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

Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Volume I 

August • 2011

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Muir Woods National Monument
 Cover photo credit: Robert Campbell / Chamois Moon


ABSTRACT

Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument

Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California

_______________________________________________________________________ 

Established in 1972, Golden Gate National Recreation Area has been operating under its first general 

management plan, approved in 1980. Since the park’s establishment, it has doubled in size and a better 

understanding of the park’s natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir 

Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of Golden Gate

National Recreation Area. A new management plan is needed to guide these two parks for the next 20 

years. This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement describes three action 

alternatives for managing Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument. 

The no-action alternative consists of the existing park management and serves as a basis for comparison 

in evaluating the other alternatives. Alternative 1, “Connecting People with the Parks,” would further the 

founding idea of “parks to the people,” and would engage the community and other potential visitors in 

the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of the park’s resources and values. Park management 

would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote 

understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 1 is the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties. Alternative 

2, “Preserving and Enjoying Coastal Ecosystems,” would place an emphasis on preserving, enhancing, 

and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued 

and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about 

and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the region’s international 

significance and history. Alternative 3, “Focusing on National Treasures,” would place an emphasis on 

the park’s nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each 

showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in 

perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. Visitors would 

have the opportunity to explore the wide variety of experiences that are associated with many different 

types of national parks—all in this park and monument. All other resources would be managed to 

complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. Alternative 3 is the 

National Park Service’s preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National 

Monument.

The impacts of implementing the various alternatives were analyzed. Potential impacts were analyzed in

six broad topic areas: natural resources; cultural resources; visitor use and experience; the social and 

economic environment; transportation; and park management, operations, and facilities. Natural resources 

included both physical and biological resources. Cultural resources included archeological, ethnographic, 

and cultural landscape resources; historic structures; and park collections. 

This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement has been distributed to other 

agencies and interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment. The public comment 

period for this document will last for 60 days after the Environmental Protection Agency’s notice of 

availability has been published in the Federal Register. 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

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

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN

Comments on the Draft Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) are welcome and will be 

accepted during the 60-day public review and comment period. The easiest way to submit your comments 

is via the online form at http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/goga (click on “General Management Plan” 

and then “Open for Public Comment”). We also accept written comments at the following address: 

Superintendent 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Attention: Draft GMP/EIS

Fort Mason, Building 201 

San Francisco CA 94123 

Comments will be accepted for 60 days after the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

notice of availability in the Federal Register. 

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in 

your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying 

information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 

able to do so. 
Volume I: iii

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Muir Woods National Monument

Draft General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement

Volume I: v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE AND NEED 

The last general management plan for Golden Gate National Recreation Area was 

completed over thirty years ago. 

Generally, the overall need for a new general management plan includes the following: 

• The park has significantly expanded in size and includes many new lands in San 

Mateo County. This planning process takes a comprehensive parkwide approach that 

will help ensure that the management of the natural and cultural resources and visitor 

experiences are consistent and thorough across all park areas. 

• There is an increased public demand for access to, and use of, open spaces within the 

San Francisco Bay region. The general management plan provides a regional 

collaborative approach to open space preservation and recreation use. 

• The changing demographics in the Bay Area are bringing notable shifts in park 

visitation, uses, and trends. The general management plan provides desired 

conditions that will guide the decision making needed to manage the anticipated 

visitation growth.

• Through research and park management that have occurred since the 1980 plan, the 

park staff has gathered a considerable amount of new information and knowledge 

regarding resources and visitor use. This new awareness is reflected in the desired 

conditions, proposed management actions, and policies of this general management 

plan. 

• Since the 1980 plan, climate change has become better understood and its effects 

more evident on both ecological systems and cultural resources. The general 

management plan looks at the potential impacts of climate change to park operations 

and visitor use, and identifies direction and management actions to guide efforts to 

minimize the park’s carbon footprint. 

• How visitors access the park continues to evolve as the local transportation 

infrastructure changes. Strategies that were identified in 1980 continue to be 

explored. New ideas and techniques are also identified to help address sustainable 

options to reach the park, and strategies to reduce traffic congestion around and 

within the park. 

• To comply with federal law, the plan indicates the types and intensities of projected 

development, including anticipated costs. This is important, as the availability of 

federal funds may be limited over time.

The implementation of the approved plan, no matter which alternative, will depend on 

future NPS funding levels and servicewide priorities, and on partnership funds, time, and 

effort. The approval of a general management plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will be forthcoming. Full implementation of 

the plan could be many years in the future.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: vi

THE PLANNING AREA

This general management plan addresses NPS-administered lands within the legislative 

boundaries of Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National 

Monument. The new general management plan will provide park management guidance 

for the following park sites: 1) those park lands that are not covered by recent land use 

management plans and agreements; 2) those lands that are newly acquired or in the 

process of acquisition; and 3) lands and waters that are leased to the National Park 

Service or are under other management arrangements or easements, such as the San 

Francisco Public Utilities Commission Peninsula Watershed. The total area of land and 

water addressed in this plan is approximately 50,000 acres.

Specifically these areas include the following:

• Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment 

• park lands in Marin County, including Stinson Beach north to the Bolinas-Fairfax 

Road; Slide Ranch; Muir Beach; Lower Redwood Creek; Golden Gate Dairy; 

Tennessee Valley; Marin Headlands; and the offshore ocean environment

• park lands in San Francisco, including Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, 

Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay 

environments 

• park lands in San Mateo County, including the coastal area bluffs extending south 

from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; 

Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro 

Point; Devil’s Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; 

Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; 

and the offshore ocean environment 

• Muir Woods National Monument 

Park sites with recent management plans are not addressed in this plan. In this category 

are the Presidio of San Francisco (including the Main Post, Crissy Field, and Baker 

Beach), Fort Point National Historic Site, Sutro Heights Historic District, Fort Baker 

(Cavallo Point), Lower Fort Mason (the Fort Mason Center), and the park’s northern 

district (north of Bolinas-Fairfax Road) that is managed by Point Reyes National 

Seashore.
Executive Summary

Volume I: vii

FOUNDATION STATEMENTS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Park Purpose

The purpose of Golden Gate National Recreation Area is to offer national park 

experiences to a large and diverse urban population while preserving and interpreting the 

park’s outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values. 

Key Interpretive Themes and Associated Resources and Values

Recreational and Educational Opportunities: The park provides for diverse 

recreational and educational opportunities from contemplative to active pursuits, 

including participation in stewardship and volunteer activities. Its proximity allows an 

urban population to connect with nature and history. 

Fundamental resources and values associated with the recreational and educational 

opportunities include the diverse settings found within the park and access to the park

that is supported by a system of trails and scenic park roads.

Coastal Corridor: In a world of diminishing biological diversity and threatened natural 

resources, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area preserves islands of biodiversity 

within and near a large urban area. The accelerating rate of global climate change 

threatens even these remnants.

Fundamental resources and values associated with the coastal corridor are the ocean and 

bay environment, the rich variety of coastal ecosystems, large numbers of threatened and 

endangered species, and fresh and salt water resources.

Military Installations and Fortifications: Coast defense posts are at the heart of park 

lands and are a major reason the park is preserved today. Although no hostile shot was 

ever fired, every major type of military fortification and architecture represented here 

demonstrates evolving defense technology. War, peace, and the nature of protection have 

shaped and will continue to shape the country. 

The cultural landscapes, features, structures, and museum collections are the fundamental 

resources and values associated with military installations and fortifications.

Alcatraz Island: The layers of history so evident on the island present visitors with a 

chance to understand the 155-year span of Alcatraz history—from the U.S. Army period, 

through the federal penitentiary era and the Native American occupation to the current 

NPS management of the island. As a site of international notoriety, Alcatraz provides a 

powerful opportunity to provoke visitors to confront their personal views on crime and 

punishment, the judicial system, and freedom. 

The cultural landscapes, historic structures, museum collections, and stories associated 

with the use of the island as a Civil War period fort, military prison, and federal 

penitentiary, and as the site of the Indian Occupation of 1969 to 1971 are the fundamental 

resources and values associated with Alcatraz Island.

Scenic Beauty: The powerful positive influences that park land and undisturbed open 

space can exert on urban settings—and residents—constitute a critical interpretive 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: viii

message. The scenic beauty of the park’s historic and natural undeveloped landscapes 

inspired a grassroots movement that led to their protection. Proposed development that 

would have destroyed these lands sparked Bay Area community members to organize and 

ultimately preserve the open spaces that contribute so much to their quality of life.

The fundamental resources and values associated with the scenic beauty of the park 

include the dramatic setting that provides a contrast between urban environments and 

undeveloped spaces and the compelling historical stage that contributes to understanding 

the history of the area.

Physical Landforms: The park’s underlying natural geologic systems and processes, and 

the resulting effects on people and the environment, link the park to the highly visible and 

significant geologic forces around the world. 

Geologic resources are the fundamental resources and values associated with this theme.

Ohlone and Miwok People: The natural features and resources of the park, along with 

its location on the San Francisco Bay estuary, sustained the Ohlone and Miwok people 

who lived on the lands now comprising the park for thousands of years before Europeans 

arrived. Archeological sites in the park link to these pre-European inhabitants and to their 

descendants who retain a vibrant culture to this day.

Archeological sites in the park document the traditional homelands of the Coastal Miwok 

and Ohlone people and are fundamental resources and values. 

Muir Woods National Monument

Park Purpose

The purpose of Muir Woods National Monument is to preserve the primeval character 

and ecological integrity of the old-growth redwood forest for scientific values and 

inspiration. 

Key Interpretive Theme and Fundamental Resources and Values

The majestic, primeval old-growth redwoods of Muir Woods National Monument invite 

visitors, in the words of namesake John Muir, to “come to the woods, for here is rest.” 

The forest ecosystem of these towering trees and the creek beneath them supports an 

abundance of life. This remnant of the Bay Area’s once abundant redwood forests 

inspires visitors through its seminal conservation story, today welcoming travelers from 

around the world to have what is, for many, their first wildlands experience. 

The fundamental resources and values associated with Muir Woods National Monument 

are old growth forests and their associated processes and the conservation movement, 

including both the initial preservation of the redwood forests and ongoing actions.

Guiding Principles

Some principles, forged through daily management of this new kind of national park over 

the last 40 years, are deeply rooted, distinctive, and will continue to provide direction and 

focus future park management. They include the park’s commitments to
Executive Summary

Volume I: ix

• sustainability

• community-based stewardship

• civic engagement

• partnerships 

• regional collaboration 

• inclusion 

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE PLAN

Planning issues identified during the public and internal scoping and analysis stages 

include the following:

• Visitor Access: Transportation and Trails

• Recreation Opportunities and Conflicts 

• Sustainable Natural Resource Preservation and Management

• Sustainable Cultural Resource Preservation and Management

• Climate Change

• Land Acquisition 

• Reaching New Audiences

• Operational Facilities

• Scenic Beauty and Natural Character

• Regional Cooperation 

• National Park Service Identity

• Partnerships

• American Indian Values

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

In the process of developing the management alternatives described in the next section, 

the planning team identified several elements as being appropriate for all of the action 

alternatives. Some of these elements are required by National Park Service policy, such 

as Ocean Stewardship. Others, like Native American Engagement, reflect an effective 

long-standing park practice. In other cases, alternatives were explored but were 

eliminated from further consideration for various reasons. 

Key Elements

• Boundary Adjustments: Proposed adjustments are predominantly in San Mateo 

County. They consist of 4 undeveloped parcels (approximately 900 acres) and a strip 

of offshore areas, adjacent to lands already within the park boundary. They present 

opportunities to preserve critical resources and habitat links, aid in management, and 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: x 

expand recreational opportunities in the park. Bolinas Lagoon, one of Marin 

County’s most significant natural areas, is also proposed to be included in the park’s 

authorized boundary. 

• Climate Change: Guidance on managing resources and visitation in the face of 

climate change builds upon NPS policy, current science, and the park’s “Climate 

Change Action Plan.” The goals are to 1) reduce CO2 emissions, 2) educate and 

interpret the processes for visitors, and 3) assess the impacts and respond to changing 

conditions. 

• Facilities Not Directly Related to the Park Mission: This summarizes analyses of 

facilities that can be removed from the park, generating substantial savings in annual 

operational and maintenance costs. Proposed actions are estimated to reduce costs by 

almost $7,000,000. 

• Facilities for Park Maintenance, Public Safety, and Collection Storage: Through an 

extensive focused planning effort the park identified the need for new maintenance 

facilities (at Kent Canyon shared with Mount Tamalpais State Park, in the Capehart 

housing area of the Marin Headlands, and in the Presidio), a single hub for park law 

enforcement (at Fort Baker), a network of multifunctional satellite offices (most of 

which is in place), and a central facility for the majority of the park’s museum 

collection (in the Presidio).

• Native American Engagement: This section documents established commitments to 

working with Coast Miwok and Ohlone communities to 1) survey, identify and 

inventory archeological and ethnographic sites, 2) develop interpretive and 

educational activities for visitors, and 3) support the revitalization of native 

communities and their traditions.

• Ocean Stewardship: This policy addresses the park’s responsibilities for managing its 

extensive offshore—ocean—resources. It focuses on four goals: supporting a 

seamless network of protected area, inventorying and mapping in the service of 

protection, engaging the public in stewardship, and increasing the park’s technical 

capacity.

• Park Collections: Primary goals are to connect people with the park’s extensive 

collection (the fourth largest collection in the national park system), and to 

strengthen, preserve, and maintain the collection.

• Partnerships: Distills the key goals employed by the park in developing powerful and 

successful partnerships.

• Trails: Broad goals and management strategies for the creation and maintenance of 

the extensive trails network which is one of the most important ways that visitors 

experience and enjoy the park. It includes brief summaries of future efforts in each 

county. 

• Transportation: Broad goals and management strategies are identified for pursuing 

sustainable, multimodal access to park sites in partnerships with other organizations. 

The strategies include regional ferry access, ferry access to Alcatraz, trip planning 

and wayfinding, congestion management, the Muir Woods shuttle, intelligent 

transportation systems, and development of a long-range transportation plan.
Executive Summary

Volume I: xi

• User Capacity: The park’s proposed commitments for managing user capacity, also 

known as carrying capacity, is described in the appendix. Indicators and standards are 

identified for Alcatraz and Muir Woods. 

THE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

No-action Alternative

Under this alternative, Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National 

Monument would continue to be managed as outlined in the 1980 General Management 

Plan. 

Key Elements

Park Lands in Marin County 

In Marin County, Golden Gate National Recreation Area forms the southern core of a 

large network of regional, state, and federal protected lands and waters (many of which 

are recognized as part of the UNESCO Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve). Under the noaction alternative, the park would continue to manage this large expanse of preserved 

natural landscape, with scattered concentrations of developed facilities, to provide 

visitors with multiple opportunities for recreation; miles of trails, preserved historic 

military fortifications, and scenic and historic landscapes.

The county features some of the most varied landscapes in Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, including lush woodlands, rugged coasts, sandy beaches, meadows, 

marshes, grasslands, and coastal shrubs. As a result, visitors can experience an array of 

wildlife and several different habitats in one brief hike.

Much of this area has been managed as part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

since the park was established in 1972. Management of this land would continue to be 

guided by the park’s 1980 general management plan and subsequent, more detailed, 

implementation plans. 

A diverse set of park partners—many housed in historic structures—would continue to 

provide programs and facilities for visitors’ education and enjoyment. These facilities and 

programs currently include a hostel, environmental education and arts programming, 

equestrian facilities, and a marine mammal rehabilitation center. Park-managed visitor 

facilities would continue to include a visitor center, scenic overlooks, trails, campsites, 

and parking areas at recreational beaches.

National Park Service maintenance facilities, collections, staff housing, administrative 

offices, and various partner offices would also continue to operate where currently 

located in the park. 

