[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 53 (Monday, March 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13538-13540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5448]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Fire Management Plan;
Golden Gate National Recreation Area; Marin, San Francisco and San
Mateo Counties, California; Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1,
1970, as amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations
(40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), the National Park Service, Department
of the Interior, has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
identifying and evaluating three alternatives for a Fire Management
Plan for Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), in northern
California. Potential impacts and mitigating measures are described for
each alternative. The alternative selected after this conservation
planning and environmental impact analysis process will serve as a
blueprint for fire management actions for the GGNRA over the next 10-15
years.
This Fire Management Plan (FMP) and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) identifies and analyzes two action alternatives, and a
No Action alternative, to update and revise the 1993 Fire Management
Plan for the GGNRA, Muir Woods National Monument and Fort Point
National Historic Site; the latter two sites are administered by GGNRA.
The 1993 FMP focuses primarily on natural resource management issues
and needs to be revised to more fully address cultural resource
concerns. In addition, the revisions will bring the FMP into
conformance with current federal wildland fire policies and standards,
address lands added to GGNRA since 1993, and plan for fire hazard
reduction in the extensive wildland urban interface on the park's
boundary.
This FMP DEIS evaluates fire management options for approximately
15,000 acres of GGNRA's nearly 75,000 legislated acres. The planning
area for the FMP contains lands in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo
counties--three of the nine counties that make up the San Francisco Bay
area. Several of the smaller national park sites are within the City of
San Francisco itself; remaining areas are in southern and southwestern
Marin County, northwestern San Mateo County and the Phleger Estate, in
southeastern San Mateo County near the Town of Woodside. The FMP
planning area does not included the following lands:
(1) The northern lands of GGNRA, comprising 18,000 acres north of
the Bolinas-Fairfax Road in western Marin County, which are managed by
the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) under an agreement between the
two park units. Fire management responsibilities for these northern
lands are addressed in the PRNS FMP (approved October 29, 2004).
(2) Lands within the jurisdictional boundary of GGNRA that are not
directly managed by the National Park Service. This includes the San
Francisco Watershed, managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (with overlays of NPS easements) and the interior portion of
the Presidio of San Francisco (referred to as Area B), which is managed
by the Presidio Trust, a federal corporation. The coastal portion of
the Presidio (Area A), managed by the GGNRA, is included in the
planning area.
In addition to lands currently under the management of the NPS, the
FMP planning area includes those lands within the legislative boundary
that may pass to NPS management in the near future. These areas, all in
San Mateo County, include Cattle Hill, Pedro Point, Picardo Ranch, and
northern coastal bluffs along Highway 1.
GGNRA was created in 1972 to preserve for public use and enjoyment
certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties, California,
possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational
values, and in order to provide for the maintenance of needed
recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning.
The legislation charged the Secretary of the Interior to ``utilize the
resources [of GGNRA] in a manner which will provide for recreation and
educational opportunities consistent with sound principles of land use
planning and management'' and to ``preserve the recreation area, as far
as possible, in its natural setting, and protect it from development
and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural character of
the area.''[16 U.S.C. 460bb]. GGNRA protects a remarkably diverse
cluster of coastal ecosystems, landscapes, and historical sites, from
the rural hills of Tomales Bay and the San Mateo watershed to the
scenic headlands and military outposts of the Golden Gate and the urban
shorelines of San Francisco. This diversity centers on the singular
geographic feature of Golden Gate, portal between the United States and
the Pacific Basin, and includes a Civil War fort, an ancient redwood
forest, the former Alcatraz federal penitentiary, and most of the last
remaining open spaces and forests on the ocean coast of the
metropolitan Bay Area. The parklands include beaches, coastal
headlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, Douglas fir and coast redwood
forests, freshwater and estuarine wetlands, marine terraces, and
riparian corridors. GGNRA contains the highest concentration of
historic buildings (over 1,250 buildings and five national historic
landmark districts) in any single unit of the National Park System.
In the past, wildland fire occurred naturally in the park as an
important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and vegetation
structure within the natural range of variability. Past logging and
fire suppression activities have lead to increased fuel loads and
changes in vegetation community structure. This has increased the risk
of large, high-intensity wildland fire within the park,
[[Page 13539]]
threatening the park's developed zones, its natural and cultural
resources, and residential areas close to the park boundary in the
wildland urban interface zone.
Alternatives. Though the three alternatives vary in the strategies
used to achieve fire management goals, there are several common
elements of the FMP that are the same under each alternative. The fire
management approach for Muir Woods National Monument would be the same,
including the use of prescribed fire as well as mechanical fuel
reduction. Some actions, including continued implementation of the
Wildland Urban Interface Initiative, maintenance of the park's fire
roads and trails, vegetation clearing around park buildings,
suppression of unplanned ignitions, public information and education,
construction of a new fire cache for equipment storage and continuation
of the current fire monitoring program, would be carried out under all
three alternatives. The three alternatives meet the park's goals and
objectives to an acceptably large degree, and are within constraints
imposed by regulations and policies, by risks associated with the
wildland urban interface, and by technical and funding limitations. The
three alternatives differ in combinations of prescribed burning and
mechanical treatments in the park interior versus parklands that share
a boundary with development. Each alternative has an upper limit set on
the number of acres that could be treated by either prescribed burning
or mechanically treated in one year (see Table 1).
