Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 3

Volume I: 101

INTRODUCTION

While three different concepts for management are presented in the three action 

alternatives described in this document, there is some overarching management direction 

that will continue to guide the park and monument, regardless of the alternative selected. 

Some of these actions have developed through time from the founding principles of the 

park and monument; some are currently underway; and some are required by law or 

policy. The actions discussed in this section will occur regardless of the management 

alternative selected. 

The following topics are included in this section:

• 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 
Volume 1: 102

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

The 1978 National Parks and Recreation Act (16 USC 1a-7) requires general 

management plans to address potential modifications to park boundaries. Park boundaries 

are often initially drawn to reflect a wide range of practical considerations, and they do 

not necessarily reflect natural or cultural resource features, administrative considerations, 

or changing land uses. Current or potential changes in adjacent land uses could pose 

threats to park resources and limit the staff’s ability to strengthen the fundamental 

resources that support the park purpose and significance.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument are part of a 

larger area of protected open space in the Bay Area. The natural and cultural resources of 

the park would face a greater threat if not for the many other open space areas that 

contribute to the integrity of coastal ecosystems, scenic beauty, recreational 

opportunities, and the preservation of historic resources.

GOALS

The potential park boundary modifications would be guided by the following three major 

goals:

• Strengthen the diversity of park settings and opportunities supporting the park 

purpose to encourage, attract, and welcome diverse current and future populations 

while maintaining the integrity of the park’s natural and cultural resources.

• Strengthen the integrity and resilience of coastal ecosystems by filling habitat gaps, 

creating habitat links, providing for the recovery of special status species and the 

survival of wide-ranging wildlife. In addition, boundary modifications would restore 

natural processes and ecosystem capacity to respond to the effects of climate change. 

Boundary adjustments would be guided by science-based approaches that build on 

the goals of cooperative regional efforts. 

• Preserve nationally important natural and cultural resources related to the park’s 

purpose. 

In addition to following this guidance, the park staff would play a partnership role in 

regional land and marine area protection efforts. This role includes coordinating and 

developing multiple strategies with adjacent public land managers and open space 

organizations when land acquisition goals and objectives can be shared. 

Any proposed boundary changes would be critically evaluated to confirm that such 

actions contribute to achieving the park’s mission and resource protection goals and that 

the park is not accepting undue management burdens. Proposed land acquisitions must be 

feasible to administer considering their size, configuration, costs, and ownership. In 

addition, changes could be made if the land acquired was needed to address operational 

and management issues, such as visitor access, or to have logical and identifiable 

boundaries. The potential boundary modifications would continue to be made with 
Boundary Adjustments

Volume I: 103

regional collaboration in mind, while working to strengthen and protect the park’s 

natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic resources.

PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

In compliance with federal law (PL 95-625, and PL 101-628) and National Park Service 

Management Policies 2006, the park has evaluated six properties using the three 

established criteria for inclusion within the official boundary. The lands and waters 

proposed here for inclusion within the park boundary either 

1. include significant resources or opportunities for public enjoyment related to the 

purposes of the park; or 

2. address operational and management issues such as access and boundary 

identification by topographic or other natural features or roads; or 

3. protect park resources critical to fulfilling park purposes.

The planning team also has 

• determined that the areas are feasible to administer; 

• determined that other alternatives for management and resource protection are not 

adequate; 

• consulted affected agencies and others; and

• estimated acquisition costs, if any.

Descriptions of the proposed boundary adjustments and evaluations of how they meet the 

criteria and determinations are below. It is the planning team’s conclusion that each 

proposed boundary adjustment meets the federal criteria and is consistent with the parkspecific goals stated above. See figure 3 for the location of these properties. 

Offshore Ocean Environment, San Mateo County

Description

The park includes several coastal properties in San Mateo County. The western 

boundaries of these properties end at the line of mean high tide in the Pacific Ocean. The 

proposed boundary adjustment would place the new boundary 0.25 mile from the line of 

mean high tide to include offshore areas (about 2008 acres). This proposal would affect 

only properties the National Park Service currently manages; it would affect not areas 

within the boundary that are managed by others. 

Criteria

1) Significance: The offshore areas proposed for inclusion in the boundary support an 

abundance of significant resources. These include marine mammals, seabirds, and 

intertidal resources. Portions of the areas are within Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary, California’s James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, two state marine protected 
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume 1: 104

areas, and a special protected area at Egg Rock-Devil’s Slide that is managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management. Known submerged or intertidal cultural resources include 

shipwrecks and features of a whaling station. These are also popular recreational areas for 

exploring tidepools, and for boating, fishing, swimming, and surfing. Each winter, the 

Mavericks Surf Contest, featuring many of the world’s best big-wave surfers, takes place 

at the southern end of this zone. 

2) Operational Issues: Unlike in San Francisco and Marin counties where the official 

boundary extends 0.25 mile beyond the line of mean high tide, the park boundary in San 

Mateo County ends at mean high tide. This exclusion restricts coordinated management 

of marine resources and visitor activities with other federal and state agencies. Lack of a 

consistent boundary also poses difficulties in coordinating with county public safety 

departments for visitor protection services, such as rescues. Questions about jurisdiction 

have complicated the park’s rescue and recovery efforts.

3) Protects Park Resources—Fulfills Park Purpose: Protection of significant offshore 

resources and provision of appropriate recreational opportunities are part of the park’s 

legislated purpose. Resource protection would be enhanced by including this parcel 

within the park boundary. The effects of climate change (especially sea level rise) and 

development of the NPS Pacific West Region’s strategic plan for Pacific Ocean parks, 

make inclusion of these areas within the boundary a timely objective.

Determinations

Administration of these areas through cooperative management would be feasible. Park 

management of similar areas in San Francisco and Marin counties has not been an undue 

burden for park staff, due in large part, to collaboration with other agencies. Adding these 

areas to the park would enhance the value of current collaborative actions, rather than 

substitute management by the National Park Service alone. The proposal has the support 

of related agencies. Acquisition through a California state tide and submerged lands lease 

would have no cost. Management of the areas added to the park boundary would be 

guided by the park’s ocean stewardship policy and the primary management purposes 

identified in the California state leases that the park retains over other portions of the 

offshore ocean and bay environment in San Francisco and Marin counties. The National 

Park Service anticipates this proposal would require a legislative boundary change. 

Gregerson Property, San Mateo County

Description

The property forms a long rectangle of about 206 acres with 3 sides in common with the 

park’s 4,200-acre Rancho Corral de Tierra unit. It is owned by the Peninsula Open Space 

Trust (POST), who acquired it in 2007. The POST maintains the property as conservation 

land. The property is undeveloped with the exception of a caretaker residence and paved 

access road that crosses the property from north to south. The only access to the property 

is from the south on a park road. 

Criteria

1) Significance: The property has many of the same qualities and characteristics as 

Rancho Corral de Tierra, which was determined eligible for inclusion in the park in the 

San Mateo County Boundary Study (NPS 2001). The study determined that Rancho is a 
Boundary Adjustments

Volume I: 105

logical and understandable southern entry to the park and an unusually large piece of 

significant scenic and ecological resources that is firmly linked to existing park lands. 

Rancho Corral de Tierra was included in the park boundary in 2005 through Public Law 

109-131. Like Rancho Corral de Tierra, the Gregerson property also contains habitat for 

federally listed plant and animal species and provides connectivity in an important 

wildlife corridor. The property also possesses scenic vistas to the southeastern coast, and 

has high potential for recreation, including a trail along the ridge connecting to a future 

Bay Area Ridge Trail segment through the extensive SFPUC watershed lands.

2) Operational Issues: The access road would be beneficial for park management 

purposes. It runs along a low ridge, connecting the park’s access road with the upper 

reaches of Rancho Corral de Tierra and the adjacent SFPUC watershed lands. In addition 

to improving access for managers, the property would simplify and reduce the length of 

the park’s perimeter.

3) Protects Park Resources—Fulfills Park Purpose: Protection of federally listed 

species and provision of appropriate recreational opportunities are part of the park’s 

legislated purpose. Resource protection and trail-based recreation would be enhanced by 

including this parcel within the park boundary. 

Determinations

Administration of this small undeveloped property as part of the larger Rancho Corral de 

Tierra unit would be feasible. The road and other structures (residence, well, septic 

system, and solar power complex) are in good condition and could be used for park 

operations, environmental education, or other park purposes. The trust acquired this 

property with the objective of permanent protection, which it has identified as best being 

achieved through fee transfer to the National Park Service for inclusion in Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area. An access easement alone is not considered satisfactory, since 

use of the property by others would continue to compromise the Park Service’s ability to 

maintain security at the main gate. This proposal has support from the trust and San 

Mateo County which manages nearby lands. The cost of acquisition has not been 

determined. The National Park Service anticipates this would be a minor boundary 

adjustment. 

