[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39951-39963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18687]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDIO TRUST

36 CFR Part 1010

RIN 3212-AA02


Management of the Presidio: Environmental Quality

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Presidio Trust (Trust) was created by Congress in 1996 to 
manage a portion of the former U.S. Army base known as the Presidio, in 
San Francisco, California. Pursuant to law, administrative jurisdiction 
of approximately 80 percent of this property was transferred from the 
National Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior (DOI), to the 
Trust as of July 1, 1998. By publication in the Federal Register on 
June 30, 1998 (63 FR 35694), the Trust adopted a final interim rule for 
interim management of the area under its administrative jurisdiction. 
This proposed rule would supplement those requirements with regulations 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 
would replace the Trust's interim procedures and guidelines for 
implementing NEPA, the availability of which was noticed in the Federal 
Register on September 14, 1998 (63 FR 49142). Public comment is invited 
on this proposed rule and will be considered by the Trust in 
promulgating a final rule.

DATES: Comments on this rulemaking must be received by September 21, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be sent to Karen 
A. Cook, General Counsel, the Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. 
Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Cook, General Counsel, the 
Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 
94129-0052, Telephone: 415-561-5300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Presidio Trust is a wholly-owned government corporation created 
pursuant to Title I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097 (the Trust Act). Pursuant to section 
103(b) of the Trust Act, the Secretary of the Interior transferred 
administrative jurisdiction to the Trust of all of Area B of the former 
Presidio Army Base, as shown on the map referenced in the statute, on 
July 1, 1998.
    Section 104(j) of the Trust Act authorizes the Trust, ``in 
consultation with the Secretary [of the U.S. Department of the 
Interior], to adopt and to enforce those rules and regulations that are 
applicable to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and that may be 
necessary and appropriate to carry out its duties and 
responsibilities'' under the Trust Act. Consistent with that authority 
as well as regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 
40 CFR 1507.3(a), the Trust has adopted interim procedures and 
guidelines for implementing NEPA, in consultation with CEQ. These 
interim procedures and guidelines consist of those of the National Park 
Service, to the extent they do not conflict with the Presidio Trust Act 
or regulations of the Presidio Trust. Notice of the Trust's adoption of 
these interim procedures was published in the Federal Register on 
September 14, 1998 (63 FR 49142). These interim procedures and 
guidelines will remain in effect until the Trust adopts final 
procedures and guidelines, as proposed herein, which will replace the 
interim procedures and guidelines in their entirety.
    Prior to proposing these regulations, the Trust consulted with CEQ 
pursuant to its regulations, 40 CFR 1507.3(a). The Trust has also 
consulted with officials of the Department of the Interior and the 
National Park Service designated by the Secretary of the Interior to 
facilitate such consultation. The Trust anticipates that consultation 
with these and other interested entities will continue during the 
comment period on these proposed regulations.
    The Trust is providing for a public comment period of 60 days on 
these regulations. All comments, including names and addresses, when 
provided, will be placed in the public record and made available for 
public inspection and copying. The Trust will consider each comment 
received within this period and then publish final regulations in the 
Federal Register. That promulgation will include a discussion of any 
comments received and any amendments made to these proposed regulations 
as a result of the comments.

Foundations of This Rulemaking

    In drafting these proposed regulations, the Trust primarily 
consulted the NEPA procedures and guidelines of the National Park 
Service, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the 
former Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC), a wholly-
owned government corporation that had responsibility for administering 
projects and property along the corridor from the White House to the 
Capitol in Washington, D.C. Although parts of the

[[Page 39952]]

NEPA procedures of each of these federal entities are incorporated into 
the Trust's proposed regulations, the Trust relied on the PADC 
regulations as the primary model for their structure and format. These 
regulations of the PADC are found at 36 CFR part 907.
    The Trust chose the PADC regulations as its model for a number of 
reasons. First, there are many similarities between the Trust and the 
PADC. Both were created to manage a relatively large area of property 
of national interest in an urban locale. Like the PADC, the Trust is a 
wholly-owned federal government corporation and is expected to make use 
of private sector resources and approaches in meeting its goals on 
behalf of the public. Both the Trust and the PADC were designed to be 
directed by a Board of Directors including private individuals and 
public officials, and their statutory authorities are similar. Second, 
the Trust found the PADC regulations to be appropriately concise and 
flexible for an organization of the Trust's size that is involved to a 
great extent in planning, land use, construction, and leasing 
activities. Third, the PADC regulations were published in the Federal 
Register following notice, public comment, and CEQ review, and they 
have been formally promulgated as regulations in the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Finally, like the PADC at the time that its NEPA 
regulations were adopted, the Trust is in a position to refer to and 
build upon significant planning and environmental review work that has 
already been completed for the area under its administrative 
jurisdiction, undergone public review, and been approved by appropriate 
agencies. This work has been documented in the Final General Management 
Plan Amendment (July 1994) for the Presidio of San Francisco (the 
``Plan''), prepared by the NPS, and in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (July 1994) (the ``Plan EIS'') prepared in conjunction with 
the Plan by the NPS. The Trust is required to exercise many of its 
authorities in accordance with the general objectives of the General 
Management Plan Amendment. Trust Act, section 104(a).
    Although the Trust did not rely on them as a model for the 
structure of its NEPA regulations, the Trust also looked both to the 
NEPA regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) and to the NPS procedures and guidelines to provide substantive 
content in certain areas, particularly concerning categorical 
exclusions from further NEPA review. The current HUD regulations are 
found at 24 CFR part 50 and contain a categorical exclusion that is 
potentially applicable to the anticipated activities of the Trust with 
respect to the residential structures in the area under its 
administrative jurisdiction. The current NPS procedures and guidelines 
are found in ``NPS-12: National Environmental Policy Act Guidelines,'' 
which was originally adopted in 1982 and, while advisory, serves as a 
permanent directive to the NPS. NPS is in the process of developing a 
Director's Order and NPS Handbook 12 to replace the 1982 NPS-12. A 
draft of the handbook is currently available on the Internet at http://
www.nps.gov/planning/nepa/!nps12.pdf. It is to this draft that the 
Trust has referred in drafting its proposed NEPA regulations. Although 
the scope and structure of this 129-page draft is beyond what is 
necessary for the Trust's purposes, and although it interweaves 
guidance on certain authorities that are inapplicable to the Trust, a 
number of categorical exclusions identified in the NPS draft are 
potentially applicable to the anticipated activities of the Trust and 
therefore have been incorporated into these proposed regulations.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    Although these regulations adopt the general structure of the PADC 
regulations, they have been reorganized in order to more clearly 
describe the usual order in which NEPA issues are considered. 
Specifically, the PADC regulations first describe ``actions that 
normally require an EIS,'' then ``actions that do not require an EA or 
an EIS,'' and then ``actions that normally require an EA.'' In the 
normal course, the responsible agency official first determines whether 
an action is one that normally does not require either an EA or an EIS, 
i.e., one that is categorically excluded. If it is not such an action, 
the responsible agency official then considers whether the action is 
one that normally requires an EIS, and if so, an EIS is usually 
prepared. If the action is not one that is categorically excluded and 
also not one that normally requires an EIS, then an EA is usually 
prepared, following which a determination is made as to whether an EIS 
should be prepared or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) should 
be made. These regulations have been reordered to parallel this 
customary course of decision-making.

Section 1010.1  Policy

    This section is adapted almost verbatim from Sec. 907.1 of this 
title. Paragraph (d) of this section has been revised slightly to 
recognize that the Trust has a broader mission than the PADC.

Section 1010.2  Purpose

    This section is adapted almost verbatim from Sec. 907.2 of this 
title and has been revised simply to be applicable to the Trust and to 
provide a precise reference to the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA.