Park Lands in San Francisco 

Park lands in San Francisco ring the northern and western shores of the City of San 

Francisco, preserving a coastal greenbelt next to dense urban neighborhoods. These lands 

would continue to be major attractions to tourists and central to the quality of life for 

local citizens. They offer city dwellers places to recreate, rejuvenate, and learn about the 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: xii

fascinating natural and cultural history of the region. Management of these lands and 

marine/bay waters would continue to focus on preserving natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources, and providing for a variety of recreational uses in the varied settings along San 

Francisco Bay and the Pacific coast.

Park Lands in San Mateo County 

Stretching along the San Mateo coast to Rancho Corral de Tierra and inland to the 

Phleger Estate, the southern park lands feature a remarkable wealth of natural and historic 

resources. These lands support an abundance of plants and wildlife and tell the story of 

the people who have shaped this peninsula over generations.

Park lands in San Mateo County serve a large and diverse local population and present 

many opportunities for visitors to explore and appreciate these park lands.

Currently, the National Park Service’s presence in San Mateo County is limited, sites are 

not always well identified, and there are few basic facilities to support access. 

Management of park lands in San Mateo County is guided by the park’s authorizing 

legislation and the management policies common to units of the national park system. 

This management approach would continue under the no-action alternative, with the 

exception of Sweeney Ridge—for which a general management plan amendment was 

approved in 1985 to provide specific management guidance—and Mori Point—for which 

a detailed landscape restoration plan was recently executed. 

Site planning for enhancing visitor facilities, such as the planning recently completed at 

Mori Point, would continue. 

The park would also continue to consult with other agencies to achieve fundamental park 

goals regarding the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Peninsula Watershed, 

where the park holds scenic and recreational easements.

Alcatraz Island

Under the no-action alternative, the island would continue to be managed to preserve 

historic and natural resources, and provide public access to a variety of settings and 

experiences where appropriate and safe. The primary visitor experience would be day 

use, beginning with a ferry ride from San Francisco. The island experience would 

continue to be centered on the federal penitentiary; however, other periods of the island 

history and bird life would also be interpreted. Scheduled evening tours of Alcatraz 

Island would continue to provide visitors with this unique opportunity. 

The deterioration of buildings and landscapes (accelerated by the harsh island 

environment) and the protection of areas for bird nesting habitat would continue to limit 

visitor access to much of the island. Rehabilitation of historic buildings and landscaped 

areas would continue to be somewhat piecemeal and subject to available funding.

Many areas of the island would continue to be closed during breeding season to protect 

waterbird colonies from human disturbance. In areas open to the public, western gulls 

would continue to be managed under an existing agreement with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, through the use of 

bird exclusion measures and other deterrents to protect visitor health and safety. 

Education and stewardship opportunities would inform visitors about the importance of 

the island to nesting birds, and what the public can do to help protect them. 
Executive Summary

Volume I: xiii

Muir Woods National Monument

Under the no-action alternative, Muir Woods National Monument would continue to be 

managed to protect the primeval redwood forest in the larger Redwood Creek watershed, 

and to interpret the monument’s natural history, as well as the establishment of the 

monument, which had a major role in the early American conservation movement. 

Muir Woods National Monument would remain a popular international destination and 

ecological treasure, supporting a diversity of flora and fauna, in addition to Sequoia

sempervirens, the old growth redwoods.

The park staff would continue to balance preservation of the redwood ecosystem with 

providing access to hundreds of thousands of visitors annually. For many visitors, Muir 

Woods National Monument would continue to provide their initial experience with the 

national park system. Overall management of the monument would continue to be guided 

by the 1980 general management plan. Key park objectives would include fostering a 

conservation ethic among visitors, preserving and restoring habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, supporting public transportation as a way to reduce congestion, and 

promoting a watershed perspective in land management that includes Mount Tamalpais 

State Park, two water districts, an organic farm, equestrian stables, and local 

communities. 

Some Potential Impacts of the No-action Alternative

• Current conditions would continue to cause loss of habitat integrity; however, 

restoration efforts and educational activities would result in some beneficial impacts. 

• Continued piecemeal approach to preservation and maintenance of historic buildings 

and structures would result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

those structures. 

• Continuation of current conditions would result in long-term, moderate, adverse 

impacts on park collections. 

• Continuation of existing opportunities would result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts to the visitor experience; however, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts would continue from congestion, use conflicts, and limited access to some 

areas.

• Existing transit service would have a long-term, minor to major, adverse impact on 

access to popular sites, and minor impacts to transportation in other areas. 

• Existing staffing levels would result in continued long-term, moderate, adverse 

impacts to park operations; volunteer programs would continue to have beneficial 

impacts to operations. 

• Existing funding would result in long-term, major, adverse impacts to park facilities; 

existing facilities would result in long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to operations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: xiv

Alternative 1: Connecting People with the Parks 

Alternative 1 is the National Park Service’s preferred alternative for park lands in 

Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties. The preferred alternative for 

Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument is alternative 3. 

Concept

The emphasis of this alternative is to reach out and engage the community and other 

visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of the park’s resources and 

values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect 

people with the resources, and promote enjoyment, understanding, preservation, and 

health—all as ways to reinvigorate the human spirit. Visitor opportunities would be 

relevant to diverse populations now and in the future. 

Goals

Visitor Experience

• Actively seek opportunities to respond to the needs and interests of the diversity of 

visitors. 

• Encourage visitors to engage in a wide range of opportunities and experiences in a 

diversity of settings. 

• Enhance outreach and access to and within park lands and make them welcoming 

places to visit.

• Foster the visitor’s deep personal connection to the park and discovery of the values 

and enjoyment of the natural environment. 

• Encourage hands-on stewardship through visitor opportunities that promote personal 

health and responsibility.

Cultural Resources

• Maximize adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of cultural resources (structures, 

landscapes, and archeological sites) to support visitor enjoyment, understanding, and 

community connections. 

• Work with interested groups and populations to preserve and protect cultural 

resources.

• Preserve and protect cultural resources so that visitors can connect with and 

appreciate these resources and their stories.

Natural Resources

• Maintain the integrity and diversity of natural resources and systems.

• Enhance public access to natural resources to promote visitor understanding and 

appreciation. 
Executive Summary

Volume I: xv

• Integrate natural resource preservation and concepts with visitor stewardship 

opportunities to deepen visitor understanding. 

Key Elements

Park Lands in Marin County (Preferred Alternative)

Park managers would preserve the qualities that are enjoyed today and would improve 

access to the park for all visitors. They would work to preserve and restore 

interconnected coastal ecosystems through collaborative partnerships with other land 

management agencies in the region. A stronger national park identity and message would 

welcome people as they arrive, and improved orientation and information services would 

inform them of the variety of experiences available in the park. Important park 

operational uses would remain in the Marin Headlands, and the facilities at these sites 

would be improved.

Sustainable approaches to rehabilitating the visitor facilities that are in place today would 

improve trailheads and trails, as well as roads, parking lots, campsites, picnic areas, 

restrooms, and other structures at popular destinations. Some new facilities would be 

developed to improve visitor services and support the growing stewardship programs. 

Park partners would continue to have an important role in preserving resources and 

offering programs and services to visitors in support of the park’s mission. Public 

transportation and multimodal access to park sites would be improved. 

Park Lands in San Francisco (Preferred Alternative)

The park lands in San Francisco would be managed to preserve and enhance a variety of 

settings, and improve and expand the facilities that welcome and support visitors. 

The identity of these diverse park sites as part of the national park system would be 

strengthened. Visitors would be introduced to the park and the national park system 

through facilities, informational media, and programming at popular arrival nodes and 

recreational destinations.

This alternative would emphasize the importance of education, civic engagement, and 

healthy outdoor recreation, including offering nature experiences to city children and 

their families. Existing and new facilities, including a state-of-the-art museum collection 

facility, would support visitor enjoyment, learning, and community-based natural and 

cultural resource stewardship. Recreational and stewardship opportunities would promote 

healthy parks and healthy communities. This alternative would engage the community to 

revitalize coastal park areas such as Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and Lands End, 

incorporating measures to address sustainability and climate change.

The park staff would continue to improve trails and trailheads throughout the San 

Francisco park lands to make the park accessible to the broadest array of visitors. Sites 

would be connected to each other and to communities by the trail system and the city’s 

transit and multimodal access systems. 

Park Lands in San Mateo County (Preferred Alternative)

Park lands and ocean environments in San Mateo County would be managed as part of a 

vast network of protected lands and waters, some recognized as part of the UNESCO 

Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve. Park managers would emphasize connectivity, 

preservation, and restoration of the area’s vital ecosystems through collaborative 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: xvi

partnerships with other land management agencies. Strategic adjustments to the park’s 

boundary would enhance the long-term preservation of ecological values.

This alternative would focus on the importance of improving access and community 

engagement in these newest park lands. Key efforts would include improving the 

visibility and identity of National Park Service sites. Park trails would be improved to 

create a sustainable system that provides opportunities to enjoy park sites, connects with 

local communities, and contributes to an exceptional regional trail network. Equestrian 

facilities would continue to have an important role in recreation and stewardship. A 

comprehensive trail plan would be prepared to help achieve these goals. Park managers 

would work with county transit providers to improve transit connections to local 

trailheads and east–west transit between bayside communities and State Route 1.

The addition of signs and trailheads would help visitors find their way to various park 

sites and help them gain an understanding of the park’s diverse natural and cultural 

resources. Equestrian needs would be incorporated in trailhead and trail design. 

There could be additional facilities that welcome visitors to the park. This alternative 

would promote visitor information and orientation centers in Pacifica and in coastside

communities. These facilities could be shared with San Mateo County Department of 

Parks, California State Parks, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, local 

governments, and other organizations. 

Alcatraz Island

Alcatraz Island would be managed to provide an expanded variety of settings and 

experiences that would connect visitors to the greater breadth of the island’s resources 

and stories. The park would seek to enrich the scenic, recreational, and educational 

opportunities in the heart of San Francisco Bay. 

Visitors would have access to the majority of the island’s historic structures and 

landscapes to experience the layers of island history and its natural resources and settings. 

Many of the indoor and outdoor spaces currently inaccessible to visitors would be 

reopened to expand the range of available activities. 

All historic structures would be preserved; most would be rehabilitated and adaptively 

reused for visitor activities and park operations. Food service, meeting and program 

space, and overnight accommodations (possibly including a hostel or camp site) would be 

provided. 

Sensitive wildlife areas, such as the shoreline, would be protected. Park managers would 

provide visitors with opportunities to see wildlife and nesting waterbirds and to 

participate in resource stewardship activities. Gulls would be managed to reduce conflicts 

in visitor use areas.

Muir Woods National Monument

The park would offer visitors the opportunity to experience and enjoy the primeval forest 

ecosystem and understand the monument’s place in American conservation history 

through a variety of enhanced programs, facilities, and trails that access the forest and 

connect local communities to the park and surrounding open space. 

While much of the present system of trails through the forest would be retained, some 

existing facilities and use areas, such as the entrance area and parking lots, would be 
Executive Summary

Volume I: xvii

modified or relocated to reduce their impacts on the ecosystem and improve the park 

experience.

The monument would continue to welcome a diversity of visitors and support a range of 

experiences, better serving as a gateway or stepping stone to understanding the national 

park system.

An offsite welcome center for the shuttle system, with parking and visitor services, would 

be an important first point for orientation and a key to providing sustainable access to the 

monument. 

Collaboration with other public land managers would continue to address watershed 

restoration and stewardship needs.

Some Potential Impacts of Alternative 1

• Elimination of unneeded roads and removal of unneeded structures would result in 

long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife; some construction activities 

would have short-term adverse impacts; education and stewardship programs would 

result in long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts both locally and parkwide. 

• Strengthening the integrity and adaptive use of historic structures would result in 

general overall long-term, beneficial impacts, although some localized loss of historic 

fabric would occur.

• Establishing a curatorial and research facility would have a long-term, beneficial 

impact on park collections. 

• New facilities, increased diversity of opportunities, and purposeful effort to engage 

more diverse audiences would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts to 

visitor services. 

• Improved access to park sites, increased transit services, and improved trails would 

result in long-term, minor to major, beneficial impacts to transportation. 

• An increase in park staffing would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts 

to park operations. 

• Activities that address deferred maintenance issues and proposed changes to facilities 

would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts to park operations. 

Alternative 2: Preserving and Enjoying Coastal 

Ecosystems 

Concept

The emphasis of this alternative is to preserve, enhance, and promote dynamic and 

interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently 

featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about 

and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the 

region’s international significance and history. Facilities and other built infrastructure 

could be removed to reconnect fragmented habitats and to achieve other ecosystem goals.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: xviii

Goals

Visitor Experience

• Connect visitors with resources and the park through expanded and diverse science 

and stewardship programs that are focused on preservation and restoration of coastal 

and marine resources and address the implications of climate change.

• Provide greater opportunities for visitors to explore wild areas and immerse 

themselves in nature.

• Manage low-impact visitor use that enhances the qualities of solitude, quiet, and 

naturalness in sensitive natural resource areas, and accommodate active recreational 

pursuits in other areas.

• Increase visitor understanding, awareness, and support for coastal resources through 

participation in stories and programs about human interaction with, and dependency 

on, natural resources.

Cultural Resources

• Incorporate the history of conservation and the collections related to natural resources 

to raise awareness of ongoing efforts to conserve marine ecosystems.

• In park interpretation and education programs, emphasize sites and stories connected 

to coastal resources, including shipwrecks, archeological sites, agricultural lands and 

uses, coastal defense, and lighthouses, so visitors can connect with those resources. 

• Maximize adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of cultural resources to support visitor 

enjoyment, understanding, and community connections. 

• Work with interested groups and populations to preserve and protect cultural 

resources.

• Preserve and protect cultural resources so that visitors can connect with and 

appreciate these resources and their stories.

Natural Resources

• Reconnect fragmented habitat within and adjacent to the park to strengthen the 

integrity and resiliency of the coastal ecosystem to respond to climate change and 

urban pressures.

• Optimize recovery of special status species and survival of wide-ranging wildlife.

• Restore natural processes and/or allow these processes to evolve unimpeded to the 

greatest degree feasible.

• Promote partnerships to help the park become a center for innovative coastal science, 

stewardship, and learning.

Key Elements

Park Lands in Marin County

In this alternative, management would strive to further preserve and restore the dynamic, 

interconnected coastal ecosystems at the core of protected lands through collaborative 
Executive Summary

Volume I: xix

regional partnerships. Partners would work on common goals to sustain the area’s native 

biodiversity, reconnect fragmented habitats and migration corridors, minimize the impact 

of invasive species, manage for changing fire regimes, protect threatened and endangered 

species, and restore naturally functioning ecosystems. Proactive management would work 

to build resiliency to climate change into the natural environment. 

Marin County’s park lands and waters would be highlighted as living laboratories, 

engaging visitors in participatory science, education, and stewardship to nurture personal 

connections with nature and inspire advocacy.

Opportunities to explore trails and beaches would further highlight the park’s coastal 

natural and cultural resources. Cultural resource sites and stories would emphasize human 

occupation of the coastal environment, as reflected in lighthouses, coastal defense 

structures, archeological sites, and agricultural land uses.

Park Lands in San Francisco

While welcoming visitors to the park, this alternative would focus on engaging visitors, 

local communities, and partners in participatory science, education, and stewardship 

focused on the coastal environment.

Park management, in collaboration with community partners, would demonstrate 

leadership in proactive adaptation and management in the face of climate change and 

accelerated sea level rise. Interpretive messages would reach visitors enjoying the coastal 

environment along the San Francisco Bay Trail and the California Coastal Trail. Cultural 

resource sites and stories would also highlight the human connection to the coastal 

environment; sites and stories would include archeological sites, European exploration, 

maritime history, and coastal defense.

Park Lands in San Mateo County

As in the other alternatives, park lands and ocean environments in San Mateo County 

would be managed as part of a vast network of protected lands and waters. In this 

alternative, however, park managers would emphasize work to preserve and restore these 

interconnected coastal ecosystems through collaborative partnerships with other land 

management agencies in the region. Together these groups would work to sustain the 

area’s native biodiversity, reconnect fragmented habitats and migration corridors, 

minimize the impact of invasive species, manage for changing fire regimes, and restore 

naturally functioning ecosystems. Proactive management would build into the 

environment greater resiliency to climate change.

