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

Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Volume III

August • 2011

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

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

CONTENTS 

PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Introduction 3

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 5

Priority Resource Indicators 6

Priority Social Indicators 7

Managing Use Levels 7

Muir Woods National Monument 13

Priority Resource Indicators 13

Priority Social Indicators 14

Managing Use Levels 15

Monitoring 16

PART 10: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

Implementation Planning 25

Detailed Site Improvement Plans 25

Natural Resources 25

Cultural Resources 26

Visitor Use 26

General 26

Mitigative Measures 27

Natural Resources 27

General 27

Air Quality 28

Lightscape 28

Nonnative Species 28

Scenic Resources 28

Soils 28

Soundscape 29

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 29

Vegetation 30

Water Resources 30

Wildlife 31

Cultural Resources 31

Visitor Safety and Experiences 33

Park Operations 34

Social and Economic Environment 34

Transportation 34
CONTENTS 

Volume III: ii 

PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Introduction and Methodology 37

Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

38

Methodology 38

Natural Resources 39

Carbon Footprint and Air Quality 39

Soils and Geologic Resources and Processes 40

Water Resources and Hydrologic Processes 40

Habitat (Vegetation and Wildlife) and Special Status Species (Federal and State Threatened 

and Endangered Species) 41

Cultural Resources 42

Archeological Resources 43

Ethnographic Resources 43

Historic Structures 44

Cultural Landscape Resources 44

Park Collections 45

Visitor Use and Experience 45

Diversity of Recreation Opportunities and Availability of Other Visitor Support Services and 

Facilities 46

Education, Interpretation, and Stewardship Programs and Opportunities 47

Access and Connectivity to Parks and Open Space in the Bay Area 47

Social and Economic Environment 48

Quality of Life 48

Economy 52

Transportation 55

Park Management, Operations, and Facilities 58

Cumulative Impact Analysis at Muir Woods National Monument 60

Methodology 60

Natural Resources 60

Carbon Footprint and Air Quality 60

Soils and Geologic Resources and Processes 61

Water Resources and Hydrologic Processes 61

Habitat (Vegetation and Wildlife) and Special Status Species (Federal and State Threatened 

and Endangered Species) 62

Cultural Resources 63

Archeological Resources 63

Historic Buildings 64

Cultural Landscape Resources 64

Park Collections 64

Visitor Use and Experience 65

Social and Economic Environment 65

Transportation 66

Park Management, Operations, and Facilities 67

Additional Analyses 68

Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential 68

Effects on Energy Requirements and Conservation 68

Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 69
Contents 

Volume III: iii 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 69

Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Environment 

70

Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency 70

PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION

Public Involvement 75

General 75

Plan Development 75

Reviewing the Analysis of Potential Impacts 77

Rationale For Decisions 78

Consultation with Other Agencies, Officials, and Organizations 79

Section 7 Consultation 79

Section 106 Consultation with State Historic Preservation Office 79

Consultations with Native Americans 80

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving A Copy of this Document 81

Elected Officials and Committees 81

Federal Agencies 81

California State Agencies 81

Regional and Local Agencies 82

Cities 83

Organizations 83

American Indians 84

Individuals 84

Preparers and Consultants 85

Steering Committee 85

Team Members – California 86

Team Members – NPS Denver Service Center 88

Planning Team 88

Production Services 88

Planning Support and Specialists 89

Consultants 90

APPENDIXES 

Appendix A: Legislation 95

Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to This Plan 105

Appendix C: Relevant NPS Policies 129

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

Candidate Species) 143

Appendix E: Descriptions of Local Transit Service 148

Appendix F: Description of San Mateo County Trails 152
CONTENTS 

Volume III: iv 

GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Glossary 157

References 166

INDEX 

Index to Volume III 179

FIGURES AND TABLES 

Figure 1: User Capacity Framework 4 

Table 1: Alcatraz Island: User Capacity Indicators, Standards, Monitoring Strategies, 

and Management Strategies 8 

Table 2: Muir Woods National Monument: User Capacity Indicators, Standards, 

Monitoring Strategies, and Management Strategies 17 

 
Contents 

Volume III: v 

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I 

PART 1: BACKGROUND 

Introduction 

Purpose and Need 

Guiding Principles for Park Management 

The Planning Area 

Foundation Statements: Guidance for Planning 

Foundation Statements for Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Foundation Statements for Muir Woods National Monument 

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments Related to Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area 

Planning Issues 

Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans 

Related Laws and National Park Service Policies 

PART 2: BUILDING THE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Introduction 

Concepts for Future Management 

Actions and Alternatives Considered but Dismissed From Further Consideration 

Selection of the National Park Service Preferred Alternatives 

Management Zones 

PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Introduction 

Boundary Adjustments 

Climate Change 

Facilities for Maintenance, Public Safety, and Collections Storage 

Facilities Not Directly Related to the Park Mission 

Native American Engagement 

Ocean Stewardship 

Park Collections 

Partnerships 

Trails 

Transportation 
CONTENTS 

Volume III: vi 

PART 4: THE ALTERNATIVES FOR ALCATRAZ ISLAND 

No-action Alternative 

Alternative 1: Connecting People with the Parks 

Alternative 2: Preserving and Enjoying Coastal Ecosystems 

Alternative 3: Focusing on National Treasures The Preferred Alternative 

Summary Cost Estimates for Alcatraz Island 

Deferred Maintenance 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative for Alcatraz Island 

Summary Tables of the Alternatives for Alcatraz Island 

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

AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES 

No-action Alternative 

Alternative 1: Connecting People with the Parks The Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 2: Preserving and Enjoying Coastal Ecosystems 

Alternative 3: Focusing on National Treasures 

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

Counties 

Deferred Maintenance 

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

San Mateo Counties 

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

Mateo Counties 

PART 6: THE ALTERNATIVES FOR MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT x

No-action Alternative 

Alternative 1: Connecting People with the Parks 

Alternative 2: Preserving and Enjoying Coastal Ecosystems 

Alternative 3: Focusing on National Treasures The Preferred Alternative 

Summary of Costs Estimates for Muir Woods National Monument 

Deferred Maintenance 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative for Muir Woods National Monument 

Summary Tables for Muir Woods National Monument 

 
Contents 

Volume III: vii 

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 III: viii 
User Capacity 9

Volume III: 3 

INTRODUCTION 

General management plans for national park units are required by law to identify and 

address implementation commitments for user capacity, also known as carrying capacity. 

The National Park Service defines user capacity as the types and levels of visitor use that 

can be accommodated within a particular national park area while sustaining the quality 

of park resources and visitor experiences consistent with the purpose of that national 

park. Managing user capacity in national parks is inherently complex and depends not 

only on the number of visitors, but also on where the visitors go, what they do, and the 

“footprints” they leave behind. In managing for user capacity, the park staff and partners 

rely on a variety of management tools and strategies, rather than relying solely on 

regulating the number of people in a park area. In addition, the ever-changing nature of 

visitor use in parks requires a deliberate and adaptive approach to user capacity 

management. 

The foundations for making user capacity decisions in this general management plan are 

the purpose, significance, special mandates, and management zones associated with the 

national park and monument. The purpose, significance, and special mandates define why 

the park was established and identify the most important resources and values—including 

visitor opportunities—that are to be protected and provided. The management zones in 

each alternative describe the desired resource conditions and visitor experiences, 

including appropriate types of activities and general use levels, for different locations 

throughout the two parks, Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods 

National Monument. The zones, as applied in the alternatives, are consistent with, and 

help achieve, the specific purpose, significance, and special mandates for each park. As 

part of the National Park Service’s commitment to the implementation of user capacity, 

the park staff will use these directives to guide the types and levels of visitor use that will 

be accommodated while sustaining the quality of park resources and visitor experiences 

consistent with the purposes of both parks. 

In addition to these directives, in areas where use and past research and study have 

demonstrated a need, this plan also includes specific indicators and standards for Alcatraz 

Island in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and for Muir Woods National 

Monument. Indicators and standards are measureable variables that will be monitored to 

track changes in resource conditions and visitor experiences. The indicators and standards 

help the National Park Service ensure that desired conditions are being attained, 

supporting the fulfillment of the legislative and policy mandates of the park and the 

monument. The general management plan also identifies the types of management 

actions that would be taken to achieve desired conditions and related legislative and 

policy mandates. 

Tables 1 and 2 include the indicators, standards, and potential future management 

strategies, allocated by management zones for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National 

Monument, that would be implemented as a result of this planning effort. The planning 

team considered many potential issues and related indicators that would identify impacts 

of concern, but those described were considered the most salient and feasible given the 

importance and vulnerability of the resource or visitor experience affected by visitor use. 

Standards that represent the minimum acceptable condition for each indicator were then 

assigned taking into consideration the qualitative descriptions of the desired conditions, 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 4 

data on existing conditions, relevant research studies, staff management experience, and 

scoping on public preferences. 

User capacity decision making is a form of adaptive management (see the following 

figure). It is an iterative process in which management decisions are continuously 

informed and improved by monitoring the indicators and standards. Adjustments are 

made as appropriate. As monitoring of the park’s conditions continues, managers may 

decide to modify or add indicators if better ways are found to measure important changes 

in resource and social conditions. Information on the NPS monitoring efforts, related 

visitor use management actions, and any changes to the indicators and standards would 

be available to the public. 

Figure 1: User Capacity Framework 
Volume III: 5 

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a popular, heavily visited national park with 

extensive and diverse visitor opportunities that are in great demand. In addition, the park 

contains unique resources, some of which are highly vulnerable to visitor use impacts. 

Further, visitor use opportunities occur over an extensive area with many access points 

and use areas that make regulating use levels, activities, and patterns complex. Managing 

user capacity in this unique setting is highly challenging. 

Given these challenges and limited staff and budgets, user capacity management must be 

strategic through the efficient use of staff time and funding, targeted focus on areas of 

most concern within the park, and creative approaches to monitoring and developing 

management strategies. For all areas of Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the 

management zones provide the most important implementation commitment for user 

capacity, because they describe the desired resource conditions and visitor experiences—

including appropriate types and levels of use, visitor services, and development—for all 

sites within the planning area. These management zones are consistent with and help 

achieve Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s purpose, significance, and special 

mandates. Further, there are many existing visitor use management strategies already in 

use that will continue to be implemented to help the park staff achieve these desired 

conditions. Examples of some of these existing management strategies include the 

following: 

• providing visitor education materials on low impact practices (e.g., 

informational signs about off-trail impacts) 

• establishing maximum group size limits (e.g., the number of bicyclists in a 

group) 

• managing sites (e.g., closure of informal trails and active restoration) 

• closing sensitive resource areas (e.g., no visitor access to the tide pools at 

Point Bonita) 

• establishing regulations on visitor activities (e.g., hiking restricted to on-trail 

travel on the Coastal Trail) 

• requiring permits (e.g., all special events require a special use permit) 

The management strategies for some specific visitor use activities have recently been the 

focus of separate public planning processes. These activities include the management of 

beach fires at Ocean Beach, equestrian activities in the Marin Headlands, dog walking 

throughout Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and transportation within and outside 

park boundaries. The decisions that have been made or are being considered on 

appropriate visitor use management strategies for these activities are consistent with 

desired conditions outlined in this plan, and will help the National Park Service achieve 

these conditions. 

In addition to the implementation commitments for the desired conditions (identified in 

the zone descriptions), the park staff selected user capacity indicators and standards for 

Alcatraz Island, given the popularity of the site, the specialized visitor experience 

objectives, and the sensitivity of some natural and cultural resources. In the future, as the 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 6 

need presents itself and other planning opportunities arise, indicators and standards will 

be identified for other areas within Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Some of the 

topics for future consideration as indicators will likely include traffic congestion, parking 

in locations not designated for parking, informal trails, invasive plants, and encounter 

rates on trails. 

The park staff considered many potential resource and social indicators that would 

represent visitor use influences on resource and social conditions at Alcatraz Island. The 

indicators selected for inclusion in the general management plan were those that were 

considered to be the most important, as well as feasible, for long-term evaluation. 

PRIORITY RESOURCE INDICATORS 

The priority resource indicators for Alcatraz Island are associated with the issues of 

disturbance to birds, vandalism, and disturbance and wear on cultural resources. The 

conditions of these resources are already being monitored in various forms, but the 

indicators identified will help the park staff track specific influences to these resources as 

a result of visitor use. 

Impacts to bird populations from visitor activities can include unintentional disturbance, 

harassment, and feeding. These types of impacts can have significant effects on the 

health, abundance, and diversity of targeted bird species. Alcatraz Island serves as one of 

the few estuarine breeding sites for many marine birds (Saenz et al. 2006). Disturbance to 

Brandt’s cormorants was selected as the user capacity indicator, because the island is 

home to San Francisco Bay’s only Brandt’s cormorant colony. The populations of 

Brandt’s cormorants on Alcatraz Island have been the focus of study by the Point Reyes 

Bird Observatory since 1996, as part of their annual seabird monitoring program. The 

bird disturbance trend data collected by the observatory, along with the long-term desired 

conditions for marine bird habitat within the different zones on Alcatraz Island, served as 

the basis for selection of the standards for this indicator. Some of the existing 

management activities the National Park Service has already been employing in relation 

to this issue include visitor education via signs, staff, and docents; barriers in specific 

areas; and area and seasonal closures. 

Visitor use impacts to cultural resources include general wear on historic structures and 

some occurrences of unintentional disturbance and vandalism to archeological resources, 

historic structures, and the recently restored historical gardens. The specific indicators 

focus on existing monitoring protocol, including tracking incidences of graffiti and 

vandalism, and assessing site conditions as affected by visitor use. The standards are set 

at a low threshold since cultural resources are nonrenewable, so impacts, especially those 

that represent depreciative behavior, must be minimized to the extent possible. Visitor 

use impacts can disturb significant features of these resources, which may cause a loss of 

site integrity over time. Some of the management activities that the National Park Service 

has already been employing in relation to this issue include visitor education via signage, 

interpretive programs and roving patrols, barriers in specific areas, and area closures. 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Volume III: 7 

PRIORITY SOCIAL INDICATORS 

The priority social indicators selected for Alcatraz Island are associated with the issues of 

crowding and congestion. Given the popularity of Alcatraz Island as a tourist destination 

within San Francisco, the issues of crowding and congestion have been the focus of 

management efforts. In addition, these topics have been addressed in long-term visitor 

use studies conducted by the Park Studies Laboratory at the University of Vermont in 

cooperation with the National Park Service (Manning et al. 2007). The visitor activities 

within the cellhouse have been, and will continue to be, the highest priority area for some 

of these issues. Crowding and congestion problems may affect visitors’ ability to 

experience high-quality educational opportunities and could on occasion, affect visitor 

health and safety. The importance of the indicators selected, which include the number of 

people per view, the number of people at one time in the cellhouse, and the wait times for 

the ferry, are supported by the visitor survey research (Manning et al. 2007) along with 

on-going feedback provided to park staff by the visiting public. The standards set for 

these indicators were based on specific data collected regarding the levels of use 

experienced or observed, as well as visitors’ evaluations of acceptability for different 

levels of use. Many of these concerns are already tracked to some degree through 

periodic monitoring of visitor use levels in the cellhouse, tracking of wait times for the 

ferry, the recording of visitor complaints, and law enforcement incident reporting. The 

selected indicators will increase the degree of systematic monitoring and assessment of 

these issues. Some of the management activities the National Park Service has already 

been employing in relation to these issues include pre-trip planning information to 

encourage voluntary redistribution of use, reservation systems, and onsite education and 

programming to direct the flow of visitor use once on the island. 

MANAGING USE LEVELS 

Currently, Alcatraz Island receives about 4,400 visitors per day during the peak season 

and up to 5,000 visitors per day if evening programs are being offered. This level of use 

is—and will continue to be—closely regulated through the number of tickets that are 

offered each day for ferry access to the island. Given the National Park Service’s existing 

knowledge of resource and social conditions on the island, this amount of use allows the 

National Park Service and its partners to protect resources and provide high-quality 

visitor experiences, including meeting specific standards. In this plan, all of the 

alternatives for Alcatraz Island provide for new visitor opportunities that will allow the 

National Park Service and its partners to better distribute and manage visitor use on the 

island. In the future, incremental increases in the levels of visitor use may be considered. 

However, increases in use levels would be approached very carefully, and in an 

incremental and experimental way using monitoring data and related research, to ensure 

that the National Park Service’s implementation commitments to the park’s legislative 

and policy mandates, desired conditions, and related standards are always being achieved. 

 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 8 

Table 1: Alcatraz Island: User Capacity Indicators, Standards, Monitoring Strategies, and 

Management Strategies 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/ 

Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential Management 

Strategies 

TOPIC: VISITOR CAUSED BIRD DISTURBANCE 

Number of 

incidents of 

visitor 

disturbance to 

Brandt’s 

cormorants that 

result in impacts 

to individual 

birds during 

nesting season 

Evolved 

Cultural 

Landscape 

Zone 

No more than an 

average 

seasonal rate of 

0.02 major/ 

moderate/minor 

island-based 

visitor induced 

disturbances per 

hour to Brandt’s 

cormorants 

during nesting 

season. In 

addition, if 

observers note 

more than one 

disturbance per 

monitoring 

session (=6.5 

hours), 

additional 

management 

could be 

considered. 

Continue 

monitoring based 

on PRBO 

protocol 

• Increase visitor 

education on low 

impact practices 

and park 

regulations 

• Increase staff 

patrols and use of 

docents 

• Increase signage 

• Increase fencing, 

barricades, visual 

barriers, vegetative 

buffers 

• Restrict access to 

ranger/docent led 

only 

• Restrict visitor 

access to targeted 

areas 

• Relocate visitor 

activities 

• Alter gull 

management areas 

Number of 

incidents of 

visitor 

disturbance to 

Brandt’s 

cormorants that 

result in 

subcolony 

abandonment 

Evolved 

Cultural 

Landscape 

Zone 

No visitorinduced 

disturbances to 

Brandt’s 

cormorants that 

result in 

subcolony 

abandonment 

Continue 

monitoring based 

on PRBO 

protocol 

• Increase visitor 

education on low 

impact practices 

and park 

regulations 

• Increase staff 

patrols and use of 

docents 

• Increase signage 

• Increase fencing, 

barricades, visual 

barriers, vegetative 

buffers 

• Restrict access to 

ranger/docent led 

only 

• Restrict visitor 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Volume III: 9 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/ 

Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential Management 

Strategies 

access to targeted 

areas 

• Relocate visitor 

activities 

• Alter gull 

management areas 

Number of 

incidents of 

visitor 

disturbance to 

Brandt’s 

cormorants that 

result in impacts 

to individual 

birds during 

nesting season 

Sensitive 

Resource 

Zone 

(after 

marineprotected 

area is 

designated) 

No more than an 

average 

seasonal rate of 

0.03 major/ 

moderate/minor 

water-based 

visitor induced 

disturbances to 

Brandt’s 

cormorants 

during nesting 

season. 

Additional 

management 

could be 

considered if a 

single water 

based 

disturbance was 

observed. 

Continue 

monitoring based 

on PRBO 

protocol 

• Boat patrols in 

collaboration with 

other agencies 

• Target outreach to 

user groups 

• Increase signage 

visible from water 

• Use of buoys 

• Collaborate with the 

Seabird Protection 

Network for 

coordinated 

outreach, 

education, 

enforcement 

Number of 

incidents of 

visitor 

disturbance to 

Brandt’s 

Cormorants that 

result in 

subcolony 

abandonment 

Sensitive 

Resource 

Zone (after 

marineprotected 

area is 

designated) 

No visitorinduced 

disturbances to 

Brandt’s 

cormorants that 

result in 

subcolony 

abandonment 

Continue 

monitoring based 

on PRBO 

protocol 

• Boat patrols in 

collaboration with 

other agencies 

• Targeted outreach 

to user groups 

• Increased signage 

visible from water 

• Use of buoys 

• Collaborate with the 

Seabird Protection 

Network for 

coordinated 

outreach, 

education, 

enforcement 

TOPIC: VANDALISM OF CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Number of 

incidents of 

graffiti/vandalism 

Historic 

Immersion 

Zone 

(cellhouse 

No more than 

1 minor 

incident* per 

month 

On-going monitoring 

as part of regularly 

scheduled staff and 

volunteer patrols 

• Increase in visitor 

education on low 

impact practices 

and park 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 10 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/ 

Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential Management 

Strategies 

tour route, 

areas open 

to public) 

No major 

incidents** 

* Minor 

Incident: 

Small, easily 

repairable 

damage (e.g., 

new ink/paint 

graffiti over 

paintable 

surface)

** Major 

Incident: 

Irreparable 

damage 

resulting in 

major 

resource loss 

and 

significant 

recovery cost 

(e.g., new 

graffiti over 

historic 

graffiti) 

and collection of 

visitor comments. 

More rigorous 

comparison of 

existing conditions to 

the baseline on a 

periodic basis. 

regulations 

• Increase staff 

presence 

• Increase monitoring

• Temporarily close 

area while 

undergoing 

conservation 

treatment 

• Close problem 

area, except under 

supervision 

TOPIC: VISITOR CAUSED DISTURBANCE TO CULTURAL RESOURCES

Disturbance of 

plants in 

restored gardens 

All zones 

with 

restored 

gardens 

No more than 

a 20% 

loss/major 

disturbance 

to the plants 

in areas that 

are open to 

the public 

On-going monitoring 

as part of regularly 

scheduled staff and 

volunteer patrols 

and collection of 

visitor comments. 

More rigorous 

comparison of 

existing conditions to 

the baseline on a 

periodic basis. 

• Increase visitor 

education on low 

impact practices 

and park 

regulations 

• Increase fences 

and barriers 

• Increase staff 

presence 

• Regulate or restrict 

access 

• Increase monitoring

Disturbance of 

rock walls, 

brickwork, 

exposed cultural 

resources 

All zones No more than 

a 5% 

loss/major 

disturbance 

of the feature 

(rock wall, 

brickwork, 

exposed 

On-going monitoring 

as part of regularly 

scheduled staff and 

volunteer patrols 

and collection of 

visitor comments. 

More rigorous 

comparison of 

• Increase visitor 

education on low 

impact practices 

and park 

regulations 

• Increase fences or 

barriers 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Volume III: 11 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/ 

Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential Management 

Strategies 

cultural 

resources) 

existing conditions to 

the baseline on a 

periodic basis. 

• Increase staff 

presence 

• Regulate or restrict 

access 

• Increase monitoring

Disturbance/loss 

of ground cover 

on known 

archeological 

sites 

All unpaved 

areas 

No trampling 

on known 

archeological 

sites, as 

evidenced by 

footprints and 

compaction of 

soil compared 

to similar and 

immediately 

adjacent soils 

On-going monitoring 

as part of regularly 

scheduled staff and 

volunteer patrols 

and collection of 

visitor comments. 

More rigorous 

comparison of 

existing conditions to 

the baseline on a 

periodic basis. 

• Increase visitor 

education on low 

impact practices 

and park 

regulations 

• Create or widen 

existing paths 

• Install temporary or 

permanent signs 

• Increase 

fences/barriers 

TOPIC: VISITOR CAUSED WEAR ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Number of 

incidents 

regarding wear, 

tear, or damage 

on cultural 

resources from 

special events 

Historic 

Immersion 

Zone 

(cellhouse, 

VIP tours, 

SPUG) 

No more than 

2 minor 

incidents per 

event 

No major 

incidents 

Continue existing 

assessment 

protocols of 

conditions after each 

special event. 

• Revise Standard 

Operating 

Procedure for 

VIPs/SPUG events 

• Increase in visitor 

education on low 

impact practices 

and park 

regulations 

• Increase staffing 

ratio 

• Increase physical 

barriers 

• Restrict or reduce 

access 

TOPIC: CROWDING AND CONGESTION

People Per View 

(PPV) on 

Michigan 

Avenue 

People at one 

time (PAOT) on 

C-D Street 

Historic 

Immersion 

Zone 

No more than 

0-43 PPV on 

Michigan 

Avenue, 90% 

of the time 

No more than 

0-74 PAOT 

Periodic photo 

monitoring and/or 

observations and 

visitor surveys 

• Adjust flow of 

visitors (for 

example: timed 

audio tickets, 

reconfiguration of 

tour flow, or 

scheduling 

dockside 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 12 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/ 

Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential Management 

Strategies 

on C-D 

Street, 90% 

of the time 

programming) 

• Adjust boat ticket 

distribution (e.g., more 

in the AM or PM) 

• Reduce the number of 

visitors to the island 

• Increase monitoring to 

determine and 

readjust to standard 

Number of times 

a vessel departs 

Alcatraz Island 

leaving visitors 

in line for more 

than 15 minutes 

Evolved 

Cultural 

Landscape 

Zone 

No more than 

2 times per 

month or 12 

times 

annually, 

excluding 

emergencies 

Continue existing 

monitoring and 

documentation of 

wait times and visitor 

comments regarding 

ferry access 

• Increase education 

on the timing of 

ferries 

• Add more boats 

and/or higher 

capacity boats 

• Adjust programming 

(for example: close 

facilities early or 

cancel programs at 

certain times) 

• Limit the number of 

island visitors (limit 

tickets sold) 
Volume III: 13 

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Similar to Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the management zones provide the 

most important implementation commitment for user capacity for Muir Woods National 

Monument because they describe the desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences—including appropriate types and levels of use, visitor services, and 

development—for all sites within the monument. These zones are consistent with and 

help achieve the monument’s purpose, significance, and special mandates. Further, there 

are many existing visitor use management strategies already in use that will continue to 

be implemented to help the park staff achieve these desired conditions. Examples of some 

of these existing management strategies include 

• visitor education on low impact practices (e.g., quiet zones and quiet days); 

• management of visitor access (e.g., dedicated park shuttle access during peak 

season); 

• closure of sensitive resource areas (e.g., no fishing or swimming in Redwood 

Creek); 

• regulations for visitor activities (e.g., hiking restricted to on-trail travel on the 

main trail through the woods); and 

• permit requirements (e.g., all special events require a special use permit). 

In addition to the implementation commitments for the desired conditions, the park staff 

has selected user capacity indicators and standards for Muir Woods National Monument. 

The park staff considered many potential resource and social indicators that would 

represent visitor use influences on resource and social conditions within the monument. 

Similar to Alcatraz Island, the indicators selected for inclusion in the general 

management plan were those that were considered to be the most important, as well as 

feasible, for long-term evaluation. 

PRIORITY RESOURCE INDICATORS 

The priority resource indicators for Muir Woods National Monument are associated with 

the issues of informal trails (i.e., trails created by visitors leaving designated trails), 

impacts to soundscapes from human-caused noise, evidence of visitor-caused wear or 

disturbance to the redwood trees, and the amount and distribution of invasive species. 

The proliferation of informal trails in Muir Woods National Monument is not currently a 

serious problem because the NPS staff has greatly increased efforts to clearly delineate 

designated trails and to educate visitors to stay on trails. Although conditions have 

improved and informal trails are not a significant concern currently, any future expansion 

of informal trails was still considered a high priority issue given the related impacts of 

vegetation loss, soil erosion, fragmentation of wildlife habitats, and disturbance to rare 

flora, fauna and archeological sites (Marion 2008). The indicator for informal trails is 

based on a modified version of a trail condition classification system developed by Jeff 

Marion of the United States Geological Survey (Marion 2008). Given the associated 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 14 

resource concerns and the limited extent of informal trails currently, the standard was set 

at zero tolerance for new informal trails in order to perpetuate existing conditions over 

the long term. As mentioned, some of the management activities the National Park 

Service has been employing in relation to this issue include educating visitors to stay on 

trails and clearly marking designated trails. Further, the National Park Service has placed 

barriers and actively restored informal trails to minimize their continued use. Roving 

patrols and other education and enforcement techniques have also been used. 

Given the high levels of use in the woods, including use by families and groups, noise 

levels and the frequency of human introduced sound can affect the natural soundscape, 

disrupting wildlife and impacting visitor experiences. These changes can sometimes 

influence normal wildlife activities, leading to altered behavior and productivity in 

individuals, and possible modifications in the abundance and distribution of populations 

(Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Baseline conditions for much of the monument’s 

soundscape were established through comprehensive noise monitoring in 2006 and 2007. 

These data, along with visitor surveys, were used to identify the best metrics for the 

soundscape indicators and establish associated standards. There is more discussion below 

on the studies conducted and how they were used in the planning process. Some of the 

management activities the National Park Service has been employing in relation to this 

issue have focused on education regarding low impact practices, including introducing 

“quiet days” and “quiet zones” within the woods to encourage visitors to voluntarily 

modify their behavior and better protect the natural soundscape. 

Although visitor use is not the only or even the primary source of invasive species, these 

species can be introduced and spread through visitor and vehicle activity within the 

monument. The NPS Inventory and Monitoring program has been monitoring the number 

of detections and the extent of cover of invasive species as part of the Vital Signs 

Program. The goal of the program is to target new or expanding infestations (NPS 2006). 

The indicators and standards included in Table 25 are consistent with those being pursued 

by the NPS Inventory and Monitoring program. If monitoring detects a change in the 

number or extent of invasive species, then a problem analysis would be needed to isolate 

the causal factors. If visitor use were determined to be a contributor to the observed 

change in conditions, then the necessary visitor use management strategies would be 

implemented. Some of the management activities the National Park Service has been 

employing in relation to this issue include educating visitors to stay on trails, clearly 

marking designated trails, and restricting activities that may increase the introduction of 

invasive species. 

PRIORITY SOCIAL INDICATORS 

The priority social indicators for Muir Woods National Monument are associated with the 

issues of crowding and use conflicts. The Park Studies Laboratory at the University of 

Vermont has conducted a program of social science research at the monument from 2003 

to the present (Manning et al. n.d.). These studies collected baseline data on visitor use 

and users (including detailed travel patterns throughout the park), potential indicators of 

quality of the visitor experience, potential standards of quality for specific types of 

crowding and use conflicts, and visitor attitudes toward alternative management 
Muir Woods National Monument 

Volume III: 15 

practices. The research resulted in recommended potential indicators that included the 

number of people within a person’s view, noise impacts, and arrival delays, which 

contributed to visitors’ perception of crowding and conflict while visiting Muir Woods 

(Manning et al. n.d.). 

Additional visitor studies were targeted to collect data on visitor preference and 

acceptability of various use densities (people per view) along trails in the woods, the 

current number of encounters between groups along secondary trails, as well as number 

of people at one time in key interpretive areas, which contributed to selection of the 

standards for the Interpretive Corridor Zone (Manning et al. n.d.). This zone contains 

both the primary use areas in the redwood forest (including the valley primary trails and 

interpretive areas such as the redwood cross section and Pinchot Tree) and secondary 

trails. Based on the desired conditions for the Interpretive Corridor Zone and the need to 

manage the primary use areas in a different manner from the secondary trails, the 

approach for setting standards varied across these two areas. The primary use areas are 

managed to accommodate the highest levels of use in the monument and visitors have an 

expectation of seeing others in these areas. Given these expectations, the planning team 

assigned the level of use that was deemed acceptable by visitors in the visitor study as the 

standard for this area (a level that does not affect the experience to the extent a visitor 

would not come back). The secondary trails within the Interpretive Corridor Zone are not 

intended for high use and there is an expectation for solitude and quiet in these areas, so 

the planning team assigned the level of use that was deemed preferred by visitors in the 

visitor study as the standard for this area (a level that does not require action by park 

management) (Manning et al. n.d.). 

In addition, visitor reactions to visitor-caused noise were studied using a series of audio 

clips simulating a range of visitor-caused noise in the park; these findings contributed to 

the standards selected for this indicator. The indicators of the percentage of time human 

sounds are audible and sound pressure level were considered the most meaningful and 

measurable indicators related to visitor-caused noise (Newman and McCusker 2009). 

Finally, the visitor studies evaluated visitor perceptions on acceptable waiting times to 

find parking and walking times from the parking area. This information in combination 

with other national standards for wait times at high-use areas and attraction sites 

contributed to the selection of a standard for this indicator for both auto and shuttle 

visitors (Manning et al. n.d.; Orca Consulting 2008). Some of the existing management 

activities that the National Park Service has been employing in relation to these various 

social issues include educating visitors regarding low impact practices, providing pre-trip 

planning information to encourage voluntary redistribution of use to less busy times, and 

employing the park shuttle system during peak periods to help modify the flow of visitor 

use to the woods. 

MANAGING USE LEVELS 

The level of use at Muir Woods National Monument is not as regulated as it is at Alcatraz 

Island, but it is currently constrained during the peak season by the amount of parking 

available and the frequency and size of shuttle buses. All of the alternatives for Muir 

Woods National Monument call for visitation to be better distributed and managed. 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 16 

However, it is uncertain at this time whether the amount of use per day, if better 

distributed and managed, would need to be further regulated in order to achieve the 

desired conditions and related standards identified for the monument. In order to better 

assess those needs, the National Park Service will continue to conduct analysis of visitor 

use patterns as part of the planning for the redesign of the monument’s entrance and 

parking areas, which is proposed in this plan’s action alternatives. The implementation 

plan will closely examine the need for further regulation of the amount and timing of use 

as part of the alternatives for reduced parking and an increased emphasis on shuttle 

access. 

MONITORING 

Some of the issues and related indicators noted for both Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area and Muir Woods National Monument, such as impacts to bird populations, invasive 

species, and wear on cultural resources, are also highly influenced by regional and global 

threats such as pollution, disease, and climate change. Isolating visitor use impacts to 

these resources is not easy and may seem less significant than these other serious threats. 

However, there are visitor management actions that can help minimize these impacts and 

reduce the stress on park resources, providing tangible resource and social benefits. 

The park staff will continue general monitoring of use levels and patterns throughout the 

park and monument. In addition, the park staff will monitor these user capacity 

indicators. The rigor of monitoring the indicators (e.g., frequency of monitoring cycles, 

amount of geographic area monitored) may vary considerably depending on how close 

existing conditions are to the standards. If the existing conditions are far from exceeding 

the standard, the rigor of monitoring may be less than if the existing conditions are close 

to or trending towards the standard. 

In addition, the initial phases of monitoring for the indicators and standards defined 

above will help the National Park Service determine if any revisions are needed. The 

initial application of the indicators and standards will determine if the indicators are 

accurately measuring the conditions of concern and if the standards truly represent the 

minimally acceptable condition of the indicator. Park staff may decide to modify the 

indicators or standards and revise the monitoring program if better ways are found to 

measure changes caused by visitor use. If use levels and patterns change appreciably, the 

park may need to initiate additional monitoring of new indicators to ensure that desired 

conditions are protected. This iterative learning and refining process is the strength of the 

NPS user capacity management program, in that it can be adapted and improved as 

knowledge grows. 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 17 

Table 2: Muir Woods National Monument: User Capacity Indicators, Standards, 

Monitoring Strategies, and Management Strategies 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential 

Management 

Strategies 

TOPIC: VISITOR CREATED INFORMAL TRAILS 

Increase in the 

number of 

informal trails and 

change in the 

condition class of 

existing informal 

trails in the 

redwood forest* 

*Problem analysis 

would be needed 

to isolate visitorcaused impacts 

Interpretive 

Corridor Zone – 

surrounding 

Redwood Creek 

Sensitive 

Resources Zone 

– the upper 

slopes 

Natural Zone – 

western end of 

the monument at 

Mount 

Tamalpais State 

Park 

No increase in 

the number of 

informal trails, 

and no increase 

in the condition 

class* of existing 

informal trails 

from the 

previously 

monitored 

baseline. No 

Class III trails. 

* Trail 

Condition 

Classification 

System: 

Adapted from 

descriptive 

system by Jeff 

Marion, USGS 

Class I 

Trail is barely 

visible. Minimal 

disturbance of 

organic litter or 

vegetation. Very 

little bare soil is 

evident along the 

tread. 

Class II 

Trail is obvious. 

Organic litter is 

disturbed or 

diminished in 

places. Slight 

loss or damage 

to vegetation. 

Bare soil is 

evident along the 

center of the 

tread. 

Class III 

Serious erosion 

is obvious. 

Periodic 

assessments 

would be 

conducted inside 

the monument 

boundaries and 

possibly beyond 

if they are critical 

to forest health, 

e.g., areas in 

Mount Tamalpais 

State Park 

adjacent to 

Redwood Creek. 

Assessments 

would take place 

at the point 

where the 

informal trail 

begins, i.e., 

where it departs 

from an existing 

authorized trail. 

• Formal review 

of possible 

causes 

(including 

determining 

whether the 

informal trail is 

visitor use or 

animal related) 

and to 

determine 

most 

appropriate 

management 

response 

• Increase visitor 

education on 

low impact 

practices and 

park 

regulations 

• Place border 

logs or other 

barriers along 

formal trails at 

the junction 

with informal 

trails 

• Restore 

informal trails 

by decompacting soils 

and moving 

organic debris 

onto the visible 

portion of the 

informal trails 

to hide them 

(for Class II 

and III trails, 

natural 

topography 

would be 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 18 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential 

Management 

Strategies 

Nearly complete 

loss of organic 

litter and/or 

vegetative cover. 

Bare soil is 

widespread in a 

widening tread. 

restored prior 

to any addition 

of organic 

matter/litter) 

• Add formal 

trailhead signs 

explaining the 

problem and 

asking visitors 

to remain on 

formal trails 

• Enhance 

marking of the 

official trail 

and/or improve 

adjacent 

designated 

trails 

• Formalize an 

informal trail, 

possibly on a 

new alignment, 

to 

accommodate 

visitor interest 

• Install 

temporary or 

permanent 

signs 

• Consider more 

substantial 

restoration 

work (after all 

foot traffic has 

been removed 

from the 

informal trail) 

• Increase 

enforcement or 

presence of 

rangers or 

volunteers 

• Area closures 

• Reduce use 

levels 
Muir Woods National Monument 

Volume III: 19 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential 

Management 

Strategies 

TOPIC: IMPACTS TO SOUNDSCAPE FROM HUMAN NOISE 

Sound pressure 

level 

Percent time 

human sounds 

are audible 

Interpretive 

Corridor Zone Daytime (0700– 1900) L50 dBA: 

34 

(note: L50 is the 

sound level that 

is exceeded 50% 

of the time) 

% time human 

sounds audible: 

45% 

Monitoring would 

be conducted on 

a periodic basis 

using digital 

recordings 

and/or on-site 

listening protocol 

as appropriate. If 

a standard is 

exceeded, the 

type and location 

of each 

contributing 

noise source 

would be 

identified. 

• Increase visitor 

education on 

low impact 

practices and 

park 

regulations 

• Designate 

more quiet 

zones and 

days 

• Redistribute 

visitor flow 

and/or reduce 

use levels 

• Increase 

education for 

organized 

groups 

• Change in the 

regulations of 

organized 

groups (e.g., 

group size 

limits) 

Difference 

between Lnat 

and existing 

ambient L50 

Natural and 

Sensitive 

Resources 

Zones 

Difference 

between Lnat 

and existing 

ambient (L50) 

is 2 dBA or 

less during the 

daytime (0700–

1900) 

Monitoring 

would be 

conducted on a 

periodic basis 

using digital 

recordings 

and/or on-site 

listening 

protocol as 

appropriate. If 

a standard is 

exceeded, the 

type and 

location of 

each 

contributing 

noise source 

would be 

identified. 

• Increase visitor 

education on 

low impact 

practices and 

park 

regulations 

• Designate 

more quiet 

zones and 

days 

• Redistribute 

visitor flow 

and/or reduce 

use levels 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 20 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential 

Management 

Strategies 

TOPIC: INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES 

Number of 

priority invasive 

plant species 

detections* 

Extent of 

invasive plant 

cover* 

*Problem 

analysis would 

be needed to 

isolate visitorcaused impacts.

All zones No increase in 

the number of 

new priority 

invasive plant 

species* 

No increase in 

the % cover* 

Continue 

monitoring per 

the Inventory 

and Monitoring 

Program 

• Increase visitor 

education on 

low impact 

practices and 

park 

regulations 

• Require the 

cleaning of 

gear that is 

capable of 

transferring 

plant material 

• Temporarily or 

permanently 

close areas 

• Reduce use 

levels 

• Removal of 

invasives and 

restoration of 

disturbed 

areas 

TOPIC: CROWDING AND CONGESTION 

People Per 

View (PPV) 

along valley 

primary trails 

People At One 

Time (PAOT) in 

a defined 

interpretive 

space such as 

Pinchot Tree or 

Redwood 

Crosscut 

Interpretive 

Corridor Zone: 

primary visitor 

areas in the 

redwood forest 

including the 

valley trails, 

redwood crosssection, and 

Pinchot Tree. 