Section 1010.3  Definitions

    In modeling these proposed regulations on the existing regulations 
of the NPS and DOI, the Trust consistently changed a variety of terms 
used in the existing regulations as appropriate to the Trust and its 
separate mission, organization and statutory authority. First, 
references to the ``Corporation'' were changed to the ``Trust.'' 
Second, the term ``development area'' was replaced by ``Presidio Trust 
Area,'' as defined in Sec. 1001.4 of the Trust's proposed regulations. 
Third, the definitions of ``Plan'' and ``Final EIS'' were changed to 
reflect the full titles of the management plan (referred to herein as 
the ``Plan'') and environmental impact statement (referred to herein as 
the ``Plan EIS'') that apply to the Presidio Trust Area as opposed to 
the PADC area. (Although these documents were prepared by the NPS, the 
Trust is a successor in interest to the NPS with respect to compliance 
with NEPA and other environmental compliance statutes. Trust Act, 
section 104(c).) Fourth, definitions for the authorizing statute and 
governing body are unnecessary in this section, since they already 
appear in Sec. 1001.4 of this chapter. Fifth, other definitions were 
eliminated because they appear infrequently in the body of the 
regulations.
    More substantive changes were made to the definitions as follows:

--The term ``Private Developer'' was changed to ``project applicant,'' 
since projects that may be proposed for the Presidio Trust Area are 
likely to encompass a wider variety of work than simply development by 
private parties. The definition was also expanded to include 
partnerships and corporations, in order to make clear that the form of 
organization is immaterial to its status as a project applicant.
--The acronyms ``EIS'' for environmental impact statement and ``EA'' 
for environmental assessment were used in order to make the regulations 
more concise and easier to read. These acronyms are in common usage 
today among agencies, public interest groups, courts, and the media.
--The definition of ``decision-maker'' was shortened to simply ``the 
Board or its designee'' in order to be

[[Page 39953]]

consistent with other Trust regulations and practices.

Section 1010.4  Responsible Trust Official

    This section combines the provisions of Sec. Sec. 907.4 and 907.5 
of this title in order to keep the regulations concise. The provisions 
of Sec. 907.4 of this title are included in paragraph (a), and the 
provisions of Sec. 907.5 are included in paragraph (b). Minor 
modifications to these provisions include the following:

--A sentence has been added at the end of paragraph (a) to clarify that 
ultimate responsibility and authority for implementation of NEPA with 
respect to the Trust's activities continues to rest with the Executive 
Director and the Board of Directors. Under current Trust practice, the 
Executive Director is entitled to overrule or alter decisions of any 
Trust employee, and the Board is entitled to overrule or alter 
decisions of the Executive Director.
--In paragraph (b)(6), the term ``with the assistance of the Office of 
the General Counsel'' has been changed to ``in consultation with the 
General Counsel'' to reflect that the responsible Trust official should 
cooperatively consult with and seek the advice of the General Counsel 
and not simply be provided with the General Counsel's assistance.
--In paragraph (b)(8), the phrase concerning submittal of EIS's with 
proposed legislation has been removed since this issue is dealt with 
elsewhere in the regulations.
--In paragraph (b)(10), the reference to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
has been removed because it is unnecessary. The Trust intends to 
fulfill the requirements of this law, but need not restate it in the 
Code of Federal Regulations.
--A provision has been added, at paragraph (b)(12), allowing the 
responsible Trust official to designate other Trust employees to 
execute these duties under his or her supervision. This is necessary 
for the sake of administrative flexibility.

Section 1010.5  Major Decision Points

    This section is based on Sec. 907.6 of this title but has been 
revised for clarity. Most significantly, paragraph (b)(2) now makes 
clear that (1) A determination on whether to require an EA or EIS must 
be made prior to moving beyond the conceptual or preliminary study 
stage if the proposed action or project is not categorically excluded, 
and (2) A determination on whether to require an EIS can be made either 
with or without the completion of an EA.

Section 1010.6  Determination of Requirement for EA or EIS

    This section is adapted from Sec. 907.7 of this title and has been 
revised to reflect the usual order in which environmental review 
determinations are made, as discussed above. When appropriate, the 
Trust anticipates that this determination will be documented and made 
available to the public.

Section 1010.7  Actions That Do Not Require an EA or an EIS

    This section is adapted from Sec. 907.10 of this title and Appendix 
A to part 907 of this title. Paragraph (a) restates the general rule 
provided in the first paragraph of Sec. 907.10. Paragraph (b) restates 
the criteria set by Sec. 907.10(a). For the sake of clarity and ease of 
use, paragraph (c) provides the list of categorical exclusions without 
reference to an appendix. In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4, paragraph 
(d) provides criteria for determining that an otherwise applicable 
categorical exclusion should not be utilized because of extraordinary 
circumstances.
    The first criterion in paragraph (b) has been drafted in light of 
section 104(c) of the Trust Act, which provides that the Trust is 
considered a successor in interest to the National Park Service with 
respect to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 
U.S.C. sec. 4321 et seq. and other environmental compliance statutes. 
In preparation for the transfer of the Presidio from the Army, the NPS 
undertook an extensive planning effort, which culminated in the Plan 
and the Plan EIS. The Trust Act (section 104(a)) requires the Trust to 
use its key authorities in accordance with the general objectives of 
the Plan, among other things. The Trust therefore anticipates that the 
environmental effects of many of the actions it considers will have 
already been analyzed in the Plan EIS. Similarly, the Trust anticipates 
that, in accordance with 1010.9(c) and guidance provided by CEQ, 
proposed actions whose environmental effects may not have already been 
adequately analyzed in the Plan EIS will be considered in a NEPA 
document that will tier off of the Plan EIS. The criterion in the PADC 
regulations concerning estimated cost of the project has been removed 
in recognition of the fact that even inexpensive actions may have the 
potential for significant environmental impacts. In its place are 
inserted two additional criteria (at (b)(2) and (b)(4)) concerning 
whether additional analysis is necessary.
    Most of the categorical exclusions listed in paragraph (c) were 
derived from the PADC regulations and the draft NPS-12 guidelines. The 
PADC regulations contain ten categorical exclusions (identified herein 
as PADC-i through PADC-x); the draft NPS-12 guidelines contain 17 
categorical exclusions for which no formal documentation is necessary 
(identified herein as letters NPS-A through NPS-Q in section 3.3 of the 
draft NPS-12 guidelines) and 54 categorical exclusions for which 
minimal documentation is necessary (identified herein as NPS-A1 through 
NPS-A10, NPS-B1 through NPS-B8, NPS-C1 through NPS-C19, NPS-D1 through 
NPS-D4, NPS-E1 through NPS-E7, and NPS-F1 through NPS-F6 of section 3.4 
of the draft NPS-12 guidelines). In addition, because the Trust has 
administrative jurisdiction of a variety of residential housing units, 
one of the categorical exclusions was derived from the NEPA regulations 
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), found at 24 
CFR 50.20. These HUD regulations contain six categorical exclusions 
(identified herein as HUD-1 through HUD-6).
    These categorical exclusions of other agencies were combined and 
reorganized in order to read more clearly and apply more precisely to 
the types of actions that are likely to be undertaken in the Presidio 
Trust Area without significant environmental effects. The introductory 
paragraph also clarifies that these exclusions apply regardless of 
whether the Trust is undertaking the action, is participating in the 
action with an outside entity or entities, or is approving the action 
to be undertaken by an outside entity or entities. The following chart 
identifies the source of and discusses each categorical exclusion 
included in these proposed regulations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Proposed categorical exclusion                              Source(s) and discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Personnel actions and investigations and personal    This categorical exclusion was taken directly from NPS-
 services contracts.                                      A. In addition, PADC-i covers ``personnel actions.''

[[Page 39954]]

