[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38853-38856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15730]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Final Environmental Impact Statement and Fort Baker Plan, Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area, Marin County, California; Notice of 
Approved Record of Decision

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Sec. 102 (2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, as amended, and the regulations 
promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2), 
the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) has 
prepared the Fort Baker Plan and

[[Page 38854]]

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and approved a Record of 
Decision. This decision amends the 1980 Golden Gate National Recreation 
Area General Management Plan (GMP) as it pertains to Fort Baker, in 
accord with the ``Proposed Action'' alternative described and analyzed 
in the Fort Baker Plan Draft and Final EIS. The U.S. Department of 
Defense will transfer Fort Baker lands still under military ownership 
in 2001 to the NPS. The express intent of the selected Plan is to 
transform Fort Baker from a military installation to a new unit of the 
National Park System through a series of coordinated actions consistent 
with the National Park mission. The Fort Baker Plan Draft EIS was 
issued in October 1998 for a 60-day public review and comment period, 
and the Final EIS was released in October 1999. The 30-day no action 
period concluded on December 5, 1999.

Project Background

    In general, Public Law 92-589 established the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area (GGNRA) so as to preserve for public use and enjoyment 
many outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values, as 
well as to maintain needed recreational open space deemed scarce in the 
urban environment. In particular, and according to 16 USC 460bb(2), ``* 
* * the easterly half of Fort Baker in Marin County, California shall 
remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. When the 
property is determined by the Department of Defense to be in excess of 
its needs, it shall be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary 
for purposes of this Act.''
    In 1995, the remaining military land at Fort Baker was determined 
to be excess to the needs of the military by the Department of 
Defense's Base Realignment and Closure Committee and was required to be 
transferred to the NPS, consistent with Public Law 92-589, by the year 
2001.
    The Fort Baker site includes a Historic District listed on the 
National Register of Historic Places, a marina and waterfront area, and 
open space, scenic, and natural areas including habitat for the 
federally listed endangered mission blue butterfly. The NPS must 
provide for the reuse of Fort Baker as a new unit of the National Park 
System consistent with the requirements of Public Law 92-589, and with 
the Organic Act of 1916 which established that:

    The fundamental purpose of all units of the National Park 
Service is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic 
objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of 
the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them 
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

    In keeping with these authorities, Sec. 1.2 of the Final EIS stated 
that the over-arching purpose of the conservation planning and 
environmental impact analysis process was to identify: (i) A program 
and types of uses that would be accommodated in historic buildings and 
would generate adequate revenue for building rehabilitation and 
preservation; (ii) Public use improvements, including new construction 
and removal of buildings, landscape treatments, trails, parking, 
circulation, and locations and patterns of use; (iii) Waterfront 
improvements; (iv) Opportunities for habitat restoration; and (v) An 
approach to the protection, rehabilitation and maintenance of the 
historic and natural resources.

Alternatives Considered

    Three ``action'' alternatives and a ``no-action'' alternative were 
analyzed in the Draft and Final EIS. The ``action'' alternatives were 
developed and refined through a public, three-year conservation 
planning and environmental impact analysis process and included, in 
addition to the selected action (described in the Draft and Final EIS 
as the Proposed Action), a 1980 GMP Alternative and an Office and 
Cultural Center Alternative.
    The Selected Action envisions preserving historic structures and 
natural features through selection of compatible uses and 
rehabilitation, restoration and other site improvements. A conference 
and retreat center is to be created in historic buildings around the 
parade ground and in the adjacent nonhistoric Capehart area. This 
essential facility will be the smallest possible, economically viable 
complex capable of fulfilling Plan objectives (and will be designed to 
be compatible with the setting).
    The Bay Area Discovery Museum is to be retained and expanded into 
historic buildings and new, compatibly designed structures within its 
campus. The Coast Guard Station will also be retained, and could accept 
a modest expansion for meeting-training space or staff quarters. The 
historic boat shop is to be used as a public center with meeting and 
program space, and supporting visitor amenities. The marina is to be 
converted to a public (non-membership) facility serving up to 60 boats 
through a combination of moorings-slips for day or overnight use. Docks 
are to be provided for the Coast Guard to use for mooring of disabled 
rescued boats, and for other NPS programs.
    Restoration or enhancement of over 40 acres of natural habitat, 
including habitat for the federally endangered mission blue butterfly 
will be accomplished. The wooden bulkhead along the waterfront is to be 
removed and the beach restored, with an adjoining 6 acres of meadow, a 
picnic area and boardwalk. Fishing pier improvements include fish-
cleaning stations, railings and benches. The batteries and other 
fortification structures are to be stabilized, preserved and 
interpreted (Battery Cavallo will be subject to a separate plan and 
environmental analysis). An NPS visitor center is to be established and 
an interpretive trail created from Lime Point along the waterfront, 
continuing as the San Francisco Bay Trail to East Road, Battery Duncan 
and the chapel.
    The GMP Alternative was derived from the 1980 GMP. Key elements 
included: conference center to accommodate 350 people; a 200-bed youth 
hostel and artists-in-residence program in historic buildings around 
the Parade Ground; a 700-car parking lot serving a Marin Headlands 
shuttle (on a site created by removing 23 nonhistoric structures); and 
separate NPS maintenance facility and visitor center. The Bay Area 
Discovery Museum and Coast Guard Station would be retained with no 
features added. Historic boat shop and marina use would be similar to 
the Selected Action, with 50 slips provided for short-term public 
mooring. Historic fortifications would be preserved, and an 
environmental study and overnight campsite established near Battery 
Cavallo. Waterfront treatments would also be similar, though a more 
urban landscape is envisioned and a ferry landing would be installed at 
the fishing pier.
    Under the Office and Cultural Center Alternative, the historic 
Parade Ground buildings would be used for offices, meeting and program 
space, performance space, and restaurant/food service space. Some 
nonhistoric residential structures would be used for residences, and 
others would be removed to provide parking for the center. The Bay Area 
Discovery Museum and Coast Guard expansion would be the same as under 
the Selected Action. The marina would be retained with both long-term 
and some short-term public mooring provided and public program and 
activity space provided in the boat shop. Treatment of the waterfront, 
fishing pier, open space, natural habitats and historic fortifications 
would be the same as under the Selected Action.
    The No Action Alternative would continue existing management. 
Minimal

