Chapter 5 

Environmental 

Consequences 
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requires that environmental documents discuss the

environmental impacts of a proposed federal action

and any adverse environmental effect that cannot be

avoided if a proposed action is implemented. In this

case the proposed federal action would be the

adoption of a general management plan for Rosie the

Riveter/World War II Home Front National

Historical Park. The following portion of this

document analyzes the environmental impacts of

implementing the three alternatives on cultural

resources (archeological resources, historic

structures and buildings, cultural landscapes, and

museum collections), visitor use and experience, the

social and economic environment, and

transportation. This analysis is the basis for

comparing the beneficial and adverse effects of

implementing the alternatives.

Because of the general, conceptual nature of the

actions described in the alternatives, the impacts of

these actions are analyzed in general qualitative

terms. Thus, this environmental assessment should

be considered a programmatic analysis. If and when

site-specific development or other actions are

proposed for implementation subsequent to this

general management plan, appropriate detailed

environmental and cultural compliance

documentation will be prepared in accordance with

the requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation

Act.

This chapter begins with a description of the

methods and assumptions used for each impact

topic. Impact analysis discussions are organized by

alternative and then by impact topic under each

alternative. Each alternative discussion also

describes cumulative impacts and presents a

conclusion. The impacts of each NPS action

alternative are briefly summarized in table 9 near the

end of chapter 3.

161

Introduction

Methods and Assumptions

for Analyzing Impacts

The planning team based the impact analysis and the

conclusions in this chapter largely on the review of

existing literature and studies, information provided

by experts in the National Park Service and other

agencies, and national historical park staff insights

and professional judgment. The team’s method of

analyzing impacts is further explained below. 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning,

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making

(DO-12), presents an approach to identifying the

duration (short- or long-term), type (adverse or

beneficial), and intensity or magnitude (e.g.,

negligible, minor, moderate, or major) of the

impact(s); that approach has been used in this

document. Where duration is not noted in the

impact analysis, it is considered to be long term.

Direct and indirect effects caused by an action were

considered in the analysis. Direct effects are caused

by an action and occur at the same time and place as

the action. Indirect effects are caused by the action

and occur later in time or farther removed from the

place, but still are reasonably foreseeable.

The impacts of the action alternatives describe the

difference between implementing the no-action

alternative and implementing the action alternatives.

To understand a complete “picture” of the impacts

of implementing any of the action alternatives, the

reader must also take into consideration the impacts

that would occur under the no-action alternative. 

TERMS USED

• Type

Beneficial: A positive change in the condition or

appearance of the resource or a change that moves

the resource toward a desired condition.
Adverse: A change that moves the resource away

from a desired condition or detracts from its

appearance or condition.

Direct: An impact that is caused by an action and

occurs at the same time and place.

Indirect: An impact that is caused by an action but is

later in time or farther removed in distance, but still

reasonably foreseeable.

• Context

Context is the setting within which an impact is

analyzed.

Site-specific: The impact would affect particular

project sites.

Local: The impact would affect resources in the

immediate vicinity of the national historical park.

Regional: The impact would affect the City of

Richmond and other localities, cities, or towns

surrounding the national historical park.

• Duration

In general, the following definitions are used to

describe duration. For some resources, duration may

differ due to each resource’s individual time for

recovery. 

Short-term impacts would be less than one year in

duration. 

Long-term impacts would extend beyond one year.

Loss of items in the museum collections would have

permanent impacts.

• Level of Intensity

Because the definitions of level of intensity

(negligible, minor, moderate, or major) vary by

impact topic, they are provided separately for each

impact topic.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

regulations that implement the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require

assessment of cumulative impacts in the decisionmaking process for federal projects. Cumulative

impacts are defined as impacts which result when

the impact of the proposed action is added to the

impacts of other present and reasonably foreseeable

future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or

nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions

(40 CFR 1508.7). The following projects and

management strategies were identified as

contributing cumulative impacts:

 City of Richmond’s General Plan

 Richmond’s Zoning Ordinance

 Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan

 Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future

Vision

 San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay

Plan and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan

 Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan

 shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove

 site development and use by owners of

legislatively designated sites and historic

structures in Rosie the Riveter/World War II

National Historical Park

IMPAIRMENT OF ROSIE THE

RIVETER/WORLD WAR II HOME FRONT

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

RESOURCES

A fundamental purpose of the National Park Service

is to conserve park resources and values. The

statutory requirements direct that the National Park

Service must leave park resources and values

unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and

specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited

impairment is an impact that, in the professional

judgment of the responsible National Park Service

manager, would harm the integrity of park resources

or values, including opportunities that would

otherwise be present for the enjoyment of those

resources and values. An impact would be likely to

constitute impairment to the extent that it affects a

resource or value whose conservation is

 necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified

in establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park 

162

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
 key to the natural or cultural integrity of the

park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the

park 

 identified as a goal in the park’s general

management plan or other relevant planning

documents

An impairment determination is provided for those

cultural resources that are federally owned or

directly administered by the National Park Service.

Evaluation of impairment does not apply to park

resources that are owned by other public or private

entities. 

SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT 

The National Park Service would develop a

programmatic agreement (PA) to guide the

implementation of all federally funded, permitted,

licensed, or approved actions associated with the

selected alternative, to ensure that the National Park

Service fulfills all of its obligations under section106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR

Part 800.14(b), Programmatic Agreements). The PA

would be negotiated among the National Park

Service, the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, the California State Historic

Preservation Officer, the City of Richmond, and any

other interested federal, state, or local agencies and

organizations. The PA would minimally stipulate that

the National Park Service is committed to ensuring

that NPS Management Policies 2006 and The

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines

for Archeology and Historic Preservation are followed

for any historic property affected by federally

funded, permitted, licensed, or approved actions, as

well as working appropriately with our partners to

assist them in their activities to meet these standards.