 
(2) Administrative actions and operations directly       This categorical exclusion was taken from PADC-ii,
 related to the operation of the Trust (e.g., purchase    adapted to the Trust, and modified to included
 of furnishings, services, and space acquisition or       maintenance facilities.
 conversion for the Trust offices or maintenance
 facilities).
(3) Internal organizational changes and facility and     This categorical exclusion was taken from NPS-B and
 office expansions, reductions, and closings.             modified to include expansions of the Trust's
                                                          facilities and offices.
(4) Routine financial transactions, including such       This categorical exclusion was taken from NPS-C and
 things as salaries and expenses, procurement,            modified to include procurement of all sorts and not
 guarantees, financial assistance, income transfers,      simply procurement contracts, since the Trust by law
 audits, fees, bonds and royalties.                       operates under different procurement requirements than
                                                          does the NPS.
(5) Management, formulation, allocation, transfer and    This categorical exclusion was taken from NPS-G.
 reprogramming of the Trust's budget.
(6) Routine and continuing government business,          This categorical exclusion was taken directly from NPS-
 including such things as supervision, administration,    F.
 operations, maintenance, and replacement activities
 having limited context and intensity (limited size and
 magnitude or short-term effects).
(7) Preparation, issuance, and submittal of              This categorical exclusion combines NPS-L and NPS-N.
 publications and routine reports.                        Although NPS-N applies only to routine reports
                                                          required by law or regulation, that limitation has
                                                          been dropped here in recognition of the fact that the
                                                          Trust will likely prepare routine reports from time to
                                                          time at its own initiative, but that will nevertheless
                                                          have no significant environmental impacts.
(8) Activities which are educational, informational, or  This categorical exclusion combines the categorical
 advisory (including interpretive programs), or           exclusions of NPS-J, NPS-M, NPS-Q, and NPS-B3.
 otherwise in consultation with or providing technical
 assistance to other agencies, public and private
 entities, visitors, individuals, or the general public.
(9) Legislative proposals of an administrative or        This categorical exclusion was taken almost verbatim
 technical nature, including such things as changes in    from NPS-H.
 authorizations for appropriations or financing
 authority, minor boundary changes and land
 transactions; or having primarily economic, social,
 individual or institutional effects, as well as and
 comments and reports on legislative proposals.
(10) Promulgation of regulations and requirements, or    This categorical exclusion was taken from NPS-A8 and
 amendments thereto, provided such actions do not: (i)    modified to make clear that it covers both
 increase public use to the extent of compromising the    promulgation of new regulations and requirements and
 nature and character of the area or causing physical     modification of existing regulations and requirements.
 damage to it; (ii) introduce non-compatible uses which
 might compromise the nature and characteristics of the
 area or cause physical damage to it; (iii) conflict
 with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or (iv) cause a
 nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
(11) Proposal, adoption, revision, and termination of    This categorical exclusion was taken from NPS-I. The
 policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines of     words ``proposal, adoption, revision, and
 an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or       termination'' were included to describe actions
 procedural nature, the environmental effects of which    related to the items listed in NPS-I. In addition,
 are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend       this categorical exclusion does not include the
 themselves to meaningful environmental analysis.         restriction in NPS-I concerning such policies, etc.,
                                                          being subject to later review under NEPA, either
                                                          collectively or on a case-by-case basis. If such
                                                          policies, etc., do have environmental effects that
                                                          lend themselves to meaningful environmental analysis
                                                          in the future, then those effects will be reviewed
                                                          under NEPA at that time.
(12) Preparation, approval, coordination, and            This categorical exclusion is derived primarily from
 implementation of plans, including priorities,           NPS-B4 and includes language from NPS-B5 and NPS-E6.
 justifications, and strategies, for non-manipulative     In addition, the terms ``preparation, approval,
 and non-destructive research, monitoring,                coordination, and implementation'' were added in order
 inventorying, and information gathering.                 to cover the type of items listed in NPS-B5 (i.e.,
                                                          ``statements for management, outlines of planning
                                                          requirements, and agreements between NPS offices for
                                                          plans and studies''). The term ``non-destructive'' was
                                                          added from NPS-E6.
(13) Identification, nomination, certification, and      This categorical exclusion is derived from NPS-E5. The
 determination of eligibility of properties for listing   term ``biosphere reserves'' was removed because it is
 in the National Register of Historic Places and the      unlikely to be applicable in light of the fact that
 National Historic Landmark and National Natural          the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is already a
 Landmark Programs.                                       part of a biosphere reserve. Similarly, the term
                                                          ``development of standards'' was removed because the
                                                          Presidio Trust does not anticipate engaging in such
                                                          activities.
(14) Minor or temporary changes in amounts or types of   This categorical exclusion combines NPS-D1, NPS-D2, and
 visitor use for the purpose of ensuring visitor safety   NPS-D3 into a single item. It adds the concept of
 or resource protection, minor changes in programs or     ``temporary'' changes in amounts or types of visitor
 regulations pertaining to visitor activities, and        use. It also includes within its ambit short-term
 approval of permits for special events or public         leases of no longer than three months, provided that
 assemblies and meetings, as well as leases for use of    such leases entail only short-term or readily
 real property for no more than three months, provided    mitigated environmental disturbance.
 such events, assemblies, meetings and leases entail
 only short-term or readily mitigated environmental
 disturbance.
(15) Designation of environmental study areas and        This categorical exclusion is derived from NPS-E7.
 research areas, including those closed temporarily or
 permanently to the public, provided there is no
 environmental impact.

[[Page 39955]]

 
(16) Land and boundary surveys and minor boundary        This categorical exclusion combines NPS-K, NPS-A2, and
 adjustments or land acquisitions or exchanges            NPS-C2.
 resulting in no significant change in land use.
(17) Archaeological surveys and permits involving only   This categorical exclusion is derived from NPS-E1.
 surface collection or small-scale test excavations.
(18) Promulgation of development guidelines that are in  This categorical exclusion was taken from PADC-v. The
 accordance with the general objectives of the Plan as    term ``development general and square guidelines'' was
 covered by the Plan EIS.                                 changed to simply ``development guidelines'' in light
                                                          of the non-urban nature of much of the Presidio Trust
                                                          Area.
(19) Implementation of a proposal or plan which was      This categorical exclusion combines PADC-x, NPS-A1, and
 covered by a previously prepared EA and/or EIS or        NPS-B1. Although PADC-x was restricted to
 categorically excluded, or changes to such a proposal    ``development proposal[s] identical to the
 or plan when such changes would cause no environmental   requirements of the'' PADC's development plan, a
 impact.                                                  proposal need not be absolutely ``identical'' to a
                                                          previously considered proposal in order to be covered
                                                          by the EA and/or EIS for a very similar proposal.
(20) Contracts, work authorizations, or procurement      This categorical exclusion was taken from PADC-vi. The
 actions directly related to and implementing             words ``or which were categorically excluded'' have
 proposals, programs, and master agreements for which     been added to make clear that the criteria here is
 an EA and/or an EIS have been prepared, or which were    that the proposal, program, or master agreement have
 categorically excluded, or which are related to          gone through the NEPA process to the extent that it
 administrative operation of the Trust.                   was required.
(21) The leasing, permitting, sale, or financing of, or  This categorical exclusion is based on PADC-vii, which
 granting of non-fee interests regarding, real or         uses the term ``[a]cquisition/disposal by lease,
 personal property in the Presidio Trust Area.            easement, or sale of real and personal property owned
                                                          by the Corporation.* * *'' The term ``permitting'' was
                                                          added to recognize this form of legal agreement, which
                                                          has been used by the NPS in the past and may continue
                                                          to be used by the Trust. The PADC-vii exclusion also
                                                          refers to such actions ``implementing a prior decision
                                                          of the Board of Directors.'' The Trust anticipates
                                                          that all such actions will be implementing prior
                                                          decisions of or direction provided by the Board, and
                                                          therefore has eliminated this requirement as
                                                          superfluous. The Trust is barred from selling fee
                                                          interests in real property under its administrative
                                                          jurisdiction, and the wording of this categorical
                                                          exclusion is in no way intended to add to the Trust's
                                                          authority under law.
(22) Extension, reissuance, renewal, renegotiation,      This categorical exclusion combines NPS-A3, NPS-A4, NPS-
 modification, conversion in form, or termination of      A5, and NPS-A6. The term ``conversion in form'' is
 agreements for use of real property (including but not   intended to cover the situation in NPS-A4 regarding
 limited to leases, permits, licenses, concession         ``conversion of existing permits to rights-of-way'' as
 contracts, use and occupancy agreements, easements,      well as other conversions in form (e.g., from a
 and rights-of-way) that were in force as of the date     concession contract to a lease). The Trust has
 the Trust received administrative jurisdiction of the    inherited a variety of agreements from the NPS in a
 underlying real property, so long as such agreements     variety of forms and may wish to standardize these
 were previously subject to NEPA, do not involve new      through such conversion.
 construction or new or substantially greater
 environmental impacts, and new information of
 substantial importance or changed circumstances
 relevant to environmental conditions do not come into
 play.
(23) Issuance of permits relating to minor development   This categorical exclusion comes from PADC-iv, which
 activities (sign approval, interior modifications,       was modified (1) to cover ``issuance of permits,''
 minor exterior changes to facade, etc.) that are         which entails a decision, rather than ``review of
 consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's          permit applications,'' and (2) to add a requirement of
 ``Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties''   consistency with the Secretary's Standards as they may
 at 36 CFR Part 68, as applicable.                        apply to the Presidio, since the Presidio is a
                                                          National Historic Landmark. The restriction to the
                                                          PADC ``Development Area'' was also removed as it was
                                                          relevant only to the PADC.
(24) Rehabilitation, modification, or improvement of     This categorical exclusion is intended to cover work on
 historic properties in conformance with the Secretary    structures and other properties that will not have the
 of the Interior's ``Standards for the Treatment of       potential for significant environmental effect. Work
 Historic Properties'' at 36 CFR Part 68.                 undertaken in conformance with similar standards at 36
                                                          CFR 67.7 is considered not to harm historic structures
                                                          under regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
                                                          Preservation at 36 CFR 800.9(c)(2).
(25) Rehabilitation, modification, or improvement of
 non-historic properties when the following conditions
 are met:.
    (i) In the case of residential buildings, the unit
     density is not changed more than 20 percent
    (ii) The project does not involve changes in land
     use (from non-residential to residential or from
     residential to non-residential); and
    (iii) The estimated cost of rehabilitation is less   This categorical exclusion is taken from HUD-2, but has
     than 75 percent of the total estimated cost of       been restricted to apply only to non-historic
     replacement after rehabilitation                     structures and other properties, since historic
                                                          structures and other properties are covered by the
                                                          preceding categorical exclusion.
(26) Removal, reduction, or restraint of resident        This categorical exclusion is derived from NPS-E3 and
 individuals of species that are not threatened or        has been modified to cover dangers to residents and
 endangered which pose dangers to visitors, residents,    neighbors of the Presidio Trust Area and also to cover
 or neighbors or immediate threats to resources of the    reduction (e.g., trimming of vegetation) and restraint
 Presidio Trust Area.                                     (e.g., impoundment of animals).

