[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 180 (Friday, September 15, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55896-55910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23710]


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

PRESIDIO TRUST

36 CFR Part 1010

RIN 3212-AA02


Management of the Presidio: Environmental Quality

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.

ACTION: Final 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 of 
San Francisco, California. 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. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA), the Trust adopted interim procedures and guidelines for 
implementing NEPA, which generally consisted of the NEPA procedures and 
guidelines of the NPS, pending promulgation of the Trust's own 
regulations for implementing NEPA. See 63 FR 49142 (Sept. 14, 1998). 
The Trust proposed its own NEPA regulations on July 23, 1999 (64 FR 
39951) and accepted comments from the public until October 5, 1999, 
following an extension of the comment period (64 FR 51488). Today, the 
Trust publishes its response to comments received, as well as its final 
rule on this topic.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 16, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Cook, General Counsel, the 
Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, PO 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, on July 1, 1998, 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 
Trust Act.
    Pursuant to its rulemaking authority and the regulations of the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 CFR 1507.3(a), the Trust--
in consultation with CEQ--initially adopted existing NPS NEPA policy 
guidance, to the extent it did not conflict with the Presidio Trust Act 
or regulations of the Presidio Trust, as its interim procedures and 
guidelines for implementing NEPA. These interim procedures and 
guidelines are found in ``NPS-12: National Environmental Policy Act 
Guidelines'' (1982) as supplemented by NPS's ``Standard Operating 
Procedure 601.'' 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 effective date of the final regulations published 
today. Upon the effective date, the final regulations will replace the 
interim procedures and guidelines in their entirety.
    Prior to proposing these regulations, and finalizing them today, 
the Trust consulted with CEQ pursuant to CEQ's regulations, 40 CFR 
1507.3(a). The Trust 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. An initial draft of 
the proposed regulations was modified in response to these comments 
prior to its publication in the Federal Register on July 23, 1999 (64 
FR 39951).
    The Trust originally provided for a public comment period of 60 
days on its proposed NEPA regulations. See 64 FR 39951. Upon request of 
the commenters, that period was later extended by approximately two 
weeks. See 64 FR 51488. The Trust has considered the comments received 
within the comment period, as extended, and today publishes its 
responses to those comments and its final NEPA regulations. As of its 
effective date, this final rule supersedes the Trust's adoption of 
interim procedures and guidelines for implementing NEPA.

Summary of the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule, including a section-by-section analysis, was set 
forth in detail in the July 23, 1999 issue of the Federal Register (64 
FR 39951). In general, the proposed rule--and the final rule presented 
herein--follows the fundamental NEPA process that Federal agencies 
follow. The rule is intended to supplement the regulations of CEQ and 
not to paraphrase or repeat those regulations. See 40 CFR 1507.3.
    Under the rule as proposed and finalized, the Trust would first 
determine whether a proposed action by the Trust is one that normally 
does not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or an 
environmental impact statement (EIS), i.e., whether the proposed action 
is categorically excluded from NEPA review or has been covered by a 
previous EA and/or EIS. If it is not such an action, then the Trust 
would consider whether the action is one that normally requires an EIS. 
If so, an EIS would normally be prepared.
    If the action is not one that is categorically excluded from 
further NEPA review or has not been previously analyzed in an EA or 
EIS, and if the action also is not one that normally requires an EIS, 
then an EA would normally be prepared. Following preparation of the EA, 
the Trust would make a determination as to whether the proposed action 
requires further review in an EIS or whether the Trust may, on the 
basis of the review performed in the EA, issue a finding of no 
significant impact (FONSI). Under the rule, the Trust could not 
undertake the proposed action unless (1) it is categorically excluded; 
or (2) an EIS has been finalized and a Record of Decision has been 
issued; or (3) a FONSI has been issued on the basis of an EA.
    The final rule adopted by the Trust will replace in its entirety 
the Trust's adoption of interim procedures and guidelines for 
implementing NEPA. The final rule is similar to the proposed rule, 
particularly in structure and format, but its content has been modified 
in a number of respects in response to comments received and further 
review

[[Page 55897]]

by the Trust. These modifications are discussed below.

Summary of Comments and Responses

    The Trust received two submissions in response to its request for 
comments on the proposed rule. A three-page letter together with 10 
pages of comments was submitted by the NPS, and a 13-page letter was 
submitted collectively on behalf of the following private 
organizations: As You Sow, the California Native Plant Society, the 
Golden Gate Audubon Society, the Ecology Center, the National Parks and 
Conservation Association, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 
the Natural Resources Defense Council, the San Francisco League of 
Conservation Voters, San Francisco Tomorrow, The Wilderness Society, 
and the Tides Foundation (collectively referred to hereinafter as AYS). 
Summarized below are the significant comments contained in these two 
submissions--many of which are almost identical--and the Trust's 
responses to those comments. Because these responses in some cases have 
resulted in redesignations of sections and paragraphs from the proposed 
regulations, references to section and paragraph numbers in the 
following discussion--unless otherwise noted--correspond to the 
designations used in the proposed regulations that were published in 
the Federal Register on July 23, 1999 (63 FR 39951).

The Trust's Choice for the Structure of the Regulations

    The Trust relied primarily on the NPS NEPA procedures for the 
substance of its regulations, including NPS's categorical exclusions, 
and borrowed heavily from those aspects of NPS-12 that are well-suited 
to binding regulations and to the Trust's unique mandate and 
activities. In some instances, the Trust also looked to the NPS's draft 
revision of NPS-12 for the substance of its regulations. For purposes 
of one categorical exclusion (which has been substantially revised in 
these final regulations) the Trust looked to the NEPA procedures of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The structure and 
format of the Trust's regulations were drawn primarily from the 
regulations of the former Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation 
(PADC) found at 36 CFR part 907, for a number of reasons that are 
discussed more fully below and in the preamble to the proposed rule. 
See 64 FR 39951, 39953-56 (July 23, 1999). The Trust has maintained 
that format in these final regulations.
    The result is that the substance of today's final rule does not 
differ significantly from that of the NPS procedures. For example, the 
current version of NPS-12 (at section 1-2) provides an ``overview'' of 
the NEPA process that is as much a foundation of the Trust's final 
regulations as it is of the NPS guidelines:
    If the proposed action is adequately evaluated in a previous 
environmental document, or is contained in the * * * lists of 
categorical exclusions, and is not a(n) * * * exception * * *, 
further NEPA compliance is not required. If an action is not 
categorically excluded, an environmental assessment (EA) and/or 
environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared. EA's are 
prepared in order to determine whether an EIS is required. In 
addition, EA's can serve to assist * * * planning and 
decisionmaking. EIS's are prepared on proposed actions which may or 
will have a significant impact on the quality of the human 
environment. Following preparation of an EA, responsible * * * 
officials will examine it to determine the significance of the 
environmental impacts of the proposed action. If they determine the 
impacts not to be significant, (the agency) prepares a finding of no 
significant impact (FONSI). If the impacts are significant, 
preparation of an EIS is initiated. If it is clear from the outset 
that an EIS is needed, no EA should be prepared.