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

• Definitions of Intensity Levels 

Negligible: Impact is at the lowest levels of

detection; it is barely perceptible or measurable.

Minor: Impacts would be perceptible and

measurable, and would remain localized and

confined to archeological site(s) 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

site(s) with high data potential.

HISTORIC STRUCTURES

• Definitions of Intensity Levels

Negligible: Impact is at the lowest levels of

detection; it is barely perceptible or measurable.

Minor: Impacts would be perceptible and

measurable, but would be localized and confined to

a single character-defining feature or element.

Moderate: Impacts on a character-defining

feature(s) or element(s) would not diminish the

integrity of the structure’s location, design, setting,

materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Major: Impacts would result in substantial and

highly noticeable changes to character-defining

feature(s) or element(s), thus diminishing the

integrity of the structure’s location, design, setting,

materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

• Definitions of Intensity Levels

Negligible: Impact is at the lowest levels of

detection: it is barely perceptible or measurable. 

Minor: Impacts would be perceptible and

measurable but be localized and confined to a single

character-defining pattern or feature.

Moderate: Impacts on a character-defining

pattern(s) or feature(s) would not diminish the

integrity of the landscape’s location, design, setting,

materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

Major: Impacts would result in substantial and

highly noticeable changes to character defining

pattern(s) or feature(s), diminishing the integrity of

163

Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park
the landscape’s location, design, setting, materials,

workmanship, feeling, or association.

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

Museum collections (prehistoric and historic

objects, artifacts, works of art, archival documents,

and natural history specimens) are generally

ineligible for listing in the national register. 

• Definitions of Intensity Levels

Negligible: Impact is at the lowest levels of

detection; it is barely measurable, with no

perceptible consequences, either adverse or

beneficial, on museum collections.

Minor: Adverse impact — would affect the integrity

of few items in the museum collection but would not

degrade the usefulness of the collection for future

research and interpretation.

Moderate: Adverse impact — would affect the

integrity of many items in the museum collection

and diminish the usefulness of the collection for

future research and interpretation.

Major: Adverse impact — would affect the integrity

of most items in the museum collection and destroy

the usefulness of the collection for future research

and interpretation.

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

• Methodology

National Park Service Management Policies 2006

states that enjoyment of park resources and values

by the people of the United States is part of the

fundamental purpose of all parks and that the

National Park Service is committed to providing

appropriate, high-quality opportunities for visitors to

enjoy parks. Anticipated impacts on visitor use and

experience were analyzed using baseline information

from current operations and comparisons at other

units of the national park system. Impacts were

evaluated comparatively between alternatives, using

alternative A, the no-action alternative, as a baseline

for comparison with each action alternative.

• Definitions of Intensity Levels

Negligible: Visitors would likely be unaware of any

effects associated with implementation of the

alternative. 

Minor: Changes in visitor use and/or experience

would be slight but detectable, would affect few

visitors, and would not appreciably limit or enhance

experiences identified as fundamental to the park’s

purpose and significance.

Moderate: Some characteristics of visitor use and/or

experience would change, and many visitors would

likely be aware of the effects associated with

implementation of the alternative; some changes in

experiences identified as fundamental to the park’s

purpose and significance would be apparent.

Major: Multiple characteristics of visitor experience

would change, including experiences identified as

fundamental to park purpose and significance; most

visitors would be aware of the effects associated with

implementation of the alternative.

• Type of Impact 

Adverse impacts are those that most visitors would

perceive as undesirable. Beneficial impacts are those

that most visitors would perceive as desirable.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

• Methodology

The National Park Service applied logic, experience,

professional expertise, and professional judgment to

analyze the impacts on the social and economic

situation resulting from each alternative. Economic

data, expected future visitor use, and future

developments of the national historical park were all

considered in identifying, discussing, and evaluating

expected impacts.

• Definitions of Intensity Levels 

Negligible: No effects occur or the effects on social

and economic conditions would be below or

equivalent to the level of detection. 

Minor: The effects on social and economic

conditions would be slight but detectable, and would

affect only a small number of park services and/or a

164

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
small portion of the surrounding community. The

impact would be considered slight and not

detectable outside the affected area. 

Moderate: The effects on social and economic

conditions would be readily apparent. Any effects

would result in changes to social and economic

conditions on a local scale in the affected area. 

Major: The effects on social and economic

conditions would be readily apparent. Measurable

changes in social or economic conditions at the

county level occur. The impact is severely adverse or

exceptionally beneficial in the affected area. 

• Type of Impact 

National Park Service policy calls for the effects of

the alternatives to be characterized as being

beneficial, adverse, or indeterminate in nature. With

respect to economic and social effects, few standards

or clear definitions exist as to what constitutes

beneficial or positive changes and what constitutes

adverse or negative changes. For example, rising

unemployment is generally perceived as adverse,

while increases in job opportunities and average per

capita personal income are regarded as beneficial. In

many instances, however, changes viewed as

favorable by some members of a community are seen

as unfavorable by others. For example, the impact of

growth on housing markets and values may be seen

as favorable by construction contractors and many

homeowners, but adverse by renters and by local

government officials and community groups

concerned with affordability. Consequently, some of

the social and economic impacts of the alternatives

may be described in such a manner as to allow the

individual reviewer to determine whether they

would be beneficial or adverse.

TRANSPORTATION

• Methodology

The National Park Service applied logic, experience,

professional expertise, and professional judgment to

analyze the impacts on transportation resulting from

each alternative. Economic data, expected future

visitor use, and future developments of the national

historical park were all considered in identifying,

discussing, and evaluating expected impacts.

• Definitions of Intensity Levels

Negligible: The impact would be a change that

would not be perceptible or would be barely

perceptible by local roadway and public

transportation users.

Minor: The impact would have an effect on travel

times, and the impact would be noticeable, but

would result in little inconvenience or benefit to

local roadway and public transportation users.