[[Page 39956]]

 
(27) Removal of non-historic materials and structures    This categorical exclusion comes directly from NPS-E4.
 in order to restore natural conditions when such
 removal has no potential for adverse environmental
 impacts, including impacts to cultural landscapes or
 archaeological resources.
(28) Installation, construction, removal, permitting,    This categorical exclusion combines NPS-C5, NPS-C8, NPS-
 maintenance, replacement-in-kind, relocation,            C9, NPS-C10; NPS-C11; NPS-C12, NPS-C17, NPS-C18, NPS-
 operation, or modification of signs, displays, kiosks,   C19, and NPS-D4, which cover such minor structures.
 traffic control devices, pedestrian and traffic safety   The restriction in NPS-C17 and NPS-C18 on ``areas
 features, trails, trailside camping zones, fencing,      showing clear evidence of recent human disturbance''
 landscaping, sanitary facilities, comfort stations,      has been removed as unnecessary in light of the
 utility facilities, parking lots, and other minor        centuries of human occupation of the Presidio Trust
 structures and facilities.                               Area and the developed state of much of the Presidio
                                                          Trust Area. Likewise, the restriction in NPS-C19 on
                                                          construction of fences ``posing no effect on wildlife
                                                          migrations'' has also been removed in light of the
                                                          lack of existing wildlife migration in the Presidio
                                                          Trust Area that would be hindered by fences.
(29) Routine maintenance, property management, resource  This categorical exclusion comes primarily from NPS-O.
 management, and research or educational activities       PADC-iii also covers ``property management,'' and that
 with no potential for environmental impact or non-       term was added here to reflect the breadth of the
 conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's         Trust's authorities in the Presidio Trust Area. Also
 ``Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties''   added was the reference to the Secretary's Standards,
 at 36 CFR Part 68, as applicable.                        in light of the Presidio's status as a National
                                                          Historic Landmark.
(30) Issuance of rights-of-way for and installation,     This categorical exclusion combines NPS-C13, NPS-C14,
 maintenance, or repair of overhead or underground        NPS-C15, and NPS-C16 concerning utilities and utility
 utility lines (e.g., power, water, irrigation,           rights-of-way. The restriction in NPS-C16 on ``areas
 telecommunications, etc.) not involving placement of     showing clear evidence of recent human disturbance''
 poles or towers outside of existing traffic and          has been modified to require conformance with the
 utility corridors and not involving vegetation           Secretary's Standards, in light of the developed state
 clearance (other than for placement of poles), and not   of much of the Presidio Trust Area.
 resulting in visual intrusion in the Presidio Trust
 Area or non-conformance with the Secretary's
 ``Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties''
 at 36 CFR Part 68, as applicable; and.
(31) Experimental testing of no longer than 180 days of  This categorical exclusion is derived from NPS-C7. The
 mass transit systems, and changes in operation of        limitation in NPS-C7 is for ``testing of short
 existing systems with no potential for adverse           duration (no more than one season),'' but this
 environmental impact.                                    categorical exclusion sets a more precise (and longer)
                                                          limit of 180 days, both for the sake of clarity and
                                                          for the sake of necessary and appropriate testing
                                                          under real-world conditions in an area that interacts
                                                          with mass transit systems of neighboring
                                                          jurisdictions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of Sec. 907.10(c) of this title concerning changes 
to the list of categorical exclusions have not been included in these 
regulations. Nevertheless, the Trust anticipates that this list of 
categorical exclusions will be reviewed and refined as additional 
categories are identified and as experience is gained in the 
categorical exclusion process. Changes to this list--like any changes 
to the wording of these proposed regulations--will be made only after 
consultation with CEQ and public notice and opportunity for comment.

Section 1010.8  Actions That Normally Require an EIS

    This section is adapted from Sec. 907.8 of this title and has 
generally been revised for clarity and simplicity. In particular, the 
specific criteria in paragraph (b) have been replaced by a reference to 
the criteria enumerated in the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27.
    In paragraph (c), the reference to amendments to the PADC Plan in 
the PADC regulations has not been included. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) 
are derived from Sec. 907.8(b)(3) and (4) of this title, respectively. 
Paragraph (c)(2) has been revised to remove any implication that the 
Trust might approve, fund, or construct a building that is not in 
accordance with the general objectives of the Plan, since such action 
would not be authorized by the Trust Act. Paragraph (c)(3) has been 
added.

Section 1010.9  Preparation of an EIS

    This section is adapted from Sec. 907.9 of this title. The second 
sentence of paragraph (a), while not included in the PADC regulations, 
is specifically authorized by 40 CFR 1507.3(e), and the Trust believes 
it is necessary to include this provision in order to provide for 
circumstances in which there may be a lengthy delay between the 
decision to prepare an EIS and the actual preparation of the EIS.
    In paragraph (b), the Trust believes the sentence referencing the 
CEQ regulations is unnecessary and so has omitted it.
    Paragraph (c) is likely to be invoked by the Trust in preparing 
NEPA documents that tier off of the Plan EIS for proposed actions that 
are in accordance with the Plan's general objectives, but whose 
environmental effects may not have been adequately analyzed in the Plan 
EIS.

Section 1010.10  Actions That Normally Require an EA

    This section is adapted from Sec. 907.11 of this title. The most 
significant changes were made to the categories of action in paragraph 
(c), which are based on Sec. 907.11(b) of this title. The first item in 
this list--which is derived from Sec. 907.11(b)(2) of this title--has 
been modified slightly to use terms more applicable to the Presidio 
Trust Area. As noted in the introductory phrase of Sec. 1010.10(c), 
regulations that would be categorically excluded under 
Sec. 1010.7(c)(11) are not required to undergo an EA. The second item 
has been revised to use a broader term than ``development proposals''--
the term used in Sec. 907.11(b)(3) of this title--for proposals that 
may be submitted by project applicants. The third item on the list is 
derived from Sec. 907.11(b)(6) and revised to cover more broadly all 
significant alterations to public access. The items listed in 
Sec. Sec. 907.11(b)(1), (4), (5), (7), and (8) of this title have not 
been included, as they are either dealt with more precisely under the 
section on categorical exclusions or they are not applicable to the 
Presidio Trust Area.

[[Page 39957]]

Section 1010.11  Preparation of an EA

    The first three paragraphs of this section are adapted almost 
verbatim from Sec. 907.12 of this title. Paragraph (b) has been 
shortened by not listing all areas possibly covered by an EA, but 
instead noting that only those resources that are relevant need to be 
addressed in the EA. Paragraph (d) has been added to allow the use of 
``mitigated FONSIs'' in which the original proposal is revised so as to 
avoid impacts that would otherwise require the preparation of an EIS.

Section 1010.12  Public Involvement

    This section is based on Sec. 907.13 of this title, but has been 
expanded to specify specific means by which the Trust will provide for 
public involvement.

Section 1010.13  Trust Decision-making Procedures

    This section is based on Sec. 907.14 of this title.

