with the Supreme Court’s second

Brown decision. He retained jurisdiction of the

suit in the event that further questions might

arise during the course of the plan’s

implementation. The NAACP appealed the

decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit, and on April 26, 1957, the

appellate court unanimously affirmed Miller’s

ruling (243 F. 2d. 361; C.A. 8, 1957).

During the next several months, the Capital

Citizens’ Council, later assisted by the League of

Central High School Mothers, aggressively

promoted public opposition to desegregation.

Although a member of the Arkansas Association

of Citizens’ Councils, the Capital Citizens’

chapter was a local movement which drew its
171

greatest popular support from working-class

districts, although it enjoyed sympathy from

substantial numbers of other white citizens,

particularly those in lower-class neighborhoods

and in lower-status, middle-class areas.

Ministers, lawyers, and a few independent

businessmen were most prominent among the

organization’s leadership. Ministers, mainly of

the Missionary Baptist denomination, were

probably the most active single group. Robert E.

Brown, publicity director for a Little Rock radiotelevision station, was chapter president in 1957,

but Amis Guthridge, an attorney and states’

rights political advocate, appeared to be the

council’s foremost leader.

During the spring of 1957, the Capital Citizens’

Council launched an intensive propaganda

campaign, disseminating leaflets and sponsoring

advertisements attacking integration, holding

rallies (three times with out-of-state speakers),

initiating letter writing campaigns aimed at

Governor Orval E. Faubus, spreading, and

perhaps originating, rumors about impending

violence, and organizing crowds to disrupt

public meetings of the school board. The

segregationists’ most persistent demand was for

Faubus to intervene to prevent violence and

preserve dual segregated school systems in the

state capital.

The appearance of Governor Marvin Griffin and

Roy Harris of Georgia, frequent orators on the

Citizens’ Council circuit throughout the South, at

a council fund-raising banquet in Little Rock on

August 22 was one of the more publicized events

in the summer-long war of nerves. Assuring

listeners that Georgia would not allow school

integration, the two featured speakers called

upon Arkansas to join in the support for white

supremacy and the defense of segregation. On

August 20, two days prior to the dinner, Faubus

had telephoned Griffin to request that he refrain

from advocating violent action while in

Arkansas. When Griffin gave assurances, the

Arkansas governor invited the visiting Georgia

governor to stay overnight in the executive

mansion. Although the conversations between

the two men and the Arkansas governor

allegedly concerned topics other than

segregation, the Georgians’ visit proved to be

one of several effective Capital Citizens’ Council

propaganda strokes. Faubus testified shortly

afterward that people were approaching him and

asking why Arkansas had integration if Georgia

did not.

As a result of these developments, the

approaching integration of Central High School

emerged as a highly politicized event that was

not merely a local school administrative issue.

Fearing difficulties and perhaps becoming aware

of their exposed position, school authorities

began a desperate search for support of their

desegregation plan. During the summer of 1957,

Blossom conferred frequently with Little Rock

Chief of Police Marvin H. Potts, an opponent of

desegregation who, although promising to

maintain law and order, showed little enthusiasm

and was apparently hesitant to make specific

commitments. The superintendent and School

Board President William G. Cooper, Jr.,

appealed to Federal District Judge John E. Miller

asking for a public pronouncement pointing out

to potential troublemakers the consequences of

obstructing the court-approved desegregation

plans, but the judge refused.

Blossom then turned to Governor Faubus,

requesting that the governor issue a public

statement promising to maintain order and to

permit no obstruction to integration, thus making

the state responsible for peaceful desegregation

in Little Rock. After Faubus refused to issue

such a statement, Blossom, accompanied by

members of the school board, made repeated

attempts to press the governor for a commitment.

Anxious to justify their request, school

spokesmen probably exaggerated the dangers of

public disorder by reiterating fears that outside

agitators might converge on Little Rock to

disrupt desegregation as they had in the

northeastern Arkansas town of Hoxie in 1955.

However, the publicity resulting from Hoxie’s

desegregation difficulties, effective agitation by

white supremacy organizations, and the growing

mood of social reaction spreading across the

South made racial issues too immediate to be

ignored. In January 1956, Faubus released the

results of a public opinion poll, which showed

that a large majority of Arkansas citizens were

opposed to integration. At the same time, he

made his first detailed statement on racial issues

during his 13-month tenure as governor,

declaring that he would not be a party in any

attempt to force acceptance of change on people

so overwhelmingly opposed to change. Faubus

encouraged local communities to work out plans

of action in accordance with the needs of their

school districts and the demands of their patrons

and promised that the force of the governor’s

office would be used to defend the decisions of
172

the individual school districts in the state.

Shortly thereafter, he endorsed the work of an

unofficial committee studying problems posed

by the Supreme Court ruling. The committee,

composed entirely of east Arkansas (eastern

Arkansas had the highest concentrations of

African Americans in the state, and thus its

schools were the ones most significantly affected

by the Brown decision) spokesmen,

recommended a locally administered pupil

assignment measure and a protest interposition

resolution. The proposed pupil placement act

delegated to district school authorities the task of

assigning pupils to schools according to

specified criteria. With Faubus’ backing, both

measures became law by initiative petition.

During the 1956 gubernatorial primary, Faubus’

chief opponent was White Citizens’ Council

organizer James D. Johnson who rested his

primary appeal to Arkansas voters on racial

demagoguery. Since the election campaign

developed no other issue, Faubus turned to a

more positive defense of segregation. Although

he denounced Johnson and another staunchly

segregationist candidate as “hate preachers,”

Faubus repeatedly promised that there would be

no forced integration of public schools in the

state during his governorship. Faubus handily

won in the first primary by polling more votes

than his four opponents combined. Thus, the

election results seemed to indicate that the

governor’s “common man” approach and racial

“moderation” was pleasing to a solid majority of

Arkansas’ citizens.

In practice, Arkansas followed a laissez-faire

policy toward compliance with the Brown

decision prior to the autumn of 1957, leaving

each school district to work out its own racial

problems. Under this arrangement, five Arkansas

communities desegregated, and five more were

planning to do so in 1957.

The Crisis: August --October 1957

Little Rock, however, interrupted the state’s

policy of drift. Here, school authorities and

organized segregationists -- the effective voices

of both the proponents and the enemies of

desegregation -- insisted that the governor take

action to preserve order. Faubus found himself in

a dilemma, having promised not to force

integration upon an unwilling community and at

the same time having indicated an intention not

to subvert federal law with state action. Fearful

of being pushed to the unpopular side of a major

racial controversy, Faubus maneuvered to avoid

taking a stand at Little Rock during the last days

of August 1957.

Faubus first invited the administration of

President Dwight D. Eisenhower to accept the

burden. The Department of Justice responded to

Faubus’ inquiry by sending Arthur B. Caldwell,

head of its civil rights division, to Arkansas to

meet with the governor on August 28. Faubus,

expressing fear of violence, questioned the

Justice Department representative about federal

assistance in the event of trouble. Caldwell could

only explain that the Eisenhower administration

did not wish to get involved and would assume

no advance responsibility for maintaining order.

The Eisenhower administration compounded

Faubus’ problems by allowing a report on the

confidential conversation with Caldwell to leak

to the press, and Faubus reacted angrily when

reporters asked about the talks. The governor

observed that the federal government was

“cramming integration down our throats” and

then demanding that we “protect ourselves while

we’re carrying out their orders.”

After the conference with Caldwell, the governor

helped initiate, and testified in support of, a

Mothers’ League petition asking an Arkansas

chancery court to enjoin school authorities from

carrying out planned desegregation at Central

High. Faubus informed the court that violence

was likely if immediate integration were

attempted in the increasingly tense city. Relying

heavily upon the governor’s testimony, the

chancery court judge issued the injunction on

August 29. The following day, however, Federal

District Court Judge Ronald Davies issued an

injunction that voided the chancery court order.

With the school fall term opening date

approaching, Faubus had to choose his course of

action. On September 1, 1957, he announced

publicly that he had no plans concerning Little

Rock and privately indicated that he intended to

let city officials deal with the problem. That

night he had a long talk with Superintendent

Blossom, who again impressed upon Faubus the

necessity for state support. Faubus refused to

make the commitment, hinting instead that he

might intervene to block the school board’s

desegregation plans. The governor did act on the

next day by ordering the State Militia of the

Arkansas National Guard, which had been

alerted earlier, to prevent desegregation at
173

Central High School. Appearing on television

that evening, he explained that the mission of the

soldiers was “to maintain or restore order and to

protect the lives and property of citizens.”

During the emotion-packed weeks that followed,

Faubus insisted that he was not interposing state

authority to defy a federal court order. He

reiterated that he was neither opposing

integration nor defending segregation, and he

stated repeatedly that he acted only to prevent

violence. Nevertheless, he had committed

himself to a segregationist course of action, and

finding that his actions rode a wave of

popularity, he found his range of political

maneuvering sharply narrowed.

Governor Faubus dispatched the National Guard,

supplemented by a small cadre of state police

personnel, to Central High School on Monday,

September 2. That evening Blossom and the

school board released a public statement asking

the nine African American children scheduled to

begin classes with their approximately 1,900

white schoolmates the next morning to remain at

home until the legal issues of school integration

had been settled. The guardsmen turned back the

African American employees at Central High

School, while the board, now trapped between

national and state power, appealed to the federal

district court in Little Rock for instructions.

Judge Ronald Davies ordered the board to carry

out its desegregation plan.

On September 4, eight of the African American

children, together with a group of African

American and white ministers, went to Central

High School and attempted to approach the

building only to be refused admittance by armed

guardsmen and state troopers. Elizabeth Eckford

arrived later by bus and was met by a jeering

mob as she alighted from the bus at 12th and

Park streets. Seeing the guardsmen in front of the

school, she hurried in their direction. She was

not allowed to pass the soldiers and was forced

to return through the growing mob to her bus

stop. As members of the mob crowded around

her with taunting remarks, she proceeded in the

direction of Ponder’s Drug Store at the corner of

16th and Park Streets to escape. A store

employee saw her coming and locked the door.

She then went to sit on a bench at the bus stop on

the northwest side of 16th and Park Streets with

a howling mob around her. Finally, aided by a

sympathetic white woman, she boarded a city

bus to leave the area.