Margins of Rancho Corral de Tierra, San Mateo County

Description

These two areas (about 58 acres) are at the margins of agricultural lands owned by POST 

and are immediately adjacent to the park’s 4,200-acre Rancho Corral de Tierra unit. The 

northern area is maintained as an open field with a light vegetative cover, but is not 

cultivated due to poor soil conditions. The southern area is primarily gently sloping 

hillsides adjacent to cultivated fields. Both areas abut State Route 1 and have informal 

access roads from it.

Criteria

1) Significance: Like the Gregerson Property, these areas have some of the same 

qualities and characteristics as Rancho Corral de Tierra which was determined eligible 

for inclusion in the park in the San Mateo County Boundary Study (NPS, 2001). These 
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume 1: 106

areas may contain habitat for federally listed plant and animal species and provide 

connectivity in an important wildlife corridor. The properties also possess scenic vistas to 

the coast, and have high potential to serve as the critically-needed principal trailheads 

providing safe, direct access from State Route 1 and logical connections to existing 

recreational trails on Rancho. The northern area has been classified as “unique farmland” 

(of lesser quality than “prime farmland” due to substantial limitations for the production 

of crops.) The southern area includes soils with “unique” and lesser classifications along 

with a small area of “prime farmland” which could constrain development of nonagricultural facilities.

2) Operational Issues:: These two properties are highly suitable for providing the 

principal vehicular access points to Rancho from State Route 1. There are good sight 

lines from State Route 1 to the properties, along with other favorable conditions for 

roadway improvements to enable safe, logical, vehicular access and egress. Creation of a 

trailhead with a small parking area (20-40 vehicles) and essential visitor facilities, such as 

restrooms and orientation kiosks, is feasible on each property, without impacting the 

highly scenic coastal landscape. The size of these areas has been kept to the minimum 

necessary to facilitate development of a trailhead and a connecting trail on each property. 

Development of these principal trailheads would enhance management of Rancho by 

reducing visitors’ reliance on existing trailheads that are located on local streets in the 

community. Furthermore, the trailheads would reduce conflicts with visitors in the 

existing equestrian stables areas and avoid conflicts with ongoing agricultural operations 

and have the potential to be served by existing transit.

3) Protects Park Resources—Fulfills Park Purpose: Protection of federally listed 

species and provision of appropriate recreational opportunities are part of the park’s 

legislated purpose. Resource protection and trail-based recreation would be enhanced by 

including this parcel within the park boundary.

Determinations

Administration of these areas as part of the larger Rancho unit would be feasible. The two 

trailheads are critically important to providing appropriate public access and enjoyment 

of Rancho, and would not pose undue management burdens on GGNRA. It is likely that 

these objectives could be accomplished with less-than-fee acquisition, such as trail 

easements over a portion of the property; however, a boundary adjustment is desirable to 

facilitate expenditure of federal funds for development of the trailheads, connecting trail, 

and long-term land management. This proposal has support from POST, the agricultural 

operator, California State Parks, San Mateo County, and the local community. The cost 

of acquisition has not been determined. The National Park Service anticipates this would 

be a minor boundary adjustment. 
Boundary Adjustments

Volume I: 107

Additions to Cattle Hill: Vallemar Acres and State Route 1 

Frontage, Pacifica

Description

Vallemar Acres and the State Route 1 Frontage parcel are both located at the edges of 

Cattle Hill, a prominent coastal landform in Pacifica. As such, they share similar 

characteristics and are evaluated together. Vallemar Acres consists of about 61 acres of 

sloping undeveloped land owned by the city of Pacifica. It is part of the lower southern 

slope of Cattle Hill and extends down to the property lines of residences on the north side 

of Fassler Avenue which ends at a park trailhead. The State Route 1 Frontage parcel 

consists of about six acres of sloping undeveloped land at the western end of Cattle Hill 

along State Route 1. It is owned by the state and managed by Caltrans. A recent boundary 

adjustment inadvertently omitted these two small parcels.

Criteria

1) Significance: Cattle Hill was evaluated in the Pacifica Boundary Study (NPS 1998), 

then added to the park in 2000 (Public Law 106-350). It protects habitat for federally 

listed species, preserves outstanding scenic values, and connects to the extensive network 

of trails on Sweeney Ridge including designated segments of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. 

These two adjoining parcels are extensions of the distinct landform possessing the same 

natural resource values as Cattle Hill—coastal scrub with documented and potential 

habitat for federally listed San Francisco garter snake and California red-legged frog. As 

integral parts of the scenic coastal hill, they present ready opportunities for enhanced 

trailheads and access to existing trails.

2) Operational Issues: Inclusion of these parcels would establish a more logical park 

boundary that corresponds with the main extent of the landform. Inclusion would also 

eliminate intervening ownerships and could prevent the development of unauthorized 

trails and access points with related impacts on resources. 

3) Protects Park Resources—Fulfills Park Purpose: Protection of significant resources 

and provision of appropriate recreational opportunities are part of the park’s legislated 

purpose. Resource protection and trail-based recreation would be enhanced by including 

this parcel within the park boundary. 

Determinations

Administration of these parcels as part of the Cattle Hill unit would be feasible. The 

resources are in good condition and would not require remedial actions. The City of 

Pacifica staff works closely with the park staff on resource management and visitor 

services. The city had understood that the parcel was already included in the boundary; it 

supports this proposal. Acquisition cost for this property has not been determined.

Caltrans, which manages the frontage property for the state of California, has plans to 

improve State Route 1 as it passes the base of Cattle Hill. This project, the Calera 

Parkway, is in the early design stages but is unlikely to affect the frontage parcel, which 

rises sharply from the roadway. Caltrans has not expressed any objections to this 

proposal. The park seeks to include the frontage parcel within the boundary to facilitate 

cooperative management and provide for a future trailhead. The National Park Service

anticipates this would be a minor boundary adjustment. 
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume 1: 108

McNee Ranch, San Mateo County

Description

This 710-acre former ranch property lies on the east side of State Route 1 just south of 

Devil’s Slide. It is a unit of the California state park system, managed as part of Montara 

State Beach which is principally on the west side of State Route 1. The property shares a 

long boundary with Rancho Corral de Tierra which generally follows Martini Creek. The 

property includes two trailheads on State Route 1, a pedestrian bridge over Martini 

Creek, and two ranger residences: one near the bridge, the other close to the northern 

trailhead. No other major structures are present.

Criteria

1) Significance: The property possesses extensive natural biodiversity, especially on the 

serpentine soils of the lower slopes where such endangered species as Hickman’s 

cinquefoil (Potentilla hickmanii) and San Mateo thornmint (Acanthomintha duttonii) are

found. It connects to ecosystems and landscapes under NPS management, In addition, 

visitors enjoy sweeping vistas of the Pacific Coast and rugged coastal hills from a 

network of multiuse trails and unpaved roads. These routes connect Pacifica with the 

coastside communities of Montara and Moss Beach, and lead to the highest points on 

Montara Mountain. These trails are important to the planned east-west connection that 

will enable hikers to cross from San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean. The property is 

also adjacent to public lands managed by Caltrans at Devil’s Slide, which have high 

ecological value and may be opened to recreational use. The segment of Old San Pedro 

Mountain Road (now a multiuse trail) that crosses the property may be eligible for the 

national register.

2) Operational Issues: Inclusion of the property within the park would facilitate 

cooperative management of resources and visitors. The property is the only state park 

land adjacent to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area that is not also within the 

federal authorized boundary. Cooperative management is especially critical for the 

Martini Creek watershed, which is divided nearly equally between NPS and state park

ownership. An equestrian facility is immediately adjacent to the creek on NPS land. A 

heavily used bridge carries Old San Pedro Mountain Road across the creek. 

3) Protects Park Resources—Fulfills Park Purpose: Protection of significant resources 

and provision of appropriate recreational opportunities are part of the park’s legislated 

purpose. Resource protection and trail-based recreation would be enhanced by including 

this parcel within the park boundary. 

Determinations

McNee Ranch is the only state park land adjacent to Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area that is not also within the federal authorized boundary. The park seeks to include the 

property within its authorized boundary to facilitate cooperative management, provide 

consistency, and enhance recognition of this property as part of the larger area of 

protected lands. This is not a proposal for acquisition. This proposal corrects a technical 

error that omitted McNee Ranch from the park when Montara State Beach was included 

in the park boundary in 1980. Montara State Beach was expanded to include McNee 

Ranch sometime afterwards. As is the case with the other California state parks in the 

boundary, administration (cooperative management) would not be an additional burden. 
Boundary Adjustments

Volume I: 109

No other management alternatives were considered. The California Department of Parks 

and Recreation supports this proposal. There would be no acquisition costs. The National 

Park Service anticipates this proposal would require a legislative boundary adjustment. 

Bolinas Lagoon, Marin County

Description

Approximately 1,100 acres in size, Bolinas Lagoon is a tidal embayment that possesses 

an array of open water, subtidal channels, eelgrass beds, rocky and mudflat intertidal 

substrates, salt marsh, and upland marshes. It provides productive and diverse habitats for 

marine fishes, waterbirds, and marine mammals, and it is also part of a much larger 

protected natural habitat complex in the region. The site is located on the Pacific Flyway, 

which makes the Lagoon an ideal staging ground and stopover site for migratory birds;

the temperate climate provides wintering habitat for ducks, geese, and shorebirds. It is 

managed by Marin County Open Space District as the Bolinas Lagoon Open Space 

Preserve.