Section 1010.14  Review of Proposals by Project Applicants

    This section is adapted from Sec. 907.15 of this title. Throughout 
these regulations, care has been taken to revise the PADC regulations 
to clarify that, consistent with CEQ regulations and this Sec. 1010.14, 
in certain circumstances the Trust is not the entity that will be 
performing the actual work to prepare the initial EA or EIS. For 
example, in Sec. 1010.8(a) (based on Sec. 907.8 of this title), the 
phrase ``PADC shall perform or have performed an environmental 
assessment'' has been changed to read ``the Trust shall require the 
preparation of an EA.'' Similarly, the phrase ``PADC will immediately 
begin to prepare or have prepared the environmental impact statement'' 
has been changed to read ``the Trust will prepare or direct the 
preparation of an EIS * * * .''
    In forming the Trust, Congress required that the Trust become 
financially self-sufficient within fifteen complete fiscal years. Trust 
Act section 105(b). If the Trust does not achieve this goal, the 
property under its administrative jurisdiction will be transferred to 
the General Services Administration for disposal in accordance with the 
Defense Authorization Act of 1990. Trust Act section 104(o). As a 
result, it is necessary for the Trust to recover from project 
applicants, to the greatest appropriate extent, the costs of 
environmental review of their proposals.
    Under the CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR 1506.5(b), the Trust may 
require that a project applicant complete the EA (as opposed to the 
EIS) regarding its project on behalf of the Trust, so long as the Trust 
makes its own evaluation of the environmental issues and takes 
responsibility for the scope and content of the final EA. This 
provision has been incorporated herein at paragraph (d).
    The CEQ Regulations contemplate that an EIS, in contrast to an EA, 
will be completed by the reviewing agency or its contractor, and not by 
the project applicant. Such an undertaking can require significant 
resources and cost in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
Given the Trust's statutory obligation to become financially self-
sufficient, the Trust believes it is appropriate in most circumstances 
to require the project applicant to cover these substantial costs. For 
similar reasons, the Trust likewise believes it is appropriate in most 
circumstances to require the project applicant to cover the costs of 
any applicable historic preservation review, including review under 
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    The Trust is mindful of the need--as expressed in the CEQ 
Regulations--for the EIS to be prepared independently by either the 
Trust or a contractor to the Trust with no financial or other interest 
in approval of the project. In light of the Trust's mandate to become 
self-sufficient, the Trust therefore has the option of recovering the 
costs of preparing EIS's either in the form of higher rents or other 
charges to the project applicant or its tenants, or in the form of an 
upfront charge on the project applicant. The Trust has rejected the 
former option, since it places the Trust in the position of not being 
able to recover its environmental review costs from an applicant whose 
project is ultimately rejected (e.g., for reasons identified in the 
environmental review process), and therefore in the position of 
potentially being viewed as having an interest in a less searching or 
independent environmental review that would encourage the ultimate 
approval of the project and recoupment of the Trust's environmental 
review costs. This would be contrary to the spirit of NEPA and the 
Trust Act.
    As a result, the Trust has opted to charge most project applicants 
an upfront, non-refundable fee sufficient to cover the anticipated 
costs of project review in the EIS stage. Paragraph (e) has been added 
in order to specify procedures for the Trust to cover these costs. 
Should an amendment or supplement to the EIS be required, the Trust may 
require an additional non-refundable fee to cover some or all of the 
anticipated costs of this work. In order to provide greater certainty 
for project applicants, encourage careful estimation and control of 
costs, and avoid any appearance that the Trust is acting at the 
direction of a project applicant because the applicant is making 
regular payments to the Trust during the review process, the Trust 
alone will bear the risk that its estimate of anticipated costs proves 
too low as a result of unforeseen circumstances (other than the need to 
prepare an amendment or supplement to the EIS). Likewise, in order to 
avoid any potential pressure for the Trust to cut corners in its 
environmental review, no portion of the fee will be refundable. In this 
way, appropriate resources will be devoted to preparation of EIS's, 
without threatening the Trust's goal of self-sufficiency and without 
jeopardizing the independence of the environmental review process.
    Furthermore, section 1010.14(e) also provides that fees paid by 
project applicants will also include costs associated with review under 
other applicable laws. Key among such other applicable laws is Section 
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Although section 
1010.14(e) is not applicable unless an EIS is to be prepared, the Trust 
intends to require applicants to bear the full cost of reviewing 
proposals under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 
while the Trust will remain responsible for the final decision on such 
proposals, consistent with regulations of the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.1(c)(1)(i).
    Because the Trust believes that in many circumstances it will be 
appropriate to require project applicants to prepare EA's and to cover 
the anticipated costs of preparing EIS's on their projects, the Trust 
has considered the potential effects that such requirements might have 
on the number of potential applicants for projects in the Presidio 
Trust Area. The Trust has concluded that such requirements will be 
financially acceptable in the marketplace among project applicants. 
First, the Presidio Trust Area is a remarkably desirable location with 
features that are unique, both in the Bay Area and elsewhere in the 
country. Second, project applicants under the California state 
counterpart to NEPA, the California Environmental Quality Act, are 
almost uniformly required by relevant state and local agencies in 
proximity to the Presidio to prepare the relevant environmental 
documentation at their own expense (and at the risk that the project 
will not be approved in an economically viable form). Third, the

[[Page 39958]]

Trust anticipates that the economics of most projects that may be 
proposed will support an upfront investment for environmental review. 
In any event, these proposed regulations would provide the Trust with 
the discretion not to apply these requirements with respect to certain 
projects or applicants where such a waiver would be appropriate.

Section 1010.15  Actions Where Lead Agency Designation is Necessary

    This section is adapted from Sec. 907.16 of this title. As a 
practical matter, the Trust anticipates that NPS will be its most 
likely partner for consultation purposes, but the regulations allow for 
consultation with other agencies (such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service) where appropriate.

Regulatory Impact

    This proposed rulemaking will not have an annual effect of $100 
million or more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, 
competition, jobs, prices, the environment, public health or safety, or 
State or local governments. This proposed rule will not interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency or raise new legal or 
policy issues. In short, little or no effect on the national economy 
will result from adoption of this proposed rule. Because this proposed 
rule is not ``economically significant,'' it is not subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. 
Furthermore, this proposed rule is not a ``major rule'' under the 
Congressional review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
    The Trust has determined and certifies pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., that this proposed rule will not 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The Trust has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed rule 
will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on 
local, State, or tribal governments or private entities.

Environmental Impact

    The Presidio Trust has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
connection with this proposed rule. The EA determined that this 
proposed rule will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 
human environment because it is neither intended nor expected to change 
the physical status quo of the Presidio in any significant manner.
    As a result, the Trust has issued a Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) concerning these final interim regulations and has 
therefore not prepared an Environmental Impact Statement concerning 
this proposed action. The EA and the FONSI were prepared in accordance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq. (NEPA), and regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 
for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500-
1508.
    Both the EA and the FONSI are available for public inspection at 
the offices of the Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, The Presidio, San 
Francisco, CA 94129, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Other Applicable Authorities

    The Presidio Trust has drafted and reviewed these proposed 
regulations in light of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that 
they meet the applicable standards provided in secs. 3(a) and (b) of 
that order.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1010

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact 
statements, National parks, Public lands, Recreation and recreation 
areas.

    Dated: July 16, 1999.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.

    Accordingly, the Presidio Trust proposes to add 36 CFR Part 1010, 
as set forth below:

CHAPTER X--PRESIDIO TRUST

Part
1010  Environmental quality

PART 1010--ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Sec.
1010.1  Policy.
1010.2  Purpose.
1010.3  Definitions.
1010.4  Responsible Trust official.
1010.5  Major decision points.
1010.6  Determination of requirement for EA or EIS.
1010.7  Actions that do not require an EA or EIS.
1010.8  Actions that normally require an EIS.
1010.9  Preparation of an EIS.
1010.10  Actions that normally require an EA.
1010.11  Preparation of an EA.
1010.12  Public involvement.
1010.13  Trust decision-making procedures.
1010.14  Review of proposals by project applicants.
1010.15  Actions where lead agency designation is necessary.
1010.16  Actions to encourage agency cooperation early in the NEPA 
process.
1010.17  Actions to eliminate duplication with State and local 
procedures.

    Authority: Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097 (16 U.S.C. sec. 460bb 
note); 42 U.S.C. sec. 4321 et seq.; 40 CFR 1507.3.


Sec. 1010.1  Policy.