    The Trust's Summary of the Proposed Rule, presented above, outlines 
essentially the same process and describes the process set by this 
final rule. The end result does not differ in any substantive respect 
from the NPS's description of its process.
    In their written comments on the Trust's proposed rule, both NPS 
and AYS objected to the use of the PADC regulations as the structural 
template for the Trust's NEPA regulations and suggested that the NEPA 
procedures and guidelines applicable to the NPS are a more appropriate 
model for the Trust. NPS commented that the PADC NEPA implementation 
regulations are an inappropriate model because the mandate of the PADC 
was more narrowly circumscribed than that of the Trust, particularly in 
that PADC actions were expressly limited to implementation of a 
Comprehensive Design Plan, whereas the Trust is required by the Trust 
Act to observe only the ``general objectives'' of the 1994 Final 
General Management Plan Amendment for the Presidio (Plan). AYS 
similarly comments that the PADC was more narrowly circumscribed in its 
planning authority than is the Trust. AYS further points out that the 
area of the Presidio under the Trust's administrative jurisdiction 
differs from that administered by the PADC in that the Trust area is a 
national park.
    The Trust agrees that its mandate and authorities differ from those 
of the PADC and are in many ways more similar to those of the NPS. But 
the relative similarities or differences among the authorities of the 
Trust and those of the former PADC or the NPS are not a key determinant 
of the appropriate model for the structure of the Trust's NEPA 
regulations.
    The Trust considered but did not choose to use the NPS procedures 
as its model for the structure and format of these regulations for a 
number of reasons, all of which continue to be valid. As noted in the 
preamble to the proposed regulations, NPS is in the process of 
developing a Director's Order and ``NPS Handbook 12'' to replace the 
existing NPS NEPA procedures, which were adopted in 1982. NPS itself 
therefore recognizes that the current NPS procedures are in need of 
revision or clarification. Furthermore, as noted in the preamble to the 
proposed regulations, the scope and structure of the current 129-page 
draft NPS procedures are not well-suited to a procedural regulation.
    AYS comments that the current (1982) NPS NEPA procedures would be a 
more appropriate model for the Trust than the draft NPS Handbook. The 
Trust considered and rejected this option, based on the following 
reasons:
    First, as NPS noted in its comments on an initial draft of the 
Trust's proposed NEPA regulations, NPS-12 does not carry the force of 
law. It states: ``While these guidelines constitute a permanent 
directive to NPS personnel, they are strictly advisory and do not 
create, add to, or otherwise modify any legal requirement. The 
procedures described in these guidelines were devised solely to aid NPS 
officials in the internal administration of the bureau, and are subject 
to reinterpretation, revision or suspension by NPS in its discretion at 
any time without notice.'' Contrary to the assumption of the AYS 
comment, NPS has no NEPA ``rules'' or regulations. Consistent with the 
spirit of NEPA and the CEQ regulations, the Trust is committed to 
issuing its NEPA procedures in the form of regulations that are readily 
available to the public in the Code of Federal Regulations, that carry 
the force of law, and that are adopted or amended following notice in 
the Federal Register and opportunity for public comment.
    Second, NPS itself believes that the current version of NPS-12 is 
in need of revision and clarification, as indicated by the NPS Handbook 
drafting process described above. NPS-12 has been amended several times 
since it was adopted, and both the Trust and NPS

[[Page 55898]]

personnel charged with implementing these NEPA procedures have from 
time to time found it difficult to determine whether a given version 
incorporates all of these various amendments and is completely up to 
date. The Trust wishes, through its regulations, to codify procedures 
and substance that are more clear, concise, and readily ascertainable.
    Third, the format of NPS-12 was developed as a guidance document 
for internal agency use, and therefore it has a different purpose than 
a regulation. The Trust's interim procedures for implementing NEPA 
consist of NPS-12 and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area's 
Standard Operating Procedure 601. These documents together occupy over 
50 pages of guidance materials encompassing explanatory discussion, 
policy implications, and other narrative information. As a whole, they 
are an ill-suited structure for codified rules. They may, however, 
provide an appropriate model to provide internal policy guidance for 
implementing the Trust's regulations. The Trust is developing such 
guidance and is evaluating both NPS-12 and Standard Operating Procedure 
601 as possible models.
    Fourth, NPS-12 is written to be used in tandem with numerous other 
policies of the DOI and internal guidance of the NPS that are neither 
applicable nor well-tailored to the Trust's activities because of the 
varying scope and breadth of DOI's mission. Some relevant examples 
include Departmental Manual Part 516; NPS-2 on planning process; NPS-3 
on public participation; and NPS-28 on cultural resources management. 
While these topics generally may be pertinent to Trust actions, the 
details are often ill-adapted. NPS-12 also incorporates guidance based 
on legal authorities that are inapplicable to the Trust and addresses 
NPS issues and requirements that are irrelevant to the Trust, such as 
special laws on in-holdings, mining, and grazing. In short, NPS-12 is 
written to cover the broadest range of NPS actions and would need to be 
substantially re-written in order to customize it to the Trust.
    Fifth, NPS-12 is written for a much larger organization than the 
Trust, and provides for far more layers of review than the Trust's size 
and structure warrant. For example, NPS-12 specifies the NEPA oversight 
responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, 
Budget and Administration, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for 
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the NPS Director, the Chief of the Office 
of Park Planning and Environmental Quality, the Chief of the Division 
of Environmental Compliance, the Regional Directors, the Regional 
Environmental Coordinators, the Denver Service Center, the Park 
Superintendents, and Contracting Officers. The complexity of such 
review and designations is inappropriate and inapplicable for the 
Trust's organizational structure and its mission.
    AYS argues that the Trust should adopt the NPS NEPA guidelines in 
order to ``facilitate the Trust's ability to work closely with (NPS) on 
a wide variety of planning and environmental review matters.'' AYS also 
comments that this would ``make things easier for the many Trust 
employees who are former NPS employees. * * *'' and would allow those 
who are not former NPS employees to continue to learn the NPS NEPA 
procedures. AYS further suggests that adoption of the NPS NEPA 
procedures would be easier for members of the public who are already 
familiar with these procedures. The Trust recognizes that a certain 
orientation period will be associated with any introduction of 
procedures, but believes that this can be accommodated in other ways 
than adopting guidelines with a structure that is ill-suited to the 
Trust. In creating the Trust as a Federal entity separate and apart 
from the NPS, and with a structure and authorities that differ from 
those of the NPS, Congress contemplated such a change in procedures. 
The Trust believes the change is warranted by the benefits of the 
clear, concise structure proposed for the Trust's NEPA regulations. 
Nevertheless, the Trust is aware of the issues identified by AYS and is 
committed to (1) continuing to work closely with the NPS and its other 
neighbors on planning and environmental review matters, as well as 
discussing arrangements for allocation of lead agency designations 
between the NPS and the Trust where appropriate; (2) ensuring that its 
employees are properly trained concerning implementation of NEPA; and 
(3) providing opportunities for the public to learn about and fully 
understand the Trust's NEPA procedures.
    The Trust chose the PADC regulations as its structural model for a 
number of other reasons, including the fact that they had been formally 
promulgated as regulations carrying the force of law in the Code of 
Federal Regulations and are appropriately concise for a procedural 
regulation.
    In sum, in crafting its procedures, the Trust reviewed and relied 
heavily upon relevant portions of the NPS NEPA procedures for the 
substance of the Trust's NEPA regulations. The Trust's regulations are 
designed to ensure that the Trust complies with NEPA by analyzing the 
impacts of all major activities or proposals with the potential to 
significantly affect the environment. The comments do not address how, 
if at all, the structure that the Trust adopted from the PADC 
regulations is deficient in accomplishing that core purpose. As a 
result, upon consideration of the comments received, the Trust has 
decided to maintain the structure and format of its proposed 
regulations in this final rule.

The Trust's Interim Procedures for Implementing NEPA

    NPS states that its review of the proposed regulations focuses 
primarily on the degree of departure from the current NPS guidelines 
and policies implementing NEPA. AYS appears to object to the Trust 
moving beyond the interim adoption of NPS's procedures. AYS views the 
NPS guidelines and policies as ``far more appropriate for the Trust's 
critical responsibilities * * * .'' AYS further believes that ``(t)he 
basic problem with the proposed rulemaking is that the Trust has not 
provided an adequate justification for'' this action and ``has failed 
to identify any problem with the existing rules that would explain why 
they need to be abandoned.''
    Far from abandoning these procedures, the Trust has adopted their 
substance but made it specific to the Trust and its mission in order to 
comply with its obligations under NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and the 
Trust Act. The Trust adopted the NPS NEPA procedures on an explicitly 
temporary basis (following consultation with CEQ and the NPS) in order 
to ensure that the Trust's initial actions would be subjected to 
appropriate environmental review under NEPA while the Trust hired staff 
and developed its own procedures for implementing NEPA. The process of 
drafting, internal review, consultation with other Federal agencies, 
and notice and comment rulemaking was anticipated to occupy several 
months, during which time the Trust would be managing the property 
under its administrative jurisdiction and taking actions that would 
require NEPA review. The September 14, 1998, Federal Register notice of 
that ``interim policy statement'' expressly stated the Trust's 
intention to develop its own procedures and guidelines implementing 
NEPA (63 FR 49142), as is its responsibility under both NEPA and CEQ 
regulations implementing NEPA on a government-wide basis. 40 CFR 
1507.3.