Park lands in San Mateo County provide an extensive wildlife corridor that includes 

habitat for threatened and endangered species. These lands would serve as living 

laboratories, engaging visitors in participatory science, education, and stewardship—

activities that nurture personal connections with nature and inspire advocacy.

Exploration along the vast network of trails would further highlight the park’s diverse 

ecosystems and rich cultural resources. Cultural resource sites and stories—archeological 

sites, European exploration, agricultural land uses, coastal defense sites, and the 

lighthouse—would emphasize human occupation of the coastal environment. Most 

cultural resources would be stabilized if not in conflict with natural resource restoration.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: xx

Land protection strategies would seek to reconnect fragmented endangered species 

habitat and strive to remove features that impede movement or migration of species, or 

disrupt ecological function.

Alcatraz Island

The island’s inhospitable and isolated—yet strategic—location at the entry to the Golden 

Gate and San Francisco Bay would be highlighted. The island’s past and present 

significance to colonial nesting birds and its layers of human history—the Civil War 

fortress, the lighthouse, the prison and penitentiary—all derive from its position in the 

bay. 

The island’s changing natural and built landscape would continue to evolve, further 

enhancing habitat for nesting birds. Only those buildings and features necessary to 

maintain the island’s national historic landmark status would be preserved; the natural 

elements would reclaim other features as part of the wilding of Alcatraz Island. 

Visitors would be immersed in opportunities that showcase the island’s isolation, its 

natural resources, and all the layers of history that can be found at the Main Prison 

Building. Visitor experiences would include outdoor learning, and natural and cultural 

resource stewardship programming delivered in partnership with Bay Area nonprofits. 

While access would be managed to protect sensitive resources, visitors would be able to 

more freely explore, discover, and experience nature reclaiming Alcatraz Island, and 

understand the role the island plays in the broader marine ecosystem (reaching from San 

Francisco Bay to the Farallon Islands) as a result of its strategic location.

Muir Woods National Monument

Park management would seek to restore the primeval character of the old-growth 

redwood forest. Visitors would be immersed in the forest, and could experience the 

natural sounds, smells, light, and darkness of the forest. The experience would be more 

primitive than it is today; the majority of the built environment—buildings, parking lots, 

paved trails—would be removed, and all visitors would arrive by shuttle, bicycle, or on 

foot. The landscape would be “messier” than it is today, but the forest would function 

more naturally: Redwood Creek would be allowed to meander across the floodplain, 

flooding the valley bottom, uprooting trees, and opening gaps in the canopy. 

Where not in conflict with natural resource goals, historic trails and structures could be 

retained or adapted for contemporary uses. A light-on-the-land, accessible trail would 

reach into the heart of the forest. Visitors would engage in participatory stewardship, 

education, and science that further the preservation of the forest and all its parts—the 

creek, salmon, spotted owls, bats, natural sounds—as part of the continuing history and 

evolution of the land preservation and conservation movement. 

An offsite welcome center for the shuttle system, with parking and visitor services, would 

be an important first point for orientation and a key to providing sustainable access to the 

monument. 

Restoration of the Redwood Creek watershed would be accelerated in collaboration with 

other land managers. Actions would include the removal of unneeded management roads, 

stabilization of sediment sources, and removal of invasive vegetation, as well as removal 

of streambank stabilization structures in Redwood Creek, removal and possible relocation 

of some pedestrian bridges, and restoration of natural floodplain function. 
Executive Summary

Volume I: xxi

Some Potential Impacts of Alternative 2

• Elimination of unneeded roads and removal of unneeded structures would result in 

long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife; some construction and 

restoration activities (such as the removal of structures) would have short-term 

adverse impacts; education and stewardship programs would result in long-term, 

minor-to moderate, beneficial impacts both locally and parkwide.

• Actions could result in impacts to historic structures that range from long term and 

beneficial (because of improved treatment) to permanent and adverse because of 

adaptive use and potential for coastal erosion. 

• This alternative would result in both beneficial and adverse, long-term, moderate 

impacts to the cultural landscape at Alcatraz Island 

• Establishing a curatorial and research facility would have a long-term, beneficial 

impact on park collections. 

• Regulation and restrictions on some visitor activities and access to some areas might 

have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the visitor experience. On Alcatraz 

Island, increased conflicts between visitors and an expanding bird population could 

result in long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to the visitor experience. At Muir 

Woods, exclusive access by shuttle could restrict the number of visitors to the 

monument. 

• A reduction in parking at Stinson Beach could have a long-term, major, adverse 

impact or a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on transportation, depending on 

concurrent efforts. 

• An increase in park staffing would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts 

to park operations. 

• Activities that address deferred maintenance issues would result in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts to park operations; difficulty for public safety personnel 

to reach more primitive areas would result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts to 

operations. 

Alternative 3: Focusing on National Treasures

Alternative 3 is the National Park Service’s preferred alternative for Alcatraz 

Island and Muir Woods National Monument. The preferred alternative for park 

lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties is alternative 1. 

Concept

The emphasis of this alternative is to focus on, or showcase, the park’s nationally 

important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased 

site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in 

perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. 

Visitors would have the opportunity to explore the wide variety of experiences that are 

associated with many different types of national parks—all in Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument. All other resources would be 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: xxii

managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor 

experiences.

Goals

Visitor Experience

• Provide visitors with opportunities to explore, learn, and enjoy the park’s unique 

resources and stories.

• Allow the park’s distinctive resources and associated stories to shape recreational 

opportunities. 

• Emphasize active public participation in stewardship programs at the showcased 

sites.

• Provide visitors with opportunities for understanding and enjoying national park 

experiences.

Cultural Resources

• Emphasize the preservation of fundamental cultural resources that contribute to the 

national significance of the park, including national historic landmarks. Manage all 

other resources to complement the significant resources and visitor experiences.

• Tie associated cultural resources, museum collections, and stories to the showcased 

sites.

• Preserve and protect cultural resources to highlight the interpretive and educational 

values and provide, wherever possible, direct contact with the resources.

Natural Resources

• Emphasize the preservation of fundamental natural resources that contribute to the 

significance of each park unit. Manage all other resources to complement the 

distinctive resources and experiences.

• Protect or restore the integrity of fundamental natural resources and processes that 

support the significance of each park unit.

• Manage distinctive natural resources to ensure their ecological integrity while 

providing opportunities to engage the visitors in hands-on stewardship and 

exploration. 

Key Elements

Park Lands in Marin County

The park would be a welcoming place with a vast network of open space that protects 

natural and cultural resources and offers many forms of recreation in a setting of national 

importance. The park would highlight several nationally important sites, including Muir 

Woods, the Golden Gate, the coastal setting of the State Route 1 National Scenic Byway, 

and the historic Army posts on the Marin Headlands. 
Executive Summary

Volume I: xxiii

Although this alternative shares many characteristics of alternatives 1 and 2, the 

management of the Marin Headlands’ historic core would be very different. Sheltering 

the best-preserved collection of seacoast fortifications in the country, the Marin 

Headlands tell the story of two centuries of evolving weapons technology and the 

nation’s unwavering efforts to protect the Golden Gate. As a result, this alternative would 

focus on immersing visitors in its compelling sites and history, actively using and 

interpreting preserved structures and landscapes ranging from Battery Townsley to the 

Nike Missile Launch Site.

Other important nonmilitary landmarks, such as the Point Bonita Lighthouse, also would 

be preserved and interpreted for visitors. 

Park Lands in San Francisco 

The focus would be on the collection of historic sites and the dynamic coastal landscape 

that defines San Francisco’s edge, from Fort Mason to Fort Funston. Visitors would be 

welcomed to the park, with a focus on the nationally important sites that are connected by 

the San Francisco Bay Trail and California Coastal Trail, thus creating a scenic and 

historic corridor. 

Park lands in San Francisco encompass a significant collection of historic sites, ranging 

from the Civil War era at Black Point in Fort Mason to the World War II era military 

coastal fortifications at Fort Funston. These sites are located amid a windswept coastal 

environment, featuring rocky bluffs, acres of dunes, sandy beaches, and fragile native 

habitat. 

Under this alternative, the park staff would expand interpretive programs and visitor 

services at these popular destinations to enable residents and visitors to further appreciate 

the significant landmarks and landscapes at the Golden Gate.

Park Lands in San Mateo County

As in the other alternatives, park lands and ocean environments in San Mateo County 

would be managed as part of a vast network of protected lands and waters. This 

alternative, however, would highlight how this “quilt” of undeveloped land has been 

protected by numerous organizations. Over the past 25 years, the National Park Service, 

local governments, private land trusts, and dedicated individuals have worked together to 

acquire and preserve this “wilderness” next door.

Today, these lands are a national treasure of recreational, natural, and cultural resources. 

Several nationally significant historic sites are in San Mateo County, along with habitat 

for numerous endangered species. Many of these important resources are managed by 

other agencies on nearby sites. This alternative would focus on protecting resources in the 

park while developing recreational and interpretive connections between sites managed 

by other land managers. 

Park management would also look beyond the immediate park lands to explore the 

potential to stimulate regional landscape management and enhance heritage tourism. To 

do so, park managers would work with communities between Pacifica and Santa Cruz to 

support strategies such as national scenic byway designation for the Pacific Coast 

Highway (State Route 1). The highway is one of the distinguishing and unifying features 

of the rural coast that is characterized by forested hills, small-scale agriculture, and 

seaside communities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: xxiv

Alcatraz Island (Preferred Alternative)

This is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island. This alternative would immerse 

visitors extensively in all of Alcatraz Island’s historic periods, including the Civil War 

military fortifications and prison, federal penitentiary, and American Indian occupation. 

Alcatraz Island’s history would be interpreted, first and foremost with tangible and 

accessible historic resources, including the structures, cultural landscape, archeology, and 

museum collection. These resources contribute to the island’s national historic landmark 

status and its recognition as an international icon.

The visitor’s immersion in Alcatraz Island history would begin on a ferry from one or 

more embarkation points that could be expanded to include the original Alcatraz dock at 

Fort Mason. Passing a line of warning buoys, the experience would continue at the 

island’s arrival dock area, where visitors would have greater access to restored portions 

of Building 64, the historic barracks. Visitors would ascend to the Main Prison Building 

through a landscape of preserved historic structures and features. While the primary 

visitor experience would focus on the federal penitentiary, visitors also would be exposed 

to other periods of history, literally and programmatically. 

This alternative would require extensive stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration of 

historic buildings and small-scale landscapes features, as well as creative interpretative 

and educational programs and visitor services. It would create additional opportunities for 

cultural resource stewardship programs.

Visitors would have opportunities to learn about the natural history of San Francisco Bay. 

The colonial waterbird habitat that has grown in regional importance would be protected, 

enhanced, and interpreted. Visitors could explore the island perimeter, managed to 

protect sensitive bird populations while providing opportunities to observe them or 

participate in stewardship activities. The large population of gulls would be managed to 

reduce conflicts in primary visitor use areas like the Parade Ground. 

Muir Woods National Monument (Preferred Alternative) 

This is the preferred alternative for Muir Woods National Monument. This alternative 

would present the monument as a contemplative outdoor museum where visitors would 

discover the primeval redwood forest and the monument’s place in the early United 

States conservation movement. 

A system of trails would lead visitors into the forest to feel, see, and learn, in different 

ways, about the essential qualities of the forest. These qualities include its giant trees, the 

ecology of Redwood Creek, and William Kent’s generous donation of the forest to the 

American public. Rather than continue to concentrate visitation along a main trail, 

visitors would be encouraged to take different thematic interpretive trails, some new and 

some existing, to experience the different parts of the park. Other trails would link the 

monument with the surrounding Mount Tamalpais State Park. 

Some existing facilities and use areas, such as the entrance area and parking lots, would 

be modified or relocated to reduce their impacts on the ecosystem and improve the park 

experience.

An offsite welcome center for the shuttle system, with parking and visitor services, would 

be an important first point for orientation and a key to providing sustainable access to the 

monument. 
Executive Summary

Volume I: xxv

Visitors would continue to be drawn to the monument to see the trees, but they would 

leave with a richer understanding of this precious ecosystem and how the saving of these 

few acres helped spark conservation across the United States. They would be motivated 

to return and learn more of the story. 

The National Park Service would continue to collaborate with the public and other land 

managers to address watershed restoration, stewardship, and recreation. 

Some Potential Impacts of Alternative 3

• Because nationally significant buildings would be rehabilitated and showcased, this 

alternative would have comprehensive, long-term, beneficial impacts to historic 

structures. 

• There would be some loss of cultural landscape features, but historically significant 

cultural landscapes with integrity would be rehabilitated and showcased; this would 

result in long-term, beneficial impacts to cultural landscapes.

• Elimination of unneeded roads and removal of unneeded structures would result in 

long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife; some construction activities 

would have short-term adverse impacts; education and stewardship programs would 

result in long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts both locally and parkwide. 

• Establishing a curatorial and research facility would have a long-term, beneficial 

impact on park collections. 

• Establishing a preservation stewardship workshop on Alcatraz Island would have a 

long-term, beneficial impact on cultural resources.

• Improved access and connectivity and increased opportunities for visitors to 

understand, appreciate, and help preserve fundamental resources would result in 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts to the visitor experience; some changes to 

existing opportunities would result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts 

on those who use those areas now. 

• Additional ferry embarkation points would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact on transportation to Alcatraz Island; trail expansion and improvement on the 

island would also have a long-term, beneficial impact.

• An increase in park staffing would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts 

to park operations. 

• Activities that address deferred maintenance issues and changes to facilities would 

result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts to park operations 

ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

The costs of the proposals within each alternative are summarized in the following table. 

The last column, titled “Total, Preferred Alternative” represents the costs associated with 

the implementation of the preferred alternative: alternative 3 for Alcatraz Island and Muir 

Woods National Monument and alternative 1 for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and 

San Mateo Counties, as well as the costs common to all alternatives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: xxvi

The alternatives describe the maximum potential capital improvements; lesser 

improvements may be implemented, or built in phases if necessary. The implementation 

of the approved plan will depend on future funding. The approval of this plan does not 

guarantee that the funding and staffing needed to implement the plan will be forthcoming. 

Full implementation of the actions in the approved general management plan could be 

many years in the future. Additionally, some of the future long-term funding needed to 

implement the various actions called for in the alternatives is anticipated to come from 

nonfederal partners, consistent with the park’s current practices.

Summary of Costs Associated with the Implementation of the Alternatives

No-action 

Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total, 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Recurring Costs

Annual 

Operating 

Costs

$28,030,000 $32,000,000 $31,090,000 $31,630,000 $32,000,000

Muir Woods 

Shuttle 

Operations

$340,000 $600,000-

$1,400,000

$4,000,000-

$9,500,000

$600,000-

$1,400,000

$600,000-

$1,400,000

Staffing 

(additional 

FTE)

334 (+0) 380 (+46) 369 (+35) 377 (+43) 380 (+46)

One-time Capital Costs

Alcatraz Island $4,260,000 $61,190,000 $37,440,000 $54,380,000 $54,380,000

Park Lands in 

Marin, San 

Francisco, and 

San Mateo 

Counties

$5,280,000 $46,710,000 $47,250,000 $78,210,000 $46,710,000

Muir Woods 

National 

Monument

$920,000 $15,900,000 $16,870,000 $17,790,000 $17,790,000 

Common To 

All Action 

Alternatives

$0 $31,020,000 $31,020,000 $31,020,000 $31,020,000 

Total One-time 

Capital Costs 

$10,460,000 $154,820,000 $132,580,000 $181,400,000 $149,900,000 

All costs in 2009 dollars

NOTES REGARDING SUMMARY OF COSTS TABLE: 

1 Annual operating costs are the total costs per year for maintenance and operations associated 

with each alternative, including utilities, supplies, staff salaries and benefits, and leasing. 
Executive Summary

Volume I: xxvii

2 The total number of FTEs (full-time equivalents) is the number of person-years of staff required to 

maintain the assets of the park at a good level, provide acceptable visitor services, protect 

resources, and generally support the park’s operations. The FTE number indicates ONPS-funded 

NPS staff only, not volunteer positions or positions funded by partners. (ONPS funds are funds 

designated for the “Operation of the National Park Service.”) FTEs are from the 2010 Green 

Book, adjusted to reflect loss of 32 structural fire positions.