School officials returned to court on September

5, petitioning Judge Davies for a temporary

suspension of desegregation and calling attention

to the developing tension and antagonism which,

it felt, would disrupt education at the school.

Hearings on this request were held September 7,

and Judge Davies rejected the board’s plea that

same day. Two days later, Davies ordered the

U.S. Attorney General to file a petition

immediately for an injunction against Faubus

and two officers of the Arkansas National Guard.

The Department of Justice filed the petition on

September 10, and Davies set the hearing for ten

days hence.

During the period between September 2 and

September 20, the Eisenhower administration

watched indecisively as National Guard troops

(that would reach a maximum of 280 men) and

state policemen (that reached a maximum of 18

men on September 10) maintained segregation at

Central High School in defiance of federal

authority. Not until September 5 did the

president make a firm statement that “the federal

Constitution will be upheld by me by every legal

means at my command.” This pronouncement,

however, was qualified the following day when

an administration spokesman assured reporters

that Eisenhower still opposed the use of federal

troops to enforce court orders.

Meanwhile, the National Guard remained at

Central High School watching the curious

crowds, which in turn had gathered to watch

them. In a telegram to Eisenhower, Faubus stated

his suspicions that federal agents were not only

tapping his telephone lines but were also

“discussing plans to take into custody, by force,

the head of a sovereign state.” While the

governor dramatically surrounded the executive

mansion with guardsmen, U.S. Congressman

Brooks Hays sought a negotiated settlement of

the impasse and arranged a meeting between

Eisenhower and Faubus at Newport, Rhode

Island, on September 14. The meeting ended

inconclusively, and race relations continued to

deteriorate in Little Rock as sentiment hardened

on all sides.

On Friday, September 20, the federal district

court began hearings on the Department of

Justice’s petitions for an injunction against

Governor Faubus and the National Guard

officers. The governor’s attorney immediately

presented arguments that the district court had no

right to question a chief executive’s judgment in
174

relation to “the performance of his constitutional

duties” and that Davies should disqualify himself

for lack of impartiality. When the judge

dismissed the motion, Faubus’ attorneys

demanded and received permission to depart.

The hearings continued despite the absence of

the defense. Later that day, Davies issued a

petition enjoining Faubus, the National Guard

commanders, and any of their agents from

further obstructing desegregation in Little Rock.

Faubus promptly removed the guardsmen and

departed for a southern governors’ conference at

Sea Island, Georgia, predicting that violence

would result if desegregation were attempted.

The precipitous removal of the soldiers left Little

Rock to rely upon its own resources in dealing

with what had now become a dangerously tense

situation. The city had the weekend of

September 21-22 to prepare for the beginning of

desegregation on Monday, September 23. During

this period, Mayor Mann attempted to support

the school administration, releasing a statement

calling for peaceful acceptance of integration and

warning that peace officers would deal sternly

with illegal interference. By this time, however,

Mann’s authority had collapsed. He was a lameduck mayor as the city had previously voted to

go to a city manager form of government. He

was unable to control his own administration,

and no element of civic leadership offered

support to the beleaguered mayor. The police

department agreed to maintain order but refused

to escort African American children to Central

High School. The city appealed to both Judge

Davies and the Justice Department for federal

marshals to escort the African American

students, but both refused. The fire department

balked at providing hose equipment, although

police officials made it clear that success in mob

control depended largely on “the supplementary

use of water.” Thus, the leaderless city slipped

toward violence.

Desegregation began under the protection of the

undermanned and ill-prepared city police on

Monday morning, September 23. When the

crowd that had formed at the front of the school

was diverted to an attack on four African

American newsmen, the nine African American

students entered Central High School through a

side door. By lunchtime a mob of some 1,000

whites outside the school had become so large

and belligerent that the police on duty had been

increased from 50 to 100. Apprehensive school

and city administrators, fearful lest there be

bloodshed, ordered the removal of the African

American students by a side exit. That afternoon

Mann asked the Eisenhower administration for

federal troops to restore order. Eisenhower

issued Proclamation 3204 (22 F.R. 7628)

commanding “all persons engaged in such

obstruction of justice to cease and desist

therefrom, and to disperse forthwith.” Although

the African American students did not appear at

Central High School on September 24, a crowd,

though smaller (estimated to consist of some 350

persons) and less violent than the one the day

before, reformed. The situation in Little Rock

remained explosive. Mann, after several

telephone conversations with Justice Department

officials, sent a telegram to Eisenhower officially

asking for federal intervention. Later that day,

the president issued Executive Order 10730 (22

F.R. 7628), which provided “Assistance for the

Removal of an Obstruction to Justice Within the

State of Arkansas.” The order federalized the

National Guard and ordered the Secretary of

Defense to employ the Arkansas soldiers as well

as federal troops to enforce the federal district

court order. Within hours some 200 soldiers of

the First Airborne Battle Group, 327th Infantry,

of the 101st Airborne Division from Fort

Campbell, Kentucky, arrived in Little Rock,

encamping that evening on the athletic fields

behind Central High School. Other units of the

First Airborne Battle Group, totaling 51 officers

and 904 enlisted men, soon followed, augmented

by men and materiel from other military units.

Operation Arkansas, a history of the Army’s

participation in the events surrounding the

integration of Central High School, provides a

detailed description of the military deployment at

the school beginning during the night of

September 24-25. The report stated:

Immediately in the rear of the school proper was

an eight-foot cyclone fence with two gates. Back

of the fence lay an athletic practice field and

back of the practice field a school stadium . . . In

addition to the main entrance there were 10 other

entrances along the sides of the school and in the

rear. There were two gates to the stadium, one on

14th Street and the other on 16th; each located just

past the cyclone fence separating the practice

field from the school proper. During the night of

24-25 September, the airborne troops moved in

and employing three rifle companies threw a

cordon around the school starting at the stadium

gate on 14th Street and extending to the gate on

16th Street. Command post and bivouac and
175

reserve areas were established on the practice

field and in convenient portions of the stadium.

The two other rifle companies were held as a

group reserve, one at the school [in the basement

of the south side of the school] and the other on

30-minute alert status at the Army Reserve

Armory in the city about three miles away. The

troop cordon employed 319 men. The reserve

force consisted of 60 men on the school grounds

in front of the school and 283 in the stadium

behind the school. The mortar battery was

assigned responsibility for the entrances and

interior of the school. At least two guards were

posted at each of the entrances (a total of 36 men

were used) and a detail of 4 officers and 31

enlisted men was assigned to patrol the hallways

and maintain order inside. The military police

detachment from the Fort Chaffee support force

established roadblocks a city block from the

perimeter at most points to prevent congregation

of dissident groups. Sixteenth Street was closed

to traffic from Park to Jones Street and Park

Street was closed to traffic from 14th to 16th

Streets. Students were prohibited from using the

student parking lot. At the request of the City

Police, Fourteenth Street remained open for

through traffic past the school, and military

police were directed to keep the traffic on this

street moving.

All troops were in position by 5:00 AM on

Wednesday, September 25. The men wore steel

helmets and gas masks and carried individual

arms with bayonets fixed. The troops inside the

school carried nightsticks and wore bayonets on

their belts. Small arms and chemical ammunition

were held at a central point in the reserve area in

the school basement. A central command post

was established under the stadium, and a central

collection point was established at the stadium

where apprehended civilian offenders were to be

brought for processing by the city police.

On the morning of September 25, an Army

station wagon, “with an escort of one jeep with a

soldier guard in front and another following in

the rear,” went to the home of Daisy Bates, who

with her husband L.C had moved to Little Rock

in 1941 to establish the Arkansas State Press, an

African American newspaper, and was the

president of the Arkansas chapter of the

NAACP. At the Bates residence the soldiers

picked up the nine African American teenagers.

After a short drive to the high school, the

youngsters formed a single file and, surrounded

by a platoon of soldiers carrying rifles with

bayonets fixed, marched through a jeering crowd

into Central High School where they were met

by the hall guards. When the nine teenagers went

to their classrooms, a soldier guard followed

each student, and this guard remained outside the

door of the classroom. Between classes the guard

kept his assigned student under general

surveillance.

Prior to the arrival of the African American

students, a crowd had gathered in front of the

school, many milling around beyond the troop

perimeter as well as on the porches and lawns of

nearby private houses. A reserve force was used

to support a slight buckle in the troop line caused

by the converging crowd when the students

entered the school. After their entry, the crowd

increased and demonstrated signs of rising

belligerency. The reserve troops were again

employed to disperse the groups crowding

around the roadblocks and on private property

and to extend the perimeter to deny the crowd

observation of the school grounds and building.

These maneuvers triggered several incidents and

arrests, but by noon the area was relatively free

of spectators. There were no further incidents

that day and that afternoon one officer and eight

enlisted men escorted the African American

students from the school to the station wagon

and they were returned to the Bates residence.

During the evening of September 25, the 3d

Battalion of the 153d Infantry of the Arkansas

National Guard replaced the airborne battle

group troops on active guard duty at the high

school, employing a force of 15 officers and 200

enlisted men with a reserve of 5 officers and 60

enlisted men. Two-man fixed posts were set up

at each of the school entrances, two-man walking

patrols were placed every 25 yards around the

perimeter of the building areas, and six-man

roadblocks were stationed at three points near the

front of the school. The National Guard troops

carried their individual arms, but bayonets were

worn sheathed on belts. The rifle companies of

the airborne battle group took up their bivouac in

the stadium with one company on 30-minute

alert prepared to assist if necessary.

At 6:00 AM on Thursday, September 26, the

airborne troops relieved the 153d Infantry,

carrying out their operations in the same manner

as the day before except that the number of

enlisted hall guards was reduced from 31 to 20.

At night, the 153d Infantry again relieved the

airborne troops. The following day (Friday) the
176

number of troops in the cordon was reduced

from 319 to 270, the door guard was reduced

from 36 to 18, the escort of the African

American pupils was “materially reduced,” and

16th Street was opened to traffic past the school.

While troop strength was gradually reduced at

Central High School, attendance (the school’s

enrollment was about 1,900) increased from a

low of 1,250 on September 25 to 1,415 on

September 27. Because the situation at Central

High School was relatively quiet, a football

game and dance scheduled for Friday night were

held on the school campus without incident. To

make room for the game, two of the airborne

rifle companies were removed from the stadium

to the reserve center and one was placed in front

of the school as a local reserve. During the

weekend, one company of the airborne battle

group continued security at the school. Posts

were established at each door, and seven walking

patrols were employed on the exterior. However,

Park Street between 14th and 16th Streets

remained barricaded.