[[Page 55899]]

    Furthermore, the Trust temporarily adopted the NPS procedures for a 
variety of reasons that no longer apply. The Trust initially lacked the 
staff to implement NEPA and therefore entered into a temporary 
arrangement with the NPS under which NPS staff provided services to the 
Trust for NEPA review of the Trust's proposed actions. The NPS 
personnel, of course, are familiar with the NPS NEPA procedures. A 
number of actions that the Trust anticipated taking in the initial 
period of its management of the Presidio had been initiated by the NPS, 
which formerly managed the property now under the Trust's 
administrative jurisdiction; these early actions therefore were in the 
process of being reviewed under the NPS procedures.
    Similarly, NPS personnel were familiar with these actions from the 
period in which NPS managed the property that is now under the Trust's 
administrative jurisdiction. As a result, following consultation with 
the NPS and CEQ, the Trust determined that interim adoption of the NPS 
NEPA procedures was the most convenient and appropriate option for the 
Trust to ensure that its initial actions were subjected to appropriate 
NEPA review.
    Since the Trust's interim adoption of the NPS NEPA procedures, the 
Trust has retained the necessary personnel to ensure appropriate NEPA 
review of proposed actions. Furthermore, the Trust has completed NEPA 
review of a number of proposed actions using the NPS NEPA procedures 
and NPS personnel. The interim procedures adopted by the Trust did not 
establish a status quo against which today's adoption of final NEPA 
regulations is to be measured. In promulgating today's NEPA procedures 
the Trust does not depart from any set procedures and guidelines, but 
rather establishes for the first time the permanent regulations under 
which it will comply with NEPA.

Section-Specific Comments and Revisions

    In addition to these overall comments, both NPS and AYS presented 
comments on specific aspects of the proposed regulations. These are 
addressed below according to the section or sections of the proposed 
regulations that are implicated by the comments. Also discussed below 
are the revisions made to the proposed regulations by the Trust 
following consultation with CEQ and further internal review.

Section 1010.1  Policy

    NPS comments that this section of the proposed regulations does not 
adequately identify and incorporate the Trust's mandate to preserve and 
conserve the resources of the Presidio, including natural, historic, 
scenic, cultural, and recreational resources. NPS suggests that this 
mission be identified in order to emphasize that the focus of NEPA 
environmental analysis is to provide information to make substantive 
decisions in accordance with the Trust's mandate. In response, the 
Trust has revised Section 1010.1(d) to identify these resources 
specifically.

Section 1010.2  Purpose

    AYS comments that this section, unlike the corresponding 
``background and purpose'' section of NPS-12, does not contain a 
commitment to make information available to the public before actions 
are taken by the Trust. Although such a policy is not stated in the 
one-sentence ``purpose'' section of the Trust's regulations, it is 
stated in Sec. 1010.12, which concerns public involvement.
    NEPA is designed to involve the public in an agency's 
implementation of NEPA, and the final regulations reflect that 
statutory purpose. In Sec. 1010.12, the Trust states its policy to make 
public involvement an essential part of its environmental review 
process and to provide timely public notice of anticipated Trust 
actions that may have a significant environmental impact, of 
environmental documents, and of opportunities for public involvement. 
The Trust commits to using a variety of means to provide the public 
with notice, including a monthly newsletter, postings on its web site, 
placement of public notices in newspapers, and other appropriate means.
    The Trust also modified the wording of Sec. 1010.2 to make clear 
that these regulations are intended to implement the requirements set 
forth in NEPA and CEQ's regulations.

Section 1010.4  Responsible Trust Official

    This section was retitled ``NEPA Compliance Coordinator'' following 
further internal review by the Trust. The Trust believes that it is 
appropriate to identify a more specific and descriptive title 
associated with this position than the proposed title of ``Responsible 
Trust Official.'' Corresponding revisions were made throughout the 
regulations.
    This section provides that the Executive Director of the Trust will 
designate ``an employee of the Trust'' as the individual responsible 
for ensuring NEPA compliance. AYS comments that this allows such an 
official to be designated ``by project'' and asks why it is necessary 
for this person ``to change from project to project.'' AYS has 
misinterpreted this provision. Section 1010.4 describes duties that 
involve long-term development and supervision of NEPA compliance 
procedures and standards, including oversight of all EA's and EIS's 
prepared during the tenure of the NEPA Compliance Coordinator. This 
provision does not state nor does the Trust intend that this official 
will ordinarily change from project to project.
    AYS also comments that this section fails to make clear where 
responsibility for NEPA compliance ultimately rests. Section 1010.4 
plainly states that delegation to the NEPA Compliance Coordinator does 
not abrogate the responsibility of the Trust's Executive Director and 
Board of Directors to ensure that the Trust complies with NEPA.

Section 1010.5  Major Decision Points

    AYS comments that the ``scoping'' step is not mentioned in this 
section. The CEQ regulations require that a public scoping process be 
initiated following an agency decision to prepare an environmental 
impact statement on a proposed action. 40 CFR 1501.7. Although CEQ 
regulations also provide that agency procedures implementing NEPA are 
not to paraphrase or repeat the CEQ regulations, 40 CFR 1507.3(a), the 
Trust concurs with AYS that clarity would be served by identifying the 
scoping process in this section. Accordingly, the Trust has cross-
referenced the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.7 in Sec. 1010.5(b)(3). In 
addition, in accordance with the suggestion of the CEQ regulations at 
40 CFR 1501.7(b)(3) and the Trust's commitment to public involvement in 
the NEPA process, the Trust has provided in Sec. 1010.5(b)(2) that the 
Trust may, in appropriate circumstances, engage in public scoping 
concerning a proposed action prior to its determination as to whether 
to prepare an EIS. AYS's additional comments concerning scoping and 
public involvement are addressed below under Section 1010.12.
    The Trust has also revised the term ``final approval stage'' in 
Sec. 1010.5(a)(2) to refer to the ``final decision stage,'' in order to 
reflect that the Trust not only approves projects proposed by others 
but also makes decisions on its own proposals.

Section 1010.7  Actions that Do Not Require an EA or EIS

    NPS and AYS comment that Sec. 1010.7(b)(1) contains an overly broad 
criterion for determining categories of action that normally do not 
require an EA or an EIS. They comment that this criterion would allow 
categorical

[[Page 55900]]

exclusion of actions with potentially significant environmental effects 
that cannot be categorically excluded from NEPA analysis, even though 
the requirement to prepare such analysis may have been satisfied in a 
prior NEPA document.
    The Trust concurs with the comment that the actions described in 
Sec. 1010.7(b)(1) are, as a matter of nomenclature, not entitled to be 
categorically excluded from NEPA review. But, as the comments point 
out, such actions may not require an EA or EIS because by definition 
the environmental effects of the action have already been adequately 
analyzed. Upon reflection, the Trust has determined that there is no 
need to identify in these regulations any general criteria that may be 
used in the future to determine categories of actions excluded from 
NEPA review, since any such future categorical exclusions will be 
subject to notice and opportunity for public comment. Therefore, in the 
interests of clarity, the Trust has addressed this comment by deleting 
Sec. 1010.7(b) of the proposed regulations. Similar comments by NPS and 
AYS concern Sec. 1010.8(c) and 1010.10(c), and the Trust has revised 
these provisions accordingly. Furthermore, the Trust has made 
conforming changes to Secs. 1010.5(b) (twice adding references to 
whether the action has ``been adequately reviewed in a previously 
prepared EA or EIS'') and 1010.6(a) (deleting the parenthetical that 
equated the term ``normally does not require an EA or EIS'' with the 
term ``categorical exclusion'').
    NPS also asks that reference in Sec. 1010.7(b)(1) to Trust actions 
taken ``in accordance with the general objectives of the Plan and the 
Trust Act'' be deleted as superfluous, since the Trust is required to 
act in accordance with those general objectives under the Trust Act and 
the Trust's resolutions. This reference has been removed.
    NPS and AYS also comment that it is unlikely that the Trust could 
``tier'' NEPA review of any significant Trust action from the Plan EIS, 
as that EIS addressed proposed actions in the context of the overall 
Plan, which the Trust is not required to follow in detail. This comment 
addresses issues beyond the scope of the Trust's proposed regulations 
for implementing NEPA. The Trust acknowledges that certain Trust 
actions may require further NEPA review. When undertaking such actions, 
the Trust will address whether it is appropriate to ``tier'' such 
subsequent or supplemental NEPA review from analysis contained in the 
Plan EIS or in another EIS.
    In light of the admonition that these regulations not paraphrase or 
repeat the CEQ regulations, see 40 CFR 1507.3, the Trust has also 
determined that it is unnecessary to restate the ``general rule'' in 
Sec. 1010.7(a) that ``neither an EA nor an EIS is required for actions 
that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on 
the human environment.'' Instead, this provision contains a more 
straightforward declarative sentence that the Trust has determined that 
the following categories of action meet the criteria of NEPA for 
categorical exclusions.