3 One-time costs for the no-action alternative only include costs associated with projects already 

approved and fully funded. 

4 Total includes costs for both Essential/Priority and Desirable/Lower Priority Projects. 

Essential/Priority projects are required to preserve fundamental resources and experiences and 

would likely require federal funding. Desirable/Lower Priority projects are important to full 

implementation of the alternative but may be accomplished with nonfederal funds or in later 

phases. 

5 Acquisition costs for proposed boundary adjustments are not included in this presentation of 

costs.

Essential/Priority* One-time Capital Costs for the Preferred Alternative

Facility 

Rehabilitation 

Historic 

Preservation 

Natural 

Resource 

Restoration 

Facility 

Removal

New 

Construction 

Total

Alcatraz 

Island

$0 $38,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $38,300,000

Park Lands in 

Marin, San 

Francisco, 

and San 

Mateo 

Counties

$11,500,000 $8,430,000 $4,470,000 $250,000 $980,000 $25,630,000

Muir Woods 

National 

Monument

$9,150,000 $340,000 $4,700,000 $720,000 $2,230,000 $17,140,000

Common to 

All Action 

Alternatives

$0 $12,560,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,560,000

Total Onetime Capital 

Cost

$20,650,000 $59,630,000 $9,170,000 $970,000 $3,210,000 $93,630,000

*Essential/Priority projects are required to preserve fundamental resources and experiences and 

would likely require federal funding. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Volume I: xxviii

Desirable/Lower Priority* One-time Capital Costs for the Preferred Alternative

Facility 

Rehabilitation 

Historic 

Preservation 

Natural 

Resource

Restoration

Facility 

Removal

New Construction Total

Alcatraz 

Island

$0 $16,080,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,080,000

Park Lands 

in Marin, 

San 

Francisco, 

and San 

Mateo 

Counties

$8,980,000 $8,730,000 $0 $0 $3,370,000 $21,080,000

Muir Woods 

National 

Monument

$0 $650,000 $0 $0 $0 $650,000

Common to 

All Action 

Alternatives

$0 $1,830,000 $0 $0 $16,630,000 $18,460,000

Total Onetime Capital 

Cost

$8,980,000 $27,290,000 $0 $0 $20,000,000 $56,270,000

*Desirable/Lower Priority projects are important to full implementation of the alternative but may be 

accomplished with nonfederal funds or many years in the future. 

THE NEXT STEPS

After the distribution of the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement, there will be a 60-day public review and comment period. The National Park 

Service welcomes comments on the draft plan and will host a series of public meetings to 

facilitate public involvement in refining the draft plan. After this comment period, the 

planning team will evaluate comments from other federal agencies, tribes, organizations, 

businesses, and individuals regarding the draft plan and incorporate appropriate changes 

into a final plan. The final plan will include a summary of any substantive comments 

received and the National Park Service’s responses to those comments.

Following distribution of the Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement and a 30-day no-action period, a record of decision approving a final plan will 

be signed by the National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Director. The record of 

decision will document the selection of an alternative for implementation. With the 

signing of the record of decision, the plan can then be implemented. 

Once the planning process is completed, the selected alternative will become the new 

management plan for the park and will be implemented over the next 20 years. It is 

important to note that all of the actions in the selected alternative will require more 

detailed study and implementation planning. 
Volume I: xxix

CONTENTS

PART 1: BACKGROUND 

Introduction 3

Purpose and Need 5

Guiding Principles for Park Management 7

Sustainability 7 

Community-Based Stewardship 7 

Civic Engagement 7 

Partnerships 7 

Regional Collaboration 8 

Inclusion 8 

The Planning Area 9

Foundation Statements: Guidance for Planning 13

Park Purpose 13

Park Significance 13

Fundamental Resources and Values 14

Primary Interpretive Themes 14

Foundation Statements for Golden Gate National Recreation Area 15

Park Purpose 15

Foundation Statements for Muir Woods National Monument 23

Park Purpose 23

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments Related to Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area 25

Land Acquisition 25

Management and Administration 25

Peninsula Watershed Conservation Easement 26

Other Easements 26

Tidelands and Submerged Lands Lease 26

Lighthouses 27

Planning Issues 28

Issues to be Addressed 28

Issues That Will Not Be Addressed 34

Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans 35

NPS Land Use Plans for Golden Gate National Recreation Area Sites Not Included 

in the General Management Plan 35

Current Plans For Other Park Areas Not Managed By the National Park Service 

39

Other National Park Service Plans 39

Other Federal Plans 41

State and Regional Plans 41

County and Local Plans 42

Related Laws and National Park Service Policies 43
CONTENTS

Volume I: xxx

PART 2: BUILDING THE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Introduction 47

Concepts for Future Management 49

Concept 1: Connecting People with the Parks (evolved into Alternative 1) 49

Concept 2: Preserving and Enjoying Coastal Ecosystems (evolved into Alternative 

2) 50

Concept 3: Focusing on National Treasures (evolved into Alternative 3) 51

Actions and Alternatives Considered but Dismissed From Further Consideration 53

Mosaic of National Park Experiences 53

Collaborating Regionally 54

Full Restoration of Buildings and Landscapes on Alcatraz Island 54

Selection of the National Park Service Preferred Alternatives 55

Management Zones 57

PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Introduction 101

Boundary Adjustments 102

Goals 102

Proposed Boundary Adjustments 103

Potential Future Boundary Adjustments 110

Climate Change 117

Goals 117

Management Strategies 118

Facilities for Maintenance, Public Safety, and Collections Storage 121

Goals for Maintenance and Public Safety 121

Goals for Collection Storage Facilities 123

Costs of eLEMENTS Common to All aCTION Alternatives 123

Facilities Not Directly Related to the Park Mission 125

Goals 125

Management Strategies 126

Native American Engagement 127

Goals 127

Management Strategies 128

Ocean Stewardship 129

Introduction 129

Goals and Management Strategies 129

Park Collections 133

Introduction 133

Goals and Management Strategies 133

Partnerships 135

Trails 137

Introduction 137

Goals and Management Strategies 137

Transportation 140
Contents

Volume I: xxxi

Goals 140

Management Strategies 140

PART 4: THE ALTERNATIVES FOR ALCATRAZ ISLAND 

No-action Alternative 145

Overview 145

Ferry Embarkation 145

Arrival Area 146

Main Prison Area 146

Lighthouse 146

North End of the Island 147

Island Perimeter 147

Offshore Bay Environment 147

Sustainability 147

Cost Estimates 147

Alternative 1: Connecting People with the Parks 151

Overview 151

Ferry Embarkation 151

Arrival Area 152

Main Prison Area 152

Lighthouse 153

North End of the Island 153

Island Perimeter 153

Offshore Bay Environment 153

Sustainability 154

Cost Estimates 154

Alternative 2: Preserving and Enjoying Coastal Ecosystems 159

Overview 159

Ferry Embarkation 159

Arrival Area 160

Main Prison Area 160

Lighthouse 161

North End of the Island 161

Island Perimeter 161

Offshore Bay Environment 161

Sustainability 162

Cost Estimates 162

Alternative 3: Focusing on National Treasures The Preferred Alternative 167

Overview 167

Ferry Embarkation 167

Arrival Area 168

Main Prison Area 168

Lighthouse 169

North End of the Island 169

Island Perimeter 169

Offshore Bay Environment 170

Sustainability 170

Cost Estimates 170

Summary Cost Estimates for Alcatraz Island 176
CONTENTS

Volume I: xxxii

Deferred Maintenance 177

Environmentally Preferable Alternative for Alcatraz Island 178

Summary Tables of the Alternatives for Alcatraz Island 180

PART 5: THE ALTERNATIVES FOR PARK LANDS IN MARIN, SAN FRANCISCO, 

AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES 

No-action Alternative 187

Park Lands in Marin County 187

Park Lands in San Francisco 191

Park Lands in San Mateo County 193

Cost Estimates 196

Management Zones for the No-action Alternative (from the 1980 general 

management plan) 198

Alternative 1: Connecting People with the Parks The Preferred Alternative 203

Park Lands in Marin County 203

Park Lands in San Francisco 211

Park Lands in San Mateo County 216

Cost Estimates 223

Alternative 2: Preserving and Enjoying Coastal Ecosystems 235

Park Lands in Marin County 235

Park Lands in San Francisco 239

Park Lands in San Mateo County 242

Cost Estimates 245

Alternative 3: Focusing on National Treasures 255

Park Lands in Marin County 255

Park Lands in San Francisco 258

Park Lands in San Mateo County 261

Cost Estimates 263

Summary Costs Estimates for Park Lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo 

Counties 273

Deferred Maintenance 275

Environmentally Preferable Alternative for Park Lands in Marin, San Francisco, and 

San Mateo Counties 276

Summary Tables of the Alternatives for Park Lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San 

Mateo Counties 279

PART 6: THE ALTERNATIVES FOR MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

No-action Alternative 297

Overview 297

Arrival 297

Redwood Forest and Redwood Creek 298

Muir Woods Addition (also known as Camino del Canyon, Conlon Avenue, and 

Druid Heights) 298

Cost Estimates 298
Contents

Volume I: xxxiii

Alternative 1: Connecting People with the Parks 303

Overview 303

Arrival 303

Redwood Forest and Redwood Creek 304

Muir Woods Addition (also known as Camino del Canyon, Conlon Avenue, and 

Druid Heights) 305

Kent Canyon, Mount Tamalpais State Park 305

Cost Estimates 305

Alternative 2: Preserving and Enjoying Coastal Ecosystems 311

Overview 311

Arrival 311

Redwood Forest and Redwood Creek 312

Muir Woods Addition (also known as Camino del Canyon, Conlon Avenue, and 

Druid Heights) 313

Kent Canyon 313

Cost Estimates 313

Alternative 3: Focusing on National Treasures The Preferred Alternative 317

Overview 317

Arrival 317

Redwood Forest and Redwood Creek 318

Muir Woods Addition (also known as Camino del Canyon, Conlon Avenue, and 

Druid Heights) 319

Kent Canyon 320

Cost Estimates 320

Summary of Costs Estimates for Muir Woods National Monument 326

Deferred Maintenance 327

Environmentally Preferable Alternative for Muir Woods National Monument 328

Summary Tables for Muir Woods National Monument 330

INDEX 

Index to Volume l 343

 
CONTENTS

Volume I: xxxiv

TABLES

Table 1: Management Zones 57

Table 2: Essential/Priority* One-time Capital Costs for Actions Common to All 

Alternatives 124

Table 3: Desirable/Lower Priority* One-time Capital Costs for Actions Common to All 

Alternatives 124

Table 4: One-time Costs for the No-action Alternative for Alcatraz Island 148

Table 5: One-time Costs for Alternative 1 for Alcatraz Island 155

Table 6: One-time Costs for Alternative 2 for Alcatraz Island 163

Table 7: One-time Costs for Alternative 3 for Alcatraz Island 171

Table 8: Summary of Costs Associated with the Implementation of the Alternatives for 

Alcatraz Island 176

Table 9: Reductions in Deferred Maintenance Associated with the Implementation of the 

Alternatives for Alcatraz Island 177

Table 10: Comparison of the Alternatives for Alcatraz Island 180

Table 11: Costs Associated with the Implementation of the No-action Alternative for Park 

Lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties 197

Table 12: Costs Associated with the Implementation of Alternative 1 for Park Lands in 

Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties 225

Table 13: Costs Associated with the Implementation of Alternative 2 for Park Lands in 

Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties 247

Table 14: Costs Associated with the Implementation of Alternative 3 for Park Lands in 

Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties 265

Table 15: Summary of Costs Associated with the Implementation of the Alternatives for 

Park Lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties 273

Table 16: Reductions in Deferred Maintenance Associated with the Implementation of the 

Alternatives for Park Lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties 

275

Table 17: Comparison of Alternatives for Park Lands in Marin County 279

Table 18: Comparison of Alternatives for Park Lands in San Francisco 283

Table 19: Comparison of Alternatives for Park Lands in San Mateo County 285

Table 20: Summary of Potential Key Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives for Park 

Lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties (including Alcatraz Island) 

288

Table 21: Costs for the No-action Alternative for Muir Woods National Monument 299

Table 22: Costs for Alternative 1 for Muir Woods National Monument 306

Table 23: Costs for Alternative 2 for Muir Woods National Monument 314

Table 24: Costs for Alternative 3 for Muir Woods National Monument 321
Contents

Volume I: xxxv

Table 25: Summary of Costs Associated with the Implementation of the Alternatives for 

Muir Woods National Monument 326

Table 26: Reductions in Deferred Maintenance Associated with the Implementation of the 

Alternatives for Muir Woods National Monument 327

Table 27: Comparison of Alternatives for Muir Woods National Monument 330

Table 28: Summary of Potential Key Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives for Muir 

Woods National Monument 335

FIGURES

Figure 1: Planning Area 11

Figure 2: Areas A and B of the Presidio of San Francisco 38

Figure 3: Proposed Boundary Adjustment Map 113

Figure 4: Potential Future Boundary Adjustment 115

Figure 5: Alcatraz Island, No-action Alternative 149

Figure 6: Alcatraz Island, Alternative 1 157

Figure 7: Alcatraz Island, Alternative 2 165

Figure 8: Alcatraz Island, Alternative 3 173

Figure 9: Park Lands in Marin and San Francisco Counties, No-action Alternative 201

Figure 10: Park Lands in Marin County, Alternative 1 229

Figure 11: Park Lands in San Francisco, Alternative 1 231

Figure 12: Park Lands in San Mateo County, Alternative 1 233

Figure 13: Park Lands in Marin County Alternative 2 249

Figure 14: Park Lands in San Francisco Alternative 2 251

Figure 15: Park Lands in San Mateo County, Alternative 2 253

Figure 16: Park Lands in Marin County, Alternative 3 267

Figure 17: Park Lands in San Francisco, Alternative 3 269

Figure 18: Park Lands in San Mateo County, Alternative 3 271

Figure 19: Muir Woods National Monument, No-action Alternative 301

Figure 20: Muir Woods National Monument, Alternative 1 309

Figure 21: Muir Woods National Monument, Alternative 2 315

Figure 22: Muir Woods National Monument, Alternative 3 323
CONTENTS

Volume I: xxxvi

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II

PART 7: RESOURCES AND VALUES THAT COULD BE AFFECTED BY THE 

ALTERNATIVES (THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT) 

Introduction 

Summary Table of Impact Topics 

Natural Resources – Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Natural Resources – Muir Woods National Monument 

Cultural Resources – Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Cultural Resources – Muir Woods National Monument 

Visitor Use and Experience—Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Visitor Use and Experience – Muir Woods National Monument 

Social and Economic Environment (Including both Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area and Muir Woods National Monument)

Transportation (Including both Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods 

National Monument) 

Park Management, Operations, and Facilities (Including Both Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument) 

PART 8: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Potential Impacts 

Impairment of Park Resources 

Common to All Alternatives at Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods 

National Monument 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island

Muir Woods National Monument 
Contents

Volume I: 37

CONTENTS OF VOLUME III 

PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Introduction 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Muir Woods National Monument

PART 10: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

Implementation Planning 

Mitigative Measures 

PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Introduction and Methodology 

Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including 

Alcatraz Island 

Cumulative Impact Analysis at Muir Woods National Monument 

Additional Analyses 

PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION 

Public Involvement 

Consultation with Other Agencies, Officials, and Organizations

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving A Copy of this Document

Preparers and Consultants 

APPENDIXES 

Appendix A: Legislation

Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to This Plan

Appendix C: Relevant NPS Policies

Appendix D: Table of Special Status Species (including Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Candidate Species)

Appendix E: Descriptions of Local Transit Service

Appendix F: Description of San Mateo County Trails

GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Glossary

References

Background 1

Volume I: 3 

INTRODUCTION

Over 30 years ago, the National Park Service (NPS) adopted a plan outlining the future of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, then a new and different park that brought the

national park system to a large urban area. Because of the size and diversity of the San 

Francisco Bay Area community and the National Park Service’s commitment to a 

pioneering public involvement process, it took five years to prepare the plan. This 

diligence paid off and the final plan won the unanimous support of the community. This 

plan, along with several amendments, has firmly guided the preservation and 

enhancement of Golden Gate National Recreation Area for three decades.