Moderate: The impact would affect the travel time

of a large number of local roadway users and would

result in a noticeable change in travel time,

convenience, or benefit to local roadway and public

transportation users.

Major: There would be a substantial impact on the

travel time of a large number of regional roadway

users and would result in a highly noticeable change

in travel times, convenience, or benefit to local

roadway and public transportation users.

165

Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

• Analysis

To date no archeological surveys, studies, or

assessments—other than an initial inventory of

cultural resources of the Inner Harbor area prepared

by California Archeological Consultants, Inc., in

1979—have been conducted on lands associated

with sites and historic structures that are listed in the

enabling legislation for Rosie the Riveter/World War

II Home Front National Historical Park. Although

the National Park Service does not own any land or

historic resources, the National Historic

Preservation Act and other laws and policies require

that potential impacts on archeological resources be

considered at the earliest possible stage of planning

for any federally funded, permitted, licensed, or

approved project to determine (1) whether and at

what level the proposed project area has been

surveyed archeologically, (2) whether archeological

resources eligible for the national register have been

identified in the area, and (3) whether such

resources would be affected by the proposed

project. All feasible measures would be taken to

avoid impacting archeological resources, minimize

damage to them, or recover data that otherwise

would be lost. Any required data recovery would be

designed in consultation with the California state

historic preservation officer and would conform to

NPS and professional standards.

The lands on which the City of Richmond is located

have been disturbed and manipulated by urban,

industrial, and harbor development activities since

the 19th century. Natural landforms have been

altered substantially and many or most prehistoric

archeological resources likely have been disturbed or

removed from their original location. It is likely that

the only archeological resources that might be

discovered at legislatively designated sites and

historic structures in the national historical park

would relate to historic urban, industrial, and harbor

developments during the 19th and 20th centuries.

In alternative A, the National Park Service would not

acquire any of the park sites and therefore not

engage in new construction activities that would lead

to ground disturbing activities. 

The public and private owners of the historic

resources would most likely continue to develop,

adapt, and change the uses of these structures. Such

actions could lead to ground disturbing activities

and therefore could result in adverse, long-term

impacts of minor intensity.

• Cumulative Impacts

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond and

the San Francisco Bay region—such as those

associated with the City of Richmond’s General

Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building

Reuse Plan; Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our

Future Vision; the San Francisco Bay Conservation

and Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay

Plan and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, could have contributed to

disturbance and/or loss of archeological resources.

Because no archeological surveys, studies, or

assessments, other than an initial cursory inventory,

of cultural resources have been conducted for lands

and properties listed in the park’s enabling

legislation, decisions about site development have

been made that, in hindsight, may not have been best

for archeological resources. Thus, past and ongoing

planning efforts and development projects in

Richmond and the San Francisco Bay region may

have resulted in the loss or disturbance of

archeological resources. Impacts on significant

archeological resources would have been adverse,

long-term and of minor to major intensity. 

Actions associated with implementation of

alternative A could potentially disturb archeological

resources. Few if any adverse effects on

archeological resources would be anticipated, but if

significant archeological resources could not be

avoided during excavation or construction activities,

the impacts on such resources would be adverse,

166

Impacts of Alternative A

(No Action)
permanent, and minor to moderate in intensity.

Because significant archeological resources would be

avoided to the greatest extent possible during

implementation of alternative A, the actions

associated with the alternative would be expected to

contribute only minimally to the adverse impacts of

other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable

actions. Although the cumulative impact would be

adverse and minor to major in intensity, any adverse

impacts on archeological resources resulting from

implementation of alternative A would be a very

small component of that cumulative impact. 

• Conclusion

The National Park Service would not acquire any of

the park sites and therefore would not engage in new

construction activities that would lead to ground

disturbing activities. The public and private owners

of the historic resources would most likely continue

to develop, adapt, and change the uses of these

structures. Such actions could lead to ground

disturbing activities and therefore could result in

long-term impacts of minor intensity.

Implementation of alternative A would be expected

to contribute only minimally to the adverse, minor to

major cumulative impact.

HISTORIC STRUCTURES

• Analysis

Under alternative A, the National Park Service

would continue to provide technical assistance to,

and work with, property owners and the City of

Richmond to encourage protection and preservation

of the exteriors of historic structures and buildings

listed in the park’s enabling legislation. These

cooperative efforts, if successful, would promote

preservation and rehabilitation of the documented

exterior architectural values of the historic structures

and buildings, as well as adaptive use of their interior

spaces, in accordance with the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties (see Appendix F). The following eight

properties were included in the legislation.

 Four historic properties individually listed in

the National Register of Historic Places: 

• Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant

Historic District: main building (Ford

Assembly Building) and oil house 

• Richmond Shipyard No. 3 Historic District:

machine shop, general warehouse, sheet

metal shop, forge shop, five graving

basins/dry docks, cafeteria, first aid station

• SS Red Oak Victory

• Atchison Village Defense Housing Project,

Cal. 4171-X, Historic District: community

building, five types of residential buildings,

and playing field

 Three historic properties for which draft

national register nomination forms have been

prepared:

• Kaiser Permanente Field Hospital

• Ruth C. Powers Child Development Center

• Maritime Child Development Center

 Richmond Fire Station 67A, which continues to

function as a city firehouse

Under alternative A, current ongoing rehabilitation

of the Ford Assembly Building and the SS Red Oak

Victory would preserve the integrity of their

documented architectural values. The National Park

Service would work with the Port of Richmond to

encourage and promote protection and preservation

of the exteriors of the historic structures in Shipyard

No. 3. Those historic shipyard structures that remain

vacant or continue to be used for port purposes

could suffer a loss of historic fabric, thus affecting

the integrity and condition of their documented

architectural values. Actions under this alternative

could also potentially result in loss of historic fabric

from legislatively designated historic structures in

the national historical park as a result of continuing

nonoccupation and structural deterioration of the

Maritime and Ruth C. Powers child development

center buildings; current ongoing efforts to convert

portions of the Kaiser Permanente Field Hospital for

contemporary purposes; continuing use of the

Atchison and Nystrom Village housing

developments as private residential developments;

and continuing use of Richmond Fire Station 67A as

a functioning city fire house. Any impacts to historic

structures could be adverse, long term and of

moderate to major intensity. 