Comments Specific to Categorical Exclusions

    NPS and AYS provided specific comments on several of the 
categorical exclusions in the Trust's proposed NEPA regulations. These 
are discussed below. References to categorical exclusions derived from 
the draft NPS-12 guidelines, the PADC regulations, and the HUD 
regulations are numbered herein in the same manner as in the proposed 
regulations, as described at 63 FR 39953, col. 3.
    Preliminarily, the Trust notes that, consistent with NEPA, these 
regulations provide exceptions to categorical exclusions in 
extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may 
have a significant environmental effect. That provision is discussed 
below under Sec. 1010.7(d).

Section 1010.7(c)(2)  Categorical Exclusion for Administrative Actions

    NPS and AYS comment that this categorical exclusion should not 
cover actions to acquire or convert space for Trust offices or 
maintenance facilities. NPS and AYS note that, because the Trust has a 
sizable number of employees and considerable maintenance equipment, it 
is difficult to conclude categorically that all such actions would have 
no significant effect on the environment. AYS also comments that a 
categorical exclusion of acquisition or conversion of space for 
maintenance facilities is inappropriate within a national park and 
National Historic Landmark District. This provision has been revised to 
delete the reference to ``space acquisition or conversion for the Trust 
offices or maintenance facilities.'' For clarity, the Trust has also 
added the acquisition of equipment to the non-exclusive list of 
administrative actions intended to be covered by this categorical 
exclusion. Following consultation with CEQ, the Trust has also added 
another requirement to this categorical exclusion: That the action be 
consistent with applicable Executive Orders (such as those related to 
Greening the Government).

Section 1010.7(c)(8)  Categorical Exclusion for Educational Activities

    AYS comments that this provision combines a variety of NPS 
exclusions ``in inappropriate and/or confusing ways.'' The comment does 
not specify any particular problem or suggest any particular change. 
The Trust notes that this categorical exclusion is based primarily on 
NPS-J and deviates only slightly from it to include interpretive 
programs (which are covered by NPS-B3 and NPS-Q) and technical 
assistance (which is covered by NPS-M). The Trust therefore has not 
modified this categorical exclusion.

Section 1010.7(c)(9)  Categorical Exclusion for Legislative Proposals

    AYS comments that use of the word ``minor'' to describe the 
boundary changes and land transactions referred to in this categorical 
exclusion (which require legislative action) and the proposed 
categorical exclusion for land acquisitions or exchanges that do not 
require legislative action (at Sec. 1010.7(c)(16)) is subjective and 
provides no guidance. AYS considers any such actions in a national park 
to be significant.
    This exclusion, including the word ``minor'' to describe boundary 
changes and land transactions, is taken almost verbatim from NPS-H in 
the draft NPS-12 Handbook. It is also contained in a categorical 
exclusion in the current NPS-12 for ``minor boundary changes.'' NPS has 
not indicated to the Trust in its comments or elsewhere that it finds 
the word ``minor'' inappropriate in this context; on the contrary, NPS 
has previously concluded that this term is appropriate for national 
parks. Use of the word ``minor,'' rather than a precise numerical 
limit, allows the Trust--like NPS--the flexibility to consider the 
environmental implications of particular actions in context. 
Furthermore, this exclusion, like all exclusions in the proposed 
regulations, will not apply to actions that may have a significant 
effect upon the human environment. The Trust is therefore retaining 
this categorical exclusion as proposed.

Section 1010.7(c)(10)  Categorical Exclusion for Certain Regulations

    Following consultation with CEQ, the Trust adopted the suggestion 
of CEQ that this categorical exclusion be combined with the following 
categorical exclusion in order to promote clarity concerning the types 
of regulations and policies that would be categorically

[[Page 55901]]

excluded. In addition, the criteria of former provision Section 
1010.7(c)(10) were revised to add the term ``significant'' to three of 
the four items and to precede their applicability with the term 
``potentially,'' in order to more closely parallel the requirements of 
NEPA.

Section 1010.7(c)(11)  Categorical Exclusion for Certain Policies

    This categorical exclusion was combined with the prior categorical 
exclusion, as discussed above.

Section 1010.7(c)(12)  Categorical Exclusion for Certain Research Plans

    AYS comments that the scope of this categorical exclusion is 
unclear in light of the original categorical exclusions that were 
combined. AYS asks whether this exclusion relates only to non-
manipulative and non-destructive research activities. The language of 
this proposed exclusion states that it covers such activities, as well 
as non-manipulative and non-destructive monitoring, inventorying, and 
information gathering. Following further internal review and 
consultation, the Trust revised the references to ``non-manipulative 
and non-destructive'' research to clarify that they include activities 
that are ``only minimally manipulative'' and cause ``only minimal 
physical damage.''
    AYS also asks whether this exclusion is intended to include 
``statements for management, outlines of planning requirements and 
agreements between NPS offices for plans and studies,'' which were 
included in NPS-B5, on which this exclusion is based in part. As noted 
in the preamble to the proposed rule, the terms ``preparation, 
approval, coordination, and implementation'' were added in order to 
cover the type of items listed in NPS-B5.
    AYS finds the lack of conformity between the language in the 
original exclusions and the language of this exclusion ``quite 
troubling.'' The activities covered by this categorical exclusion are 
no more extensive than those covered by the NPS categorical exclusions 
on which it is based. Furthermore, the Trust has concluded that these 
activities, all of which are non-manipulative and non-destructive, meet 
the criteria for categorical exclusion.

Section 1010.7(c)(14)  Categorical Exclusion for Certain Changes in 
Visitor Use

    AYS comments that it is inappropriate for this categorical 
exclusion, which was developed from NPS exclusions D-1, D-2 and D-3, to 
include language covering short-term leases. AYS states that ``leasing 
has nothing to do with changes in visitor use.'' Short-term leasing was 
added to this categorical exclusion because the Trust--unlike NPS--has 
authority to enter into leases, as well as other agreements for use and 
occupancy that may not be considered permits in a technical sense. In 
response to the AYS comment, this categorical exclusion has been 
modified to remove references to leasing and instead to broaden the 
term ``permit'' to include other forms of use and occupancy agreements. 
This change also clarifies that only short-term leases (or other forms 
of use and occupancy agreements) related to special visitor events or 
public assemblies and meetings are covered by this exclusion.
    Following further review, the term ``environmental disturbance'' in 
this categorical exclusion was changed to ``environmental impacts'' in 
order to more closely parallel the requirements of NEPA.

Section 1010.7(c)(15)  Categorical Exclusion for the Designation of 
Environmental Study Areas

    Following further review, the criteria of this categorical 
exclusion that the designation of environmental study areas cause ``no 
environmental impact'' was modified to include ``only minimal 
environmental impact'' as well--i.e., not ``significant environmental 
impact''--in order to more closely parallel the requirements of NEPA.

Section 1010.7(c)(16)  Categorical Exclusion for Land Acquisitions or 
Exchanges

    AYS's comment concerning this categorical exclusion's use of the 
term ``minor'' is addressed above under the discussion of 
Sec. 1010.7(c)(9).
    NPS suggests that the categorical exclusion be amended to cover 
transfers of administrative jurisdiction as authorized under section 
102 of the Trust Act and to exclude exchanges of land ownership. The 
Trust has revised this provision in accordance with NPS's suggestion.

Section 1010.7(c)(18)  Categorical Exclusion for Planning and Design 
Guidelines

    AYS and NPS comment that categorically excluding planning and 
design guidelines from NEPA review is inappropriate. Upon further 
review of this proposed categorical exclusion, the Trust has removed it 
from the final rule.

