national park service, u.s. department of the interior the presidio … · 2017. 10. 29. · master...

Presidio Trails and BikewaysMaster Plan & Environmental Assessment

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the InteriorThe Presidio Trust

Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation AreaJuly 2003

CONTENTS iCONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction

A Vision of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1The Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Analysis and Alternatives Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Document Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2The Presidio's History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Planning Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Changes to the Trails Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Plan Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Prioritization and Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Chapter 2: Purpose and NeedProject Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Project Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Chapter 3: Trail Classifications and Design GuidelinesUser Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Trails and Bikeways Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Pedestrian Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Bikeway Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Accessible Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Presidio Trails & Bikeways master plan

CONTENTSii CONTENTS

Trail Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Chapter 4: AlternativesAlternative Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Changes to Existing Trail Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35New Trail Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Overall Trail Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48Comparisons at Key Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58Environmentally Preferrable Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Chapter 5: Environmental ConsequencesIntroduction and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Geologic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Hydrologic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78Traffic Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Visitor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

Chapter 6: Consultation and ReferencesInteragency Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97List of Persons and Agencies Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

CONTENTS iiiCONTENTS

Chapter 7: AppendicesAppendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1Appendix B: Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1Appendix C: Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1Appendix D: Cumulative Project List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-1

Figures1-1. Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31-2. The Presidio of San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51-3. Changes to the Preferred Alternative, Pedestrian, Multi-Use Trails and Bicycle Routes . . . .123-1. Pedestrian Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193-2. Pedestrian Trail Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193-3. Multi-Use Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213-4. Typical Bike Lanes on Roadway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233-5. Uphill Bike Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233-6. Shared Roadway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243-7. Beach Access Route (Plastic Mat Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263-8. Primary Trailhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283-9. Secondary Trailhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283-10. Existing Trail Marker, Bay Area Ridge Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294-1. Street Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .334-2. Trail Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .344-3A. Alternative A: No Action, Pedestrian and Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .514-3B. Alternative A: No Action, On-Street Bicycle Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .524-4A. Alternative B: Mixed Use, Pedestrian and Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .534-4B. Alternative B and C: Mixed Use and Shared Use, On-Street Bicycle Routes . . . . . . . . . . . .544-5. Alternative C: Shared Use, Pedestrian and Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .554-6A Alternative D: Dispersed Use, Pedestrian and Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .564-6B. Alternative D: Dispersed Use, On-Street Bicycle Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57


iv CONTENTS

4-7. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Pershing Drive North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .584-8. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Pershing Drive North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .584-9. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Kobbe Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .594-10. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Kobbe Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .594-11. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Washington Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .604-12. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Washington Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .604-13. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Crissy Field Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .614-14. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Crissy Field Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .614-15. Existing Conditions at Golden Gate Promenade at Fort Point Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . .624-16. Proposed Development at Golden Gate Promenade at Fort Point Extension . . . . . . . . . . .624-17. Existing Conditions at Ecology Trail Corridor at Arguello Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .634-18. Proposed Development at Ecology Trail Corridor at Arguello Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . .634-19. Existing Conditions of Bay Area Ridge Trail Corridor at Washington Boulevard . . . . . . . .644-20. Proposed Development of Bay Area Ridge Trail Corridor at Washington Boulevard . . . . .644-21. Existing Conditions of Juan Bautista de Anza Trail at Battery Caulfield Road . . . . . . . . . .654-22. Proposed Development of Juan Bautista de Anza Trail at Battery Caulfield Road . . . . . . .65

A-1. Changes to the Preferred Alternative Pedestrian, Multi-Use Trails and Bicycle Routes . . .A-5C-1. Typical Location: Existing Drainage Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1C-2. Outsloping (BMP 1-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1C-3. Rolling Grade Dip (BMP 1-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-2C-4. Surface Reinforcing (BMP 2-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-2C-5. Boardwalk Bridge (BMP 2-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-3C-6. Drainage Lens (BMP 2-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-3C-7. Typical Location: Steep Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-3C-8. Retaining Wall (BMP 3-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-4C-9. Trail Stairs (BMP 3-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-4C-10. Above Grade Trail (BMP 4-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-5C-11. Typical Location: Eroding and Hazardous Trail Edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-5

vCONTENTSCONTENTS

C-12. Edge Protection (BMP 5-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-6C-13. Trail in Sandy Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-6C-14. Subsurface Geogrid (BMP 6-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-7C-15. Moveable Textured Panel (BMP 6-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-7C-16. Sand Ladder (BMP 6-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-7C-17A.Trail Damaged by Vehicle Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-8C-17B.Reinforced Trail Base (BMP 7-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-8C-18. Typical Location: Bicycle/Auto Conflict on Washington Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-8C-19. Social Trail Through Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-10C-20. Vegetation Restoration (BMP 9-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-11C-21. Lobos Creek Boardwalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-11C-22. Boardwalk (BMP 10-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-12