Criteria

1) Significance: Bolinas Lagoon is one of Marin County’s most significant natural 

resources. It was designated a Wetland of International Importance by the Ramsar 

Convention in 1998 (site no. 960). Along with Drake’s Estero and Tomales Bay, Bolinas 

Lagoon provides an important coastal environment for fish, birds, and mammals that is 

unparalleled along the northern California coast between the San Francisco and 

Humboldt bays. Many tributary creeks support federally endangered steelhead trout.

2) Operational Issues: Inclusion of the property within the park boundary would 

facilitate cooperative management of resources among several federal, state, and local 

agencies, and conservation organizations, including the Audubon Canyon Ranch, which 

manage adjacent lands. Much of the eastern shoreline of the lagoon and portions of the 

adjacent uplands and small tributary creeks are managed by the National Park Service. 

The park land within the lagoon watershed totals approximately 986 acres. The Gulf of 

the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary also encompasses Bolinas Lagoon, with 

overlapping management authority with Marin County. Marin County, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Army Corps of Engineers are currently 

developing plans for restoring natural processes and ecosystem integrity to the lagoon to 

mitigate for past human activity in the watershed.

3) Protects Park Resources—Fulfills Park Purpose: Protection of nationally significant 

resources is part of the park’s legislated purpose. Resource protection would be enhanced 

by including this property within the park boundary. 

Determinations

The park seeks to include the property within its authorized boundary to facilitate 

cooperative management. This is not a proposal for acquisition. Administration of this 

property through cooperative management would not be an additional burden on the park. 

No other management alternatives were considered. The Marin County Open Space 

District and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary support this proposal. 

There would be no acquisition cost. The National Park Service anticipates this proposal 

would require a legislative boundary change. 
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume 1: 110

POTENTIAL FUTURE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

The National Park Service does not manage all the lands within the legislative boundaries 

of Golden Gate National Recreation Area; there are public lands within the boundaries 

that are managed by other agencies. Golden Gate National Recreation Area staff will 

continue to monitor these lands and coordinate with these land managers in a way that 

maintains and enhances the values that contributed to the lands being included in the 

boundary. Some of these efforts could lead to eventual acquisition by the National Park 

Service.

Several areas are of great interest to the National Park Service and appear to meet the 

NPS criteria for boundary adjustments. The park would continue working with open 

space partners to pursue protection of these properties, possibly including an NPS 

boundary adjustment, guided by the goals expressed earlier. 

Priority Conservation Areas

Four areas adjacent to the park were identified as Priority Conservation Areas through a 

regional planning effort led by the Association of Bay Area Governments and 

documented in Golden Lands, Golden Opportunities (Bay Area Open Space Council, 

2009). Multiple strategies and multiple land managers could have a role in managing 

these lands. At this time, no specific boundary adjustments are proposed by the park in 

these areas. However, anticipated studies would evaluate which specific properties within 

these areas would be most appropriately managed by the National Park Service. 

Marin City Ridge, Marin County

Undeveloped lands adjacent to the park’s Marin Headlands unit could enhance protection 

for the park’s natural, scenic, and recreational resources while improving trail 

connections into an underserved community. These sites were evaluated in a boundary 

study in 2005 and determined appropriate for inclusion into the park. 

Pacifica Conservation Area (South of Mussel Rock to McNee Ranch), 

San Mateo County

Disconnected, undeveloped parcels at the fringes of the Pacifica community could 

enhance continuity of existing Golden Gate National Recreation Area lands, including the 

park’s trail links to the California Coastal Trail and Bay Area Ridge Trail, and improve 

natural resource corridors.

Montara Mountain Complex, San Mateo County

Undeveloped parcels adjacent to Rancho Corral de Tierra could strengthen protection of 

threatened and endangered species and contribute to the regional conservation efforts 

focused on preserving large natural resources corridors and scenic beauty. 

Gateway to San Mateo County

Comprising a large area of land between Rancho Corral de Tierra and Highway 92, this 

area could contribute substantially to natural resource protection, the regional trails 

network, and preservation of scenic and rural character.
Boundary Adjustments

Volume I: 111

Other Potential Acquisitions

Muir Woods Welcome Center – Marin County Intercept Facility

The park anticipates requesting the authority to extend the boundary to include an off-site 

location for a facility that would serve visitors to Muir Woods and other recreational 

destinations in Marin County. The facility would support improved shuttle service to 

Muir Woods and public transit to other nearby recreational areas, including Tennessee 

Valley, Muir Beach, Mount Tamalpais State Park, Stinson Beach, and Point Reyes 

National Seashore. A key benefit would be to reduce congestion associated with growing 

recreational travel to southern and western Marin County. This facility would be located 

in the vicinity of Caltrans Manzanita park-and-ride, at the intersection of State Route 1

and Highway 101. It would provide necessary visitor services such as parking, sheltered 

waiting areas, light snacks, restrooms, and orientation information. The project would be 

developed in close collaboration with Marin County, California State Parks, Caltrans, and 

local communities.

Upland Goals Conservation Areas

A science-based approach towards identifying biologically important lands for protection 

in the San Francisco Bay Area was developed by the Bay Area Open Space Council 

(Weiss et al. 2008), with participation of NPS staff. The result is a network of 

conservation areas based on computer models that strives to achieve conservation goals 

for targeted vegetation types and individual species along with assessments of viability, 

ecological integrity, and level of connectivity of conservation lands. The model output 

identifies lands adjacent to the park that would help sustain diverse and healthy 

communities of plant, fish, and wildlife resources in the nine-county Bay Area. Some of 

these areas overlap with Priority Conservation Areas.

Stinson Beach Environs

Currently undeveloped lands located near Panoramic Highway have been identified as 

essential conservation areas and would help enhance the park’s protection of contiguous 

coastal biological resources.

Lower Redwood Creek

Lands along the Redwood Creek corridor below its intersection with State Route 1 have 

been identified as essential conservation areas and would help enhance the park’s 

protection of contiguous stream resources and associated threatened and endangered 

species.

Nyhan Creek

Lands along the Nyhan Creek corridor from its headwaters to the bay have been 

identified as an essential conservation area and would help the park contribute to the 

protection of contiguous stream resources within the region. 

Mori-Milagra-Sweeney Connector

Currently undeveloped lands in the Pacifica area have been identified as essential 

conservation areas; their protection would help the park increase the long-term resiliency 

of small natural areas such as Milagra Ridge as well as secure important habitat corridors 

to facilitate species and community movements over time and space.
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume 1: 112

San Pedro Mountain and Rancho Corral de Tierra Environs, south to Highway 92 

Currently undeveloped lands in the Montara, Moss Beach, and Half Moon Bay areas 

have been identified as essential conservation areas; their protection would help the park 

increase the core of protected lands along the spine of the San Francisco peninsula. 

Similar to those in the Pacifica area, these protected areas would provide important 

habitat corridors to facilitate species and community movements over time and space.

Undeveloped Land Adjacent to Sweeney Ridge and County of San 

Francisco Jail Property

The property is adjacent to park land, sharing two sides with Sweeney Ridge. It contains 

county jails #3 and #7, along with a plant nursery and cultivated fields. A large portion of 

the 145-acre property, roughly 50 acres, is undeveloped and relatively undisturbed. This 

undeveloped area is contiguous with the extensive coastal ecosystems that the National 

Park Service manages on Sweeney Ridge. It has similar scenic qualities and habitat 

values, including potential habitat for threatened and endangered species. Inclusion of the 

undeveloped area in the park’s boundary would enable the National Park Service to 

receive it, should the county government declare the property excess.
|

 

 

 

|

1

1

1

Vallemar Acres

Highway Frontage

(West Cattle Hill)

Offshore Ocean 

Environment

Bolinas 

Lagoon

McNee Ranch

State Park

Margins of Rancho 

Corral de Tierra

Gregerson

Property

0 1.2

Miles

Miles

0 1

Proposed Boundary Adjustments

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

DSC • February 2011 

Proposed Boundary Adjustment

Current Legislative Boundary

Roads

Areas of Detail

Richmond

Berkeley

Mill Valley

San Rafael

Oakland

San Mateo 

County

San Mateo

Daly 

City

San Francisco 

International Airport

Pacific Ocean

San Pablo Bay

S a n

F r a n c i s c o

B a y

Cit y and Count y of San Francisco

San Mateo Count y

City of 

San Francisco

Marin Headlands

Stinson Beach

Environs

Lower Redwood 

Creek

Nyhan 

Creek

Marin City Ridge

Marin County

Transportation Hub

Mori/Milagra/Sweeney Corridor

Pacifica Conservation Area

Montara Mountain 

Complex

Gateway to 

San Mateo 

County San Pedro Mountain

South to Hwy 92

San Francisco County 

Jail Undeveloped Area

Potential Future 

Boundary Adjustment

Priority Conservaion Area

Upland Goals Conservation Area

Other

GGNRA Legislative Boundary

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

DSC • February 2011 

0 21 4

Miles

Volume I: 117

CLIMATE CHANGE

The National Park Service has developed goals to guide the way climate change will be 

addressed. Sustaining and restoring park resources in the face of climate change will

require the National Park Service to address many challenges to the integrity of cultural 

and natural resources. The general management plan describes the approach that the park 

would take to reduce emissions, educate visitors on the topic, and adapt to the effects of 

climate change during the next 20 years. In addition, the park maintains a “Climate 

Change Action Plan” that outlines the actions that would be taken to accomplish these 

broad goals. 