Section 1010.7(c)(19)  Categorical Exclusion for Certain Previously 
Analyzed Actions

    NPS and AYS comment that implementation of a plan, even if the plan 
was covered by a previously prepared EA and/or EIS, may potentially 
have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore cannot 
be categorically excluded from NEPA review. The ambiguity noted by NPS 
and AYS is unintentional. The Trust therefore has revised this 
categorical exclusion as suggested by the NPS comment, which combines 
NPS-A1 (relating to approved actions) with NPS-B1 (relating to approved 
plans). In addition, the Trust has revised the term ``no potential for 
environmental impact'' to state that the criterion is whether the 
action ``would cause no or only minimal environmental impact,'' in 
order to more closely parallel the requirements of NEPA.

Section 1010.7(c)(20)  Categorical Exclusion for Contracts Related to 
Administrative Operations

    Consistent with other comments discussed above, NPS comments that 
this categorical exclusion should not necessarily cover actions which 
have been the subject of prior NEPA review. This categorical exclusion 
has been revised to address the NPS comment and to be consistent with 
the addition to Sec. 1010.10(c), which categorizes as appropriate for 
preparation of an EA actions involving ``contracts, work 
authorizations, and master agreements related to and implementing 
programs, policies, and proposals which are not categorically excluded 
and for which there is no previously prepared EA or EIS.''

Section 1010.7(c)(21)  Categorical Exclusion for Transfer of Non-Fee 
Interests

    NPS and AYS comment that this categorical exclusion is too broadly 
worded. NPS suggests that it either be deleted or limited to actions 
that do not require physical change to structures and do not have 
adverse effects on the environment. The Trust believes that it is 
appropriate to retain this categorical exclusion, while limiting it to 
actions that will have no or only minimal environmental impact (e.g., 
the permitting of existing occupancies that have not been properly 
documented, the revision of lease provisions concerning financial or 
legal matters, etc.). The addition of this criterion, since it properly 
limits this categorical exclusion, is a key determinant of

[[Page 55902]]

whether an action can properly be considered categorically excluded. 
See 40 CFR 1508.8. (Section 1010.7(c)(15) has been revised in a similar 
manner to refer to actions causing ``no or only minimal environmental 
impact.'')

Section 1010.7(c)(22)  Categorical Exclusion for Certain Changes to 
Real Property Agreements

    AYS comments that this exclusion ``lumps'' together and alters the 
several NPS exclusions from which it is drawn. Other than ``the 
elimination of qualifying language (i.e., `mino' before 
`modifications'),'' the comment does not specify other faults. The 
Trust has revised this categorical exclusion to include the word 
``minor'' before ``modifications,'' and to remove the words 
``renegotiation'' and ``termination,'' all of which were not included 
in the categorical exclusions of the current NPS-12 that correspond to 
those in the draft NPS-12 from which this categorical exclusion was 
drawn.
    AYS also comments that this exclusion is confusing in that it 
includes ``language relating to when supplementation of EIS's is 
necessary.'' The language AYS points to provides that this exclusion 
does not apply to renewal of or changes to agreements for which 
supplemental NEPA review is required. The Trust has modified the 
grammar of this language in order to clarify its meaning, which is 
merely intended to ensure that any new information or changes in 
environmental conditions be taken into account before the Trust relies 
on this categorical exclusion.
    Furthermore, following internal review, the Trust has revised this 
categorical exclusion to remove the qualification that these agreements 
must have been in force as of the date the Trust received 
administrative jurisdiction of the underlying real property. This 
qualification was viewed as unnecessarily restrictive, likely to become 
obsolete rather quickly, and potentially causing ambiguity in that the 
effective date of each and every purported agreement for use of real 
property in Area B of the Presidio is not clear.

Section 1010.7(c)(23)  Categorical Exclusion for Permits for Minor 
Development Activities

    NPS comments that the proposed categorical exclusion for minor 
development activities, which is based upon a PADC exclusion of 
``review'' of applications for permits for minor development 
activities, should not extend to ``issuance'' of such permits. Upon 
further review, and in light of the comments, the Trust has deleted 
this categorical exclusion from its final regulations.

Section 1010.7(c)(24)  Categorical Exclusion for Rehabilitation of 
Historic Properties

    NPS and AYS also comment that minor development activities and 
minor actions affecting historic properties should not be categorically 
excluded from NEPA on the grounds of compliance with the Secretary of 
Interior's ``Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties'' (36 CFR 
part 68) when, under NPS practice, determination of compliance with 
those standards occurs in the context of NEPA review.
    While NEPA review provides an opportunity to determine compliance 
with the Secretary's standards, it is not a necessary or exclusive 
means to make such a determination. Therefore, under the regulations, 
minor projects that are properly excluded from NEPA review need not be 
subject to NEPA review solely to facilitate determination of compliance 
with the Secretary's historic properties standards. In order to ensure 
that only appropriate projects are covered by this categorical 
exclusion, the Trust has added to it a requirement that the proposed 
project have no or only minimal environmental impact. See 40 CFR 
1508.8.
    NPS also comments that the Trust must consider the environmental 
impact of this categorical exclusion on the status of the Presidio as a 
National Historic Landmark. Because this categorical exclusion only 
applies to actions that are in conformance with the Secretary's 
historic properties standards, there is no impact to the Presidio's 
status as a National Historic Landmark that requires evaluation in an 
EA.

Section 1010.7(c)(25)  Categorical Exclusion for Rehabilitation of Non-
Historic Properties

    NPS and AYS comment that use of a categorical exclusion developed 
for HUD is misplaced, because the Trust, unlike HUD, is not charged 
with a mandate to develop housing. NPS and AYS also comment that 
increase of not more than 20% in unit density of housing facilities 
under the Trust's administrative jurisdiction could have significant 
environmental impacts that would require evaluation under NEPA. NPS 
further comments that this categorical exclusion would allow ``any non-
historic building to be modified in any way'' without NEPA review, as 
long as the modification did not involve a change from residential to 
non-residential use or vice versa.
    The Trust has substantially revised this categorical exclusion to 
remove the objectionable criteria that were part of the HUD categorical 
exclusion. Instead, the Trust has established two criteria called for 
under NEPA and applicable law: (1) That the action be consistent with 
applicable Executive Orders; and (2) that the action not have 
significant environmental impacts, including impacts to cultural 
landscapes or archaeological resources. Similar changes were made to 
the categorical exclusion proposed in Sec. 1010.7(c)(27) related to 
removal of non-historic materials and structures.

Section 1010.7(c)(28)  Categorical Exclusion for Activities Related to 
Minor Structures

    NPS and AYS comment that this categorical exclusion, which combines 
parts of ten categorical exclusions developed by NPS, results in a 
single exclusion much broader in effect than the sum of the ten NPS 
exclusions. NPS and AYS comment that so broad an exclusion would 
discourage comprehensive planning and appropriate environmental review 
involving the public. NPS also comments that this categorical 
exclusion, which deleted the reference in some NPS exclusions to 
``areas showing clear evidence of recent human disturbance,'' does not 
adequately recognize the importance of considering and protecting 
archaeological resources at the Presidio. In response to the comments, 
the Trust has replaced this categorical exclusion with ten categorical 
exclusions closely corresponding to the NPS models (NPS-C5, NPS-C8, 
NPS-C9, NPS-C10, NPS-C11, NPS-C12, NPS-C17, NPS-C18, NPS-C19, and NPS-
D4). Modifications have been made where the NPS exclusions referred to 
features uncharacteristic of or inappropriate to the Presidio, such as 
pit toilets and logging roads.

Section 1010.7(c)(30)  Categorical Exclusion for Utility Rights-of-Way

    NPS and AYS comment that this exclusion, which combines parts of 
four NPS categorical exclusions, is overly broad and may discourage 
appropriate NEPA review to determine whether there would be visual 
intrusion or compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for 
the Treatment of Historic Properties. In response to the comments, this 
categorical exclusion has been replaced by four exclusions more closely 
corresponding to the NPS models (NPS-C13, NPS-C14, NPS-C15,

[[Page 55903]]

NPS-C16). To address the visual impacts concern, modifications have 
been made to tailor the exclusions to the Presidio, including reference 
to the Secretary's Standards, in light of the Presidio's status as a 
National Historic Landmark. In addition, the Trust notes that the 
categorical exclusion for ``upgrading or adding new overhead utility 
facilities to existing poles'' also covers maintenance and repair of 
such facilities.