• Cumulative Impacts

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

167

Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park
with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, have resulted in the

demolition of historic structures and buildings and

the loss of historic fabric in adaptively used historic

structures and buildings. Site development and

utilization by owners of the lands and properties

listed in the park’s enabling legislation have also

contributed to loss of historic fabric in historic

structures and buildings, thus adversely affecting

their integrity and compromising their documented

architectural values.

As described earlier, actions associated with

implementation of alternative A could result in

moderate to major adverse impacts on historic

structures. However, the adverse impacts associated

with alternative A would be expected to contribute

only minimally to the adverse impacts of other past,

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions on historic

structures. Although the cumulative impact would be

adverse, long term, and of moderate to major

intensity, any adverse impacts on historic structures

resulting from implementation of alternative A

would be a small component of that cumulative

impact.

• Conclusion

Implementation of alternative A could result in

impacts to historic structures that may be adverse,

long term, and of moderate to major intensity.

Actions resulting from alternative A would be

expected to contribute only minimally to the

adverse, long term, moderate to major cumulative

impact.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

• Analysis

Actions under alternative A would not alter

topography, disturb vegetation, change circulation

features, or alter spatial organization, and land use

patterns of the landscape. The National Park Service

would encourage property owners and the City of

Richmond to protect and preserve significant

surviving elements and character-defining landscape

features of Richmond’s World War II-era setting in

the vicinity of the historic structures, buildings, and

sites listed in the park’s enabling legislation. The

impact on cultural landscapes would be adverse,

long-term, and of minor intensity. 

• Cumulative Impacts

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, have resulted in the loss of

significant World War II-era cultural landscape

features. Site development and use by owners of the

lands and properties listed in the park’s enabling

legislation have also contributed to the loss of

significant cultural landscape features, thus

compromising the integrity of World War II-era

cultural landscapes in Richmond.

This alternative, in combination with the

aforementioned impacts of past and ongoing

planning efforts and development projects in

Richmond and the San Francisco Bay region and site

development and utilization by owners of the lands

and properties of the legislatively designated sites

and historic structures and buildings in the national

historical park, would result in adverse cumulative

impacts on cultural landscape resources; however,

this alternative would contribute a small adverse

component to the cumulative impact. 

168

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
• Conclusion

The impact on cultural landscapes would be adverse,

long-term, and minor in intensity. The cumulative

impacts would be adverse; however, this alternative's

contribution to these impacts would be small.

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

• Analysis

Under alternative A, Rosie the Riveter/World War II

Home Front National Historical Park would

continue its nationwide efforts to collect museum

objects, artifacts, oral histories, documents, and

images relating to American home front themes, as

funding and staff were available. The museum

collections would continue to be stored at the park’s

temporary headquarters in the Richmond City Hall

under conditions that do not fully meet professional

and National Park Service museum standards for fire

detection and suppression, security, temperature,

and humidity control, and do not provide adequate

space for curation, storage, and research. As funding

and staffing became available, the park would work

toward meeting professional and National Park

Service standards for collecting, managing, and

preserving its museum collections. Thus, based on

the current conditions, the impacts on the park's

museum collections would generally be adverse,

long term, and of minor to moderate intensity. 

• Cumulative Impacts

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions would have no effect on museum

collections in the area, because none of the actions

described in the methodology section of this chapter

would affect the acquisition, preservation, or

protection of historic objects, artifacts, works of art,

or archival documents. Therefore, there would be no

cumulative impacts on museum collections under

alternative A. 

• Conclusion

Overall, actions under alternative A to the museum

collections would result in adverse, long-term

impacts of minor to moderate intensity. The park

management would work toward meeting

professional and National Park Service standards for

managing its collections. There would be no

cumulative impacts on museum collections under

this alternative.

Implementation of this alternative would not likely

result in major adverse impacts on resources or

values in the national historical park whose

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific

purposes identified in the park’s enabling legislation;

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for

enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in

this general management plan or other relevant

National Park Service planning documents.

Consequently, implementation of this alternative

would not likely result in impairment of resources or

values associated with museum collections. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

• Analysis

Opportunities to view historic resources and partake

of limited guided tours and self-guiding tours would

continue at or near current levels. Interpretive

waysides would continue to give visitors

opportunities to learn more about Richmond’s

involvement in the World War II home front story.

The continuation of the current management

direction would result in adverse, long-term, minor

to moderate impacts on visitor use and experience

due to changes in the experience as the historic

resources are adapted to accommodate

contemporary uses. 

• Cumulative Impacts

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, would likely contribute to

the adverse impact on the visitor experience as these

other actions displace or intrude on the visitor

experience. The cumulative impacts on the visitor

experience would be adverse, long term, and minor.

Implementation of alternative A would be a small

component of that cumulative impact. 

169

Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park
• Conclusion

The continuation of the current management

direction would result in adverse, long-term, minor

to moderate impacts on visitor use and experience

due to changes in the experience as the historic

resources are adapted to accommodate

contemporary uses. The cumulative impacts on the

visitor experience would be adverse, long term, and

minor. Implementation of alternative A would be a

small component of those cumulative impacts.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

• Analysis

Under the no-action alternative, the current

management direction would continue and the

impact on social and economic conditions in the

area would change only slightly to reflect anticipated

very small changes to visitor spending and direct and

indirect employment generation. As the cooperating

partners continue to evolve, World War II home

front interpretive programs, messages, and

marketing activities could result in increased

understanding of and pride in Richmond’s

significant contributions to victory in World War II.