No more than 

0-18 PPV 

along valley 

primary trails, 

90% of the 

time 

No more than 

0-30 PAOT in a 

defined 

interpretive 

space, 90% of 

the time 

PPV and 

PAOT would 

be measured 

by still 

photography 

from a few 

fixed positions 

at various 

times through 

the year. 

Visitor counts 

taken from the 

photographs 

would be used 

to determine 

the appropriate 

management 

actions. 

The standard 

for crowding 

• Encourage 

voluntary 

redistribution of 

use across the 

day 

• Change the 

timing and 

• availability of 

transit and tour 

bus access 

• Direct visitor 

flow to other 

areas and trails

• Reduce use 

levels 
Muir Woods National Monument 

Volume III: 21 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential 

Management 

Strategies 

and congestion 

(acceptability 

of PPV and 

PAOT range) 

would be 

updated by a 

focused survey 

every 5 years 

or when major 

changes are 

implemented. 

Number of 

encounters 

along secondary 

trails with one or 

more people in 

opposite 

direction 

Interpretive 

Corridor Zone: 

secondary 

trails including 

Hillside and 

Fern Creek. 

No more than 

0-40 

encounters 

with one or 

more people in 

the opposite 

direction along 

secondary 

trails, 90% of 

the time 

Encounter 

rates would be 

measured by 

an observer 

hiking along 

principal 

secondary 

trails at various 

times of day 

and days of 

week 

throughout the 

year. The data 

would be used 

to determine 

the appropriate 

management 

actions. 

The standard 

for crowding 

and congestion 

(preference for 

encounter 

rates) would be 

updated by a 

focused survey 

every 5 years 

or when major 

changes are 

implemented. 

• Encourage 

voluntary 

redistribution of 

use across the 

day 

• Change the 

timing and 

• availability of 

transit and tour 

bus access 

• Direct visitor 

flow to other 

areas and trails

• Reduce use 

levels 

Approximate 

arrival 

experience time 

Diverse 

Opportunities 

Zone 

Maximum 

arrival time 20–

30 minutes per 

Regular 

observations of 

the arrival 

• Encourage 

voluntary 

redistribution of 
PART 9: USER CAPACITY 

Volume III: 22 

Indicator Assigned 

Zone/Area 

Standard Monitoring 

Strategy 

Potential 

Management 

Strategies 

(from arrival* to 

entrance fee 

purchase) 

*Arrival for auto 

visitors begins 

when vehicles 

turn off Muir 

Woods Road 

and into a 

parking lot at 

the monument 

*Arrival for 

shuttle visitors 

begins when the 

shuttle bus pulls 

into the 

designated bus 

loading/unloadin

g zone. 

individual or 

group 

experience 

time would be 

conducted. 

This indicator 

and standard 

will be further 

tested and 

adjusted as 

part of 

implementation 

planning for 

increased 

shuttle access 

and the 

redesigned 

entrance to the 

monument. 

use 

• Redesign the 

arrival 

experience 

• Institutionalize 

Intelligent 

Transportation 

Systems with 

Caltrans 

• Increase 

efficiencies at 

fee station 

• Improve shuttle 

service 
10 Implementation Planning and 

Mitigative Measures

Volume III: 25 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING 

After the approval of this general management plan, the park staff would complete other 

more detailed studies before specific actions would be implemented. These studies would 

investigate the baseline condition of resources and visitor use in the park as required by 

NPS management policies and fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other relevant laws and policies. 

These would inform the detailed site-specific improvement plans that would be prepared 

for different parts of the park. Where appropriate, these studies and plans would be 

completed with substantial public involvement and environmental compliance. The 

additional studies and improvement plans could include the following: 

Detailed Site Improvement Plans 

• Stinson Beach 

• Muir Woods 

• Muir Woods Offsite Welcome Center 

• Lower Redwood Creek 

• Tennessee Valley 

• Fort Cronkhite/Rodeo Valley 

• Alcatraz Island 

• Ocean Beach 

• Fort Funston 

• Picardo Ranch 

• Rancho Corral de Tierra 

Natural Resources 

• Resource stewardship strategy 

• Ocean stewardship action plan 

• Vegetation management plans, including exotic species 

• Forest inventories and condition assessments 

• Water resources availability studies 

• Earth materials management plans 

• Geotechnical evaluations of shorelines 

• Field surveys for presence of threatened and endangered species 

• Regional studies of wildlife species of special interest 

• Pest control and eradication plans 
PART 10: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

Volume III: 26 

Cultural Resources 

• Collections management plan 

• Resource stewardship strategy 

• Historic resource studies 

• Archeological surveys and investigations 

• Cultural landscape inventories and reports 

• Historic structures reports 

• Fortification preservation and management plans 

• Lighthouse preservation and management plans 

• Updates to national historic landmark nominations 

• Determinations of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places 

• Updates to national register nominations 

• HABS, HAER, HALS documentation 

Visitor Use 

• Educational and interpretive program plans 

• Visitor satisfaction surveys 

• Trails development and management plans 

• Social trail inventories and management plans 

• Transportation and transit plans 

• Equestrian facilities management plans 

• Accessibility action and transition plan 

General 

• Land protection plan 

• Business plans 

• Visual impact assessments 
Volume III: 27 

MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

Congress charged the National Park Service with managing the lands under its 

stewardship “in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations” (NPS Organic Act, 16 USC 1). As a result, NPS staff 

routinely evaluate and implement mitigative measures whenever conditions occur that 

could adversely affect the sustainability of national park system resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the action alternatives leaves natural and cultural 

resources unimpaired and provides quality visitor experiences, a consistent set of 

mitigative measures would be applied to actions proposed in this plan. The National Park 

Service would prepare implementation plans with appropriate environmental compliance 

[i.e., those required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic 

Preservation Act, as amended, and other relevant legislation] for these future actions. 

These implementation plans would include more detailed mitigative measures for specific 

projects. As part of the environmental compliance, the National Park Service would 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts when practicable. The implementation of 

a compliance-monitoring program would be within the parameters of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, compliance 

documents, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, and 

other compliance requirements. The compliance-monitoring program would oversee 

these mitigative measures and would include reporting protocols. 

The following mitigative measures and best management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts from implementation of the action alternatives 

included in this general management plan. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

General 

The park and monument resources, including air, water, soils, vegetation, and wildlife, 

would be periodically inventoried and monitored to provide information needed to avoid 

or minimize impacts of future development. Any museum collections related to natural 

resources generated by such activities would be managed according to NPS policies. 

Whenever possible, new facilities would be built in previously disturbed areas or in carefully selected sites with as small a construction footprint as possible and with sustainable 

design. During design and construction periods, NPS natural and cultural resource staff 

would identify areas to be avoided and would monitor activities. 

Fencing or other means would be used to protect sensitive resources adjacent to 

construction areas. 

Construction materials would be kept in work areas, especially if the construction takes 

place near streams, springs, natural drainages, or other water bodies. 

Visitors would be informed of the importance of protecting the natural resources and 

leaving these undisturbed for the enjoyment of future generations. 
PART 10: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

Volume III: 28 

Air Quality 

A dust abatement program would be implemented. Standard dust abatement measures 

could include watering or otherwise stabilizing soils, covering haul trucks, employing 

speed limits on unpaved roads, minimizing vegetation clearing, and revegetating after 

construction. 

Lightscape 

Mitigative measures to preserve natural ambient lightscapes would include the following: 

• Limiting the use of artificial outdoor lighting to that which is necessary for 

basic safety requirements. 

• Shielding all outdoor lighting to the maximum extent possible. 

• Keeping light on the intended subject and out of the night sky to the greatest 

degree possible. 

• Working with park partners and visitors on education and best management 

practices to minimize their impacts on lightscapes. 

Nonnative Species 

Special attention would be devoted to preventing the spread of exotic and invasive plants. 

Standard measures could include the following elements: ensure that construction-related 

equipment arrives at the work site free of mud or seed-bearing material, certify all seeds 

and straw material as weed-free, identify areas of nonnative plants before construction, 

treat exotic plants or exotic infested topsoil before construction (e.g., topsoil segregation, 

storage, herbicide treatment), and revegetate areas with appropriate native species. 

Scenic Resources 

Mitigative measures that would be used to minimize visual intrusions could include the 

following: 

• Where appropriate, facilities such as boardwalks and fences would be used to 

route people away from sensitive natural and cultural resources while still 

permitting access to important viewpoints. 

• Facilities would be designed, sited, and constructed to avoid or minimize 

visual intrusion into the natural environment or landscape. 

• Vegetative screening would be provided, where appropriate. 

Soils 

New facilities would be built on soils suitable for development. Soil erosion would be 

minimized by limiting the time soil is left exposed and by applying other erosion control 

measures such as erosion matting, silt fencing, and sedimentation basins in construction 

areas to reduce erosion, surface scouring, and discharge to water bodies. Once work was 

completed, construction areas would be revegetated with native plants. 
Mitigative Measures 

Volume III: 29 

To minimize soil erosion on new trails, best management practices for trail construction 

would be used. Examples of best management practices could include installing water 

bars, check dams, and retaining walls; contouring to avoid erosion; and minimizing soil 

disturbance. 

Soundscape 

Mitigative measures to preserve natural ambient soundscapes would include the 

following: 

• Facilities would be located and designed to minimize objectionable noise.

• Standard noise abatement measures would be followed during construction, 

including: a schedule that minimizes impacts on adjacent noise-sensitive 

resources, the use of the best available noise control techniques wherever 

feasible, the use of hydraulically or electrically powered tools when feasible, 

and the location of stationary noise sources as far from sensitive resources as 

possible.

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

Conservation measures would occur during normal operations as well as before, during, 

and after construction to minimize long-term, immediate impacts on rare species, and 

threatened and endangered species where they are identified in the two parks. These 

measures would vary by specific project and the affected area of the two parks. Many of 

the measures listed above for vegetation and wildlife would also benefit rare, threatened, 

and endangered species by helping to preserve habitat. Conservation measures specific to 

rare, threatened, and endangered species would include the following actions: 

• Surveys would be conducted for special status species, including rare, 

threatened, and endangered species, before deciding to take any action that 

might cause harm. In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service, appropriate measures would be 

taken to protect any sensitive species, whether identified through surveys or 

presumed to occur. Any actions expected to impact threatened and endangered 

species would be subject to consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, leading to the development of necessary protective measures. 

• If breeding or nesting areas for threatened and endangered species were 

observed in the park or monument, these areas would be protected from 

human disturbance. 

• New facilities and management actions would be located and designed to 

avoid adverse effects on rare, threatened, and endangered species. If avoidance 

of adverse effects on these species were infeasible, appropriate conservation 

measures would be taken in consultation with the appropriate resource 

agencies. 

• Restoration or monitoring plans would be developed as warranted. Plans 

should include methods for implementation, performance standards, 

monitoring criteria, and adaptive management techniques. 
PART 10: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

Volume III: 30 

Measures would be taken to reduce adverse effects of nonnative plants and wildlife on 

rare, threatened, and endangered species. 

Vegetation 

Areas used by visitors (e.g., trails) would be monitored for signs of native vegetation 

disturbance. Public education, revegetation of disturbed areas with native plants, erosion 

control measures, and barriers would be used to control potential impacts on plants from 

trail erosion or social trailing. 

Proposed sites for new trails and other facilities would be surveyed for sensitive species 

before construction. If sensitive species were present, new developments would be 

relocated to avoid impacts. 

Revegetation plans would be developed for disturbed areas. Revegetation plans should 

specify such features as seed/plant source, seed/plant mixes, soil preparation, fertilizers, 

and mulching. Salvage vegetation, rather than new planting or seeding, would be used to 

the greatest extent possible. To maintain genetic integrity, native plants that grow in the 

project area or the region would be used in restoration efforts, whenever possible. Use of 

nonnative species or genetic materials would be considered only where deemed necessary 

to maintain a cultural landscape or to prevent severe resource damage, and would be 

approved by the NPS resource management staff. Restoration activities would be 

instituted immediately after construction was completed. Monitoring would occur to 

ensure that revegetation was successful, plantings were maintained, and unsuccessful 

plant materials were replaced. 

Water Resources 

To prevent water pollution during construction, erosion control measures would be used, 

discharges to water bodies would be minimized, and construction equipment would be 

regularly inspected for leaks of petroleum and other chemicals. 

Best management practices, such as the use of silt fences, would be followed to ensure 

that construction-related effects were minimal and to prevent long-term impacts on water 

quality, wetlands, and aquatic species. 

Caution would be exercised to protect water resources from activities with the potential 

to damage water resources, including damage caused by construction equipment, erosion, 

and siltation. Measures would be taken to keep fill material from escaping work areas, 

especially near streams, springs, natural drainages, and wetlands. 

For new facilities, and to the extent practicable for existing facilities, stormwater management measures would be implemented to reduce nonpoint source pollution discharge 

from parking lots and other impervious surfaces. Such actions could include use of 

oil/sediment separators, street sweeping, infiltration beds, permeable surfaces, and 

vegetated or natural filters to trap or filter stormwater runoff. As directed by the Clean 

Water Act, all projects disturbing more than 5 acres require a stormwater discharge 

permit and specific mitigative measures would be developed as needed. 

The NPS spill prevention and pollution control program for hazardous materials would be 

followed and updated on a regular basis. Standard measures could include 1) procedures 
Mitigative Measures 

Volume III: 31 

for hazardous materials storage and handling, spill containment, cleanup, and reporting, 

and 2) limitation of refueling and other hazardous activities to upland/nonsensitive sites. 

Wetlands would be avoided if possible, and protection measures would be applied during 

construction. Wetlands would be delineated by qualified NPS staff or certified wetland 

specialists and clearly marked before construction work. Construction activities would be 

performed in a cautious manner to prevent damage caused by equipment, erosion, 

siltation, or other construction-related effects. 

Wildlife 

To the extent possible, new or rehabilitated facilities would be sited to avoid sensitive 

wildlife habitats, including feeding and resting areas, major travel corridors, nesting 

areas, and other sensitive habitats. 

Construction activities would be timed to avoid sensitive periods, such as nesting or 

spawning seasons. Ongoing visitor use and NPS operational activities could be restricted 

if their potential level of damage or disturbance warranted doing so. 

Measures would be taken to reduce the potential for wildlife to get food from humans. 

Wildlife-proof garbage containers would be required in developed areas (including visitor 

centers, picnic areas, trails, and interpretive waysides). Signs would continue to educate 

visitors about the need to refrain from feeding wildlife. 

Other visitor impacts on wildlife would be addressed through such techniques as visitor 

education programs, restrictions on visitor activities, and ranger patrols. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All projects with the potential to affect historic properties and cultural landscapes would 

be carried out in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

as amended, to ensure that the effects are adequately addressed. All reasonable measures 

would be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects in consultation with the 

California state historic preservation office and, as necessary, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation and other concerned parties, including American Indian tribal 

officials. In addition to adhering to the legal and policy requirements for cultural 

resources protection and preservation, the National Park Service would also undertake the 

measures listed below to further protect the park and monument resources. 

All areas selected for construction (including any trail improvements) would be surveyed 

and evaluated to ensure that cultural resources (i.e., archeological, historic, ethnographic, 

and cultural landscape resources) in the area of potential effect are adequately identified 

and protected by avoidance or, if necessary, mitigation. 

Compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

would occur in the unlikely event that human remains believed to be Native American 

were discovered inadvertently during construction. Prompt notification and consultation 

with the tribes traditionally associated with Golden Gate National Recreation Area and 

Muir Woods National Monument would occur in accordance with the act. If such human 
PART 10: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

Volume III: 32 

remains were believed to be non-Indian, standard reporting procedures to the proper 

authorities would be followed, as would all applicable federal, state, and local laws. 

Archeological documentation would be done in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation (1983, as amended and 

annotated).

If during construction, previously unknown archeological resources were discovered, all 

work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted until the resources could 

be identified and documented and, if the resources could not be preserved in situ, an 

appropriate mitigative strategy would be developed in consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer and, if necessary, associated Indian tribes. 

The National Park Service would consult with tribal officials before taking actions that 

could affect ethnographic resources. The National Park Service would continue to abide 

by existing cooperative agreements and would pursue additional agreements with 

culturally affiliated tribes to avoid resource impacts, allow access for traditional gathering 

and other approved activities, and minimize potential use conflicts in culturally sensitive 

areas. The National Park Service would develop and accomplish their programs in a 

manner respectful of the beliefs, traditions, and other cultural values of the affiliated 

tribes. 

A proactive program of identification and evaluation of the full range of cultural 

resources, including archeological and landscape resources will be implemented well in 

advance of individual park projects having the potential to affect these resources. The 

priorities of this research program will be informed by the park’s implementation 

priorities. 

No property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

would be removed or allowed to decay naturally ("molder") without prior review by NPS 

cultural resource specialists and consultation with the state historic preservation office, 

and, if necessary, associated American Indian tribal officials. Before such a property is 

removed or allowed to molder, appropriate documentation recording the property would 

be prepared in accordance with Section 110 (b) of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

as amended, and the documentation submitted, as appropriate, to the Historic American 

Buildings Survey / Historic American Engineering Record / Historic American 

Landscapes Survey program and associated American Indian tribal officials. 

Prior to demolition of any structure listed in or eligible for listing in the national register, 

a survey for archeological resources in the general vicinity of the affected structure would 

be conducted. The excavation, recordation, and mapping of any significant cultural 

remains, if present, would be completed prior to demolition, to ensure that important 

archeological data that otherwise would be lost is recovered and documented. 

To appropriately preserve and protect national register listed or national register-eligible 

historic structures, all stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts 

would be undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). Any materials removed during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their value to the park’s museum collections 

and/or for their comparative use in future preservation work at the sites. 
Mitigative Measures 

Volume III: 33 

Design guidelines for new construction would be prepared by the National Park Service 

and would be reviewed for compatibility with the cultural landscape or historic setting 

and for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties. Additional coordination and consultation would be carried out with 

the California state historic preservation office, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and, if necessary, American Indian tribal officials to assess and mitigate any 

adverse effects of new construction on designated or potential national historic landmark 

districts. All new buildings, additions, and landscape features would be designed and 

sited to harmonize with their historic settings. 

Visitors would be educated on the importance of protecting the historic properties of the 

park and monument and leaving these undisturbed for the enjoyment of future visitors. 

VISITOR SAFETY AND EXPERIENCES 

Measures to reduce adverse effects of construction on visitor safety and experience would 

be implemented, including project scheduling and best management practices. 

Visitor safety concerns would be integrated into NPS educational programs. Directional 

signs would continue to orient visitors, and education programs would continue to 

promote understanding among visitors. 

Every reasonable effort would be made to make the facilities, programs, and services of 

the National Park Service and its park partners accessible to and usable by all people, 

including those who are disabled. This policy is based on the commitment to provide 

access to the widest cross section of the public and to ensure compliance with the intent 

of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 USC 4151 et seq.) and the Rehabilitation Act (29 

USC 701 et seq.). Specific guidance for implementing these two laws is found in the 

Secretary of the Interior’s regulations regarding “Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted 

Programs” (43 CFR 17). Special, separate, or alternative facilities, programs, or services 

would be provided only when existing ones cannot reasonably be made accessible. The 

determination of what is reasonable would be made after consultation with disabled 

persons or their representatives. 

Through Director’s Order 42, the National Park Service is required to update and repair 

existing facilities to remove physical barriers; design new facilities and programs; and 

modifying existing programs and media, to ensure that all visitors without regard to a 

disability, have access to these programs and facilities. It is recognized that this goal will 

require detailed condition assessments for accessibility, short and long range planning, 

and action over a number of years. 

While a general management plan is not the most appropriate mechanism for addressing 

the details of a park’s accessibility needs, this plan does establish the goals and objectives 

for accessibility at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and does prepare for the 

important follow-up work that may be needed to comply with accessibility laws, 

regulations, and policies. Park managers shall make every attempt to evaluate their 

programs and facilities for accessibility. General management plans should, as this one 

does, identify a full range of park experiences and opportunities to made available to the 

visitor. Through the action and transition planning process, park staff will ensure that key 
PART 10: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

Volume III: 34 

representative experiences and opportunities throughout the park will be available to 

people with disabilities. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

In order to provide facilities that are functional, code compliant, and sustainable, the 

following strategies would be used: 

• Energy efficient strategies would be applied to new and rehabilitated 

structures through the establishment of performance standards to address the 

building envelope, mechanical systems, electrical systems, and lighting 

systems. 

• Water conservation strategies for use in buildings and for irrigation would be 

implemented through performance standards designed to meet or exceed 

federal requirements. 

• Alternative strategies for energy production would be evaluated and 

incorporated into the final design as appropriate, including photovoltaic 

systems for generating peak electrical energy demand. Photovoltaic systems, if 

determined to be feasible based on further evaluation, would be subject to 

design review and establishment of design guidelines to ensure compatibility 

with natural or historic settings. Guidelines would identify appropriate 

locations, such as flat plate modules on rear roofs of historic structures or 

parking carports and/or pole-mounted tracking arrays located in visually 

unobtrusive locations within the developed footprint of the site. 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

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

two parks, NPS staff would work with local communities and county governments to 

further identify potential impacts and mitigative measures that would best serve the 

interests and concerns of both the National Park Service and the local communities. 

Partnerships would be pursued to improve the quality and diversity of community 

amenities and services. 

TRANSPORTATION 

To determine the success of measures implemented to encourage alternative modes of 

travel, the National Park Service would periodically collect data on traffic volumes and 

vehicle occupancy; use of transit services; and amount of pedestrian and bicyclist use to, 

from, and within the park and monument. Based on this data, the National Park Service 

would expand or modify existing facilities and services for alternative transportation 

modes or implement other measures to increase the use of those modes. 
Other Analyses and Statutory Considerations 11

Volume III: 37 

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 

This part of the document discusses other impact analyses required by NEPA and the 

Council on Environmental Quality. It includes discussions regarding the potential for 

cumulative impacts, natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation 

potential, effects on energy requirements and conservation potential, irretrievable or 

irreversible commitments of resources, unavoidable adverse impacts, and the relationship 

between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment. 
Volume III: 38 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS AT GOLDEN GATE 

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, INCLUDING 

ALCATRAZ ISLAND 

METHODOLOGY 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires an environmental impact statement to 

identify and analyze cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact is described in the CEQ 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

Cumulative impacts are the impacts that result from incremental impacts of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what 

agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other action. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking 

place over time. 

The analysis of cumulative impacts must also evaluate the proposed project’s potential to 

contribute to the significant cumulative impacts identified and it must discuss feasible 

options for mitigating or avoiding any contributions assessed as cumulatively 

considerable. The discussion of cumulative impacts is not required to provide as much 

detail as the discussion of the project’s individual impacts, or the effects attributable to 

the project alone. Rather, the level of detail should be guided by what is practical and 

reasonable. The analysis of cumulative impacts uses the same concepts of type, duration, 

timing, and intensity as described for individual impacts. 

The action area for assessing cumulative impacts on the resources retained for detailed 

analysis is the three-county area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo) where the park 

lands are located. 

To determine the potential cumulative impacts on the resources, other projects and 

actions within the three-county area were identified (see appendix B in volume 1: 

“Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan” for a detailed listing of plans 

with actions that could have cumulative impacts). Projects were identified by discussions 

with NPS staff, other public land managers, and representatives of city and county 

governments. Potential projects identified as possible contributors to cumulative impacts 

included any planning or development activity that was currently being implemented, or 

is expected to be implemented in the future. Impacts of past actions were also considered 

in the analysis. A summary of the selected plans and projects that were determined to be 

relevant to each of the impact topics is included at the beginning of each cumulative 

impacts section. 

These projects and actions were evaluated in conjunction with the impacts of each alternative to determine if they would result in any cumulative impacts on a particular natural 

or cultural resource, visitor use and experience, the social and economic environment, 

transportation, or NPS operations and management. The evaluation of cumulative 

impacts is qualitative and based on a general description of the project. Cumulative 

impacts at Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument 

are discussed independently. 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

Volume III: 39 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

A number of plans and projects, if implemented, could contribute to cumulative impacts 

on natural resources. Plans and projects that have a relationship to this general 

management plan are identified and described in appendix B. Those plans and projects 

that are most relevant to natural resources and could contribute to cumulative impacts on 

this topic include the Redwood Creek Watershed Vision and various restoration projects 

in the watershed; county transportation plans; management plans for various California 

state parks; the Point Reyes National Seashore draft general management plan and fire 

management plan; other plans and projects at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 

such as the fire management plan, dog management plan, and the redevelopment of Fort 

Baker; the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary plan; beach nourishment 

activities; regional land protection plans and activities such as Golden Lands, Golden 

Opportunities; the management of lands adjacent to the park; and past land use practices 

in the region. 

Carbon Footprint and Air Quality 

Implementation of the plans and projects mentioned in the opening paragraph of this 

section would contribute to cumulative impacts on carbon footprint and air quality. 

County transportation plans and projects aimed at reducing personal automobile use and 

improving alternative transportation would have beneficial cumulative impacts by 

reducing transportation-related emissions. Projects aimed at improving ecosystems and 

enhancing natural resources would result in adverse cumulative impacts in the short term, 

but these would be outweighed by long-term reductions in emissions and the resultant 

improvement in air quality. The same would be true for the actions related to the 

management of adjacent public lands, where near-term projects would have short-term 

adverse impacts on carbon footprint and air quality, but the actions associated with longterm objectives to reduce energy use and emissions and improve the condition of natural 

systems would have long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. Regional land protection 

efforts would continue to preserve open space. This would reduce the amount of land 

available for development and would provide air quality benefits. The actions associated 

with the management of private lands in the region would likely continue to result in 

adverse impacts to carbon footprint and air quality, as these actions would likely continue 

to be sources of energy use and air quality emissions that could increase over time as 

densities increase. 

While the no-action alternative and action alternative 1 would have adverse impact to the 

park’s carbon footprint, alternatives 2 and 3 would have beneficial effects on the carbon 

footprint. All action alternatives would have a negligible effect on air quality. When the 

likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described above, 

there would be a minor, adverse cumulative impact on carbon footprint and air quality in 

the short term, and a minor, beneficial, cumulative impact on carbon footprint and air 

quality over the long term. The actions contained in the GMP alternatives would 

contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 40 

Soils and Geologic Resources and Processes 

Implementation of the plans and projects mentioned in the opening paragraph of this 

section would have cumulative impacts on soils and geologic resources and processes. 

Implementation of county transportation plans and projects that would modify roadways 

would likely result in adverse impacts to roadside soils and geologic resources and would 

contribute to changes in the functionality of geologic processes in the area. Beach 

nourishment activities would continue to provide essential sources of sand to off-shore 

and shoreline environments, resulting in a beneficial impact; however, the continuation of 

dredging and alteration of off-shore sand deposits would continue to cause adverse 

impacts to natural sand transport processes. Projects aimed at improving ecosystems and 

enhancing natural resources could result in adverse cumulative impacts in the short term, 

but these would be outweighed by long-term improvements to function and integrity of 

soils and natural geologic processes. The same would be true for actions associated with 

the management of adjacent public lands, where near-term projects could have short-term 

adverse impacts on soils and geologic resources, but actions to achieve long-term 

objectives to improve natural systems would have long-term beneficial cumulative 

impacts on soils and geologic processes. Regional land protection efforts would continue 

to preserve open space and protect soils and geologic resources. The actions associated 

with the management of private lands in the region would continue to have both adverse 

and beneficial impacts on soils and geologic processes, depending on the nature of land 

use and stewardship practices. 

The existing recreation facilities and new recreation development actions in all GMP 

alternatives would have localized adverse effects on soils and geological resources. 

However, action alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would also have beneficial effects on soil 

conditions in other areas, by eliminating unsustainable roads and trails, removing 

facilities and structures, and restoring the respective sites. Alternative 2 would have the 

least amount of adverse effect from new recreation and the most beneficial effect from 

natural restoration. When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the 

GMP alternatives are added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions described above, there would be a long-term, minor, beneficial 

cumulative impact on soils and geologic resources and processes. 

Water Resources and Hydrologic Processes 

Implementation of the plans and projects mentioned in the introduction to this section 

would have cumulative impacts on water resources and hydrologic processes. County 

transportation plans and projects would modify roadways that could modify surface water 

flow and drainage. Roadway projects would also likely result in soil erosion and generate 

urban pollutants that would adversely impact water quality. Conversely, certain projects 

would reduce sedimentation and improve the conveyance of water—beneficial impacts. 

Projects aimed at improving ecosystems and enhancing natural resources (i.e., Big 

Lagoon restoration, Lower Redwood Creek floodplain restoration, Fern Creek riparian 

fencing, Coast Trail habitat enhancement projects, sediment reduction projects) could 

result in adverse cumulative impacts to water resources and water quality in the short 

term, but these impacts would be outweighed by long-term improvements to the integrity 

and function of water resources, especially for wetlands, floodplains, and natural creek 

processes. The same would be true for actions associated with the management of 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Natural Resources) 

Volume III: 41 

adjacent public lands, where near-term projects could have short-term adverse impacts on 

water resources (including water quality and quantity), but actions to achieve long-term 

objectives of improved natural systems would have long-term beneficial cumulative 

impacts on water resources and hydrologic processes. Regional land protection efforts 

would continue to preserve open space and protect water resources. Actions associated 

with the management of private lands in the region would continue to have both adverse 

and beneficial impacts on water resources and hydrologic processes, depending on the 

nature of land use and stewardship practices. 

All GMP alternatives include actions that provide for the restoration of natural areas and 

ecological processes, which directly and indirectly help restore the natural hydrologic 

regime. When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP 

alternatives are added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions previously described, there would be a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impact on water resources and hydrologic processes. 

Habitat (Vegetation and Wildlife) and Special Status Species 

(Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species) 

All of the plans and projects mentioned in the introduction to this section would have 

cumulative impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat, if implemented. County 

transportation plans and projects would modify roadways that could alter the integrity of 

native habitat, increase habitat fragmentation, and introduce exotic plants and animals 

that could displace and adversely affect native species, including special status species. 

Roadway projects would also likely result in soil erosion and generate urban pollutants 

that would adversely impact aquatic habitats. Conversely, certain projects would reduce 

impacts from roadways and improve migration corridors. Restoration projects aimed at 

improving ecosystems and enhancing natural resources could result in adverse 

cumulative impacts to native habitat in the short term, but these impacts would be 

outweighed by long-term improvements to the integrity and function of habitat. The same 

would be true for actions associated with the management of adjacent public lands, where 

near-term projects could have short-term adverse impacts on habitat, but actions 

implemented to achieve long-term objectives to improve natural systems would have 

long-term beneficial cumulative impacts on habitat integrity and function. Regional land 

protection efforts would continue to preserve open space and protect a variety of habitat 

types. Actions associated with the management of private lands in the region would 

continue to have both adverse and beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat, 

depending on the nature of land use and stewardship practices. 

All of the GMP alternatives include actions that provide for natural restoration, 

education, and stewardship that would have beneficial effects on wildlife habitat. Action 

alternatives 1, 2, and 3 include actions that would provide additional habitat benefits by 

eliminating unsustainable or unneeded roads, trails, or facilities, and restoring the 

respective sites. However, action alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would also yield some adverse 

effects by expanding visitor access and recreation development in some areas. As for the 

waterbird habitat at Alcatraz Island, the no-action alternative and action alternatives 1 

and 3 would have adverse effects, while alternative 2 would have beneficial effects. 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 42 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impact on vegetation and wildlife habitat. Although impacts on local special 

status species and their habitat in the project area would be mitigated to minimize 

potential impacts, and impacts of other projects in the area would generally be beneficial, 

the adverse impacts from urbanization of the region would continue to result in habitat 

loss; the cumulative impact to most special status species and their habitat would be 

adverse. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

A number of past, present, and ongoing plans, programs, and projects, if implemented, 

could contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural resources. Plans, programs, and 

projects that have a relationship to this general management plan are described in the 

section “Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans” in Part 1 and in volume 1, appendix B. 

Those plans and projects that are most relevant to and could contribute to cumulative 

impacts on cultural resources include the following: 

• National Park Service plans currently being prepared such as the Extension of 

San Francisco Municipal Railway’s Historic Streetcar Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement 

• National Park Service trails and transportation plans and programs such as the 

Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement [2009] 

• National Park Service restoration plans such as the Alcatraz Island Historic 

Preservation and Safety Construction Program Environmental Impact Statement

[2001], and restoration plans for Redwood Creek and Big Lagoon 

• National Park Service program implementation plans such as the Bay Area 

Museum Resource Center Plan, and the redevelopment plan for Fort Baker 

• State and regional plans such as the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation – Angel Island State Park Resource Management Plan / General 

Development Plan / Environmental Impact Report [1979] 

• County and local plans such as the Marin Countywide Plan [2007] and amended 

[2009], Pacific Gas and Electric Jefferson-Martin 230 KV Transmission Line 

Proposed Settlement and Environmental Assessment [2004], San Francisco 

Public Utilities Commission Peninsula Watershed Management Plan [2002], and 

the San Francisco General Plan [2004] 

Past human use and practices and management of lands in and around Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, such as agricultural operations and construction associated 

with urban, suburban, military, and recreational development, have also contributed to 

cumulative impacts on cultural resources. 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Cultural Resources) 

Volume III: 43 

Archeological Resources 

The actions in the plans, programs, and projects that are listed above, as well as past 

human use and management of lands in and near the park would have cumulative impacts 

on archeological resources. Development projects, NPS trails and transportation 

programs, NPS restoration and redevelopment projects, and county and local plans could 

result in adverse cumulative impacts to archeological resources as a result of ground 

disturbance operations; however, NPS projects and plans implemented on park lands 

would include every effort to preserve archeological resources or mitigate sites that could 

not be avoided. National Park Service restoration and redevelopment plans would have 

beneficial cumulative impacts on archeological resources because they would emphasize 

cultural resource protection and preservation as well as mitigation if sites could not be 

avoided. Similarly, state and regional plans would have beneficial cumulative impacts on 

archeological resources because they would emphasize cultural resource protection and 

preservation. 

Past human use and management of lands in and around the park, such as agricultural 

operations, ranching, and construction associated with urban, suburban, military, and 

recreational development, may have already resulted in adverse cumulative impacts to 

archeological resources because these resources could have been lost or degraded as a 

result of ground disturbing operations and the lack of understanding and appreciation of 

these resources. 

When the likely impacts of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be cumulative, long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources on lands in and near the park. The actions contained 

in the GMP alternatives would generally contribute a small beneficial increment to the 

overall adverse cumulative impacts on archeological resources. 

Ethnographic Resources 

National Park Service restoration plans associated with Alcatraz Island would provide for 

repair, stabilization, and rehabilitation of cultural resources on the island, resulting in 

long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts to the island’s ethnographic 

resources and contributing to the island’s ethnographic significance for American Indian 

tribes and organizations. Past human use and management of Alcatraz Island, such as 

agricultural operations and construction associated with military, penitentiary and 

recreational development, may have resulted in the lost or degradation of ethnographic 

resources, adding to the adverse cumulative impacts. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts to 

ethnographic resources on Alcatraz Island. However, the actions contained in the GMP 

alternatives would generally contribute a small beneficial increment to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts on ethnographic resources. 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 44 

Historic Structures 

Past human use and management of lands that are in and near the park (such as 

construction associated with urban, suburban, and recreational development and other 

activities) have resulted in the loss or deterioration of historic buildings in the San 

Francisco Bay area. The park’s seacoast fortifications today comprise what is widely 

considered to be the most comprehensive collection of military architecture and coastal 

defense systems and the finest surviving examples of military engineering for coastal 

defense in the United States. National Park Service trails and transportation plans and 

programs, NPS restoration and redevelopment plans, NPS program implementation plans, 

state and regional plans; and county and local plans, all provide for the protection and 

preservation of historic buildings and their architectural values and therefore the 

implementation of these plans would contribute to beneficial cumulative impacts on 

historic buildings. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be a cumulative, long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact to historic buildings. The actions contained in the GMP alternatives would 

contribute a relatively large beneficial increment to the overall cumulative impacts on 

historic buildings. 

Cultural Landscape Resources 

Implementation of NPS trails and transportation plans and programs and county and local 

plans, such as the Marin Countywide Plan and the San Francisco General Plan, would 

have beneficial cumulative impacts on cultural landscape resources because of their 

emphasis on preservation of cultural landscapes and minimization of adverse effects on 

cultural landscapes. Implementation of NPS plans currently being prepared, such as the 

Extension of San Francisco Municipal Railway’s Historic Streetcar, and county and local 

plans, such as the Pacific Gas and Electric Jefferson-Martin 230 KV Transmission Line 

Proposed Settlement, would result in the introduction of new elements to the cultural 

landscapes of the San Francisco Bay area and thus potentially compromise the integrity 

of those cultural landscapes. Implementation of NPS restoration plans, such as those for 

Redwood Creek and Big Lagoon, could result in the loss of some cultural landscape 

resources and thus compromise their cultural landscape values. 

Implementation of NPS restoration and program plans, state and regional plans, and 

county and local plans would result in beneficial cumulative impacts on cultural 

landscape resources because of their emphasis on protection, preservation, and 

rehabilitation of cultural landscape resources and values. Past human use and 

management of lands in and near the park, such as agricultural operations, ranching, and 

construction associated with urban, suburban, military, and recreational development, 

have compromised the integrity of cultural landscapes, and have resulted in the loss of 

many of the region’s cultural landscape resources and values. 

When the likely impacts of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on cultural landscape resources. The actions contained in the GMP alternatives 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Cultural Resources) 

Volume III: 45 

would contribute to beneficial impacts on cultural landscape resources, but they would 

contribute only a small increment to the overall cumulative impacts on cultural landscape 

resources. 

Park Collections 

None of the past, present, or ongoing plans, programs, and projects described in the 

“Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans” section in Part 1 of this document or in 

appendix B would have any appreciable cumulative impacts on park collections. Ongoing 

actions in the park, in conjunction with the Bay Area Museum Resource Center Plan, will 

have appreciable beneficial cumulative impacts. The actions contained in the GMP 

alternatives would contribute to cumulative, long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on 

the park collections. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

The cumulative impacts on visitor use and experience resulting from the actions 

described in the GMP alternatives in combination with actions resulting from related 

projects and policies of other entities within the Bay Area are identified in this section. In 

preparing the cumulative impacts analysis, the actions of the past, present, and 

foreseeable future were estimated at a qualitative level given the visionary nature of the 

general management plan. In estimating the impacts of other actions in combination with 

the GMP alternatives the team relied on the actions or potential actions from various 

local, state, and federal plans and projects as well as the knowledge of the park staff. A 

summary of these other plans can be found in the sections in volume 1 titled 

“Relationship to Other Plans” and in “Appendix B: Description of Management Plans 

Related to this Plan.” 

The actions from plans and projects that are most relevant to visitor use and experience 

and could contribute to cumulative impacts include: county comprehensive plans; local 

open space and transportation plans and projects; area park plans such as those for Angel 

Island State Park, Mount Tamalpais State Park, San Francisco Maritime National 

Historical Park and Point Reyes National Seashore; the Redwood Creek Watershed 

Vision; plans and projects at Golden Gate National Recreation Areas such as the Trails 

Forever Initiative, a dog management plan, equestrian planning in Marin County, and the 

redevelopment of Fort Baker; as well as several other educational, stewardship, and 

recreation plans and projects taking place in the Bay Area. These various other actions 

would generally have beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience in the area by 

providing an increased diversity of recreation opportunities, additional educational and 

stewardship programs, and improved connectivity between public lands and open space 

in the region. 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 46 

Diversity of Recreation Opportunities and Availability of Other 

Visitor Support Services and Facilities 

The GMP alternatives provide for a wide variety of recreational opportunities for park 

visitors, as well as a network of other visitor support services and facilities. The variety 

of existing and new recreational opportunities provided by the no-action alternative and 

action alternatives 1 and 3, respectively, would all have notable beneficial effects on 

visitor use and experience. Although each alternative has a similar mix of visitor 

opportunities, the alternatives differ in the number and type of opportunities provided. In 

the no-action alternative and alternative 1, the emphasis is on providing visitors with a 

greater mix of options and a choice of opportunities and self-guiding exploration. In 

alternative 2, there is a greater emphasis on providing more primitive types of visitor 

opportunities within a natural and wild setting. Finally, alternative 3 provides visitors 

with the opportunity to be immersed in the settings of those natural and cultural resources 

that are nationally significant. This alternative relies upon park educational and 

interpretive programs to help visitors learn about and explore these resources. 

