You may recall that about a year ago, information was included in the CANISTER about the fact that Vicksburg National Military Park was soliciting public input on the development of a proposed “Cultural Landscape Report” for the portions of the Vicksburg Battlefield preserved within the bounds of the National Military Park. I hope some of you all provided some comment. Well, Vicksburg NMP’s “Cultural Landscape Report” process is continuing. Now, and until May 2, the NMP is soliciting comments on what they have done since last year. Most specifically, they have developed four landscape treatment alternatives that they like to have comments on. A newsletter explaining the process and the alternatives has been prepared and mailed to those who had previously commented. If you haven't received a copy, you can see it on-line by going to Vicksburg NMP’s website at:

      www.nps.gov/vick

Look just a little left of center in the middle of the page under “Quick Links” and you’ll see:

“Cultural Landscape Report and Environmental Assessment Newsletter”

Click on that and you’ll find the newsletter. You’ll also need to look at:

“Cultural Landscape Treatment Alternatives Matrix”

This latter document includes the maps that allow for a visual comparison of the amount of historic scene restoration called for under each alternative.
      The alternative that calls for the greatest amount of historic scene restoration is Alternative D – Rehabilitation/Maintain the Broad Spectrum of Military Engagements. This alternative would remove the greatest amount of vegetation that presently exists where none such existed in 1863; this alternative, of the four being proposed, would make far more of the battlefield park today look something like it did in 1863; it would accomplish far more historic scene restoration than would either Alternative C or Alternative B or Alternative A. However, even Alternative D would leave significant portions of the battlefield un-restored, leave significant portions of the battlefield in a condition where it is very difficult to study and appreciate the action, and leave much of the original 1899 Congressional mandate for the NMP—“…to commemorate the campaign and siege and defense of Vicksburg, and to preserve the history of the battles and operations of the siege and defense on the ground where they were fought and were carried on…”—unachieved. Why isn’t there an alternative being considered that would more completely accomplish that mandate? Why does it seem that alternatives that might do that have been relegated to the section on page three of the newsletter entitled “Alternatives No Longer Under Consideration” and which goes on to say, “Two additional alternatives were considered but are no longer under consideration – Restoration to Civil War Siege Period (ca. 1863), and Restoration to Park Development Period (1899-1917….” Vicksburg National Military Park is one of the premier historic areas in our great nation and should be managed as such. It should already have a “cultural landscape” that reflects its status and a management plan that gets it to where it should be and keeps it there. I hope you will take a few minutes to go on-line and review the documents noted above and provide your comments. For folks interested in studying and understanding the Civil War actions and doing it when they can on the ground where the action unfolded, taking those few minutes is very important. The manager of that historic area, the National Park Service, needs to hear from history interested persons from across the country to be reminded of what their mission is. Please note that in this case, there seem to be constraints on how you can comment. Telephone calls, faxes, and emails are not being accepted. Some of the wording in the newsletter suggests that you need to use the comment form in the newsletter, attaching additional pages as necessary, so just a letter might not be accepted either. You can supposedly comment on-line at:

       http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=411&projectId=19204&documentID=22638

      So, again, let me encourage you to comment, hopefully for Alternative D (with the wish that Alternative D’s proposals were even more extensive), and if not for D, at least C or at least B…………..by MAY 2. Vicksburg Battlefield and other battlefields need your help so badly in this regard.