GOALS

• Reduce CO2 Emissions

The park will become a carbon neutral park by 2016 by reducing the CO2

emissions of NPS and partner operations, increasing the use of renewable energy 

and other sustainable practices, and reducing visitor emissions by lessening 

dependency on personal automobiles. 

National parks can demonstrate how to minimize their contribution to global 

warming through practices such as energy efficiency and use of renewable 

energy. Because emissions from visitor driving are estimated to contribute to 

more than 90% of the park’s emissions, the park staff and partners would assist 

in reducing visitor greenhouse gases by providing opportunities for alternative 

transportation options. 

• Educate and Interpret 

The park staff will help park visitors understand the process of global warming, 

climate change, the threats to the park, and how they can respond. Visitors are 

inspired to action through leadership and education. 

Through the efforts of employees, partners, and educational and interpretive 

media, the park staff can engage visitors on the topic of climate change, provide 

the latest park research and monitoring data and trends, inform the public about 

what response is being taken at the park, and inspire visitors to aid in that 

response.

• Assess Impacts and Respond to Changing Conditions 

The park staff will proactively monitor, plan, and adapt to the effects of climate 

change by using the best information as it becomes available.

Climate change is a global phenomenon, outside the control of the National Park 

Service. The park cannot control the impacts of climate change on the park 

through its own emissions reductions and education practices. However, the park 

staff would do their part to improve conditions and demonstrate environmental 

leadership.
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 118 

NPS staff would use and promote innovation, best practices, and partnerships to 

respond to the challenges of climate change and its effects on park resources. By 

using and developing tools and monitoring methods, including seeking outside 

assistance, the park staff can better respond to climate change. The park staff 

would interpret climate change science and develop management strategies, 

which may include predicting and projecting expected changes. The park staff 

would coordinate with other agencies in developing tools and strategies to help 

identify and manage climate change impacts. By adopting the best information 

on climate change as it becomes available, the park staff would be positioned to 

respond quickly and appropriately to the local effects of climate change.

The park staff may choose to use an adaptive management framework to respond 

to the effects of climate change. Temperature and precipitation changes may 

require that the park manages for native biodiversity and ecosystem function 

instead of managing for natural communities. In most cases park managers would 

allow natural processes to continue unimpeded, except when public health and 

safety or the park’s fundamental resources and values are threatened. Scenario 

planning would likely play a pivotal role in developing the park’s responses to 

climate change.

The park staff would coordinate with neighboring communities while 

implementing adaptation strategies that support the protection, preservation, and 

restoration of coastal wetlands and coastal processes, and can serve as vital tools 

in buffering coastal communities from the effects of climate change and sea level 

rise.

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

To meet the above goals, a more detailed management approach would be developed. 

The management approach would be an evolving process. The park staff would utilize 

local, regional, and larger scale monitoring, modeling and mapping evaluations. Through 

this data gathering, the park staff would identify and refine the assessment of park lands 

and resources that are vulnerable to sea level rise, extreme storms, and associated coastal 

erosion. Predictions and observations of other climate change effects, including weather, 

local climatic conditions, and phenology, would be gathered. Based on this information 

combined with the results of targeted monitoring, park managers could position 

themselves to respond and adapt according to changing conditions—a sort of early 

detection system. 

The following approaches and management actions could be implemented to respond to 

the effects of climate change on park resources. 

Natural Resources

• Reduce current and future stressors to the resource and the environment; this would

improve the condition of the resource and build resiliency in the ecosystem that 

would help to minimize future adverse effects of climate change.
Climate Change

Volume I: 119

• Collect and/or document resources that would be otherwise lost to the effects of the 

climate change (e.g., fossils, unique geologic resources, unique biological resources). 

• Sustain native biodiversity. 

• Reduce habitat fragmentation and increase habitat connectivity and movement 

corridors.

• Restore and enhance habitats. 

• Focus on ecosystem management and natural processes.

• Restore naturally functioning ecosystems. 

• Manage for biological diversity. 

• Minimize impact of invasive species. 

• Plan for post-disturbance management. 

• Employ adaptive management. 

• Manage for realistic outcomes (triage). 

Cultural Resources

• Reduce current and future stressors to the resource; this would improve the condition 

of the resource and help to minimize future adverse effects from climate change.

• Develop proactive triage criteria that would assist the park staff in prioritizing 

preservation treatments and other management actions. The decision on how to best 

treat a resource facing potential adverse effects from climate change should be based 

on 1) significance of the resource, 2) feasibility of the preservation action, 3) cost of 

the treatment/action, and 4) confidence in the data used to determine potential effects 

of sea level rise or climate change on the resource.

• Give highest priority to preserving cultural resources and artifacts in situ, coupled 

with sustainable efforts (intervention techniques) to mitigate and reduce any stressors 

that might adversely affect the resource.

• Pursue managed retreat when the results of the triage process indicate that 

preservation treatment or relocation is not practical. 

• Pursue recordation and relocation of the resources with high significance and 

technically and economically feasible treatment and relocation options, and where 

there is high confidence in the predicted effects of sea level rise or other climate 

change impacts. 

• Identify and document cultural resources to prioritize treatment needs. 

Visitor Experience

• Continue to provide a range of experiences by transitioning recreational use away 

from locations where changes in resource conditions no longer support such uses. 
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 120

• Remove existing visitor facilities and discontinue recreational uses where continued 

use is unsafe, infeasible, or undesirable due to changing environmental conditions. 

• Evaluate and support changing visitor use patterns as appropriate. 
Volume I: 121

FACILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE, PUBLIC SAFETY, 

AND COLLECTIONS STORAGE 

Park maintenance, public safety, and collections storage functions are scattered 

throughout the park at sites and facilities that in many cases were not intended for these 

uses. These functions have had to adapt to conditions that do not adequately meet their 

space, size, function, mobility, and security requirements. Maintenance and public safety 

operations have also had to move numerous times, requiring them to reprogram their 

operations each time, resulting in many inefficiencies. Locating the park’s museum 

collection in multiple storage facilities jeopardizes long-term preservation and restricts

the collection’s availability for research, education, and interpretive programming, thus 

limiting its usefulness to the public and park personnel. 

The following section proposes a comprehensive approach to building and facility uses 

necessary to meet the existing and projected needs of these operational functions in 

conjunction with all draft alternatives. The actions proposed are based on a thorough 

analysis of park programs and facilities, including the possibilities for locating functions 

outside park boundaries. The park has other operational facilities such as staff offices, 

housing, native plant nurseries, and horse patrol facilities. The locations of these facilities 

vary among the alternatives and are addressed in the description of the alternatives.

GOALS FOR MAINTENANCE AND PUBLIC SAFETY

The large scale of the park, with sites distributed across three counties, poses a distinct 

challenge to providing facilities for maintenance and public safety operations. Over the 

years, a system organized around centralized facilities supported by smaller satellite sites 

has been an effective and successful means to manage the park. It is proposed to continue 

this organizational concept, but to more permanently establish the locations of the 

centralized facilities. This will allow the park to gain efficiencies through consolidation 

of some functions in central facilities and still retain the flexibility to meet dispersed 

maintenance and safety needs through the satellite offices.

Management Strategies

Centralized Maintenance Facilities

New maintenance facilities would be established in the park. North of the Golden Gate 

Bridge, a new centralized facility would be constructed in part of the Capehart housing 

area of the Marin Headlands. This new facility, about 45,000 square feet in size, would 

be a state-of-the-art, environmentally sustainable complex that would accommodate the 

park’s Buildings and Utilities, Roads, and Marin Grounds functions. The project would 

include the demolition of selected housing units and new construction of shops, offices, 

covered storage, parking, and work yards. Maintenance operations presently located in 

Fort Baker (Building 513) and Fort Cronkhite (Buildings 1046, 1070, Nike missile launch 

site) would be relocated to this new facility. The estimated cost of demolition and 

construction of a maintenance facility at Capehart is $16,630,000. 
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 122

South of the Golden Gate Bridge, the National Park Service would rehabilitate one of the 

buildings in the Presidio that formerly served as stables for the U.S. Cavalry to house the 

centralized maintenance functions for Area A, the part of the Presidio for which the Park 

Service is responsible. Reuse of the cavalry stables building would be contingent upon an 

agreement between the National Park Service and the Presidio Trust. Existing NPS 

maintenance operations currently spread among several Presidio buildings would be 

consolidated at the former stables site. The estimated cost of the rehabilitation for the 

maintenance function (with administrative offices) in this location is $5,500,000. 