In addition to the impacts resulting from the actions of implementing the GMP 

alternatives (discussed previously in the environmental consequences section), the 

various other actions described below collectively contribute to visitor use and 

experience in the park. The actions resulting from implementation of the comprehensive 

plans for each county, the master plans for gateway municipalities, along with their 

respective specific community plans for parks, trails, open space, and transportation, 

would all have a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact on visitor experiences 

in and around the park. Many of these recreational opportunities occur outside the park 

and other activities cross back and forth of the park boundary such as hiking, running, 

and horseback riding. The Bay Area contains many local, states, and federal park lands 

that provide a wide variety of complementary day-use and overnight recreation 

opportunities; this further provides choices for visitors and local residents in the 

recreational opportunities and outdoor settings that they participate in. The combination 

of these managed open space lands provide for long-term, moderate, beneficial 

cumulative effects on the visitor use and experience. 

The National Park Service has completed or is in the process of preparing plans with 

actions that combined with those of the GMP alternatives will enhance recreational 

opportunities for park visitors. For example, a dog management plan is currently under 

development and will designate appropriate locations and management strategies for dogwalking activities in the park. A plan to address equestrian activities and facilities in 

Marin County is being developed. The recent renovation of historical Fort Baker into the 

Cavallo Point Lodge and the expansion of the Headlands Institute and other park partner 

programs all complement the actions in the GMP alternatives and contribute to the 

diversity of visitor opportunities. 

Finally, several other projects and initiatives are being undertaken throughout the Bay 

Area by a variety of other public, private, and nonprofit organizations. These projects and 

initiatives include preserving additional open space, renting recreational equipment, 

providing connections to a larger regional trail network, and promoting other outdoor 

recreation activities such as hiking, running, surfing, biking, touring, scenic driving, 

wildlife viewing, and equestrian opportunities. The past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions of other entities, public and private, combined with those actions 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Visitor Use and Experience) 

Volume III: 47 

resulting from the GMP alternatives will have a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impact on the availability and diversity of outdoor recreational opportunities. 

Education, Interpretation, and Stewardship Programs and 

Opportunities 

The GMP alternatives include several actions that would also expand and enhance 

education, interpretation, and stewardship programs and opportunities. Thus, all GMP 

alternatives would have a beneficial effect on visitor use and experience in this regard. 

The actions included in alternatives 2 and 3 would provide the greatest level of education 

and stewardship programs compared with the no-action alternative and alternative 1, 

where programs are provided but the emphasis is more on self-guided exploration. 

Additionally, alternative 3 would improve the depth and content of available interpretive 

information and would encourage visitors to actively immerse themselves in the 

resource-based experiences (whether natural or cultural). Park partners—such as the 

Institute at the Golden Gate, Slide Ranch, Crissy Field Center, Headlands Center for the 

Arts, and numerous others—also play an integral role in all GMP alternatives by 

complementing and expanding beyond NPS programs. The contribution from a variety of 

park partners provides educational, interpretive, and stewardship opportunities for all 

ages from toddlers to the elderly. 

In addition to the NPS and park partner programs, there are additional environmental 

education, interpretive, and stewardship opportunities provided by Bay Area educational 

institutions, environmental education and open space organizations, and the many local, 

state, and other federal parks that promote an understanding of the region’s important and 

diverse ecological systems and cultural history. 

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of other entities, public and private, 

combined with those actions resulting from the GMP alternatives will have a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial cumulative impact on the availability and diversity of educational, 

interpretive, and stewardship programs. 

Access and Connectivity to Parks and Open Space in the Bay 

Area 

All of the GMP alternatives include actions that would expand or enhance access to the 

park and its connectivity with other parks, trails, and communities in the Bay Area, and 

thus, all alternatives would have a beneficial effect on visitor use and experience. These 

expansions and enhancements would primarily come in the form of improved 

connections with public transportation networks, multimodal access, and increased trail 

connections with local communities and parks. 

These various other actions, projects, and initiatives would also contribute to visitor use 

and experience. For example, most of the comprehensive plans and master plans for the 

surrounding counties and cities include elements that promote connections with 

surrounding parks and communities (i.e., transportation connections, pedestrian/bicycle 

connection, and even parkland connections). Several communities also have issuespecific plans that guide connectivity development, such as public trail plans, 

transportation plans, and open space plans. Other local, state, and federal parks and open 

space programs in the Bay Area also implement management plans and projects that 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 48 

improve park land-to-park land trail connections or land connections. This also includes 

the actions associated with enhancing ferry access throughout the Bay Area and those of 

the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, that provide connections 

for hikers and bikers—in addition to vehicles—between Marin and San Francisco 

counties. The contribution of other public transportation agencies also beneficially impact 

visitor use and experience in combination with the GMP alternatives by providing more 

diverse and efficient options for access to major units of Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. 

Some specific projects at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (independent of the 

GMP action alternatives) will also contribute to the cumulative impacts on visitor use and 

experience. The Trails Forever Initiative, launched in 2003 by the Golden Gate National 

Parks Conservancy, provides a systematic approach to connecting a world-class system 

of trails throughout the park. The Muir Woods National Monument shuttle improves 

access to Muir Woods National Monument and the backcountry of Mount Tamalpais 

State Park when parking is in short supply. In addition, the park continues to coordinate 

with local and regional land and water transportation services and their links to the 

greater Bay Area to provide alternative visitor access to open spaces including the park. 

These programs, in combination with the GMP alternatives, will provide enhanced 

recreation opportunities along with better travel connections between park sites, and 

between communities and the park. 

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of other entities, public and private, 

combined with those actions in the GMP alternatives will have a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial cumulative impact on access and connectivity to parks and open spaces in the 

Bay Area. 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Along with the actions identified in this general management plan, the actions identified 

in a number of plans and projects in the local gateway communities, the three adjacent 

counties, and the overall San Francisco Bay Area could contribute to cumulative impacts 

to the social and economic environment in the area. Plans and projects that have a 

relationship to this general management plan are identified and described in the 

“Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans” section in Part 1, and in “Appendix B: 

Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan.” The proposed actions in these 

plans and other management actions all have effects on the social and economic 

environment, both individually and collectively. These effects mainly relate to the 

quality of life of area residents and the economy of the area. The cumulative 

contributions to the quality of life and economy could extend throughout the gateway 

communities, the three adjacent counties, and the overall Bay Area. 

Quality of Life 

The quality of life for residents living in proximity of park lands could be influenced by 

the actions proposed in the alternatives of this general management plan in addition to 

those that are proposed or implemented by other local and regional entities. 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Social and Economic Environment) 

Volume III: 49 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore make up a 

large open space adjacent to many other state and local parks and open spaces within 

close proximity to San Francisco Bay cities and communities. The area’s open space is 

integral to the quality of life for its residents. As described in the part 8 of this document, 

the location of Golden Gate National Recreation Area at the urban-wildland interface 

makes it particularly important for residents’ physiological and psychological health, 

community identity, landscape aesthetics, and community building. As other private land 

continues to be developed and urbanized, the park will become more valuable to the 

community and to the quality of life of its residents. All GMP alternatives would 

maintain and expand the park’s role in contributing to the quality of life of Bay Area 

residents. 

Similarly, the mosaic of other park and open space lands in the Bay Area contribute to 

quality of life. These other park lands, which are owned and managed by various cities, 

counties, the state, and other preservation organizations, complement Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area in providing many benefits relating to resident health, 

recreation, landscape aesthetics, and community-building. These other land management 

agencies and preservation organizations also will continue to manage their existing park 

lands in a way that supports programs and opportunities that contribute to quality of life 

of Bay Area residents. In addition, these agencies will continue to work individually and 

to coordinate with each other to seek out new lands to acquire, with the collective goal of 

expanding the network of open space and urban recreation lands in the Bay Area. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in each of the GMP 

alternatives are added to the effects of these other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable open space preservation actions, a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impact on the quality of life for residents in the Bay Area could result. The 

impacts that could result from implementing the actions in the GMP alternatives would 

constitute a significant contribution to this overall cumulative effect in the local gateway 

communities near the park, but constitute a small contribution to the overall cumulative 

effect in the other communities throughout the Bay Area. This difference would be due to 

the existence of other park lands in closer proximity to these other communities. 

The no-action alternative and action alternatives 1, 2, and 3 emphasize outreach, 

welcoming efforts, and community building that would help foster a new relationship 

between the park and the diverse residents of the Bay Area. As discussed in the part 9: 

“Potential Environmental Consequences,” when the GMP action alternatives are 

compared with the no-action alternative, there are notable variations in community 

outreach actions. However, when considered in the context of all other similar actions 

and projects in the surrounding communities and throughout the Bay Area, the 

differences between the park GMP action alternatives become minimal. The actions 

proposed in the various alternatives include community outreach programs, maintaining 

or adding group facilities, developing new park programs that reach out to new and 

underserved residents, and establishing new welcome/orientation facilities in key 

locations in the park. 

Likewise, there are many local and regional entities, including social service 

organizations and church groups, that reach out to many different communities and 

provide programs and access to the area’s open spaces. Local educational institutions 

facilitate community outreach programs and outdoor and environmental clubs. Local, 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 50 

county, and state parks offer additional programs and access to open spaces. These 

programs and opportunities create a diverse choice for Bay Area residents that contribute 

to healthy communities, related amenities, and access to outdoor recreation opportunities. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in each of the GMP 

alternatives are added to the effects of these other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable outreach actions, a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative 

impact on the quality of life for residents in the respective local communities could result. 

The impacts of implementing the actions in the GMP alternatives would constitute a 

significant contribution to this overall cumulative effect in the local gateway 

communities, but would constitute only a small contribution to the overall cumulative 

effect in the communities that are farther from the park. 

Another important attribute to quality of life in the Bay Area is visitor’s access to 

education and resource stewardship opportunities. All the GMP alternatives contain a 

strong component on education and stewardship that includes improving facilities and 

enhancing programs at park sites throughout the three gateway counties. Similarly, our 

park partners, educational institutions, and most local and state government park and 

open space programs throughout the Bay Area offer active and diverse education and 

stewardship opportunities for residents in the respective communities. The Bay Area is 

home to numerous nonprofit organizations with missions to improve community 

awareness and engagement through education and resource stewardship activities and 

programs. Various local school districts also provide such opportunities and programs to 

their students, often by using local parks and open space lands as “natural classrooms” to 

give students hands-on learning and stewardship experiences. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in each of the GMP 

alternatives are added to the effects of these other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable education and stewardship actions, a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impact on the quality of life for residents in the respective local communities 

could result. The impacts of the GMP actions on the quality of life of the local residents 

would contribute to this overall cumulative effect in the local gateway communities 

relatively close to the park, but would constitute only a small contribution to the overall 

cumulative effect in the communities that are farther from the park. 

The accessibility and connectivity of park land is another key contributor to quality of 

life. As previously described, park and open space lands in and around a densely 

populated area are important for the following reasons: 1) they provide enjoyable 

recreation opportunities for residents; 2) they offer opportunities for diverse members of 

the community to gather and interact in a common setting; and 3) they help encourage 

local residents to exercise and stay active, which yields innumerable health benefits 

(individually, and collectively as a community). Thus, providing easy access and 

connection to these parks is equally important to a community’s quality of life. All 

alternatives for the general management plan include distinct actions that would expand 

public accessibility to the park and improve connectivity with other local and regional 

parks and trails. However, action alternatives 1 and 3 would accomplish this to a greater 

extent. Under all alternatives, improvements to park accessibility and connectivity would 

be accomplished by two means: improved local and regional connections to other trails 

and parks; and improved public transportation facilities that better serve the park and 

other open space lands and communities in the area. 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Social and Economic Environment) 

Volume III: 51 

Along with these actions of the GMP alternatives, various other plans, projects, and 

actions in the Bay Area would contribute to quality of life by improving park land 

accessibility and connectivity. For example, the park management plans for most local 

government parks and open spaces in the region charge the respective land managers 

with the task of identifying and pursuing new and better connections to other regional 

trails or parks. Some of the city and county comprehensive plans also include regional 

trail planning elements (e.g., San Francisco Bay Trail and the California Coastal Trail) 

that highlight key connection corridors and include community connectivity as an 

integral goal or objective in land use planning. These elements and goals will enable 

urban planners to ensure that local and regional trail connections are both retrofitted to 

existing developments and included in future developments as the communities grow. 

Also, some of the local governments and nonprofit groups throughout the Bay Area (e.g., 

Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Open Space Council, Golden Gate 

National Parks Conservancy) have adopted specific trail plans that promote accessibility 

and connections to local parks and identify regional trail corridors for pedestrians and 

bicyclists. These plans will likely give way to future local and regional trail construction 

actions as funding and trail development partners become available. Also, in addition to 

local and regional trail planning efforts, various local governments have taken on local 

and regional transportation system planning projects that could serve to improve park 

land access, and thus improve quality of life in the area. The actions set forth by these 

transportation plans could improve park access by expanding public transit opportunities 

(via road, rail, or water) and by minimizing traffic congestion, which could reduce drive 

times to and from park sites. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in each GMP alternatives 

are added to the effects of these other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

accessibility and connectivity actions, a long-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative 

impact on the quality of life for residents in the respective local communities could result. 

The impacts of the park’s GMP alternative actions on the quality of life of the local 

residents would constitute a small to moderate component of this overall cumulative 

effect in the local gateway communities that abut the park, but would constitute only a 

small component of the overall cumulative effect in the communities that are farther from 

the park. 

The availability of equestrian facilities is also considered an important quality of life 

attribute for many in the Bay Area. The GMP action alternatives 1 and 3 would maintain 

and expand the available equestrian facilities and programs in the park. Action 

alternative 2 would maintain the use of the existing facilities, but might result in the 

removal of some equestrian facilities within the park. Beyond the park, other private 

equestrian facilities exist in the Bay Area on private lands. These other equestrian 

facilities contribute to the overall supply of equestrian opportunities and therefore to the 

quality of life for local residents. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP no-action 

alternative and alternatives 1 and 3 are added to the effects of these other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions and trends related to equestrian opportunities, a longterm, moderate, beneficial cumulative impact on the quality of life for residents in the 

nearby communities could result, based upon the continuation of the current availability 

of non-Park Service equestrian facilities. When the effects of alternative 2 are combined 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 52 

with the impacts of these other actions and trends, a long-term, minor, beneficial 

cumulative impact on the quality of life could result. If non-Park Service equestrian 

facilities decline in the Bay Area, then the cumulative impacts on the quality of life could 

be long term, moderate, and adverse. The impacts of the GMP alternatives on the quality 

of life of the local residents would constitute a moderate contribution to this overall 

cumulative effect in the local gateway communities but would constitute a small 

contribution to the overall cumulative effect in the communities that are farther from the 

park. 

Quality of life is also indirectly affected by outcomes from interagency relationships and 

from collaboration between the National Park Service, park partners, other local land 

managers, and surrounding local governments. If public, private, and nonprofit entities 

maximize their cooperation in providing natural, cultural, educational, and recreational 

opportunities for the public, the quality and quantity of the resulting opportunities also 

will be maximized. Cost sharing, idea sharing, facility interconnectedness, and program 

coordination are just a few of the benefits that stem from interagency collaboration. 

Collectively, the actions that result from regional collaboration can provide a range of 

benefits; all contributing to improving the quality of life for residents. The focus and 

prioritization of the collaboration efforts may vary slightly across all GMP alternatives; 

however, all alternatives include actions that aim to improve and expand relationships 

with park partners, other land managers, local recreation, environmental, and historic 

organizations, and surrounding local and state governments. 

Likewise, many of the Bay Area public land managers and local governments that are in 

proximity to the park also place a high priority on interagency coordination and 

partnership development. Such priorities are set forth in most of the comprehensive plans 

and park management plans for these communities and open space programs. Just as all 

GMP alternatives would charge NPS staff with working closely with other land 

managers, municipalities, and park partners, these other city plans, county plans, and park 

management plans charge their respective staff to do the same. In addition, several 

nonprofit and private sector organizations in the Bay Area include the development of 

public-private partnerships as a key to their organizational missions. Given the large 

number of government jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations, and other park-related 

interests that exist in the Bay Area, interagency collaboration and partnership 

development have become an integral part of most planning efforts in this relatively 

small geographic area. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in each of the GMP 

alternatives are added to the effects of these other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable relationship-building actions, a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impact on the quality of life for residents in the respective local communities 

could result. The impacts of the GMP alternative actions would constitute a moderate 

contribution of this overall cumulative effect in the local gateway communities, but 

would constitute a small contribution to the overall cumulative effect in the communities 

that are farther from the park. 

Economy 

Actions that are proposed in the GMP alternatives would contribute to the economy of 

the local gateway communities and the overall Bay Area. The breadth and intensity of the 

park’s economic influence varies considerably among economic sectors and locations in 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Social and Economic Environment) 

Volume III: 53 

the Bay Area. However, given the multiplier effect of economic activity (as explained in 

“Part 9: Affected Environment”), money spent or earned in one locality or economic 

sector typically circulates to and from other localities or sectors. Therefore, just as 

regional economic activity can contribute to local economic conditions, the reverse is true 

as well. Given the interactions and relationships of local and regional economies, the 

cumulative effects that are discussed below should be considered holistically, with 

overlaps expected. For the purpose of identifying and explaining these effects, this 

section separates the economic impacts discussion into three categories: local economy of 

the gateway communities and adjacent three counties, tourism industry economy of San 

Francisco, and regional economy of the overall Bay Area. 

Local Economy of the Gateway Communities and Adjacent Tree 

Counties 

The economy of the gateway communities, the three adjacent counties, and the overall 

Bay Area would be influenced by the GMP alternatives and the other plans and 

management actions identified in the above discussions. Actions and policies in all of 

these plans have the potential to generate economic activity via visitation increases, 

planning and project contracting, construction and restoration, implementation of new 

programs, facility development and expansion, job creation, expenditures by NPS staff 

living in local communities, or other sources. 

As discussed in the impact analysis of the GMP alternatives, alternatives 1, 2, and 3 all 

include substantial construction, site restoration, and reclamation projects that would 

create and accommodate new or restored historic structures or park facilities, and would 

restore the park’s natural resources. Alternatives 1 and 3 would provide the highest level 

of historic structure restoration and new or expanded park facilities and programs. Many 

of these construction and restoration projects would generate economic activity in the 

region via NPS contracts awarded to local planning, design, and construction firms in 

future years. The implementation of these actions would also result in an expansion of 

programs and services that would generate more attractions for visitors (and the potential 

for increased visitation), more park concession business opportunities, more tourist 

revenue for gateway community businesses (e.g., hotels, restaurants), and more 

opportunities for park partners. For example, alternatives 1 and 3 include various facility 

and visitor service expansions at park sites throughout the three counties and on Alcatraz 

Island. Many of these expansions would necessitate the hiring of new employees by park 

partners, concessioners, or the National Park Service. 

In addition, the increased community outreach efforts associated with alternatives 1 and 3 

would likely generate an increase in park visitation (e.g., by reaching out to the diverse 

population of the Bay Area). This potential increase in visitation could yield economic 

activity by generating additional revenues for the park and the tourism businesses that 

support park visitors. 

Many of the employees of park partners, concessions, and the National Park Service 

reside in the gateway communities around the park in all three adjacent counties. These 

employees contribute to the local economy directly by spending their earned salaries at 

local businesses and paying local taxes. New jobs with park partners, concessions, and 

the National Pak Service that result from implementing actions in the GMP alternatives 

would also yield such economic contributions to the local economy. The actions that 

prompt economic activity would not only support these businesses and their employees 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 54 

directly, but the economic multiplier effect would also circulate this generated money 

through the local and regional economy. 

In addition to Golden Gate National Recreation Area, there are other major contributors 

to the economic conditions of the area. Many of the local small businesses support park 

visitors with sports equipment and hospitality services. Changes in park visitation can 

influence the success of these businesses. Most of the local gateway communities are also 

dependent upon nontourism businesses that generate substantial economic benefits and 

community support. These businesses include those associated with residential, 

commercial (retail), educational, medical, governmental, and industrial sectors of these 

communities. The continuous operation of and improvement to the infrastructure of local 

communities also contribute economically in addition to allowing for economic growth. 

The construction of several infrastructure projects that would serve these communities 

would have direct effects on the local economy. Roadway projects, water utility projects, 

and gas and electric supply projects are just a few examples of other actions that would 

generate economic activity in the area. Management actions at the other local, state, and 

federal lands in the Bay Area would include actions that would contribute to economic 

activity associated with transportation and regional services (e.g., ferry service, schools, 

social services, airports, waste disposal). Future economic growth can be guided by the 

visions that the communities develop through city and county comprehensive plans, land 

use policies, zoning ordinances, and other community economic and redevelopment 

efforts. These plans and policies can guide and encourage direct economic activity such 

as commercial business growth (e.g., retail, professional, and hotel/restaurant), housing 

growth, tourism, and industrial growth. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in each GMP alternative 

are added to the effects of these other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable economic 

development actions, a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative impact on 

gateway community economies could result. However, the impacts of the GMP actions 

on the local economy would constitute only a small component of this overall cumulative 

effect in the local gateway communities and a negligible portion of the overall 

cumulative effect on the Bay Area economy. 

Tourism Industry Economy of San Francisco 

The implementation of the actions in each of the GMP alternatives will contribute to the 

San Francisco tourism industry by providing many natural, cultural, educational, and 

recreational opportunities for visiting tourists. The tourists who visit the park play an 

important role in sustaining the tourism industry of the area by generating more business 

for San Francisco area hotels, restaurants, bars, retail shops, boat tours, and other tourism 

support businesses (e.g., bike rentals and tour companies). 

San Francisco provides an abundant supply of tourist attractions that include, but are not 

limited to, music and art events, culinary adventures, ethnic neighborhoods, sporting 

events, historic sites, conventions, city tours, cable cars, world class shopping, unique 

neighborhoods, and community parks. These attractions all contribute to a critical mass 

of opportunities that makes San Francisco one of the premier tourist attractions in the 

country. Adding to the attractions of San Francisco is the natural openness and space of 

San Francisco Bay, the surrounding wild character of Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area, and the views of historic Alcatraz Island. Together these features create a unique 

setting that both contrasts and complements the urban feel of a great city—making the 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Social and Economic Environment) 

Volume III: 55 

city a national and international travel destination. In other words, a synergistic effect of 

tourist attractions is present. For example, a large number of the out-of-state and 

international tourists will visit Alcatraz Island, the Marin Headlands, and Muir Woods 

National Monument in addition to the many urban sites and activities that are abundant in 

and around San Francisco. This combination or “package” of attractions and tourist 

opportunities in and around San Francisco results in a sustainable, thriving tourist 

industry. This industry directly contributes to the local and regional economy. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in each of the GMP 

alternatives are added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

tourism industry actions and attractions, a long-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative 

impact on the economy would result. The impacts of each GMP alternative on the overall 

cumulative economy would contribute a long-term, minor, beneficial effect to the overall 

economy of San Francisco. 

Regional Economy of the Overall Bay Area 

As noted in the subsection on quality of life, the implementation of actions in each GMP 

alternative would continue to provide open space preservation, numerous recreation 

opportunities, facilities, and park settings for organized group activities, and other 

amenities that make the park an intrinsic, attractive component of the Bay Area 

community. This quality of life contribution also has an effect on the economy. By 

providing aesthetic, community, and recreational values, the park would continue to help 

make the Bay Area an attractive place for companies and talented professionals to call 

home. The Bay Area’s quality of life becomes a draw for business and economic growth 

because of places like the park. The economic growth and success of Silicon Valley is a 

prime example of how economic growth can occur in a quality business location with a 

natural landscape backdrop. Similarly, the other city, county, and state parks and open 

spaces throughout the Bay Area contribute to making this region an attractive place to do 

business and to live. The region’s cultural diversity and abundance of urban attractions 

also complement the parks and help to attract business growth. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in each GMP alternative 

are added to the effects of these other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

and trends, a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative impact on the economy 

would result. The impacts of the GMP alternative actions on the economy would 

contribute a small to medium component of this overall cumulative effect in the gateway 

communities and counties near the park, and would contribute an even smaller 

component to the overall cumulative effect when the overall Bay Area is considered. 

TRANSPORTATION 

The cumulative impacts on transportation resulting from the actions described in the 

GMP alternatives in combination with actions resulting from transportation projects and 

policies of other entities within the Bay Area are identified in this section. In preparing 

the cumulative impacts on transportation, the actions of the past, present, and foreseeable 

future were estimated. Input into these cumulative impacts included actions by others 

within the areas around the park, or potential actions that are described in various park 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 56 

plans already underway or recently completed. Transportation projects external to the 

park may result in an increase in visitation to the park by improving access for any of the 

travel modes discussed; or conversely, they may impede movement or burden 

transportation systems and reduce access. Cumulative transportation impacts of both 

external and park-originated projects are described below. 

The transportation actions in the general management plan include expanding regional 

park ferry access to primary park sites in San Francisco Bay, new embarkations for 

Alcatraz Ferry, developing strategies for congestion management, and improving the 

intelligent transportation system and wayfinding applications. Throughout the park, 

improvements will be made to better connect the park trail system to the regional trail 

network and to local communities. In addition, improvements will be made to the trail 

system in Marin and San Francisco counties that include sustainable alignments and 

design, improved accessibility, and wayfinding signs. In San Mateo, work will begin on a 

comprehensive trail plan that will guide the development of a trail network on park lands 

and will identify logical trail connections to strengthen the regional trail network. 

These GMP actions, when combined with major past, present, and foreseeable future 

transportation actions of others, will have a cumulative impact to the transportation 

system that influences visitor access and circulation. At the Marin Headlands and Fort 

Baker area, there will be enhanced multimodal access to park sites. The roadway 

infrastructure would be rehabilitated or reconstructed without altering the historic 

character, and parking facilities would be improved. Additional transit options would be 

provided to and within the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker to improve access to the 

area. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by closing and rerouting existing 

trails and constructing new trails. Connectivity—access to the park by all nonmotorized 

modes, and access to sites within the park by all modes—is likely to be improved. Hiking 

and biking across the Golden Gate Bridge to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker will 

grow as a popular recreational activity; continued coordination between the National Park 

Service and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District is required to 

address increased demands and safety issues. The cumulative impacts of implementing 

these actions could be long term, moderate to major, and beneficial. 

In Marin County, the transportation element of the Marin Countywide General Plan 

Update of 2007 guides the list of transportation projects underway or already approved. 

Projects focus on increasing capacity of arterials and Highway 101; by reducing 

congestion in the eastern part of the county, these measures may make some park sites at 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area more easily accessible. Completion of these 

projects would represent a long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impact on auto and 

transit access to Marin park lands, which are primarily located in more rural west Marin 

County. 

The Marin Countywide General Plan includes an explicitly stated policy to maintain 

West Marin’s rural character, so roads in that area will continue to be two-lane only, with 

turning lanes, pullouts, and bicycle paths allowable. Muir Beach, Muir Woods National 

Monument, and Stinson Beach are accessed by these small roads, so congestion during 

peak periods can be expected to continue or to get worse if there are no programs to 

provide public transportation or improve bicycle routes. This scenario would have a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse cumulative impact on auto travel to West Marin sites. 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Transportation) 

Volume III: 57 

Many of Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s park sites in Marin and San Francisco 

counties are located along San Francisco Bay. To improve visitor connection and 

circulation, planners are working to develop a Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Water Shuttle Terminals Plan. Although only at the conceptual stage, the plan proposes a 

water shuttle system to connect park sites on the shore of the San Francisco Bay—Angel 

Island, Sausalito, Fort Baker, Crissy Field, Fort Mason—as well as the Ferry Building. 

Routes and destinations have not been finalized, yet. The system itself could be a 

significant attraction, unique within the national park system. Some visitors could be 

expected to take the water shuttle from one location to another without disembarking 

until reaching their point of origin, as a form of recreation in itself. If implemented, this 

system could have a long-term, moderate to major, beneficial cumulative effect on the 

connectivity of bayside sites, access to park sites by water, and an increase in the modes 

of travel. 

In San Francisco County, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority is 

implementing a Bus Rapid Transit system for Van Ness Avenue, which is a collection of 

measures to provide rapid and reliable transit on Van Ness Avenue. The north end of this 

service terminates within two blocks of Upper Fort Mason and San Francisco Maritime 

National Historical Park. Given that this part of the city is already served by some transit 

operations, this project could have long-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative effects on 

visitor access and on connectivity to the park, allowing visitors to get to the north part of 

the city without driving and parking a vehicle. 

A plan is being developed for the E-Line Streetcar Extension that proposes to extend 

streetcar service from the Embarcadero through San Francisco Maritime National 

Historical Park and a tunnel under Upper Fort Mason. The E-line Streetcar Extension 

connects Fisherman’s Wharf to Lower Fort Mason and someday it could extend to Crissy 

Field. If this project were to go forward, it could have a long-term, major, beneficial 

cumulative effect on both connectivity and access to this area of Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. 

The Doyle Drive project will rehabilitate a major artery along the northern waterfront of 

San Francisco through several Golden Gate National Recreation Area sites. The purpose 

of the proposed project is to improve the seismic, structural, and traffic safety of Doyle 

Drive and its approach to the Golden Gate Bridge. The project is intended to significantly 

reduce the adverse effects of the current structure, including noise, visual impacts, and air 

pollution. The project would place portions of the low viaduct structure below grade or 

underground, thus removing it from the landscape and restoring visual connections 

between areas of the Presidio of San Francisco. The results of the project, a safer 

parkway with some segments underground, is likely to have long-term, major, beneficial 

cumulative impacts on access to this part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area by all 

modes, motorized and nonmotorized. Planned modifications in the Presidio of San 

Francisco, currently behind Doyle Drive, reconnect it to the shoreline, making it much 

more accessible by bicycle and foot. 

In San Mateo County, the California Department of Transportation is working to reroute 

State Route 1 at Devil’s Slide. This project involves boring two tunnels (one in each 

direction of traffic flow) beneath an unstable portion of a steep Pacific Coast hillside. 

This section of road has a long history of rockslides and land slippage, causing lengthy 

closures and millions of dollars in repair costs. This section of State Route 1 lies between 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 58 

two Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s park sites: the Mori Point / Cattle Hill area 

and Corral de Tierra. It is likely that Pedro Point and lands adjacent to State Route 1 in 

this area will be added to the park in the foreseeable future. The completion of this 

project should expedite traffic, reduce traffic congestion, and make travel in the area 

more reliable, enabling a greater number of people to visit these areas of Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area. This would likely have a long-term, minor, beneficial 

cumulative impact on travel in the area. This improvement may also encourage more 

people to drive in the area, and therefore could trigger a need for more parking 

accommodation in the future. 

The trail system of Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National 

Monument contribute to a larger county and regional trail network. For example, the 

Association of Bay Area Governments adopted the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan that 

proposes to create a trail encircling the San Francisco Bay. A portion of the trail connects 

with park sites within Golden Gate National Recreation Area in Marin and San Francisco 

counties. In addition, the California Coastal Trail, a 1,200-mile-long trail between 

Oregon and Mexico, is integrated with the park’s trail network in Marin, San Francisco, 

and San Mateo counties. The sections of the San Francisco Bay trail and the California 

Coastal Trail could increase pedestrian and bicycle access to areas throughout the park. 

These developments would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative effect on 

pedestrian and bicycle access to this area, and connectivity to regional transportation. 

The Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy developed a trail initiative, “Trails 

Forever,” to establish a world-class trail system and protect park resources. Trails Forever 

is likely to increase pedestrian access (and bicycle access as permitted) to all areas of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area by establishing and repairing trails that connect to 

surrounding areas, as well as those that connect sites within each park area. As the Trails 

Forever efforts continue, they are likely to have a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

cumulative effect on safe, expanded access, connectivity, and circulation to more parts of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

The wide variety of past, present, and foreseeable future transportation actions resulting 

from the management of the park and actions of other entities throughout Marin, San 

Francisco, and San Mateo counties, combined with the actions described in the GMP 

alternatives would have long-term, moderate to major, beneficial cumulative impacts on 

the transportation and trail systems. 

PARK MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, AND FACILITIES 

Some past, present and foreseeable future actions being undertaken outside of this 

general management plan would have impacts on park operations. These “outside” 

actions, added to the actions proposed in the GMP alternatives, would result in the 

cumulative impacts to park operations explored below. 

Park partners engage in a wide variety of activities, including providing interpretation of 

the park, running concessions such as bookstores and hostels, and organizing volunteers 

to improve the park. One example of partner support of park operations is fundraising for 

the renovation of facilities. Increased park staff levels in combination with the actions 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Including Alcatraz Island 

(Park Management, Operations, and Facilities) 

Volume III: 59 

that park partners have taken and may take in the future would result in beneficial 

impacts to park operations, including improvements to mission critical assets, 

improvements to natural and cultural resources, and increased ability to reach out to the 

community and leverage staff work with volunteer and partner efforts. This would result 

in major, long-term, beneficial impacts to park operations for all action alternatives. In 

the no-action alternative, with staff levels remaining at current levels, the ability to 

further leverage partner support would be limited and would have little additional impact, 

although the continuing impact of staff and partner support is major and beneficial. 

Agency and partner decisions to share facilities with the National Park Service, such as 

potentially in San Mateo County, would result in increased operating efficiencies through 

resource and space sharing, increased quality of working relationships with other 

organizations, and coordination on land uses; this would have moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impact to all action alternatives. 

The National Park Service is pursuing new sustainability measures on Alcatraz Island, 

including solar power and a submarine electric line to be laid from the peninsula to the 

island. Those projects, in combination with the GMP policy to improve sustainability, 

would have moderate to major, beneficial, long-term impacts to the park operations for 

all action alternatives. 

If the park pursues future acquisition of lands and the development of facilities not 

addressed in the GMP alternatives, given the estimated budget and staffing needs of the 

alternatives, the park budgets and staff would be adversely impacted by being diverted 

from planned actions. The resulting impact would be long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse for all action alternatives. 

The current and future expected high cost of housing in the San Francisco Bay Area 

could make the recruitment and retention of park and partner staff challenging. The 

action alternatives each propose significant numbers of new staff. Park and partner 

salaries are frequently lower than needed to afford adequate housing in the Bay Area. 

Additionally, alternatives 2 and 3 propose reductions in park and partner housing. Given 

these factors, potential staff may find it difficult to find adequate and affordable housing, 

and therefore may choose not to work at the park. Not meeting staffing needs identified 

in the alternatives would result in long-term, moderate to major, adverse impacts to park 

operations. 

The major, long-term, beneficial impacts on operations of increased staffing, in 

combination with the impacts of partner support of park operations, would result in 

major, long-term, beneficial impacts to park operations in the action alternatives. In the 

no-action alternative, with staff levels remaining at current levels, the ability to further 

leverage partner support would be limited and would have little additional impact, 

although the continuing impact of staff and partner support is major and beneficial. 

Administrative and interpretive office space sharing with other agencies would have 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact. Sustainable energy projects on Alcatraz Island in 

combination with the GMP policy on sustainability would result in moderate to major, 

beneficial, long-term impacts to park operations. The impact of pursuing land acquisition 

or facility development outside of GMP proposals would be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. Not meeting staffing needs identified in the alternatives would 

result in long-term, moderate to major, adverse impacts to park operations. 
Volume III: 60 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS AT MUIR WOODS 

NATIONAL MONUMENT 

METHODOLOGY 

See the discussion under “Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area.” 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

A number of plans and projects could have cumulative impacts on natural resources. 

Plans and projects that have a relationship to this general management plan are identified 

and described in appendix B. Those plans and projects that are most relevant to natural 

resources and could contribute to cumulative impacts on this topic, a subset of those 

included in appendix B, include the Redwood Creek Watershed Vision and various 

restoration projects in the watershed; the Marin County transportation plan; the Muir 

Woods pilot shuttle; the Mount Tamalpais State Park management plan; the Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area / Muir Woods National Monument fire management plan; the 

management of lands adjacent to the monument; and past land use practices in the region. 

Cumulative impacts for Muir Woods National Monument are similar to those described 

for Golden Gate National Recreation Area, with a few exceptions noted below in the 

analysis. 

Carbon Footprint and Air Quality 

All of the plans and projects mentioned in the introduction to this section would have 

cumulative impacts on carbon footprint and air quality. County transportation plans and 

projects aimed at reducing personal automobile use and improving alternative 

transportation would have beneficial cumulative impacts by reducing transportationrelated emissions. The Muir Woods National Monument pilot shuttle would continue to 

reduce emissions from personal automobile use, lower the carbon footprint of the 

monument and improving air quality. Projects aimed at improving ecosystems and 

enhancing natural resources would result in adverse cumulative impacts in the short term, 

but would be outweighed by long-term reductions in emissions and the resultant 

improvement in air quality. The same would be true for the management of adjacent 

public lands, where near-term projects would have short-term adverse impacts on carbon 

footprint and air quality, but long-term objectives to reduce energy use and emissions and 

improve the condition of natural systems would have long-term beneficial cumulative 

impacts. Regional land protection efforts would continue to preserve open space that 

removes land available for development and provides air quality benefits. The 

management of private lands in the region would likely continue to result in adverse 

impacts to carbon footprint and air quality as they would continue to be sources of energy 

use and air quality emissions that could increase over time as densities increase. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Muir Woods National Monument 

(Natural Resources) 

Volume III: 61 

previously described, there would be a cumulative adverse impact on carbon footprint 

and air quality in the short term and a beneficial cumulative impact on carbon footprint 

and air quality over the long term. The actions contained in the GMP alternatives would 

contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Soils and Geologic Resources and Processes 

All of the plans and projects mentioned in the introduction to this section would have 

cumulative impacts on soils and geologic resources and processes. County transportation 

plans and projects would modify roadways that would likely result in adverse impacts to 

roadside soils and geologic resources and would contribute to changes in the functionality 

of geologic processes in the area. Projects aimed at improving ecosystems and enhancing 

natural resources could result in adverse cumulative impacts in the short term, but would 

be outweighed by long-term improvements to function and integrity of soils and natural 

geologic processes. The same would be true for the management of adjacent public lands, 

where near-term projects could have short-term adverse impacts on soils and geologic 

resources, but long-term objectives to improve natural systems would have long-term 

beneficial cumulative impacts on soils and geologic processes. Regional land protection 

efforts would continue to preserve open space and protect soils and geologic resources. 

The management of private lands in the region would continue to have adverse and 

beneficial impacts on soils and geologic processes depending on the nature of land use 

and stewardship practices. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be a cumulative beneficial impact on soils and 

geologic resources and processes. The actions contained in the GMP alternatives would 

contribute a small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Water Resources and Hydrologic Processes 

All of the plans and projects mentioned in the introduction to this section would have 

cumulative impacts on water resources and hydrologic processes. County transportation 

plans and projects would modify roadways that could modify surface water flow and 

drainage. Roadway projects would also likely result in soil erosion and generate urban 

pollutants that would adversely impact water quality. Conversely, certain projects would 

reduce sedimentation and improve the conveyance of water—beneficial impacts. Projects 

aimed at improving ecosystems and enhancing natural resources (i.e., Big Lagoon 

restoration, Lower Redwood Creek floodplain restoration, Fern Creek riparian fencing, 

Mission blue butterfly habitat restoration, Coast Trail habitat enhancement projects, 

sediment reduction projects, and the decommissioning of Muir Woods Road) could result 

in adverse cumulative impacts to water resources and water quality in the short term, but 

would be outweighed by long-term improvements to the integrity and function of water 

resources, especially for wetlands, floodplains, and natural creek processes. These 

projects would benefit water quality by reducing erosion and sediment transport and 

restoring Redwood Creek and the area’s natural drainage patterns. The impacts of the 

project would be beneficial when considered with other projects in the watershed that 

also reduce sediment and nutrient transport and generally enhance the watershed’s water 

quality. The same would be true for the management of adjacent public lands: short-term 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 62 

projects could have short-term adverse impacts on water resources (including water 

quality and quantity); but would result in long-term beneficial cumulative impacts on 

water resources and hydrologic processes. Regional land protection efforts would 

continue to preserve open space and protect water resources. The management of private 

lands in the region would continue to have adverse and beneficial impacts on water 

resources and hydrologic processes depending on the nature of land use and stewardship 

practices. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be a cumulative beneficial impact on water resources 

and hydrologic processes. The actions contained in the GMP alternatives would 

contribute a small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Habitat (Vegetation and Wildlife) and Special Status Species 

(Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species) 

All of the plans and projects mentioned in the introduction to this section would have 

cumulative impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. County transportation plans and 

projects would modify roadways that could alter the integrity of native habitat, increase 

habitat fragmentation, and introduce exotic plants and animals that could displace and 

adversely affect native species, including special status species. Roadway projects would 

also likely result in soil erosion and generate urban pollutants that would adversely 

impact aquatic habitats. Conversely, certain projects would reduce impacts from 

roadways and improve migration corridors. Restoration projects aimed at improving 

ecosystems and enhancing natural resources include the following: 

• Big Lagoon restoration 

• Lower Redwood Creek floodplain restoration 

• Fern Creek riparian fencing 

• Mission blue butterfly habitat restoration 

• Coast Trail habitat enhancement projects 

• sediment reduction projects 

• decommissioning of Muir Woods Road 

• park fire road rehabilitation 

• Green Gulch Farm’s removal of concrete lining from tributary 

• Kent Canyon culvert replacement 

These could result in adverse cumulative impacts to native habitat in the short term, but 

would be outweighed by long-term improvements to the integrity and function of habitat. 