Tables3-1. Trails and Bikeways Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184-1. Trails and Bikeways by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .485-1. Changes to Trail Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .705-2. Trailheads and Overlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85B-1. Format of Written Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1B-2. General Position of Commentor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1B-3. Preference of Commentors in Support of the Trails Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-2B-4. Self Identity of Commentors (User Types) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-2B-5. Single Issue Letters, Emails and Comment Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-2B-6. Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Commenting on the Trails Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-3C-1. Backslope Cut Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-4

FPPHA Fort Point and Presidio Historical AssociationFR Federal Registerft FeetGG Transit Golden Gate TransitGGBHTD Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation DistrictGGNPC Golden Gate National Parks ConservancyGGNRA Golden Gate National Recreation AreaGIS Geographic Information SystemGMPA General Management Plangpd Gallons Per Dayh HectaresIMBA International Mountain Bicycle Associationin Inch/incheskm Kilometerslf Linear FeetLSRA Lake Street Resident’s Associationm MetersMCBC Marin County Bicycle Coalitionmi Milesmm Milimetersmph Miles Per HourMUNI San Francisco Municipal RailwayNAPP Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Trails PlanningNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNHL National Historic LandmarkNHLD National Historic Landmark DistrictNHPA National Historic Preservation ActNPCA National Parks and Conservation Association

vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments

ac AcresACHP Advisory Council on Historic PreservationAct Presidio Trust ActADA Americans with Disabilities ActADAAG ADA Accessibility GuidelinesANPR Advanced Notice of Professional RulemakingAPA Administrative Procedures ActAve AvenueBAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality DistrictBART Bay Area Rapid TransitBARTC Bay Area Rapid Transit CouncilBCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development CommissionBMPs Best Management PracticesCalTrans California Department of TransportationCEQ Council on Environmental QualityCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCHA Cow Hollow AssociationCHC California Heritage Councilcm CentimetersCoastal Trail California Coastal TrailCWA Clean Water Act of the United StatesEAs Environmental AssessmentsEIS Environmental Impact StatementFEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

7 Appendices1 Introduction 2 Purpose & Need 4 Alternatives 5 Environmental Consequences 6 Consultation and References3 Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

NPS National Park ServicePA Programmatic AgreementPAR Trails Planning Association of RichmondPHAN Presidio Heights Association of NeighborsPM10 Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns in DiameterPTMP Presidio Trust Management PlanROMP Responsible Organized Mountain PedalersRTC Rails to Trails ConservancySFBC San Francisco Bicycle CoalitionSFBT San Francisco Bay TrailSFTC San Francisco Tree CouncilSHPO State Historic Preservation Officersf Square Feetsm Square MetersTDM Transportation Demand ManagementTrails Plan Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master PlanTrust Presidio TrustTrust Board Presidio Trust BoardUSC United States CodeUSFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSPP U.S. Park PoliceVMP Vegetation Management Plan

viiINTRODUCTION

7 Appendices1 Introduction 2 Purpose & Need 4 Alternatives 5 Environmental Assessment 6 References and Consultation3 Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

Introduction1

Bren

da T

harp

1INTRODUCTION


A Vision of the FutureThe year is 2023, and as a beautiful summer dayslides into evening, a group of people stop toenjoy a Pacific sunset at one of the Presidio'soverlooks atop the coastal bluffs. The admirersinclude tourists, runners, a family out for abicycle ride, a woman walking her dog, awheelchair athlete taking a break from hertraining and a Presidio resident out for anevening stroll. All of them traveled to theoverlook along the Presidio's well-maintained andinterconnected network of pedestrian and multi-use trails and bikeways.

This idyllic scene had its start in 1999, whenwork began on a plan to develop a pedestrianand bicycle network that provides access to thePresidio's unique natural, cultural and historicresources.

The Master PlanThe Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan(Trails Plan or plan) will provide park visitors,neighbors and Presidio residents with aninterconnected, safe and enjoyable trails andbikeways system, while protecting and managingthe Presidio’s natural and cultural resources. Theplan is a joint effort of the National Park Service(NPS) and the Presidio Trust (Trust), the two

agencies responsible for managing the area. Itwill guide management of Presidio trails andbikeways for the next 20 years.