    The Presidio Trust's policy is to:
    (a) Use all practical means, consistent with the Trust's statutory 
authority, available resources, and national policy, to protect and 
enhance the quality of the human environment;
    (b) Ensure that environmental factors and concerns are given 
appropriate consideration in decisions and actions by the Trust;
    (c) Use systematic and timely approaches which will ensure the 
integrated use of the natural and social sciences and environmental 
design arts in planning and decision-making which may have an impact on 
the human environment;
    (d) Develop and utilize ecological, cultural, and other 
environmental information in the management of the Presidio Trust Area 
pursuant to the Trust Act;
    (e) Invite the cooperation and encourage the participation, where 
appropriate, of Federal, State, and local authorities and the public in 
Trust planning and decision-making processes that affect the quality of 
the human environment; and
    (f) Minimize any possible adverse effects of Trust decisions and 
actions upon the quality of the human environment.


Sec. 1010.2  Purpose.

    The regulations in this part are prepared to supplement Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 for 
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and otherwise to describe how 
the Trust intends to consider environmental factors and concerns in the 
Trust's decision-making process.


Sec. 1010.3  Definitions.

    (a) The following terms have the following meanings as used in this 
part:
    Decision-maker means the Board or its designee.
    EA means an environmental assessment, as defined at 40 CFR 1508.9.
    EIS means an environmental impact statement, as defined at 40 CFR 
1508.11.
    The Plan means the Final General Management Plan Amendment (July 
1994) for the Presidio of San Francisco,

[[Page 39959]]

prepared by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
    The Plan EIS means the Final Environmental Impact Statement (July 
1994) prepared in conjunction with the Plan by the National Park 
Service. The term ``previously prepared EIS'' includes the Plan EIS.
    Project applicant means an individual, firm, partnership, 
corporation, joint venture, or other public or private entity other 
than the Trust (including a combination of more than one such entities) 
which seeks to demolish, construct, reconstruct, develop, preserve, 
rehabilitate, or restore real property within the Presidio Trust Area.
    (b) If not defined in this part or in this chapter, other terms 
used in this part have the same meanings as those provided in 40 CFR 
part 1508.


Sec. 1010.4  Responsible Trust official.

    (a) The Executive Director shall designate an employee of the Trust 
as the official responsible for implementation and operation of the 
Trust's policies and procedures on environmental quality and control. 
The delegation of this responsibility shall not abrogate the 
responsibility of the Executive Director and the Board to ensure that 
NEPA and other applicable laws are followed, or the right of the 
Executive Director and the Board to overrule or alter decisions of the 
responsible Trust official in accordance with the Trust's regulations 
and procedures.
    (b) This responsible Trust official shall:
    (1) Coordinate the formulation and revision of Trust policies and 
procedures on matters pertaining to environmental protection and 
enhancement;
    (2) Establish and maintain working relationships with relevant 
government agencies concerned with environmental matters;
    (3) Develop procedures within the Trust's planning and decision-
making processes to ensure that environmental factors are properly 
considered in all proposals and decisions in accordance with this part;
    (4) Develop, monitor, and review the Trust's implementation of 
standards, procedures, and working relationships for protection and 
enhancement of environmental quality and compliance with applicable 
laws and regulations;
    (5) Monitor processes to ensure that the Trust's procedures 
regarding consideration of environmental quality are achieving their 
intended purposes;
    (6) Advise the Board, officers, and employees of the Trust of 
technical and management requirements of environmental analysis, of 
appropriate expertise available, and, in consultation with the Trust's 
General Counsel, of relevant legal developments;
    (7) Monitor the consideration and documentation of the 
environmental aspects of the Trust's planning and decision-making 
processes by appropriate officers and employees of the Trust;
    (8) Ensure that all EA's and EIS's are prepared in accordance with 
the appropriate regulations adopted by the Council on Environmental 
Quality and the Trust;
    (9) Consolidate and transmit to appropriate parties the Trust's 
comments on EIS's and other environmental reports prepared by other 
agencies;
    (10) Acquire information and prepare appropriate reports on 
environmental matters required of the Trust;
    (11) Coordinate Trust efforts to make available to other parties 
information and advice on the Trust's policies for protecting and 
enhancing the quality of the environment; and
    (12) Designate other Trust employees to execute these duties under 
the supervision of the responsible Trust official, where necessary for 
administrative convenience and efficiency. As used in this chapter, the 
term ``responsible Trust official'' includes any such designee.


Sec. 1010.5  Major decision points.

    (a) The possible environmental effects of a proposed action or 
project within the Presidio Trust Area must be considered along with 
technical, financial, and other factors throughout the decision-making 
process. For most Trust projects there are three distinct stages in the 
decision-making process:
    (1) Conceptual or preliminary study stage;
    (2) Detailed planning or final approval stage;
    (3) Implementation stage.
    (b) Environmental review will be integrated into the decision-
making process of the Trust as follows:
    (1) During the conceptual or preliminary study stage, the 
responsible Trust official shall determine whether the proposed action 
or project is one which is categorically excluded under Sec. 1010.7 or 
requires further NEPA review (i.e., an EA or an EIS).
    (2) If the proposed action or project is not categorically 
excluded, then prior to the Trust's proceeding beyond the conceptual or 
preliminary study stage, the responsible Trust official must determine 
whether an EIS is required.
    (3) An EIS, if determined necessary, must be completed and 
circulated at the earliest point at which meaningful analysis can be 
developed for the proposed action or project, and in any event prior to 
the Trust's final approval of the proposed action or project.


Sec. 1010.6  Determination of requirement for EA or EIS.

    In deciding whether to require the preparation of an EA or an EIS, 
the responsible Trust official will determine whether the proposal is 
one that:
    (a) Normally does not require either an EA or an EIS (i.e., 
qualifies for a categorical exclusion under Sec. 1010.7);
    (b) Normally requires an EIS; or
    (c) Normally requires an EA, but not necessarily an EIS.


Sec. 1010.7  Actions that do not require an EA or EIS.

    (a) General rule. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1508.4, neither an EA nor an 
EIS is required for actions that do not individually or cumulatively 
have a significant effect on the human environment.
    (b) Criteria. The criteria which were used to determine those 
categories of action that normally do not require either an EA or an 
EIS, and which are therefore covered by the categorical exclusions 
listed in paragraph (c) of this section, include:
    (1) Implementation of the action or proposal is in accordance with 
the general objectives of the Plan and with the Trust Act, and the 
environmental effects have been adequately analyzed in the Plan EIS, or 
in a supplement thereto, or in an EA and/or an EIS; or
    (2) No additional analysis or public input is necessary to 
determine whether there is a potential for significant impact; or
    (3) The action or proposal is related solely to internal 
administrative operations of the Trust; or
    (4) Preliminary analysis indicates that no potential significant 
impact would occur.
    (c) Categorical exclusions. The categories of action identified in 
this paragraph have been determined by the Trust to have no significant 
effect on the human environment and are therefore categorically 
excluded. Such actions (whether approved by the Trust or undertaken by 
the Trust directly or indirectly) do not require the preparation of an 
EA or an EIS:
    (1) Personnel actions and investigations and personal services 
contracts;
    (2) Administrative actions and operations directly related to the 
operation of the Trust (e.g., purchase of furnishings, services, and 
space acquisition or conversion for the Trust offices or maintenance 
facilities);

[[Page 39960]]