Section 1010.7(d)  Extraordinary Circumstances

    The CEQ regulations require that agency procedures to implement 
NEPA ``shall provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a 
normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect.'' 
40 CFR 1508.4. NPS and AYS comment that NPS-12 lists several specific 
exceptions to the categorical exclusions provided in that document and 
suggest that the Trust adopt all of these exceptions.
    The CEQ regulations do not require the enumeration of specific 
circumstances in which an environmental document must be prepared 
despite the applicability of a categorical exclusion, and CEQ did not 
raise this issue in its review of an earlier draft of the Trust's 
proposed NEPA regulations. Although NPS-12 lists certain exceptions, 
the Trust does not believe that a complete enumeration is possible or 
appropriate in a document that--unlike NPS-12--is intended to be 
legally enforceable. The Trust nevertheless believes that clarity will 
result from enumeration of criteria that will be applied by the NEPA 
Compliance Coordinator in determining whether such ``extraordinary 
circumstances'' exist. The Trust has therefore identified several such 
criteria, based on the NPS list of ten exceptions, in Sec. 1010.7(b) of 
these final regulations.
    The Trust has modified certain of the NPS criteria, however, in 
order to account for the characteristics of the geographic area under 
the Trust's administrative jurisdiction, which does not encompass any 
wilderness areas, wild or scenic rivers, prime farmlands, or areas on 
the Department of the Interior's National Register of Natural 
Landmarks. The Trust has also added Executive Order 13007 (Indian 
Sacred Sites) to the list of executive orders in the ninth criterion. 
This executive order is specifically identified in the overriding 
criteria of the draft NPS-12.
    In addition, the Trust has retitled this section using the term 
``extraordinary circumstances''--which appears in the CEQ regulations--
as opposed to ``overriding criteria.''

Section 1010.8  Actions That Normally Require an EIS

    NPS and AYS comment that Sec. 1010.8(c), listing categories of 
actions normally requiring an EIS, should not include an exception for 
actions that are categorically excluded. As discussed above concerning 
Sec. 1010.7, the Trust agrees with this comment and has revised the 
regulation accordingly. For the sake of clarity, the listing of 
legislative proposals in Sec. 1010.8(c)(1) is specifically limited to 
those not covered by the categorical exclusion of Sec. 1010.7(a)(9) of 
these final regulations. The Trust has also made a conforming change to 
Sec. 1010.10(c). AYS further proposes that Sec. 1010.8 include a 
statement that ``even categorically excluded actions require NEPA 
analysis when there is the potential for adverse impacts.'' The Trust 
has considered this suggestion and believes it is unnecessary because 
this issue is already addressed with clarity in Sec. 1010.7(b) of these 
final regulations.
    NPS and AYS also comment that Sec. 1010.8(c)(2), which provides 
that an EIS is normally required for actions associated with 
construction of new buildings and having a significant environmental 
effect, should not be limited to activities that were not contemplated 
in the Plan. NPS and AYS comment that whether an action having a 
significant environmental effect is contemplated in the Plan is 
irrelevant to whether the environmental effects of that action have 
been adequately analyzed. The regulation has been revised in light of 
these comments to remove the reference to an activity having been 
``contemplated by the Plan.'' Removing these references to the Plan and 
the Plan EIS obviates the need for definitions of these terms, which 
have therefore been removed from Sec. 1010.3.
    NPS and AYS comment that Sec. 1010.8(c)(3), which provides that an 
EIS is normally required for actions significantly altering the kind 
and amount of resources at the Presidio, does not specify that those 
resources include ``natural'' or ``scenic'' resources. The regulation 
has been revised to address these comments.
    NPS also comments that the list of actions normally requiring 
preparation of an EIS should also include ``a General Management Plan, 
or its equivalent.'' The Trust agrees that the approval of a plan akin 
to what the NPS calls a ``General Management Plan'' would ordinarily 
require the preparation of an EIS. Because the Trust may not adhere to 
this nomenclature, however, the Trust has revised the regulation to 
refer to ``[a]pproval or amendment of a general land use or resource 
management plan for the entire Presidio Trust Area.''

Section 1010.10  Actions That Normally Require an EA

    Section 1010.10(b) identifies the criteria used to determine 
categories of action normally requiring an EA, but not necessarily an 
EIS. Further internal review and consultation with CEQ resulted in the 
revision of these provisions to (1) remove the qualifier ``minor'' 
before ``degradation;'' (2) add the qualifier ``adverse'' before 
``impact'' in the second and third items, since that is the primary 
concern of NEPA; and (3) for the sake of clarity, add a list of the 
type of resources that the Trust considers to be ``protected 
resources.''
    Section 1010.10(c) lists actions that normally require preparation 
of an EA. NPS comments that this list should not include ``proposals to 
significantly add or alter access between the Presidio Trust Area and 
surrounding neighborhoods.'' NPS believes that actions 
``significantly'' adding or altering access may have significant 
environmental effects that require preparation of an EIS, whereas some 
access alteration may only require an EA. Section 1010.10(c) has been 
revised to address this comment.
    NPS also suggests that the list of actions normally requiring an EA 
include two items listed in the PADC regulations (at 36 CFR 
907.11(b)(1), (5)). The first NPS suggestion covers amendments to a 
General Management Plan that do not represent ``substantial changes'' 
to such document. The Trust has not included this item for the reasons 
stated above in the discussion of Sec. 1010.8. Instead, under the 
revision to Sec. 1010.8(c)(4), the amendment of a general land use or 
resource management plan is intended to fall into the category of 
actions that normally would require preparation of an EIS. The second 
NPS suggestions covers contracts, work authorizations, and master 
agreements related to and implementing programs, policies and 
proposals. The regulations at Sec. 1010.10(c)(5) have been revised to 
address this NPS comment.
    As noted above, the Trust has deleted the parenthetical in 
Sec. 1010.10(c) that would except from actions normally requiring an EA 
those that are categorically excluded or previously analyzed in an EA 
or EIS, since that exception is already stated clearly in Sec. 1010.7.

[[Page 55904]]

Section 1010.11  Preparation of an EA

    Following consultation with CEQ and further internal review, the 
Trust clarified Sec. 1010.11(b) to note that an EA should include an 
analysis of cumulative impacts. The other revision to this section is 
discussed below.