It is not unusual for many long-range plans to just sit on the shelf and gather dust—

usually as a result of inadequate funding to implement the dreams they offer, but also 

because of changing conditions and fading public support. When the future of the 

Presidio’s Crissy Field was being discussed early in the planning process, one member of 

the park’s advisory commission confided that the National Park Service would never get 

the funds to improve it, especially considering demolition and toxic cleanup costs. Today 

Crissy Field stands as an international standard for waterfront restoration and is a top 

tourist destination.

Success stories like Crissy Field happen because of the appeal and popularity of the 

park’s resources, enhanced by the efforts of the Golden Gate National Parks 

Conservancy, and the resultant financial support of generous members of the community.

When considering the transformational expectations offered by the 1980 general 

management plan, it has been a remarkable success. The visions for Alcatraz Island, Fort 

Mason, Crissy Field, the Cliff House, Fort Baker, and much of the Marin Headlands have 

been achieved. 

Today, Golden Gate National Recreation Area constitutes one of the largest urban 

national parks in the world, extending north of the Golden Gate Bridge to Tomales Bay in 

Marin County and south to Half Moon Bay in San Mateo County. These lands are coastal 

preserves that encompass many miles of bay and ocean shorelines. 

The park contains an abundance of historical and cultural assets, including sites such as 

early fortifications on Alcatraz Island, Forts Cronkhite and Barry in the Marin Headlands, 

Fort Mason, Fort Point, and the Presidio of San Francisco. These contain a variety of 

archeological resources, military batteries, and other historic structures that present a rich 

history. Chronicles of Native American settlements, the Spanish Empire frontier, the 

Mexican Republic, evolution of American coastal fortifications, maritime history, 19th 

century and early 20th century agriculture and ranching, the U.S. Army in World Wars I 

and II, the California Gold Rush, Buffalo Soldiers, and the growth of San Francisco are 

told in the settings in which they occurred. 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area is also rich in natural resources. The park is 

comprised of 19 types of ecosystems in numerous distinct watersheds and is home to over 

1,200 known plant and animal species. The park provides habitat for many sensitive, rare, 

threatened, or endangered species, including the mission blue butterfly, northern spotted 

owl, and California red-legged frog. Coho salmon and steelhead trout inhabit the clean 

waters of Redwood Creek as it flows through Muir Woods National Monument. 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 4 

Each year 16 to 20 million visitors explore the park, with over 1.4 million touring 

Alcatraz Island and approximately 750,000 visiting Muir Woods National Monument. 

Trips to the park account for nearly 50% of all visits to the 29 national park system units

in California.

In looking back at the 1980 general management plan and where the park is today, there 

appears to be only one major goal yet to be accomplished—the ambitious transportation 

proposals contained in the document. Lack of funding and jurisdictional issues have 

hindered their accomplishment. However, one of the principal goals of this element of the 

plan was to provide access to the park to under-represented populations—other strategies 

have apparently made progress in reaching that goal. 

General observations indicate that increasing numbers of young people—many of them 

minorities—have been visiting the park. It can be safely assumed that this apparent trend 

is strengthened by the many educational and volunteer programs managed by the park 

and park partners. 

It is our goal to continue this trend. Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir 

Woods National Monument are situated in one of the most demographically diverse 

regions in America. In addition, demographic trends forecast a dramatic increase in the 

diversity of the statewide population and in the number of residents who are less than 18 

years of age. As a result, the park is uniquely situated to reconnect people with their 

national parks, with a goal of reaching a 21st century audience—more diverse and 

younger than today’s national park visitor—and sustaining their engagement. 

Even before the 1980 plan was approved, the park was growing. Legislation for a 

boundary expansion was passed by Congress in 1978 and since then various acts of 

Congress have added many additional acres to the park. Research and management 

activities have revealed new resource values, both cultural and natural. Visitation has 

increased and new activities have put pressures on park resources not anticipated in the 

original plan. In short, today’s park is quite different from the one covered in the 1980 

plan. The first plan served to shape a new park and reach a consensus on the definition of 

its identity. This new document will serve to fine tune and expand the vision for an 

already mature national park and will shape and define new areas coming into the park. 

Although different in many ways, the new plan will follow the same basic directive 

outlined for the 1980 plan by the park’s first Superintendent, Bill Whalen, “Our job is 

just to polish the jewels.” 
Volume I: 5 

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this general management plan is to guide planning and decision making at 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument for the next 

20 years. The first general management plan, completed in 1980, is now more than 30 

years old. Since the completion of that first plan, the issues, opportunities, and challenges 

associated with the park and monument have significantly changed. In addition, park 

managers have had 30 years to better understand the natural and cultural resources of the 

park and monument and the changing needs of park visitors.

This new general management plan will serve as a foundation and framework for the 

management of these park lands. The plan articulates the desired future conditions for 

park resources and visitor experiences that will best fulfill the legislative and presidential 

mandates that established these units as part of the national park system.

This plan has been developed by an interdisciplinary team in consultation with NPS 

offices; park partners; tribal, federal, state, and local agencies; and other interested 

parties. There has been substantial input and participation from the general public. These 

public involvement and consultation efforts helped to ensure that the decisions made 

through this planning process are widely supported and sustainable over time. A 

completed general management plan represents an agreement with the citizens of the 

United States about how these lands and facilities will be managed. The plan will be a 

blueprint for the future. 

The “Planning Issues” section of this general management plan provides details of these 

issues, opportunities and challenges. Generally, the overall need for a new general 

management plan has arisen because of the following: 

• The park has significantly expanded in size and includes many new lands in San 

Mateo County. This planning process is based on a comprehensive look at the park as 

a whole rather than its individual pieces. This comprehensive parkwide approach will 

help ensure that the management of the natural and cultural resources and visitor 

experiences are consistent across all park areas. 

• There is an increased public demand for access to and use of open spaces within the 

ever-growing urban development of the San Francisco Bay region (Bay Area). The 

general management plan provides a regional collaborative approach to open space 

preservation. 

• The changing demographics in the Bay Area are bringing notable shifts in park 

visitation, uses, and trends. The general management plan provides desired 

conditions that will guide the decision making needed to manage the anticipated 

increase in visitation.

• Through research and park management over the years the park staff has gathered a 

considerable amount of new information and knowledge regarding resources and 

visitor use. This new awareness is incorporated into the desired conditions, proposed 

management actions, and policies of this general management plan.

• In recent years, climate change has become better understood and its effects more 

evident on both ecological systems and cultural resources. The general management 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 6 

plan looks at the potential impacts of climate change to park operations and visitor 

use, and identifies direction and management actions to guide efforts to minimize the 

park’s carbon footprint.

• Visitor access to the park continues to evolve as the local transportation infrastructure 

changes. The strategies that were identified in 1980 continue to be explored; new 

ideas and techniques are also identified to help address sustainable options to reach 

the park, and strategies to reduce traffic congestion around and within the park. 

• To comply with federal law, the plan indicates the types and intensities of projected 

development, including anticipated costs. This is important, as the availability of 

federal funds may be limited over time.

This general management plan addresses these overall issues and the detailed issues 

identified in the “Planning Issues” section; the alternatives suggest ways to address these 

issues over the next 20 years. 

The implementation of the approved plan, no matter which alternative, will depend on 

future NPS funding levels and servicewide priorities, and on partnership funds, time, and 

effort. The approval of a general management plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will be forthcoming. Full implementation of 

the plan could be many years in the future.
Volume I: 7 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PARK MANAGEMENT

In addition to the many laws, policies, and directives that govern management of all units 

of the national park system, the leadership at Golden Gate National Recreation Area and 

Muir Woods National Monument has highlighted some of the principles that are most 

deeply rooted and distinctive at this park. These originate from the 1916 act that 

established the National Park Service to “...promote and regulate the use of the Federal 

areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations...by such means and 

measures as to... conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild 

life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 

SUSTAINABILITY

We will continue to learn about and use practices that help sustain the resources of our 

park. Sustainability will be fundamental to the facilities, projects, programs, and 

operations of the park, using sound environmental management practices. We will seek 

opportunities to promote sustainability and stewardship to park visitors, neighboring 

communities, and the stakeholders we serve.

COMMUNITY-BASED STEWARDSHIP

We are committed to ongoing involvement of individuals and organizations in 

understanding, caring for, and preserving the park’s natural habitats, historic places, and 

trails. This community stewardship brings the commitment to preserve our common 

heritage and public lands—national treasures that can best be sustained with the efforts of 

many. 

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

We are dedicated to ongoing, dynamic conversations about the contemporary relevance 

of park resources. We will also provide opportunities for meaningful involvement to 

promote better understanding and communication, discuss concerns, and express values 

and preferences when park decisions and policies are being developed and implemented.

PARTNERSHIPS 

We will continue to build on the legacy of the many partnerships that have enhanced our 

ability to protect resources and serve the public since the park was established. Through 

mutual collaboration, shared values, and learning, these partnerships have created 

outcomes beyond any one organization’s individual capacity. Partnerships will continue 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 8 

to be an important way to accomplish the park’s mission and build a community of 

stewardship. 

REGIONAL COLLABORATION

In working to preserve our park’s resources unimpaired for future generations, we will 

establish and maintain cooperative relationships with managers of adjacent public lands

and watersheds; tribal, state, and local governments; community organizations; and 

private landowners. We will collaborate with others to ensure that watersheds, 

ecosystems, viewsheds, and trail and transportation systems that extend beyond park 

boundaries are considered holistically, in order to best preserve important park resources, 

provide equitable and sustainable access, and advance the goal of creating a seamless 

network of protected lands. 

INCLUSION

Recognizing the special opportunities and obligations resulting from our location within a 

region of great demographic and socioeconomic diversity, we will strive to assure that 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a “park for all.” Working with, rather than for, 

various community partners, we will undertake proactive strategies that make the park 

welcoming and accessible to those at every economic strata, people with disabilities, and 

ethnic and cultural communities who have not traditionally visited national parks in 

numbers proportionate to the changing demographics of California and the nation. 
Volume I: 9 

THE PLANNING AREA 

This new general management plan addresses the lands administered by the National 

Park Service within the legislative boundaries of Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

and Muir Woods National Monument. Over the last 15 years, the park staff has 

completed numerous land use and site plans for areas in Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area. These plans and associated environmental impact documents are current and 

therefore these areas are not included in the planning area for this updated general 

management plan. 

The new general management plan will provide park management guidance for the 

following park sites: 1) those park lands that are not covered by recent land use 

management plans and agreements; 2) those lands that are newly acquired or in the 

process of acquisition; 3) lands and waters that are leased to the National Park Service or 

are under other management arrangements or easements (such as the San Francisco 

Public Utilities Commission Peninsula Watershed). The total area of land and water 

addressed in this plan is approximately 50,000 acres. 

Specifically these areas are the following:

• Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment 

• park lands in Marin County, including Stinson Beach to Bolinas-Fairfax Road; Slide 

Ranch; Muir Beach; Lower Redwood Creek; Golden Gate Dairy; Tennessee Valley; 

Marin Headlands; and the offshore ocean and bay environment 

• park lands in San Francisco, including Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, 

Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and offshore ocean and bay environment 

• park lands in San Mateo County, including the coastal area extending south from Fort 

Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, 

including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devil’s Slide

coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San 

Francisco Public Utilities Commission Peninsula Watershed easements; and the 

offshore ocean environment 

• all lands within Muir Woods National Monument 

The following are Golden Gate National Recreation Area sites that have recently 

completed new land use management plans, and therefore are not included in the GMP 

planning area. These park areas will not be revisited in this plan. 

• Presidio of San Francisco and Crissy Field 

• Baker Beach

• Lobos Creek Valley

• Fort Point National Historic Site

• Sutro Historic District, including the Cliff House, Sutro Heights Park, Sutro Baths, 

and Lands End
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 10

• Fort Baker

• Lower Fort Mason (Fort Mason Center)

• Golden Gate National Recreation Area Northern District, north of Bolinas-Fairfax 

Road—(These lands are managed by Point Reyes National Seashore and are being 

addressed in the Point Reyes National Seashore/Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area Northern District General Management Plan.) 

The park staff is currently working on a variety of detailed project and program 

implementation plans. The implementation plans cover topics such as detailed actions for 

natural and cultural resource restoration and preservation, visitor use, transportation, and 

park operations. There are several major project and program implementation plans that 

are in the process of being prepared or implemented. In the preparation of this general 

management plan, the planning team coordinated with the development of these plans to 

ensure consistency. Ongoing planning efforts include the following: 

• Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and Management Plan 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Wetland and Creek Restoration at Big Lagoon, Muir Beach Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

• Marin Equestrian Plan / Environmental Assessment

• Headlands Institute Campus Improvement and Expansion Plan 

• Dog Management Plan for Golden Gate National Recreation Area / Environmental 

Impact Statement

• Doyle Drive – South Access to the Golden Gate Bridge

• Point Reyes National Seashore General Management Plan
Muir Beach

Stinson Beach

Marin Municpal 

Water District

Mount Tamalpais

State Park

Audubon 

Canyon 

Ranch

Fort Point 

National Historic Site

Angel Island 

State Park

Richmond

Berkeley

Sausalito

Tiburon

Marin City

Mill Valley

San Rafael

Oakland

City of 

San Francisco

San Mateo 

County

San Mateo

Pacifica

Daly 

City

San Francisco 

International Airport

Half Moon Bay

State Beach

Pillar Point Bluff

Fitzgerald 

Marine Reserve

Fort Mason

Fort Baker Alcatraz

Island

Fort Funston

Mori 

Point

San Pedro 

Point

Devil’s 

Slide

Rancho Corral 

de Tierra

Milagra Ridge

Sweeney Ridge

Phleger Estate

Half

Moon

Bay

Presidio of 

San Francisco

Muir Woods 

National Monument

Marin Headlands

Golden Gate Northern Lands

(Managed by Point Reyes NS)

Peninsula Watershed

(San Francisco Public 

Utilities Commission)

NPS Easements

Rodeo Beach

Lands End

Ocean Beach

Sharp 

Park

280

280

280

101

101

580

101

80

101

101

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Pacific Ocean

San Pablo Bay

Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary

Gulf of the

Farallones National

Marine Sanctuary

Monterey Bay

National Marine 

Sanctuary

S a n

F r a n c i s c o

B a y

San Francisco Maritime 

National Historical Park

Cit y and Count y of San Francisco

San Mateo Count y

Marin Count y

380

92

Rosie the Riveter NHP

GMP Planning Area 

The planning area includes an off shore 

distance of approximately 1/4 mile.

Other Open Space

GMP Planning Area 

GGNRA Legislative Boundary

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

DSC • December 29, 2009 • XXX / XXXXX

0 1 2 4

Miles

Foundation Statements: 

Guidance for Planning

In 1916, with the passage of the National Park Service Organic Act, Congress established 

the National Park Service to oversee and manage the national parks of the United States. 

Individual national parks continue to be established by Congress or by presidential 

proclamation. The legislation that authorizes a new national park system unit guides its 

management. (See appendix A for legislation related to the National Park Service, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area, and Muir Woods National Monument.) 

The following pages present foundation statements for Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area and Muir Woods National Monument, respectively, as they are two distinct units of the 

national park system. 

Volume I: 13
Park Purpose 

The park purpose is a statement that summarizes why Congress and/or the president 

established the area as a unit of the national park system. It is based on the enabling legislation 

and the legislative history of the unit. The purpose statement provides the most fundamental 

criteria against which the appropriateness of all plan recommendations, operational decisions, 

and actions are tested. 