    (3) Internal organizational changes and facility and office 
expansions, reductions, and closings;
    (4) Routine financial transactions, including such things as 
salaries and expenses, procurement, guarantees, financial assistance, 
income transfers, audits, fees, bonds and royalties;
    (5) Management, formulation, allocation, transfer and reprogramming 
of the Trust's budget;
    (6) Routine and continuing government business, including such 
things as supervision, administration, operations, maintenance, and 
replacement activities having limited context and intensity (limited 
size and magnitude or short-term effects);
    (7) Preparation, issuance, and submittal of publications and 
routine reports;
    (8) Activities which are educational, informational, or advisory 
(including interpretive programs), or otherwise in consultation with or 
providing technical assistance to other agencies, public and private 
entities, visitors, individuals, or the general public;
    (9) Legislative proposals of an administrative or technical nature, 
including such things as changes in authorizations for appropriations 
or financing authority, minor boundary changes and land transactions; 
or having primarily economic, social, individual or institutional 
effects, as well as comments and reports on legislative proposals;
    (10) Promulgation of regulations and requirements, or amendments 
thereto, provided such actions do not:
    (i) increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature 
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
    (ii) introduce non-compatible uses which might compromise the 
nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it;
    (iii) conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
    (iv) cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants;
    (11) Proposal, adoption, revision, and termination of policies, 
directives, regulations, and guidelines of an administrative, 
financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature, the environmental 
effects of which are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend 
themselves to meaningful environmental analysis;
    (12) Preparation, approval, coordination, and implementation of 
plans, including priorities, justifications, and strategies, for non-
manipulative and non-destructive research, monitoring, inventorying, 
and information gathering;
    (13) Identification, nomination, certification, and determination 
of eligibility of properties for listing in the National Register of 
Historic Places and the National Historic Landmark and National Natural 
Landmark Programs;
    (14) Minor or temporary changes in amounts or types of visitor use 
for the purpose of ensuring visitor safety or resource protection, 
minor changes in programs or regulations pertaining to visitor 
activities, and approval of permits for special events or public 
assemblies and meetings, as well as leases for use of real property for 
no more than three months, provided such events, assemblies, meetings 
and leases entail only short-term or readily mitigated environmental 
disturbance;
    (15) Designation of environmental study areas and research areas, 
including those closed temporarily or permanently to the public, 
provided there is no environmental impact;
    (16) Land and boundary surveys and minor boundary adjustments or 
land acquisitions or exchanges resulting in no significant change in 
land use;
    (17) Archaeological surveys and permits involving only surface 
collection or small-scale test excavations;
    (18) Promulgation of planning and design guidelines that are in 
accordance with the general objectives of the Plan as covered by the 
Plan EIS;
    (19) Implementation of a proposal or plan which was covered by a 
previously prepared EA and/or EIS or categorically excluded, or changes 
to such a proposal or plan when such changes would cause no 
environmental impact;
    (20) Contracts, work authorizations, or procurement actions 
directly related to and implementing proposals, programs, and master 
agreements for which an EA and/or an EIS have been prepared, or which 
were categorically excluded, or which are related to administrative 
operation of the Trust;
    (21) The leasing, permitting, sale, or financing of, or granting of 
non-fee interests regarding, real or personal property in the Presidio 
Trust Area;
    (22) Extension, reissuance, renewal, renegotiation, modification, 
conversion in form, or termination of agreements for use of real 
property (including but not limited to leases, permits, licenses, 
concession contracts, use and occupancy agreements, easements, and 
rights-of-way) that were in force as of the date the Trust received 
administrative jurisdiction of the underlying real property, so long as 
such agreements were previously subject to NEPA, do not involve new 
construction or new or substantially greater environmental impacts, and 
new information of substantial importance or changed circumstances 
relevant to environmental conditions do not come into play.
    (23) Issuance of permits relating to minor development activities 
(sign approval, interior modifications, minor exterior changes to 
facade, etc.) that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's 
``Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties'' at 36 CFR part 
68, as applicable;
    (24) Rehabilitation, modification, or improvement of historic 
properties in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's 
``Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties'' at 36 CFR part 
68;
    (25) Rehabilitation, modification, or improvement of non-historic 
properties when the following conditions are met:
    (i) In the case of residential buildings, the unit density is not 
changed more than 20 percent;
    (ii) The project does not involve changes in land use (from non-
residential to residential or from residential to non-residential); and
    (iii) The estimated cost of rehabilitation is less than 75 percent 
of the total estimated cost of replacement after rehabilitation;
    (26) Removal, reduction, or restraint of resident individuals of 
species that are not threatened or endangered which pose dangers to 
visitors, residents, or neighbors or immediate threats to resources of 
the Presidio Trust Area;
    (27) Removal of non-historic materials and structures in order to 
restore natural conditions when such removal has no potential for 
adverse environmental impacts, including impacts to cultural landscapes 
or archaeological resources;
    (28) Installation, construction, removal, permitting, maintenance, 
replacement-in-kind, relocation, operation, or modification of signs, 
displays, kiosks, traffic control devices, pedestrian and traffic 
safety features, trails, trailside camping zones, fencing, landscaping, 
sanitary facilities, comfort stations, utility facilities, parking 
lots, and other minor structures and facilities;
    (29) Routine maintenance, property management, resource management, 
and research or educational activities with no potential for 
environmental impact or non-conformance with the Secretary of the 
Interior's ``Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties'' at 36 
CFR part 68, as applicable;
    (30) Issuance of rights-of-way for and installation, maintenance, 
or repair of overhead or underground utility lines (e.g., power, water, 
irrigation, telecommunications, etc.) not involving placement of poles 
or towers outside of

[[Page 39961]]

existing traffic and utility corridors and not involving vegetation 
clearance (other than for placement of poles), and not resulting in 
visual intrusion in the Presidio Trust Area or non-conformance with the 
Secretary's ``Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties'' at 
36 CFR part 68, as applicable; and
    (31) Experimental testing of no longer than 180 days of mass 
transit systems, and changes in operation of existing systems with no 
potential for adverse environmental impact.
    (d) Overriding criteria. An action which falls into one or more of 
the categories in paragraph(s) of this section may still require the 
preparation of an EIS or an EA if the responsible Trust official 
determines it meets the criteria stated in Sec. 1010.8(b) or 
Sec. 1010.10(b), respectively, or involves extraordinary circumstances 
that may have a significant environmental effect. At its discretion, 
the Trust may require the preparation of an EA or an EIS for a proposal 
or action that otherwise qualifies for a categorical exclusion.


Sec. 1010.8  Actions that normally require an EIS.

    (a) General procedure. So long as a proposed action or project is 
not categorically excluded under Sec. 1010.7, the Trust shall require 
the preparation of an EA to determine if the proposed action or project 
requires an EIS. Nevertheless, if it is readily apparent to the 
responsible Trust official that the proposed action or project will 
have a significant impact on the environment, an EA is not required, 
and the Trust will prepare or direct the preparation of an EIS without 
preparing or completing the preparation of an EA. To assist the 
responsible Trust official in determining if a proposal or action 
normally requires the preparation of an EIS, the following criteria and 
categories of action are provided.
    (b) Criteria. Criteria used to determine whether proposals or 
actions may significantly affect the environment and therefore require 
an EIS are described in 40 CFR 1508.27.
    (c) Categories of action. The following categories of action 
normally require an EIS (unless categorically excluded or previously 
analyzed in an EA or EIS):
    (1) Legislative proposals made by the Trust to the United States 
Congress;
    (2) Approval, funding, construction, and/or demolition in 
preparation for construction of any new building, if that activity is 
not contemplated by the Plan and has a significant effect on the human 
environment that has not previously been reviewed in the Plan EIS or 
other previously prepared EA or EIS; and
    (3) Proposals that would significantly alter the kind and amount of 
recreational, historical, or cultural resources of the Presidio Trust 
Area or the integrity of the setting.


Sec. 1010.9  Preparation of an EIS.

    (a) Notice of intent. When the Trust decides to prepare an EIS, it 
shall publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register in accordance 
with 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22. Where there is a lengthy period between 
the Trust's decision to prepare an EIS and the time of actual 
preparation, then at the discretion of the responsible Trust official 
the notice of intent shall be published at a reasonable time in advance 
of preparation of the EIS.
    (b) Preparation. After having determined that an EIS will be 
prepared and having published the notice of intent, the Trust will 
begin to prepare or to direct the preparation of the EIS. The EIS shall 
be formatted in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.10.
    (c) Supplemental environmental impact statements. The Trust may 
supplement a draft or final EIS at any time. The Trust shall prepare a 
supplement to either a draft or final EIS when: (1) Substantial changes 
are proposed to an action analyzed in the draft or final EIS that are 
relevant to environmental concerns;
    (2) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant 
to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its 
impacts; or
    (3) Actions are proposed which relate to or are similar to other 
actions taken or proposed and that together will have a cumulatively 
significant impact on the human environment.


Sec. 1010.10  Actions that normally require an EA.