Consequently impacts on social and economic

conditions would continue to be beneficial, long

term, and negligible.

• Cumulative Impacts

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay and

San Francisco Bay Area Seaport plans; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, would likely contribute 

beneficial, long-term, and minor impacts to the

social and economic conditions in the area. 

As described above, actions associated with

implementation of alternative A would result in

beneficial but negligible impacts on the social and

economic environment. Although the cumulative

impact would be beneficial, long term, and minor,

any beneficial impacts on the social and economic

environment resulting from implementation of

alternative A would be a very small component of

that cumulative impact.

• Conclusion

The continuation of current actions under the noaction alternative would have long-term, negligible

impacts on the social and economic environment.

The cumulative impact would be beneficial, long

term, and minor.

TRANSPORTATION

• Analysis

Under the no-action alternative, the current

management direction will continue and the impact

on transportation patterns in the area caused by

establishing the national historical park will change

only slightly to reflect the small increased visitation.

Consequently impacts on transportation patterns

would continue to be long term and negligible.

• Cumulative Impacts 

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, would likely contribute

minor adverse impacts on the transportation

patterns in the area, as new development would

contribute to increased traffic load and decreased

levels of service. 

As described earlier, actions associated with the

170

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
implementation of alternative A would result in

negligible impacts on transportation patterns.

Although the cumulative impact would be adverse,

long term, and of minor intensity, any impacts on

transportation resulting from implementation of

alternative A would be a very small component of

that cumulative impact.

• Conclusion

The continuation of current actions under the noaction alternative would have negligible, long-term

impacts on transportation. The cumulative impact

would be adverse, long term, and minor. 

171

Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

• Analysis

To date no archeological surveys, studies, or

assessments—other than an initial inventory of

cultural resources of the Richmond Inner Harbor

area prepared by California Archeological

Consultants, Inc., in 1979—have been conducted on

lands associated with sites and historic structures

that are listed in the park’s enabling legislation.

Because the lands on which the City of Richmond is

located have been disturbed and manipulated by

urban, industrial, and harbor development activities

since the 19th century, it is likely that the only

archeological resources that might be discovered at

legislatively designated sites in the park would relate

to those historic activities.

Prior to any federally funded, permitted, licensed, or

approved ground disturbing activities potential

impacts on archeological resources would be

considered at the earliest possible stage of planning

to determine (1) whether and at what level the

proposed project area has been surveyed

archeologically, (2) whether archeological resources

eligible for the national register have been identified

in the area, and (3) whether such resources would

be affected by the proposed project. All feasible

measures would be taken to avoid impacting

archeological resources, minimize damage to them,

or recover data that otherwise would be lost. Any

required data recovery would be designed in

consultation with the California state historic

preservation officer and would conform to NPS and

professional standards.

Archeological resources eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places would be

avoided to the greatest extent possible. If significant

archeological resources could not be avoided, an

appropriate mitigation strategy would be developed

in consultation with the state historic preservation

officer. Due to the avoidance of significant resources

during construction activities, few, if any, adverse

impacts on such resources would be anticipated;

however, if impacts on significant archeological

resources could not be avoided, the adverse effects

would be permanent and minor to moderate in

intensity.

If previously undiscovered archeological resources

were uncovered during construction, all work in the

immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted

until the resources could be identified and

documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy,

if necessary, developed in consultation with the state

historic preservation officer. Any adverse impacts on

archeological resources associated with inadvertent

discoveries would be long term and minor to

moderate in intensity.

• Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of alternative B would result in the

same cumulative impacts on archeological resources

Impacts of Alternative B

(National Park Service Preferred)
as those described under alternative A.

• Conclusion

Few if any adverse impacts on significant

archeological resources would be anticipated, but if

such resources could not be avoided during any

excavation or construction activities, the impacts

would be adverse, long term, and of minor to

moderate intensity. Implementation of alternative B

would be expected to contribute only minimally to

the adverse, minor to major cumulative impact.

HISTORIC STRUCTURES

• Analysis

Under alternative B, the National Park Service would

work with property owners and the City of

Richmond to provide technical assistance for

rehabilitation of the exteriors and selected portions

of the interiors, and adaptive use of the interiors, of

historic structures and buildings listed in the park’s

enabling legislation in accordance with the Secretary

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties (see Appendix F). These

cooperative efforts, if successful, would result in

rehabilitation and preservation of the documented

exterior architectural values of these historic

structures. Structures that would be potentially

rehabilitated or partially rehabilitated under this

alternative include the SS Red Oak Victory, historic

buildings and graving basins/dry docks in Shipyard

No. 3, Maritime and Ruth C. Powers child

development centers, Ford Assembly Building,

Kaiser Permanente Field Hospital, and potentially

the Nystrom Village housing development. Actions

to the historic structures under alternative B would

have beneficial, long-term impacts of minor to

moderate intensity.

• Cumulative Impacts

The impacts on historic structures associated with

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

actions would be the same as those described under

alternative A. As described above, actions associated

with implementation of alternative B would result in

no adverse impacts on historic structures. The

cumulative impact would be adverse, long term, and

of minor to moderate intensity; the actions in

alternative B would result in a small benefit to the

cumulative impact.