Section 1010.12  Public Involvement

    AYS comments that the proposed regulations provide no opportunity 
for public review of Trust actions that are covered by categorical 
exclusions. In response, the Trust notes that NEPA implementing 
procedures are intended simply to ensure that the Trust complies with 
NEPA. Information concerning determinations that specific actions or 
proposals are categorically excluded will be available in the Trust's 
library and from the Trust upon request. Furthermore, the Trust has in 
place, pursuant to Board Resolutions 97-3 and 98-16, a comprehensive 
Public Outreach Policy for sharing information with the public and 
seeking public comment. Since the first meeting of the Trust's Board of 
Directors in July 1997, the Board has held regular public meetings; 
staff have coordinated innumerable public input sessions on diverse 
topics; the Trust has routinely published a monthly newsletter and 
multiple fliers on issues of special interest; and Trust staff have 
initiated and participated in regular discussions with a variety of 
neighborhood, community, environmental, and business organizations. 
Under its Public Outreach Policy, the Trust maintains both an 
informative website and an extensive public library of relevant 
documents, including NEPA and other environmental documentation, 
concerning the Presidio. These opportunities supplement the public 
involvement requirements of the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6 as 
well as the additional requirements of Sec. 1010.12 of the Trust's NEPA 
regulations.
    AYS comments that under the proposed rules the Trust is not 
required to designate a ``preferred alternative'' in the environmental 
documents it prepares and that such a requirement would facilitate 
public involvement and improve the usefulness to the Trust of 
information provided by commenters. The Trust notes that the CEQ 
regulations, to which the Trust is subject, require just such an 
identification in draft and final EIS's. 40 CFR 1502.14(e). Because the 
CEQ regulations mandate that an individual agency's regulations avoid 
restating the CEQ requirements, see 40 CFR 1507.3(a), the Trust has not 
reiterated this requirement in these regulations.
    AYS comments that Sec. 1010.12 fails to specify the precise means 
by which public notice will be provided. AYS further comments that the 
process followed by the Trust for notification of these proposed 
regulations indicates that greater specificity is needed in the text of 
the regulations, in order to ensure appropriate public notice in the 
future. The Trust regrets any confusion with respect to public notice 
that may have occurred at the time the proposed regulations were 
published. The Trust met its responsibility to provide notice and 
opportunity for public comment on the Trust's proposed NEPA 
regulations, including extending the comment period upon request in 
order to allow AYS to provide written comments. More substantively, the 
proposed regulations specify several means of public notification: 
``Public notice of anticipated Trust actions that may have a 
significant environmental effect, opportunities for involvement, and 
availability of environmental documents will be provided through 
announcements in the Trust's monthly newsletter, postings on its web 
site (http://www.presidiotrust.gov), placement of public notices in 
newspapers, direct mailings, and other means appropriate for involving 
the public in a meaningful way.'' These means are in addition to the 
requirements of the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6, which are more 
specific with regard to EA's and EIS's, as well as public hearings or 
meetings in the event of substantial environmental controversy, 
substantial interest, or a request by another agency with jurisdiction 
over the action.
    Furthermore, the proposed regulations (at Sec. 1010.12) contain a 
commitment to holding public scoping meetings and public workshops on 
projects subject to NEPA review. As noted above, the Trust has revised 
Sec. 1010.5 to allow for public scoping meetings prior to the 
determination as to whether an EIS is required. The Trust has also 
revised Sec. 1010.11(a) to require public notice once the Trust has 
determined to prepare an EA. AYS also requests that opportunities be 
provided for submittal of written scoping comments in order to allow 
opportunities for formal comment and for comment by interested parties 
who may not be able to attend a workshop. The Trust has revised 
Sec. 1010.12 to clarify that the Trust will solicit and accept written 
scoping comments as part of the scoping process.
    AYS also comments that the procedures of some agencies provide for 
EA's and EIS's to respond to written scoping comments. Such documents 
prepared by the Trust will reflect agencies' and the public's priority 
concerns as expressed through scoping. Nevertheless, there is no 
requirement for an individual response to written scoping comments 
under NEPA or the CEQ regulations. The Trust's NEPA regulations 
continue to allow the Trust the flexibility to tailor its responses to 
scoping comments to the particular circumstances of each action under 
review.

Section 1010.13  Trust Decision-Making Procedures

    Following internal review and consultation with CEQ, the Trust 
revised Sec. 1010.13(b) to provide for monitoring and enforcement of 
any mitigation measures adopted in an EIS.

Section 1010.15  Actions Where Lead Agency Designation is Necessary

    The NPS comments that this section should not provide that the 
Trust will seek designation as lead agency for all actions ``that 
directly relate to implementation of the general objectives of the 
Plan,'' because some such actions may relate to Area A of the Presidio, 
over which NPS--and not the Trust--has administrative jurisdiction. 
Because circumstances in which the Trust would seek lead agency status 
are likely to be covered by the criteria of 40 CFR 1501.5 and the other 
criteria identified in Sec. 1010.15, the Trust has revised this section 
in accordance with this NPS comment.
    Following internal review and consultation with CEQ, the Trust also 
modified Sec. 1010.15(b) and (c) to allow for the Trust to establish 
itself as ``joint lead agency'' for appropriate actions.

Section 1010.17  Actions to Eliminate Duplication With State and Local 
Procedures

    Upon further review of Sec. 1010.17(d), the Trust has clarified it 
to include not only ``joint environmental assessments'' but also joint 
Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Impact Reports. The 
California Environmental Quality Act requires the preparation of 
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for certain actions, and the 
preparation of a combined EIS/EIR for appropriate actions would serve 
to reduce duplication with State and local procedures.

Regulatory Impact

    This final rule 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.

[[Page 55905]]

This final 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 
final rule. Because this final rule is not ``economically 
significant,'' it is not subject to review by the Office of Management 
and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, this final rule is 
not a ``major rule'' under the Congressional review provisions of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 801 
et seq.
    The Trust has determined and certifies pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., that this final 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 final 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

    Although not required to do so, the Trust prepared an Environmental 
Assessment (EA) in connection with the proposed rule. The EA determined 
that the proposed rule would not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment because it was neither intended nor 
expected to change the physical status quo of the Presidio in any 
significant manner. Comments on that EA were received from both AYS and 
NPS. The Trust has prepared a response to these comments, which is part 
of the administrative record on this matter.
    The EA, the FONSI, and the administrative record 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 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Other Applicable Authorities

    The Presidio Trust has drafted and reviewed this final rule in 
light of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that it meets 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: September 9, 2000.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.

    Accordingly, the Presidio Trust adds 36 CFR part 1010, as set forth 
below:

PART 1010-ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Sec.
1010.1   Policy.
1010.2   Purpose.
1010.3   Definitions.
1010.4   NEPA Compliance Coordinator.
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 and its natural, historic, scenic, cultural, and recreational 
resources 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 incorporate and supplement the Council 
on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) 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 within the requirements 
set forth in NEPA and CEQ regulations.


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.
    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  NEPA Compliance Coordinator.

    (a) The NEPA Compliance Coordinator, as designated by the Executive 
Director, shall be the Trust 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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator in accordance with the Trust's 
regulations and procedures.
    (b) The NEPA Compliance Coordinator shall:
    (1) Coordinate the formulation and revision of Trust policies and 
procedures on matters pertaining to environmental protection and 
enhancement;

[[Page 55906]]

    (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 CEQ 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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator, where necessary for 
administrative convenience and efficiency. As used in this chapter, the 
term ``NEPA Compliance Coordinator'' 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. Most Trust projects have three distinct stages in the 
decision-making process:
    (1) Conceptual or preliminary study stage;
    (2) Detailed planning or final decision 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 NEPA 
Compliance Coordinator shall determine whether the proposed action or 
project is one which is categorically excluded under Sec. 1010.7, has 
been adequately reviewed in a previously prepared EA and/or EIS, or 
requires further NEPA review (i.e., an EA or an EIS).
    (2) If the proposed action or project is not categorically excluded 
and has not been adequately reviewed in a previously prepared EA and/or 
EIS, then prior to the Trust's proceeding beyond the conceptual or 
preliminary study stage, the NEPA Compliance Coordinator must determine 
whether an EIS is required. When appropriate, prior to the 
determination as to whether an EIS is required, the NEPA Compliance 
Coordinator may initiate a public scoping process in order to inform 
such a determination.
    (3) If an EIS is determined to be necessary, the Trust shall 
initiate a public scoping process in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7. 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 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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator will determine whether the proposal is 
one that:
    (a) Normally does not require either an EA or an EIS;
    (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) Categorical Exclusions. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1508.4, the Trust 
has determined that the categories of action identified in this 
paragraph have no significant effect, either individually or 
cumulatively, 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 
equipment) provided such actions and operations are consistent with 
applicable Executive Orders;
    (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) Proposal, adoption, revision, and termination of policies, 
directives, regulations, and guidelines:
    (i) That are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or 
procedural nature, the environmental effects of which are too broad, 
speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to environmental 
analysis and the implementation of which will be subject to the NEPA 
process either collectively or on a case-by-case basis; or
    (ii) Where such actions will not potentially:
    (A) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature 
and character of the area or of causing significant physical damage to 
it;

[[Page 55907]]