    (a) General procedure. If a proposal or action is not one that 
normally requires an EIS, and does not qualify for a categorical 
exclusion under Sec. 1010.7, the Trust will require, prepare, or direct 
the preparation of an EA. An EA should be prepared when the Trust has 
insufficient information on which to determine whether a proposal may 
have significant impacts. An EA assists the Trust in complying with 
NEPA when no EIS is necessary, and it facilitates the preparation of an 
EIS, if one is necessary.
    (b) Criteria. Criteria used to determine those categories of action 
that normally require an EA, but not necessarily an EIS, include:
    (1) Potential for minor degradation of environmental quality;
    (2) Potential for cumulative impact on environmental quality; and
    (3) Potential for impact on protected resources.
    (c) Categories of action. The following categories of action 
normally require the preparation of an EA (unless categorically 
excluded or previously analyzed in an EA or EIS):
    (1) Promulgation of regulations and requirements to the extent such 
an action is not covered by a categorical exclusion;
    (2) Proposals submitted by project applicants to the Trust for its 
review, as described in Sec. 1010.14; and
    (3) Proposals to significantly add or alter access between the 
Presidio Trust Area and surrounding neighborhoods.


Sec. 1010.11  Preparation of an EA.

    (a) When to prepare. The Trust will begin the preparation of an EA 
(or require it to be begun) as early as possible after it is determined 
by the responsible Trust official to be required. The Trust may prepare 
or require an EA at any time to assist planning and decision-making.
    (b) Content and format. An EA is a concise public document used to 
determine whether to prepare an EIS. Only those resources that may 
experience significant impacts and that are specifically relevant to 
the particular proposal should be addressed in the EA. Those areas 
should be addressed in as much detail as is necessary to allow an 
analysis of the alternatives and the proposal. The EA shall contain 
brief discussions of the following topics:
    (1) Purpose and need for the proposed action.
    (2) Description of the proposed action.
    (3) Alternatives considered, including a No Action alternative.
    (4) Environmental effects of the proposed action and the 
alternatives, including mitigation measures.
    (5) Listing of agencies, organizations, and/or persons consulted.
    (c) Finding of no significant impact (``FONSI''). If an EA is 
completed and the responsible Trust official determines that an EIS is 
not required, then the responsible Trust official shall prepare a 
finding of no significant impact. The finding of no significant impact 
shall be made available to the public by the Trust as specified in 40 
CFR 1506.6.
    (d) Mitigated FONSI. If an EA is completed and the responsible 
Trust official determines that an EIS is required, then prior to 
preparation of an EIS, the proposal may be revised in order to mitigate 
the impacts identified in the EA through adherence to legal 
requirements, inclusion of mitigation as an integral part of the 
proposal, and/or fundamental changes to the proposal. If the revised 
proposal does not qualify for

[[Page 39962]]

a categorical exclusion under Sec. 1010.7, a subsequent EA will be 
prepared on the revised proposal and will result in a Mitigated Finding 
of No Significant Impact, preparation of an EIS, or additional revision 
of the proposal and a subsequent EA.


Sec. 1010.12  Public involvement.

    The Trust will make public involvement an essential part of its 
environmental review process. Public notice of anticipated Trust 
actions, opportunities for involvement, and availability of 
environmental documents will be facilitated through announcements in 
the Trust's monthly newsletter, postings on its web site 
(www.presidiotrust.gov), placement of public notices in newspapers, 
direct mailings, and other means appropriate for involving the public 
in a meaningful way. The Trust will conduct scoping with interested 
federal, state and local agencies and Indian tribes, and hold public 
workshops to gather early input whenever appropriate. Notice of all 
public workshops will be given in a timely manner. Interested persons 
may also obtain information concerning any pending EIS or any other 
element of the environmental review process of the Trust by contacting 
the responsible Trust official at the following address: Presidio 
Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California, 94129-0052.


Sec. 1010.13  Trust decision-making procedures.

    To ensure that at major decision-making points all relevant 
environmental concerns are considered by the decision-maker, the 
following procedures are established.
    (a) An environmental document (i.e., the EA, finding of no 
significant impact, EIS, or notice of intent), in addition to being 
prepared at the earliest point in the decision-making process, shall 
accompany the relevant proposal or action through the Trust's decision-
making process to ensure adequate consideration of environmental 
factors.
    (b) The decision-maker shall consider in its decision-making 
process only decision alternatives encompassed by the range of 
alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents. Also, 
where an EIS has been prepared, the decision-maker shall consider all 
alternatives described in the EIS, and a written record of the 
consideration of alternatives during the decision-making process shall 
be maintained.
    (c) Any environmental document prepared for a proposal or action 
shall be made part of the record of any formal rulemaking by the Trust.


Sec. 1010.14  Review of proposals by project applicants.

    (a) Each proposal for demolition, construction, reconstruction, 
development, preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration of real 
property submitted by a project applicant to the Trust for its review, 
and which the decision-maker agrees to consider, shall require an EA 
unless categorically excluded or covered by a previously prepared EA 
and/or EIS.
    (b) The decision-maker may not take any approval action on such a 
proposal submitted by a project applicant until such time as the 
appropriate environmental review documents have been prepared and 
submitted to the decision-maker.
    (c) At a minimum, and as part of any submission made by a project 
applicant to the decision-maker for its approval, such project 
applicant shall make available data and materials concerning the 
proposal sufficient to permit the Trust to carry out its environmental 
review responsibilities. When requested, the project applicant shall 
provide additional information that the responsible Trust official 
believes is necessary to permit it to satisfy its environmental review 
functions.
    (d) With respect to each project proposed for consideration for 
which the responsible Trust official determines an EA shall be 
prepared, the decision-maker may require a project applicant to submit 
a draft EA regarding its proposal for the Trust's evaluation and 
revision. In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5(b), the Trust shall make its 
own evaluation of the environmental issues and shall take 
responsibility for the scope and content of the final EA.
    (e) With respect to each project proposed for consideration for 
which the responsible Trust official determines an EIS shall be 
prepared, the decision-maker may require a project applicant to pay a 
non-refundable fee to the Trust sufficient to cover a portion or all of 
the Trust's anticipated costs associated with preparation and review of 
the EIS, including costs associated with review under other applicable 
laws. Such fee shall be paid to the Trust in full prior to commencement 
of the preparation of the EIS or any amendment or supplement thereto.
    (f) In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5(c), the EIS shall be prepared 
by the Trust and/or by contractors who are selected by the Trust and 
who certify that they have no financial or other interest in the 
outcome of the project, and the Trust shall independently evaluate the 
EIS prior to its approval and take responsibility for ensuring its 
adequacy. The EIS shall be prepared in accordance with 40 CFR part 
1502.
    (g) The responsible Trust official may set time limits for 
environmental review appropriate to each proposal, consistent with 40 
CFR 1501.8 and 1506.10.
    (h) The responsible Trust official shall at the earliest possible 
time ensure that the Trust commences its environmental review on a 
proposed project and shall provide the project applicant with any 
policies or information deemed appropriate in order to permit effective 
and timely review by the Trust of a proposal once it is submitted to 
the decision-maker for approval.


Sec. 1010.15  Actions where lead agency designation is necessary.

    (a) Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.5, where a proposed action by the 
Trust involves one or more other Federal agencies, or where actions by 
the Trust and one or more Federal agencies are directly related to each 
other because of their functional interdependence or geographical 
proximity, the Trust will seek designation as lead agency for those 
actions that directly relate to implementation of the general 
objectives of the Plan and for those actions that relate solely to the 
Presidio Trust Area.
    (b) For an action that qualifies as one for which the Trust will 
seek designation as lead agency, the Trust will promptly consult with 
the appropriate Federal agency to establish lead agency and cooperating 
agency designations.
    (c) For an action as to which the Trust undertakes lead or 
cooperating agency status, the Trust is authorized to enter into a 
memorandum of understanding or agreement to define the rights and 
responsibilities of lead and cooperating agencies.


Sec. 1010.16  Actions to encourage agency cooperation early in the NEPA 
process.

    (a) Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.6, the Trust may request the NPS to 
be a cooperating agency for actions or projects significantly affecting 
the quality of the Presidio. In addition, upon request of the Trust, 
any other Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special 
expertise with respect to any environmental issue that should be 
addressed in the analysis may be a cooperating agency. The Trust shall 
use the environmental analysis and proposals of cooperating agencies 
with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to the maximum extent 
possible consistent with its responsibility as lead agency.

[[Page 39963]]

Sec. 1010.17  Actions to eliminate duplication with State and local 
procedures.

    Consistent with 40 CFR 1506.2, the Trust shall cooperate with State 
and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce duplication 
between NEPA and State and local requirements. Such cooperation shall 
to the fullest extent possible include:
    (a) Joint planning processes.
    (b) Joint environmental research and studies.
    (c) Joint public hearings (except where otherwise provided by 
statute).
    (d) Joint environmental assessments.

[FR Doc. 99-18687 Filed 7-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4R-U