Alternative A (No Action)--This alternative would update the 1993
FMP only to reflect changes to the park's boundary (e.g., addition of
new lands since 1993) and current national fire management policies.
The focus of the 1993 FMP program is on vegetation management through
the application of prescribed fire to perpetuate fire-dependent natural
systems. In recent practice, many fire management actions have been
mechanical fuel reduction projects (e.g., mowing, cutting to remove
non-native shrubs and trees, and selective thinning in forested stands)
funded through the Wildland-Urban Interface Program. This alternative
would rely on the continued implementation of the 1993 FMP supplemented
by mechanical fuel reduction along with prescribed fire, and
suppression of all wildfires. Current research projects would continue
and would focus on the role of fire to enhance natural resources and
the effects of fire on key natural resources to determine the
effectiveness of various fuel treatments.
Alternative B--Hazard Reduction and Restricted Fire Use for
Research and Resource Enhancement. This alternative would emphasize use
of mechanical methods to reduce fire hazards and fuel loads in areas
with the highest risks. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would
increase the number of acres mechanically treated each year, with a
focus on the reduction of high fuel loads in the wildland urban
interface area. Limited use of prescribed fire could occur for research
purposes within the park interior. Research projects would examine the
role of fire to enhance natural resources and the effects of fire on
key natural resources to determine the effectiveness of various fuel
treatments. Natural and cultural resource goals and objectives would be
integrated into the design and implementation of fuel reduction
projects.
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) (Environmentally Preferred)--
Hazard Reduction and Resource Enhancement through Multiple Treatments.
This alternative would allow for the greatest number of acres to be
treated on an annual basis to achieve fire management and resource
objectives through the use of a broad range of fire management
strategies. Mechanical treatment and prescribed burning would be used
throughout the park as a means to reduce fuel loading and achieve
resource enhancement goals. Mechanical treatments, complemented by
prescribed fire, would be employed to assist with restoration and
maintenance of the park's natural and cultural resources. An expanded
research program would examine the role of fire and mechanical
treatments in enhancing natural resources, reducing fuel loading, and
specific impacts of fire on key natural resources; research would also
be used to adaptively guide the fire management program and help to
maximize the benefits to park resources. As in Alternative B, natural
and cultural resource goals and objectives would be integrated into the
design and implementation of fuel reduction projects.
Table 1.--Summary of Alternatives by Annual Acres Treated and Treatment Type
[Source: GGNRA Fire Management Office, 2004.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment type County Alternative A\1\ Alternative B Alternative C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechanical Treatment \2\ (ac/year). Marin................ 75 180 225
San Francisco........ 5 10 10
San Mateo............ 20 40 40
------------------------
Total.......................... ..................... 100 230 275
Prescribed Burning (ac/year)....... Marin................ 100 120 285
San Francisco........ <1 <1 <1
San Mateo............ 10 0 35
------------------------
Total.......................... ..................... 110 120 120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated based upon current practice, since 1993 FMP did not specify number of acres per year for
treatments.
\2\ Includes fuel reduction through methods such as mowing, cutting, short-term grazing, and selective thinning.
Planning Background: Public scoping for the FMP EIS began on August
8, 2003, with publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of
Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the GGNRA Fire
Management Plan. In addition to the Federal Register notice, the
scoping period was publicized through a mass mailing to the public and
a notice advertising scoping workshops, which were held in each of the
three counties in the planning area. Scoping comments were solicited
from the public, regulatory agencies, local fire departments and park
staff from August 8, 2003, to December 5, 2003.
[[Page 13540]]
Comments: The FMP/DEIS will be sent directly to those who request
it in writing received by regular mail or e-mail. Copies and compact
discs of the document will be available at park headquarters, park
visitor centers, and at local and regional libraries. The complete
document will be posted on the park's Web site at http://www.nps.gov/goga/admin/planning. Written comments must be postmarked (or
transmitted by e-mail) no later than sixty days from the date of EPA's
notice of filing published in the Federal Register--as soon as it is
confirmed, the close of the commenting period will also be posted on
the park's Web site. All comments should be addressed to the
Superintendent and mailed to Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort
Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, CA 94123 (Attn: Fire Management
Plan); E-mail should be sent to: [email protected] (please mark the e-
mail subject line ``FMP DEIS Comments''). A public meeting will be held
be held to hear comments on the DEIS. Please visit the GGNRA Web site
at http://www.nps.gov/goga/ for the date, location, and time, or call
the GGNRA Fire Management Office at (415) 331-6374.
All comments are maintained in the administrative record and will
be available for public review at park headquarters. If individuals
submitting comments request that their name and/or address be withheld
from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by
law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the
comments. As always, NPS will make available to public inspection all
submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
and businesses; and anonymous comments may not be considered.
Decision Process: It is anticipated that the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Fire Management Plan would be completed in
spring, 2005. The availability of the Final EIS will be published in
the Federal Register, and announced via mailings and Web site postings.
Not sooner than thirty days after the distribution of the Final EIS/
FMP, a Record of Decision may be approved (as a delegated EIS the
approving official is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region of the
National Park Service). After approval, the official responsible for
implementation of the FMP will be the General Superintendent, Golden
Gate National Recreation Area.
Dated: February 15, 2005.
George J. Turnbull,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05-5448 Filed 3-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-FN-P