Park Significance 

Statements of park significance define what is most important about a park’s many resources 

and values. In developing these significance statements, the planning team was guided by 

the park’s legislation and knowledge acquired through management, research, and civic 

engagement. The significance statements focus on the attributes that make the area’s 

resources and values important enough to be included in the national park system. Each unit 

in the national park system contains many significant resources, but not all of these resources 

contribute to the purpose for which the park or monument was established as a unit of the 

national park system. 

The park purpose and significance statements are used to guide all planning and management 

decisions. This ensures that the resources and values that Congress and the president wanted 

preserved are understood and are the park’s first priority.

Fundamental Resources and Values

The National Park Service works to ensure the conservation and public enjoyment of those 

resources and values that are fundamental to the park significance. Fundamental resources 

and values are those resources and values that directly contribute to the significance for which 

the park was established. 

Primary Interpretive Themes

Primary interpretive themes describe the key stories and concepts of the park that help 

visitors understand and appreciate the park purpose and significance. The development 

and interpretation of primary interpretive themes provide the foundation on which the park’s 

educational and interpretive program is based.

Volume I: 14
Foundation Statements for 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

The founders of Golden Gate National Recreation Area, established in 1972, intended 

to bring national park experiences to urban populations. The park’s extensive collection 

of natural, historic, and scenic resources and diverse recreational opportunities fulfill 

the purpose of bringing “parks to the people”—particularly to the 7 million people who 

live in the Bay Area. Today, however, the resources of Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area are nationally and internationally recognized as well, extending their value to all of 

America and beyond. 

Park Purpose

The purpose of Golden Gate National Recreation Area is to offer national park 

experiences to a large and diverse urban population while preserving and 

interpreting the park’s outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational 

values.

 Photo credit: Robert Campbell / Chamois Moon

Volume I: 15
Recreational and Educational 

Opportunities

Significance

The continuum of park resources at the doorstep of the San Francisco Bay Area provides 

an abundance of recreational and educational opportunities.

Fundamental Resources and Values

• Diverse Park Settings – The diversity of settings, from remote to urban, provides 

visitors with active and passive recreational and educational opportunities, 

including participation in park stewardship.

• Park Access – A system of designated trails and scenic park roads supports 

access to settings that provide visitors with a broad range of activities and varied 

experiences.

Interpretive Theme

The park provides for diverse recreational and educational opportunities from 

contemplative to active pursuits, including participation in stewardship and volunteer 

activities. Its proximity allows an urban population to connect with nature and history. 

Volume I: 16
Coastal Corridor

Interpretive Theme

In a world of diminishing biological diversity and threatened natural resources, the 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area preserves islands of biodiversity within and near 

a large urban area. The accelerating rate of global climate change threatens even these 

remnants.

Significance

The remnant undeveloped coastal corridor of marine, estuarine, and terrestrial 

ecosystems supports exceptional native biodiversity and provides refuge for one of the 

largest concentrations of rare, threatened, and endangered species in the national park 

system.

• Ocean and Bay Environment – Oceanic conditions, such as tides, currents, waves, 

surf, upwelling, and sea level, influence Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s 

coastal environment, including climate and the land.

• Coastal Ecosystems – Golden Gate National Recreation Area contains a rich 

assemblage of coastal native plant and animal habitat that includes forests, coastal 

scrub, grassland, freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats, beaches, coastal cliffs, 

and islands.

• Threatened and Endangered Species – Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

supports one of the largest numbers of federally listed threatened and endangered 

species in the national park system. This island of refuge is due to the protected 

confluence of unique and diverse habitats adjacent to the urban Bay region.

• Water Resources – Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s water resources 

support coastal corridor ecosystems and these consist of groundwater sources 

(aquifers and springs); freshwater systems (streams, lakes, and ponds); coastal, 

estuarine, and marine water resources (the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay); 

and other wetlands.

Fundamental Resources and Values

Volume I: 17
Significance

The park includes one of the largest and most complete collections of military installations 

and fortifications in the country, dating from Spanish settlement in 1776 through the 20th 

century. These installations served as command post for the Army in the Western United 

States and the Pacific. This long period of military presence has yielded one of the most 

extensive collections of historic architecture in the national park system.

Fundamental Resources and Values

• Fortifications & Military Installations – Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

includes cultural landscapes, structures, features, and museum collections, including 

historic fortifications and military installations.

Interpretive Theme

Coast defense posts are at the heart of park lands and are a major reason the park is 

preserved today. Although no hostile shot was ever fired, every major type of military 

fortification and architecture represented here demonstrates evolving defense technology. 

War, peace, and the nature of protection have shaped the country and will continue to 

shape the country.

Military Installations and Fortifications

Volume I: 18
Alcatraz Island

Interpretive Theme

The layers of history so evident on the island present 

visitors with a chance to understand the 155-year span 

of Alcatraz history – from the U.S. Army period, through 

the federal penitentiary era and the Native American 

occupation to the current NPS management of the island. 

As a site of international notoriety, Alcatraz Island provides 

a powerful opportunity to provoke visitors to contemplate 

their personal views on crime and punishment, the judicial 

system, and freedom.

Significance

Alcatraz Island, the site of pre-Civil War fortifications, was 

the nation’s first military prison, later became the most 

notorious maximum security penitentiary in the United 

States, and subsequently was the site of the occupation 

that helped ignite the movement for American Indian self 

determination.

• Alcatraz Island – Alcatraz Island has cultural 

landscapes, historic structures, museum 

collections, and stories associated with its use as 

a Civil War period fort, a military prison, a federal 

penitentiary, and as the site of the American Indian 

Occupation of 1969 to 1971.

Fundamental Resources and Values

Volume I: 19
Significance

The headlands of the Golden Gate have long been recognized for their outstanding 

scenic qualities. The remarkable convergence of land and sea and of bay and ocean—

combined with the palpable energy of 16 major rivers merging—create a spectacle that is 

truly unique.

Fundamental Resources and Values

• Dramatic Settings – In concert with the open lands that frame it, the Golden Gate 

serves as the backdrop to the San Francisco metropolitan area. The dynamic 

contrasts between urban environments and undeveloped spaces—ranging from the 

open waters of the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay to beaches, estuaries, 

headlands, and valleys—contribute greatly to the scenic experience enjoyed by area 

residents and visitors alike.

• Compelling Historical Stage – With its exceptional diversity of natural settings 

and central role in many significant chapters from America’s past, the Golden Gate 

promotes a continuous sense of wonder and appreciation in the viewer. The integrity 

of this open space contributes significantly to the ability to recount the epic stream of 

history that flowed between the headlands.

Interpretive Theme

The powerful positive influences that park land and undisturbed open space can exert 

on urban settings—and residents—constitute a critical interpretive message. The scenic 

beauty of the park’s historic and natural undeveloped landscapes inspired a grassroots 

movement that led to their protection. Proposed development that would have destroyed 

these lands sparked Bay Area community members to organize and ultimately preserve 

the open spaces that contribute so much to their quality of life.

Scenic Beauty

Volume I: 20
Signficance

The convergence of the San Andreas Fault, San Francisco Bay at 

the Golden Gate, and the California coastline creates a dynamic 

environment of exceptional scientific value.

Fundamental Resources and Values

• Geologic Resources – Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area’s geologic resources include faults, plate margins, and 

a subduction zone; a diversity of rock types and deposits 

representing more than 100 million years of the earth’s history; 

and complex geologic processes that continue to shape the 

landscape.

Interpretive Theme

The park’s underlying natural geologic systems and processes, and 

the resulting effects on people and the environment, link the park to the 

highly visible and significant geologic forces around the world.

Physical Landforms

Volume I: 21
Significance

Park lands are within the traditional homelands of Coast Miwok and Ohlone 

people. They contain indigenous archeological sites with native heritage, 

historic, and scientific values.

Fundamental Resources and Values

• Archeological Sites – Sites in the park document the traditional homelands 

of the Coast Miwok and Ohlone people.

Interpretive Theme

The natural features and resources of the park, along with its location on the San 

Francisco Bay estuary, sustained the Ohlone and Miwok people for thousands 

of years before Europeans arrived. Archeological sites in the park link to these 

pre-European inhabitants and to their descendants who retain a vibrant culture 

to this day.

Ohlone and Miwok

Volume I: 22
Foundation Statements for 

Muir Woods National Monument 

Until the 19th century, redwood trees were in abundance in the many coastal valleys of northern 

California; however, logging soon removed most of them to supply the building materials for a 

growing population. In 1905, when William Kent and his wife, Elizabeth Thacher Kent, realized that 

Redwood Canyon, a popular hiking and recreation destination, contained one of the San Francisco 

Bay Area’s last uncut stands of old-growth redwood, they bought 612 acres there for $45,000. To 

protect the trees, the Kents donated 298 acres containing the core of the forest to the United States 

government. President Theodore Roosevelt declared the area Muir Woods National Monument 

in 1908. The proclamation states that the tract contains “an extensive growth of redwood trees 

(Sequoia sempervirens)” that was “of extraordinary scientific interest and importance because of the 

primeval character of the forest in which it is located, and of the character, age and size of trees.” At 

Kent’s suggestion, the monument was named for conservationist John Muir. Due to circumstances 

surrounding its founding, Muir Woods National Monument holds a significant place in conservation 

history. It was the tenth national monument to be designated under the Antiquities Act, the first to be 

located in proximity to a major city, and the first to consist of formerly privately owned lands. 

Park Purpose

The purpose of Muir Woods National Monument is to preserve the 

primeval character and ecological integrity of the old-growth redwood 

forest for scientific values and inspiration.

Volume I: 23
Park Significance

Muir Woods National Monument preserves 

the last remnant old-growth forest close to 

metropolitan San Francisco that retains its 

primeval character.

The establishment of the monument is an 

important manifestation of early 20th century 

conservation history.

Fundamental Resources 

and Values

• Old Growth – Muir Woods National 

Monument preserves plant and animal 

species and the natural processes 

associated with the once abundant 

coastal redwoods ecosystem.

• Conservation Movement – The 

efforts of the people who ensured the 

preservation of this old-growth redwood 

forest continue to inspire conservation 

and stewardship actions today.

Interpretive Theme 

The majestic, primeval old-growth redwoods 

of Muir Woods invite visitors, in the words of 

namesake John Muir, to “come to the woods, 

for here is rest.” The forest ecosystem of 

these towering trees and the creek beneath 

them supports an abundance of life. This 

remnant of the Bay Area’s once abundant 

redwood forests inspires visitors through its 

seminal conservation story, today welcoming 

travelers from around the world to have what 

is, for many, their first wildlands experience.

Muir Woods 

National Monument

Volume I: 24
Volume 1: 25

SPECIAL MANDATES AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

COMMITMENTS RELATED TO GOLDEN GATE 

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Special mandates are park-specific requirements that expand on the park’s legislated 

purpose. These mandates generally require the National Park Service to perform some 

particular action as directed though congressional legislation. Administrative 

commitments are agreements that have been reached through formal, documented 

processes, and include agreements such as a conservation easement. The ongoing 

mandates and commitments for Golden Gate National Recreation Area are described in 

this section. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Several pieces of legislation specify how Golden Gate National Recreation Area will 

conduct land acquisition activities.

• Public Law 92-589, the enabling legislation for Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area, specifies that “any lands or interests owned by the State of California, or any 

political subdivision thereof, may only be acquired by donation” (see appendix A). 

• Public Law 95-625, Sec. 317(e), specifies that Golden Gate National Recreation Area

(through the Secretary of the Interior) “shall accept and manage any land and 

improvements adjacent to the recreation area which are donated by the State of 

California or its political subdivisions.”

• Public Law 96-199, Sec. 103(b), specifies spending limits on land acquisition. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

• Public Law 95-625, Sec. 317(f), specifies that “no fees or admissions shall be 

charged, except to portions under lease or permit for a specific purpose. The 

Secretary [of the Interior] may authorize reasonable charges for public 

transportation.”

• Public Law 106-291, Sec. 140, gives the park authority for fee-based education, 

interpretive, and visitor service functions within the Crissy Field and Fort Point areas 

of the Presidio. 

• Public Law 96-199, Sec. 103(b), specifies spending limits on park development. 

• Golden Gate National Recreation Area signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s 

(UNESCO) Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve that requires the recreation area to 

cooperate with the reserve partners and promote reserve activities. 

 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 26

PENINSULA WATERSHED CONSERVATION EASEMENT 

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Peninsula watershed is home to three 

drinking water reservoirs. Located in San Mateo County, 13 miles south of San 

Francisco, the Peninsula watershed consists of 23,000 acres of forested hills, coastal 

scrub, and grasslands.

On January 15, 1969, the United States of America was granted conservation easements 

on 23,000 acres of watershed lands owned by the City/County of San Francisco. Two 

separate easements, a scenic easement and a scenic and recreation easement, were 

granted by San Francisco and accepted by the Secretary of the Interior. In 1972, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area was charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the 

conditions of the easements are upheld. 

The scenic easement generally includes the area within the watershed west of the Crystal 

Springs and San Andreas reservoirs. The primary purpose of this easement is to preserve 

the property in its natural state while permitting “the collection, storage, and transmission 

of water and protection of water quality for human consumption.” 

The scenic and recreation easement generally includes the area within the watershed east 

of the Crystal Springs and San Andreas reservoirs. The primary purpose of this easement 

is to preserve the property in its natural state while permitting “the collection, storage,

and transmission of water and protection of water quality for human consumption; 

outdoor recreation; and other [compatible] uses.” 

Both easements contain numerous restrictions on use or modifications of the property. 

The scenic and recreation easement also grants the public “the right, subject to rules and 

regulations as may be imposed and published by [the Public Utilities Commission], to 

enter the premises for recreational purposes.” Golden Gate National Recreation Area has 

the right and obligation to monitor use of the land for consistency with the terms of the 

two easements.

OTHER EASEMENTS

Golden Gate National Recreation Area is required to recognize numerous title 

encumbrances, including easement rights for access, utilities, and other purposes. These 

publicly and privately held rights can affect park operations and resources. Park 

managers cooperate with easement holders to protect park resources and provide visitor 

access.

TIDELANDS AND SUBMERGED LANDS LEASE

Golden Gate National Recreation Area leases tidelands and submerged lands from the 

California State Lands Commission. These include all offshore areas adjacent to park 

lands in Marin and San Francisco counties. The current term of the lease began June 1, 

2009 and extends through May 31, 2058. Under the conditions of the lease, public access 

to and use of the existing beaches and strands shall remain open and available for public 
Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments

Related to Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Volume I: 27

use subject to reasonable regulation. The recreation area is required to notify the state 

within 10 days in the event that the public is charged any direct or indirect fee for the use 

and enjoyment of the leased areas. The lease also specifies that hunting on leased lands is 

prohibited. 

The primary management purposes are to 

• enhance public safety, use, and enjoyment of the subject lands and waters; 

• protect and conserve the environment and any cultural and historical resources that 

may be present; 

• preserve the subject lands in their natural state and protect them from development 

and uses that would destroy their scenic beauty and natural character; 

• provide for recreation and educational opportunities; and 

• manage the subject lands consistent with the administration and management of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, so long as it is not inconsistent with 

California state law.

LIGHTHOUSES

In September 2006, the United States Coast Guard notified the park of their plan to 

excess and transfer five lighthouses and navigational aids to the Department of the 

Interior in compliance with the park’s enabling legislation (Public Law 92 as amended 

under Public Law 96-607) and the 2000 National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act. 

The properties include Point Bonita Lighthouse, Point Diablo, and Lime Point in Marin 

County; the Montara Lighthouse in San Mateo County; and the Alcatraz Island

lighthouse in San Francisco. 

Following transfer to the park, the U. S. Coast Guard will continue to use the five sites as 

navigational aids under an NPS permit. The properties require substantial environmental 

cleanup and structure safety improvements to ensure public safety and visitor access in 

the future. The Park Service and the Coast Guard are cooperating to complete due 

diligence reports including environmental testing and analysis, building condition 

assessments, and developing cost estimates to determine remediation and structural safety 

requirements. 