    (B) Introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature 
and characteristics of the area or cause significant physical damage to 
it;
    (C) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
    (D) Cause a significant nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants;
    (11) Preparation, approval, coordination, and implementation of 
plans, including priorities, justifications, and strategies, for 
research, monitoring, inventorying, and information gathering that is 
not or is only minimally manipulative and causes no or only minimal 
physical damage;
    (12) 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;
    (13) 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 or other use and occupancy 
agreements for special events or public assemblies and meetings, 
provided such events, assemblies, and meetings entail only short-term 
or readily mitigated environmental impacts;
    (14) Designation of environmental study areas and research areas, 
including those closed temporarily or permanently to the public, 
provided such designation would cause no or only minimal environmental 
impact;
    (15) Land and boundary surveys and minor boundary adjustments or 
transfers of administrative jurisdiction resulting in no significant 
change in land use;
    (16) Archaeological surveys and permits involving only surface 
collection or small-scale test excavations;
    (17) Changes or amendments to an approved plan or action when such 
changes or amendments would cause no or only minimal environmental 
impact;
    (18) Contracts, work authorizations, or procurement actions related 
to proposals, programs, and master agreements related to administrative 
operation of the Trust;
    (19) The leasing, permitting, sale, or financing of, or granting of 
non-fee interests regarding, real or personal property in the Presidio 
Trust Area, provided that such actions would have no or only minimal 
environmental impact;
    (20) Extension, reissuance, renewal, minor modification, or 
conversion in form 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), so long as 
such agreements were previously subject to NEPA and do not involve new 
construction or new or substantially greater environmental impacts, and 
so long as no new information is known or no changed circumstances have 
occurred that would give rise to new or substantially greater 
environmental impacts.
    (21) Rehabilitation, modification, or improvement of historic 
properties that have been determined to be in conformance with the 
Secretary of the Interior's ``Standards for the Treatment of Historic 
Properties'' at 36 CFR part 68 and that would have no or only minimal 
environmental impact;
    (22) Rehabilitation, maintenance, modification or improvement of 
non-historic properties that is consistent with applicable Executive 
Orders, provided there is no potential for significant environmental 
impacts, including impacts to cultural landscapes or archaeological 
resources;
    (23) 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;
    (24) Removal of non-historic materials and structures in order to 
restore natural conditions when such removal has no potential for 
significant environmental impacts, including impacts to cultural 
landscapes or archaeological resources and is consistent with 
applicable Executive Orders;
    (25) Installation of signs, displays, and kiosks, etc.;
    (26) Replacement of minor structures and facilities (e.g., signs, 
kiosks, fences, comfort stations, and parking lots) with little or no 
change in location, capacity, or appearance;
    (27) Repair, resurfacing, striping, installation of traffic control 
devices, and repair/replacement of guardrails, culverts, signs, and 
other minor features, on existing roads and parking facilities, 
provided there is no potential for significant environmental impact;
    (28) Minor trail relocation, development of compatible trail 
networks on roads or other formally established routes, and trail 
maintenance and repair;
    (29) Construction or rehabilitation in previously disturbed or 
developed areas required to meet health or safety regulations, or to 
meet requirements for making facilities accessible to the handicapped 
provided such construction or rehabilitation is implemented in a manner 
consistent with applicable Executive Orders;
    (30) Landscaping and landscape maintenance in previously disturbed 
or developed areas;
    (31) Minor changes in programs and regulations pertaining to 
visitor activities;
    (32) Routine maintenance, property management, and resource 
management, with no potential for significant environmental impact and 
that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's ``Standards 
for the Treatment of Historic Properties'' at 36 CFR part 68, as 
applicable, and with applicable Executive Orders;
    (33) Upgrading or adding new utility facilities to existing poles, 
or replacement poles which do not change existing pole line 
configurations.
    (34) Issuance of rights-of-way for overhead utility lines to an 
individual building or well from an existing line where installation 
will not result in significant visual intrusion or non-conformance with 
the Secretary's ``Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties'' 
at 36 CFR part 68, as applicable, and will involve no clearance of 
vegetation other than for placement of poles;
    (35) Issuance of rights-of-way for minor overhead utility lines not 
involving placement of poles or towers and not involving vegetation 
management or significant visual intrusion in an area administered by 
NPS or the Trust or non-conformance with the Secretary's ``Standards 
for the Treatment of Historic Properties'' at 36 CFR part 68, as 
applicable;
    (36) Installation of underground utilities in previously disturbed 
areas having stable soils, or in an existing utility right-of-way; and
    (37) Experimental testing of no longer than 180 days of mass 
transit systems, and changes in operation of existing systems with no 
potential for significant environmental impact.
    (b) Extraordinary circumstances. An action that falls into one or 
more of the categories in paragraph (a) of this section may still 
require the preparation of an EIS or an EA if the NEPA Compliance 
Coordinator determines that 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. Criteria used in determining whether to prepare 
an EA or EIS for an action that otherwise qualifies for a

[[Page 55908]]

categorical exclusion include whether an action may:
    (1) Have significant adverse effects on public health or safety;
    (2) Have significant adverse effects on such unique geographic 
characteristics as historic or cultural resources, park, recreation or 
refuge lands, sole or principal drinking water aquifers, wetlands, 
floodplains, or ecologically significant or critical areas;
    (3) Have highly controversial environmental effects;
    (4) Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental 
effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks;
    (5) Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision 
in principle about future actions with potentially significant 
environmental effects;
    (6) Be directly related to other actions with individually 
insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects;
    (7) Have significant adverse effects on properties listed or 
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places;
    (8) Have significant adverse effects on species listed or proposed 
to be listed on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have 
adverse effects on designated Critical Habitat for these species;
    (9) Require compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain 
Management), Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), Executive 
Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), or the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act; and/or
    (10) Threaten to violate a Federal, State, local or tribal law or 
requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.


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 NEPA 
Compliance Coordinator 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 NEPA 
Compliance Coordinator 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:
    (1) Legislative proposals made by the Trust to the United States 
Congress, other than those described in Sec. 1010.7(b)(9);
    (2) Approval, funding, construction, and/or demolition in 
preparation for construction of any new building, if that activity has 
a significant effect on the human environment;
    (3) Proposals that would significantly alter the kind and amount of 
natural, recreational, historical, scenic, or cultural resources of the 
Presidio Trust Area or the integrity of the setting; and
    (4) Approval or amendment of a general land use or resource 
management plan for the entire Presidio Trust Area.


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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator 
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 degradation of environmental quality;
    (2) Potential for cumulative adverse impact on environmental 
quality; and
    (3) Potential for adverse impact on protected resources (e.g., 
natural, scenic, recreational, historical, and cultural resources).
    (c) Categories of action. The following categories of action 
normally require the preparation of an EA:
    (1) Promulgation of regulations and requirements that are not 
categorically excluded;
    (2) Proposals submitted by project applicants to the Trust for its 
review, as described in Sec. 1010.14;
    (3) Proposals to add or alter access between the Presidio Trust 
Area and surrounding neighborhoods; and
    (4) Contracts, work authorizations, and master agreements related 
to and implementing programs, policies, and proposals which are not 
categorically excluded and for which there is no previously prepared EA 
and/or EIS.


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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator to be required. The Trust will 
provide notice of such determinations in accordance with Sec. 1010.12. 
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. An EA should address impacts, 
including cumulative impacts, on those resources that are specifically 
relevant to the particular proposal. Those impacts 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.

[[Page 55909]]

    (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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator determines that an EIS is not 
required, then the NEPA Compliance Coordinator 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 NEPA
    Compliance Coordinator 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. A supplemental 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 supplemental 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 that may have a significant environmental impact, opportunities 
for involvement, and availability of environmental documents will be 
provided 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, will solicit and accept written scoping comments and will hold 
public scoping meetings to gather early input whenever it determines an 
EIS to be necessary and otherwise as appropriate. Notice of all public 
scoping meetings 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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator 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 Trust 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 Trust shall consider all alternatives described 
in the EIS, a written record of the consideration of alternatives 
during the decision-making process shall be maintained, and a 
monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized 
where applicable for any mitigation.
    (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) An EA shall be required for 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, 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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator 
believes is necessary to permit it to satisfy its environmental review 
functions.
    (d) With respect to each project proposed for consideration for 
which the NEPA Compliance Coordinator determines that 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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator 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 NEPA Compliance Coordinator may set time limits for 
environmental review appropriate to each proposal, consistent with 40 
CFR 1501.8 and 1506.10.
    (h) The NEPA Compliance Coordinator 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 relate solely to the Presidio Trust Area.
    (b) For an action that qualifies as one for which the Trust will 
seek

[[Page 55910]]

designation as lead agency, the Trust will promptly consult with the 
appropriate Federal agencies to establish lead agency, joint lead 
agency, and/or cooperating agency designations.
    (c) For an action as to which the Trust undertakes lead, joint 
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 the relevant agencies.


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

    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, State, local, or tribal 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 
or joint lead agency.


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); and
    (d) Joint environmental assessments and/or Environmental Impact 
Statements/Environmental Impact Reports.

[FR Doc. 00-23710 Filed 9-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P