• Conclusion

Implementation of alternative B would result in

beneficial, long-term impacts of minor to moderate

intensity, with no adverse impacts on historic

structures. Implementation of alternative B would be

expected to contribute a small benefit to the adverse,

long-term, minor to moderate cumulative impact.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

• Analysis

Actions under alternative B would generally be

expected to have beneficial impacts on cultural

landscape resources associated with legislatively

designated sites and historic properties listed in the

park’s enabling legislation. This is because the

National Park Service would actively promote

preparation of cultural landscape inventory surveys

and cultural landscape reports to document

Richmond’s World War II-era cultural landscape

components, patterns, and features. Although

cultural landscape resources associated with

legislatively designated sites and historic properties

in the park’s enabling legislation would continue to

be subject to potential adverse impacts as a result of

their adaptive reuse, the National Park Service

would actively work with property owners and the

city to preserve elements and character-defining

landscape features of Richmond’s World War II-era

setting. These collaborative efforts would promote

implementation of treatment recommendations

indicated in these resource studies. Additionally, the

National Park Service would provide technical

assistance to property owners and the city to ensure

that future development in the vicinity of the park

would not only preserve important elements and

character-defining landscape features of Richmond’s

World War II-era setting, but also be consistent with

the scale of features and their visual and spatial

relationships. The actions under alternative B would

have no adverse impacts on the cultural landscape;

the impacts would be beneficial, long term, and of

minor to moderate intensity. 

• Cumulative Impacts

The impacts on cultural landscapes associated with

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

actions would be the same as those described under

alternative A. As described above, actions on the

cultural landscape associated with implementation

172

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
of alternative B would result in beneficial, long-term

minor to moderate intensity. The cumulative impact

would be adverse, long term and of minor intensity.

Any beneficial impacts on cultural landscapes

resulting from implementation of alternative B

would be a very small component of that cumulative

impact.

• Conclusion

The actions under alternative B would have no

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape; the

impacts would be beneficial, long term, and of

minor to moderate intensity. 

Implementation of alternative B would result in

beneficial, long-term and minor to moderate

intensity. The cumulative impacts of actions under

alternative B on cultural landscape resources would

generally be the same as those listed under

alternative A, although they would be expected to

have more beneficial impacts on the legislatively

designated sites when compared with alternative A.

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

• Analysis

Implementation of alternative B would have

beneficial, long-term and minor to moderate

intensity on the national historical park’s museum

collections because they would be stored in

accessible, fully staffed, permanent facilities under

conditions that meet professional and National Park

Service museum standards for fire detection and

suppression, security, and temperature and humidity

control, as well as provide adequate space for

curation, storage, and research. Emphasis would be

placed on collecting World War II home front

materials that relate to Richmond and the San

Francisco Bay region for use in National Park

Service exhibits. 

• Cumulative Impacts

Since the national historical park was established,

limited staffing, funding, and lack of storage,

curation, and research space meeting professional

and National Park Service museum standards have

hindered endeavors to improve preservation and

access to the park’s museum collections, resulting in

adverse, long-term and minor to moderate impacts

on such resources. As described above,

implementation of alternative B would result in

beneficial, long-term impacts of minor to moderate

intensity on the museum collections. Due to the

adverse impacts of other past, present or reasonably

foreseeable actions, however, the cumulative impact

would be adverse, long term, and of minor intensity.

Alternative B would not contribute any adverse

impacts to the cumulative impact. 

• Conclusion

Overall, actions under alternative B would have

beneficial, long-term impacts of minor to moderate,

intensity on the park’s museum collections. The

cumulative impacts would be beneficial, long term

and of minor to moderate intensity.

Implementation of this alternative would not likely

result in adverse impacts on resources or values in

the national historical park whose conservation is (1)

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the

park’s enabling legislation; (2) key to the cultural

integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in this general management

plan or other relevant National Park Service

planning documents. Consequently, implementation

of this alternative would not likely result in

impairment of resources or values associated with

museum collections.

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

• Analysis

The expansion of visitor experience opportunities

associated with the preferred alternative would

result in beneficial, long-term, moderate impacts to

visitor use and experience due to changes in the

experience as opportunities expand to view both

exteriors and some interiors of historic resources

and partake of guided tours, self-guiding tours,

interpretive waysides, and exhibits. In alternative B,

the World War II Home Front Visitor/Education

Center would provide enhanced visitor services as

well as opportunities to explore the park. In

addition, the visitor/education center would provide

interpretive opportunities for those with mobility,

hearing, and vision challenges. At other park sites,

provisions for visitors with disabilities would be

provided as appropriate. This alternative maximizes

the opportunities to preserve the World War II-era

appearance of historic sites and structures and the

173

Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park
opportunities for visitors to explore the World War

II home front in Richmond, California.

• Cumulative Impacts

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, would likely contribute

beneficial, long-term minor to moderate impacts on

visitor experience as more resources are restored

and access and viewing opportunities are increased. 

As described earlier, implementation of alternative B

would result in beneficial, long-term, moderate

impacts on visitor use and experience, thereby

contributing to the beneficial cumulative impact.

The beneficial impacts of alternative B would

constitute a substantial contribution to the beneficial

cumulative impact.

• Conclusion

The actions under the preferred alternative B would

result in beneficial, long-term, moderate impacts to

visitor use and experience. The cumulative impact

would be long term, moderate, and beneficial, but

the National Park Service’s actions would add a very

small increment to the cumulative impact.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

• Analysis

Under the preferred alternative, the impact on social

and economic conditions in the area would improve

slightly to reflect anticipated changes in visitor

spending associated with anticipated increased

visitor use and direct and indirect employment

generation. This increase in employment would be

anticipated due to promotion of restoration

construction, a new visitor center, and

entrepreneurial opportunities that arise with

increased visitation. Citizens may gain increased

community pride as a result of sharing and better

understanding Richmond’s significant contributions

to victory in World War II. This pride could result in

more home front-themed community events and

new businesses that are based on the home front

theme. Consequently impacts on social and

economic conditions would be beneficial, long term,

and minor.

• Cumulative Impacts

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, would likely contribute

beneficial, long-term, and minor to moderate

impacts on the social and economic conditions in

the area. 

As described earlier, implementation of alternative B

would result in beneficial, long-term, minor impacts

on the social and economic environment, resulting

in a long-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative

impact. However, the beneficial impacts of

alternative B would be a small contribution to the

beneficial cumulative impact. 