These projects would improve water quality by reducing sediment inputs, prevent the 

trampling of vegetation, remove invasive riparian plants, improve fish passage, create 

pool habitat, and remove artificial bank protection. The 2003 and 2007 Lower Redwood 

Creek projects have direct benefits for salmonids by expanding and enhancing available 

winter and summer rearing habitat. Therefore, the impacts of the project, considered with 

the beneficial impacts of other local projects, would be cumulatively beneficial. 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Muir Woods National Monument 

(Natural Resources) 

Volume III: 63 

The same would be true for the management of adjacent public lands, where near-term 

projects could have short-term adverse impacts on habitat, but long-term objectives to 

improve natural systems would have long-term beneficial cumulative impacts on habitat 

integrity and function. Regional land protection efforts would continue to preserve open 

space and protect a variety of habitat types. The management of private lands in the 

region would continue to have adverse and beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

habitat depending on the nature of land use and stewardship practices. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be a cumulative beneficial impact on vegetation and 

wildlife habitat. Although impacts on local special status species and their habitat in the 

project area would be mitigated to minimize potential impacts and impacts of other 

projects in the area would generally be beneficial, impacts from urbanization of the 

region would continue to result in habitat loss and the cumulative impact to most special 

status species and their habitat would be adverse. The actions contained in the GMP 

alternatives would contribute a small increment to this cumulative impact. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

A number of past, present, and ongoing plans, programs, and projects could have 

cumulative impacts on cultural resources, if implemented. Plans, programs, and projects 

that have a relationship to this general management plan are described in the 

“Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans” section in part 1 and in “Appendix B: 

Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan.” Those plans and projects that are 

most relevant to and could contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural resources at Muir 

Woods National Monument include the following: 

• National Park Service restoration plans such as the Redwood Creek Watershed: 

Vision for the Future [2003] 

• State and regional plans such as the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation Mount Tamalpais State Park General Plan [1980] 

• County and local plans such as the Marin Countywide Plan [2007] and amended 

[2009] 

Past human use and practices and management of lands in and near Muir Woods National 

Monument, such as construction associated with urban, suburban, and recreational 

development, have also contributed to cumulative impacts on cultural resources. 

Archeological Resources 

Implementation of NPS restoration plans, state and regional plans, and county and local 

plans would have generally beneficial cumulative impacts on archeological resources 

because they emphasize protection and preservation of cultural resources and mitigation 

if sites cannot be avoided. Past human use and management of lands in and near the 

monument, such as construction associated with urban, suburban, and recreational 

development, have generally had adverse impacts on archeological resources because of 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 64 

the unknown number of archeological sites that may have been lost or degraded as a 

result of ground disturbing operations. 

When the likely impacts of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on 

archeological resources on lands in and near the monument. The actions contained in the 

GMP alternatives, however, would generally contribute a small beneficial increment to 

the overall adverse cumulative impacts to archeological resources. 

Historic Buildings 

National Park Service restoration plans, state and regional plans, and county and local 

plans all provide for the protection and preservation of historic buildings and their 

architectural values and, therefore, would contribute to beneficial cumulative impacts on 

historic buildings, if implemented. Past human use and management of lands in and near 

the monument, such as construction associated with urban, suburban, and recreational 

development, have generally had adverse impacts on historic buildings, resulting in the 

loss of historic buildings and historic fabric. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be a long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impact to 

historic buildings. The actions contained in the GMP alternatives would contribute a 

small increment to these overall cumulative impacts. 

Cultural Landscape Resources 

National Park Service restoration plans, state and regional plans, and county and local 

plans all provide for the protection and preservation of cultural landscape resources and, 

therefore, would contribute to beneficial cumulative impacts on cultural landscape 

resources, if implemented. Past human use and management of lands in and near the 

monument, such as construction associated with urban, suburban, and recreational 

development, have generally had adverse impacts on cultural landscapes, resulting in the 

loss or degradation of numerous cultural landscape resources. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in the GMP alternatives 

are added to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

previously described, there would be a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impact to cultural landscape resources. However, the actions contained in the 

GMP alternatives would contribute only a small increment to the overall cumulative 

impacts on cultural landscape resources. 

Park Collections 

The cumulative impacts to the park collections are addressed in the “Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area” section.
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Muir Woods National Monument 

(Visitor Use and Experience) 

Volume III: 65 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

The cumulative impacts for visitor use and experience at Muir Woods National 

Monument are the same as those described for Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Along with the actions identified in this general management plan for Muir Woods 

National Monument, the actions identified in a number of plans and projects in the local 

gateway communities, the three adjacent counties, and the overall San Francisco Bay 

Area could contribute to cumulative impacts on the social and economic environment in 

the area. Plans and projects that have a relationship to this general management plan are 

identified and described in the “Relationship of This Plan to Other Plans” section in 

part 1 and in “Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan.” 

These other plans and management actions all have effects on the social and economic 

environment, both individually and collectively. These effects mainly relate to the quality 

of life of local residents and the economy. The cumulative contributions to the quality of 

life and economy could extend throughout the gateway communities, the three adjacent 

counties, and the overall Bay Area. 

In relationship to the social and economic environment, the cumulative effect of 

implementing these other plans and projects and the GMP alternatives for Muir Woods 

National Monument would be quite similar to the cumulative effect of implementing 

these other plans and projects and the GMP alternatives for Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. Therefore, to avoid repeating analyses and conclusions, please refer to 

the section titled “Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

(including Alcatraz Island).” However, the transportation component of the monument’s 

GMP alternatives is unique to this park. The transportation actions included in the GMP 

action alternatives could affect traffic patterns, park accessibility, and park visitor 

contributions to the local economy in the gateway communities and Marin County. Thus, 

these actions could influence the local social and economic environment. A discussion 

and analysis of this topic are provided below. 

The no-action alternative and alternatives 1, 2, and 3 include measures to expand shuttle 

services to and from the monument. The shuttle service would originate at selected transit 

hubs located in Marin County. Although all action alternatives would include actions that 

address this change, alternative 2 includes actions that would yield the greatest amount of 

change, because under this alternative, the majority of personal motorized vehicles would 

be prohibited from entering the park. Under alternative 2, all park visitors would access 

the park via the shuttle, by bicycle, or by foot. The primary goal for these actions is to 

substantially reduce the impacts of motorized vehicular use in and around the park; this 

would reduce motor vehicle impacts such as noise, air pollution, traffic, and overflow 

parking problems. While minimizing these impacts, the proposed actions would also 

provide an alternate, public transportation option for local residents who otherwise may 

not have easy access to the park. These actions also would reduce traffic on some Marin 

County roads that lead to the park. All of these impacts could be beneficial to the quality 

of life for local residents in Marin County. Alternative 2 would yield the greatest benefit 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 66 

in terms of removing individual vehicles from local roads. However, because these 

actions could reduce the amount of vehicular traffic en route to the park, a reduction in 

local business activity may be noticed in the local gateway communities. Fewer people 

would be driving to and from the park through the local towns, and thus, fewer people 

would be stopping at local restaurants, stores, and other businesses. As described in the 

“Environmental Consequences” section, this could result in an adverse impact to the local 

economy. 

GMP actions that would affect the local economy and the quality of life for local 

residents could be complemented by the transportation plan actions of the local 

governments in Marin County and the local and regional transit authorities. These entities 

will continue to improve and expand public transportation options in Marin County and 

beyond. As the public transportation network grows and becomes more refined, local and 

regional residents will have more options to visit the park, with a probable reduction in 

transit time. These efforts will contribute to quality of life by improving geographic 

accessibility and reducing traffic congestion. As for economic impacts, because local and 

regional transportation planning and projects would likely conform to municipal and 

county master plans, some commercial zoning sectors in Marin County may shift over the 

years to become concentrated around mass transit hubs. Thus, the initial impacts to local 

businesses from a reduction in vehicular traffic may eventually be offset by a gain in 

local business activity in and around the planned transit hub areas. 

When the likely effects of implementing the actions contained in each of the GMP 

alternatives for the monument are added to the effects of these other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable transportation actions, a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impact on the quality of life for local residents could result. 

The impacts of the actions of each GMP alternative on the local economy would 

constitute a small portion of this overall cumulative effect in the gateway communities 

and Marin County. When the likely effects of implementing the GMP actions are added 

to the effects of these other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable transportation 

actions, a, minor, adverse cumulative impact on the local economy could result. 

However, over time, the cumulative impact could become negligible or beneficial as the 

transportation systems become predictable and local businesses adapt. 

TRANSPORTATION 

See the transportation discussion under “Cumulative Impact Analysis at Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area.” 
Cumulative Impact Analysis at Muir Woods National Monument 

(Park Management, Operations, and Facilities) 

Volume III: 67 

PARK MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, AND FACILITIES 

Staffing increases described in the analysis in combination with actions that partners may 

take would result in long-term, beneficial impacts to park operations, including 

improvements to mission critical assets and natural and cultural resources, and increased 

ability to reach out to the community and leverage staff work with volunteer and partner 

efforts. This would result in major, long-term, beneficial impact to park operations for all 

action alternatives. In the no-action alternative, with staff levels remaining the same as 

existing, the ability to further leverage partner support would be limited and would have 

little additional impact, although the continuing impact of staff and partner support is 

major and beneficial. 

If the park pursues future acquisition of lands and development of facilities not addressed 

in the GMP alternatives, given the estimated budget and staffing needs of the alternatives, 

the park budgets and staff would be adversely impacted by being diverted from planned 

actions. The resulting impact would be long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

The current and future expected high cost of housing in the San Francisco Bay Area 

could make the recruitment and retention of park and partner staff challenging. The 

action alternatives each propose significant numbers of new staff. Park and partner 

salaries are frequently lower than needed to afford adequate housing in the Bay Area. 

Given these factors, potential staff may find it difficult to find adequate and affordable 

housing, and therefore may choose not to work at the park. Not meeting staffing needs 

identified in the alternatives would result in long-term, moderate to major, adverse 

impacts to park operations. 

The major, long-term, beneficial impacts on operations of increased staffing, in 

combination with the impacts of partner support of park operations, would result in 

major, long-term, beneficial impacts to park operations in the action alternatives. In the 

no-action alternative, with staff levels remaining at current levels, the ability to further 

leverage partner support would be limited and would have little additional impact, 

although the continuing impact of staff and partner support is major and beneficial. The 

impact of pursuing land acquisition or facility development outside of GMP proposals 

would be long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. Not meeting staffing needs due to 

the high cost of housing would result in long-term, moderate to major, adverse impacts to 

park operations. 
Volume III: 68 

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES 

NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

None of the alternatives being considered would result in the extraction of new resources 

from the park or monument. In all of the alternatives, ecological principles would be 

applied to ensure that the natural resources of the park and monument were maintained 

and protected. Certain resources could continue to be collected for scientific and 

educational purposes, but the specimens would be stored in the NPS collection. 

Agricultural operations on NPS lands would continue to result in the extraction of 

resources through the harvesting of crops, which assist in meeting cultural landscape 

objectives. The fields would be managed to sustain this harvest. Implementation of the 

alternatives would result in the use of limited natural resources and energy for 

construction and operation of new recreational facilities and for restoration activities. 

New development would be designed to be sustainable to the maximum extent 

practicable. The use and consumption of fuel and other nonrenewable resources for NPS 

operations, activities, and development associated with the alternatives would be very 

small in comparison to that of the region. Overall, the impact on this topic resulting from 

implementation of this general management plan would likely be negligible. 

EFFECTS ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION 

The CEQ guidelines for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act require 

examination of energy requirements and conservation potential in environmental impact 

statements. Park Service staff strive to incorporate the principles of sustainable design 

and development into all facilities and park operations. Sustainability can be described as 

the result achieved by doing things in ways that do not compromise the environment or 

its capacity to provide for present and future generations. Sustainable practices minimize 

the short-term and long-term environmental impacts of developments and other activities 

through resource conservation, recycling, waste minimization, and the use of energy 

efficient and ecologically responsible materials and techniques. 

The NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (1993) provides a basis for achieving 

sustainability in facility planning and design, emphasizes the importance of bio-diversity, 

and encourages responsible decisions. The guidebook describes principles to be used in 

the design and management of visitor facilities that emphasize environmental sensitivity 

in construction, use of nontoxic materials, resource conservation, recycling, and 

integration of visitors with natural and cultural settings. The National Park Service would 

minimize energy costs, eliminate waste, and conserve energy resources by using energy 

efficient and cost effective technology wherever possible. Recent examples include 

projects to install photovoltaic panels on the NPS Headquarters building at Fort Mason 

and projects to pursue alternative energy options at Alcatraz Island (both part of the noaction alternative). Energy efficiency would also be incorporated into any decisionmaking process during the design or acquisition of facilities, as well as all decisions 

affecting park operations. 
Additional Analyses 

Volume III: 69 

The use of value analysis and value engineering, including life cycle cost analysis, would 

be performed to examine energy, environmental, and economic implications of proposed 

NPS development. Park Service staff would encourage suppliers, permittees, and 

contractors to follow sustainable practices and would address sustainable park and park 

partner practices in interpretive programs. 

The energy requirements of the plan’s alternatives (for Alcatraz Island, Muir Woods, and 

the three-county area) were examined. At Muir Woods, propane (gallons of fuel) and 

electricity (kilowatt hours per year) usage would be reduced under all of the action 

alternatives; while the use of natural gas to provide expanded shuttle service would 

increase substantially. 

On Alcatraz Island, diesel use (gallons of fuel) and electricity use (kilowatt hours per 

year) would be increased under all of the action alternatives. 

At park sites within the three-county area of Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 

diesel use (gallons of fuel) and electricity use (kilowatt hours per year) would be slightly 

reduced under all of the action alternatives. In San Mateo County, energy requirements 

would increase under all of the action alternatives because facilities would be developed 

where the National Park Service currently has no recreational or operational presence. 

Overall, compared to energy requirements and use in the local area or the region, energy 

consumption by the National Park Service would be negligible. Consequently, any 

adverse impacts relating to energy use, availability, or conservation would be negligible. 

IRRETRIEVABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES 

The energy requirements identified above (for all alternatives) would result in an 

irreversible commitment of resources. Furthermore, construction materials, including 

gravel and other rock and earthen materials, would be irretrievably committed toward the 

construction of new recreational and operations facilities. National Park Service 

employee time would be committed to implementation of various elements of the plan, 

which would also constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources. There would be no 

permanent effects on park resources resulting from these actions. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or 

avoided. Adverse impacts on natural and cultural resources and visitor experience could 

occur in some areas throughout the two parks as a result of public use (e.g., impacts to 

resources from concentrated visitor use or vandalism) or NPS management activities 

(e.g., impacts from construction activities or emergency response). 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 70 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

Under the no-action alternative, short-term uses of the environment such as public use of 

the area would continue. Public use and new recreational development would be 

expanded under one or more of the action alternatives, resulting in potential temporary 

disturbances to vegetation communities, various species of wildlife, and visitor access 

and experiences. The use of construction phasing and/or implementation of mitigation 

measures would reduce or eliminate the potential for most of these short-term impacts. 

Under all of the alternatives, most of the park lands would be protected in a natural state 

and would maintain their long-term productivity. Only a small percentage of the park and 

monument would be maintained as developed areas. Furthermore, the action alternatives 

include improvements to existing site conditions and the restoration of natural habitats 

and steam systems. These actions would improve ecological function and the long-term 

productivity of the environment. 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CONSISTENCY 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) was enacted by Congress to 

encourage states to protect, preserve, develop, and, when possible, restore or enhance 

valuable natural coastal resources. The program is a voluntary partnership between the 

federal government and the U.S. coastal states. If a proposed project is a federal action 

requiring NEPA review and the project is located in the coastal zone, then a CZMA 

consistency certification must be prepared. 

The California Coastal program was approved as part of a National Coastal Zone 

Management Program authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The 

California Coastal Commission was established through the adoption of the California 

Coastal Act of 1976 and is an independent state agency whose mission is to “protect, 

conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the 

California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current 

and future generations.” In keeping with their mission, the California Coastal 

Commission is an independent state agency responsible for planning and review of 

activities within the coastal zone through specific policies outlined in the California 

Coastal Act such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor 

accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform 

alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore 

oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and 

public works”. Although federally owned lands within the coastal zone are exempt from 

the act, federal agencies are encouraged to coordinate and cooperate with the state to 

meet the purposes of the California Coastal Act and be consistent with the policies of the 

California Coastal Act. 

Based on the analysis within this draft general management plan/environmental impact 

statement, the preferred alternative should, over the long term, result in beneficial effects 

to coastal resources by (1) providing and managing public use within coastal areas; (2) 
Additional Analyses 

Volume III: 71 

reducing opportunities for soil disturbance and erosion that could impact water quality 

and aquatic habitats; and (3) protecting and conserving important and sensitive natural 

resources. 

Based on the anticipated benefits to coastal resources the National Park Service has 

determined that the preferred alternative presented in this plan is consistent with the 

Coastal Zone Management Act. A copy of this plan will be sent to the Federal 

Consistency Coordinator at the California Coastal Commission requesting their 

concurrence with this determination. A copy of this plan will also be sent to the San 

Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 

 
PART 11: OTHER ANALYSES AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 

Volume III: 72 
Consultation, Coordination, and Preparation 12

Volume III: 75 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

GENERAL 

This section describes the processes employed by the National Park Service to include 

the public in the development of the draft general management plan / environmental 

impact statement for Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National 

Monument. The plan represents important contributions from not only NPS staff, but 

hundreds of members of the public: individuals, organizations, and a variety of local, 

state, and federal public agencies—all of whom are interested in the vision that will 

successfully guide the park in the future. To prepare this plan, the park actively sought 

out and regularly consulted with existing and potential visitors, neighbors, Native 

Americans, scientists and scholars, concessioners, neighboring communities, other 

partners, and government agencies. The park adhered to NPS policy by inviting the 

public to participate in planning and decision-making as a way to ensure that the National 

Park Service fully understands and considers the public’s interests in the park, which is 

part of the public’s national heritage, cultural traditions, and community surroundings. 

Throughout the multi-year planning process, the National Park Service used a variety of 

methods to regularly communicate with the public interested in the development of the 

general management plan. The foundation of two-way communication was the 

preparation of informative newsletters and the many open house-style public meetings 

held by the park in neighboring communities. 

PLAN DEVELOPMENT 

Scoping: Public involvement in the plan began with an invitation to participate in 

scoping: identifying the scope, or range, of the issues that the plan would address. The 

legal requirement (Notice of Intent, or NOI) of informing the public that the National 

Park Service was beginning to prepare an environmental impact statement for a general 

management plan was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 60, March 29, 

2006. Immediately afterwards, a newsletter (the first of 5), was sent to more than 4,000 

addresses on the park’s mailing list. It described the general management plan process 

and invited people to describe what they value and like most about the park, what they 

like least, their suggestions for management, their major concerns for the future of the 

park, and any other comments they wanted to provide to the NPS planning team. The 

newsletter included a postage-paid reply form. Nearly 300 electronic and mailed 

comments were received in response to the newsletter. 

In tandem with the newsletter, the National Park Service held five public open houses in 

Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties to gather additional input. The Park 

Service also hosted focused meetings with environmental, historic, and diversity 

organizations, as well as meetings with Native American representatives, current park 

partners, and groups that included some of the park founders in order to collect broad 

input. 
PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION 

Volume III: 76 

The information gathered in these outreach activities was summarized in a newsletter 

(#2),“What We Heard,” which was distributed in February, 2007. The newsletter also 

incorporated comments gathered at scoping meetings held with park staff in 2001, 2003, 

and 2006 as the Park Service was beginning to formulate the planning process. 

With the distribution of newsletter #2 the Park Service began to routinely employ a set of 

tools that included the following: 

• feedback sessions at quarterly open houses held in neighboring communities 

• distribution of project information by email (approximately 1,000 addresses at 

present) 

• translation of newsletters or parts of newsletters into Chinese and Spanish 

• distribution of project information at other park sites such as Alcatraz Island and 

Muir Woods which are popular with national and international visitors 

• posting of project information on the park’s website: www.nps.gov/goga 

• posting of project information on the NPS planning website: 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/goga 

• briefings for park partners and interested organizations such as the Crissy Field 

Center’s IYELL program, People for the Parks, the City of Pacifica Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Advisory Committee, and the San Francisco Planning 

and Urban Research Association (SPUR) 

All public scoping comments and the NPS analysis of those comments were documented 

in a report, Scoping Summary 2006, General Management Plan, and made available at 

the two websites. The comments and analysis helped guide the Park Serive to develop 

alternative ways to address the planning issues in the plan. 

Alternatives Development: Public involvement in developing the management 

alternatives described in this general management plan was focused on two tasks. First, a 

set of “Alternative Concepts” was prepared to describe a range of different ways that the 

scoping issues could be addressed. These different concepts were the main subject of 

newsletter (#3) which was distributed in fall of 2007. Public feedback gathered in a 

variety of formats was generally positive. 

Second, a robust description of “Preliminary Alternatives” was distributed by mail in the 

spring of 2008 (48-page newsletter, #4.) The alternatives described how the different 

concepts were leading to different park management actions. The newsletter included 

short narratives for each alternative describing the future conditions of resources and 

visitor experiences at the various park sites, along with a set of zoning maps. It invited 

the public to send comments to the National Park Service between April 29 and August 1, 

2008. 

The National Park Service employed some additional tools to share the preliminary 

alternatives and gather feedback. These tools included the following: 
Public Involvement 

Volume III: 77 

• “Planning Tables” hosted by members of the planning team at special events and 

park sites such as Marin City, Tennessee Valley, Rodeo Beach, Half Moon Bay 

State Beach, Crissy Field, and Point Reyes National Seashore 

• “Planning Walks” where the public was invited to walk various sites with 

members of the planning team 

• Hikes in the park led by NPS interpretive rangers 

• Special community meetings, as with the residents of Muir Beach 

• Public agency roundtable 

The core public involvement activity centered on a series of five public open houses 

dedicated to discussion of the preliminary alternatives. These were held in June 2008, in 

Marin (Sausalito), San Francisco, and San Mateo communities (Princeton and 

Woodside). These workshops were attended by approximately 300 people. 

As a result, the National Park Service gathered a substantial volume of comments. More 

than 200 responses were posted by individuals and groups at the park website. More than 

180 letters and comment forms were received from a variety of individuals, 

organizations, and agencies. Overall, more than 45 people provided some 1,500 

substantive comments on the preliminary alternatives. All public comments, petitions, 

and letters, including the planning team’s analysis of those comments, were documented 

in a report, Summary of Public Comments on the Preliminary Alternatives, and made 

available at the NPS planning website in 2008. 

The NPS is releasing this draft general management plan / environmental impact 

statement for public review and comment. As is typical for a complex plan, the public 

review period will last for 60 days. A robust summary of the draft plan will be sent to the 

park’s mailing list, and a number of printed versions of the full 2-volume document will 

be sent to government agencies with official responsibilities for review. Some copies of 

the 2-volume draft will also be available upon request. In addition, digital versions of the 

draft will be available from the National Park Service on a CD and on the NPS planning 

website in PDF format. Other activities to facilitate public understanding of the draft and 

to collect comments during the review period will include five dedicated public open 

houses in neighboring communities, two “Planning Table” events, a special meeting with 

affected agencies, partner briefings, and promotion of the NPS planning website as a way 

to make commenting and analysis of comments easy and efficient. 

REVIEWING THE ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS 

Distribution of this draft general management plan / environmental impact statement 

constitutes the principal opportunity for the public to review and comment on the 

potential impacts of the alternatives. However, the National Park Service consulted 

numerous experts during the preparation of the draft to help understand the likely impacts 

of actions in the plan. A list of the scientists, scholars, and other subject-matter experts 

that contributed to the plan is included in a later section of this document. Topics 

addressed in these consultations covered natural and cultural resource preservation, trails 
PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION 

Volume III: 78 

planning, transportation analysis, visitor use management, and reaching new audiences in 

national parks. 

RATIONALE FOR DECISIONS 

Public comments on the preliminary alternatives were used to refine and identify the NPS 

preferred alternative that is described in this draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement. A summary of that alternative—“The Evolving 

Preferred Alternative”—was first shared with the public in a newsletter (#5) in the 

summer of 2009. The newsletter included a summary of public comments and a 

description of how those comments were helping to shape the preferred alternative in the 

NPS “Choosing By Advantages” process. In subsequent open houses and other venues, 

the NPS planning team has continued to receive helpful input from the public. 

Public comments on this draft will be collected, analyzed, and will help the National Park 

Service to further refine the preferred alternative. The result of that process will identify 

the “selected alternative” which will be included in the final general management plan 

approved for implementation. The Record of Decision (ROD), which will be published 

30 days after the release of the final general management plan / environmental impact 

statement, will include a clear description of the rationale for this decision. The final 

general management plan / environmental impact statement will include a record of all 

public comments made on this draft. 
Volume III: 79 

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, 

AND ORGANIZATIONS 

SECTION 7 CONSULTATION 

During the preparation of the general management plan, NPS staff contacted the 

Sacramento, California office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Santa Rosa, 

California office of NOAA- National Marine Fisheries Service to begin the consultation 

process. 

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act and relevant regulations at 50 CFR Part 

402, the National Park Service determined that this general management plan is not likely 

to adversely affect any federal listed threatened or endangered species. The National Park 

Service will send a copy of this draft management plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and NOAA-National Marines Fisheries Service with a request for a written 

concurrence with this determination. 

In addition, the National Park Service has committed to consult on future actions 

conducted under the framework described in this management plan to ensure that such 

actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or species of 

concern. 

SECTION 106 CONSULTATION WITH STATE HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICE 

Prior to implementing an “undertaking.” Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on 

historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment 

on any undertaking that would potentially affect properties listed or eligible for listing in 

the national register. An undertaking is defined as “a project, activity, or program funded 

in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including 

those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with Federal 

financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval.” 

Consultation and scoping with the SHPO, other agencies, tribes, and interested parties 

began in 2006 and is ongoing. The NPS sent a letter on February 7, 2006 to the SHPO 

and the ACHP inviting their participation in the GMP planning process. In a letter dated 

May 29, 2008, the SHPO and ACHP were given the opportunity to provide feedback in 

the development of preliminary alternatives. In addition, NPS representatives held a 

scoping meeting with interested historic preservation groups on April 18, 2006. NPS staff 

also traveled to Sacramento to meet with the SHPO on March 16, 2010. Prior notification 

of the meeting was provided to the ACHP. Items on the meeting agenda included: 

a) review of the proposed alternatives in the GMP/DEIS 

b) discussion of the review and submittal process under Section 106 
PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION 

Volume III: 80 

c) discussion of the appropriate methodology for establishing the Area of 

Potential Effect 

d) discussion on the preparation of the Finding of Effect 

e) preparation of a park-wide Programmatic Agreement 

Documentation associated with NHPA Section 106 compliance is being prepared by NPS 

as a separate submittal, in coordination with the NEPA process. The NPS is currently 

preparing a Finding of Effect as required under 36 CFR 800.4. Once the Finding of 

Effect has been completed, the NPS will continue to work with the SHPO, ACHP, tribes 

and interested parties to complete a comprehensive park-wide Programmatic Agreement 

(PA) for the treatment of historic resources, consistent with the proposed actions under 

the GMP/DEIS. 

CONSULTATIONS WITH NATIVE AMERICANS 

On April 26, 2006, meetings were held with Ohlone and Coast Miwok representatives to 

discuss issues, concerns, and opportunities related to the GMP planning process. Tribal 

consultation is ongoing and will continue as the National Park Service prepares the 

Finding of Effect and the Programmatic Agreement. 
Volume III: 81 

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS 

RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 

A copy of this draft general management plan / environmental impact statement has been 

provided to the following agencies and organizations. A notice of availability of the 

environmental impact statement has been sent to attendees of the public meetings, park 

partners, and others listed on the project mailing list. 

Elected Officials and Committees 

• Office of Senator Barbara Boxer 

• Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein 

• Office of Representative Nancy Pelosi 

• Office of Representative Jackie Speier 

• Office of Representative Lynn Woolsey 

• Office of California State Senator Mark Leno 

• Office of California State Senator Leland Yee 

Federal Agencies 

• Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 9 

• National Trust for Historic Preservation 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

• Presidio Trust 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Region 9 and the Washington Office 

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sector 7 

• U.S. Geological Survey 

California State Agencies 

• California Coastal Commission 

• California Coastal Conservancy 

• California Department of Fish & Game 

• California Department of Forestry 

• California Department of Water Resources 
PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION 

Volume III: 82 

• California Environmental Protection Agency 

• California Native American Heritage Commission 

• California State Clearinghouse 

• California State Parks: Angel Island State Park, Mt. Tamalpais State Park, and the 

Office of Historic Preservation 

• State of California: Water Resources Control Board 

Regional and Local Agencies 

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

• Bolinas Public Utility District 

• City and County of San Francisco 

• East Bay Regional Park District 

• Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District 

• Marin County Parks and Recreation 

• Marin County Community Development Agency 

• Marin Municipal Water District – Sly Oaks Headquarters 

• Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 

• Montara Sanitary District 

• Muir Beach Community Services District 

• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 

• San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 

• San Francisco Parks and Recreation 

• San Mateo County Resource Conservation District 

• San Mateo County Parks 

• San Mateo County Planning and Building Department 

• San Mateo County Transit District 

• Santa Clara County 

• Sausalito/Marin City Sanitary District 

• Stinson BeachCounty Water District 

• Tamalpais Community Services District 
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals 

Receiving a Copy of this Document 

Volume III: 83 

Cities 

• City of Belmont 

• City of Belvedere 

• City of Burlingame 

• City of Foster City 

• City of Half Moon Bay 

• City of Larkspur 

• City of Mill Valley 

• City of Millbrae 

• City of Novato 

• City of Pacifica 

• City of San Bruno 

• City and County of San Francisco 

• City of San Rafael 

• City of Sausalito 

• City of South San Francisco 

• Daly City 

• Marin County Board of Supervisors 

• San Francisco County Board of Supervisors 

• San Mateo County Board of Supervisors 

Organizations 

• Bay Area Open Space Council 

• California League of Conservation Voters 

• California Native Plant Society 

• Center for Biological Diversity 

• City College of San Francisco 

• Coleman Advocates for Youth 

• Committee for Green Foothills 

• Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association 

• Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy 
PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION 

Volume III: 84 

• Peninsula Open Space Trust 

American Indians 

Amah Mutsun Band of Ohlone Costanoan Indians 

Amah Mutsun Tribal Band 

California Native American Heritage Commission 

Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsun Tribe 

Costanoan-Rumsen Carmel Tribe 

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria 

Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan 

Muwekma Ohlone Tribe 

Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation 

The Ohlone Indian Tribe 

Trina Marine Ruano Family 

and other American Indian representatives 

Individuals 

There is an extensive list of individuals; these individuals will be notified of the 

availability of the draft plan and provided a summary edition of the plan. 
Volume III: 85 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

The GMP planning team included a steering committee made up of managers who guided 

the entire planning process. When developing and reviewing the issues and alternatives, 

the planning team included more than 50 managers and resource/technical specialists 

from the National Park Service and Golden Gate Parks Conservancy. In addition, the 

planning team included staff of the California State Parks, experts from academia, and 

members of consulting firms. Most of these planning team members also participated in 

various working groups that focused on individual issues and identified solutions that 

were incorporated into the GMP alternatives. Working groups were formed to address the 

following topics: Alcatraz Vision, Asset Management, Climate Change, Operational 

Facilities, Marine Resources, Native Americans, Park Boundaries, Partnerships, Trails, 

and Transportation. 

STEERING COMMITTEE 

Brian Aviles, Senior Planner, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 11 years with the 

National Park Service, 16 years academic and private practice; M.A. and B.A. in 

Landscape Architecture 

Mai-Liis Bartling, Deputy Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

(retired) 

Frank Dean, General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 34 years 

with the National Park Service, 1 year acting General Superintendent of Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, Chief of the Centennial Coordination and Planning Office in 

Washington D.C., Superintendent of Saratoga National Historical Park, Executive 

Director of Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor; Masters in Public Administration 

Abby Sue Fisher, Acting Chief of Cultural Resources, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area; 18 years with the National Park Service; 7 years at Keweenaw National Historical 

Park; Ph.D. in Textiles and Clothing, M.A. in Anthropology and Latin American Studies, 

B.A. in Art History, Anthropology, and Home Economics 

Daphne Hatch, Chief of Natural Resource Management and Science, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area; 23 years with the National Park Service, 8 years as Natural 

Resource Specialist, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 5 years seasonal on trail 

crew, in interpretation, and as naturalist; B.S. in Botany, M.S. in Range Management 

Nancy Hornor, Chief of Planning and Compliance, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area; 33 years with the National Park Service, 13 years as Environmental Specialist with 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 20 years as Park Planner with Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area; B.S. in Conservation of Natural Resource 

Susan Hurst, Administrative Officer, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (retired) 

Craig Kenkel, Superintendent, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park; 27 years 

with the National Park Service, 1 year acting Deputy Superintendent at Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, 4 years Chief of Cultural Resources at Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, 9 years with the NPS Midwest Regional Office; B.A. in Architecture 
PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION 

Volume III: 86 

Howard Levitt, Chief of Communications and Partnerships, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area; 28 years with the National Park Service: 5 years as Outdoor Recreation 

Planner, 5 years as Management Assistant, 18 years as Chief of Interpretation and 

Education; B.A. in Political Science 

Brian O'Neill, General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 1986 – 

2009 (deceased) 

Chris Powell, Legislative Specialist, NPS Office of Legislative and Congressional 

Affairs; 18 years with the National Park Service, 17 years as Public Affairs Specialist; 

two B.A. Degrees, A.A. in Nursing 

Aaron Roth, acting Deputy Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 6 

years with the National Park Service: 3 years as Chief of Business Management, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area, 6 months as Management Assistant, Grand Canyon 

National Park, 3 years as Business Management Specialist in the NPS Intermountain 

Regional Office; MBA in Entrepreneurship, B.S. in Systems Engineering 

TEAM MEMBERS – CALIFORNIA 

(In addition to the members of the GMP Steering Committee) 

Cathie Barner, Director, Park Projects, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy; 15 

years with the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, M.A. in Architecture 

Paul Batlan, Realty Specialist with Land Resource Division, NPS Washington Office; 12 

years with the National Park Service, 11 years with Presidio Project Office and Fort 

Baker Team with Golden Gate National Recreation Area; B.A. and M.A. in Architecture, 

J.D. in Law 

Kim Coast, acting Chief Park Ranger, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 26 years 

with the National Park Service, Operations Branch Supervisor/Visitor and Resource 

Protection Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 1 year with the U.S. Forest Service; 

B.A. in Recreational Resource Management, A.A. in Park and Grounds Maintenance 

Management, BLM Training Program 

Martha Crusius, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Pacific West Region; 27 years with the 

National Park Service; B.A. in Biology, M.R.P. in Regional Planning, M.S. in Energy 

Management and Policy 

Jay Eickenhorst, Partner Liaison; 35 years with the National Park Service, 25 years as 

NPS Park Ranger, 2 years as NPS Safety Officer, 2 years with U.S. Forest Service; B.S. 

in Marine Biology, A.A. and A.S. in Biology 

Sharon Farrell, Associate Director Park Projects, Resource Conservation, and Project 

Implementation, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy; 6 years with Golden Gate 

National Parks Conservancy, 4 years as NPS Natural Resource Specialist, 7 years as NPS 

Plant Ecologist, 2 years as Natural Resources Planner with Presidio Trust; M.S. in Park 

Management and Recreation, B.S. in Chemistry 

Carey Feierabend, Lead Project Manager, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 14 

years with the National Park Service, 4 years as Planning Manager with Presidio Trust, 5 
Preparers and Consultants 

Volume III: 87 

years as Planner/Historic Architecture Consultant, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area; M.A. and B.A. in Architecture 

Darren Fong, Aquatic Ecologist, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 16 years with 

the National Park Service; M.S. in Wildland Resource Science 

Sue Fritzke, Chief of Vegetation Ecology and Stewardship, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area; 23 years with the National Park Service, 2 years with Peace Corps 

Ecuador; M.S. in Plant Ecology and Physical Geography, B.A. in Physical Geography 

and Environmental Studies, 

Stephen Haller, Park Historian and Branch Chief for Cultural Resources, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area; 35 years with the National Park Service, Ranger with Fort 

Point National Historic Site, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, and 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area; B.A. American History 

Jim Kren, Historical Architect, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 20 years with the 

National Park Service: 12 years with Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 4 years with 

Presidio Project Office, 4 years with NPS Denver Service Center; B.A. Environmental 

Design, B.A. in Architecture 

Tom Lindberg, Superintendent Marin Sector California State Parks (retired) 

Don Mannel, Chief of Maintenance, Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Bill Merkle, Supervisory Wildlife Ecologist, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 7 

years with the National Park Service, 15 years wildlife management and research 

experience; Ph.D. in Biology 

Mia Monroe, Interpretive/Site Supervisor at Muir Woods, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area; 34 years with the National Park Service 

Yvette Ruan, Chief of Fire and Emergency Services, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area; 28 years with the National Park Service: 8 Years as Chief Ranger, 7 years as Law 

Enforcement Ranger, 3 years as EEO Specialist; B.S Criminal Justice Administration 

Michael Savidge, Director, Strategic Planning/Partnership Development, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area; 21 years with the National Park Service, 6 years as Transition 

Manager for Presidio, 10 years with Department of Denfense Armed Forces Recreation 

Center, Germany; Masters of Social Work in Community Administration, B.A. in 

Psychology, Fulbright Fellow Stockholm Sweden, Executive Development Programs 

with Department of Denfense and Department of the Interior, Kennedy School of 

Government/Executive Public Policy 

Jerry Scheumann, Maintenance Division Supervisor, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area 

Paul Scolari, Historian and American Indian Liaison, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area; 16 years with the National Park Service; Ph.D in History of American Art and 

Architecture 

Craig Scott, GIS Coordinator, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 11 years with the 

National Park Service; B.A. in Geography 
PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION 

Volume III: 88 

Emilyn Sheffield, Professor of Recreation and Parks Management, California State 

University, Chico; 24 years of applied research and consulting with government agencies, 

businesses, and nonprofit organizations; Ph.D. in Recreation and Parks Management 

Ed Ueber, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (retired) 

Tamara Williams, Hydrologist/Physical Scientist, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 

13 years with the National Park Service; B.S. in Geology 

TEAM MEMBERS – NPS DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

Planning Team 

Tracy Atkins, Community Planner; 2 years experience with the National Park Service, 22 

years of industry experience in project management, construction management, planning 

and community outreach; M.S. in Civil Engineering, M.S. in Community and Regional 

Planning, B.S. in Architectural Engineering 

Sarah Bodo, Community Planner; 3 years with the National Park Service; Master of 

Urban and Regional Planning, B.S. in Finance 

Kerri Cahill, Visitor Use Technical Specialist; 8 years with National Park Service; Ph.D 

in Recreation Ecology 

Patrick Malone, Project Manager; 5 years with the National Park Service, 9 years with 

state and local government, and 2 years with a nonprofit land trust; M.P.A. in 

Environmental Policy and Public Management, B.S. in Natural Resources and 

Environmental Management 

Stephan Nofield, Outdoor Recreation Planner and former GMP Project Manager; 9 years 

with the National Park Service, 8 years Denver Service Center, 1 year NPS Washington 

Office 

Harlan Unrau, Cultural Resource Specialist (retired) 