At Muir Woods National Monument, essential public safety and maintenance functions 

would continue to be located near the monument entrance. These functions could remain 

in existing structures or be incorporated into the new welcome center. However, the other

maintenance operations would move from the Old Inn and lower Conlon Avenue areas to 

a new facility shared with California State Parks in Kent Canyon. This action is 

dependent upon an interagency agreement with California State Parks. 

Public Safety Hub

A single centralized operational hub would be developed at Fort Baker to meet park law 

enforcement needs. These functions would be located in Building 507. Park wildland fire 

functions (offices, garaged vehicles, and fire caches) would be relocated from Fort 

Cronkhite Buildings 1068 and 1069. These functions would move to the former Nike 

missile launch site near the Marine Mammal Center that would be vacated by the current 

Roads operation. The historic fire station would remain at Fort Cronkhite. Dispatch and 

communications operations that serve the park and the Presidio would remain at Presidio 

Building 35 in the Main Post area. The estimated cost of rehabilitating Building 507 at 

Fort Baker for a public safety function is $1,830,000. 

Satellite Offices

A well-distributed system of park operations satellite offices already exists in Marin and 

San Francisco counties. These sites would need minor improvements to function more 

efficiently. Satellites would be extended into San Mateo County by adapting existing 

park sites for these uses, or through partnerships with other agencies. Typically, each 

satellite site may have the capacity to collocate functions from several different divisions. 

The following is a list of satellite locations:

• Stinson Beach – No change is anticipated to the scale of the office, which serves both 

maintenance and public safety functions. 

• Marin Headlands – Law enforcement would continue to have access to offices used 

by the wildland fire program in Fort Cronkhite. 

• Presidio of San Francisco – Public safety would continue to have access to offices by 

the U.S. Park Police. 

• Alcatraz Island – Public safety offices would remain in Building 64 and maintenance 

facilities would be expanded in the rehabilitated Quartermaster Warehouse.

• Fort Mason – Maintenance and public safety would continue to have administrative 

offices at park headquarters in Fort Mason. Grounds maintenance facilities would 

remain.
Facilities for Maintenance,

Public Safety, and Collections Storage 

Volume I: 123

• Fort Miley – Maintenance and public safety facilities would continue at East Fort 

Miley. 

• Fort Funston – The existing public safety and maintenance offices would remain. A 

small building for heavy equipment would be constructed. 

• San Mateo County north of Devil’s Slide – Maintenance and public safety offices

could be located at the current Shelldance Nursery area or at San Pedro County Park 

in Pacifica.

• San Mateo County south of Devil’s Slide – A new satellite office for maintenance 

and public safety offices would be developed at a location yet to be determined. 

GOALS FOR COLLECTION STORAGE FACILITIES

The majority of the park’s collection would be consolidated in two buildings in the 

Presidio that formerly served as stables for the U.S. Cavalry. When rehabilitated, the 

buildings would provide adequate space for the collection and meet national standards for 

security, fire protection, and environmental control. This consolidated facility would also 

provide public space for exhibits and programs that engage visitors in memorable and 

meaningful learning opportunities based on the collection. The estimated cost of this 

rehabilitation is $7,060,000. This action is dependent upon an interagency agreement 

with the Presidio Trust, consistent with the 2001 Presidio Trust Act (Section 103(b)) 

which authorizes the Trust to transfer administration of properties within the Presidio 

which are surplus to the needs of the Trust and which serve essential purposes of Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area. 

Development of the facility would augment ongoing improvements to collections storage 

such as installation of space-saving storage equipment and participation in the Bay Area 

Museum Resource Center Plan (2010) which will provide space for over-sized museum 

objects.

COSTS OF ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Cost estimates for actions common to all the alternatives are identified in the table below. 

The actions common to all alternatives describe the maximum potential capital 

improvements; lesser improvements may be implemented, or built in phases if necessary. 

The implementation of the approved plan will depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding and staffing needed to implement the plan 

will be forthcoming. Full implementation of the actions in the approved general 

management plan could be many years in the future. Additionally, some of the future 

long-term funding needed to implement the various actions called for in the alternatives 

is anticipated to come from nonfederal partners, consistent with the park’s current 

practices.
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 124

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

Alternatives

Essential/Priority Projects*

Presidio Cavalry Stables: rehabilitate for collection storage facility $7,060,000

Presidio Cavalry Stables: rehabilitate for maintenance and 

administrative offices $5,500,000

Total $12,560,000

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

would likely require federal funding. 

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

Action Alternatives

Desirable/Lower Priority Projects*

Capehart: central park operational facility $16,630,000

Forts Barry and Cronkhite: consolidated law enforcement hub 

and wildland fire facility $1,830,000

Total $18,460,000

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

accomplished with nonfederal funds or many years in the future. 
Volume I: 125

FACILITIES NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PARK 

MISSION

Maintaining park facilities in acceptable condition is a continuing challenge that requires 

a multitude of management strategies. The park manages 1,150 assets without the 

funding required to do so adequately. Some of the facilities do not meet the needs of the 

park and its partners, and therefore are not used and are deteriorating. 

According to the 2009 Park Asset Management Plan, the total assets of the park require 

$24.6 million in annual operations and maintenance; yet, typically, only $5.3 million has 

been allocated towards that need. This leaves a gap of nearly $20 million each year. 

Related to the inability to fund all maintenance needs is $198.1 million in deferred 

maintenance backlog related to park and partner assets. The $6.0 million typically 

allocated from special project funding each year for this need does not adequately reduce 

the deferred maintenance backlog.

This general management plan proposes to remove assets that are in poor condition and 

are not contributing to the preservation of natural or cultural resources or supporting the 

visitor experience. Disposal of unneeded assets would allow funding and staff resources 

to be redistributed to higher value assets. 

While developing the GMP alternatives, the planning team identified facilities that did 

not contribute to the park mission. Further evaluation with an interdisciplinary team led 

to the identification of assets proposed for removal and the development of the following 

strategies. Before any facility would be scheduled for removal, appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act determinations would 

be completed. 

The management team will continue to monitor and identify facilities not needed for 

implementation of the selected alternative in an effort to bring assets to acceptable 

conditions and to sustain those conditions over time. 

GOALS

• Address the gap between maintenance funding and maintenance needs by reducing 

the number of park assets that require ongoing maintenance. 

• Continue to address deferred maintenance by reducing the number of park assets.

• Support asset management strategies identified in the park asset management plan.

• Enhance the preservation of natural and cultural resources, support the visitor 

experience, and support park and partner operational needs through asset removal.
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 126

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

The following proposed actions would reduce deferred maintenance by approximately 

$1,520,000. 

• Muir Woods National Monument Maintenance Facilities

The park staff has identified inefficient and deteriorating structures to be removed 

from the monument. Removal would allow for further natural resource restoration 

and a reduced development footprint consistent with the action alternatives. Through 

this action, there is potential for deferred maintenance reductions of $40,000.

• Camino del Canyon and Conlon Avenue Structures 

The park staff has proposed removal of deteriorating structures that do not contribute 

to the history of the park. Removal would be in concert with natural resource 

restoration objectives, including habitat restoration, and restoration of the natural 

functioning of the tributary creek. Through this action, there is potential for deferred 

maintenance reductions of $210,000. 

• Lower Redwood Creek and Tennessee Valley Structures

Facilities that do not support the park mission and some that are in deteriorated 

condition were identified for removal. Removal of these structures would allow for 

extensive natural resource restoration, including a return of natural watershed 

processes, preservation of outstanding natural features, and protection of threatened 

and endangered species like the coho salmon and red-legged frog. Riparian areas 

adjacent to Tennessee Valley would also be enhanced through facility removal. 

Through this action, there is potential for deferred maintenance reductions of 

$600,000. 

• Structures in Marin County park lands, including Capehart housing 

Housing and associated sheds and outbuildings north of Bunker Road were identified 

for removal to improve the scenic entrance to the Rodeo Valley. Other structures 

were identified for removal in support of the cultural landscape and for habitat

restoration. Through this action, there is potential for deferred maintenance 

reductions of $670,000. 
Volume I: 127

NATIVE AMERICAN ENGAGEMENT

Since the late 1990s, the NPS staff has worked with the Federated Indians of Graton 

Rancheria (the federally recognized tribe comprised of park-associated Coast Miwoks 

and Southern Pomos), with the many Ohlone tribes seeking federal recognition, and with 

Ohlone individuals who partake in the stewardship of Ohlone heritage. Park lands in 

Marin County are the aboriginal homelands of Coast Miwoks. Park lands in San 

Francisco and San Mateo counties are the aboriginal homelands of Ohlones. The park 

staff would continue to work with Coast Miwoks and Ohlones in the three broad activity 

areas in which it has worked with them to date: cultural resource management, 

interpretation and education, and revitalization of community and tradition. 