•Conclusion

The actions of the preferred alternative would have

beneficial, long-term, minor impacts on the social

and economic environment. The cumulative impact

would be long term, minor to moderate, and

beneficial.

174

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
TRANSPORTATION

• Analysis

Under the preferred alternative, the impact on

transportation in the area would reflect the

additional traffic and public transportation use from

increased visitation and the potential for increased

destination points within the park. This would likely

result in some additional congestion. Increased

visitor use could result in additional public

transportation use and could provide the critical

mass of passengers that is needed to affordably

support an increase in public transportation and

regional ferry services. Although there could be

beneficial impacts to local and regional

transportation systems, the overall impact of

alternative B to local transportation would be

adverse, long term, and minor in intensity. 

• Cumulative Impacts 

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, would likely contribute

adverse, long-term, minor to moderate cumulative

impacts on the transportation patterns in the area, as

new development would contribute to increased

traffic load. However, the adverse impacts of

alternative B would be a moderate contribution to

the adverse cumulative impact. 

• Conclusion

The actions under the preferred alternative B would

have adverse, long-term, minor impacts on

transportation. The cumulative impact would be

adverse, long term, and minor to moderate in

intensity.

175

Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

• Analysis

To date no archeological surveys, studies, or

assessments—other than an initial inventory of

cultural resources of the Inner Harbor area prepared

by California Archeological Consultants, Inc., in

1979—have been conducted on lands associated

with sites and historic structures that are listed in the

enabling legislation for Rosie the Riveter/World War

II Home Front National Historical Park. Although

the National Park Service does not own any land or

historic resources, the National Historic

Preservation Act and other laws and policies require

that potential impacts on archeological resources be

considered at the earliest possible stage of planning

for any federally funded, permitted, licensed, or

approved project to determine (1) whether and at

what level the proposed project area has been

surveyed archeologically, (2) whether archeological

resources eligible for the national register have been

identified in the area, and (3) whether such

resources would be affected by the proposed

project. All feasible measures would be taken to

avoid impacting archeological resources, minimize

damage to them, or recover data that otherwise

would be lost. Any required data recovery would be

designed in consultation with the California state

historic preservation officer and would conform to

NPS and professional standards.

The lands on which the City of Richmond is located

have been disturbed and manipulated by urban,

industrial, and harbor development activities since

the 19th century. Natural landforms have been

altered substantially and many or most prehistoric

archeological resources likely have been disturbed

or removed from their original location. It is likely

Impacts of Alternative C
that the only archeological resources that might be

discovered at legislatively designated sites and

historic structures in the national historical park

would relate to historic urban, industrial, and harbor

developments during the 19th and 20th centuries.

In alternative C, the National Park Service would not

acquire any of the park sites and therefore would not

engage in new construction activities that would lead

to ground disturbing activities. 

The public and private owners of the historic

resources would most likely continue to develop,

adapt, and change the uses of these structures. Such

actions could lead to ground disturbing activities

and therefore could result in adverse, long-term

impacts of minor to moderate intensity.

• Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of alternative C would result in the

same cumulative impacts on archeological resources

as those described under alternative A.

• Conclusion

Few if any adverse impacts on significant

archeological resources would be anticipated under

this alternative. However, if such resources could not

be avoided during excavation or construction

activities, the impacts would be adverse, long term,

and of minor to moderate in intensity. Actions

resulting from alternative C would be expected to

contribute only minimally to the adverse, long-term,

minor to major cumulative impact.

HISTORIC STRUCTURES

• Analysis

Under alternative C, the National Park Service

would work with property owners and the City of

Richmond to provide technical assistance for

preservation of the exteriors of historic structures

and buildings listed in the park’s enabling legislation

in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (see

Appendix F). These cooperative efforts, if successful,

would result in rehabilitation and preservation of the

documented exterior architectural values of these

historic structures. The interiors of these historic

structures and buildings would be adapted for

contemporary uses, thus resulting in the potential

loss of historic fabric and character-defining

features. Any adverse impacts on historic structures

would be long term and of moderate intensity. 

• Cumulative Impacts

The impacts on historic structures associated with

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

actions would be the same as those described under

alternative A. As described above, actions on historic

structures associated with implementation of

alternative C would result in adverse, long-term

impacts of negligible to minor intensity. Although

the cumulative impact would be adverse, long term,

and of minor to moderate intensity, any adverse

impacts on historic structures resulting from

implementation of alternative C would constitute a

very small component of that cumulative impact.

• Conclusion

Implementation of alternative C would result in

adverse, long-term impacts of moderate intensity on

historic structures. Implementation of alternative C

would be expected to contribute only minimally to

the adverse, long-term, minor to moderate

cumulative impact.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

• Analysis

Actions under alternative C would not alter

topography, disturb vegetation, change circulation

features, or alter spatial organization or land use

patterns of the landscape. The National Park Service

would encourage the City of Richmond to protect

and preserve the significant surviving elements of

character-defining landscape features of Richmond’s

World War II-era setting in the vicinity of the

historic structures, buildings, and sites listed in the

park’s enabling legislation. The impact on cultural

landscapes would be beneficial, long-term and

minor intensity. 

• Cumulative Impacts

The impacts on cultural landscapes associated with

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

actions would be the same as those described under

alternative A. As described above, actions associated

with implementation of alternative C would result in

minor, beneficial and long-term impacts on cultural

landscapes. The cumulative impact would be

176

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
adverse, long term and of minor intensity. Any

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes resulting

from implementation of alternative C would be very

small component of that cumulative impact and

would contribute a small beneficial component to

the overall cumulative impact.

• Conclusion

The impact on cultural landscapes would be

beneficial, long-term and minor. The cumulative

impacts would be adverse; however, this alternative's

contribution to these impacts would be a small

beneficial increment.