Don Wojcik, Natural Resource Specialist; 2 years with the National Park Service, 11 

years as natural resource planner with county government open space programs, 5 years 

as environmental policy analyst with nonprofit and academic organizations, and 2 years 

as civil engineer with municipal government; M.P.A. in Environmental Policy and 

Natural Resource Management; B.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Production Services 

Jim Corbett, Visual Information Specialist; 7 years with the National Park Service 

June McMillen, Writer/Editor; 23 years with the National Park Service, 8 years with the 

U.S. Forest Service; Master of Environmental Science, B.A. in Anthropology. 
Preparers and Consultants 

Volume III: 89 

PLANNING SUPPORT AND SPECIALISTS 

Kristen Appel, Senior District Ranger, Northern Territory Government, Australia 

Laura Castellini, Sustainability Coordinator, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 13 

years with the National Park Service; M.A. in Biology, B.S. in Zoology 

Lee Ann Ciancetti, Administrative Assistant, Planning and Compliance, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area 

Steve Griswold, Landscape Architect, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 34 years 

with the National Park Service; M.A. in Landscape Architecture 

Mark Grupe, GIS Specialist, NPS; 12 years with the National Park Service, 2 years with 

the U. S. Forest Service; M.A. in Geography, B.A. in Communication 

Jan Harris, Planning Branch Chief, Denver Service Center; 30 years with the National 

Park Service, 2 years public involvement consulting, 4 years with Missouri Department 

Natural Resources; B.S. in Recreation and Park Administration 

Marcus Koenen, Alcatraz Site Supervisor (acting), Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area; 10 years with the National Park Service: 5 years as inventory and monitoring 

program manager for San Francisco Bay Area network, 5 years as monitoring coordinator 

in Capital Region, NPS Washington Office; M.S. in Wildlife Ecology, B.A. in Cultural 

Anthropology 

Sarah Koenen, Park Ranger, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 11 years with the 

National Park Service, 2 years Compliance Coordinator, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area; M.S. in Resource Interpretation 

Robert Lieber, Director Retail and Product Development, Golden Gate National Parks 

Conservancy; 15 years with the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, 5 years as 

director for park retail operations, visitor center retail store design, product development, 

and park publishing, 10 years as associate director overseeing visitor center store design 

and product development; B.F.A. in Design 

Andreau Lucas, Landscape Architect, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 11 years 

with the National Park Service; M.A. in Environmental Planning , B.S. in Landscape 

Architecture 

Roy McNamee, Staff and Park Recreation Specialist with California State Parks (CSP); 

34 years with the state parks, 2 years as Superintendent, Angel Island State Park, 5 years 

as Special Projects Manager for CSP Marin District, 27 years in CSP Facility 

Management; B.A. Recreation Administration and Parks Management 

Ricardo Perez, Supervisory Park Ranger, Rock Creek Park; 30 years with the National 

Park Service: Laborer and Maintenance Worker, Park Ranger Generalist, Interpretive 

Specialist, Wildland Firefighter, Incident Medical Specialist, Senior Law Enforcement 

Official, Supervisory Park Ranger, Acting Superintendent; Type I Commission, Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center 

Bruce Philips, Manager of Horse Patrol, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 21 years 

with the National Park Service, 10 years with Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 8 

years Horse Patrol, Golden Gate National Recreation Area; B.A. in Criminal Justice 
PART 12: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARATION 

Volume III: 90 

Michelle Rios, Historical Architect Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 17 years with 

the National Park Service; M.A. in Architecture, B.A. in Economics 

Carolyn Shoulders, Project Manager, Redwood Creek, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area; 12 years with the National Park Service; M.S. in Restoration Ecology, B.A. in 

History and Literature 

Brian Ullensvang, Chief of Environmental and Safety Programs, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area; 15 years with the National Park Service, 12 years with Environmental 

Protection Agency, M.S. in Environmental Engineering, B.S. in Civil Engineering & 

Biology 

Rich Weideman, Chief, Office for Partnerships and Philanthropic Support, NPS 

Washington Office; 29 years with the National Park Service: 18 years with Interpretation, 

11 years with Public Affairs; B.S. in Resource Conservation 

Betty Young, Program Director of Nurseries and Park Academy, Golden Gate National 

Parks Conservancy; 14 years with Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, 13 years as 

director with other nurseries; B.S. in Plant Science and Nursery Management 

CONSULTANTS 

Jim Bacon, Planner and Visitor Use Specialist, Yosemite National Park and NPS Denver 

Service Center; 5 years with the National Park Service: 2 years with Resource 

Management, 3 years with Park Planning, returned Peace Corps Volunteer; M.S. in 

Natural Resource Planning 

Linda Dahl, Director of Parks and Open Space in Marin County; 18 years with the 

National Park Service, Chief of Planning Division, Yosemite National Park 

Robert Manning, Professor at Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, 

University of Vermont; Ph.D. in Resource Conservation, M.S. in Parks and Outdoor 

Recreation, B.S. in Biology 

Jeff Marion, Research Biologist, Eastern Region United States Geologic Survey; Ph.D. 

and M.S. in Recreation Resources Management, B.S. in Biology 

Vicki McCusker, National Park Service Natural Resource Specialist; 5 years with the 

NPS Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division; B.S. in Ornamental Horticulture, M.S. in 

Agronomy 

Bonnie Nelson, Senior Principal for Transit Operations Management Consultants, 

Nelson/Nygaard; B.S. in Civil Engineering &Transportation 

Peter Newman, Associate Dean of Economics for Warner College of Natural Resources; 

Natural Sounds Programs expert with the National Park Service; Ph.D. in Natural 

Resources, M.S. in Forest Resource Management, B.A. in Political Science 

Diane Nicholson, Regional Curator for NPS Pacific West Region; 33 years with the 

National Park Service, 16 years as Chief of Museum Management, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area; M.A. in Museum Science, B.S. in History 
Preparers and Consultants 

Volume III: 91 

Nina Roberts, Associate Professor, San Francisco State University Department of 

Recreation, Parks, and Tourism; 4 years with the National Park Service (consultant since 

2005), 4 years as Education and Outreach Specialist with NPS Natural Resource Program 

Center; Ph.D. Natural Resource Management and Outdoor Recreation, Fulbright Scholar, 

India 2006 

Cliff Riebe, Assistant Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wyoming; 

Ph.D. in Geology, B.S. in Civil Engineering 

Alexa Viets, Program Manager for Civil War Defenses NPS Washington Office; 8 years 

with the National Park Service, 1 year as Transportation Planner with Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area; M.A. in City Planning 

Don Weeks, Hydrologist, NPS Natural Resources Program Center; 20 years with the 

National Park Service, 5 years with Woodward-Clyde Consultants; B.S. and M.S. in 

Geology (emphasis on Hydrogeology) 
Volume III: 92 
Appendixes

Volume III: 95 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 

National Park Service 

In 1916, the National Park Service was established through the passage of the National 

Park Service Organic Act. The mission of the agency is contained in the following words 

of that act: 

The National Park Service] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas 

known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified ... by 

such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the 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. 

Congress supplemented and clarified these provisions through enactment of the General 

Authorities Act in 1970, and again through enactment of a 1978 amendment to that act 

(the “Redwood amendment,” contained in a bill expanding Redwood National Park), 

which added the last two sentences in the following provision. The key part of that act, as 

amended, is as follows: 

Congress declares that the national park system, which began with establishment of 

Yellowstone National Park in 1872, has since grown to include superlative natural, 

historic, and recreation areas in every major region of the United States, its 

territories and island possessions; that these areas, though distinct in character, are 

united through their inter-related purposes and resources into one national park 

system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage; that, individually 

and collectively, these areas derive increased national dignity and recognition of 

their superlative environmental quality through their inclusion jointly with each 

other in one national park system preserved and managed for the benefit and 

inspiration of all the people of the United States; and that it is the purpose of this 

Act to include all such areas in the System and to clarify the authorities applicable 

to the system. Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion 

and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System, as defined in 

section 1c of this title, shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose 

established by section 1 of this title [the Organic Act provision quoted above], to the 

common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities 

shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these 

areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the 

National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and 

purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have 

been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. 

 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 96

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Public Law 92-589 

An Act 

To establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the State of California, and for 

other purposes. 

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

in Congress assembled, 

ESTABLISHMENT 

Section 1. In order to preserve for the public use and enjoyment certain areas of Marin 

and San Francisco Counties, California, possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, 

and recreational values, and in order to provide for the maintenance of needed 

recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning, the Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area (hereinafter referred to as the “recreation area”) is hereby 

established. In the management of the recreation area, the Secretary of the Interior 

(hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary”) shall utilize the resources in a manner which 

will provide for recreation and educational opportunities consistent with sound principles 

of land use planning and management. In carrying out the provisions of this Act, the 

Secretary shall preserve the recreation area, as far as possible, in its natural setting, and 

protect it from development and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural 

character of the area. 

COMPOSITION AND BOUNDARIES 

Sec. 2 (a) the recreation area shall comprise the lands, waters, and submerged lands 

generally depicted on the map entitled “Boundary Map, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area”, numbered NRA-GG-80,003A, sheets 1 through 3, and dated July, 1972. 

(b) The map referred to in this section shall be on file and available for public 

inspection in the Offices of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 

Washington, District of Columbia. After advising the Committees on Interior and Insular 

Affairs of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate 

(hereinafter referred to as the “committees”) in writing, the Secretary may make minor 

revisions of the boundaries of the recreation area when necessary by publication of a 

revised drawing or other boundary description in the Federal Register. 

ACQUISITION POLICY 

Sec. 3 (a) within the boundaries of the recreation area, the Secretary may acquire lands, 

improvements, waters, or interests therein, by donation, purchase, exchange or transfer. 

Any lands, or interests therein, owned by the State of California or any political 

subdivision thereof, may be acquired only by donation. When any tract of land is only 
Appendix A: Legislation 

Volume III: 97 

partly within such boundaries, the Secretary may acquire all or any portion of the land 

outside of such boundaries in order to minimize the payment of severance costs. Lands so 

acquired outside of the boundaries may exchanged by the Secretary for non-Federal lands 

within the boundaries. Any portion of land acquired outside of the boundaries and not 

utilized for exchange shall be reported to the General Services Administrative for 

disposal under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 

377), as amended: Provided, That no disposal shall be for less than fair market value. 

Except as herein after provided, Federal property within the boundaries of the recreation 

area is hereby transferred without consideration to the administrative jurisdiction of the 

Secretary for the purpose of this Act, subject to the continuation of such existing uses as 

may be agreed upon between the Secretary and the head of the agency formerly having 

jurisdiction over the property. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary 

may develop and administer for the purposes of this Act structures or other improvements 

and facilities on lands for which he receives a permit of use and occupancy from the 

Secretary of the Army. 

(b) Fort Cronkhite, Fort Barry, and the westerly one-half of Fort Baker, in Marin 

County, California, as depicted on the map entitled ”Golden Gate Military Properties” 

numbered NRAGG-20,002 and dated January 1972, which shall be on file and available 

for public inspection in the offices of the National Park Service, are hereby transferred to 

the jurisdiction of the Secretary for purposes of this Act, subject to continued use and 

occupancy by the Secretary of the Army of those lands needed for existing air defense 

missions, reserve activities and family housing, until he determines that such 

requirements no longer exist. The Coast Guard Radio Receiver Station, shall remain 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is 

operating. When this station is determined to be excess to the needs of the Coast Guard, it 

shall be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary for purposes of this Act. 

(c) The easterly one-half of Fort Baker in Marin County, California, shall remain 

under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. When this property is determined 

by the Department of Defense to be excess to its needs, it shall be transferred to the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary for purposes of this Act. The Secretary of the Army shall 

grant to the Secretary reasonable public access through such property to Horseshoe Bay, 

together with the right to construct and maintain such public service facilities as are 

necessary for the purposes of this Act. The precise facilities and location thereof shall be 

determined between the Secretary and the Secretary of the Army. 

(d) Upon enactment, the Secretary of the Army shall grant to the Secretary of the 

Army shall grant to the Secretary the irrevocable use and occupancy of one hundred acres 

of the Baker Beach area of the Presidio of San Francisco, as depicted on the map referred 

to in subsection (b). 

(e) The Secretary of the Army shall grant to the Secretary within a reasonable 

time, the irrevocable use and occupancy of forty-five acres of the Crissy Army Airfield of 

the Presidio as depicted on the map referred to in subsection (b) 

(f) When all or any substantial portion of the remainder of the Presidio is 

determined by the Department of Defense to be excess to its needs, such lands shall be 

transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary for purposes of this Act. The Secretary 

shall grant a permit for continued use and occupancy for that portion of said Fort Point 

Coast Guard Station necessary for activities of the Coast Guard. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 98

(g) Point Bonita, Point Diablo, and Lime Point shall remain under the jurisdiction 

of the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating. When this 

property is determined to be excess to the needs of the Coast Guard, it shall be transferred 

to the jurisdiction of the Secretary for purposes of this Act. The Coast Guard may 

continue to maintain and operate existing navigational aids: Provided, That access to 

such navigational aids and the installation of necessary new navigational aids within the 

recreation area shall be undertaken in accordance with plans which are mutually 

acceptable to the Secretary and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard 

is operating and which are consistent with both the purpose of this Act and the purpose of 

existing statues dealing with establishment, maintenance, and operation of navigational 

aids. 

(h) That portion of Fort Miley comprising approximately one and seven-tenths 

acres of land presently used and required by the Secretary of the Navy for its inshore, 

undersea warfare installations shall remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the 

Department of the Navy until such time as all or any portion thereof is determined by the 

Department of Defense to be excess to its needs, at which time such excess portion shall 

be transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary for purposes of this Act. 

(i) New construction and development within the recreation area on property 

remaining under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of the Army and not 

subject to the provisions of subsection (d) or (e) hereof shall be limited to that which is 

required to accommodate facilities being relocated from property being transferred under 

this Act to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary or which is directly related to 

the essential missions of the Sixth United States Army: Provided, however, That any 

construction on presently undeveloped open space may be undertaken only after prior 

consultation with the Secretary. The foregoing limitation on construction and 

development shall not apply to expansion of those facilities known as Letterman General 

Hospital or the Western Medical Institute of Research. 

(j) The owner of improved property on the date of its acquisition by the Secretary 

under the Act may, as a condition of such acquisition, retain for himself and his heirs and 

assigns a right of use and occupancy of the improved property for noncommercial 

residential purposes for a definite term of not more than twenty-five years, or, in lieu 

thereof, for a term ending at the death of the owner or the death of his spouse, whichever 

is later. The owner shall elect the term to be reserved. Unless the property is wholly or 

partially donated to the United States, the Secretary shall pay to the owner the fair market 

value of the property on the date of acquisition minus the fair market value on that date of 

the right retained by the owner. A right retained pursuant to this section shall be subject 

to termination by the Secretary upon his determination that it is being exercised in a 

manner inconsistent with the purpose of this Act, and it shall terminate by operation of 

law upon the Secretary’s notifying the holder of the right of such determination and 

tendering to him an amount equal to the fair market value of that portion of the right 

which remains unexpired. 

(k) The term “improved property”, as used in subsection (j), means a detached, 

noncommercial residential dwelling, the construction of which was begun before June 1, 

1971, together with so much of the land on which the dwelling is situated, the said land 

being in the same ownership as the dwelling, as the Secretary shall designate to be 

reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dwelling for the sole purpose of 
Appendix A: Legislation 

Volume III: 99 

noncommercial residential use, together with any structures accessory to the dwelling 

which are situated on the land so designated. 

(1) Whenever an owner of property elects to retain a right of use and occupancy 

as provided for in the Act, such owner shall be deemed to have waived any benefits or 

rights accruing under sections 203, 204, 205, and 206 of the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1894), and for 

the purposes of those sections such owner shall not be considered a displaced person as 

defined in section 101 (6) of that Act. 

(m) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary shall have the 

same authority with respect to contracts for the acquisition of land and interests in land 

for the purposes of this Act as was given the Secretary of the Treasury for other land 

acquisitions by section 34 of the Act of May 30, 1908, relating to purchase of sites for 

public buildings (35 Stat. 545), and the Secretary and the owner of land to be acquired 

under this Act may agree that the purchase price will be paid in periodic installments over 

a period that does not exceed ten years, with interest on the unpaid balance thereof at a 

rate which is not in excess of the current average market yield on outstanding marketable 

obligations of the United States with remaining periods to maturity comparable to the 

average maturities on the installments. Judgments against the United States for amounts 

in excess of the deposit in court made in condemnation actions shall be subject to the 

provisions of the Act of July 27, 1956 (70 Stat. 624) and sections 2414 and 2517 of title 

28, United States Code. 

ADMINISTRATION 

Sec.4. (a) The Secretary shall administer the lands, waters and interests therein acquired 

for the recreation area in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 

(39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1, 2–4), as amended and supplemented, and the Secretary may 

utilize such statutory authority available to him for the conservation and management of 

wildlife and natural resources as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this 

Act. Notwithstanding their inclusion within the boundaries of the recreation area, the 

Muir Woods National Monument and Fort Point National Historic Site shall continue to 

be administered as distinct and identifiable units of the national park system in 

accordance with the law applicable to such monument and historic site. 

(b) The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with any Federal 

agency, the State of California, or any political subdivision thereof, for the rendering, on 

a reimbursable basis, of rescue, firefighting, and law enforcement and fire preventive 

assistance. 

(c) The authority of the Army to undertake or contribute to water resource 

developments, including shore erosion control, beach protection, and navigation 

improvements on land and/or water within the recreation area shall be exercised in 

accordance with plans which are mutually acceptable to the Secretary and the Secretary 

of the Army and which are consistent with both the purpose of this Act and the purpose 

of existing statutes dealing with water and related resource developments. 

(d) The Secretary, in cooperation with the State of California and affected 

political subdivisions thereof, local and regional transit agencies, and the Secretaries of 

Transportation and of the Army, shall make a study for a coordinated public and private 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 100

transportation system to and within the recreation area and other units of the national park 

system in Marin and San Francisco Counties. 

ADVISORY COMMISSION 

Sec.5. (a) There is hereby established the Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Advisory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”). 

(b) The Commission shall be composed of fifteen members appointed by the 

Secretary for terms of three years each. 

(c) Any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the same manner in which 

the original appointment was made. 

(d) Members of the Commissions shall serve without compensation, as such, but 

the Secretary may pay, upon vouchers signed by the Chairman, the expenses reasonably 

incurred by the Commission and its members in carrying out their responsibilities under 

this Act. 

(e) The Secretary, or his designee, shall from time to time, but at least annually, 

meet and consult with the Commission on general policies and specific matters related to 

planning, administration and development affecting the recreation area and other units of 

the national park system in Marin and San Francisco Counties. 

(f) The Commission shall act and advise by affirmative vote of a majority of the 

members thereof. 

(g) The Commission shall cease to exist ten years after the enactments of this 

Act. 

APPROPRIATION LIMITATION 

Sec.6. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to 

carry out the provisions of this of this Act, but not more than $61,610,000 shall be 

appropriated for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands. There are authorized to be 

appropriated not more than $58,000,000 (May 1971 prices) for the development of the 

recreation area, plus or minus such amounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of 

ordinary fluctuations in construction costs as indicted by engineering cost indices 

applicable to the type of construction involved herein. 

Approved October 27, 1972. 

 
Appendix A: Legislation 

Volume III: 101 

Legislation Summary, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Public 

Law # Title Summary Date 

92-589 

Golden Gate 

National Recreation 

Area, Calif. 

This act establishes the purpose of Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area, delineates 

the composition and boundaries, describes 

the acquisition policy and administration, 

creates an advisory committee, and 

discusses appropriations. 

10/27/1972

93-544 

Golden Gate 

National Recreation 

Area, Calif., 

additional land 

Amended the act of 10/27/72 to include the 

acquisition of contiguous lands in southern 

Marin, Muir, and Stinson Beaches. 

(Oakwood Valley, Tennessee Valley, 

Wolfback Ridge, and Haslett Warehouse). 

12/26/1974

95-625 

National Parks and 

Recreation Act of 

1978 

Expanded boundaries in Marin and San 

Francisco (Lagunitas Creek watershed, 

Devils Gulch, Cheda, McIsaac, Zanardi, and 

Rogers ranches). Strengthened continued 

use and occupancy provisions for 

agriculture, and limited new construction. It 

also established the ability to obtain 

proceeds from rental space in the 

warehouse, Cliffhouse, and Louis' 

restaurant. It increased the park's advisory 

commission from 15 to 17. 

11/10/1978

96-344 

Historic Sites, 

Buildings 

and Antiquities Act, 

administration 

improvement 

Added the acreage of the McFadden, 

Genazzi, and Martinelli ranches. Extended 

the terms of the advisory committee from 3 

to 5 years. Recommended Sweeney Ridge 

for addition to Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. 

9/8/1980 

96-607 

National Park 

System, 

amendment 

Adds Sweeney Ridge and increased 

membership of the advisory committee from 

17 to 18. 

12/28/1980

98-28 

Golden Gate 

National Recreation 

Area, dedication to 

Congressman 

Phillip Burton 

Dedicates Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area to Congressman Burton. 5/10/1983 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 102

Public 

Law # Title Summary Date 

102-299 

Golden Gate 

National Recreation 

Area Addition Act of 

1992 

Addition of the Phleger Estate 6/9/1992 

106-113 

Consolidated 

Appropriations for 

Fiscal Year ending 

9/30/2000 

Exemption of all taxes and special 

assessments, except sales tax. Such areas 

as Fort Baker shall remain under exclusive 

Federal jurisdiction. 

11/29/1999

106-291 Dept of Interior 

appropriation 

Authority for fee-based education, 

interpretive and visitor service functions 

within the Crissy Field and Fort Point areas 

of the Presidio. 

10/11/2000

106-350 

Golden Gate 

National Recreation 

Area Boundary 

Adjustment Act of 

2000 

Additions as depicted on map "numbered 

NPS-80,076, and dated July 2000/PWRPLRPC" 10/24/2000

109-131 

Rancho Corral de 

Tierra Golden Gate 

National Recreation 

Area Boundary 

Adjustment Act 

Amends PL 92-589 to add Rancho Corral 

de Tierra lands, with limitation to acquire 

this land only from a willing seller. 

12/20/2005

 
Appendix A: Legislation 

Volume III: 103 

Muir Woods National Monument 

January 9, 1908 

By The President of The United States of America 

A PROCLAMATION 

WHEREAS. William Kent and his wife, Elizabeth Thatcher Kent, of the City of Chicago, 

in County of Cook in the State of Illinois, did, on December 26, 1907, pursuant to the Act 

of Congress entitled, “An Act for the preservation of American Antiquities,” approved 

June 8, 1906, by their certain deed of relinquishment and conveyance, properly executed 

in writing and acknowledged, relinquish, remise, convey and forever quitclaim to the 

United States of America the following mentioned lands at that time held by them in 

private ownership and lying and being in township One North, of Range Six West, Mount 

Diablo Meridian, in the County of Marin, in the State of California, and bounded and 

particularly described as follows, to-wit: 

Beginning at a stake “A.7” driven in the center of the road in Redwood Canon and 

located by the following courses and distances from the point of commencement of the 

tract of land, which was conveyed by the Tamalpais Land and Water Company to 

William Kent by a deed dated August 29th, 1905, and recorded in the office of the County 

Recorder of Marin County, California, Book 95 of Deeds at page 58, to-wit:_ North 

eighteen degrees thirty-two minutes East two hundred thirty two and sixty-four 

hundredths feet, North sixty-six degrees thirty minutes West one hundred sixty-seven and 

thirty-four hundredths feet, North eighty-six degrees twenty-five minutes West ninetyeight and sixty-two hundredths feet, North seventy degrees no minutes, West two 

hundred forty-one and seven hundredths feet, North fifty-seven degrees twenty-nine 

minutes West one hundred seventy-eight and three hundredths feet; North forty-six 

degrees twenty-two minutes West two hundred thirty-five and thirty-nine hundredths feet 

and North twenty-four degrees twenty-five minutes West two hundred twenty-five and 

fifty-six hundredths feet; thence from said stake “A.7”, the point of beginning, South 

fifty-four degrees nineteen minutes West fourteen hundred eighty-two and seven tenths 

feet to Station A.8 from which Station 4 of the survey of the tract of land conveyed to 

William Kent as aforesaid bears south fifty-four degrees nineteen minutes west three 

hundred ten feet distant; thence from said Station A.8 North forty-seven degrees thirty 

minutes West twenty-six hundred eighty feet; thence due West six hundred fifty and eight 

tenths feet; thence North fifty-two degrees thirty minutes West eleven hundred feet; 

thence North nine-teen degrees forty-five minutes West ten hundred fifty-eight and four 

tenths feet to Station A.12. from which Station 16 of the Survey of the tract of land 

conveyed to William Kent as aforesaid bears South eighty-three degrees forty-two 

minutes West three hundred ten feet distant; thence North eighty-three degrees forty-two 

minutes East thirty-one hundred nine and two tenths feet; thence north fifty-five degrees 

twenty-eight minutes East fifteen hundred fifty feet to an iron bolt, three-quarters of an 

inch in diameter and thirty inches long, Station 14; thence South seventeen degrees 

eighteen minutes East twenty-eight hundred twenty and nine tenths feet; thence South 

four degrees ten minutes East nine hundred thirty feet to a stake “A.16” driven in the 

center of a graded road; and thence South forty-five degrees seventeen minutes West two 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 104

hundred ninety-eight and five tenths feet to said stake A.7. the place of beginning. 

Containing an area of two hundred ninety-five acres a little more or less, and, 

WHEREAS, said relinquishment and conveyance has been accepted by the Secretary of 

the Interior in the manner and for the purposes prescribed in said Act of Congress, and 

WHEREAS, and extensive growth of redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) embraced in 

said land is of extraordinary scientific interest and importance because of the primeval 

character of the forest in which it is located, and if the character, age and size of the trees, 

Now, therefore, I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of United States of America, by virtue 

of the power and authority in me vested by Section 2 of said Act of Congress, do hereby 

declare and proclaim that said grove and all of the land hereinbefore described and fully 

delineated in the diagram hereto attached and made a part hereof, are hereby reserved 

from appropriation and use of all kinds under all the public land laws of the United States 

and set apart as a National Monument, to be known and recognized as the Muir Woods 

National Monument. 

Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, cut, 

injure, destroy or take away any trees on said land and not to locate or settle upon any of 

said land. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United 

States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this 9th day of January in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and eight, and of the Independence of the United States the one 

hundred and thirty-second. 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT 

By the President: 

ELIHU ROOT 

Secretary of State 
Volume III 105 

APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT 

PLANS RELATED TO THIS PLAN 

Appendix B provides an overall description of management plans from federal, state, 

regional and local government agencies along with their relationship to this management 

plan. 

In addition to the overall vision and management plans described in the text of the 

general management plan, the National Park Service develops detailed project and 

program implementation plans in order to implement the goals and objectives of those 

broader plans. These implementation plans cover topics such as natural and cultural 

resource restoration and preservation, visitor use, transportation, and park operations. 

FEDERAL PLANS 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLANS CURRENTLY BEING PREPARED 

Alcatraz Embarkation and Education Center Study

Study objectives are to direct the establishment of the primary embarkation site in San 

Francisco that will provide for a safe, consistent, and stable visitor departure site for 

access to Alcatraz Island. The site will meet the following criteria: 

• Allow for development of an identifiable, distinct, first-class NPS visitor 

welcome area with a clearly defined sense of arrival, the setting of which is in 

keeping with a National Park site and an authentic Alcatraz experience. 

• Provide a portal to the park that begins to connect visitors to the Alcatraz 

story, GGNRA, NPS, and the natural and cultural history of the San Francisco 

Bay Area. 

• Establish a long-term location for optimizing ferry berths, critical operational 

facilities, and logistical support requirements, available for a full and open 

competition of contracts. 

• Ensure NPS ability to define all aspects of the visitor experience, from prearrival to departure, with flexibility to modify and to define interpretive 

materials, indoor and outdoor space, signage and other features of the site, 

while accommodating emerging technologies, growth, visitor needs, etc. 

• Provide adequate visitor support space and facilities that offer a comfortable, 

fully accessible, and welcoming experience while waiting for a ferry and 

learning about Alcatraz and the park, accommodating the visitor flow to and 

through the site without confusion. 

• Ensure convenient alternative access to the site through a variety of 

transportation modes, while providing for the opportunity to connect to other 

parklands. 

• Avoid disruption of service when the current contract expires in 2016. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 106

Dog Management Plan for Golden Gate National Recreation Area (draft) 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area is involved a planning and public involvement 

process to decide how best to manage dog walking in the park. This process will result in 

a Dog Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. This planning process will 

develop a range of alternatives with clear, enforceable guidelines for the manner and 

extent of dog walking in appropriate areas of the park. The alternatives will specify 

which of the lands managed by Golden Gate National Recreation Area would be open to 

on-leash dog walking and off-leash dog walking, and which are closed to dog walking. 

The goal of the process is to allow dog walking while 

• protecting park resources; 

• providing a variety of visitor experiences; 

• reducing visitor use conflicts; 

• ensuring that park resources and values are available for future generations; 

and 

• increasing the safety of staff and visitors. 

The park will evaluate the impacts of the range of alternatives and identify a preferred 

alternative for the draft Dog Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. The 

actions of the general management plan alternatives have been continuously reviewed as 

the Dog Management Plan evolves in order to ensure consistency between the two 

planning efforts. 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area – Long-Range Transportation Plan 

The Long-range Transportation Plan is being developed to guide the park’s 

transportation program. The plan tiers to the general management plan’s vision for 

transportation and outlines the strategies for implementing the park’s transportation goals 

for the next 20 years. This plan will reflect the vision as described in the general 

management plan. 

Marin Equestrian Plan (draft) 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area is in the process of developing the Marin 

Equestrian Plan. The plan is focused on options for the future use of three Marin County 

stables located within the park and will address site and facility needs, improvements, 

and protection of important resources at and surrounding these facilities. The plan will 

also identify and enhance the public outreach and equestrian program, identify best 

management practices and sustainable programs, increase protection of natural resources, 

and preserve the cultural resources that surround the stables. The actions of the general 

management plan alternatives have been continuously reviewed as the Marin Equestrian 

Plan evolves in order to ensure consistency between the two planning efforts. 

 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 107 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TRAILS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANS 

AND PROGRAMS 

South Access to the Golden Gate Bridge - Doyle Drive Final Environmental 

Impact Statement/Report 

Doyle Drive is a portion of Highway 101 that winds 1.5 miles along the northern edge of 

San Francisco and connects the San Francisco peninsula to the Golden Gate Bridge and 

the North Bay. It is located within the Presidio of San Francisco and provides access to 

historic and cultural landmarks including Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the 

Presidio, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Palace of Fine Arts. Originally constructed in 

1936 with narrow lanes, no median, and no shoulders, Doyle Drive is approaching the 

end of its useful life. 

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the seismic, structural, and traffic 

safety of Doyle Drive within the setting and context of the Presidio of San Francisco and 

its purpose as a National Park. Specific objectives of the Doyle Drive Project are to 

• improve the seismic, structural, and traffic safety on Doyle Drive; 

• maintain the functions that the Doyle Drive corridor serves as part of the 

regional and city transportation network; 

• improve the functionality of Doyle Drive as an approach to the Golden Gate 

Bridge; 

• preserve the natural, cultural, scenic and recreational values of affected 

portions of the Presidio, a national historic landmark district; 

• be consistent with the San Francisco General Plan and the General 

Management Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NPS 1994a 

and 1994b) for Area A of the Presidio and the Presidio Trust Management 

Plan: Land Use Policies for Area B of the Presidio of San Francisco (Presidio 

Trust 2002); 

• minimize the effects of noise and other pollution from the Doyle Drive 

corridor on natural areas and recreational qualities at Crissy Field and other 

areas adjacent to the project area; 

• minimize the traffic impacts of Doyle Drive on the Presidio and local 

roadways; 

• improve intermodal and vehicular access to the Presidio; and 

• redesign the Doyle Drive corridor using the parkway concept described within 

the Doyle Drive Intermodal Study (1996). 

The alternatives of the general management plan are consistent with this plan. 

 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 108

Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (2009)

The purpose of the plan is to provide improved access to and within the Marin Headlands 

and Fort Baker for a variety of users, and to initiate these improvements in a way that 

minimizes impacts to the rich natural and cultural resources of the Marin Headlands and 

Fort Baker study area. The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker are in the San Francisco Bay 

area at the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge, across the bay from San Francisco. The 

Marin Headlands span the southern tip of the Marin Peninsula, from U.S. Highway 101 

to the western coastline, a 2,500-acre area. Fort Baker is a 335-acre site directly adjacent 

to the Headlands on the east side of Highway 101. 

Implementation of this plan would provide infrastructure and access improvements in the 

park to meet the following plan goals: 

• promote public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel to and within the park to 

improve visitor experience and enhance environmental quality; 

• rehabilitate the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker road and trail infrastructure 

in a manner that protects resources and improves safety and circulation; and 

• reduce traffic congestion and improve safety at key park locations and 

connecting roads. 

To accomplish these goals the roadways would be rehabilitated or reconstructed/widened 

without altering their character defining features, and parking facilities would be 

improved. A greater number of transit options would be provided to and within the study 

area. Parking fees would be collected to fund improved transit services. Extensive 

pedestrian facility enhancements would be implemented, including closing and rerouting 

existing trails and constructing new trails. Bicycle facilities would be improved with a 

few new paths and bike lanes. Car-free days would be implemented on a trial basis for a 

maximum of seven days per year. 

The goals and actions of the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation 

Infrastructure and Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement are 

appropriate for all general management plan alternatives. 

Trails Forever 

The mission of Trails Forever is to improve the quality of trails in Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, enhance the experiences of park users, support resources preservation, 

and engage the community in sustaining the parks trail system in perpetuity. Trails 

Forever is an initiative of the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy in partnership 

with the National Park Service and Presidio Trust. The signature project is to complete 

the California Coastal Trail corridor within Golden Gate National Recreation with trail 

connections to communities in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo. The actions of the 

general management plan alternatives are consistent with the goals and projects of Trails 

Forever.
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 109 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESTORATION PLANS 

Alcatraz Island Historic Preservation and Safety Construction Program 

Environmental Impact Statement (2001) 

The implementation of this plan works to protect human health and safety, stabilize 

deteriorating historic structures to protect the National Historic Landmark, and 

implement needed repairs in a manner that minimizes adverse biological effects. The 

repairs include replacement of badly deteriorated poles underneath the dock, seismic 

retrofit of the Cellhouse, and repair and stabilization of other historic structures to 

provide for public safety and historic preservation. The project is a construction program 

addressing critically needed repairs on Alcatraz Island. The actions in the general 

management plan alternatives are consistent with the direction of this environmental 

impact statement. 

Easkoot Creek Restoration at Stinson Beach Environmental Assessment

(2003) 

The Easkoot Creek restoration addressed two important limiting factors for salmonid fish 

production: 1) the absence of pool habitats with associated large woody debris; and 2) the 

lack of natural riparian habitat. This project contributes to the other restoration effort 

upstream and downstream of Golden Gate National Recreation Area lands, will yield 

long-term beneficial effects on the steelhead trout and coho salmon habitat of Easkoot 

Creek. The actions in the general management plan alternatives are consistent with the 

goals and projects associated with Easkoot Creek restoration. 

Lower Redwood Creek Floodplain and Salmonid Habitat Restoration, 

Banducci Site Environmental Assessment (2007) 

The purpose of this project is to substantially restore natural floodplain and creek 

processes on lower Redwood Creek for the benefit of aquatic and terrestrial fauna and 

long-term natural resources conditions in the Redwood Creek watershed. The EA guided 

the implementation of restoration projects such as levee removal, floodplain 

enhancements, and protection areas for threatened and endangered species. The plan 

contributes to the implementation of the Redwood Creek Watershed Vision. The actions 

in the general management plan alternatives are consistent with the goals and projects 

associated with the lower Redwood Creek floodplain and salmonid habitat restoration. 

Lower Redwood

This project takes place at two locations in lower Redwood Creek near Muir Beach. The 

purpose of the project is to improve hydrologic and geomorphic functions at the Pacific 

Way site and thus reduce the magnitude, frequency, and duration of flooding on Pacific 

Way and to reduce the risk of channel avulsion at the Pacific Way site. The project also 

reconnects lower Redwood Creek to its floodplain and expands riparian vegetation at the 

Banducci site. In addition, the project increases in-channel habitat complexity and 

reestablishes geomorphic processes at the Banducci site. These actions work to improve 

habitat for coho salmon and steelhead. The actions in the general management plan 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 110

alternatives are consistent with the goals and projects associated with the lower Redwood 

Creek flood reduction measures and floodplain/channel restoration. 

Mori Point Restoration and Trail Plan/Environmental Assessment (2006) 

The staff of Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Golden Gate Parks 

Conservancy are working to restore habitat and to develop a safe and sustainable trail 

system at Mori Point. The goals of this project are to 

• protect and enhance habitat for the federally endangered San Francisco garter 

snake and the federally threatened California red-legged frog at Mori Point; 

• preserve and restore the ecological integrity of Mori Point habitats by reducing 

threats to native plant communities and natural processes; and 

• develop a safe and sustainable trail system, incorporating the California Coastal 

Trail that improves recreational experiences and reduces impacts to park 

resources. 

Restoration activities include actions such as 

• improving hydrologic and habitat connectivity between upland and wetland 

areas; 

• creation of San Francisco garter snake foraging habitat; 

• reduction and repair of coastal erosion; 

• restoration of native plant communities; and 

• removal of trash, and debris. 

The project develops a variety of trail experiences for different user groups and meets 

management objectives to protect and enhance natural resource values and provide public 

access. Hiker-only designations will be in effect on all segments through, or leading to, 

steep and erosion-prone areas. Multiuse opportunities (hiking, bicycling, and equestrian 

uses) were identified on the California Coastal Trail and its main connector routes. The 

actions of the general management plan alternatives are consistent with the goals and 

project work associated with this plan. 

Ocean Park Stewardship Action Plan (2007–2008) 

The National Park Service developed a strategy to increase its emphasis on ocean 

resource management and conservation. The Ocean Park Stewardship Action Plan

identifies critical issues and ways to address them cooperatively with federal, state, tribal, 

and private partners. The National Park Service will work with partners under existing 

funding levels to implement this plan. In doing so, the Park Service has developed 

specific actions relating to the following major topics: 

• create a seamless network of ocean national parks, national marine 

sanctuaries, national wildlife refuges, and national estuarine research reserves; 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 111 

• discover, map, and protect ocean parks; 

• engage visitors in ocean park stewardship; and 

• increase NPS technical capacity for ocean exploration and stewardship. 

The general management plan provides specific management guidance and objectives for 

addressing these topics. 

Pacific Ocean Park Strategic Plan

The concerns regarding the dramatic declines in the health of the marine ecosystems has 

the National Park Service focusing more attention on stewardship and protection of ocean 

resources in the National Park System. The Pacific Ocean Park Strategic Plan serves to 

lead the NPS Pacific West and Alaska Region’s coastal national parks toward 

implementation and achievement of the overall goal of the Ocean Park Stewardship 

Action Plan (previously described). The plan provides action items specific to the 

following goals: 

Strategy 1: Establish a Seamless Network of Ocean Parks, Sanctuaries, Refuges, and 

Reserves

• Facilitate partnership opportunities among federal, state, and local agencies and 

non-government organizations toward enhanced marine resource conservation 

and education. 

• Facilitate partnership opportunities with neighboring countries (specifically 

Canada, Mexico, and neighboring Pacific Islands), and build sister park 

relationships throughout the Pacific and Arctic Oceans to enhance marine 

resource conservation and education. 

• Explore means to facilitate international travel to other countries in order to 

communicate and cooperate on an informal and routine basis. 

Strategy 2: Inventory, Map, and Protect Ocean Parks

• Inventory and map natural and cultural resources within the submerged (includes 

the intertidal zone) boundaries of ocean parks. 

• Expand the natural resource vital signs monitoring program to more fully address 

ocean and estuarine resources. 

• Understand and quantify threats to natural, cultural, and subsistence resources, 

including those associated with climate change and land- and water-based 

activities and develop mitigation or restoration strategies. 

• Expand understanding of ocean park boundaries, jurisdictions, and authorities. 

• Increase the National Park Service’s and other agencies’ ocean and marine 

presence. 