[[Page 38855]]

repairs to existing historic structures, infrastructure and other 
facilities would occur. Historic residential buildings would be leased 
for residential use, and other historic buildings would remain vacant 
with minimal repair. No restoration of the cultural landscape (or beach 
and waterfront area) and no new mission blue butterfly habitat work 
would be undertaken. Although visitor use effects (traffic, air 
emissions, etc.) could be lower under this alternative, benefits of the 
other ``action'' alternatives associated with habitat restoration, 
preservation and restoration of historic resources and the cultural 
landscape, recreational use and enjoyment by the American public, and 
beneficial visual effects would not occur.

Public Involvement

    Following the 1995 closure announcement, the NPS initiated a public 
planning effort to develop concepts for future use and preservation of 
the site and its resources. Beginning December 1995, a framework for 
the planning process was developed in consultation with local planning 
agencies and the public, and then presented to the GGNRA Advisory 
Commission in January 1996 for additional comment.
    The public scoping phase was formalized through a notice published 
in the Federal Register on August 19, 1997. The scoping phase included 
an evaluation of the 1980 GMP so as to refine goals and objectives for 
a new Fort Baker Plan. The original vision for land uses and programs 
was reviewed within the context of current site conditions and new 
recreational and educational uses which were emerging. The originally 
envisioned land uses were scaled back, and some uses eliminated, with 
the intent of more effectively protecting the site's resources.
    A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on May 4, 1998. Over 50 public meetings, workshops, site 
tours, and hearings were held over the course of the EIS process. 
Thousands of public notices, planning updates and public input surveys 
were distributed to foster active public participation in developing 
and evaluating alternatives for the Fort Baker Plan. Various management 
concepts were assessed, and three ``action'' alternatives were carried 
forward for detailed evaluation in the EIS. Opportunities for public 
participation were also afforded through Draft EIS meetings, open 
houses, and presentations. Planning updates and opportunities for 
public comment were also provided at more than 10 publicly noticed 
meetings of the GGNRA Advisory Commission.
    During the 60-day public review period for the Draft EIS, 127 
letters, e-mail messages, and oral comments at the November 18, 1998 
GGNRA Advisory Commission were received. The NPS reviewed all comments, 
and integrated many of the public's recommendations into the Final EIS. 
Additional analysis of issues of concern and new or/and more refined 
mitigation measures were developed and included in the Final EIS in 
response to public comment.
    The Final EIS was released on October 15, 1999, with over 200 
copies distributed to interested members of the public and other 
agencies (it was available in paper and electronic format and posted on 
the park's website). The EPA notice of filing for the Final EIS 
appeared in the November 5, 1999 Federal Register, marking the 
beginning of the required 30-day no action period.
    During this phase, an overview of the Final EIS was presented on 
November 16, 1999 to the GGNRA Advisory Commission. Of 28 people who 
provided oral comments, 20 people favored the Proposed Action and the 
public planning process used by the NPS to develop and refine the Fort 
Baker Plan EIS. Speakers included individuals and representatives of 
the National Parks and Conservation Association, the National Trust for 
Historic Preservation, Marin Heritage, and the Bay Area Discovery 
Museum. Six people, including the chair of the Sausalito Citizens' Task 
Force for Fort Baker, opposed the retreat and conference center 
component, and expressed concerns related to traffic and potential 
effects upon the character of the site and its resources. One 
representative of the Tomales Bay Asociation supported development of a 
youth hostel (included in the GMP Alternative).
    In addition, ten letters and 15 e-mail messages expressed opinions 
regarding the Fort Baker Plan. Four of the letters were in general 
support of the public planning process and/or the Proposed Action. The 
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission acknowledged 
consistency with the San Francisco Bay Plan. The City of Sausalito 
expressed concerns for potential impacts of the proposed plan and 
various compliance issues. The local sanitary district concurred with 
the EIS analysis and conclusions regarding wastewater capacity but 
requested that the existing agreement for these services at Fort Baker 
(and NPS future rights to such services) be revisited. The e-mail 
messages primarily expressed opposition to the conference and retreat 
center component, mostly based upon size. One message expressed concern 
related to bicycle safety. Post card mailings in support and in 
opposition to the plan were also received during the 30-day no action 
period.
    After the 30-day no action period concluded several letters, as 
well as postcards and e-mail messages similar to those described above 
were received. All submittals received during the entire conservation 
planning and environmental impact analyis process are addressed in the 
Record of Decision.