GOALS 

• Survey, Identify, and Inventory Archeological and Ethnographic Sites 

The park staff, together with tribal representatives, would continue to conduct 

fieldwork to survey, identify, and inventory archeological and ethnographic sites, as 

well as test, record, and preserve these sites. 

American Indians are permitted by law, regulation, or policy to pursue customary 

religious, subsistence, and other cultural uses of resources with which they are 

traditionally associated. Recognizing that its resource protection mandate affects this 

human use and cultural context of park resources, the National Park Service would 

plan and execute programs in ways that safeguard cultural and natural resources 

while reflecting informed concern for the contemporary peoples and cultures 

traditionally associated with them.

• Work with Park-Associated Native People on a Range of Interpretive and 

Educational Activities 

The park staff would continue to work with park-associated native people on a range 

of interpretive and educational activities. These activities could include Indian-led 

interpretive programs offered throughout the park, permanent and temporary exhibits 

on native history and culture, annual commemorative festivals with native 

components, teacher trainings on Native American curricula, and participation of 

native people on visitor center advisory boards. 

• Continue to support the Revitalization of Coast Miwok and Ohlone Communities and 

Traditions 

The park staff would continue to support the revitalization of Coast Miwok and 

Ohlone communities and traditions. Native people would continue to conduct 

religious activities in the park, gather natural materials for use in traditional crafts, 

participate in the study of native histories and genealogies, and work with the park 

staff on ethnographic landscape restoration efforts.
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 128

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

To provide direction for these activities, the National Park Service would work to 

establish and implement a set of protocols that would institutionalize the way that park 

staff engages Native Americans in the park. Each protocol agreement would be tailored 

to the specific type of relationship that the National Park Service and the tribe have 

developed or are in the process of developing. Protocols and agreements could be 

developed that may include the following elements or stipulations: 

• Establish a government-to-government relationship with the tribe by first contacting 

or notifying the tribal chair when issues arise. 

• Establish contacts by the park superintendent (or designated staff) with specific tribal 

representatives or tribal council office(s) designated by the tribal council or tribal 

chairperson to deal with specific park proposals (or issues) that may arise. (The 

agreement should include a list of the types of proposed NPS activities for which the 

tribe would like to be contacted.)

• Conduct routine notification of appropriate tribal officials (designated by the tribal 

council or tribal chairperson) by the park regarding park planning, project 

development, or environmental impact assessments. (Appropriate methods for this 

preliminary notification should be summarized in the agreement—e.g., letter, 

telephone contact, meeting with tribal chair, cultural committee, tribal council.) 

• Set up meetings between park management and the tribe on a periodic basis to review 

upcoming park plans or projects that may impact American Indian resources in or 

near the park (e.g., once a year, once every 6 months). 

• Exchange information and research results, and technical assistance between the 

National Park Service and the tribe. 

• Develop a timeframe for responding to oral and written communications. 

• Create steps for resolving disputes (e.g., alternative dispute resolution processes, 

third party mediation, or mediation by the NPS regional director or Native American

Affairs Office director). 

• Define the process for amending or modifying the agreement. 

• Establish a time period in which the agreement would remain in effect. 

• Define the process for ending or canceling the agreement. 
Volume I: 129

OCEAN STEWARDSHIP

INTRODUCTION

This section of the general management plan articulates an ocean stewardship policy that 

is based on and intended to support the Pacific West Region’s strategic plan. The 

strategies and objectives included below are targeted at addressing the unique needs of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s ocean resources. The park would develop an 

implementation plan that would contain specific actions intended to achieve the measures 

included below.

With its boundary typically extending a quarter of a mile offshore, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area manages miles of coastline and the associated marine and estuarine 

resources inside San Francisco Bay and along the outer coast. The park holds a lease 

from the State Lands Commission for management of tidelands and submerged lands 

within the park boundary to 1,000 feet offshore. In certain areas, the park shares 

overlapping management authority with the Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay 

national marine sanctuaries. 

Ocean resources, including natural marine resources and submerged cultural resources, 

are at risk due to a variety of threats. Climate change will cause sea level rise, changing 

storm patterns, and ocean acidification. Natural sediment transport, which affects 

shoreline and beach dynamics, is affected by sand mining, dredging, dredge disposal, 

shoreline stabilization structures, and altered flow regimes such as dams. Overflights, 

boats, and other uses of marine habitats cause disturbance to marine species. Invasive 

exotic species inhabit the park's ocean and estuarine waters, displacing native species. 

Recreational and commercial fisheries may impact nearshore fish populations and 

ecosystem dynamics. Water quality is threatened by pollution from runoff, landslides, 

shoreline development, sewage outfalls, vessel traffic, oil spills, and contaminants 

exposed from dredging. Potential wave and tidal energy developments may alter habitat 

and disrupt physical processes.

Effective management of the park's natural and cultural ocean resources requires a 

strategic approach. In 2006, the National Park Service developed an Ocean Park 

Stewardship Action Plan (NPS 2006) to respond to the issues and threats previously 

described. In 2007, the Pacific West and Alaska Regions of the National Park Service 

developed a strategic plan for Pacific Ocean parks (NPS 2007), which provided guidance 

and implementation details for achieving the goals of the servicewide plan. The strategic 

approach outlined in this plan is consistent with the policies and priorities of Executive 

Order 13547 for the Stewardship of Our Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes. 

GOALS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

In order to be an effective steward of the park's natural and cultural ocean resources, park 

staff must research, monitor, and protect these resources, expand current and explore new 

partnerships with other agencies and organizations, and communicate an ocean 
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 130

stewardship message to visitors, park managers, and the public. To accomplish this, park 

staff must develop a plan and then pursue funding and leverage partnerships. 

 

Goal 1. Support a Seamless Network of Ocean Protected Areas

In order to effectively and efficiently manage the park's ocean resources, park staff must 

work with other agencies that have shared goals and objectives for marine resource 

protection. This local network currently includes Gulf of the Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, Point Reyes National Seashore, Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, Bolinas 

Lagoon Open Space Preserve, James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, and portions of 

California Coastal National Monument. 

Strategy 1.1. To ensure that the network is seamless in practice, park staff will work 

to expand current collaboration and strengthen communication with federal, state, 

and local agencies with overlapping and adjacent jurisdiction and with 

nongovernment organizations for management of ocean resources. 

Goal 2. Inventory, Map, and Protect Ocean Parks

In collaboration with other agencies and organizations managing ocean resources, park 

staff will further develop their understanding of the park's natural and cultural ocean 

resources.

Strategy 2.1. Through collaboration with other agencies and organizations, the park 

will continue to conduct and support regional baseline inventories, monitoring, and 

mapping of marine and estuarine resources.

Strategy 2.2. Park staff will identify and quantify threats to marine resources, 

including those associated with climate change and land- and water-based activities.

Strategy 2.3. Through the establishment of sensitive resource zones and special 

closure areas, the park will protect the most sensitive biological resources from 

disturbance. 

Strategy 2.4. Park staff will engage in restoration of estuarine and coastal wetland 

habitats and will assess new restoration opportunities in response to changes from 

climate change.

Strategy 2.5. Park staff will continue to work with the State Lands Commission to 

obtain additional state lease of all tidelands and submerged lands within the park’s 

legislated boundary. 

Strategy 2.6. Park staff will pursue the necessary authorization to correct coastal 

boundary deficiencies with respect to mean high tide line. 

Strategy 2.7. Park staff will increase public awareness of park jurisdiction by 

working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal 

Aviation Administration to include park boundaries and special closure areas on 

nautical and aviation charts. 

Strategy 2.8. Park staff will work proactively with the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, 
Ocean Stewardship

Volume I: 131

and Enforcement, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other 

agencies where appropriate, in addressing planning efforts as they relate to 

renewable ocean energy.

Strategy 2.9. Park staff will work with local, regional, and state agencies to reduce 

point and nonpoint pollution sources within and adjacent to the park and improve 

water quality in the marine and estuarine waters by implementing best management 

practices. 

Strategy 2.10. Park staff will work with the NPS Submerged Resources Center, State 

Lands Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 

other agencies to identify and formally assess the condition and value of submerged 

shipwrecks and other submerged archeological resources, and strategize for their 

protection, treatment, and interpretation.

Goal 3. Engage Visitors and the Public in Ocean Park Stewardship 

Given the park's location and its millions of visitors each year, the park affords 

outstanding opportunities to educate the public about threats to ocean resources. 

Communication of scientific findings and outreach through education and stewardship 

programs are needed to elevate awareness of ocean issues, protect resources, and actively 

engage visitors and the public in ocean stewardship.

Strategy 3.1. Through collaboration with park partners, park staff will work to 

improve public understanding of the park as an ocean park through expanded 

interpretation and outreach through media and new technologies. 