• Proactively inform park management and the public of emerging issues that 

could impact the status and function of marine resources. Identify strategies to 

address these issues. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 112

• Ensure that park-specific ocean stewardship issues and knowledge (both natural 

and cultural resources) are available and synthesized for planning teams. 

Strategy 3: Engage Visitors and the Public in Ocean Park Stewardship

• Create a communication strategy for the Pacific West and Alaska Region ocean 

parks to better inform the public on topics of ocean stewardship. 

• Enhance awareness and understanding of ocean stewardship issues through the 

development of interpretive materials and recreational opportunities. 

• Explore approaches to engage visitors, teachers, and students in the practice of 

ocean stewardship through experiential learning. 

• Demonstrate a commitment to ocean stewardship through adoption of sustainable 

operations and practices at ocean parks. 

• Demonstrate a commitment to ocean stewardship through adoption of sustainable 

tourism and recreational opportunities, operations, and practices at ocean parks. 

• Maximize the existing capacity of the Pacific West and Alaska Region and ocean 

park units to engage in stewardship activities. 

Strategy 4: Increase Technical Capacity for Ocean Exploration and Stewardship

• Increase the technical capacity for ocean exploration and stewardship. 

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the Pacific West and Alaska Region Ocean Park 

Stewardship Strategy in conserving coastal and marine resources. 

• Generate awareness among park managers of the significance of marine 

resources and protection responsibilities. 

• Understand and anticipate the role of ocean park stewardship within the urban 

corridor, given changing demography, development patterns, economies, and 

societal preferences. 

• Pursue funding opportunities to increase the technical capacity for ocean 

exploration and stewardship. 

The general management plan provides specific management guidance and objectives for 

addressing the four major strategies identified in the Ocean Park Stewardship Action 

Plan. 

Redwood Creek Watershed: Vision for the Future (2003) 

The Redwood Creek Watershed: Vision for the Future, while not a binding document, 

was jointly prepared and agreed to in 2003 by public agencies and stakeholders in the 

Redwood Creek watershed. The Vision provides guiding principles and desired future 

conditions to serve as guidelines for planning and projects in the watershed. The Vision

identifies desired future conditions for natural resources, cultural resources, visitor 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 113 

experience, resident community, and infrastructure and facilities. The goals of this project 

help achieve numerous desired future conditions for intact watershed health, protection of 

natural processes such as flooding, native plant communities, a full range of hydraulic 

and geomorphic functions, habitat for special-status species, reduction of human-caused 

erosion that could impact fish or aquatic habitat, and reduction of invasion by non-native 

plant species. The Vision does not alter or override existing policies of the participating 

agencies. Rather, it provides guidelines to support future planning and projects in the 

watershed, ensuring that planning and projects within the scope of this vision strive to 

meet the common shared goals. The vision and goals for Redwood Creek watershed were 

incorporated into the alternatives for the general management plan. 

Wetland and Creek Restoration at Big Lagoon, Muir Beach Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (2008) 

The focus of this project is the restoration of the lower Redwood Creek watershed at 

Muir Beach in Marin County. The Big Lagoon site includes the wetlands, floodplain, and 

lagoon at the mouth of Redwood Creek at Muir Beach. The project works to 

restore/enhance ecological conditions and processes, reducing flooding of local 

infrastructure, and providing public access to the beach and restored wetland and creek. 

Key issues that were addressed include habitat for fish and wildlife, ecosystem conditions 

and processes, effects on special status plant and animal species, hydrology, flood 

hazards, traffic, visitor access, and visitor experience. The actions of the general 

management plan alternatives are consistent with the goals and project work associated 

with this plan. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

Alcatraz Development Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment (1993) 

The development concept plan provides direction in management of the entire island, 

works to balance expansion of visitor access with habitat enhancement, wildlife 

protection and cultural resource protection, and hazard remediation. The development 

concept plan will need to be revised or amended to incorporate the changes proposed by 

the selected alternative in the general management plan. 

Bay Area Museum Resource Center Plan (2010) 

The eight San Francisco Bay Area national parks have significant long- and 

short-term needs for park collection storage. These parks do not have sufficient 

space to store their collections and for the most part, the collection storage 

facilities do not meet NPS standards. Many occupy substandard facilities which 

result in deficiencies on the NPS Checklist for the Preservation and Protection of 

Museum Collections. These conditions impair the ability of limited numbers of 

staff to provide basic preservation and protection service to NPS collections. 

Furthermore, the location and condition of current facilities places many of the 

parks’ collections at risk due to climate change and rising sea levels. Wide 

geographic distribution of these multiple collection management facilities greatly 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 114

hampers, if not precludes, visitor access to the collections for research and 

interpretation. Finally, existing facilities do not have the capacity to 

accommodate the NPS standard growth rate of 20% over the next 25 years. 

The proposal of a Bay Area Museum Resource Center seeks to establish a 

combined collection storage and research facility for the national parks in the San 

Francisco Bay Area. This partnership offers the opportunity to provide greater 

preservation and accessibility to NPS collections. It seeks to share a collections 

management facility (with a primary focus on artifacts) that would improve 

collection storage and maximize operational efficiency by sharing resources. 

Fire Management Plan / Final Environmental Impact Statement for Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area (2006) 

An update to the 1993 Fire Management Plan, this plan reflects the importance of a more 

concerted effort to effectively reduce wildfire risk to park resources and to private 

property along the wildland urban interface. The plan examines the feasibility of 

facilitating the role of fire where it is safe to do so and more fully addresses cultural 

resource concerns. The plan includes all lands within Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site. The plan is 

a strategic, operational plan intended to guide the fire management program and was 

prepared to meet the requirements of NPS Director’s Order 18. The plan includes 

procedures for managing the full range of fire management activities, including wildland 

fire suppression and fuel reduction projects. The plan identifies areas of the park where 

fuel reduction actions will occur during the first five years of implementation; the fiveyear program will be reviewed and updated annually to reflect areas that have been 

treated and add other areas where treatment is needed. As park managers implement the 

actions of the general management plan selected alternative, the fire management plan 

will require a review and possible refinement as resource and public issues change. 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area – Park Asset Management Plan 

The major goal of the Park Asset Management Plan is to articulate how the park 

currently maintains its assets and intends to in the future. This is accomplished through a 

review of how the park prioritizes its assets, bundles work orders into logical projects, 

estimates operating and maintenance requirements, demonstrates funding gaps, and 

identifies techniques to manage these funding gaps. The plan was used to help guide the 

development of the alternatives in the general management plan. Once the general 

management plan is approved, the Park Asset Management Plan will be updated to 

reflect the new management direction. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PARK PARTNER PLANS 

Headlands Center for the Arts Master Plan (1990) 

The plan provides guidance for the rehabilitation and use of the historic Fort Barry for an 

art center. The alternatives in the general management plan are consistent with this plan. 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 115 

Marine Mammal Center Site and Facilities Improvements Project 

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (2004)

The environmental assessment presents and analyzes alternatives for the upgrade and 

expansion of the Marine Mammal Center’s facilities. These improvements will better 

serve the center’s existing programs for the treatment and rehabilitation of injured, ill, or 

orphaned marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis provided in the environmental assessment, the implementation of 

mitigation measures, and with due consideration of the nature of public and agency 

comments, the National Park Service has determined that the selected alternative would 

not have the potential to significantly adversely affect the quality of the environment. A 

Finding of No Significant Impact was issued in October 2004. The actions of the general 

management plan alternatives are consistent with the decisions and actions of the Marine 

Mammal Center Site and Facilities Improvements Project. 

OTHER FEDERAL PLANS 

San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park General Management Plan 

(1997) 

The General Management Plan for San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park

guides the management of resources, visitor use, and general development at the park 

over the next 15 to 20 years. The national historical park shares a boundary with Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area and the actions of one park will influence the visitor and 

management activities of the other. In preparing the alternatives for this general 

management plan, the planning team coordinated with the staff of the national historical 

park to ensure consistencies with current management direction. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — Joint Management 

Plan for Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuaries (2004) 

After nearly three years of public input, issue prioritization, and recommendations from 

each site’s Sanctuary Advisory Council, the National Marine Sanctuary Program is 

preparing draft management plans and an environmental impact statement for the Cordell 

Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay national marine sanctuaries. The plans 

include a review of resource protection, education and research programs, the program’s 

resource and staffing needs, regulatory goals, and sanctuary boundaries. 

The three sanctuaries include Pacific Ocean waters that extend from Bodega Bay in the 

north to Cambria in the south and thus could impact or be affected by the Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area General Management Plan. The three management plans have 

been prepared jointly because the sanctuaries are adjacent to one another, managed by the 

same program, and share many of the same resources and issues as well as many 

overlapping interest and user groups. The alternatives in the general management plan are 

consistent with these plans and articulate additional NPS actions that strengthen ocean 

stewardship within the area of influence. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 116

STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS 

Association of Bay Area Governments: Bay Trail Plan

The Association of Bay Area Governments developed the Bay Trail Plan pursuant to 

California Senate Bill 100. The Bay Trail is to be a regional hiking and bicycling trail 

around the perimeter of the San Francisco and San Pablo bays. Senate Bill 100 mandates 

that the Bay Trail provide connections to existing park and recreation facilities, create 

links to existing and proposed transportation facilities, and avoid adverse effects on 

environmentally sensitive areas. All the alternatives in this general management plan are 

consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Bay Trail. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation — Angel Island State Park 

Resource Management Plan / General Development Plan / Environmental 

Impact Report (1979) 

This plan guides the responsible use and management of resources at Angel Island State 

Park. It outlines recommended actions to improve opportunities for passive recreation, 

boating experiences, and other appropriate forms of recreation. The alternatives in the 

general management plan are consistent with this plan. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation — California Outdoor 

Recreation Plan (2002) 

The California Outdoor Recreation Plan is the statewide master plan for parks, outdoor 

recreation, and open space for all recreation providers. The California Outdoor 

Recreation Plan provides policy guidance to all public agencies – federal, state, local, 

and special districts – engaged in providing outdoor recreational lands, facilities and 

services throughout the state. The plan includes five major goals: to provide a source of 

information; serve as an action guide; provide leadership; maintain funding eligibility for 

the Land & Water Conservation Fund; and provide project selection criteria for 

administering the Land & Water Conservation Fund grant program. A separate report, 

entitled Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in California 2002, which 

is considered part of the California Outdoor Recreation Plan, establishes baseline 

information on outdoor recreation supply and demand. The alternatives in the general 

management plan are consistent with this plan. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation — Gray Whale Cove State 

Beach General Plan Amendment (1984) 

This amendment to the San Mateo Coast Area General Plan was approved to change the 

location of the proposed 200-car parking area for public beach access to Gray Whale 

Cove. The alternatives in the general management plan are consistent with this plan. 

 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 117 

California Department of Parks and Recreation — Pacifica State Beach 

General Plan (1990) 

This plan provides long-range development, management, and operational guidelines for 

Pacifica State Beach. The plan is comprised of seven elements: resource, land use, 

facilities, interpretive, operations, concessions, and environmental impact. The 

alternatives in the general management plan are consistent with this plan. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation — Mount Tamalpais State 

Park General Plan (1980) 

The purpose of this general plan is to provide general guidelines for the park’s 

management and development in accordance with the unit’s classification as a state park. 

Because the natural resources of Mount Tamalpais State Park make it unique, 

development and management should focus on the preservation, interpretation, and 

public use of its natural and scenic values. The specific goals of the plan are as follows: 

• Identify the park’s natural, cultural, and recreational resources. 

• Establish policies for the management, protection, use, and interpretation of 

these resources. 

• Identify existing and future problems and provide solutions. 

• Determine visitor activities and land uses that are compatible with the purpose 

of the park, the preservation of resources, and the surrounding land uses. 

• Determine the potential environmental impact of visitor activities, land use, 

and related development. 

• Establish guidelines for the sequence of park development. 

• Provide an informational document for the public, the legislature, park 

personnel, and other government agencies. 

Caltrans District 4 Devil's Slide Project 

Carved out of the steep cliff sides, Route 1 hugs the coastline for much of the distance 

between Pacifica and Montara. In one part, the road crosses the aptly named Devil’s Slide 

region, a steep, unstable geological formation. This section of road has a long history of 

closure due to rockslides and land slippage. Following many years of public input and 

careful evaluation of alternatives, Devil’s Slide will be bypassed by two inland tunnels, 

providing a safe, dependable highway between Pacifica and Montara. This is Caltrans’ 

Devil’s Slide Tunnel project. The bypassed section of Route 1, together with 70 acres of 

State right-of-way, will be closed to motor vehicles and made available as a multiuse 

Coastal Trail segment for public access and recreational use following the planned tunnel 

opening in 2011, with small trailhead parking lots at the north and south ends. This land 

was included in the 2005 boundary expansion. Acquisition and management of this site 

has not been determined but has been integrated into the planning process for the general 

management plan. 

 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 118

Coastal Conservancy — Completing the California Coastal Trail (2003) 

Senate Bill 908, passed in 2001 by the California State Legislature, directed the Coastal 

Conservancy to report on a proposed trail that would stretch 1,300 miles along the entire 

California coast. The report, completed in January 2003, analyzes the costs/benefits and 

opportunities and constraints of completing the trail, discuses signage and graphics 

standards, and outlines recommendations for statewide policy initiatives and local 

implementation projects. 

The California Coastal Trail is a network of public trails for walkers, bikers, equestrians, 

wheelchair riders, and others along the entire California coastline. It is currently more 

than half complete. Coastwalk is a volunteer organization that advocates for completion 

of the trail. The California Coastal Trail is intended to provide "a continuous public rightof-way along the California coastline designed to foster appreciation and stewardship of 

the scenic and natural resources of the coast through hiking and other complementary 

modes of non-motorized transportation." The Coastal Trail runs through parts of Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area and provides opportunities for connections to other trails 

within the study area. It is focused on enhancing public access to the coastal region and 

providing education to visitors. These goals are completely compatible with those of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, so there may be opportunities for efficiencies in 

providing access to national park lands along the coastline. The alternatives in the general 

management plan are consistent with this plan. 

Greenbelt Alliance, Bay Area Open Space Council, Association of Bay Area 

Governments — Golden Lands, Golden Opportunity: Preserving Vital Bay 

Area Lands for all Californians (2008) 

This initiative provides a statement of regional principles to ensure a healthy future for 

vital Bay Area lands and residents. The initiative identifies unprotected landscapes with 

significant value to the Bay Area and the state. It works to coordinate priorities among a 

variety of organizations working together. The park staff at Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area participated in the identification of unprotected landscapes. The 

alternatives in the general management plan incorporate potential actions that contribute 

to this regional effort and are consistent with this initiative. 

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission is the regional 

planning authority in the San Francisco Bay area. The commission is authorized to 

control Bay filling and dredging and Bay-related shoreline development. Areas within the 

commission’s jurisdiction include the San Francisco Bay, a shoreline band 100 feet 

inland of the Bay, and several other distinct features in the Bay area such as salt ponds 

and managed wetlands. Several commission plans affect development efforts along the 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area shoreline. The commission is the agency 

responsible for reviewing and approving Coastal Consistency Determinations under the 

Coastal Zone Management Act in the San Francisco Bay area. 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 119 

San Francisco Bay Plan (2003) 

This plan quantifies how the Bay Conservation and Development Commission proposes 

to reach its primary goal of developing the Bay and associated shoreline to its highest 

potential. The plan identifies priority use areas in the Bay, including ports, water-related 

industry, water-oriented recreation, airports, and wildlife refuges. The plan outlines the 

permitting policies and procedures for activities within priority and non-priority use areas 

and how they will be granted. 

San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan (2003) 

The Seaport Plan is a second-tier document to Bay Conservation Development 

Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan. It provides specific details about facilities 

identified as port priority use areas in the Bay Plan. The data includes exact boundaries of 

port priority use area, cargo forecasts, policies, and planned improvements, and the plan 

recommends changes/upgrades at specific ports and their terminals. 

The alternatives are consistent with the above plans. 

San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority — Final Program 

Environmental Impact Report: Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the 

San Francisco Bay Area (2003) 

This document outlines a comprehensive strategy for expanding water transportation 

services in San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority 

(Water Transit Authority) is a regional agency authorized by the state of California to 

operate a comprehensive San Francisco Bay Area public water transit system. The Water 

Transit Authority’s goal over the next 20 years is to develop a reliable, convenient, 

flexible, and cost-effective water-transit system that will help reduce vehicle congestion 

and pollution in the Bay Area. In 2003 the Water Transit Authority plan was approved, 

and when fully implemented the Water Transit Authority estimates that by 2025 

commuter-based ferry ridership will triple existing ridership and grow to approximately 

12 million riders annually. The primary objectives of the Water Transit Authority plan 

include the following: 

• establish eight new ferry routes plus improved service on the existing ferry 

systems. 

• add an additional 31 new passenger ferries over the next 10 years. 

• acquire clean emission vessels. 

• provide convenient landside connections to terminals. 

• expand facilities at the San Francisco Ferry Building . 

• construct two spare vessels . 

• partner with Redwood City, Treasure Island, Antioch, Martinez, Hercules, and 

Moffett Field to continue planning their respective waterfronts. 

• pursue funding from federal and local sources. 

 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 120

Statewide Historic Preservation Plan for California, 2006-2010 

The current California Statewide Historic Preservation Plan for California, 2006-2010

was developed by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) .That office notes that it 

benefits from partnerships with stakeholders at federal, state, and local government levels 

and with numerous nonprofit and for-profit organizations who are working together to 

promote historic preservation. The plan highlights various areas that are relevant to the 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument general 

management plan, including cultural landscapes, cultural diversity, heritage tourism, 

information management, outreach and education, and preservation archaeology. The 

National Park Service coordinates with the Office of Historic Preservation in a variety of 

ways, including participation in the California Cultural and Heritage Tourism Council. 

The existing plan is currently under revision and a new plan is anticipated in 2012. 

COUNTY AND LOCAL PLANS 

Central Marin Ferry Connection Project (2004) 

The Central Marin Ferry Connection project calls for a new bicycle and pedestrian 

connection between East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to the north and to the Redwood 

Highway and access roads in Corte Madera at Wornum Street and Redwood Highway to 

the south, thus connecting a gap in bicycle and pedestrian access in Central Marin 

County. Such a bike and pedestrian crossing would strengthen the interconnected bike 

network in Marin County, much of which leads to Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

sites. With such a connection, other weak points could be strengthened. With more 

bicycle access opportunities to Golden Gate National Recreation Area sites, more 

bicyclists will have an opportunity to visit. Increased bike access could also reduce 

vehicle traffic trying to access national recreation area sites. 

Extension of San Francisco Municipal Railway’s Historic Streetcar 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft)

The Municipal Railway (MUNI) currently operates historic streetcar service on Market 

Street and along the San Francisco waterfront (F-Line) to the line's existing terminus at 

Jones Street and Beach (in the Fisherman's Wharf area). The proposed extension (E-Line) 

would begin at the terminus of the F-line and extend west to San Francisco Maritime 

National Historical Park and on to Fort Mason. The exact route has yet to be determined 

but would utilize either existing rail right-of-way routes confined to city streets or pass 

through San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park’s Aquatic Park (at the core of 

the National Historic Landmark District) in order to reach the Fort Mason tunnel. It is 

anticipated that under all alternatives the railway line would extend through the tunnel 

and end in the area of Lower Fort Mason. 

Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Master Plan (2002) 

The James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve is a 402-acre natural resource area on the north 

coast of San Mateo County. The Reserve is under joint custodianship of the County of 

San Mateo Parks and Recreation Division and the California Department of Fish and 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 121 

Game. The Reserve extends 3 miles south from Point Montara to the south end of Pillar 

Point and 1,000 feet west into the ocean from the mean high tide line. Part of the 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the Reserve includes 370 acres of intertidal 

and subtidal marine habitat below the high tide line and 32 acres of upland coastal bluffs 

with elevations up to 100 feet. The intertidal zone, which contains rocky reefs at sea level 

and pocket beaches, is one of the most biodiverse intertidal regions in the state, renowned 

for its richness and diversity. Accessible at low tide, the reefs receive high levels of use 

because of their close proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area’s dense population 

centers. The reefs within the Reserve form ten distinct areas, but are generally referred to 

as Moss Beach Reef to the north and Frenchman’s Reef to the south. 

The Reserve is designated a “Marine Life Refuge” and an “Area of Special Biological 

Significance” by the State of California. The concept of “special biological significance” 

recognizes that certain biological communities, because of their value or fragility, 

deserve very special protection, consisting of preservation and maintenance of natural 

water quality conditions to the extent practicable. 

The master plan has three main components: 1) Natural Resource Management Program, 

2) Visitor Management Program; 3) Uses and Facilities Program. The following goals 

provide the foundation for the master plan concept: 

• Preserve and enhance natural resources. 

• Provide educational and interpretive opportunities. 

• Ensure adequate and well-trained staff. 

• Improve baseline information. 

• Improve visitor management. 

• Improve visitor facilities. 

• Minimize impacts to neighbors. 

• Protect cultural resources. 

• Provide recreation opportunities. 

• Seek funding opportunities. 

The alternatives in the general management plan are consistent with the Fitzgerald 

Marine Reserve Master Plan. 

Huddart and Wunderlch Parks Master Plan (2006) 

This master plan presents a 20-year vision for the development, operation, and 

maintenance of Huddart and Wunderlich Parks. More specifically, the master plan is 

intended to achieve the following goals: 

• Continue to provide multiple recreational opportunities that are consistent with 

the regional nature of the parks and with protection of the environmental, 

cultural, and historic resources of the land. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 122

• Concentrate development of new facilities in the previously developed 

portions of the parks. Protect the wild character of the undeveloped portions of 

the parks. 

• Increase the revenue generation capability of each park. 

• Identify physical improvements that will decrease ongoing operation and 

maintenance costs. 

• Make public safety a top priority in ongoing park operations and maintenance, 

and in new improvement projects. 

• Ensure the continued equestrian use of the parks. 

• Improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation within each park. 

The alternatives in the general management plan are consistent with the Huddart and 

Wunderlch Parks Master Plan. 

Marin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2003) 

The Marin County Congestion Management Agency commissioned a bicycle and 

pedestrian master plan to embrace both incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions 

within the county. Key recommendations of this plan include a north-south bikeway, an 

east-west bikeway, potential use of abandoned railroad tunnels and rights-of-way, and 

locating vital infrastructure improvements to promote and encourage increased bicycle 

and pedestrian activity. 

Marin County Local Coastal Program Unit 1 (1979) 

This document was prepared pursuant to the Coastal Act of 1976, which required all 

coastal jurisdictions to prepare a Local Coastal Program. A Local Coastal Program is “a 

local government’s land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and 

implementing actions which, when taken together, meet the requirement of, and 

implement the provisions and policies” of the Coastal Act at the local level. 

Marin Countywide Plan (2007) and amended (2009) 

The Marin Countywide Plan guides the conservation and development of Marin County. 

The countywide goals reflect core community values and identify what fundamental 

outcomes are desired. 

• A Preserved and Restored Natural Environment. Marin watersheds, 

natural habitats, wildlife corridors, and open space will be protected, restored, 

and enhanced. 

• A Sustainable Agricultural Community. Marin’s working agricultural 

landscapes will be protected, and the agricultural community will remain 

viable and successfully produce and market a variety of healthy foods and 

products. 

• A High-Quality Built Environment. Marin’s community character, the 

architectural heritage of its downtowns and residential neighborhoods, and the 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 123 

vibrancy of its business and commercial centers will be preserved and 

enhanced. 

• More Affordable Housing. Marin’s members of the workforce, the elderly, 

and special needs groups will have increased opportunities to live in welldesigned, socially and economically diverse affordable housing strategically 

located in mixed-use sites near employment or public transportation. 

• Less Traffic Congestion. Marin community members will have access to 

flexible work schedules, carpools, and additional transportation choices for 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users that reduce traffic congestion. 

• A Vibrant Economy. Marin’s targeted businesses will be clean, be 

prosperous, meet local residents’ and regional needs, and provide equal access 

to meaningful employment, fair compensation, and a safe, decent workplace. 

• A Reduced Ecological Footprint. Marin residents and businesses will 

increasingly use renewable energy, fuel efficient transportation choices, and 

green building and business practices similar to the level of Western Europe. 

• Collaboration and Partnerships. Marin public agencies, private 

organizations, and regional partners will reach across jurisdictional boundaries 

to collaboratively plan for and meet community needs. 

• A Healthy and Safe Lifestyle. Marin residents will have access to a proper 

diet, health care, and opportunities to exercise, and the community will 

maintain very low tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse, and crime rates. 

The alternatives in this general management plan work to address many of the goals 

listed above including preserved natural environments, less traffic congestion, vibrant 

economy, reduced ecological footprint, collaboration, and healthy and safe lifestyles. 

Midcoast Action Plan for Parks and Recreation: Planning Team Report

(2007) 

This plan, prepared by the Midcoast Recreation Planning Team, is an action plan for 

providing neighborhood and community recreation services and facilities on the 

Midcoast. The action plan outlines near and long-term objectives and a strategy for 

implementation. This plan focuses on actions that finally implement recommendations 

from three assessments conducted over the past 30 years beginning with the adopted 

Midcoast Community Plan from 1978. Preparation of this plan for a Midcoast park and 

recreation system also meets the Shared Vision 2010 The Promise of the Peninsula

prepared by the County Board of Supervisors. Six commitments and eleven goals 

outlined in the County's shared vision are directly applicable to implementing a Midcoast 

park system. The alternatives in the general management plan are consistent with the 

planning team report. 

City of Pacifica Pedro Point Headlands Coastal Trail Connection 

The City of Pacifica proposes to construct a multiuse Coastal Trail connection west of 

State Route 1 through this site prior to its transfer to Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area. This trail segment would connect with the future north trailhead and Coastal Trail 

on the abandoned State Route 1 segment that will become a multiuse trail when the 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 124

Devil’s Slide Tunnel Project is complete. The City of Pacifica has constructed paved 

multiuse paths along State Route 1, connecting, or with potential to expand and connect, 

to national recreation area sites. 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) — Peninsula 

Watershed Management Plan (2004) 

The plan provides a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and management actions which 

integrate all watershed resources and reflect the unique qualities of the watersheds. In 

addition to serving as a long-term regulatory framework for decision making by the San 

Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the plan is also intended to be used as an 

implementation guide by the commission’s Land and Resource Management Section 

staff. The plan provides the Land and Resource Management Section manager and staff 

with management actions designed to implement the established goals and policies for 

water quality, water supply, ecological and cultural resource protection, fire and safety 

management, watershed activities, public awareness, and revenue enhancement. 

PG&E Jefferson-Martin 230kV Transmission Line Proposed Settlement and 

Environmental Assessment (2004)

The project includes an assessment of construction of 24 miles of new 230 kV

transmission line in San Mateo County (Jefferson-Martin 230kV Line). The project 

includes both overhead (3.3 miles) and underground segments (20 miles) within the 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area boundary and within easements managed by NPS 

to protect the natural and scenic values. The approximately 24-mile route selected by the 

California Public Utilities Commission includes replacement of the existing double 

circuit 60kV line with a double circuit 60kV/230kV line along the same right-of-way, 

with minor modifications to reduce visibility of the rebuilt line. A final route for the line 

was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in August 2004, which the 

National Park Service appealed. Pacific Gas & Electric has proposed a settlement to the 

National Park Service, which is the subject of the environmental assessment. The 

alternatives in the general management plan are consistent with this plan. 

Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (2001) 

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2001 Regional Bicycle Plan is a 

component of the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, 

which establishes the region’s 25-year transportation investment plan. The commission 

sought to develop a regional bicycle plan with the following five main objectives: 

• Define a network of regionally significant bicycle routes, facilities, and 

necessary support programs and facilities. 

• Identify gaps in the network and recommend specific improvements needed to 

fill these gaps in the system. 

• Develop cost estimates for build-out of the entire regional network. 

• Develop a funding strategy to implement the regional bike network. 

• Identify programs to help local jurisdictions become more bicycle-friendly. 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 125 

The goal of the plan is to “ensure that bicycling is a convenient, safe, and practical means 

of transportation throughout the Bay Area for all Bay Area residents.” The alternatives in 

the general management plan are consistent with this plan. 

San Francisco General Plan (2004) 

The city’s general plan guides change and growth within the city to ensure that the 

qualities that make San Francisco unique are preserved and enhanced. The plan is the 

embodiment of the community’s vision for the future of San Francisco. 

The general plan is designed as a guide to the attainment of the following general goals: 

• Protection, preservation, and enhancement of the economic, social, cultural, 

and aesthetic values that establish the desirable quality and unique character of 

the city. 

• Help make the city more healthful, safe, pleasant, and satisfying, with housing 

representing good standards for all residents and adequate open spaces and 

appropriate community facilities. 

• Improvement of the city as a place for commerce and industry by making it 

more efficient, orderly, and satisfactory for the production, exchange, and 

distribution of goods and services, with adequate space for each type of 

economic activity and improved facilities for the loading and movement of 

goods. 

• Coordination of the varied pattern of land use with public and semipublic 

service facilities required for efficient functioning of the city, and for the 

convenience and well-being of its residents, workers, and visitors. 

• Coordination of the varied pattern of land use with circulation routes and 

facilities required for the efficient movement of people and goods within the 

city and to and from the city. 

• Coordination of the growth and development of the city with the growth and 

development of adjoining cities and counties and of the San Francisco Bay 

Region. 

In addition, the SUBAREA 3: Bay Street To The Municipal Pier identifies Objective 3 to 

transform the area into an attractive gateway to the residential boulevard and a transition 

from Fisherman’s Wharf and Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The following are 

the policies associated with this objective: 

POLICY 3.1: Create a tree-lined and landscaped median strip within the Van Ness 

street space and plant rows of trees in the sidewalk space. This greenspace element, 

which would realign some existing parking spaces, should be designed to "announce" the 

area’s attractive shoreline open space resources and visually direct the visitor to them.

POLICY 3.2: Support National Park Service plans for improvements of the area 

within the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area boundaries. The 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area General Management Plan calls for the following 

improvements:
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 126

"All of the Van Ness Avenue (asphalt paving) inside the park boundary will be 

removed and replaced with landscaping. The Sea Scout clubhouse and 

maintenance docks will also be removed. The Sea Scouts’ boats will be moved to 

the east side of the lagoon, and their programs and meetings will be held in the 

aquatic center. The food concession at the foot of Van Ness will receive a good 

sprucing-up. The Municipal Pier will also get a substantial cleanup and minor 

improvements such as fish-cleaning stations and restrooms. (It may also require 

structural renovation). Night lighting throughout the area will be upgraded."

San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan (2000) 

The plan addresses issues of safety, access, quality of life, and the effective 

implementation of bikeways. Outlined in the plan are a detailed set of policies, goals, and 

objectives designed to be in concert with the county’s and cities’ general plans, the cities’ 

bicycle plans, as well as other relevant regional plans. These policies address important 

issues related to San Mateo County’s bikeways, such as planning, community 

involvement, use of existing resources, facility design, multimodal integration, safety and 

education, support facilities and programs, funding, implementation, and maintenance. 

The short- to mid-term priority projects in the plan include the North-South Bikeway, the 

Colma-Millbrae Bikeway, the Ralston Bikeway, the North-South Bikeway (southern 

segment), the San Mateo County Bay Trail, the Recreational Route improvements, the 

North Coast Bikeway, the North-South Bikeway (Old County Road section), the 

Coastside Bicycle Projects, the Highway101 / Willow Road Interchange, the North-South 

Bikeway (Bayshore section), the Highway 101 / Broadway Interchange, the North-South 

Bikeway (Delaware / California section), the Crystal Springs / 3rd / 4th Avenue Bikeway, 

and the SFIA Bay Trail/Commuter Bikeway. The alternatives in the general management 

plan are consistent with this plan. 

San Mateo County Trails Plan (2001) 

This document is the 2001 update of the San Mateo County Trails Plan. Trails planning 

on a countywide level dates back nearly 25 years. The 2001 update is the third iteration 

of the Trails Plan. The Trails Plan is intended to fulfill the following objectives: 

• Provide an updated Trails Plan with the latest desired alignments. 

• Link trails among existing and proposed trails in San Mateo County cities and 

parks, and to adjacent counties. 

• Develop a set of policies and guidelines that can be used during detailed trail 

planning to ensure that adequate trails are constructed within constraints 

presented by the environment. 

• Provide a plan for access for recreational and educational purposes to portions 

of the county where no access currently is available. 

• Improve access to and along the coast. 

• Provide recreational opportunities to area residents. 

• Provide commuter routes for alternative types of transportation (e.g., 

bicycles). 
Appendix B: Description of Management Plans Related to this Plan 

Volume III: 127 

Some of the projected trails, such as the Bay Area Ridge Trail, could pass through or 

connect with trails in Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The alternatives in the 

general management plan are consistent with this plan. 

San Mateo Countywide Transportation 2010 Plan (2001) 

This transportation plan serves as a plan 

• for all modes (roads, Caltrain, SamTrans, BART, bicycles) and that looks at 

all modes as systems 

• that advocates policy, not projects; it is not a capital improvement program 

• whose policy is derived from understanding the relational interaction between 

the modes 

• that strives for synergy among the parts of the transportation system—the 

whole is greater than the sum of the parts 

• that seeks to develop the parts of the system to the optimal size, rather than the 

maximum 

• that provides critical information to help make informed decisions 

• that recognizes the decentralized, fragmented, and complex decision-making 

structures of transportation planning in the county 

• that seeks to coordinate decision making, relying on cooperation and not 

enforcement 

The goals of this plan are to reduce traffic congestion in San Mateo County, improve 

mobility, reduce congestion, increase access, improve air quality, increase economic 

vitality, improve the coordination of land use and transportation planning, increase 

reliability, and increase safety. The objectives are to increase capacity and performance 

(safety, reliability, convenience) of all transportation systems, increase demand for transit 

travel, and decrease demand for automobile travel, especially single-occupant. 

The strategy is to alleviate congestion via the following: 

• Roads – increase the efficiency of the existing highway system. 

• Transit – increase capacity, service levels, and safety of transit systems. 

• Land Use – increase supply and density of housing and employment in transit 

corridors. 

• Transportation Systems Management – increase programs to reduce the 

demand for single-occupant automobile travel. 

• Pricing – initiate modest pricing programs that cause a shift from automobile 

to transit travel. 

The alternatives in the general management plan are mindful of the goals and objectives 

of this plan. As more specific implementation plans are developed for park sites in San 

Mateo, the park staff will coordinate with the county to help achieve the transportation 

plan’s goals and objectives. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 128

Sausalito General Plan (1995) 

The following ten broad goals serve as the basis for more specific policies and 

implementation strategies. The overriding theme of the Sausalito General Plan is to 

protect the existing character, unique features, and quality of life in Sausalito. 

Goals of the plan are as follows: 

• Protect and enhance Sausalito as a residential community. 

• Protect the present character of Sausalito’s residential neighborhoods. 

• Encourage commercial services that serve city residents. 

• Recognize the importance of the downtown commercial district to the 

economic viability of the community and provide amenities for Sausalito’s 

visitors. 

• Preserve the open waterfront as a natural resource and promote maritime uses 

in the Marinship. 

• Preserve the historical character of Sausalito and its architectural and cultural 

diversity. 

• Protect the scenic qualities and the natural environment of the city. 

• Protect residents from natural and manmade hazards and avoid exposure to 

unnecessary risks to community safety. 

• Preserve and provide a variety of housing opportunities in keeping with 

Sausalito’s tradition of diversity. 

• Maintain an appropriate level of public services. 

The alternatives in the general management plan are consistent with this plan 
Volume III 129 

APPENDIX C: 

RELEVANT NPS POLICIES 

This section describes the National Park Service management policies most relevant to 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument. They 

guided development of this general management plan; these policies will continue to 

guide management of the park into the future, regardless of the alternative that is 

selected. They guide actions taken by the National Park Service on such topics as natural 

and cultural resource management, park facilities, and visitor use management. This 

section includes descriptions of the broad management goals consistent with all 

alternatives and a set of strategies that may be used by park managers to achieve those 

goals. This is not an exhaustive list of strategies. As new ideas, technologies, and 

opportunities arise, they will be considered if they further support the desired condition. 

THE FOUNDATION 

Beginning with Yellowstone, the idea of a national park was an American invention of 

historic consequences. The areas that now make up the national park system, and those 

that will be added in years to come, are cumulative expressions of a single national 

heritage. The National Park Service must manage park resources and values in such 

manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations 

RELATIONS WITH AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 

The park works to ensure that traditional American Indian ties to the park are recognized; 

NPS also strives to maintain positive, productive, government-to-government 

relationships with tribes culturally affiliated with the park. The rights, viewpoints, and 

needs of tribes are respected, and issues that arise are promptly addressed. American 

Indian values are considered in the management and operation of the park. 

Strategies 

• To ensure productive, collaborative working relationships, consult regularly 

and maintain government-to-government relations with federally recognized 

tribes that have traditional ties to resources in the park. 

• Continue to identify and deepen the understanding of the significance of the 

park’s resources and landscapes to American Indian people through 

collaborative research. 

• Protect and preserve sites and resources that are significant to federally 

recognized tribes. 

• Create opportunities for and invite the participation of tribes in protecting 

natural and cultural resources of interest within the park. 

• Support the continuation of traditional American Indian activities in the park 

to the extent allowed by law and policy. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 130

• Work with tribes to conduct ethnographic studies that identify culturally 

significant resources. 

• Seek input from tribes during development of interpretive programs that relate 

to American Indians. 

• Consult with American Indians under the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act for actions that affect or have the potential to affect 

burial remains or items of sacred or ceremonial significance. 

PARK SYSTEM PLANNING 

Park planning helps define the set of resource conditions, visitor experiences, 

and management actions that, taken as a whole, will best achieve the mandate 

to preserve resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and future 

generations. NPS planning processes will flow from broad-scale general 

management planning through progressively more specific strategic planning, 

implementation planning, and annual performance planning and reporting, all 

of which will be grounded in foundation statements. 

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS, 

ADJACENT LANDOWNERS, AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 

The park is managed holistically, as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural system. Positive relations are maintained with inholders (those owning property 

within the park boundary), adjacent landowners, surrounding communities, and private 

and public groups that affect, and are affected by the park. The park is managed 

proactively to ensure that NPS values are effectively communicated and understood. 

Strategies 

• Continue to establish and foster partnerships with public and private 

landowners. 

• Foster a spirit of cooperation with neighbors, and encourage compatible uses 

of adjacent lands. Keep landowners, land managers, tribes, local governments, 

nongovernmental organizations, and the public informed about park 

management activities and issues. Consult periodically with landowners and 

communities that are affected by or potentially affected by park visitors and 

management actions. 

• Work closely with local, state, and federal agencies and tribal governments 

whose programs affect or are affected by activities in the park. 

• Continue to support and encourage volunteers who contribute to park 

programs. 
Appendix C: Relevant NPS Policies 

Volume III: 131 

RESEARCH 

The National Park Service works with partners to learn about natural and cultural 

resources and associated values. Research priorities for the national recreation area are 

aligned with its purpose, significance, and fundamental resources and values. 

Strategies 

• Encourage and support basic and applied research through various 

partnerships and agreements to enhance understanding of resources and 

processes or to answer specific management questions. 

• Mitigate impacts of research conducted on natural and cultural resources, as 

needed to preserve those resources for future generations to enjoy and study. 

• Develop and implement criteria to determine whether requested research 

supports park purpose and significance, or other park goals. 

• Develop and update lists of research issues that are important to the park. 

LAND PROTECTION 

The National Park Service will use all available authorities to protect lands 

and resources within units of the national park system, and the National Park 

Service will seek to acquire nonfederal lands and interests in land that have 

been identified for acquisition as promptly as possible. For lands not in federal 

ownership, both those that have been identified for acquisition and other 

nonfederally owned lands within a park unit’s authorized boundaries, the Park 

Service will cooperate with federal agencies; tribal, state, and local 

governments; nonprofit organizations; and property owners to provide 

appropriate protection measures. Cooperation with these entities will also be 

pursued, and other available land protection tools will be employed when 

threats to resources originate outside boundaries. 

Park staff will work with government agencies and nongovernmental organizations to 

support efforts to protect adjacent lands that are important to preserving the resources 

within the park. 

Strategies 

• Use various techniques to protect park values, including general agreements, 

acquisition of conservation and access easements, land exchanges, donations, 

and fee-simple acquisition. 