Basis for Decision

    The environmentally preferred alternative was the Proposed Action. 
The maximum potential environmental impacts of new uses and site 
improvements, as analyzed in the in EIS, were limited based upon build-
out of a 350-room retreat and conference center. However, in the Record 
of Decision the NPS commits to soliciting the smallest possible, 
economically feasible retreat and conference center proposal that 
fulfills objectives of the Fort Baker Plan.
    During the conservation planning and environmental impact analysis 
process, the NPS, working with the public, established goals and 
objectives that were used as a framework for evaluating potential new 
uses and site improvements at Fort Baker. These were developed based on 
NPS policy, the 1980 GMP, public input, current knowledge about the 
site, and an understanding of Fort Baker's national park qualities. The 
Purpose and Need (Sec. 1.3 of the EIS) addressed the following goals: 
(i) Promote the National Park mission; (ii) Achieve sustainability; 
(iii) Retain and relate to the site's special qualities; (iv) Promote 
public access; (v) Minimize environmental impacts; (vi) Retain and 
complement permanent site tenants and other GGNRA sites and programs.
    The basis for the decision to select the ``Proposed Action'' is its 
ability to most successfully maximize all the goals and objectives 
disclosed at the beginning of the conservation planning and 
environmental impact analysis process. The Selected Action provides the 
most desirable combination of promoting the National Park mission and 
public use, while preserving the site's resources and contemplative 
atmosphere and minimizing environmental effects including traffic.

[[Page 38856]]

Measures To Minimize Harm

    Numerous practical mitigation measures to minimize or avoid 
potential adverse effects of the Selected Action are identified. As a 
result of public collaboration in developing the Fort Baker Plan, new 
measures were developed and safeguards initially noted in the Draft EIS 
were refined to be more stringent in the Final EIS. One of the new 
stipulations relates to the size of the proposed retreat and conference 
center--in response to public concern about the 350 room maximum size 
evaluated, the NPS is now committed to working with the public in 
soliciting the smallest possible, economically viable retreat and 
conference center proposal that fulfills Plan objectives. Additional 
mitigations recommended by the public or other agencies, or developed 
by the NPS in response to issues of local concern, were added in the 
Final EIS. In total, more than 70 mitigation measures have been 
included.
    Moreover, the NPS is committed to seeking and implementing 
innovative approaches to reduce long-term dependence on automobile use 
at Fort Baker, to working cooperatively with other agencies to seek 
regional solutions to transportation challenges in the areas 
surrounding Fort Baker, and to engaging in studies to reduce or 
eliminate parking and uncontrolled automobile traffic within Fort 
Baker. The NPS is specifically committed to working with the City of 
Sausalito, the Marin County Congestion Management Agency, the Golden 
Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, Caltrans, and the 
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Copy of Complete Decision Available

    The synopsis provided above addresses only some of the 
considerations made in selecting, as the final Fort Baker Plan, the 
alternative identified as the ``Proposed Action'' in the Draft and 
Final EIS. Effecting the Fort Baker Plan will not impair park resources 
or values. Indeed, acting upon this Plan will significantly enhance the 
site's natural and cultural resources. A copy of the Record of Decision 
may be requested from the Superintendent, Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area, Building 201, Ft. Mason, San Francisco, CA 94123 (or 
may be obtained via www.nps.gov/goga). The Superintendent is 
responsible for plan implementation.

    Dated: June 15, 2000.
James R. Shevock,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 00-15730 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P