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

• Analysis

Implementation of alternative C would result in

beneficial, long-term impacts of moderate intensity

on the museum collections. Under this alternative,

the collections would be stored in accessible, fullystaffed, permanent facilities under conditions that 1)

meet professional and National Park Service

museum standards for fire detection and

suppression, security, temperature and humidity

control and 2) provide enlarged space for curation,

storage, and research. The museum collections

would be located in the Ford Assembly Building and

be managed as part of the visitor/education center,

thus enhancing the accessibility of the collections for

researchers and park staff. The museum collections

would be enhanced as a result of an active

nationwide National Park Service program to collect

World War II home front materials with the goal of

making the park the national repository of museum

and archival collections related to the World War II

home front and Rosie the Riveter. The research and

academic value of the museum collections, as well as

their accessibility, would be improved as a result of

links with colleges and universities, research

libraries, archival repositories, historical societies

and organizations, and other institutions throughout

the nation that are devoted to the study of World

War II home front themes.

• Cumulative Impacts

Since the national historical park was established,

limited staffing, funding, and lack of storage,

curation, and research space meeting professional

and National Park Service museum standards have

hindered endeavors to improve preservation and

access to the park’s museum collections, resulting in

adverse, long-term and minor to moderate impacts

on such resources. As described above,

implementation of alternative C would result in

beneficial, long-term impacts of minor to moderate

intensity on the museum collections. Due to the

adverse impacts of other past, present or reasonably

foreseeable actions, however, the cumulative impact

would be adverse, long term, and of minor intensity.

Alternative C would not contribute any adverse

impacts to the adverse cumulative impact. 

• Conclusion

Overall, actions under alternative C would have

beneficial, long-term impacts of minor to moderate

intensity on the park’s museum collections. The

cumulative impacts would be beneficial, long term,

and of minor to moderate intensity.

Implementation of this alternative would not likely

result in adverse impacts on resources or values in

the national historical park whose conservation is (1)

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the

park’s enabling legislation; (2) key to the cultural

integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in this general management

plan or other relevant National Park Service

planning documents. Consequently, implementation

of this alternative would not likely result in

impairment of resources or values associated with

museum collections.

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

• Analysis

The expansion of visitor experience opportunities

associated with alternative C would result in

beneficial, long-term, minor impacts on visitor use

and experience. This would be due to changes in the

experience as opportunities would expand to

explore the World War II home front in greater

detail at the World War II Home Front

Visitor/Education Center and to partake of guided

tours, self-guiding tours, interpretive waysides, and

exhibits. 

• Cumulative Impacts

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

177

Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park
San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, would likely contribute

minor beneficial impacts on visitor experience as

more resources are restored and access and viewing

opportunities are increased. 

As described earlier, implementation of alternative C

would result in beneficial, long-term, minor impacts

on visitor use and experience, resulting in a

beneficial, long-term and minor cumulative impact.

The beneficial impacts of alternative C would be a

relatively small contribution to the beneficial

cumulative impact.

• Conclusion

The actions under alternative C would have

beneficial, long-term and minor impacts on visitor

use and experience. The cumulative impact would

be beneficial, long term, and minor. 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

• Analysis

Under alternative C the impact on social and

economic conditions in the area will change slightly

to reflect anticipated small changes to visitor

spending and direct and indirect employment

generation. Locating the SS Red Oak Victory near the

World War II Home Front Visitor/Education Center

could create a critical mass of visitor activities that

benefits area businesses and could encourage new

visitor services and opportunities within the area. It

is anticipated that visitor use would significantly

increase from levels in alternative A. This could

result in greater community pride and an

enhancement of Richmond’s reputation; thus a

beneficial impact could result. Consequently,

impacts on social and economic conditions would

be beneficial, long term’ and minor.

• Cumulative Impacts

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, would likely contribute

beneficial, long-term and moderate impacts on the

social and economic conditions in the area. 

As described earlier, implementation of alternative C

would result in long-term, minor beneficial impacts

on the social and economic environment, resulting

in a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial

cumulative impact. However, the beneficial impacts

of alternative C would provide a small contribution

to the beneficial cumulative impact. 

• Conclusion

The actions under alternative C would result in

beneficial, long-term, minor impacts on the social

and economic environment. The cumulative impact

would be beneficial, long term, and minor to

moderate in intensity.

TRANSPORTATION

• Analysis

Under alternative C, the impact on transportation

patterns in the area would change to reflect the

additional traffic and public transportation use

resulting from increased visitation. Traffic to the

primary park site at the Ford Assembly Building and

Sheridan Observation Point Park could result in

increased congestion and some inconvenience to

localized industrial traffic. An increased level of

passengers for the proposed water-based

transportation system could be expected. Demands

for parking opportunities within the area could

178

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
significantly increase over current levels. Impacts on

transportation patterns would be adverse, long term,

and minor in intensity.

• Cumulative Impacts 

Activities associated with past and ongoing planning

efforts and development projects in Richmond the

San Francisco Bay region—such as those associated

with the City of Richmond’s General Plan, Zoning

Ordinance, and Ford Assembly Building Reuse Plan;

Contra Costa County’s Shaping Our Future Vision;

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan

and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan; the

Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail

Plan; and shoreline development at Marina Bay and

Brickyard Cove—as well as activities associated with

site development and use by owners of legislatively

designated sites and historic structures in the

national historical park, would likely contribute

adverse, long-term, minor impacts on the

transportation patterns in the area as new

development would contribute to increased traffic.

As described above, implementation of alternative C

would result in adverse, long-term, minor impacts

on transportation. The cumulative impact would be

adverse, long term, and minor. However, the adverse

impacts of alternative C would constitute a relatively

small contribution to the adverse cumulative impact. 

• Conclusion

The actions under alternative C would result in

adverse, long-term, minor impacts on

transportation. The cumulative impact would be

adverse, long term, and minor in intensity. 

179

Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park