• Carefully site any new telecommunication structures so as to not jeopardize 

the park’s purpose, significance, and fundamental resources and values; also 

consider the park’s management zones. Permit new rights-of-way only with 

specific statutory authority and approval by NPS managers, and only if there is 

no practicable alternative to such use of national park system lands. 

• Continue to support the efforts of others to protect adjacent lands that are 

important to preserving park resources through appropriate planning, zoning, 

and other protection methods. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 132

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

The National Park Service will preserve the natural resources, processes, 

systems, and values of units of the national park system in an unimpaired 

condition, to perpetuate their inherent integrity and to provide present and 

future generations with the opportunity to enjoy them. 

The resources and processes of the park retain a significant degree of ecological integrity. 

Natural wind and water processes function as unimpeded as possible. Management 

decisions about natural resources are based on scholarly and scientific information and on 

the park’s identified fundamental resources and values. Park resources and values are 

protected through collaborative efforts with neighbors and partners. Visitors and 

employees recognize and understand the value of the park’s natural resources. Human 

impacts on resources are monitored, and harmful effects are minimized, mitigated, or 

eliminated. 

Biologically diverse native communities are protected and restored when possible. 

Particularly sensitive communities are closely monitored and protected. Endemic species 

and habitats are fully protected; nonnative species are controlled, and native species are 

reintroduced when conditions allow. Genetic integrity of native species is protected. 

Threatened and endangered species are protected to the greatest extent possible and are 

generally stable or improving. Natural fire regimes are investigated and supported where 

possible. 

Strategies 

• Continue to inventory biotic and abiotic resources in the park and assess their 

status and trends. 

• Continue long-term systematic monitoring of resources and processes to detect 

natural and human-caused trends, document changes in species or 

communities, evaluate the effectiveness of management plans and restoration 

projects, and mitigate impacts where possible. 

• Implement and keep current a cooperative wildland fire management plan that 

includes interagency participation to maintain conditions within the natural 

range as much as possible. 

• Work in consultation with American Indian tribes to identify, evaluate, and 

determine appropriate treatment for natural resources used by American 

Indians in park lands. 

• Provide information to adjacent homeowners and private landowners on 

natural processes, wildlife, critical habitats, and threats to resources. 

• Conserve and restore habitats for threatened and endangered species and 

species of special concern. 

• In conjunction with other NPS offices, continue to expand the park’s data 

management systems for analyzing, modeling, predicting, and testing trends in 

resource conditions. 

• Continue to regularly update the park’s resource stewardship strategy. 
Appendix C: Relevant NPS Policies 

Volume III: 133 

• Apply mitigation techniques to minimize impacts of construction and other 

activities on park resources. 

• Continue to educate staff, visitors, and the public about the significance of 

natural resources and major threats to these resources. 

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 

Park management demonstrates leadership in resource stewardship and conservation of 

ecosystem values. The marine, forests, and aquatic systems are managed from an 

ecosystem perspective, considering both internal and external factors affecting visitor 

use, environmental quality, and resource stewardship. Management decisions about 

ecosystems are based on scholarly and scientific information. Resources and visitation 

are managed in consideration of the ecological and social conditions of the park and 

surrounding area. The National Park Service adapts management strategies to changing 

ecological and social conditions and are partners in regional land planning and 

management. 

Strategies 

• Continue to participate in and encourage ongoing partnerships with local, 

state, and federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations in programs 

that have importance within and beyond park boundaries. Partnerships 

important to the long-term viability of critical natural resources include the 

following: 

o Monitoring water quality of local water bodies. 

o Managing wildlife across human-created boundaries (such as 

jurisdictions, property lines, and fences). 

o Managing nonnative invasive species. 

o Managing wildland fire. 

• Central to ecosystem management is long-term monitoring of changes in the 

condition of cultural and natural resources and related human influences. 

Improvement or degradation of resources and visitor experience cannot be 

determined with any certainty without a monitoring program. To protect, 

restore, and enhance park resources and to sustain visitor use and enjoyment 

within and around the park, NPS staff would do the following: 

o Initiate or continue long-term monitoring of resources and visitor use, 

including use of the visitor experience and resource protection 

framework or other user capacity process, as appropriate. 

o Promote research to increase understanding of park resources, natural 

processes, and human interactions with the environment, with emphasis 

on fundamental resources and values. 

o Practice science-based decision making and adaptive management, 

incorporating the results of resource monitoring and research into NPS 

operations. 

o Identify lands/waters outside the park where ecological processes and 

human use affect park resources or are closely related to park resource 

management considerations; initiate joint research, monitoring, 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 134

management actions, agreements, or partnerships to promote resource 

conservation. 

o Provide education and outreach programs to highlight conservation and 

management issues facing the park and related lands and encourage 

partners who are able to assist with ecosystem stewardship. 

• Continue the disturbed site restoration program. 

• Strive to control invasive nonnative species in coordination with adjacent 

landowners, other agencies, and NPS staff specialists; consider control of 

native species that threaten ecosystem health. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Wildlife: Natural wildlife populations and systems are understood and perpetuated. 

Natural fluctuations in populations are permitted to occur to the greatest extent possible. 

Natural influences are mimicked if necessary. The park staff would work with neighbors 

and partners to achieve mutually beneficial goals related to wildlife. 

Strategies 

• Continue cooperative management of threatened or endangered species within 

the park to stabilize or improve the status of these species. 

• Strive to identify species that have occupied the park in the past, and evaluate 

the feasibility and advisability of reintroducing extirpated species. 

• Continue to cooperate with the federal and state agencies to better understand 

populations and determine appropriate management actions for wildlife 

species. 

Water Resources: Water quality is a key resource at the park. The need for adequate 

freshwater flows and high water quality are important in the preservation of the numerous 

rare and endangered species. The water resources have many beneficial uses including 

water contact and non-water contact recreation, fish migration and spawning, and 

municipal water supply. Groundwater is important for recharge of surface water systems, 

including wetlands, supporting rare and endangered species habitat and as a source for 

municipal and agricultural water supplies. Wetlands protect water quality, mitigate flood 

and drought, help control erosion, and facilitate groundwater recharge. Wetlands support 

complex food webs, housing a rich biodiversity of wetland-endemic species, providing 

habitat functions for many aquatic and terrestrial species. The intertidal and subtidal zone 

of the park’s littoral environments are some of the most diverse and productive 

ecosystems in the world. Coastal habitats are important for the preservation of several 

rare and endangered species. 

Strategies 

• Continue to monitor water quality and quantity within a local and regional 

context, and expand monitoring as needed to more fully understand the status 

and trends of ground and surface water. 
Appendix C: Relevant NPS Policies 

Volume III: 135 

• Participate in local, state, and national water quality remediation and watershed planning programs. 

• Update strategies for water resources management as needed to reflect 

changing resources and management issues. 

• Continue to inventory wetlands so that important wetland communities can be 

identified and protected. 

• Continue to identify and address threats to wetlands, such as purple loosestrife 

and other exotic species. 

• Continue to assess human-related threats to water quality and quantity. 

Continue to monitor E. coli at designated recreational beaches. 

Air Quality: The park is in a Class II air quality area under the Clean Air Act. This 

designation allows for limited amounts of new air emissions. The air quality of the park is 

enhanced as the NPS continues to pursue actions that provide for reduction of emissions 

caused by park operations and visitation. 

Strategies 

• Continue to monitor and record air pollution levels and analyze changes over 

time. 

• Monitor and reduce emissions, when possible, from activities within the 

park’s boundaries. 

• Continue to participate in regional air quality planning, research, and 

implementation of air quality standards. 

Soundscape Management: Natural soundscapes are preserved, and sounds of 

modern society are minimized. Visitors have opportunities in most parts of the park to 

hear natural sounds. 

Strategies 

• Strive to collect baseline data on park soundscapes to understand 

characteristics and trends in natural soundscapes. 

• Continue to control existing and potential land-based noise sources. 

• Enforce existing noise regulations. 

• Require bus tour companies to comply with regulations that reduce noise 

levels (e.g., turning off engines when buses are parked). 

• Limit use of generators. 

• Work with the Federal Aviation Administration, commercial businesses, and 

general aviation entities to minimize noise and visual impacts of aircraft on 

the park. Continue to discourage pilots of conventional aircraft from flying 

low along the park. If demand for commercial air tours develops, develop a 

commercial air tour management plan to address tours and their effects on the 

park. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 136

• Minimize noise generated by the NPS use of noise-producing machinery such 

as motorized equipment. Consider noise potential when procuring and using 

park equipment. 

Lightscape Management: The naturally dark night sky is preserved. Artificial light 

sources in and outside the park do not hinder opportunities to see the moon, stars, planets, 

and other celestial features. Park staff and partners continue to work with local 

communities to encourage protection of the night sky. To the greatest extent possible, the 

NPS works within a regional context to protect the quality of the night sky and the 

experience thereof. 

Strategies 

• Establish baseline data for the dark night sky through NPS programs. 

• Determine if light sources in the park exceed appropriate levels. Study and 

implement ways to reduce or minimize artificial and unnecessary light. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

The NPS will preserve and foster appreciation of the cultural resources in its 

custody, and will demonstrate its respect for the peoples traditionally 

associated with those resources, through appropriate programs of research, 

planning, and stewardship.

General: Cultural resources are identified, evaluated, managed, and protected within 

their broader context. Management decisions about cultural resources are based on 

scholarly research and scientific information, fundamental resources and values, and 

consultation with the California state historic preservation officer and with American 

Indian tribes, as appropriate. The historic integrity of properties listed in (or eligible for 

listing in) the National Register of Historic Places is protected. Visitors and employees 

recognize and understand the value of the park’s cultural resources. Human and natural 

impacts on cultural resources are monitored, and adverse effects are minimized or 

eliminated. 

Strategies 

• Continue to collect information to fill gaps in the knowledge and 

understanding of the park’s cultural resources, to assess status and trends, and 

to effectively protect and manage cultural resources. 

• In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, continue to locate, identify, and evaluate cultural resources to 

determine if they are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places (national register). 

• Prepare and update national register nominations as appropriate. 

• Update and keep current the park’s Cultural Landscape Inventory and List of 

Classified Structures (the NPS inventory of evaluated historic and prehistoric 

structures that have historical, architectural, and/or engineering significance.) 
Appendix C: Relevant NPS Policies 

Volume III: 137 

• Work in consultation with the California state historic preservation officer, 

American Indian tribes as appropriate, and other interested parties to identify, 

evaluate, and determine appropriate treatment for archeological resources, 

historic structures, and cultural landscapes throughout the park. 

• Conduct scholarly research and use the best available scientific information 

and technology for making decisions about management of the park’s cultural 

resources. 

• Build a partnership program that considers appropriate adaptive use to assist in 

maintaining historic buildings and cultural landscapes throughout the park. 

• Continue to initiate and regularly update plans and prioritize actions needed to 

protect cultural resources. 

• Continue to research, document, catalogue, exhibit, and store the park’s 

museum collection according to NPS standards. 

• Continue to educate staff, visitors, and the public about cultural and historic 

issues relating to the park. 

• Treat all cultural resources as eligible for the national register pending formal 

determination. 

Archeological Resources: Archeological resources in the park are identified and 

preserved. Archeological resources are the remains of past human activity and records 

documenting the scientific analysis of these remains. Archeological features are typically 

buried, but may extend aboveground. Although archeological resources are commonly 

associated with prehistoric peoples, they may be products of more contemporary society. 

Strategies 

• Conduct sufficient research to identify and evaluate park archeological 

resources and assess condition and potential threats. 

• Continue long-term monitoring of archeological sites to measure deterioration 

from natural and human sources and to evaluate the effectiveness of 

management actions to protect resources and mitigate impacts. 

• Preserve and protect archeological resources by eliminating and avoiding 

natural and human impacts, stabilizing sites and structures, monitoring 

conditions, and enforcing protective laws and regulations. 

• Carry out required consultation and legal compliance, and consider concerns 

raised. 

• Include information about archeological resources, as appropriate, in 

interpretive and educational programs for the public. 

Cultural Landscapes: The park’s cultural landscapes are preserved in good condition 

to retain a high degree of integrity. Cultural landscapes reflect human adaptation and use 

of natural resources and are often expressed in the way land is organized and divided, 

patterns of settlement, land use, systems of circulation, and the types of structures that are 

built. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 138

Strategies 

• Prepare cultural landscape inventories and reports, and amend existing reports 

as needed. 

• Monitor, inspect, and manage identified and evaluated cultural landscapes to 

enable long-term preservation of historic features, qualities, and materials. 

• Implement actions identified in cultural landscape reports, and add a record of 

treatment to the reports. 

• Create design guidelines and/or cultural landscape reports for specific 

developed areas in the park to preserve landscape-defining features. Include 

provisions in the guidelines for design review to ensure the compatibility of 

new planning, design, and construction. 

• Have cultural landscape specialists (e.g., historical landscape architects) 

prepare plans and specifications for preservation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration, in consultation with the park’s Natural Resources Division staff. 

Ethnographic Resources: Ethnographic resources, the cultural and natural features 

of a park that are of traditional significance to traditionally associated peoples, are 

identified and protected to the fullest extent possible. These resources may be objects, 

beliefs, or places, and may have attributes that are of great importance to the group but 

not necessarily associated with the reason the park was established or appropriate as a 

topic of park interpretation. 

Strategies 

• Identify and document, through studies and consultations, ethnographic 

resources, traditionally associated people and other affected groups, and such 

groups’ cultural affiliations to park resources. 

• Recognize the sensitivity of ethnographic resources and associated data and 

provide confidentiality to the extent possible under the law. 

• Have researchers formally collaborate with traditional cultural experts to 

develop a park strategy for dealing with ethnographic resources 

• Monitor effects of use on ethnographic resources and effects of park plans on 

authorized uses and traditional users. 

Historic Structures: The character of historic structures is preserved in good condition 

to retain a high degree of integrity. Whenever possible, adaptive use of historic structures 

for park needs is considered before building new infrastructure. 

Strategies 

• Prepare historic structure inventories and reports, and amend them as needed. 

Implement actions identified in historic structure reports and add a record of 

treatment to the reports. 

• Prepare and update national register nominations as appropriate. 

• Monitor, inspect, and manage identified and evaluated historic structures to 

enable long-term preservation of historic features, qualities, and materials. 
Appendix C: Relevant NPS Policies 

Volume III: 139 

• Use historic structures as they were historically used, or adaptively use them 

in ways that are compatible with park purpose and that maximize retention of 

historic materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 

• Consider historic buildings for appropriate adaptive use by other public and 

private entities to assist in preservation of the structures. 

• Create design guidelines and/or historic structure reports for specific areas in 

the park to preserve architectural and character-defining features. Include 

provisions for design review to ensure the compatibility of new planning, 

design, and construction. 

• Aggressively pursue basic preservation maintenance activities to maintain 

historic materials in good condition. 

• Monitor and regulate use impacts to minimize both immediate and long-term 

damage to structures. 

• Involve historical architects and other professionals in work that could affect 

historic structures. 

USE OF THE PARK 

National parks belong to all Americans, and the National Park Service will 

welcome all Americans to experience their parks. The Service will focus special 

attention on visitor enjoyment of the parks while recognizing that the NPS 

mission is to conserve unimpaired each park’s natural and cultural resources 

and values for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of present and future 

generations. The Service will also welcome international visitors, in keeping 

with its commitment to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource 

conservation and outdoor recreation throughout the world. 

Visitors from diverse backgrounds can experience a range of opportunities consistent 

with the purpose, significance, and fundamental resources and values of the park. Most 

visitors understand and appreciate the purpose and significance of the park and value 

their stewardship role in preserving natural and cultural features. They actively contribute 

to the park’s preservation through appropriate use and behavior. Park programs and 

services are accessible to all, and conflicts between different user groups are minimized. 

Visitor use levels and activities are consistent with preserving park purpose, significance, 

and fundamental resources and values, and with providing opportunities for recreation, 

education, and inspiration. Management decisions are based on scholarly and scientific 

information. When such information is lacking, managers make decisions based on the 

best available information, adapting as new information becomes available. Regional 

recreational opportunities continue to be coordinated among agencies for public benefit 

and ease of use. 

Strategies 

• Work towards providing programs and facilities that are effective in reaching 

and serving diverse communities. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 140

• Collect data over time to monitor visitor experiences as part of an overall 

effort to protect desired resource conditions and visitor experiences. 

• Address threats to resources and the visitor experience by means other than 

limiting or restricting use (e.g., through education programs). If necessary, 

however, implement more restrictive methods. 

• Base restrictions on visitor use on a determination by the park superintendent 

that such measures are consistent with the park’s enabling legislation and NPS 

policies, are necessary to prevent degradation of the purposes and values for 

which the park was established, will minimize visitor use conflicts, or will 

provide opportunities for quality visitor experiences. 

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION 

Through interpretive and educational programs, the NPS will instill in park 

visitors an understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment of the significance of 

parks and their resources. Interpretive and educational programs will 

encourage the development of a personal stewardship ethic, and broaden 

public support for preserving park resources. 

Interpretive and educational services/programs at the park facilitate intellectual and 

emotional connections between visitors and park resources, foster understanding of park 

resources and resource stewardship, and build a local and national constituency. Outreach 

programs through schools, organizations, and partnerships build connections to the park. 

Curriculum and place-based education inspire student understanding and resource 

stewardship. Visitors receive adequate information to orient themselves to the park and 

possible opportunities for a safe and enjoyable visit. 

Strategies 

• Develop and implement a comprehensive interpretive plan, with emphasis on 

providing information, orientation, and interpretive services in the most 

effective manner possible. Use both personal services (involving authorized 

staff) and nonpersonal services (including state-of-the-art technologies) as 

appropriate. 

• Stay informed of changing visitor demographics and preferences to effectively 

tailor programs for visitors. Develop interpretive media supportive of park 

purpose, significance, interpretive themes, and fundamental resources and 

values. 

• Continue to promote improved pre-trip planning information and orientation 

for park visitors through the park’s website and other media. Work with local 

communities and other entities to provide services outside park boundaries, 

where appropriate. 

• Cooperate with partners, other governmental agencies, educational 

institutions, and other organizations to enrich interpretive and educational 

opportunities locally, regionally, and nationally. 
Appendix C: Relevant NPS Policies 

Volume III: 141 

• Create and implement an education strategy plan, which outlines goals and 

actions for providing curriculum and place-based education programs. 

• Continue to regularly update plans and prioritize actions needed to serve visitors and provide effective interpretation. 

• Continue to educate staff, visitors, and the public about park 

interpretation/education programs. 

PARK FACILITIES 

The National Park Service will provide visitor and administrative facilities that 

are necessary, appropriate, and consistent with the conservation of park 

resources and values. Facilities will be harmonious with park resources, 

compatible with natural processes, esthetically pleasing, functional, energyand water-efficient, cost-effective, universally designed, and as welcoming as 

possible to all segments of the population. NPS facilities and operations will 

demonstrate environmental leadership by incorporating sustainable practices 

to the maximum extent practicable in planning, design, siting, construction, and 

maintenance. 

General: Park facilities and related development are the minimum necessary to serve 

visitor needs and protect park resources. Visitor and administrative facilities are as 

compatible as possible with natural processes and surrounding landscapes, aesthetically 

pleasing, and functional. Historic structures and properties are adaptively used when 

practicable and appropriate. Staff housing is sufficient to ensure an adequate level of 

protection for park resources, visitors, employees, and government property, and to 

provide necessary services. Adequate response (equipment and people) for visitor, 

resource, and facility protection; search-and-rescue; fire management; and safety is 

available. Decisions regarding park operations, facilities management, and development 

at the park—from initial concept through design and construction—reflect principles of 

resource conservation and sustainability. 

Strategies 

• Build, locate, and/or modify facilities according to the Guiding Principles of 

Sustainable Design (NPS 1993) or similar guidelines. Establish architectural 

guidelines to ensure sustainability and compatibility with the natural and 

cultural environment. Properly maintain and upgrade existing facilities using 

sustainability principles, where possible, to serve the park mission. 

• Consider the availability of existing or planned facilities in nearby 

communities and on adjacent lands, as well as the possibility of joint facilities 

with other agencies, when deciding whether to pursue new developments in 

the park. This will ensure that any additional facilities in the park are 

necessary, appropriate, and cost-effective. 

• Integrate NPS asset management practices into decision making and planning. 

Build, modify, and/or maintain facilities according to projected funding levels 

and defined park priorities. Consider removal of facilities that do not meet 

minimum NPS criteria or are not cost-effective to maintain. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 142

• Continue to strive to provide affordable housing within the park for 

emergency response staff, seasonal and entry-level employees, volunteers, and 

to support other park needs (housing for researchers, etc.) 

• Provide commercial visitor services (for example services provided through 

concessioners) that are necessary and appropriate for visitor use and enjoyment through the use of concession contracts and commercial use authorizations. Ensure that concession operations are consistent with the protection of 

park resources and values and demonstrate sound environmental management 

and stewardship. 

ACCESSIBILITY 

New and renovated facilities are designed and constructed to be universally accessible in 

accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, Section 508 

of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards 

(2006). The National Park Service also has Director’s Order 42: Accessibility for Visitors 

with Disabilities in National Park Service Programs and Services and Director’s Order 

16A: Reasonable Accommodation for Applicants and Employees with Disabilities. 

Visitors with disabilities have opportunities to experience the park open spaces, waters, 

historic structures, and cultural landscapes, and to enjoy representative portions of the 

backcountry. 

Strategies 

• Identify and modify existing facilities to meet accessibility standards as funding 

permits, or as facilities are replaced or rehabilitated. Design new facilities to meet 

current Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility standards. 

• Provide public information about ease or difficulty of access for various facilities and 

trails. 

• Periodically consult with public interests groups and people with disabilities or their 

representatives to increase awareness of the needs of people with disabilities and to 

determine how to make the park more accessible for everyone. 

• Develop park interpretive programs per accessibility standards and the needs of 

people with disabilities. 
Volume III 143 

APPENDIX D: 

TABLE OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

(INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED 

SPECIES AND CANDIDATE SPECIES) 

Common Name 

of Listed 

Species 

Scientific Name 

Retained 

for Impact 

Analysis 

Designated Statusa Counties 

with 

Habitat in 

Planning 

Areab

Federal State 

INVERTEBRATES

bay checkerspot 

butterfly 

Euphydryas 

editha bayensis T, X - SM 

black abalone Haliotes 

cracherodii E - M, SF, SM

Mission blue 

butterfly 

Icaricia icarioides 

missionensis  E - M, SM 

San Bruno elfin 

butterfly 

Incisalia mossii 

bayensis  E - SM 

Myrtle’s 

silverspot 

butterfly 

Speyeria zerene 

myrtleas E - M*, SM 

California 

freshwater 

shrimp 

Syncaria pacifica E E M* 

FISH

green sturgeon Acipenser 

medirostris T, X - M, SF 

tidewater goby Eucyclogobius 

newberryi  E, X - M, SM 

coho salmon 

(Central 

California coast 

ESU) 

Oncorhynchus 

kisutch  T, X E M, SM 

steelhead trout 

(Central 

California Coast 

ESU) 

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss  T, X - M, SF, SM
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 144

Common Name 

of Listed 

Species 

Scientific Name 

Retained 

for Impact 

Analysis 

Designated Statusa Counties 

with 

Habitat in 

Planning 

Areab

Federal State 

steelhead trout 

(Central Valley 

ESU) 

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss  T, X - M, SF 

chinook salmon 

(California 

Coastal ESU) 

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha T, X - M 

chinook salmon 

(Central Valley 

spring run) 

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha T, X T M, SF 

chinook salmon 

(Sacramento 

River winter run) 

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha E, X E M, SF 

AMPHIBIANS

California tiger 

salamander 

(Sonoma) 

Ambystoma 

californiense E T M, SM 

California redlegged frog Rana draytonii  T,X - M, SF, SM

REPTILES

loggerhead 

turtle Caretta caretta T - M, SF, SM

green turtle Chelonia mydas T - M, SF, SM

leatherback 

turtle 

Dermochelys 

coriacea E, PX - M, SF, SM

olive ridley sea 

turtle 

Lepidochelys 

olivacea T - M, SF, SM

San Francisco 

garter snake 

Thamnophis 

sirtalis tetrataenia  E E SM 

BIRDS

marbled 

murrelet 

Brachyramphus 

marmoratus T,X E M, SF, SM

western snowy 

plover 

Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

nivosus 

 T - M, SF, SM
Appendix D: Table of Special Status Species 

Volume III: 145 

Common Name 

of Listed 

Species 

Scientific Name 

Retained 

for Impact 

Analysis 

Designated Statusa Counties 

with 

Habitat in 

Planning 

Areab

Federal State 

little willow 

flycatcher 

Empidonax trailii 

brewsteri SC E M, SF, SM

peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

anatum 

Delisted; 

monitored 

until 2015 

 M, SF, SM

bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Delisted; 

monitored 

until 2028 

E M, SF, SM

California black 

rail 

Laterallus 

jamaicensis 

coturniculus 

 SC T M, SM 

California 

clapper rail 

Rallus longirostris 

obsoletus E E M, SF, SM

bank swallow Riparia riparia  - T SF 

California least 

tern 

Sternula 

antillarum E E M, SF, SM

northern spotted 

owl 

Strix occidentalis 

caurina  T - M 

MAMMALS

southern sea 

otter 

Enhydra lutris 

nereis T - SM 

Steller sea lion Eumetopias 

jubatus T, X - M, SF, SM

humpback 

whale 

Megaptera 

novaeangliae E - M, SF, SM

salt marsh 

harvest mouse 

Reithrodontomys 

raviventris E E M, SF, SM

PLANTS

San Mateo 

thornmint 

Acanhomintha 

duttonii E E SM 

Franciscan 

manzanita 

Arctostaphylos 

franciscana 

Under 

Review - SF 

Presidio 

manzanita 

Arctostaphylos 

hookeri 

ssp.ravenii 

 E E SF 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 146

Common Name 

of Listed 

Species 

Scientific Name 

Retained 

for Impact 

Analysis 

Designated Statusa Counties 

with 

Habitat in 

Planning 

Areab

Federal State 

Tiburon 

paintbrush 

Castilleja affnis 

ssp. neglecta E T M 

fountain thistle Cirsium fontinale 

var.fontinale E E SM 

Gowen cypress 

Cupressus 

goveniana ssp. 

goveniana 

 T SM 

Presidio clarkia Clarkia 

franciscana E E SF 

yellow larkspur Delphinium 

luteum E, X Rare M* 

San Mateo 

wooly sunflower 

Eriophyllum 

latilobum E E SM 

Marin dwarf-flax Hesperolinon 

congestum T T M, SF, SM

San Francisco 

lessingia 

Lessingia 

germanorum 

 E E SF, SM 

white-rayed 

pentachaeta 

Pentachaeta 

bellidiflora E E SM 

San Francisco 

popcornflower 

Plagiobothrys 

diffuses - E SF 

Hickman’s 

potentilla 

Potentilla 

hickmanii E E SM 

California 

seablite Suaeda californica E - SF 

showy Indian 

clover 

Trifolium 

amoenum 

 E - M 

(a) Key for Designated Status columns: 

(E) Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction. 

(T) Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. 

(X) Critical Habitat designated for this species [Critical Habitat - Area essential to the 

conservation of a species.] 

(PX) Proposed Critical Habitat - The species is already listed. Critical habitat is being 

proposed for it. 

(SC) Species of Concern 
Appendix D: Table of Special Status Species 

Volume III: 147 

(b) Key for Counties Column: 

(M) Marin County 

(M*) In Golden Gate National Recreation Area within Marin County, but in area managed 

by Point Reyes National Seashore 

(SF) San Francisco County 

(SM) San Mateo County 
Volume III 148 

APPENDIX E: 

DESCRIPTIONS OF LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICE 

MARIN COUNTY 

West Marin Stagecoach 

Administered by Marin Transit and operated under contract with MV Transportation, the 

Stagecoach provides the only public transportation service to West Marin County. 

Two of the three Stagecoach fixed routes serve a popular Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area site, Stinson Beach: Route 61 (South Route), between Marin City and 

Bolinas via Panoramic and Shoreline highways; and Route 62 (Coastal Route), between 

Stinson Beach, Bolinas and Point Reyes Station via Shoreline Highway. Route 61 

operates seven days a week, while Route 62 operates on Tuesdays, Thursdays and 

Saturdays only. Service is generally provided every few hours, although on weekends 

from March to December, Route 61 operates on headways of as little as 80 minutes. 

Connections may be made between Route 61 and Golden Gate Transit routes serving 

urbanized areas of Marin County, Sonoma County and San Francisco at Marin City. 

West Marin Stagecoach vehicles are equipped with exterior racks accommodating up to 

two bicycles. Adult cash fares for both fixed-route and dial-a-ride service are $2. 

Golden Gate Transit 

The Golden Gate Bridge District provides bus service in eastern Marin County, Sonoma 

County and San Francisco as Golden Gate Transit. Marin County park sites are served 

only tangentially by Golden Gate Transit, although Golden Gate Transit routes connect to 

the West Marin Stagecoach and Muir Woods Shuttle, expanding the reach of both. 

Gerbode and Rodeo Valley trails can be accessed from the Spencer Avenue bus pad 

along Highway 101. The stop is served by routes, 4, 8, 18, 70 and 80; the first three 

operate only during commute hours in the peak direction (south in the morning, north in 

the afternoon), but Routes 70 and 80 operate all day, seven days a week, serve the 

Highway 101 corridor as far north as Santa Rosa, and extend well into San Francisco, 

connecting to the Civic Center / UN Plaza BART station and terminating at the Transbay 

Terminal, a hub for regional buses including AC Transit Transbay buses from the East 

Bay. 

The only other park site served by Golden Gate Transit is Fort Baker. Fort Baker is only a 

few hundred feet, as the crow flies, from a stop along Alexander Avenue at Bunker Road. 

However, the stop is about 200 feet above the site, and access requires a walk alongside 

Alexander Avenue, then a steep hike down to the site (alternately, bus riders may use a 

more distant stop, along Alexander Avenue at East Road, which descends gently into the 

site). Moreover, while routes 2, 4, 10, 70 and 80 all serve the stop, only Route 10 makes 

more than a few early morning or evening stops, operating on roughly 60-minute 

headways seven days a week. (The Marin Headlands / Fort Baker Plan proposes to 

realign Route 10 through the site.) 

Multiple Golden Gate Transit routes provide regional connections to West Marin 

Stagecoach and Muir Woods Shuttle service at the San Rafael Transit Center, Manzanita 
Appendix E: Descriptions of Local Transit Service 

Volume III: 149 

Park and Ride, Marin City and Sausalito Ferry Terminal. Golden Gate Ferry service from 

San Francisco also serves the latter, making timed connections to Muir Woods Shuttles 

when that service is in operation. 

Golden Gate Transit buses are equipped with exterior bike racks, and fares vary 

according to distance traveled. 

San Francisco MUNI 

The San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI), a division of the San Francisco 

Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), provides limited bus service to the Marin 

Headlands via Route 76. Route 76 operates on hourly headways on Sundays and holidays 

between the San Francisco Caltrain terminus and Fort Cronkite. Within San Francisco, it 

operates via the Montgomery BART station, Union Square district (with its many hotels), 

Van Ness Avenue and Lombard Street, connecting to multiple local MUNI routes. Within 

the Headlands, it operates via Conzelman, McCullough, Bunker and Field roads to 

Battery Alexander, then via Field, Bunker and Mitchell roads to Fort Cronkite and Rodeo 

Cove, serving numerous sites within the Headlands. Most MUNI buses are equipped with 

dual exterior bike racks. Adult cash fare is $1.50. 

Among the recommendations made in 2008 by the SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project 

(TEP), a major proposed revision of MUNI service, was a significant increase in Route 

76 service. While the route would no longer terminate at the Caltrain station, ending 

instead at Montgomery BART, service would be provided every 30 minutes on both 

Saturdays and Sundays. TEP recommendations are currently undergoing environmental 

review, with no firm date set yet for implementation. 

SAN FRANCISCO 

MUNI service is described in general terms in the main body of this document. 

Following are details of routes serving Golden Gate National Recreation Area sites. 

Moving from east to west, and then north to south, park sites and the MUNI routes 

serving them are the following: 

• Aquatic Park and the east side of Fort Mason are served by bus routes 10, 19, 20, 

30, 47 and 49. The Powell & Hyde cable car line terminates a few hundred feet to 

the east, and the F-Market & Wharves historic streetcar line terminates a few 

blocks to the east of that. 

• The west side of Fort Mason is served directly by Route 28, and Routes 22 and 

30 stop a short walk away. 

• The Presidio Main Post is served by routes 29 and 43. Routes 28, 30, 41 and 45 

stop just outside the park’s eastern entrance, the Lombard Gate. 

• Crissy Field is served by Route 29. 

• There is no direct MUNI bus service to Fort Point, although routes 28, 29 and 76 

(on Sundays only) stop above it, at the Golden Gate Bridge. Fort Point can be 

accessed by hiking a few hundred feet downhill. 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 150

• Baker and China beaches are indirectly served by Route 29, which stops a few 

hundred feet away. 

• Lands End is served by Route 18, which terminates at the Palace of the Legion of 

Honor. 

• Fort Miley is served during the day by a branch of Route 38. Evenings, the 

route's main branch stops one block away. 

• Sutro Heights, Sutro Bath, and the Cliff House are served by the busy routes 38 

and 38L, which terminate at 48th Avenue, adjacent to Sutro Heights and a short 

walk from the other two sites. The Cliff House is served directly by Route 18. 

• Ocean Beach encompasses much of San Francisco's coastline, and as such is 

served by multiple MUNI routes, including the N-Judah (near its northern end, 

just south of Golden Gate Park) and L-Taraval (near its southern end, north of the 

San Francisco Zoo) MUNI Metro light rail lines. Bus routes 5, 23, 31, 38 

(southern branch), 48, 71 and 71L also terminate a short walk away from Ocean 

Beach. Route 18 parallels the entire beach, running a few blocks away along 45th 

Avenue for much of its length, and alongside the Great Highway immediately 

adjacent to Ocean Beach for part of it. 

• Fort Funston is served, indirectly, by Route 18, which operates along Skyline 

Boulevard to its east. The peak-only Route 88 also terminates a short distance 

away. 

The Powell & Mason and F-Market & Wharves lines, as well as routes L, N, 5, 10, 19, 

20, 22, 23, 28, 28L, 30, 31, 38, 38L, 41, 45, 48, 49, 71 and 71L, all connect to BART 

stations. Routes N, 10, 30, 45, 47 and 48 connect to Caltrain stations. Routes L, N, 10, 

20, 31, 41, 71 and 71L stop a short walk from the city’s main Ferry Building, and routes 

10 and 47 stop a short walk from ferry landings at Piers 33 and 41 at Fisherman’s Wharf. 

In 2008, an audit of MUNI services, the Transit Effectiveness Project, or TEP, 

recommended changes to MUNI routes that would alternately improve or reduce service 

to park sites. These recommendations, now undergoing environmental review, include 

the following: 

• Elimination of Route 10, replacement of Route 20 with a more frequent Route 

11, and increased capacity on Route 30, using larger buses 

• Realignment of Route 43 through the Presidio Main Post (it now serves the Main 

Post's southeastern corner) 

• Termination of Route 29 near Baker Beach, eliminating service to the Golden 

Gate Bridge (service to the bridge would continue to be provided by Route 28) 

• Realignment of Route 18 so that it would no longer serve the Cliff House / Sutro 

Heights area 

• Increased service on Routes L, N, 38L, 48 and 71L 

• Replacement of Route 18 service on Skyline Boulevard with realigned Route 17 

service 
Appendix E: Descriptions of Local Transit Service 

Volume III: 151 

• A new 29L “super-limited” route operating between Van Ness and North Point, 

near Aquatic Park, and southern San Francisco via Lombard Street, Doyle Drive, 

Park Presidio Boulevard and 19th Avenue. This route was developed partly in 

response to endemic traffic congestion on 19thAvenue. 

SAN MATEO COUNTY 

SamTrans service is generally described in the main body of this document. All 100-

series routes listed below connect to BART stations, 200-series routes connect to Caltrain 

stations, and 300-series routes connect to both. SamTrans buses are equipped with dual 

bike racks, and adult cash fares are $1.75. 

• Routes 14, 16, 17, 110, 112, 121, 123, 140, 294, CX and DX stop near Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area sites adjacent to Pacifica and Montara. Seven of 

those routes, most of them serving suburban areas to the north, converge at a 

“park and ride” lot at the Linda Mar Shopping Center near Pedro Point. Mori 

Point is well-served by the relatively frequent routes 110 and 112, which connect 

to BART stations to the north. Because of its proximity to Skyline College, 

approximately a half-mile away, Milagra Ridge may be the San Mateo County 

park site best-served by transit, as routes 121, 123 and 140, all of which connect 

to the BART stations, all operate relatively frequently seven days a week. 

• In the SFPUC watershed, Route 342 provides access to the Sawyer Camp and 

San Andreas trails, and Route 294 stops near the north trailhead of Crystal 

Springs Trail. However, neither of these routes operates on weekends. 

• The Phleger Estate is inaccessible via public transit. 
Volume III 152 

APPENDIX F: 

DESCRIPTION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TRAILS 

Pedestrian conditions at Golden Gate National Recreation Area sites in San Mateo 

County are described in general terms in the main body of this document. Following are 

details of major trails, moving from north to south: 

• Milagra Ridge features two well-maintained multiuse trails, one of which is 

paved and relatively level, while the other is unpaved and steep. While these 

trails do not connect to other NPS sites, Sweeney Ridge is about one mile to the 

south, and pedestrians can access it from Milagra Ridge via the Skyline College 

campus. The Bay Area Ridge Trail runs through both Milagra Ridge and 

Sweeney Ridge. 

• Sweeney Ridge includes several ridgeline trails with excellent connectivity to 

nearby trails including Baquiano and Mori Ridge. While its trails are scenic, they 

are typically steep and unpaved. Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the 

City of Pacifica recently collaborated on improved access to Cattle Hill / 

Sweeney Ridge at the top of Fassler Avenue. 

• Mori Point provides excellent connectivity to the adjacent beaches via a gradeseparated path. Improvements to the Coastal Trail segment through Mori Point 

were recently completed. 

• Pedro Point trails are not well developed, although a Coastal Trail connection 

through the eastern portion of the site is planned to connect Pacifica with the 

future trailhead at Devils Slide. 

• Rancho Corral de Tierra access is currently on county trails north of Montara 

connecting to McNee Ranch State Park. In the Moss Beach area of the site, trails 

primarily connect to the equestrian facilities or provide trailhead access from 

State Route 1. The site is popular with horseback riders due to three equestrian 

facilities located nearby. There is evidence of illegal motorcycle and four-wheel 

drive truck use. 

• The trails in the SFPUC watershed, along the eastern shores of San Andreas Lake 

and Upper and Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir, are among the most popular on 

the Peninsula. Six miles of the San Andreas and Sawyer Creek trails are paved, 

and feature a striped median, mile markers, restrooms and a lush tree canopy. 

The 10-mile Fifield-Cahill Ridge Trail is managed by the San Francisco Public 

Utilities Commission and is open only by reservation to docent-led tour groups of 

no more than 18 people. 

• Phleger Estate’s steep trails are prohibited to bicyclists and dogs and are popular 

with horseback riders. They are well-marked, well-maintained, and connect to 

about a dozen trails in the area. However, the site is remote relative to other park 

sites in San Mateo County. 

A number of improvements to the San Mateo County trails network, including trails 

through Golden Gate National Recreation Area sites, are planned or have been proposed. 

These include the following: 
Appendix F: Description of San Mateo County Trails 

Volume III: 153 

• Three new multiuse trails are proposed linking San Bruno Mountain to existing 

trails including the Ridge Trail at Milagra Ridge. 

• At Sweeney Ridge, San Mateo County plans to connect the Valley View Trail to 

the Ridge Trail and extend the San Andreas Trail to the Sneath Lane Trail. 

• The Devil’s Slide project will replace the existing Route 1 roadway along a 

segment of coastline plagued by landslides with a multiuse trail extending north 

through Pedro Point to Pacifica State Beach and south to McNee Ranch State 

Park, closing a gap in the California Coastal Trail. This project is under 

construction and is anticipated to be complete by 2011. 

• Connection and extension of the San Andreas, Sawyer Creek and Crystal Springs 

trails is planned in order to create an uninterrupted, nonmotorized, multiuse route 

from the City of San Bruno to the Town of Woodside. Along segments, a parallel 

route for equestrians and hikers would be developed. Multiple projects would 

also improve connectivity from surrounding areas to the SFPUC watershed lands. 