When school opened on Monday, September 30,

attendance increased to 1,520, and the airborne

troops stood guard without gas masks and with

bayonets on their belts (bayonets had been

removed from their rifles on Sunday, September

29). The cordon was discontinued, replaced by

seven two-man walking patrols and four jeep

patrols of four men each operating on the four

sides of the school. Eighteen men remained at

the various school entrances, but the hall guard

was reduced to four officers and eleven enlisted

men. The escort to the school (changed from the

Daisy Bates residence to that of the father of one

of the nine students) was maintained, but only

one lieutenant accompanied the African

American pupils from the station wagon to the

school door. At noon Park Street was opened to

traffic past the school, and restrictions were

removed on parking in the student parking lot.

At noon the guards were also removed from the

doors, and the number of jeep patrols, which

operated to an outer perimeter of eight blocks in

all directions from the school, was increased to

seven.

At 6:00 AM on Tuesday, October 1, the

Arkansas National Guard took over the daylight

duty at Central High School, employing 13

officers and 132 enlisted men in the active guard

and 3 officers and 57 enlisted men in a reserve.

Inside the school, the hall guards were replaced

by a detail of one officer and eight enlisted men

in the principal’s office on call for duty as

needed. Door guards were placed only at the

main entrance and at the stadium gates. The

motorized patrols were reduced from seven to

three. The plan for the escort of the African

American students into the school called for one

officer to accompany them a few steps and then

point the way to the door, but to let the students

proceed on their own.

When the nine African American students

arrived at Central High School on October 1,

four entered the school through the southeast

entrance and five through the main entrance. At

the top of the steps, 30 to 35 white male students

formed side by side, stopping the African

American pupils. On call, the escort troops

dismounted from their jeeps and started toward

the steps. When they had covered about half the

distance, the white students broke up and the

African American pupils entered the school amid

jeers. The remainder of the day, which witnessed

the increase of school attendance to 1,692, was

marred by incidents in which some white

students harassed the African American pupils

by throwing spitballs and pencils at them.

On Tuesday, October 2, in accordance with the

battalion rotation plan under which the National

Guard was operating, the 3d Battalion, 153d

Infantry, took over the duties at the school. The

reserve force was doubled, and the active guard

slightly increased. The 3d Battalion was not

familiar with the layout of the inside of the

school and had not completely positioned its

interior guard when school opened. When the

African American students arrived at the school,

a crowd of 60-70 white students formed a

blockade at the main entrance, forcing the

African Americans to enter the school through a

side door. A group of white pupils kicked the

books from the hands of one of the African

American males, and he and another African

American student were subjected to another

attack inside the school, two white boys kicking

them and throwing can openers at them in the

locker room. During the rest of the morning, the

African American students were subjected to

shoving, crowding, jostling, and jeering. Unable

to intervene in the first incidents and believing

that its orders did not permit intervention to

prevent the sort of incidents that occurred later,

the National Guard nevertheless assigned 18 men

from the reserve to provide two escorts for each

of the African American students.
177

After the aforementioned incidents, military

protection for the African American students at

Central High School was increased on

Wednesday, October 3. The mortar battery of the

1st Airborne Battle Group, 327th Infantry, was

assigned full responsibility for the entire school

building, including steps and entrances. Two

guards were posted at each entrance, and two

guards were assigned to escort each African

American student to and from classes and to

remain available outside classrooms on call. A

reserve force was located in the school basement,

available on five-minute call to move to any

scene of disturbance within the building. The

National Guard remained responsible for the

exterior of the building and for motor patrols but

with its strength increased to 16 officers and 166

men in the active guard and 11 officers and 156

men in the reserve. An escort of 30 guardsmen

accompanied the nine African American students

from their vehicle to the school steps where they

were turned over to the protection of the airborne

mortar company. Park Street between 14th and

16th Streets was blocked to traffic during the

morning.

This show of force was reinforced by actions

taken by the school authorities. The three white

male students who had kicked the African

American pupils and thrown can openers at them

were suspended. Students were officially notified

that if they participated in a rumored walkout

they would be suspended and not permitted to

reenter the school until their parents appeared to

re-enroll them.

The nine African American students entered

Central High School without incident on

Wednesday, October 3, although there was

“some spasmodic, half-hearted jeering from the

on-lookers.” Harassment inside the school

subsided temporarily, and the rumored walkout

was largely a failure. Several minutes after

school started a group of 40-60 white students

walked out of the school and crossed Park Street

to join a similar-sized group of students that had

not entered the school. The students aided by

some 25-35 adults, set fire to an African

American dummy in a tree. National Guard

personnel quickly doused the fire and dispersed

the crowd with only several minor incidents

occurring.

While a sullen calm settled over the city, the nine

African American teenagers continued to attend

Central High School. As tensions eased, the

troop escort for the African American students

from their vehicle to the school steps was

gradually reduced to one National Guard officer

by October 18 and eliminated entirely on

October 24. The participation of the airborne

troops at the high school was slowly diminished

while that for the National Guard was increased,

and the number of Army troops in Little Rock

was gradually reduced. On October 24, the

hallway guards were reduced from 30 to 16 (the

four officers remained), the door guards were

removed except for two at the main entrance, and

the exterior guard was reduced to five two-man

details, two one-man details, and a three-man

motor patrol. Within the school six of the nine

African American students agreed to the

elimination of their personal escorts, and

individual escort for the three students who had

requested it was discontinued on November 13.

On October 25, the African American students

arrived at the school for the first time in civilian

vehicles driven by their parents with military

surveillance reduced to the operation of a motor

patrol along their route. On November 13, the

last of the paratroopers departed from Central

High School, leaving complete responsibility for

security operations at the high school with the

steadily shrinking National Guard personnel. On

November 27, the last of the Regular Army

forces were withdrawn from Little Rock, leaving

a shrinking detachment of federalized guardsmen

in control until May 29, 1958, when the last of

the National Guard personnel, numbering 383,

were discharged.

By this time, Little Rock had become the hub of

southern resistance to racial desegregation. The

city gained international media attention, as it

became a Mecca to be visited by segregationist

speakers from throughout the South. Race

relations worsened, and the Capital Citizens’

Council assumed a major voice in urban affairs.

Governor Faubus demonstrated a growing

penchant for demagoguery, filling the media

with accusations such as the charge that soldiers

were entering the girls’ physical-education

dressing rooms at the high school.

Aftermath of the Crisis: 1957 – 1959

Desegregated classes at Central High continued

throughout the 1957-58 school year. Despite the

continued presence of the federalized National

Guard, there were continuing problems at

Central High, resulting in calls for intensified

guard operations by the local NAACP. The nine
178

African American students attending Central

High were subjected to an endless campaign of

verbal harassment and physical attacks, the high

school was subjected to a series of bomb scares,

and various devices, including dynamite, a

railroad flare, a railroad torpedo, and

firecrackers, were found in the school. More than

100 white students were suspended and four

were expelled for various activities, while one of

the African American girls was expelled.

Nevertheless, integration was achieved, and on

May 27, 1958, Ernest Green, who would become

an assistant secretary of labor and is currently a

managing director at a major investment firm in

Washington, D.C., became the first African

American to graduate from Central High. Both

the baccalaureate (held on May 25) and

graduation ceremonies in Quigley Stadium were

conducted without incident, although city police

and National Guardsmen patrolled the school

grounds and surrounding streets and reserve

troops were quartered under a portion of the

stadium and inside the lower school gymnasium.

During the 1957-58 school year, Faubus

continued to confront federal authority, and in

January 1958 he declared that “the Supreme

Court decision is not the law of the land.” This

was the first time that he had questioned the legal

validity of the Brown decision. In his quest for

the Democratic gubernatorial renomination,

Faubus campaigned against the federal

government, outsiders in general, the NAACP,

and the Arkansas Gazette, as well as against two

moderate opponents and a number of prominent

politicians supporting them.

In July 1958, Faubus won an almost

unprecedented third term, gaining almost 70

percent of the ballots and carrying every county

in the state. His margin of victory was so great

that the Arkansas Gazette editorialized that the

moderate position “has been rejected by the mass

of voters in this upper Southern state and is now

clearly untenable for any man in public life

anywhere in the region.” In the same election,

former Citizens’ Council president James

Johnson won nomination for a seat on the

Arkansas Supreme Court, and, in November,

Dale Alford, a segregationist on the Little Rock

school board, completed the rout of the

moderates by beating incumbent Brooks Hays

for a seat in Congress. Claiming that the election

demonstrated the voters’ approval of his efforts

“to retain the rights of a sovereign state as set out

in the federal constitution,” Faubus reported that

he had new plans for continuing the struggle

with federal authority.

Events moved rapidly in Arkansas during late

August and September 1958. Calling a special

session of the legislature, Faubus recommended

measures to strengthen the state’s authority over

the public school system, the most important of

which was a bill authorizing the Arkansas

governor to close any school by proclamation.

Convening on August 26 in a crisis atmosphere,

the legislators promptly approved all the bills

recommended. The special session added 14 new

laws to the Arkansas legislative arsenal.

However, Faubus delayed signing them until the

U.S. Supreme Court refused an opportunity to

retreat from the principles of its Brown decision.

Earlier the Little Rock school board had

petitioned the federal courts for a 2-1/2-year

delay in the implementation of the integration

order. The board argued that actions by the state

government, community hostility, and the

turmoil of the 1957-58 school year had made

orderly education on a desegregated basis

impossible. On June 20, Federal District Court

Judge Harold E. Lemley granted the delay, but

the NAACP appealed immediately. After a series

of procedural maneuverings, the court of appeals

overturned Lemley’s decision. The school board

then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in

August, the Court agreed to hold a special

session to consider the question (only the third

such time in modern history). The school board

therefore delayed the opening of school for the

1958-59 fall term while both the Arkansas

legislature and the Supreme Court met in

extraordinary sessions to decide the fate of

desegregation in Little Rock. On September 12,

1958, the Court issued its landmark decision

Cooper v. Aaron (358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401),

denying the stay and ordering the school board to

proceed with its gradual integration program in

compliance with the integration order given by

Judge Miller in 1956. Governor Faubus

immediately signed the aforementioned 14 bills

into law and released a proclamation on

September 13 closing all of Little Rock’s high

schools.