Strategy 3.2. Park staff will collaborate with the NPS Pacific Coast Science and 

Learning Center to expand communication of ocean science and research to park 

staff, visitors and the general public. 

Strategy 3.3. Park staff will continue to engage students and visitors in ocean 

stewardship through the Crissy Field Center, park partners, and other organizations 

through educational programs.

Strategy 3.4. Park staff will support the Bay Water Trail as a form of sustainable 

recreation and collaborate with other organizations to outreach to trail users to 

ensure protection of marine and estuarine resources. 

Goal 4. Increase Technical Capacity for Ocean Exploration and Stewardship

By drawing on the resources and expertise of other agencies and organizations, the park 

will leverage partnerships and increase its technical capacity to protect natural and 

cultural ocean resources.

Strategy 4.1. Through joint research programs with other agencies and 

organizations, park staff will facilitate research that improves our understanding of 

ocean resources.

Strategy 4.2. Park staff will partner with regional agencies on research and modeling 

of, and management response to, sediment dynamics and other coastal and ocean 

processes within the San Francisco littoral cell.
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 132

Strategy 4.3. Park staff will actively support ocean stewardship programs of park 

partners, such as California Seabird Protection Network, Gulf of the Farallones 

National Marine Sanctuary Beach Watch program, and Point Reyes Bird 

Observatory Conservation Science's Alcatraz Island seabird program.

Strategy 4.4. Park staff will continue to partner with regional, state, and federal 

agencies to monitor and model sea level rise and other local effects of climate 

change and assess affects on ocean and coastal resources.

Strategy 4.5. Park staff will partner with local and regional scientific and political 

entities to develop protection, mitigation, adaptation and restoration strategies and 

provide guidance on management of park resources that may be affected by climate 

change, including inundation and accelerated coastal erosion associated with sea 

level rise, increased storm wave energy and altered flow regimes.
Volume I: 133

PARK COLLECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

The park collections represent the fourth largest in the national park system, reflecting 

more than 200 years of the area’s history. The park’s legacy is reflected through artifacts 

relating to Native American culture, the evolution of military history from Spanish 

Colonial times to the coastal defense and Cold War periods, the advances of maritime 

history and Westward expansion, and the park's relationship with the surrounding San 

Francisco Bay Area communities. Highlighting this rich chronicle of history are 

significant collections from Alcatraz Island, the U.S. Army, the Nike Missile Site; 

archeological remains from every episode of the park’s history; and archival photographs, 

oral histories, architectural drawings, and documents. The park’s natural specimen 

collections reflect the unique geological features and fragile biodiversity of the central 

Californian coastal ecosystems.

To convey the diversity and scope of the collections and their representation of the park’s 

cultural and natural resource heritage, these goals allow the collections to be better 

understood through continued access, study, interpretation, and education, while ensuring 

their preservation.

The goals that follow broaden the scope of collection management for long-term 

preservation and for the use of the collections in interpretive and educational programs.

GOALS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

• Preserve and Maintain the Collections

Establish a curatorial and research facility that allows for consolidation of the 

majority of the park collections while meeting the national standards for security, fire 

protection, and environmental control. Provide public space for research and 

changing exhibits in this facility.

Provide facilities and implement programs that ensure the long-term preservation of 

the collections through regular maintenance and preventive conservation. 

Evaluate and catalog the entire collection to ensure that materials are accessible and 

information is available for educational programming, research, and exhibits. 

For more information on collection storage facilities, see “Facilities for Maintenance, 

Public Safety, and Collections Storage” earlier in this section.

• Connect People with the Park’s Collections

Develop a park collection program that engages the visitor in memorable and 

meaningful learning opportunities, broadens public access, and creates a sense of 

place within historic sites. 
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 134

Create opportunities for individuals to participate in the stewardship of the park 

collections so that visitors connect with, learn about, and enjoy this park resource. 

Conduct oral histories that capture the stories associated with the park’s resources 

and primary interpretive themes. Preserve the oral histories and make them accessible 

to staff, visitors, researchers, and scholars. 

Develop a research and scholar’s program that expands our knowledge and 

understanding of the park collections. Using evolving technologies, develop 

partnerships with and links to local and national organizations to place the collections 

in a broader historical and scientific context. 

Provide outreach opportunities to a wider community and national audiences through 

virtual technologies and traveling exhibits. These technologies and exhibits would 

inform and orient visitors, increase understanding and appreciation of park resources, 

and improve public use and accessibility of the park collections. 

• Strengthen the Collection

Strengthen the park’s collection by focusing on representations of the park’s themes 

and varied resources.

Strengthen the park collections’ comprehensiveness and representation of the park’s 

significance and varied resources through the targeted collection of materials that are 

missing, misrepresented, or underrepresented in the collections. 

Establish a set of protocols with the repositories that maintain the park’s natural 

history specimen collections that allows access for park staff, visitors, researchers, 

and scholars. Define parkwide policies for future collection and storage of the park’s 

natural history specimens.
Volume I: 135

PARTNERSHIPS

When people engage with the park through participation in a park or park partner 

program, they make an emotional connection to the park. This connection often creates 

an appreciation and support for the national park and its resources. Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area has effectively created and maintained partnerships that have increased 

the number and diversity of channels through which the community and visitors can 

engage with the park, thus extending the opportunity of engagement to more people, in 

more ways. These opportunities not only strengthen ties to Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, they help to strengthen Americans’ ties to their national park system. 

The entire organization at Golden Gate National Recreation Area works to facilitate and 

maintain partnership opportunities by incorporating partnership development into every 

aspect of the organization. This includes specifically recruiting and training for partnering 

skills, organizing park staff in a way that facilitates partnerships, and actively seeking 

partners in the search for solutions to park management issues. Park managers are 

constantly evolving the partnership concept and exploring partnership practices from 

around the globe to gather innovative partnership ideas and best practices. The park 

aspires to continue its role as a learning laboratory in developing powerful and successful 

partnerships in a national park. The park staff will continue its focus on partnership 

development by 

• Identifying Partnership Opportunities 

A partnership solution will be actively considered when tackling park management 

issues. The decision to establish a specific partnership is guided by a need that ties to 

and supports the park’s purpose and significance, and which is best fulfilled or 

strengthened with a park partner. First, define the management issue and objectives; 

second, ask if a partner may be able to assist in meeting those objectives, or if 

working with a partner may improve park management’s capabilities, the process, or 

level of community engagement. Then seek out the partner or partners who might be 

the most qualified and capable of meeting the objectives. 

• Developing Win-Win Partnerships

Each partner needs to see their contribution alongside the benefit gained. Selecting 

and maintaining a partner requires a clear understanding of the mutual benefits. It is 

important to tie the partnership and its outcomes to the missions of each partner. 

Sharing resources, benefits, and recognition of successes keeps the partnership from 

becoming lopsided or dominated by any one player. 

• Being Innovative in Crafting Partnerships 

Partnerships may often be limited in vision, or significantly constrained by a riskadverse perspective or a need to control outcomes. Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area managers commit to a broad partnership vision that includes a capability to take 

reasonable risk in partnerships within the parameters of policy and a willingness to 

share control in enacting the vision for its park lands. 
PART 3: ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 136

• Sharing a Vision

The partners collaborate in developing and refining a shared vision of the need that is 

to be fulfilled and the work that is to be accomplished through the partnership. The 

shared vision is reflected both in the broad body of work and in each project or 

initiative that is undertaken. Each partnership will require a culture of full 

engagement from the very beginning that leads to collective enthusiasm and clear 

results.

• Maintaining Clear Expectations 

Partnerships will require formal written agreements and work plans that define 

mutual interests and expectations, the roles and responsibilities of each partner, and 

clear accountability for the work to be performed. The staff of each partner 

organization needs to truly understand and embrace the mission and role of each 

partner and their contribution to stewardship of park resources and visitor 

opportunities. Good park partnerships represent a delicate balance between 

maintaining one’s own identity and adding value to a collective effort of park 

stewardship.

• Committing to Actively Managing Partnerships 

All partners will invest time and resources in revisiting the partnership as needed to 

ensure it is on track and meeting the objectives. If a partnership is underperforming 

or not performing, Golden Gate National Recreation Area managers will

reinvigorate, restructure, or end the partnership—redirecting the resources to a more 

successful or new partner. 
Volume 1: 137

TRAILS

INTRODUCTION

Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s trail system would continue to be managed and 

improved to provide an enduring system of sustainable trails. Trails provide one of the 

most important ways that visitors experience and enjoy the park and discover its diverse 

settings. 

The park’s extensive network of trails allows millions of people to discover the natural 

world and deepen their awareness of the grandeur and fragility of park landscapes and 

resources. Sustainably designed and maintained trails welcome public use while 

protecting habitat and landscape and, in some cases, are historic resources themselves. 

Trails can support healthy lifestyles and offer a nonmotorized way to get to the park and 

its destinations. 

A system of ranch and military roads inherited when the park was established in 1972 is

the basis for much of the current trail system. Since then, park managers, with partners 

and the community, have planned and completed many improvements to park trails to 

better serve the public and protect park resources.