Finally, multiple new trails are proposed around Phleger Estate, including new access 

trails requiring bridges over West Union Creek. 

 
APPENDIXES 

Volume III: 154
Glossary and References 

Volume III 157 

GLOSSARY 

accessibility: Occurs when individuals with disabilities are able to reach, use, understand, 

or appreciate NPS programs, facilities, and services, or to enjoy the same benefits that are 

available to persons without disabilities. 

adaptive management: A system of management practices based on clearly identified 

outcomes, monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if 

not, facilitating management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or are 

re-evaluated as conditions change. Adaptive management recognizes that knowledge 

about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain and is the preferred method of 

management in these cases. (Source: Departmental Manual 516 DM 4.16) 

American Indian tribe: Any band, nation, or other organized group or community of 

Indians, including any Alaska Native Village, which is recognized as eligible for the 

special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their 

status as Indians. 

appropriate use: A use that is suitable, proper, or fitting for a particular park, or to a 

particular location within a park. 

archeology: The scientific study, interpretation, and reconstruction of past human 

cultures from an anthropological perspective based on the investigation of the surviving 

physical evidence of human activity and the reconstruction of related past environments. 

Historic archeology uses historic documents as additional sources of information. 

archeological resource: Any material remains or physical evidence of past human life or 

activities, which are of archeological interest, including the record of the effects of 

human activities on the environment. They are capable of revealing scientific or 

humanistic information through archeological research. 

asset: A physical structure or grouping of structures, land features, or other tangible 

property that has a specific service or function. 

asset management: A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating assets 

cost-effectively by combining engineering principles with sound business practices and 

economic theory. 

backcountry: Primitive, undeveloped portions of parks. 

best management practices (BMPs): Practices that apply the most current means and 

technologies available to not only comply with mandatory environmental regulations, but 

also maintain a superior level of environmental performance. See also, “sustainable 

practices/principles.” 

civic engagement: As a philosophy, a discipline, and a practice, it can be viewed as a 

continuous, dynamic conversation with the public on many levels that reinforces the 

commitment of the National Park Service and the public to the preservation of park 

resources and strengthens understanding of the full meaning and contemporary relevance 

of these resources. Civic engagement is the philosophy of welcoming people into the 

parks and building relationships around a shared stewardship mission, whereas public 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 158

involvement (also called public participation) is the specific, active involvement of the 

public in NPS planning and other decision-making processes. 

conserve: To protect from loss or harm; preserve. Historically, the terms conserve, 

protect, and preserve have come collectively to embody the fundamental purpose of the 

National Park Service—preserving, protecting and conserving the national park system. 

consultation (cultural resources): A discussion, conference, or forum in which advice or 

information is sought or given, or information or ideas are exchanged. Consultation 

generally takes place on an informal basis; formal consultation requirements for 

compliance with section 106 of the NHPA are published in 36 CFR Part 800. 

Consultation with recognized tribes is done on a government-to-government basis. 

cultural landscape: A geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and 

the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or 

person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. There are four general kinds of 

cultural landscape, not mutually exclusive: historic site, historic designed landscape, 

historic vernacular landscape, ethnographic landscape. 

cultural resource: An aspect of a cultural system that is valued by or significantly 

representative of a culture or that contains significant information about a culture. A 

cultural resource may be a tangible entity or a cultural practice. Tangible cultural 

resources are categorized as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects for the 

National Register of Historic Places and as archeological resources, cultural landscapes, 

structures, museum objects, and ethnographic resources for NPS management purposes. 

cumulative actions: Actions that, when viewed with other actions in the past, the present, 

or the reasonably foreseeable future regardless of who has undertaken or will undertake 

them, have an additive impact on the resource the proposal would affect. 

decision maker: The managerial-level employee who has been delegated authority to 

make decisions or to otherwise take an action that would affect park resources or values. 

Most often it refers to the park superintendent or regional director, but may at times 

include, for example, a resource manager, facility manager, or chief ranger to whom 

authority has been redelegated. 

deferred maintenance: Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been, 

and therefore, is delayed. Continued deferment of maintenance results in deficiencies. 

Deferred maintenance is the cost to repair an asset’s deficiencies. 

desired condition: A park’s natural and cultural resource conditions that the National 

Park Service aspires to achieve and maintain over time, and the conditions necessary for 

visitors to understand, enjoy, and appreciate those resources. 

developed area: An area managed to provide and maintain facilities (e.g., roads, 

campgrounds, housing) serving visitors and park management functions. Includes areas 

where park development or intensive use may have substantially altered the natural 

environment or the setting for culturally significant resources. 

economic multiplier effect: An effect in economics in which an increase in spending 

produces an increase in income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. 

For example, if a park builds a new visitor center, it will employ construction workers 

and their suppliers as well as those who work in the visitor center. Indirectly, the new 
Glossary 

Volume III: 159 

visitor center will stimulate employment in restaurants, dry cleaners and service 

industries in the factory's vicinity. 

ecosystem: A system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their 

physical and biological environment, considered as a unit. 

ecosystem management: A collaborative approach to natural and cultural resource 

management that integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationships with 

resource stewardship practices for the goal of sustainable ecological, cultural, and 

socioeconomic systems. 

enabling legislation: The law(s) that establish a park as a unit within the national park 

system. 

environmental assessment (EA): A brief National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

document that is prepared, with public involvement, (a) to help determine whether the 

impact of a proposed action or its alternatives could be significant; (b) to aid the Park 

Service in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act by evaluating a proposal that will have no significant impacts, but may have measurable adverse impacts; or 

(c) as an evaluation of a proposal that is either not described on the list of categorically 

excluded actions, or is on the list, but exceptional circumstances apply. 

environmental impact statement (EIS): A detailed National Environmental Policy Act 

analysis document that is prepared, with extensive public involvement, when a proposed 

action or alternatives have the potential for significant impact on the human environment. 

environmentally preferred alternative (or environmentally preferable alternative): Of 

the action alternatives analyzed, the one that would best promote the policies in section 

101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. This is usually selected by the planning 

team members. The Council on Environmental Quality encourages agencies to identify 

an environmentally preferable alternative in the draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA), but only requires that it be named in the 

Record of Decision (ROD). 

ethnographic resource: A site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource feature 

assigned traditional legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural 

system of a group traditionally associated with it. 

existing infrastructure: The systems, services, and facilities currently in a park unit, 

including buildings, roads, trails, power equipment, water supply, etc. 

final plan: A final plan, or final general management plan, is a document that usually 

includes a discussion of the purpose and need for the plan, a description of NPS mandates 

and policies that affect the park, a description of the preferred alternative (the actual 

plan), a description of appropriate mitigation measures, and relevant appendixes (e.g., 

references, preparers, index). A final general management plan is prepared after the 

Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is approved and 

a notice is published in the Federal Register. It describes only the selected alternative 

without all the accompanying compliance parts included in the environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment. 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 160

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A determination based on an environmental 

assessment and other factors in the public planning record for a proposal that, if 

implemented, would have no significant impact on the human environment. 

facility costs: one-time costs related to a facility, such as the cost associated with building 

or trail. 

fiscal year: from October 1 of one calendar year to September 30 of the following 

calendar year. 

foundation statement (Foundation): A statement that begins a park’s planning process 

and sets the stage for all future planning and decision making by identifying the park’s 

mission, purpose, significance, special mandates and the broad, parkwide mission goals. 

This are incorporated into a park’s general management plan, but a foundation statement 

may also be produced as a stand-alone document for a park. 

FTE (Full time equivalent): A computed number of employees, representing the number 

of full-time employees that could have been employed if the reported number of hours 

worked by part time employees had been worked by full-time employees. For example, 

two half-time employees equal one FTE. 

fundamental resources and values: Those features, systems, processes, experiences, 

stories, scenes, sounds, smells, or other attributes determined to warrant primary 

consideration during planning and management because they are critical to achieving the 

park’s purpose and maintaining its significance. A fundamental value, unlike a tangible 

resource, refers to a process, force, story, or experience, such as such as an island experience, the ancestral homeland, wilderness values, or oral histories. 

gateway community: A community that exists in close proximity to a unit of the national 

park system whose residents and elected officials are often affected by the decisions 

made in the course of managing the park, and whose decisions may affect the resources 

of the park. Because of this, there are shared interests and concerns regarding decisions. 

Gateway communities usually offer food, lodging, and other services to park visitors. 

They also provide opportunities for employee housing, and a convenient location to 

purchase goods and services essential to park administration. 

general management plan (GMP): A plan that clearly defines direction for resource 

preservation and visitor use in a park, and serves as the basic foundation for decision 

making. General management plans are developed with broad public involvement. 

geologic resources: Features produced from the physical history of the earth, or 

processes such as exfoliation, erosion and sedimentation, glaciation, karst or shoreline 

processes, seismic, and volcanic activities. 

golden gate: A strait in western California located between the Marin Headland as and 

Fort Point, which connects the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay. Discovered in 1579 

by Sir Francis Drake, it was known as the Golden Gate long before the name gained 

popularity during the gold rush of 1849. The Golden Gate Bridge, which spans the strait, 

was completed in 1937. 

HABS/HAER/HALS: HABS is the Historic American Buildings Survey, the federal 

government's oldest preservation program; companion programs are HAER (Historic 

American Engineering Record), and HALS (Historic American Landscapes Survey). 
Glossary 

Volume III: 161 

Documentation produced through the programs constitutes the nation's largest archive of 

historic architectural, engineering, and landscape documentation. 

historic property: A district, site, structure, or landscape significant in American history, 

architecture, engineering, archeology, or culture; an umbrella term for all entries eligible 

for or included in the National Register of Historic Places. 

human environment: Defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as the 

natural and physical environment, and the relationship of people with that environment. 

Although the socioeconomic environment receives less emphasis than the physical or 

natural environment in the CEQ regulations, the National Park Service considers it to be 

an integral part of the human environment. 

impact: The likely effect of an action or proposed action upon specific natural, cultural or 

socioeconomic resources. Impacts may be direct, indirect, individual, cumulative, 

beneficial, or adverse. 

impact topics: Specific natural, cultural, or socioeconomic resources that would be 

affected by the proposed action or alternatives (including no action). The magnitude, 

duration, and timing of the effect to each of these resources are evaluated in the impact 

section of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. 

impairment: An impact that, in the professional judgment of a responsible NPS manager, 

would harm the integrity of park resources or values and violate the 1916 NPS Organic 

Act’s mandate that park resources and values remain unimpaired. 

implementation plan: A plan that focuses on how to implement an activity or project 

needed to achieve a long-term goal. An implementation plan may direct a specific project 

or an ongoing activity. 

indicators of user capacity: Specific, measurable physical, ecological, or social variables 

that can be measured to track changes in conditions caused by public use, so that progress 

toward attaining the desired conditions can be assessed . 

issue: Some point of debate that needs to be decided. For general management planning 

purposes, issues can be divided into “major questions to be answered by the general 

management plan” (also referred to as the decision points of the general management 

plan) and the “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues” (usually 

environmental problems related to one or more of the planning alternatives). 

management concept: A brief, statement of the kind of place the park should be (a 

“vision” statement). 

management zone: A geographical area for which management directions have been 

developed to determine what can and cannot occur in terms of resource management, 

visitor use, access, facilities or development, and park operations. Each zone has a unique 

combination of resource and social conditions and a consistent management direction. 

Different actions are taken by the National Park Service in different zones. 

management zoning: The application of management zones to a park unit. The 

application of different type of zones and/or size of zones will likely vary in different 

alternatives. 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 162

mitigation: A modification of a proposal to lessen the intensity of its impact on a 

particular resource. Actions can be taken to avoid, reduce, or compensate for the effects 

of environmental damage. 

mobile combustion: A source of greenhouse gases generated by combustion of fossil 

fuels in highway (cars, trucks, buses), off-road (construction, agricultural), water-borne, 

rail and air vehicles. 

manager: The managerial-level employee who has authority to make decisions or to 

otherwise take an action that would affect park resources or values. Most often, it refers 

to the park superintendent or regional director, but may at times include, for example, a 

resource manager, facility manager, or chief ranger to whom authority has been 

redelegated. 

museum object: A material thing possessing functional, aesthetic, cultural, symbolic, 

and/or scientific value, usually movable by nature or design. Museum objects include 

prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, works of art, archival material, and natural 

history specimens that are part of a museum collection. Structural components may be 

designated museum objects when removed from their associated structures. 

National Park Service Organic Act: The 1916 law (and subsequent amendments) that 

created the National Park Service and assigned it responsibility for management of the 

national parks. 

national park system: The sum total of the land and water now or hereafter administered 

by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service for park, monument, 

historic, parkway, recreational or other purposes. 

Native American: Pertaining to American Indian tribes or groups, Eskimos and Aleuts, 

and Native Hawaiians, Samoans, Chamorros, and Carolinians of the Pacific Islands. 

Groups recognized by the federal and state governments and named groups with longterm social and political identities who are defined by themselves and others as Indian are 

included. 

NEPA process: The objective analysis of a proposed action to determine the degree of its 

impact on the natural, physical, and human environment; alternatives and mitigation that 

reduce that impact; and the full and candid presentation of the analysis to, and 

involvement of, the interested and affected public—as required of federal agencies by the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

non-facility costs: one-time costs not related to a facility, such as the cost of restoration 

of a landscape. 

one-time costs: This term refers to the costs to perform a one-time action, such as 

construct, rehabilitate, or demolish a facility; and can include other project costs. Onetime costs can also include non-facility costs, such as restoring a landscape. 

ONPS (Operations of the National Park Service) Funds: funding that is provided for the 

day-to-day operations of parks including Golden Gate National Recreation Area and 

Muir Woods National Monument. 

park partner: any state or local government (or subdivision thereof), public or private 

agency, organization, institution, corporation, individual, or other entity which is engaged 
Glossary 

Volume III: 163 

in helping to ensure the protection, enhancement and enjoyment of the park's natural, 

cultural and recreation heritage. 

Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) System: An online database 

designed to facilitate the project management process in conservation planning and 

environmental impact analysis. It assists NPS employees in making informed decisions 

with regard to a number of compliance issues throughout the planning, design, and 

construction process. 

policy level issues: The potential for some resources or values to be detrimentally 

affected by discretionary management decisions intended to achieve conditions consistent 

with the park’s purpose. 

potential boundary modifications: The description of areas or resources that meet 

criteria for boundary adjustments, along with the rationale for an adjustment. 

preferred alternative: The alternative an NPS decision maker has identified as preferred 

at the draft EIS stage. It is identified to show the public which alternative is likely to be 

selected to help focus its comments. 

preserve: To protect from loss or harm; conserve. Historically, the terms preserve, protect 

and conserve have come collectively to embody the fundamental purpose of the National 

Park Service—preserving, protecting and conserving the national park system. 

preservation (cultural resources): The act or process of applying measures to sustain the 

existing form, integrity, and material of a historic structure, landscape or object. Work 

may include preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, but generally 

focuses upon the ongoing preservation maintenance and repair of historic materials and 

features rather than extensive replacement and new work. 

primary interpretive themes: The most important ideas or concepts to be communicated 

to the public about a park. 

professional judgment: A decision or opinion that is shaped by study and analysis and 

full consideration of all the relevant facts, and that takes into account 

• the decision maker’s education, training, and experience 

• advice or insights offered by subject matter experts and others who have relevant 

knowledge and experience 

• good science and scholarship; and, whenever appropriate, 

• the results of civic engagement and public involvement activities relating to the 

decision. 

public involvement (also called public participation): The active involvement of the 

public in NPS planning and decision-making processes. Public involvement occurs on a 

continuum that ranges from providing information and building awareness, to partnering 

in decision making. 

projected implementation costs: A projection of the probable range of recurring annual 

costs, initial one-time costs, and life-cycle costs of plan implementation. 

purpose: The specific reason(s) for establishing a particular park. 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 164

Record of Decision (ROD): The document that is prepared to substantiate a decision 

based on an environmental impact statement (EIS). It includes a statement of the decision 

made, a detailed discussion of decision rationale, and the reasons for not adopting all 

mitigation measures analyzed, if applicable. 

scoping : Internal National Park Service decision making on issues, alternatives, 

mitigative measures, the analysis boundary, appropriate level of documentation, lead and 

cooperating agency roles, available references and guidance, defining purpose and need, 

and so forth. External scoping is the early involvement of the stakeholders, interested 

individuals and organizations, local societies, environmental groups, park visitors, etc. 

significance: Statements of why, within a national, regional, and systemwide context, the 

park’s resources and values are important enough to warrant national park designation. 

soundscape (natural): The aggregate of all the natural, nonhuman-caused sounds that 

occur in parks, together with the physical capacity for transmitting natural sounds. 

special mandates: Legal mandates specific to the park that expand upon or contradict a 

park’s legislated purpose. 

stakeholders: Individuals and organizations that are actively involved in the project, or 

whose interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of the project 

execution /completion. They may also exert influence over the project and its results. For 

GMP planning purposes, the term stakeholder includes NPS offices/staff as well as public 

and private sector partners and the public, which may have varying levels of 

involvement. 

standards: The minimum acceptable condition for an indicator of a desired condition. 

superintendent: The senior onsite NPS official in a park. Used interchangeably with 

“park superintendent,” “park manager,” or “unit manager.” 

sustainable design: Design that applies the principles of ecology, economics, and ethics 

to the business of creating necessary and appropriate places for people to visit, live in, 

and work. Development that has a sustainable design sits lightly upon the land, 

demonstrates resource efficiency, and promotes ecological restoration and integrity, thus 

improving the environment, the economy, and society. 

sustainable practices/principles(also sustainability): Those choices, decisions, actions 

and ethics that will best achieve ecological/ biological integrity; protect qualities and 

functions of air, water, soil, and other aspects of the natural environment; and preserve 

human cultures. Sustainable practices allow for use and enjoyment by the current 

generation, while ensuring that future generations will have the same opportunities. 

visitor: Anyone who physically visits a park for recreational, educational or scientific 

purposes, or who otherwise uses a park’s interpretive and educational services, regardless 

of where such use occurs (e.g., via Internet access, library, etc.). 

user capacity (also called carrying capacity): The types and levels of visitor and other 

public use that can be accommodated while sustaining the desired resource conditions 

and visitor experiences that complement the purpose of the park. The National Park 

Service has adopted this term in preference of the term visitor capacity, which does not 

include all public use. 
Glossary 

Volume III: 165 

visitor experience: The perceptions, feelings, and reactions a person has while visiting a 

park. Examples of visitor experiences include a sense of being immersed in a natural 

landscape; a feeling of being crowded; a feeling of being in an area where the sights and 

sounds of people and vehicles are predominant; having a sense of challenge and 

adventure; or a perception of solitude and privacy. 

warming hut: Local term for a visitor facility that was pioneered at Crissy Field. Used in 

this general management plan to indicate a modest structure providing comfortable 

shelter and a range of services which may include park orientation, limited food and 

beverage, limited retail, and restrooms. 

zone: See “management zone.” 
Volume III 166 

REFERENCES 

Acosta, S. & J. Thayer, PRBO Conservation Science, and W. Merkle& S. Bishop 

2008 Ecological Study of Seabirds on Alcatraz Island, 2008. Final Report to 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area. U. S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service. 

American Public Transportation Association 

2008 2008 Public Transportation Fact Book. Washington, DC: American Public 

Transportation Association. 

Archaeological and Historical Consultants 

2007 Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their 

Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. Randall Milliken, Laurence H. 

Shoup, and Beverly R. Ortiz. Prepared for National Park Service, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Oakland, California. October 

Draft. 

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 

2007 “Projections 2007.”

http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/currentfcst/summary1.html

2008 “San Francisco Bay Housing Needs Plan 2007-2014” 

Auwaerter, J. & J. F. Sears 

2006 Historic Resource Study for Muir Woods National Monument. Report for the 

National Park Service. Boston: Olmsted Center for Landscape 

Preservation. 

California Department of Finance 

2009 Information extracted from “Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity for 

California and Its Counties 2000-2050.” Also available on the Internet 

at http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/p-1/ 

California Department of Transportation 

2008 “2008 Traffic Volumes.” Available on the Internet at http://trafficcounts.dot.ca.gov/ 

California State Parks, Planning Division 

2005 The Health and Social Benefits of Recreation: An Element of the California 

Outdoor Recreation Planning Program. Sacramento, California. 

 
References 

Volume III: 167 

California Water Authority 

2004 “San Francisco Hydrologic Region; Downtown San Francisco Groundwater 

Basin.” California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Accessed April 27, 

2009 at 

http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/b

asins/pdfs_desc/2-40.pdf 

Cayan, D., M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, H. Hidalgo, T. Das, E. Maurer, P. Bromirski, N. 

Graham, and R. Flick. 

2009 “Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for California: 

2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment.’ California Climate 

Change Center. CEC‐500‐2009‐014‐F. 

Center for Disease Control, Task Force on Community Preventive Services 

2001 “Increasing Physical Activity: A Report on Recommendations of the Task 

Force on Community Preventive Services.” 

Elder, William P. 

n.d. Geology of the Golden Gate Headlands, National Park Service, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area. Downloaded at 

http://www.nps.gov/goga/forteachers/geology-resources.htm 

Francis, M., FASLA 

2006 “Urban Parks as Community Places,” Presentation at Chuncheon G5 

Symposium, Chuncheon, Korea, University of California-Davis. 

Fong, D. 

2000 “Winter 1998-2000 Frog Breeding Survey, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area.” Prepared for Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 

Division of Resource Management. 

Godbe Research and Analysis 

2002 “Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan Intercept Interviews.” 

Unpublished technical report available at Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. San Francisco, California: Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Planning Division. 

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy 

2007 Parks for all Forever, 2007 Report to the Community. San Francisco, 

California: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy.

Hall, T. E. 

2009 Muir Woods National Monument State of the Parks Natural Resources 

Assessment; Report Prepared for the National Parks Conservation 

Association Center for State of the Parks. 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 168

Heady, P. A. and W.F. Frick 

2004 Bat Inventory of Muir Woods National Monument (Final Report). Prepared 

by Central Coast Bat Research Group. 

Heberger, M., H. Cooley, P. Herrera, P. Glick, and E. Moore. 

2009 The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast. A report for the 

California Climate Change Center, prepared by the Pacific Institute. 

CEC-500-2009-024-F. Oakland, CA. 

Howell, J.T. et al. 

n.d. “Mammal Survey of Muir Woods.” 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

2007 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, 

II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and 

Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp 

Kelly, E. G., E. D, Forsman, and R. G. Anthony 

2003 “Are Barred Owls Displacing Spotted Owls?” The Condor 105: 45-53. 

Knight, R.L. and K. J. Gutzwiller (editors) 

1995 Wildlife & Recreationists, Co-existence through Management and 

Research. Island Press. 

Lendvay, J. M. and T. L. Benning 

2004 Health Assessment of Redwood Creek Watershed, February - May, 2004.

Unpublished Report. San Francisco: University of San Francisco, 

Department of Environmental Science. 

Lewis, Emanuel Raymond 

1990 Seacoast Fortifications of the United States: An Introductory History.

Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company.

MacFarlane, B. 

2000 Personal communication between Darren Fong, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Aquatic Ecologist, and Dr. Bruce MacFarlane, 

National Marine Fisheries Service-Southwest Fisheries Science Center. 

2002 Personal communication between Darren Fong, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Aquatic Ecologist, and Dr. Bruce MacFarlane, 

National Marine Fisheries Service-Southwest Fisheries Science Center. 

Madej, M. 

1989 Analysis of USGS Water Quality Data Marin Headlands GGNRA 1986-

1988. Redwood National Park, Arcata, California. Prepared for 

National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

Manning, R. 
References 

Volume III: 169 

2009 Descriptive Results of Visitor Counts at Indicator Points in Muir Woods 

and on Alcatraz Island (Draft). Prepared by the University of Vermont, 

Park Studies Lab for the National Park Service, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area.

2007 Park Use and Users of San Mateo County Units of Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. Prepared by the University of Vermont, Park Studies 

Lab for the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area. 

Manning, R., M. Budruk, W. Valliere, and J. Hallo 

n.d. Research to Support Visitor Management at Muir Woods National Monument 

and Muir Beach, Study Completion Report. Prepared by the University 

of Vermont, Park Studies Lab for the National Park Service, Muir 

Woods National Monument. 

Manning, R., W. Valliere, C. Van Riper, and L. Anderson 

2007 Research to Support Visitor Management at Alcatraz Island, A Replication 

and Extension, Study Completion Report. Prepared by the University of 

Vermont, Parks Studies Lab for the National Park Service, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area.

Marion, J. 

2008 “Guidance for Managing Informal Trails.” Paper presented at the American 

Trails 19th National Trails Symposium, November 2008. 

Martin, L. 

2000 Hydrogeology of the Muir Beach Community Services District Well Site 

Frank Valley, Redwood Creek, California, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. Ft. Collins, CO: National Park Service Water 

Resources Division Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2000/265. 

McBride, J. and D. Jacobs 

1978 The History of the Vegetation of the Muir Woods National Monument. 

Prepared for the National Park Service, San Francisco, California. 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission 

2008 “Travel Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area 2009 Regional 

Transportation Plan Vision 2035 Analysis Data Summary.” Oakland, 

California: Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 

National Marine Sanctuaries and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

2006 Joint Management Plan Review, Draft Actions and the Joint Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement Cordell Bank, Gulf of Farallones, and 

Monterey Bay. 

 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 170

National Parks Conservation Association 

2008 Alcatraz Island: National Historic Landmark Cultural Resource Assessment, 

by Patrick J. King.

National Park Service 

1973 Historic Structure Report – Fort Point, Historic Data Section, by Edwin C. 

Bearss. 

1976 Western Regional Office. The Presidio of San Francisco, 1776-1976: A 

Collection of Historical Source Materials. 

1979a Historic Resource Study – Forts Baker, Barry, Cronkhite of Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, by Erwin N. Thompson. 

1979b Historic Resource Study – Seacoast Fortifications, San Francisco Harbor, 

by Erwin N. Thompson. 

1979c Historic Resource Study – The Rock: A History of Alcatraz Island, by 

Erwin N. Thompson. 

1979d Historic Structure Report – U.S. Army, San Francisco Port of Embarkation 

Headquarters, FM-201, Historical and Architectural Data Sections,

Fort Mason, by David E. Snow and Erwin N. Thompson.

1980a Golden Gate National Recreation Area & Point Reyes National Seashore 

General Management Plan and Environmental Analysis. 

1980b Historic Resource Study – A Civil History of Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore, California, by 

Anna Coxe Toogood. 2 vols. 

1980c Historic Structure Report – Historical and Architectural Data Sections, 

Civil War Barracks, Bldg. FM-240, Fort Mason, by Norma T. 

Camarena and Erwin N. Thompson. 

1980d Historic Structure Report – Western Grounds, Old Parade Ground, and 

MacArthur Avenue, Fort Mason. 

1985 “Alcatraz Island; La Isla de Los Alcatraces; Fort Alcatraz; The Post at 

Alcatraz; Pacific Branch, U.S. Military Prison; U.S. Disciplinary 

Barracks, Alcatraz Island; United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz 

Island,” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Inventory – 

Nomination Form, by Stephen A. Haller. 

1989 Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment – Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

and Point Reyes National Seashore, by James P. Delgado and Stephen 

A. Haller. 

1990 Historic Resource Study – The Top of the Peninsula: A History of Sweeney 

Ridge and the San Francisco Watershed Lands, San Mateo County, 

California, by Marianne Babal. 

1991 Draft Aquatic/Water Resources Management Plan. Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area.
References 

Volume III: 171 

1992a Historic Resource Study – El Presidio de San Francisco, A History under 

Spain and Mexico, 1776-1846, by John Phillip Langelier and Daniel 

Bernard Rosen. 

1992b Special History Study – Presidio of San Francisco, An Outline of Its 

Evolution as a U.S. Army Post, 1847-1990, by Erwin N. Thompson and 

Sally B. Woodbridge. 

1992c Statement for Management, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

1994 Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection Management Plan. 

1997a Historic Resource Study – Defender of the Gate: The Presidio of San 

Francisco: A History from 1846 to 1995, by Erwin N. Thompson. 2 

vols.

1997b Golden Gate National Recreation Area Scope of Collection Statement. 

1999a Fort Baker Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. San Francisco, 

California: Golden Gate National Parks. 

1999b Resources Management Plan. Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

1999c Seacoast Fortifications Manual, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 

San Francisco, California, by Stephen A. Haller, David M. Hansen, 

John A. Martini, and Karen J. Weitze. San Francisco, California: 

Prepared by National Park Service and KEA Environmental. 

2001 Alcatraz Island Historic Preservation and Safety Construction Program: 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

2002a Special History Study – Fort Mason, The Undiscovered Crossroads, by 

Rudy Higgens-Evenson. 

2002b The Park That Makes Its Own Weather: An Administrative History of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, by Hal K. Rothman. Rev. 

2004a “Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GOGA) Cultural Landscape 

Inventory Assessment.”Memorandum from Pacific West Region, 

Cultural Landscapes Inventory Coordinator to Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, Branch Chief, Cultural Resources. 

2004b Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mason, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area: Site History, Existing Conditions and Analysis, by 

Amy Hoke and Eliot Foulds, Olmsted Center for Landscape 

Preservation. 

2005a Fire Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area. 

2005b “National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory: Alcatraz Island, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area.” 

2005c “National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory: Point Bonita 

Historic District, Golden Gate National Recreation Area.” 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 172

2005d “Archaeological Sensitivity Model, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area/Point Reyes National Seashore.” 

2005e “Golden Gate National Recreation Area: Summary of Indian-Related 

Matters,” by Paul Scolari. 

2006a San Francisco Bay Area Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/SFAN/NRR—2006/017. Sausalito, California: 

San Francisco Bay Area Network. Contributing authors: Dawn Adams, 

Sarah Allen, Jennifer Bjork, Mary Cooprider, Amy Fesnock, Marcus 

Koenen, Tom Leatherman, Susan O'Neil, David Press, David 

Schirokauer, Brad Welch, and Brian Witcher. 

2006b “Muir Woods National Monument; Muir Woods National Monument 

Historic District,” National Register of Historic Places Registration 

Form by John Auwaerter. 

2007a “Draft Coastal Watershed Assessment,” unpublished. 

2007b Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and 

Management Plan, Marin County, California, DRAFT Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

2007c Climate Change Action Plan for Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

2007d Foundation Statement – Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir 

Woods National Monument, Fort Point National Historic Site. Denver, 

CO: Golden Gate National Recreation Area Denver Service Center. 

GMP Planning Team. 

2007e “Ohlones and Coast Miwoks.” Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

website: http://www.nps.gov/goga/historyculture/ohlones-and-coastmiwoks.htm; accessed May 9, 2007. 

2007f “San Francisco Bay Seacoast Defenses, 1776-1974.” Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area website: 

http://www.nps.gov/goga/historyculture/seacoast-defenses.htm; 

accessed May 9, 2007. 

2008a Golden Gate National Recreation Area 2008 Visitor Survey Card Data 

Report. Report prepared by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit 

for the National Park Service. http://psu.uidaho.edu/files/vsc/reports/ 

2008b Paleontological Resource inventory and Monitoring for the San Francisco 

Bay Area Network (SFAN). Compiled by Michelle O’Herron. 

2009a Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. San 

Francisco, CA: 

2009b “Draft Case Statement for General Management Plan: Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Museum Collections,” by Abby Sue Fisher. 

2009c “List of Classified Structures, Golden Gate National Recreation Area.” 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area website: 
References 

Volume III: 173 

http://www.hscl.cr.nps.gov/insidenps/search.asp; accessed 

February 3, 2009.

2009d “Public Use Statistics.: National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office. 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/ 

n.d. “Seacoast Fortifications” – Draft National Historic Landmark Nomination 

(Significance) by Stephen A. Haller. 

National Park Service and Marin County 

2002 Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan.

2007 Wetland and Creek Restoration at Big Lagoon, Muir Beach, Marin County. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. 

Report SCHB#2004042143. 

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 

2008a “Muir Woods Shuttle Alternatives.” San Francisco, California. 

2008b “Muir Woods Shuttle Evaluation.” San Francisco, California. 

2009 “Transportation Planning to Address Access and Congestion Issues – Muir 

Woods National Monument. San Francisco, California. 

Newman, Peter, Robert Manning, and Kurt Fristrup 

2008 “Managing Soundscapes in National Parks: An Adaptive Management 

Approach in Muir Woods National Monument, California.” 

Presentation at Fourth International Conference on Monitoring and 

Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, 

Montecatini Terme, Italy, October 14-19, 2008. Presentation on file at 

Muir Woods. 

Newman, P. and V. McCusker 

2009 Memo to File: Information for Choosing Muir Woods Indicators Regarding 

Soundscapes. Colorado State University and NPS Natural Sounds 

Program. April 9, 2009. 

Orca Consulting 

2008 “Visitation Capacity Planning for Public Venues.” Presentation given by Al 

Shacklett and Bob Lamb at the User Capacity Symposium in Yosemite 

National Park on February 6, 2008. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/UCS%20Final%20Presenta

tion%20Shacklett%20and%20Lamb.pdf. 

Overpeck, Jonathan T., Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Gifford H. Miller, Daniel R. Muhs, 

Richard B. Alley, and Jeffrey T. Kiehl 

2006 “Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid SeaLevel Rise.” Science 24 March 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1747–

1750. 

Pacific Watershed Associates 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 174

2002 “S.B. 271 Watershed Assessment and Erosion Prevention Planning Project 

for the Redwood Creek Watershed, Marin County, California.” 

Prepared for Muir Beach Community Services District and CA DFG 

Pendleton, Thieler, and Williams 

2005 Coastal Vulnerability Assessment Of Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

to Sea-level Rise. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2005-1058. 

Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. 

1995 Analysis of Land Use Impacts on Water Quality and Quantity in Redwood 

Creek. Prepared for The National Park Service, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area.

2000 The Feasibility of Restoring Floodplain and Riparian Ecosystem Processes 

on the Banducci Site, Redwood Creek. Prepared for Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California.

2003 Big Lagoon Wetland and Creek Restoration Project, Muir Beach, 

California, Part I. Site Analysis Report. Prepared for the National Park 

Service.

Rathbun, G.B., M.R. Jennings, T.G. Murphey, and N.R. Sipel 

1993 Status and Ecology of Sensitive Aquatic Vertebrates in Lower San Simeon 

and Pico Creeks, San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, San Simeon, CA. 

Prepared for the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 103 

pp.

Robert Peccia & Associates 

2004a “Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan for Parklands in 

Southwestern Marin; Existing Conditions.” Technical Memorandum. 

Helena, Montana. 

2004b “2004 Summer Traffic Counting Summary.” Helena, Montana.

Roberts, N. S. 

2007 Visitor/Non-Visitor Use Constraints: Exploring Ethnic Minority Experiences 

and Perpectives. General Technical Report, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, National Park Service. San Francisco, California: San 

Francisco State University. 

Saenz, B.L., J. A. Thayer, W. J. Sydeman, and D. A. Hatch 

2006 “An Urban Success Story: Breeding Seabirds on Alcatraz Island, California, 

1990–2002.” Marine Ornithology 34: 43–49. 

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 

2009 Service Standards Report, 2nd Quarter, Fiscal Year 2009. San Francisco, 

California. 
References 

Volume III: 175 

San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWCB) 

1995 Basin Plan. San Francisco, California. 

San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWCB) 

2009 “303 d List approved by EPA on June 27, 2008.” Accessed at 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303d

lists2006/epa/r2_06_303d_reqtmdls.pdf. 

San Francisco State University, Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

2005 Draft San Mateo County National Parklands Historic Resource Study. 

Schrank, David, and Tim Lomax 

2007 The 2007 Urban Mobility Report. College Station, Texas: Texas 

Transportation Institute.

Sherer, P. M. 

2006 The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More Parks and Open Space.

The Trust for Public Land. 

Sheffield, E. 

2008 “GMP Literature Review and Synthesis, Key Findings: Social Science 

Research at Golden Gate.” Draft report provided at the request of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, National Park Service. San 

Francisco, California. 

Suzanne Stewart and Adrian Praetzellis, editors 

2003 Archaeological Research Issues for the Point Reyes National SeashoreGolden Gate National Recreation Area. Prepared for the National Park 

Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Rohnert Park, 

California: Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University. 

Stillwater Sciences 

2004 Sediment Budget for Redwood Creek Watershed, Marin County, California. 

Prepared for Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

2005 “Chapter 1: Watershed Characterization (Draft).” In Redwood Creek 

Watershed Assessment. Prepared for Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area. 

Tierney, P. 

2004 “Visitor Characteristics and Opinions: Mori Point and Sweeney Ridge areas, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area.” Unpublished research report 

available from the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. San 

Francisco, California. 

2007 “Trail Use and Strategies to Reduce Social Trails; Point Bonita and North 

Rodeo Beach Study Areas, Headlands District, Golden Gate National 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 176

Recreation Area.” Unpublished research report available from the 

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, San Francisco, California.

United States Census Bureau 

2008 “2005-2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates.” 

2009 Information extracted from “County Population Estimates, July 1, 2008.” 

Available on the Internet at 

http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2008-01.html.

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

2005 “Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for 

Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steehead 

in California; Final Rule.” Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 170, Friday, 

September 2, 2005. 

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

2006 “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule 

Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine 

Ranching Activities; Final Rule.” Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 71, 

Thursday, April 13, 2006. 

Winter, P.L., W.C. Jeong, and G.C. Godby 

2004 “Outdoor Recreation Among Asian Americans: A case study of San 

Francisco Bay Area Residents.” Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration, 22 (3), pp. 114-136.

Weeks, D. P 

2006 Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California: Water Resources 

Foundation Report. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/348. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Water 

Resources Division, Denver, Colorado. 

Weiss, S.B., N. Schaefer, and R. Branciforte 

2008 The San Francisco Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals, Methodology, and 

Vegetation Representation Analysis. 98 pp. 
Index to Volume III

Volume III 179 

INDEX TO VOLUME III 

Bay Area Ridge Trail, 125, 150 

California Coastal Trail, 51, 58, 106, 108, 116, 151 

Carbon Footprint, 39, 60 

Cattle Hill, 58, 150 

Climate Change, 83 

Conzelman, 147 

Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, 118, 119 

Fort Baker, 39, 42, 45, 46, 56, 57, 84, 95, 100, 106, 146 

Fort Barry, 95, 112 

Fort Cronkhite, 25, 95 

Fort Funston, 25, 148 

Fort Mason or Upper Fort Mason, 57, 68, 118, 147, 168 

Fort Miley, 96, 148 

Fort Point National Historic Site, 85, 97, 112 

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, 48, 51, 58, 84, 87, 88, 106, 165 

Gulf of the Farallones, 39, 80, 113, 168 

Highway 101, 56, 105, 106, 124, 146 

Kent Canyon, 62 

Lower Redwood Creek, 25, 40, 61, 62, 107 

McNee Ranch State Park, 150, 151 

Milagra Ridge, 149, 150, 151 

Mori Point, 58, 108, 149, 150 

Mount Tamalpais State Park, 17, 45, 48, 60, 63, 115 

Muir Beach, 56, 76, 81, 107, 111, 167, 172 

Native Americans, 31, 74, 79, 80, 83, 128, 160 

Oakwood Valley, 99 

Ocean Beach, 5, 25, 148 

Park Collections, 45, 64 

Pedro Point, 58, 121, 149, 150, 151 

Phleger Estate, 100, 149, 150, 151 

Picardo Ranch, 25 

Presidio of San Francisco, 57, 95, 105, 169 

Rancho Corral de Tierra, 25, 100, 150 

Redwood Creek, 13, 17, 39, 42, 44, 45, 60, 61, 63, 88, 107, 110, 111, 172 
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 

Volume III: 180 

San Andreas, 149, 150, 151 

San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, 45, 57, 83, 85, 113, 118 

San Francisco Peninsula Watershed or San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

Peninsula Watershed Easement, 42, 122 

Sawyer Camp, 149 

Skyline Boulevard, 148 

Slide Ranch, 47 

Sneath Lane, 151 

State Route 1, 57, 121, 150 

Stinson Beach, 25, 56, 81, 99, 107, 146 

Sweeney Ridge, 99, 150, 151, 168 

Tennessee Valley, 25, 76, 99 
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our 

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

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values 

of our national parks and historic places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. 

The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is 

in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The 

department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who 

live in island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS 641/108779; NPS 112/108782; August 2011/Printed on recycled paper.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area • Muir Woods National Monument 

Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

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