On September 27, 1958, the city’s voters

endorsed the governor’s action in a special

election. Less than 30 percent of the electorate

favored “For racial integration of all schools

within the Little Rock School District” as the

option for reopening the closed schools listed on
179

the ballot. Faubus assured voters that the high

schools could be promptly reopened as

segregated, private institutions, but federal

district and Eighth Circuit Court injunctions

prohibited transfer of the school buildings and

equipment to private groups. The circuit court

order, handed down on November 10, 1958,

followed close on the heels of Congressman

Brooks Hays’ failure to win reelection in the

congressional district that included Little Rock.

After buying up Superintendent Virgil

Blossom’s contract, all the board members

except Congressman-elect Dale Alford resigned.

In December 1958, Little Rock elected a new

school board. The massive resistance forces led

by the Capital Citizens’ Council and supported

by Faubus, put up one slate of candidates, while

a group of Little Rock businessmen recruited an

alternate ticket, which took a more “moderate”

position in the campaign. The voters chose three

board members from each group, resulting in a

hopelessly divided board.

During the early months of 1959, Little Rock

drifted -- its high schools closed and its citizens

torn between the racial extremism

institutionalized by the Capital Citizens’ Council

and growing calls for moderation. After a

number of school teachers and administrators

incurred the wrath of white supremacy elements

due to their support for actions to end the crises

at Central High School during the previous

school year, the school board took up the

question of teacher contracts at its May 5, 1959,

meeting. The three segregationist members

wanted to dismiss the offending employees,

while the three moderate members favored

rehiring all school personnel. After lengthy

debate, the three moderates walked out, and the

three segregationist members proceeded to

terminate the contracts of 34 teachers, 2

principals, 5 other administrative officials, and 3

secretaries.

Little Rock moderates, having failed to rally

effectively behind the cause of public education,

now had a new issue. Local Parent-Teacher

Associations (PTAs), other school organizations,

and the Women’s Emergency Committee (WEC)

to Open Our Schools, led by Mrs. Adolphine

Terry, initiated the anti-purge movement. The

Women’s Emergency Committee, an

organization of upper and upper-middle class

women established at the Terry Mansion

(presently the Decorative Arts Museum, a part of

the Arkansas Arts Center, in Little Rock) to

support an open-schools vote in the September

referendum, now numbered more than 1,000

members. Important Little Rock business leaders

were already publicly committed to the

reopening of schools, and they gave strong

support to the anti-purge movement. Earlier In

March 1959, the Little Rock Chamber of

Commerce, alarmed by the negative impact the

school controversy was having on the city’s

economy, released a formal statement of policy.

While expressing faith in segregation, the

statement defended the rule of law and the

importance of public education. It called for the

schools to be reopened on a desegregated basis.

Three days after the purge of the schoolteachers,

the WEC, along with 179 Little Rock business

and civic leaders, organized the Committee to

Stop This Outrageous Purge (STOP). The group

issued a statement demanding the recall of the

three segregationist board members and

undertook to circulate recall petitions.

The Capital Citizens’ Council, the Mothers’

League, and the newly formed States’ Rights

Council countered by circulating petitions for the

recall of the three moderate board members.

Within days both STOP and the segregationists

had enough signatures to force elections for all

six seats on the board. STOP led the moderate

campaign, while the segregationists created the

Committee to Retain Our Segregated Schools

(CROSS) to lead their election effort.

Although Faubus intervened late in the campaign

on the side of the segregationists, the hard fought

election on May 25 resulted in a decisive victory

for the moderates. The three anti-Faubus board

members, basing their moderate campaign on a

program promoting order, stability, and

economic growth of the city, retained their seats,

while the three segregationist members were

recalled. This represented the first time that

Governor Faubus had been clearly beaten on a

matter pertaining to race and the public schools.

During June 1959, the Little Rock school board,

now composed of three moderates and two new

members appointed by the county board of

education, voted to strike the May 5 session

completely from the record and discussed

reopening the high schools in the fall. At its next

meeting, the board announced formally that the

schools would be reopened on a basis acceptable

to the federal courts. On June 18, a three-judge

federal district court declared the Arkansas

school-closing and funds withholding laws
180

unconstitutional and ordered the city school

board to proceed with its original desegregation

plan.

Little Rock peacefully desegregated its white

public high schools on August 12, 1959.

Although Faubus stated that he remained

opposed to “forced” desegregation, the school

board received organized public support. The

city government, breaking a long silence,

announced that disorder and lawlessness would

not be tolerated. The police department, now

capably led and properly prepared, dealt firmly

and promptly with public disturbances. Thus, the

Little Rock desegregation crisis came to an end.

When the schools reopened in 1959, they did so

under a pupil assignment desegregation plan, in

which attendance zone lines were redrawn to

enhance desegregation. This arrangement was

kept until 1964, when the district instituted a

“freedom of choice” plan allowing students in all

grades to attend the school of their choice if

space was available.
181

APPENDIX C: HISTORIC DISTRICT

Boundaries

The boundaries of this historic district, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on August 16,

1996, are roughly Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive on the east, mid-block between Rice and Jones Streets on the

west in the northern portion of the district and Schiller Street on the west in the area south of Wright Avenue, West

12th Street on the north, and Roosevelt Road on the south.

Description

The area known as the “Central High Neighborhood” is located directly to the west of the “Original City of Little

Rock.” Additions to the City of Little Rock in this area are laid out in a basic grid pattern. There are 824 extant

buildings included in the historic district. The majority of these structures are historic buildings of which 796 are

residential. In addition, the historic district contains four schools, including Little Rock Central High School, two

churches, and 22 commercial buildings.

The majority of the development in the Central High Neighborhood falls into two distinct eras. During the years

between 1900 and 1914, 316 (38 percent) of the buildings in the district were constructed. The other significant

period of construction followed World War I, most notably between 1920 and 1930, when 274 (33 percent) of the

buildings were constructed.

Of the 824 properties in the district, 423 (51 percent) have been determined as contributing to its historic

significance. In addition, 288 (35 percent) are considered to be non-contributing historic structures (altered or

synthetically sided) and 113 (14 percent) are non-contributing buildings constructed since 1947.

The Central High Neighborhood Historic District is largely residential in composition and is bisected by Wright

Avenue, the historic commercial corridor through the area. Though the platting of additions to the city had taken

place between 1877 and 1919, little building occurred in the “West End” of Little Rock until the late 1890s.

Around 1870, however, Milton Rice built an imposing Gothic Revival residence, known as Oak Grove, on twelve

acres among the rolling hills west of the Little Rock City limits. Although greatly altered from its original

appearance, the Gothic style tower is still visible. A contributing structure in the Central High Neighborhood, the

Rice-Bowman House, located at 2015 S. Battery Street, is the earliest extant structure in the district.

The only deviation from the typical grid street pattern and standard size lot in the Central High Neighborhood is

found in the 2000 block of Battery. When Rice’s land was platted as Oak Terrace Addition by its new owner H.S.

Bowman, a “Flower Garden” running through the center of Battery Street was planned. During the development of

the addition, the public green space was confined to the 2000 block of Battery. Today a central median spans the

length of this block.

During the 1870s and 1880s, Rice’s neighbors included farms like Orin Sheldon’s dairy operation (on property sold

to him by Rice), West End Park, and open fields and forest lands. Significant construction of homes did not begin in

the Central High Neighborhood until the mid-1890s.

Growth of the neighborhood was rapid during the early 20th century, many additions being platted within a few

years of each other. Consequently, particular building types are not confined to single additions in the district.

However, most of the district’s 27 buildings constructed before 1900 lie in the portion of the neighborhood to the

north of Wright Avenue.

The buildings in the Central High Neighborhood Historic District reflect varied popular tastes in architecture during

the period 1890-1946. The district’s architectural diversity is characterized in its eclectic strain of Queen Anne,

Colonial Revival, English Revival, Spanish Revival, Craftsman, American Foursquare, and Plain Traditional styling.
182

The majority of the buildings in the Central High Neighborhood Historic District are in fair to good condition. Over

time and in the absence of zoning, however, intrusions have impacted the neighborhood. “White flights” into

neighborhoods farther west beginning after World War II and quickening during the 1960s have added to the

changes in the district’s stability. The greatest threat to the neighborhood’s architectural integrity is deterioration due

to transient residents, inadequate maintenance, demolition necessitated by deterioration, modification of homes to

accommodate larger numbers of families, and the prevalent application of artificial exterior siding. Inner city

deterioration has occurred in some areas of the district. Absentee ownership has created many problems for the

neighborhood, because such properties are sometimes not well maintained. Despite these pockets of deterioration,

however, the streetscape and landscape of the historic district remain largely intact.

Significance

The historic district’s significance is summarized in its National Register of Historic Places nomination form:

 . . . The West End neighborhoods of mid-town Little Rock are defined by a momentous historical event which

occurred eighty years after the property was initially platted for development. In fact, 86% of the structures

were built ten years before the “crisis” at Central High School brought the city and the racially charged situation

to national prominence. The important, or perhaps notoriety, which these neighborhoods gain from their

association with such a nationally significant event does not diminish their illuminating historic development,

representative of the growth in the first half of this century of a middle and working class neighborhood of

mixed use (residential, commercial, educational, and religious) and, ironically, to some extent interracial

composition. The architecture of the neighborhood -- overwhelmingly Colonial Revival (27%) and Craftsman

(32%) in style -- is reflective of the principal growth periods, 1899-1910 and 1911-1930, respectively (though

the overall period of significance is 1890-1946). Moreover, the variation in building scale and decorative

detailing seen throughout the district expresses the demographic and socioeconomic variety of its residents.

The National Register nomination form concludes that the “district whose centerpiece, Central High School, is such

an integral part of our nation’s collective consciousness about integration and race relations, offers a clear picture on

a more parochial scale of a working and middle class neighborhood in the first half of this century where AfricanAmerican[s] and whites were neighbors.”
183

APPENDIX D: CONSULTATION LETTERS
184
185

Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer

The following are informal comments made by the State Historic Preservation Officer during a

meeting with the National Park Service on the May 4, 1999 at the Little Rock High School.