Much of the trail system still requires upgrading to improve conditions, provide more 

sustainable alignments, and to fill gaps in the system. In new areas where the park is 

expanding, such as Rancho Corral de Tierra, a thorough evaluation and plan would be 

required following this general management plan to guide needed improvements. 

The successful Trails Forever initiative that was launched in 2003 with a focus on the 

California Coastal Trail is the most current and best example of the potential of publiccommunity collaboration to establish a network of exceptional trails. Looking beyond the 

trails to incorporate caring for the setting through which they travel has integrated 

improvements to the natural and cultural resources along trail corridors into the trail 

projects. This approach has expanded the benefits and reach of the program and has 

inspired an unprecedented level of volunteer support that is key to the ongoing success of 

the program.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s trail system would provide a sustainable 

network for visitors to access, enjoy, and understand the diversity of park settings while 

protecting park resources. The recreation area’s trails would connect communities to the 

park, and park sites and destinations to each other, to adjacent public lands, and to the 

regional network of trails. 

GOALS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

• Provide a system of trails integrated with the trail network beyond park boundaries, 

with coordinated regulations and supported by accurate maps and consistent signs. 

• Continue to coordinate with other agencies and organizations to complete a 

comprehensive regional and national trail system that includes the California Coastal 

Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail, San Francisco Bay Trail, Juan Bautista de Anza 
PART 3: ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 138

National Historic Trail, American Discovery Trail, and San Francisco Bay Water 

Trail.

• Establish and maintain a trail system that offers a diversity of park experiences, 

including walking, hiking, scenery viewing, learning, horseback riding, bicycling; 

trails of varying lengths and loop configurations, varying degrees of challenge; 

access to a diversity of park settings; and opportunities for universal access where 

appropriate. 

• Locate, design, and maintain new or improved trails and trailheads using best 

practices and sustainable design to protect the park’s natural and cultural resources, 

provide enjoyable and safe access, and reduce ongoing maintenance requirements. 

• Integrate improvements to the surrounding cultural landscape and natural habitats 

when creating or rehabilitating trails and, where appropriate, convert former 

management roads to trails.

• Create trails and trailheads that promote nonmotorized travel to and within the park, 

reducing the carbon footprint and supporting healthy communities. 

• Establish a coordinated system of signs to provide wayfinding information, support 

understanding of the park history and resources, and communicate regulations.

• Create and support partnerships and community involvement in trail planning and 

ongoing stewardship, while continuing to engage the community through the Trails 

Forever initiative.

Marin County Trails

The Marin County trail system is well established. For much of Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area’s Marin County lands, trail improvements have been identified in recent 

plans and trail system improvements are ongoing. Future efforts would focus on 

continuing to improve existing trails, including sustainable alignments and design, 

improving connectivity and accessibility, and providing wayfinding signs.

San Francisco City and County Trails

The more formal trails of San Francisco lands in the planning area are the Bay Trail, the 

California Coastal Trail, and their connectors. Continued efforts to improve these trails 

would focus on sustainable design to protect park resources, address the volume of use, 

and improve connectivity, especially to transit and the regional trail system.

San Mateo County Trails

In established areas of the park (Mori Point, Milagra Ridge, Sweeney Ridge) future 

efforts would focus on continuing to improve existing trails, including sustainable 

alignments and design, improved connectivity and accessibility, and provision of 

wayfinding signs. Safe trailheads, appropriate for both local and regional visitors, would 

be provided. Where appropriate, former management roads would be converted to trails. 

A more comprehensive approach to trail planning would be required for new areas 
Trails

Volume I: 139

coming into park management (Pedro Point, Rancho Corral de Tierra) and areas where 

trail deficiencies have not been addressed (Phleger Estate).
Volume 1: 140

TRANSPORTATION

Continued transportation planning and management is key to providing the broadest 

range of access for all visitors to Golden Gate National Recreation Area while reducing 

the park’s carbon footprint. To protect the park’s natural and cultural resources and 

provide for a high-quality visitor experience, addressing congestion, improving safety, 

and facilitating access/circulation to and within the park must remain important 

components of park planning. Access to the park must be provided and improved via 

alternative modes such as transit, bicycle, ferries, and trails. These transportation 

strategies were highlighted in the 1980 general management plan for the park and they 

are even more relevant today, in the face of climate change.

The park would pursue sustainable, multimodal access to park sites in partnership with 

other organizations. By improving trails, roads, and transit connections, a network of 

equitable energy efficient, low-emissions multimodal transportation options would allow 

for enjoyable access to park sites.

GOALS

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Create enjoyable and welcoming transportation experiences for all visitors. 

• Preserve and protect park resources by minimizing transportation impacts. 

• Create equitable and convenient multimodal transportation options to and within the 

park. 

• Inspire an environmental consciousness by demonstrating environmental excellence 

in transportation. 

• Optimize management of the park transportation system through coordinated 

planning, programming, management, and maintenance. 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

• Expand Regional Park Ferry Access

As envisioned in the 1980 general management plan, the staff at Golden Gate

National Recreation Area continues to pursue expanded ferry access as an alternative 

means of travel among Fort Baker, Fort Mason, and the Presidio including possible 

links to Alcatraz Island, Angel Island, Sausalito, Tiburon, Larkspur and the East Bay. 

The National Park Service would continue to collaborate with the Water Emergency 

Transportation Authority and the San Francisco Port Authority to explore a range of 

future ferry connections. These planning efforts seek to improve visitor experience 

with links between park sites and the regional ferry network. Water taxi access would
Transportation

Volume I: 141

also be considered as a component of the full network of waterborne access where 

fixed-route and scheduled ferry service may not be warranted. 

• Address Alcatraz Island Ferry Access

Consistent with regional, multiagency planning efforts, the National Park Service is 

evaluating new ferry departure points for Alcatraz Island from the northern 

waterfront of San Francisco.

• Pursue online Trip Planning/Wayfinding 

The park would continue to pursue improved mapping capabilities to enable visitor 

trip planning, integrated interpretive information and route planning, and other 

interactive tools. These ongoing improvements would be both online and at park and 

gateway sites. These website improvements would facilitate a broader understanding 

of park resources and the full array of transportation modes available to access them. 

Online trip planning would be linked or integrated with existing regional trip 

planning systems and other new technology encouraging use of alternative modes of 

access where available. 

• Employ Tools for Congestion Management

Congestion management or transportation demand management is a collection of 

management tools focused on shifting personal travel patterns to off-peak periods, 

more efficient modes (such as public transit and ridesharing) and alternative modes 

(such as cycling and walking) to offset vehicle congestion, particularly during peak 

periods. Tools could include improving and promoting transit options, implementing 

a reservation system, shifting employee work hours, and employing congestion fees 

(such as parking fees). In addition to parking fees included in the Marin Headlands 

and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and Management Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (2009), the other sites where parking fees would be 

considered include Stinson Beach, Tennessee Valley, Lands End, Fort Mason, Fort 

Funston, and Muir Woods. The park staff would continue to explore a full range of 

these tools to offset congestion at park sites. 

• Expand the Muir Woods Shuttle

The park staff would continue to collaborate with Marin County to improve the Muir 

Woods shuttle service.

• Employ Intelligent Transportation Systems 

Intelligent transportation systems use technology to improve transportation 

efficiency, such as electronic highway message signs with up-to-date travel 

information or electronic bus stop signs with up-to-the-minute information about bus 

arrivals. These tools help travelers better plan their trip and often help travelers 

choose alternative routes or modes to avoid congestion. As a result, the total 

distribution of travelers is spread more evenly across the system and the system 

functions more efficiently. Park managers would continue to work with Caltrans and 

other agencies to employ tools to support the Muir Woods shuttle and other 

alternative transportation access to park sites.
PART 3: ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Volume I: 142

• Implement the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and 

Management Plan of 2009 

Continue to implement actions that 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 park.

• Improve Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Collaboration 

Mobility, access, and connectivity form the keystone of the park and monument’s 

multimodal transportation system. Although cars will continue to be an important 

part of the transportation system, the park staff is committed to reducing dependence 

on the automobile by increasing the efficiency of other modes of travel. Creating 

practical transportation choices and educating the public of their viability and 

desirability will increase use of modes other than cars. The park staff will continue to 

collaborate with regional partners to achieve the vision of creating a seamless 

multimodal transportation system to access the park for residents and visitors in the 

Bay Area. This collaboration extends to applying “universal design” principles that 

provide access for people with disabilities.

• Develop a Long-Range Transportation Plan 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area is developing the first park-level long-range 

transportation plan. An important component of this process is the creation of a list of 

prioritized future transportation projects, or the transportation improvement plan. 

Together, they would articulate the transportation priorities of the park. 

As a pilot project, the park staff would develop a model for park-level transportation 

planning in a manner that is consistent with state and metropolitan planning 

organizations. The project would provide NPS leaders with a replicable park-level 

transportation planning process, benchmarks for evaluating transportation projects, 

and park guidance for future planning and operational decisions.