The park staff anticipates additional planning for the long-term preservation and use of 

the five lighthouses and is seeking funding prior to transfer. At the time of this writing, 

the timeframe and milestones for the property excess and transfer from the Coast Guard 

have not been established. 
Volume I: 28

PLANNING ISSUES

Just as citizens helped to establish Golden Gate National Recreation Area, citizens helped

identify the needs and opportunities that will shape the future management of the park. In 

2006, more than 4,000 copies of the first GMP newsletter were distributed through a 

mailing list and park partners and at park visitor centers, popular park destinations and 

park events. The newsletter asked people for their opinions on what they value and enjoy 

most about the park, their concerns and suggestions for management, their ideas for the 

future of the park, and for any other comments they wanted to provide to the planning

team. The park staff held six public open houses in April 2006 to gather additional input 

from the public. A scoping roundtable was attended by representatives of many local and 

regional jurisdictions, resource and regulatory agencies, and other public land managers. 

Discussion groups with environmental, historic, and community organizations and 

meetings with American Indian tribal representatives, park partners, and park founders 

were held to gather information. In addition, meetings with NPS staff were conducted as 

part of the scoping process. 

The information gathered during these activities was used to develop and clarify the 

important planning issues. Exploring different ways to address the issues was the basis 

for developing the range of management concepts and the creation of the different 

management alternatives. The planning issues are summarized as follows:

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Visitor Access: Transportation and Trails

The current system of access to the park and monument do not fully address the needs of 

some park visitors or adequately protect park resources. The high reliance on cars and the 

lack of affordable transit options excludes some visitors, adds to roadway congestion, and 

increases emissions, resulting in a greater carbon footprint. This also creates problems 

with informal parking, public safety, visitor experience, and access for the park’s 

neighbors. In some places, the condition of trails and their lack of connectivity to desired 

destinations do not meet all visitor and resource protection needs. Connections from 

communities within the region to the park are not adequate. There is a need for improved, 

safe trail connections among park sites and communities to provide seamless, safe, direct 

access alternatives. Visitor information and directional signs are inadequate; this leads to 

visitor frustration and the underutilization of park resources. The general management 

plan will address visitor access to and within the park in order to improve visitor 

experiences, improve connections among park sites and the larger community, and 

protect resources

Recreation Opportunities and Conflicts

Park use has increased in recent years, especially by traditional recreational users such as 

hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians. New activities such as boardsailing and mountain 

biking have developed and evolved since the 1980 General Management Plan was 

completed. There is interest in expanding current uses, including bicycling, hang gliding, 
Planning Issues

Volume I: 29

dog walking, individual and group camping, group day-use/picnicking, and hiking, and 

introducing new and different types of recreation. Requests to use the park and 

monument as venues for special events continue to increase. Conflicts between users—

primarily between equestrians, mountain bikers, dog walkers, and hikers—have increased 

as overall park use has increased. There is concern about resource impacts associated 

with existing recreation activities, including habitat fragmentation, eroding trails, wildlife 

disturbance and harassment, litter, vandalism and graffiti, and vegetation trampling. The 

general management plan will address recreational opportunities by identifying the types 

of use, desired experiences, and support facilities that are appropriate for different park 

areas and sites in response to visitor demand and resource sensitivity. 

Sustainable Natural Resource Preservation and Management

Golden Gate National Recreation Area is rich in natural resources: it comprises 19 types 

of ecosystems in numerous distinct watersheds and is home to rare, threatened, and

endangered plant and animal species. The park is incorporated into the UNESCO Golden 

Gate Biosphere Reserve, designated by UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program—a 

program that provides a global network of sites representing the world’s major ecosystem 

types. Historically, the lands within the park have been used for ranching, dairy farming, 

and military activities; this use has resulted in the modification of many of the area’s 

natural ecosystems. Fire suppression and other management activities have also 

influenced natural ecosystems. Invasive plants from adjacent urban communities have 

taken root within the park. 

The general management plan will address how park staff can preserve fundamental 

natural resources, as the fragility of those resources becomes better understood at the 

same time that visitation is increasing. The plan will provide direction for preserving and 

managing fundamental natural resources of the park in a sustainable manner and will 

provide direction for encouraging ongoing public stewardship.

Ocean resources, including natural marine resources and submerged cultural resources, 

are at risk due to a variety of threats. Global climate change has begun to cause sea level 

rise, change storm patterns, and affect ocean acidification. Natural sediment transport, 

which affects shoreline and beach dynamics, is affected by activities outside of park 

boundaries, including sand mining, dredging, dredge disposal, shoreline stabilization 

structures, and altered flow regimes. Overflights, boating, and other uses of marine 

habitats cause disturbance to marine species. Invasive exotic species inhabit the park's 

ocean and estuarine waters, displacing native species. Recreational and commercial 

fisheries may impact nearshore fish populations and ecosystem dynamics. Water quality 

is threatened by pollution from runoff, landslides, shoreline development, sewage 

outfalls, vessel traffic, oil spills, and contaminants exposed from dredging. Potential 

wave and tidal energy developments may alter habitat and disrupt physical processes.

Numerous aquatic environments are in need of restoration. Currently the park has limited 

enforcement capacity for marine and estuarine resource protection.

• Alcatraz Island is a unique part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Accounts 

of early explorers describe the island as having little plant life and being covered with 

bird guano. Construction of fortifications during the Civil War and later the federal 

penitentiary changed the landscape significantly, sharpening the incline of the

shoreline cliffs and flattening the slopes. Most of the existing plants on Alcatraz 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 30

Island are a result of prison gardens or other means of importation, including soils 

brought from Angel Island during fort construction. Since the closure of the prison, 

many bird species have made the island home. Waterbirds and terrestrial landbirds 

(songbirds) have taken advantage of planted and unmanaged vegetation on the island. 

The seabirds and waterbirds are colonial nesting species that are highly susceptible to 

disturbance. Coupled with limited preservation of historic landscape features, the 

extent of sea bird habitat has grown sharply since 1972. The result is a tension 

between habitat protection and visitor access to many of the island’s historic points. 

Muir Woods National Monument preserves one of the last remaining ancient redwood 

forests in the Bay Area. From its inception, Muir Woods National Monument was 

designed to protect the “primeval character” of the redwood forests, and today, ecological 

integrity is a major driving force behind the management of the monument. Surrounding 

Muir Woods National Monument are mostly protected lands, including other units of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and lands managed by California State Parks 

(Mount Tamalpais State Park) and the Marin Municipal Water District. 

Muir Woods National Monument is located entirely within the watershed of Redwood 

Creek, which originates on Mount Tamalpais (over 2,400 feet in elevation), flows 

through the heart of the national monument, bisects Frank Valley, and discharges into the 

Pacific Ocean at Muir Beach, approximately 3 miles below Muir Woods National 

Monument. The Redwood Creek watershed—extending from Mount Tamalpais to Muir 

Beach—is a delicate ecosystem that includes the northern spotted owl, coho salmon, and 

steelhead trout, and demands utmost care and vigilance. The Civilian Conservation Corp 

implemented projects to harden the banks of the creek in order to direct the flow of water 

away from Redwood groves. The stream stabilization on Redwood Creek has impacted 

the natural functions of the creek.

Sustainable Cultural Resource Preservation and Management

The park has a large collection of historic structures and archeological sites within a 

mosaic of cultural and natural landscapes. The majority of these cultural resources are 

nationally significant; however, their condition varies. The identification of appropriate 

preservation treatments, including sustainable adaptive uses of these resources, poses a 

substantial challenge. Cultural resources and archeological sites are impacted in a variety 

of ways such as through weathering, increases in visitor use, erosion, vandalism, and 

deferred maintenance. There is a continued need for developing baseline documentation 

of historic structures, cultural landscapes, and archeological inventories throughout the 

park. The park staff continues to work to balance the preservation needs of the park’s 

natural and cultural resources. Still, there is a need to identify priorities when such 

balance is not very clear. The general management plan will address how to preserve 

fundamental cultural resources where visitation is increasing with the understanding of

the fragility and significance of those resources. The general management plan will 

provide direction for preserving and managing fundamental cultural resources of the park 

in a sustainable manner and will provide direction for encouraging ongoing public 

stewardship. 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area houses its museum collections in 15 separate 

facilities throughout the park that function as visitor centers, interpretive exhibits, or 

dedicated storage areas. Of the four largest storage repositories, three are located in 
Planning Issues

Volume I: 31

buildings owned by the Presidio Trust with no lease agreements in place. One of these 

structures, which is being removed in 2010 to make way for the Doyle Drive Project, 

houses the park’s archeology lab. The park museum collections are in a vulnerable 

position due to temporary space and deteriorating structural conditions. The current 

conditions for museum collections in the park do not meet NPS standards for the longterm preservation, protection, and use of museum collections. Staffing for the museum 

collections has not been stable, thus precluding reliable access for researchers, the public, 

and park staff. Although planning has been underway, a suitable location for the park’s 

museum collections has yet to be finally determined.

Alcatraz Island is a designated national historic landmark because of its national 

significance in the areas of military history and social history (penology: the study of 

incarceration). Although Alcatraz Island is a highly visible and popular site in San 

Francisco Bay, many of its buildings, archeological features, and landscape features are 

deteriorating, and sections of its shoreline are eroding. The park lacks the funding and 

personnel to protect and preserve all of the island’s historic resources. In addition, some 

conflict has arisen over management strategies for protecting the island’s cultural and 

natural resources (e.g., protecting important bird nesting habitat), as preservation of

nesting habitat can inhibit historic preservation. The general management plan will 

provide direction for preserving and managing historic structures, archeological sites, 

cultural landscapes, and museum collections. 

Climate Change

Climate change may have begun to affect both park resources and visitors. The effects 

are predicted to include changes in temperature, precipitation, evaporation rate, ocean and 

atmospheric chemistry, local weather patterns and increases in storm intensities and sea 

levels. These effects will likely have direct implications for resource management and 

park operations and influence the way visitors experience the park. Sustaining and 

restoring park resources will require the National Park Service to address many 

challenges, including fiscal and ecological threats and threats to the integrity of cultural 

and natural resources. Proactive planning and management actions will allow the park to 

avoid, mitigate, adapt to, and interpret these effects. 

The general management plan will provide guidance on how to assess, respond to, and 

interpret the impacts of global climate change on park resources, and will identify 

objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Land Acquisition

The 1978 National Parks and Recreation Act (16 USC 1a-7) requires general 

management plans to address potential modifications to the park boundaries. Current or 

potential changes in adjacent land uses could pose threats to the fundamental resources of 

the park and could limit the park’s ability to protect the resources that support the park 

purpose and significance.

The diversity of park lands presents challenges for land and boundary management. The 

park needs to strengthen its strategic approach to land acquisition and park boundary 

changes and management in coordination with agencies and owners of property within 

the park boundary. A reassessment of guidelines and priorities is needed.
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 32

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument are portions 

of a larger area of protected open space in the Bay Area. The natural and cultural 

resources of the park would face a greater threat if not for the many other open space 

areas that contribute to the integrity of coastal ecosystems, scenic beauty, recreational 

opportunities, and the preservation of historic resources. The general management plan 

will address future land protection and boundary changes that support both the 

preservation of the park’s fundamental resources and regional conservation priorities. 

Reaching New Audiences

Visitation at many park sites does not reflect changing regional or state demographics. 

Some groups may not be aware of the park, feel a direct connection to it, or view the park 

as a recreational opportunity or a resource to be protected. Changing technology can also 

influence the park’s relevancy to future generations. Reaching these audiences is essential 

to effective park management and to achieving civic engagement and community-based 

stewardship goals. The general management plan will include strategies to help engage

new audiences.

Operational Facilities

Park resources, visitor safety, and visitor experience have suffered because of the lack of 

adequate operational facilities in appropriate locations. Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area has expanded in size in recent years, especially to the south in San Mateo County; 

the current distribution of facilities is no longer effective or efficient for day-to-day 

operations. Park maintenance and public safety functions are scattered throughout the 

park and are often located at sites and facilities that were not intended for such uses. 

Often, these functions operate out of makeshift facilities because they have been 

displaced by other park uses or outside forces, or have outgrown previous spaces. These 

operations have been forced to adapt to conditions that do not adequately meet their 

space, size, function, mobility, and security requirements. The general management plan 

will identify a strategy and actions for locating operational facilities.

Scenic Beauty and Natural Character

The park’s scenic beauty and natural character provide opportunities for visitors to 

experience dramatic settings. The park’s varied landscapes are the stage for multisensory 

experiences that are a hallmark of the Bay Area. Preserving these important scenic 

resources and making them available to the public are primary reasons the park was 

established. The National Park Service needs to protect these resources from degradation 

that can result from modern intrusions, including new development on the surrounding 

lands and waters. The general management plan will provide guidance in the preservation 

and enhancement of scenic resources. 
Planning Issues

Volume I: 33

Regional Cooperation

Visitor experience and resource protection in the park are affected by a variety of outside 

influences. Watersheds, viewsheds, soundscapes, ecosystems, and trail and transportation 

systems all extend beyond park boundaries; their management and preservation require 

cooperation with other adjacent public land managers, local jurisdictions, and private 

landowners. The park is located in an urban/suburban setting, which places demands on 

park lands and resources (particularly by local public utilies). The park staff cannot 

successfully manage the natural and cultural resources and visitor experiences by looking 

only within the park boundary. The general management plan will provide guidance on 

improving communication, coordination, and participation with public and private 

stakeholders with a goal of protecting ecosystems, watersheds, viewsheds, and visitor 

opportunities that cross jurisdictional boundaries. 

National Park Service Identity

For a variety of reasons, the park does not have an easily recognized identity as part of 

the national park system. These include the large number of points of entry with minimal 

or no identifying entry features; the lack of NPS staff presence in many locations; the 

close juxtaposition of city, county, and state lands with NPS lands; and the lack of clearly 

marked park boundaries. The general management plan will provide guidance on 

improving and promoting the recognition of Golden Gate National Recreation Area and 

Muir Woods National Monument as national park system units and as areas where many 

visitors are first introduced to the concept and values of the national park system.

Partnerships

Partners are fundamental to long-term sustainability of the park. They help the National 

Park Service manage natural and cultural resources, deliver public programs, reach new 

audiences, and remain relevant and inclusive. They also help the park staff innovate and 

build community support. The National Park Service cannot fully accomplish parts of its 

mission without partners. Despite the many commonalities and objectives shared by the 

park staff and park partners, the current set of partners creates a diversity of goals and 

interests that may not be compatible with park goals. Partners’ needs cannot always be 

accommodated in the park. The general management plan will provide guidance on 

partnership development and management that enables NPS managers to make effective 

decisions and foster flexible, productive relationships that strengthen the purpose and 

mission of the park. 

American Indian Values

Since the late 1990s, the park staff has worked with American Indian groups, including 

the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (the federally recognized tribe comprised of 

park-associated Coast Miwoks and Southern Pomos), the many Ohlone tribes seeking 

federal recognition, and Ohlone individuals who partake in the stewardship of Ohlone 

heritage. Park lands in Marin County are the aboriginal homelands of Coast Miwoks. 

Park lands in San Francisco and San Mateo counties are the aboriginal homelands of 

Ohlones. The park staff desires to build on the relationship and civic engagement with 

American Indians in three broad activity areas: cultural resource management, 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 34

interpretation and education, and revitalization of community and tradition. The general 

management plan will provide guidance for integrating American Indian values with the 

management of resources and visitor experiences. 

ISSUES THAT WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED 

Dog Management 

This general management plan does not make decisions about dog walking in the park. 

The National Park Service is conducting a separate planning process to develop a dog 

management plan that will decide how best to manage dog walking. The dog 

management plan will identify a range of alternatives, evaluate them, solicit public 

review, and make decisions. The planning team for the general management plan 

continues to coordinate with the dog management planning team to ensure consistency 

between the plans. The National Park Service could make minor changes to the preferred 

alternative in the general management plan to make the plan consistent with the final dog 

management plan. 
Volume I: 35

RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PLAN TO OTHER PLANS

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument are located 

in the midst of a variety of public and private open spaces. These lands and waters 

combine to form a large and comprehensive natural open space corridor. Within Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area, there are sites that are being managed with guidance from 

recently completed land use or site management plans. 