• A key concern relates to how the NPS is going to integrate the historic site within the

framework of an operating high school.

• Central High School should remain an operating high school within a viable functioning

neighborhood.

• Parking lots should not take over the neighborhood. How is parking to be addressed? One

possible solution might be to bring visitors to the NHS from outlying parking lots via school

buses.

• The high school and its grounds need to be made handicap accessible.

• Some visitors should have access to the high school to experience the “feeling” of the 1957

events from inside of the school.

• There is no room inside of the high school for interpretation. The Park Service could locate

interpretation in a facility/building on the campus.

• There is a concern that the Dunbar school’s place in history not be overlooked.

• Any NPS development should be architecturally compatible with the buildings in the

surrounding neighborhood.

• NPS should preserve the streetscape of the high school and adaptively use the houses across

the street.

• Vandalism of automobiles is a concern in the area of the high school.

• The civil rights Institute should be operated within the framework of a partnership.
186
187
188
189

APPENDIX E: SITE VISITOR AND VEHICLE COUNTS

Site Visitor and Vehicle Counts to Date

Number 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total

Groups NA 8 8 5 21

Group Visitors NA 88 72 15 175

Buses NA 5 7 5 17

Private Individuals NA 347 284 59 690

JAN.

Cars NA 139 114 24 276

Groups NA 12 22 32 66

Group Visitors NA 204 682 736 1,622

Buses NA 6 14 34 54

FEB.Y

Private Individuals NA 805 2,690 2,903 6,398

Cars NA 322 1,076 1,161 2,559

Groups NA 8 17 11 36

Group Visitors NA 80 289 143 512

Buses NA 6 14 9 29

MAR.

Private Individuals NA 316 1,140 564 2,020

Cars NA 126 456 226 808

Groups NA 10 25 16 51

Group Visitors NA 210 675 320 1,205

Buses NA 9 18 12 39

APRIL

Private Individuals NA 828 2,662 1,262 4,752

Cars NA 331 1,065 505 1,901

Groups NA 13 16 44 73

Group Visitors NA 234 496 1,936 2,666

Buses NA 20 13 44 77

Private Individuals NA 923 1,956 7,636 10,515

MAY

Cars NA 369 782 3,054 4,206

Groups NA 10 12 13 35

Group Visitors NA 180 204 143 527

Buses NA 16 9 20 45

Private Individuals NA 710 805 564 2,079

JUNE

Cars NA 284 322 226 832

Groups NA 22 24 28 74

Group Visitors NA 594 936 1,232 2,762

Buses NA 57 17 14 88

Private Individuals NA 2,343 3,692 4,859 10,894

JULY

Cars NA 937 1,477 1,944 4,358

Groups NA 11 11 NA 22

Group Visitors NA 176 132 NA 308

Buses NA 16 11 NA 27

Private Individuals NA 694 521 NA 1,215

AUG.

Cars NA 278 208 NA 486

Groups NA 8 9 NA 17

Group Visitors NA 128 63 NA 191

Buses NA 14 8 NA 22

SEPT.

Private Individuals NA 505 248 NA 753
190

Number 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total

Cars NA 202 99 NA 301

Groups 6 15 14 NA 35

Group Visitors 60 225 252 NA 537

Buses 6 3 14 NA 23

Private Individuals 237 887 994 NA 2,118

OCT.

Cars 95 355 398 NA 847

Groups 6 8 11 NA 25

Group Visitors 66 72 77 NA 215

Buses 6 6 10 NA 22

Private Individuals 260 284 304 NA 848

NOV.

Cars 104 114 122 NA 339

Groups 5 4 5 NA 14

Group Visitors 25 24 25 NA 74

Buses 4 4 5 NA 13

Private Individuals 99 95 99 NA 293

DEC.

Cars 40 38 40 NA 117

Groups 17 129 174 149 469

Group Visitors 151 2,215 3,903 4,525 10,794

Buses 16 162 140 138 456

Private Individuals 596 8,737 15,395 17,847 42,575

ANNUALTOTAL

Cars 238 3,495 6,158 7,139 17,030

Source: Based on group visitor data provided by the Central High Museum and Visitor Center, 2000 The distribution of

individual visitors by year and by month was assumed to be similar to the distribution of group visitors
191

 Monthly Site Vehicle and Visitors to Date

1997 1998 1999 2000 Total

January

Total Visitors NA 435 356 74 865

Total Vehicles NA 144 121 29 293

February

Total Visitors NA 1,009 3,372 3,639 8,020

Total Vehicles NA 328 1,090 1,195 2,613

March

Total Visitors NA 396 1,429 707 2,532

Total Vehicles NA 132 470 235 837

April

Total Visitors NA 1,038 3,337 1,582 5,957

Total Vehicles NA 340 1,083 517 1,940

May

Total Visitors NA 1,157 2,452 9,572 13,181

Total Vehicles NA 389 795 3,098 4,283

June

Total Visitors NA 890 1,009 707 2,606

Total Vehicles NA 300 331 246 877

July

Total Visitors NA 2,937 4,628 6,091 13,656

Total Vehicles NA 994 1,494 1,958 4,446

August

Total Visitors NA 870 653 NA 1,523

Total Vehicles NA 294 219 NA 513

September

Total Visitors NA 633 311 NA 944

Total Vehicles NA 216 107 NA 323

October

Total Visitors 297 1,112 1,246 NA 2,655

Total Vehicles 101 358 412 NA 870

November

Total Visitors 326 356 381 NA 1,063

Total Vehicles 110 120 132 NA 361

December

Total Visitors 124 119 124 NA 367

Total Vehicles 44 42 45 NA 130

Annual Total

Total Visitors 747 10,952 19,298 22,372 53,369

Total Vehicles 254 3,657 6,298 7,277 17,486

Source: Based on group visitor data provided by the Central High Museum and Visitor Center, 2000.
192

APPENDIX F: RELATED NATIONAL SITES

National Park System Units

Booker T. Washington National Monument (Hardy, Virginia)

This 19th-century plantation was the birthplace (1856) and early childhood home of Booker T. Washington, the

founder of Tuskegee Institute in 1881. By 1908, when he returned to visit the plantation where he had been born a

slave, he had become a leading African American educator and orator.

Boston African American National Historic Site (Boston, Massachusetts)

The site contains 15 pre-Civil War African American historic structures, linked by the 1.6-mile Black Heritage Trail.

The meetinghouse is the oldest standing African American church in the United States. Augustus Saint-Gaudens’

memorial to Robert Gould Shaw, the white officer who first led African American troops during the Civil War,

stands on the trail.

Smith School is also located in the national historic site. The school represents the pivotal point in legally mandated

school segregation when the Massachusetts Supreme Court established the separate but equal principle in Roberts v.

City of Boston (1849). This principle directly influenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson

(1896) that allowed separate but equal under the Constitution. Located in a pre-Civil War free African American

community, Smith School was the all-African American school associated with this first legal challenge to school

segregation.

Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site (Topeka, Kansas)

The 1954 landmark Supreme Court decision that concluded that “separate educational facilities are inherently

unequal” and constituted a violation of the equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment led to

the end of legal racial segregation in the public schools of the United States. That decision is commemorated at

Monroe School, the segregated school attended by Linda Brown at 1515 Monroe Street, Topeka, Kansas. Brown

was represented before the Supreme Court by Thurgood Marshall, later the first African American to sit on the

Court. This school symbolized the harsh reality of discrimination in educational facilities under the “separate but

equal” doctrine prior to the Court’s historic decision. The park was established not only to commemorate the Brown

decision but also to interpret the integral role of that decision in the history of the Civil Rights movement in the

United States.

Frederick Douglass National Historic Site (Washington, D.C.)

From 1877 to 1895, this was the home of the nation’s leading 19th-century African American spokesman. Douglass

was a leader in the effort to abolish slavery prior to the Civil War, and after the war he was active in the struggle to

ensure that the newly freed slaves would enjoy the full measure of their Civil Rights under the Constitution. Among

other achievements, he was U.S. minister to Haiti in 1889.

George Washington Carver National Monument (Diamond, Missouri)

The birthplace and childhood home of George Washington Carver, African American agronomist, educator, and

humanitarian, includes a museum and Discovery Center. The national monument also has a 3/4-mile trail that passes

the birthplace site, Boy Carver statue, restored 1881 Moses Carver House, and Carver family cemetery.
193
194

Independence National Historical Park (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

This is the site associated with the drafting of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the

United States. Basing his words in the Declaration of Independence on the concept of human rights, Thomas

Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights,

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever

any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and

to institute a new Government.

These words not only served to justify the American Revolution against Great Britain in 1776 but they also served

as the creed that would define the new American nation. They also formed the cornerstone upon which our civil and

human rights policies with other nations are founded.

Likewise, the Constitution was written during the summer of 1787 in the State House at Philadelphia, the same

building in which some of the delegates had approved the Declaration of Independence 11 years before. The purpose

of the Constitution, according to its preamble, was to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic

Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to

ourselves and our Posterity.”

Nevertheless, the Constitution was flawed. It compromised on the issue of slavery and said nothing concerning the

rights of minorities. This dichotomy between the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, upon which the

Constitution was based and human rights began to grow and create tensions in the American political system.

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (St. Louis, Missouri)

This memorial on St. Louis’ Mississippi riverfront, which memorializes Thomas Jefferson and others who directed

territorial expansion of the United States, includes the St. Louis Old Courthouse where Dred Scott sued for freedom

in the historic slavery case. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Scott was not a

citizen of the United States or the state of Missouri, and thus was not entitled to sue in the federal courts. The ruling

also stipulated that Scott’s temporary residence in free territory had not made him free upon his return to Missouri.

Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site (Richmond, Virginia)

This house at 1101/2 E. Leigh Street, Richmond, was the home of an ex-house slave’s daughter who became a bank

president and a leading figure in the Richmond African American community.

Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site (Atlanta, Georgia)

The birthplace, church, and grave of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Civil Rights leader during the 1950s and 1960s, are

the principal historic sites in this park. The neighborhood includes the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for

Nonviolent Social Change, Inc., which continues the legacy and work of King. The surrounding 68.19-acre

preservation district includes Sweet Auburn, the economic and cultural center of Atlanta’s African American

community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site (Washington, D.C.)

This site preserves the home of the noted educator, presidential advisor, Civil Rights activist, and founder of the

National Council of Negro Women, which was established in 1935. It commemorates Bethune’s leadership in the

African American women’s rights movement from 1943 to 1949.
195

Nicodemus National Historic Site (Nicodemus, Kansas)

Nicodemus, Kansas, is the only remaining western town established by African Americans during the reconstruction

period, and represents the western expansion and settlement of the Great Plains. It is the site of the oldest reported

post office supervised by African Americans in the United States. The site includes five privately owned buildings:

The First Baptist Church, St. Francis Hotel, Nicodemus School District Number One, African Methodist Episcopal

Church, and Township Hall.

Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site (Tuskegee Institute, Alabama)

This park includes Moton Field constructed during 1940 to 1942 to house flight school operations for African

American pilot candidates in the U.S. military during World War II. On March 7, 1942, the first class of African

American aviation cadets graduated from Tuskegee Army Airfield and became the nation’s first African American

military pilots. Formally dedicated in 1943, the field was named in honor of Robert Russa Moton, the second

president of Tuskegee Institute. The successful training of these pilots at Tuskegee led the military to expand its

African American aviation program. The Army Air Force established another African American unit, the 332d

Fighter Group, and began plans for a segregated medium bomber group known as the 477th Bombardment Group.

Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site (Tuskegee Institute, Alabama)

Booker T. Washington founded this college for African Americans in 1881. Preserved here are the brick buildings

the students constructed themselves, Washington’s home, and the George Washington Carver Museum, which

serves as the visitor center. The college continues to function as an active educational institution that owns most of

the property within the national historic site.

National Historic Trails

Selma-to-Montgomery National Historic Trail (Alabama)

The Selma-to-Montgomery March for voting rights ended three weeks—and three events—that represented the

political and emotional peak of the modern Civil Rights movement. On “Bloody Sunday,” March 7, 1965, some 600

Civil Rights marchers headed east out of Selma on U.S. Route 80. They got only as far as the Edmund Pettus Bridge

six blocks away, where state and local lawmen attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas and drove them back into

Selma. Two days later on March 9, Martin Luther King, Jr., led a “symbolic” march to the bridge. After receiving

federal district court protection for a third, full-scale march from Selma to the state capitol in Montgomery, some

3,200 marchers under the leadership of King set out for the capitol on March 21, walking 12 miles a day along U.S.

Route 80 and sleeping in fields. By the time they reached the capitol on March 25, they were some 25,000-strong.

Less than five months after the last of the three marches, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of

1965.

National Historic Landmarks

Brown Chapel AME Church (Selma, Alabama)

Both the building and the members of Brown Chapel AME Church played pivotal roles in the Selma, Alabama,

marches that helped lead to the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The starting point for the Selma-toMontgomery marches, Brown Chapel also hosted the Southern Christian Leadership Conference for the first three

months of 1965. A. J. Farley, a little-known African American builder, built brown Chapel AME Church, with its

imposing twin towers and Romanesque Revival styling, in 1908.
196

Charles Sumner House (Boston, Massachusetts)

Home of white abolitionist and attorney Charles Sumner who, along with Boston’s African American attorney,

Robert Morris, argued for equal education in Roberts v. City of Boston. Sumner concluded that separate could never

be inherently equal and that segregation marked a race as inferior. Such an argument would not be made again for

another century, until the NAACP’s professional and graduate school cases in 1950 and again in the school

segregation cases consolidated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 that

overturned the separate but equal doctrine.

Dexter Avenue Baptist Church (Montgomery, Alabama)

Built in 1877, the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church is associated with the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and Dr.

Martin Luther King, Jr., who first received national and international attention while serving as pastor there. This

church served as the headquarters of the Montgomery Improvement Association, which under the leadership of King

carried out a successful boycott of segregated city buses in 1955, thus initiating what would become known as the

modern-day Civil Rights movement in the United States.

Bates House (Little Rock, Arkansas)

The Daisy Bates House is significant for its role as the de facto command post for the Central High School

desegregation crisis in Little Rock, Arkansas, during 1957-58. As the president of the local chapter of the National

Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Ms. Bates was influential in guiding the integration of the

Little Rock Nine to Central High School from her home.

Hampton Institute (Hampton, Virginia)

Now a liberal arts college, the Hampton Normal and Industrial Institute was founded by the American Missionary

Association in 1868 to offer vocational education to former slaves. The Hampton Institute quickly became a model

for other schools established during Reconstruction. The most influential and well known of these was the Tuskegee

Institute in Alabama, founded by Hampton’s most famous alumnus, Booker T. Washington.

Lincoln Hall, Berea College (Madison County, Kentucky)

A private school founded in 1855, Berea College was the first college established in the United States for the

specific purpose of educating African American and white students together. In 1904 the Kentucky state legislature

mandated that African American and white students could only be taught simultaneously if they were twenty-five

miles apart. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state’s right to pass laws to regulate state chartered private

institutions on the basis of race, thus lending additional credence to do the same for public schools. This is the only

instance in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld school segregation in higher education.

Robert Russa Moton High School (Farmville, Virginia)

Named for Booker T. Washington’s successor as president of Tuskegee Institute, this school served as the

segregated high school for African Americans in Prince Edward County, Virginia. Constructed in 1939, the high

school is a one-story, simply designed brick building containing eight classrooms, an office, and an auditorium.

Overcrowding had reached crisis levels by 1951, resulting in a student protest strike led by Barbara Johns. Student

action soon led to formal litigation in Davis V. County School Board of Prince Edward County. Although the U.S.

Supreme Court addressed this suit in Brown v. Board of Education, the county school board adopted a policy of

resistance and opted to improve Moton High School rather than integrate its student body. The Commonwealth of

Virginia led the “massive resistance” movement against the Supreme Court decision by threatening to close its

public schools. The schools in Prince Edward County were closed from 1959 to 1964, making it the only county in

the nation to close its public schools for an extended period to avoid desegregation. The case continued and spawned

similar suits long after the Brown decision because of the county’s devotion to “massive resistance.”
197

Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places

Dunbar Junior and Senior High School and Junior College (Little Rock, Arkansas)

Named for Paul Laurence Dunbar, a noted African-American poet during the early 20th century, Dunbar Junior and

Senior High School was dedicated on April 14, 1930, as the Negro School of Industrial Arts. In 1932, Dunbar

became one of only two industrial arts schools in the South to receive a junior college rating, and its curriculum was

accepted as the basis for admission to colleges and universities throughout the United States.

In 1943, the school was involved in a dispute concerning equal pay for African American and white teachers in the

Little Rock School system. The dispute was resolved in the case Morris v. Williams, heard before the U.S. Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals, which established the principle of “equal pay based on professional qualifications and

services rendered.”

Dunbar Senior High School was closed at the end of the 1955-56 school year, and its students were transferred to

Horace Mann, the new senior high school for African Americans in Little Rock. Dunbar Junior High School

remained open and continues to function as an operating school.

Howard High School (Wilmington, Delaware)

This school is significant for its role in the 1951 Belton v. Gebhart desegregation case in New Castle County,

Delaware. Ethel Belton led the petition drive for African American students in Claymont, a Wilmington suburb, to

attend a local white high school rather than commute to Wilmington to attend the African American Howard High

School. The suit was combined with four other desegregation cases before the U.S. Supreme Court under the

umbrella of Brown v. Board of Education.

M Street High School (Washington, D.C.)

The M Street High School represents one of the finest educational facilities for African Americans that was

constructed during the early 20th Century. Faculty members provided academic training in the liberal arts rather

than the industrial arts, and encouraged African American students to pursue graduate and professional education at

leading American universities and to break down society’s racial barriers. Carter G. Woodson and Charles Hamilton

Houston are among the school’s most illustrious graduates.

Sixteenth Street Baptist Church (Birmingham, Alabama)

The Sixteenth Street Baptist Church is located next door to the National Civil Rights Institute. The church served as

the center for African American community life and Civil Rights activities since its construction in 1911 during the

1950s and 1960s. On September 15, 1963, during racial unrest in Birmingham, four children attending Sunday

school were killed when a bomb exploded near the sanctuary. This was the turning point in resolving the Civil

Rights protest in Birmingham and became a rallying cry for action throughout the nation. The deaths of the children

followed by the loss of President John Kennedy two months later gave birth to a tide of grief and anger – a surge of

emotional momentum that helped ensure the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Summerton High School (Summerton, South Carolina)

Summerton is nationally significant for its association with the Briggs v. Elliott school desegregation case, and it is

the only school still standing of the five schools in Clarendon County School District #22 associated with this case.

It was the white school used as a direct comparison to the facilities available to African American students at the

Scotts Branch School in Summerton. Rev. J.A. De Laine led efforts to integrate public schools in Clarendon County,

South Carolina, and to equalize educational opportunities for the community’s African American youth. Thurgood

Marshall argued the Briggs suit before the U.S. District Court in South Carolina and before the U.S. Supreme Court

as one of the five school desegregation cases that was consolidated under Brown v. Board of Education.
198

Supreme Court Building (Washington, D.C.)

Constructed in 1935, the Supreme Court building is significant because of its association with the Supreme Court of

the United States and the site where the Brown v. Board of Education decision was rendered in 1954. The ideal of

separation of powers had been of the utmost concern to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Writing in the Federalist Papers, No. 47, James Madison stated that “the preservation of liberty requires that the

three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” The long overdue construction of a magnificent

building exclusively for the use of the Supreme Court was a dramatic illustration of a commitment to the early

Republic’s faith in the separation of powers that would bear fruit in a long line of court cases including Brown.

Sites not Listed on the National Register of Historic Places

Charleston School District (Charleston, Arkansas)

Designated a national commemorative site in 1998, the Charleston School District was the first in the 11 states of

the former Confederacy in which the children of both races attended integrated schools under a desegregation plan

that reflected a school board’s willingness to follow the spirit and principles of the Supreme Court’s historic Brown

decision. When classes opened for the fall semester on August 23, 1954, 11 African American students, including

three ninth-graders and eight elementary-grade children, and some 480 white students began attending classes

together in one integrated school system, some three months after the Brown decision was rendered.

Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History (Detroit, Michigan)

The museum includes exhibits on the history of the Civil Rights movement and the broader national and

international spectrum of African American history.

Civil Rights Memorial (Montgomery, Alabama)

Erected in 1989 through a private effort coordinated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, this memorial identifies

key events in Civil Rights history and honors 40 people who lost their lives in the fight for Civil Rights. The

designer is Maya Lin, creator of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.

John Philip Sousa Middle School (Washington, D.C.)

This school is associated with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bolling v. Sharpe that was reached on the same

day as the court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education ending school segregation in the nation’s capital. The

case was taken separately from Brown, because the decision was based on the due process clause of the Fifth

Amendment that did not permit racial discrimination, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment containing the equal

protection clause governing the States. African American students at Brown and Shaw Junior High Schools were

denied admission to the then all white John Philip Sousa Junior High School.

Liberty Hill Baptist Church (Summerton, South Carolina)

The majority of meetings associated with the grass-roots movement to desegregate the public schools in South

Carolina were conducted in this Clarendon County church. Rev. J.A. De Laine, pastor of the church, and the local

African Methodist Episcopal Church pastor solicited support from African American residents in the Summerton

area to challenge discriminatory treatment in the area’s public school system. As the principal African American

leader, De Laine recruited plaintiffs and received legal aid from the NAACP for litigation of the Briggs v. Elliott

case that would later become one of the school desegregation cases before the Supreme Court when it rendered its

historic Brown decision.
199

Louis Redding House (Wilmington, Delaware)

Louis Redding, a graduate of Harvard Law School and the first African American to be admitted to the Delaware

bar, lived in the family home during the litigation of two landmark school desegregation cases—Belton v. Gebhart

and Bulah v. Gebhart. In the two cases, the Delaware Chancery Court ordered formerly all-white public schools to

admit African American children. This was the first time that a segregated white public school in the United States

was ordered by a court of law to admit African American children. The cases were among the group of school

desegregation cases that would be collectively argued before the U.S. Supreme Court under Brown v. Board of

Education. The Redding House is also significant for its association with the entire family, whose members have

contributed their intellect, professional accomplishments, and devotion to Civil Rights activism in Wilmington and

beyond.

National Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Alabama)

Opened in November 1992, the institute is located next door to the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church and includes a

museum that offers extensive exhibits and multimedia programs that interpret American struggles for Civil Rights

(especially Birmingham’s role) and global human rights issues. The institute, which was developed through a

combination of private and public funding, is a center for education, research, and discussion about civil and human

rights issues. Educational programs include workshops, lectures, traveling exhibits, and special events.

Kelly Ingram Park, historically known as West Park, the setting for many confrontations during the Civil Rights

movement of the early 1960s, is across the street from the institute. Today the park is distinguished by pleasant

landscaping and dramatic metal sculptures depicting police dogs, water cannons, and jailed children. The park has

been renamed “A Place of Revolution and Reconciliation.”

National Civil Rights Museum (Memphis, Tennessee)

This museum, developed through a cooperative private and public funding effort, offers an elaborate set of

interpretive displays, including audiovisual and interactive techniques relating to Civil Rights endeavors in the

United States. The museum, which opened in 1991, is housed within the façade of the Lorraine Motel where Dr.

Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated on April 4, 1968. King and other African American leaders had come to

Memphis to support 1,300 striking sanitation workers. The room where King was staying and the balcony where he

was shot have been preserved.

Scotts Branch School (Summerton, South Carolina)

Although the original building no longer exists, this school was the primary focus of arguments to demonstrate the

inequality of facilities provided to African American students in the Briggs v. Elliot case. Rev. J.A. De Laine led

efforts to integrate public schools in South Carolina and to equalize educational opportunities for the Clarendon

County community’s African American youth. Thurgood Marshall argued the Briggs suit before the U.S. District

Court in South Carolina and before the U.S. Supreme Court as one of the five school desegregation cases that was

consolidated under Brown v. Board of Education.

William H. Spencer Industrial High School (Columbus, Georgia)

William H. Spencer was a leading African American educator in the Columbus, Georgia, public school system. The

naming of a local high school in his honor commemorates African Americans in Columbus. In 1931, this school was

dedicated to the educational advancement of African American students by providing college preparatory subjects.
200

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CULTURAL RESOURCE REFERENCES

Bates, Daisy. The Long Shadow of Little

Rock: A Memoir. Fayetteville, University of

Arkansas Press, 1987.

Bartley, Numan. The Rise of Massive

Resistance: Race and Politics in the South

During the 1950’s. Baton Rouge, Louisiana

State University Press 1969.

Baskett, Tom. Jr. Persistence of the Spirit:

The Black Experience in Arkansas. 2d ed.

[Little Rock], Delta Cultural Center, 1991.

Beals, Melba Pattillo. Warriors Don’t Cry:

A Searing Memoir of the Battle to Integrate

Little Rock’s Central High. New York,

Pocket Books, 1994.

_______. White Is A State of Mind: A

Memoir. New York, G.P. Putnam’s

Sons,1999.

Blossom, Virgil. It Has Happened Here.

New York, Harper & Brothers, 1959.

Branch, Taylor. Parting the Waters:

America in the King Years, 1954-1963. New

York, Simon & Schuster, 1988.

Branton, Wiley A. “Little Rock Revisited:

Desegregation to Resegregation.” Journal

of Negro Education, LII (Summer 1983), pp.

250-69.

Counts, I. Wilmer. A Life Is More Than a

Moment: The Desegregation of LittleRock’s

Central High. Bloomington, Indiana

University Press, 1999.

Department of the Army. Office of the Chief

of Military History, Histories Division.

Operation Arkansas. OCMH Monograph

No. 158M, by Robert W. Coakley.

Washington, D.C., 1967.

Dougan, Michael B. Arkansas Odyssey: The

Saga of Arkansas from Prehistoric Times to

Present. Little Rock, Rose Publishing

Company, Inc., Publishers, 1994.

Eskew, Glenn T. But for Birmingham: The

Local and National Movements in the Civil

Rights Struggle. Chapel Hill, University of

North Carolina Press, 1997.

Freyer, Tony Allen. “Politics and Law in the

Little Rock Crisis, 1954-1957.” Arkansas

Historical Quarterly, XL (Autumn 1981),

pp. 195-219.

_______. The Little Rock Crisis: A

Constitutional Interpretation. Westport,

Connecticut, and London, England,

Greenwood Press, 1984.

Hays, Brooks. A Southern Moderate Speaks.

Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina

Press, 1959.

Higham John. Civil Rights and Social

Wrongs: Black-White Relations Since

World War II. State College, The

Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.

“History of Central High Proves to be

Interesting.” Tiger, May 17, 1991, pp. 1-2.

Huckaby, Elizabeth. Crisis at Central High:

Little Rock, 1957-58. Baton Rouge,

Louisiana State University Press, 1980.
201

Jacoway, Elizabeth, and Williams, C. Fred.

eds. Understanding the Little Rock Crisis:

An Exercise in Remembrance and

Reconciliation. Fayetteville, University of

Arkansas Press, 1999.

Kelso, Richard. Days of Courage: The

Little Rock Story. Austin, Texas, Raintree

Steck-Vaughn, 1993.

Kluger, Richard. Simple Justice: The

History of Brown v. Board of Education and

Black America’s Struggle for Equality. New

York, Vintage Books, 1977.

Lucas, Eileen. Cracking the Wall: The

Struggles of the Little Rock Nine.

Minneapolis, Minnesota, Carolrhoda Books,

1997.

McMillen, Neil R. "White Citizens’ Council

and Resistance to School Desegregation in

Arkansas." Arkansas Historical Quarterly,

XXX (Summer 1971), pp. 95-122.

O’Neil, Laurie A. Little Rock: The

Desegregation of Central High. Brookfield,

Connecticut, Millbrook Press, 1994.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of

the Interior. “National Historic Landmark

Theme Study: Desegregation in Public

Education.” 2000

Record, Wilson, and Record, Jane Cassels.

Little Rock, U.S.A.: Materials for Analysis.

San Francisco, Chandler Publishing

Company, 1960.

Reed, Roy. Faubus: The Life and Times of

an American Prodigal. Fayetteville,

University of Arkansas Press, 1997.

Rowland, Walter E. Faubus, Arkansas, and

Education. Conway, Arkansas, River Road

Press, 1989.

Roy, Beth. Bitters in the Honey: Tales of

Hope and Disappointment Across Divides of

Race and Time. Fayetteville, University of

Arkansas Press, 1999.

Savage, Beth L. ed. African American

Historic Places: National Register of

Historic Places. Washington, D.C., The

Preservation Press, 1994.

Smith, Griffin, Jr. Little Rock, 1957: Pages

from History, The Central High Crisis,

Historic Front Pages from the Arkansas

Democrat and Arkansas Gazette, Aug. 29,

1957 - Oct. 4, 1957. Little Rock, Arkansas

Democrat-Gazette, 1997.

Southern Education Reporting Service. A

Statistical Summary, State by State, of

Segregation-Desegregation Activity

Affecting Southern Schools from 1954 to

Present, Together With Pertinent Data on

Enrollment, Teachers, Colleges, Litigation

and Legislation. Nashville, 1961.

Wilkinson, J. Harvie. From Brown to Bakke:

The Supreme Court and School Integration,

1954-1978. Oxford, New York, Toronto,

Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 1979.

Williams, Juan. Eyes on the Prize:

America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-65.

New York, Viking Press, 1987.

Wood, Nancy, Martin, Ginny, and Jacoway,

Elizabeth. comps. A Short History of Little

Rock High School and Little Rock Central

High School, 1927-1983. Little Rock,

Metropolitan Vocational Technical

Education Center Printing Department,

March 1983.

Civil Rights Movement Resources on the

Web

Three documents on the National Park

Service – Park Net Web Site
202

(http://www.nps.gov/), listed under “Links

to the Past: National Park Service Cultural

Resources – Histories, Cultures, and

Places,” highlight various historic properties

listed in the National Register of Historic

Places that are associated with the Civil

Rights Movement as well as African

American historic resources in the national

park system. These documents are:

We Shall Overcome: Historic Places of the

Civil Rights Movement – A National

Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary.

Our Shared History: Celebrating African

American History and Culture – National

Parks and Historic Sites.

African-American History in the national

park system.