The complex physical and political landscape of the San Francisco Bay Area has 

produced an environment where a multitude of planning takes place regarding 

transportation, conservation, recreation, growth and development, and coastal and ocean 

resources. Most of these public and private land and marine areas are covered by 

approved plans prepared by a host of federal, state, regional, and local agencies. 

Management of these lands and waters could influence or be influenced by actions 

presented in this general management plan / environmental impact statement. The 

following narrative briefly describes the various planning efforts and projects at the 

federal, park, state, and county levels, and how they may be influenced by the general 

management plan. 

NPS LAND USE PLANS FOR GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREA SITES NOT INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Many of the park sites within Golden Gate National Recreation Area have recent 

management plans and environmental documents that provide updated guidance in how 

the lands will be managed. The following NPS management plans and decisions were 

reviewed in the preparation of the general management plan to ensure a coordinated 

management of park lands. For a complete understanding of how all lands and marine 

areas will be managed at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the managers will be 

guided by this new general management plan in addition to the plans that cover park sites 

outside of this planning process. Each of these plans followed a prescribed planning 

process that involved public participation in their development. Following are

descriptions of the management plans that together with this plan provide guidance for 

managing the park.

Point Reyes National Seashore / Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area Northern District Draft General Management Plan (draft)

The current guiding document for Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area is the 1980 Golden Gate National Recreation Area / Point 

Reyes National Seashore General Management Plan and its subsequent amendments. 

Since the 1980 plan was approved, Point Reyes National Seashore has managed the lands 

of the Northern District of Golden Gate National Recreation Area from the 

Bolinas/Fairfax road northward. The 1980 general management plan is being updated 

through the GMP/EIS planning process for Point Reyes National Seashore and the 

Northern District of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The staff at Golden Gate 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 36

National Recreation Area participated in the planning process for Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Northern District and worked to ensure consistency between the plans. 

Fort Baker Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (2000) 

In 1995, the remaining military land at Fort Baker was determined to be excess to the 

needs of the military by the Department of Defense’s Base Realignment and Closure 

Committee. As a requirement of that determination, the land was transferred to the 

National Park Service, consistent with Public Law 92-589. The Fort Baker site includes a 

historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places containing 45 

contributing features (including post-Civil-War-era coastal fortifications), a marina and 

waterfront area at Horseshoe Cove, and important open space and scenic and natural 

areas including habitat for the federally listed endangered mission blue butterfly. The 

purpose of the 2000 EIS was to identify the following: 

• the program and types of uses that would be accommodated in historic buildings and 

generate adequate revenue for building rehabilitation and preservation 

• improvements to facilitate public uses, including new construction and removal of 

buildings, landscape treatments, trails, parking, circulation, and locations and patterns 

of use 

• waterfront improvements 

• opportunities for habitat restoration

• an approach to the protection, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the historic and 

natural resources

The highlights of the plan included development of a conference and retreat center, 

improvements to the Bay Area Discovery museum, and retention of the Coast Guard’s 

Golden Gate Station. The plan provided guidance for the restoration of the historic parade 

ground, use of the historic boat shop as a public center; improvements to the marina; 

restoration of the beach; protection of mission blue butterfly habitat; and preservation of 

fortifications, batteries, and historic landscapes. Implementation of this plan contributes 

to the diversity of recreational opportunities provided at Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area and preserves military structures and landscapes that reflect the military history of 

the site. Actions in the GMP alternatives are consistent with the Fort Baker Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Fort Mason Center Long-term Lease Environmental Assessment

(2004)

Fort Mason is part of the San Francisco Port of Embarkation National Historic Landmark 

District, historically serving as a major point of embarkation for American troops. In 

1972, the U.S. Army transferred responsibility for its maintenance, restoration, and use of 

the long-time military base to the National Park Service as part of Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. In 1975, a nonprofit group expressed an interest in moving to the lower 

part of Fort Mason, and the Fort Mason Foundation, a private nonprofit organization, was 

created by San Francisco civic and business leaders to negotiate with the National Park 
Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans

Volume I: 37

Service on behalf of the nonprofit community. In 2004, following an environmental 

assessment and public review process, the National Park Service entered into a long-term 

lease with the Fort Mason Center to continue its public programming and management of 

Lower Fort Mason, and to invest in the capital improvements needed for historic building 

preservation. The long-term lease accommodates continued use of Building E by San 

Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. The alternatives in this general 

management plan are consistent with this environmental assessment and long-term lease.

Presidio General Management Plan Amendment and 

Environmental Impact Statement (1994)

The transition of the Presidio of San Francisco from military post to the national park

system began in 1972 when, in the legislation creating Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area, Congress included a provision that the Presidio would become part of the national 

recreation area if the military ever declared the base excess to its needs. After the Presidio 

was designated for closure in 1989 by the Base Realignment and Closure Act, the U.S. 

Army transferred jurisdiction of the Presidio to the National Park Service in 1994. As 

part of the transition, in July 1994, the National Park Service completed and issued a final 

general management plan amendment for the Presidio laying out a vision for its future 

use and management.

Once the general management plan amendment was created, difficult issues remained 

regarding how to fund implementation of the plan. The National Park Service recognized 

that implementing the amendment would require innovative approaches and unique 

authorities to manage those aspects of the amendment. The National Park Service also 

recognized that the costs associated with this unit were high and uncharacteristic for the 

National Park Service. In 1996, Congress established the Presidio Trust (Trust) pursuant 

to the Presidio Trust Act for the purpose of preserving, enhancing, and maintaining the 

Presidio as a park, using the revenues from its leasable assets to fund that effort. In 

response to competing public policy goals, Congress gave the Trust the unique 

responsibility to reduce and eventually eliminate the costs of the Presidio to the federal 

government while retaining the Presidio within Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

The Trust assumed jurisdiction over 80% of the Presidio of San Francisco (referred to as 

Area B) on July 1, 1998 and the National Park Service retains jurisdiction over the 

coastal areas and Lobos Creek and dunes (referred to as Area A). The general 

management plan amendment remains the foundation plan that guides the Trust’s 

planning and decision making. In 2000, the Trust decided to develop a long-term 

management plan that would set the parameters within which the Trust would balance its 

preservation and financial responsibilities. 

The general management plan amendment guidance for Area A, managed by the National 

Park Service, provides for natural resource restoration, education, and outdoor recreation 

along the coastal areas of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Major sites within 

Area A include Crissy Field, Fort Point National Historic Site, Baker Beach, and Lobos 

Creek and dunes. 

For Area A, the actions proposed in this general management plan are consistent with the 

amendment that covers management of the lands within the Presidio of San Francisco. 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 38

The waters of the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay that are adjacent to the Presidio 

have been zoned in the new general management plan. 

Figure 2: Areas A and B of the Presidio of San Francisco

Sutro Historic District Comprehensive Design and Environmental 

Assessment (1993)

The Sutro Historic District Comprehensive Design and Environmental Assessment 

provides management guidance for the landscape rehabilitation of the Adolph Sutro 

Historic District. The plan retains the historic character while making changes to the 

property for new uses and interpretation for park visitors. The National Park Service 

continues to manage the Sutro Historic District structures and landscape, including the 

Cliff House, Sutro Baths, and the Sutro Heights Park. The landscape adjacent to the 

historic district includes a visitor center, trails, and parking, and the extended area is 

managed for natural and scenic values. The actions proposed in this general management 

plan recognize that the natural attributes and biotic systems of the larger surrounding park 

landscape contribute to the historical significance of the historic district. The alternatives 

are consistent with the environmental assessment.
Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans

Volume I: 39

CURRENT PLANS FOR OTHER PARK AREAS NOT MANAGED BY 

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Presidio Trust Management Plan: Land Use Policies for Area B of 

the Presidio of San Francisco (2002)

The Presidio Trust Management Plan is an update of the 1994 General Management 

Plan Amendment for the portion of the Presidio transferred to the Trust’s jurisdiction in 

1998. The Trust Act directs the Trust to manage Area B in accordance with the park

purposes identified in the enabling legislation for Golden Gate National Recreation Area

and the “general objectives” of the amendment. The latter were defined in Trust Board 

Resolution 99-11 (“General Objectives”). The Presidio Trust Management Plan provides 

an updated land use policy framework for Area B of the Presidio wholly consistent with 

the amendment’s general objectives, and which retains and builds on the amendment’s 

policies and principles. Since the time the amendment was adopted and the Presidio Trust 

Act was enacted, key land use and financial conditions have changed. The Presidio Trust 

Management Plan took into account the new Trust Act requirements, conditions that had 

changed since the amendment was adopted, new policies and management approaches, 

and provide a level of flexibility not contemplated in the amendment. The Presidio Trust 

Management Plan is the plan that the Trust looks to in making management and 

implementation decisions in Area B that are consistent with the purposes of Golden Gate

National Recreation Area enabling legislation and the general objectives of the

amendment. The amendment remains unaltered as the plan for NPS management of Area 

A of the Presidio.

The actions proposed in this general management plan are consistent with the Presidio 

Trust Management Plan.

OTHER NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLANS

In addition to the overall vision and management plans previously described, the National 

Park Service develops detailed project and program implementation plans in order to 

implement the goals and objectives of those broader plans. The implementation plans 

cover topics such as natural and cultural resource restoration and preservation, visitor use, 

transportation, and park operations. An overall description of each plan or program in the 

following list, along with its relationship to this general management plan, is provided in 

Appendix B.

NPS Trails and Transportation Plans and Programs

• Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and Management Plan 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Trails Forever Program, in partnership with the Golden Gate National Parks 

Conservancy
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 40

NPS Restoration Plans

• Alcatraz Island Historic Preservation and Safety Construction Program 

Environmental Impact Statement

• Easkoot Creek Restoration at Stinson Beach Environmental Assessment

• Lower Redwood Creek Floodplain and Salmonid Habitat Restoration, Banducci Site 

– Environmental Assessment

• Lower Redwood Creek Interim Flood Reduction Measures and Floodplain / Channel 

Restoration Environmental Assessment

• Mori Point Restoration and Trail Plan – Environmental Assessment

• Ocean Park Stewardship Action Plan, National Park Service

• Pacific Ocean Park Strategic Plan, National Park Service

• Wetland and Creek Restoration at Big Lagoon, Muir Beach Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

NPS Program Implementation Plans

• Alcatraz Development Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment

• Bay Area Museum Resource Center Plan

• Climate Change Action Plan 

• Comprehensive Interpretive Plan for the Golden Gate National Parks

• Fire Management Plan / Final Environmental Impact Statement for Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area

• Golden Gate National Recreation Area – Park Asset Management Plan

NPS Park Partner Plans

• Headlands Center for the Arts Master Plan

• Headlands Institute Campus Improvement and Expansion Plan 

• Marine Mammal Center Site and Facilities Improvements Project Environmental 

Assessment

• Slide Ranch Master Plan and Environmental Assessment 

NPS Plans in the Process of Being Developed 

• Dog Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area

• Golden Gate National Recreation Area – Long-Range Transportation Plan

• Marin Equestrian Stables Plan and Environmental Assessment 
Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans

Volume I: 41

• Alcatraz Embarkation and Education Center Study 

• Visitor Facility at Lands End

Other NPS General Management Plans

• San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park General Management Plan— 

Preparation of a new general management plan for the historical park is anticipated to 

begin shortly and will require close coordination with the staff at Golden Gate

National Recreation Area.

• Point Reyes National Seashore General Management Plan—Preparation of a new 

general management plan is underway. This plan addresses lands that are part of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area that are administered by Point Reyes National 

Seashore.

OTHER FEDERAL PLANS

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration —Joint Management Plan for 

Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries 

STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS

• Association of San Francisco Bay Area Governments: Bay Trail Plan

• California Department of Parks and Recreation – Angel Island State Park Resource 

Management Plan / General Development Plan / Environmental Impact Report 

• California Department of Parks and Recreation – California Outdoor Recreation Plan 

• California Department of Parks and Recreation – Gray Whale Cove State Beach 

General Plan Amendment 

• California Department of Parks and Recreation – Pacifica State Beach General Plan 

• California Department of Parks and Recreation – Mount Tamalpais State Park

General Plan 

• Caltrans District 4 Devil's Slide Project

• Coastal Conservancy – Completing the California Coastal Trail

• Golden Lands, Golden Opportunity: Preserving Vital Bay Area Lands for all 

Californians (Greenbelt Alliance, Bay Area Open Space Council, Association of Bay 

Area Governments 

• San Francisco Bay Plan 

• San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 42

• San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Final Program Environmental 

Impact Report: Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area

• South Access to the Golden Gate Bridge – Doyle Drive Final Environmental Impact 

Statement / Report

• Statewide Historic Preservation Plan for California, 2006-2010 

COUNTY AND LOCAL PLANS

• Central Marin Ferry Connection Project 

• Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Master Plan

• Huddart and Wunderlch Parks Master Plan

• Marin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

• Marin County Local Coastal Program Unit 1 

• Marin Countywide Plan as amended

• Midcoast Action Plan for Parks and Recreation: Planning Team Report 

• City of Pacifica Pedro Point Headlands Coastal Trail Connection

• Peninsula Watershed Management Plan – San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

• PG&E Jefferson-Martin 230kV Transmission Line Proposed Settlement and 

Environmental Assessment 

• Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area 

• San Francisco General Plan 

• San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan 

• San Mateo County Trails Plan 

• San Mateo Countywide Transportation 2010 Plan 

• San Pedro County Park

• Sausalito General Plan 

• Extension of San Francisco Municipal Railway’s Historic Streetcar Environmental 

Impact Statement 
Volume I: 43

RELATED LAWS AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

POLICIES

Many park management directives are specified in laws and policies guiding the National 

Park Service and are not subject to alternative approaches. For example, there are laws 

and policies about managing environmental quality (such as the Clean Air Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, Executive Order 13112: “Invasive Species,” and Executive 

Order 11990: “Protection of Wetlands”); laws governing the preservation of cultural 

resources (such as the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act); and laws about providing public services (such 

as the Americans with Disabilities Act). In other words, a general management plan is not 

needed to decide that it is appropriate to protect endangered species, control exotic 

species, protect historic and archeological sites, conserve artifacts, or provide for access 

for disabled persons. Laws and policies have already addressed those and many other 

issues. Although attaining some conditions set forth in these laws and policies may have 

been temporarily deferred in the park because of funding or staffing limitations, the 

National Park Service will continue to strive to implement these requirements with or 

without a new general management plan. However, the general management plan

provides an opportunity to develop more detailed interpretations needed in order to apply 

them in specific situations, and this is best decided during the development of the general 

management plan or during other planning processes. 

There are other laws and executive orders that are applicable solely or primarily to units 

of the national park system. These include the 1916 Organic Act that created the National 

Park Service; the General Authorities Act of 1970; the act of March 27, 1978 (also called 

the Redwoods National Park Expansion Act), relating to the management of the national 

park system; and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act (1998). 

The National Park Service Organic Act (16 United States Code, Section 1) provides the 

fundamental management direction for all units of the national park system: 

[P]romote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, 

monuments, and reservations . . . by such means and measure as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is 

to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life 

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

The National Park System General Authorities Act (16 United States Code [USC] 

Section 1a-1 et seq.) affirms that while all national park system units remain “distinct in 

character,” they are “united through their interrelated purposes and resources into one 

national park system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage.” The act 

makes it clear that the National Park Service Organic Act and other protective mandates 

apply equally to all units of the system. Further, amendments state that NPS management 

of park units should not “derogat[e] . . . the purposes and values for which these various 

areas have been established.”

The National Park Service also has established policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in a guidance manual entitled NPS Management 
PART 1: BACKGROUND

Volume I: 44

Policies 2006. The “action” alternatives considered in this document (alternatives 1, 2, 

and 3), as well as the no-action alternative (current management), incorporate and comply 

with the provisions of these mandates and policies. Appendix C details key NPS policies 

and their desired conditions and strategies.