SOCIOECONOMIC REFERENCES

Arkansas Department of Parks and

Recreation. Channels to a Sharper Vision.

2000.

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation

Department. Average annual Daily Traffic

Estimates for 1999. April 2000.

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce. 1980 and 1990.

Little Rock Regional Chamber of

Commerce. No Date. The Little Rock

Region-Fast Facts.

Little Rock, Department of Public Works.

Traffic Engineering. 2000. Traffic Count at

Station Mark 467 (Daisy L. Gatson Bates

Drive between South Park and Schiller

Streets).

METROPLAN, 1999. 1999 Economic

Review and Outlook

METROPLAN. 1998. Little Rock – North

Little Rock Data Book.

METROPLAN. December 1998. Little

Rock-North Little Rock MSA, Pulaski

County Census Tract Data.

METROPLAN. June 1998. Little Rock –

North Little Rock Population and

Employment Projections Through the Year

2025.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of

the Interior 2000a. Little Rock Central High

Development Costs for Alternatives.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of

the Interior. 1998. Special Resource Study

for Little Rock Central High School.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of

the Interior. 2000. CHS GMP Annual

Operating Costs.
203

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

DOCUMENT PREPARERS

Denver Service Center

Mary L. McVeigh, Job Captain and

Community Planner, Planning and

Design Services; B.A., Technical

Communications; 15 years with National

Park Service specializing in planning

Harlan Unrau, Historian and Cultural

Resource Specialist, Planning and

Design Services; B.A., M.A., History; 28

years with National Park Service

specializing in historical research and

cultural resource planning

Harpers Ferry Center

Sam Vaughn, Interpretive Planner; 25 years

with National Park Service specializing

in interpretation

Little Rock Central High School NHS

Dave Forney, Superintendent; B.A.,

American History and Environmental

Science; Certificate of Management:

Harvard Business School of

Management graduate program at

Frostburg University; 25 years with the

National Park Service’ interpreter,

district interpreter, assistant chief ranger,

operations supervisor, and management

assistant Engineering-Environmental

Management, Inc.

Steve Miller, Socioeconomist; Economist

and planner with over 20 years of

experience preparing socioeconomic and

environmental studies; managed more

than 30 socioeconomic studies for power

generation, transmission, transportation

or mining projects throughout the

country.

CONSULTANTS

National Park Service

Hot Springs National Park

 Roger Giddings, Superintendent

New Bedford Whaling NHP

 John Piltzecker, Superintendent

Midwest Regional Office

 Sandra Washington, Chief, Planning and

Compliance

 Michael Madell, Compliance Specialist

Denver Service Center

 Ric Alesch, Project Manager

 Dave Kreger, Technical Specialist,

Planning and Design Services

 Carol Whipple, (former) Chief, Planning

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

State Agencies

Governor’s Office

Arkansas Territorial Restoration

Arkansas State Parks

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Arkansas Historic Preservation Officer

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

Little Rock Entities And Organizations

Little Rock Central High School Little Rock

School District Little Rock Convention

& Visitors Bureau

Wright Ave. Neighborhood Assoc.

Central High Neighborhood, Inc.

Central High Museum, Inc.

Central High Museum & Visitors Center
204

Individuals

Don Castleberry, Retired National Park

Service Regional Director

Rett Tucker, Central High Museum, Inc.

Cheri Nichols, Central High Museum, Inc.

Rachel Myers, Central High Museum, Inc.

Annie Abrams, Central High Museum, Inc.

Laura Miller, Executive Director, Central

High School Museum & Visitor Center

Rudolph Howard, Principal, Central High

School
205

INDEX

administration, i, v, vi, 3, 5, 14, 23-24, 28, 32,

43, 44-46, 48-49, 51, 53-55, 57, 60-61, 65,

82, 132-138, 159

administrative functions, 81

affected environment, 82, 119, 152

air quality, i, 11, 14, 22, 64, 77, 118-120, 154

alternative 1, iv, 32, 38, 44-45, 48-49, 54-55, 57,

59-60, 62, 65-67, 123-127, 129, 131, 134-

137, 142, 150, 155, 158

alternatives, 31, 34, 61, 98, 122-123, 126, 132-

133, 137, 140, 142, 145, 148, 150, 154

alternative 2, v, 4-45, 48, 50, 53, 54-57, 59, 60,

62-64, 67, 105, 106, 126-131, 137, 140-141,

143, 146-147, 149-151, 153, 155-158, 160

alternative 3, vi, 49-50, 54, 57, 60-61, 129-130,

138-139, 141-143, 156, 158

alternative 4, 55, 57, 115-116, 131, 135, 139,

141-142, 157, 160

archeological resources, 57, 74, 94-95, 99, 103-

104, 108-109, 113-114

archival collections, 49, 54, 58, 111

Bethel A.M.E. Church, 77

boundary adjustment, 23, 37, 49, 54

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, iii, 8,

16, 18, 74

Census Tract 10, x, 84

Centennial Neighborhood Association, 26, 98,

99, 100, 104, 105, 109, 110, 114, 115

Central High Museum and Visitor Center, Inc.,

82

Civil Rights Institute, 13, 27, 98, 99, 100, 101,

102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,

111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121,

124, 127, 130, 131, 160, 161

Clean Air Act, 22, 77

contemplative area, 31, 132

costs, iii, iv, v, vi, 8, 23, 25, 34, 38, 45, 50, 55-

57, 61, 81, 136, 139, 140-141, 158

cultural landscape, iii, iv, 9, 11-12, 21, 32, 58,

72-74, 92, 96, 100-101, 103, 105-106, 108,

110-113, 115-118, 125, 129

cultural landscape resources, 92, 96, 100-101,

103, 105-106, 108, 110-111, 113, 115, 118

cultural resources, i, vi, 4, 14, 25, 33-34, 38, 44-

45, 50, 56, 58, 74, 92-94, 103, 108, 113, 118

Daisy Bates, 9, 25, 26, 27, 46, 60, 75, 98, 161

Daisy Bates Home National Historic Landmark,

75, 161

Dunbar Junior High School, 46, 75, 77, 161

Dwight D. Eisenhower, iii, 8

Elizabeth Eckford, 72

enabling legislation, v, vi, 3, 5, 9, 12, 15-17, 19,

22-24, 36, 38, 42, 48, 53, 82, 106

endangered species, 15

environmental consequences, 20, 151

environmental justice, 152

Ernest Green House, 77

ethnographic resources, 57, 62, 92, 95-96, 99-

100, 103, 104, 108, 109, 113, 114, 118

facilities, vi, 12, 22, 25, 31, 32, 33-34, 43, 49,

63, 64, 65, 71-72, 87, 94-97, 101-103, 106-

107, 111-112, 116-118, 121-123, 125-126,

129, 130-137, 140-144, 150-151, 154, 156,

158-159

farmlands, 15

Horace Mann Junior High School, 76

housing, 12, 66, 85, 108, 113, 118, 136, 139,

142-144, 150

impact topics, 11, 13-14

impairment, 20, 93, 99-104, 106-108, 112-114,

116, 118-119, 122, 124, 127, 130

Indian Trust Resources, 15

interpretive themes, 17-18, 31, 41, 58, 160

land use, 9, 14, 67, 74, 149, 150-151

laws, i, iii, 8, 16, 19, 20-22, 24-25, 37

library, 19, 26, 63, 73, 97, 101-103, 106-108,

111-113, 116-118, 160

Little Rock Central High School, i, iii, iv, 3- 4,

5, 8, 13, 15-17, 24-25, 31, 33, 36, 42, 48, 53,

64, 70, 72-74, 76-77, 82, 105, 110, 115, 124,

160

Little Rock Nine, 8, 9, 18, 45, 51, 56, 60, 72, 75-

77, 159, 161

Little Rock Nine Foundation, 45, 51, 56, 60

Little Rock School District, iv, 3, 5, 11, 24, 34,

36, 38, 42-45, 53, 56, 60, 70, 82, 100, 104,

110, 115, 161

local economy, 66, 87, 139, 140-142, 148-149,

154

Magnolia Mobil Service Station, i, iii, iv, v, vi,

4, 5, 8, 12, 23, 34, 36-38, 42, 44-45, 48, 53,

59, 60, 62, 72-73, 78, 80, 100-101, 104-106,

110-111, 115-116, 120, 123-125, 130, 132-

136, 141

management prescriptions, 31

museum collections, iv, 36, 57, 92, 97- 98, 124
206

natural resources, i, 14, 21, 33

northeast corner lot, 46, 50

northwest corner lot, 72

operations, i, iv, v, vi, 4, 12, 14, 18, 32, 34, 37-

38, 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57,

60, 61, 65, 82, 92, 121, 124, 127, 130-136,

139-140, 159

partnerships, i, v, 12, 17, 20, 25, 45, 53, 60, 65,

82, 125, 128-136

Philander Smith College, 77

population, 22, 38, 66, 75, 84, 120, 136-139,

144-145, 152-153

property ownership, 38

public comment, 161

recreation, 22, 67, 86, 144-145

research, iv, 12, 20, 24, 32, 36, 38, 43, 49, 51,

54-56, 58, 82, 99, 102, 104, 106-107, 109,

111-112, 114, 116-117, 121, 125, 128, 130

Section 106 Summary, 92, 102, 108, 112, 117

socioeconomic environment, i, 14, 82, 136-137,

139, 142, 144-145, 147-150, 152-153

staffing, v, 14, 19, 38, 42, 44, 48-50, 55, 58, 63,

102-103, 107, 112, 117, 125, 128, 130, 132

Terry Mansion, 46, 76

tourism, 12, 31, 41, 46, 53, 67, 80, 85, 123-124,

126-127, 129-131, 136, 144-147, 150, 154,

158

transportation, i, 14, 58, 67, 87, 97, 119, 153,

158-159

U.S. Courthouse, 76

vegetation, 9, 15, 73, 74, 94-96

visitor experience, i, iv, v, vi, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16-

17, 19, 23, 25-26, 31-32, 38, 41, 56-58, 64,

78, 120-122, 124-125, 127-132

visitor safety, 82, 131

visitor spending, 67, 87, 137, 139, 147-149

wetlands, 13, 14

wildlife, 15

William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library,

26, 98, 124, 127, 129, 131, 133-135