The vision for the plan was based on public andagency involvement and includes:

Logical, comprehensive, user friendlyconnections

A network of trails that provides a varietyof trail experiences to meet user needs

Access and challenge for different ages,skills and physical abilities

Preservation of the valuable natural andcultural resources that make the Presidio anoutstanding national resource

A system that is part of a comprehensivetransportation strategy that supports theuse of alternative transportation andreduces dependence on cars

Coordination with regional and nationaltrails and local bicycle routes

An environmentally responsible trail systemthat fully incorporates the best insustainable design and constructionpractices

Ongoing public involvement in educationaland stewardship programs

The Golden Gate Bridge from the Presidio

Analysis and Alternatives DevelopmentThe NPS and Trust carried out extensive on-siteevaluation of the existing trail system, identifyingphysical and structural problems, use patterns,safety concerns and trail destination andconnection opportunities. Presidio resourceswere evaluated to determine constraints topotential trail alignments and opportunities tocorrect existing problems or create newrecreation, commuter routes and interpretiveexperiences. This analysis also reviewed trailcorridors relative to geologic and hydrologicfactors, biological resources, traffic safety, andcultural and scenic resources.

The analysis was mapped on a GeographicInformation System (GIS) trail database so thattrail alignments could be adjusted accordingly. Ifthe resource analysis mapping indicated potentialconflicts between resource protection anddesired trail alignments, field checks wereconducted to verify conditions and determine anappropriate course of action.

Based on this analysis, four trails and bikewaysalternatives were developed for analysis in anEnvironmental Assessment (EA):

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative,maintains the Presidio's current trails and

bikeways network and assumes nocomprehensive changes or new trail building

Alternative B, the Mixed Use Alternative,features a mix of urban and natural visitorexperiences, providing the widest range oftrail types and connections for visitors (thePreferred Alternative)

Alternative C, the Shared Use Alternative,provides the most wide, multi-use trails thataccommodate large numbers of differenttypes of visitors on the same trail

Alternative D, the Dispersed UseAlternative, emphasizes separatingpedestrians and bicycles, providing the mosttrails for pedestrians only

All the action alternatives (alternatives B, C, andD) provide a wide range of experiences, fromurban promenade to quiet solitude, and proposeabout 36 km (23 mi) of newly designated trails inaddition to existing trails. They differ in theamount of pedestrian-only versus multi-use trailsand how those miles are dispersed throughoutthe Presidio.

Document OrganizationThis chapter provides project background,including analysis and alternative development,

document organization, Presidio history,planning context, planning process, publicinvolvement, changes to the plan, prioritizationand phasing, and plan implementation. It alsopresents a background discussion on the plan'sEnvironmental Assessment process under theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Chapter 2 describes the project's purpose, needs,goals and objectives.

Chapter 3 describes the Presidio's trails andbikeways classification system and designguidelines. The chapter also summarizes the BestManagement Practices (BMPs) that would beincorporated in the action alternatives.

Chapter 4 reviews the four alternative trails andbikeways concepts developed for the Presidioand summarizes proposed trail modifications bytrail corridor.


2 INTRODUCTION

The Historic Cemetery


Chapter 5 analyzes the environmental impacts ofthe alternatives, as well as cumulative impacts.

Chapter 6 provides reference and consultationinformation.

Chapter 7, Appendices A-D, include the Findingof No Significant Impact (FONSI), publiccomments and responses to those comments,

Best Management Practices (BMPs) and naturalresource conservation measures. With approvalof the Finding of No Significant Impact, theNPS and the Trust have selected and adoptedAlternative B as their blueprint for trails andbikeways in the Presidio.

The Presidio’s HistoryThe Presidio of San Francisco is part of theGolden Gate National Recreation Area(GGNRA). It is also a National HistoricLandmark District (NHLD), the highest level offederal historic designation.

The park spans 1,491 acres on the northern tipof San Francisco, from the Pacific Ocean to theSan Francisco Bay. The Presidio includes nearly500 historic buildings and structures, a collectionof coastal defense fortifications, a nationalcemetery, a historic airfield, a saltwater marsh,forests, beaches, native plant habitats (withfederally listed species under the EndangeredSpecies Act), coastal bluffs, miles of hiking andbiking trails, and some of the most spectacularvistas in the world. Figure 1-1 illustrates thePresidio's regional context.

The Presidio has been shaped by manyinfluences, including the Ohlone people wholived, gathered food and collected shellfish here,and the armies of Spain and Mexico. TheSpanish established the Presidio as a military postin 1776, when Juan Bautista de Anza exploredthe peninsula and claimed the land for the kingof Spain. When Mexico gained its independencefrom Spain in 1821, Mexican troops occupied thePresidio.

3INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-1. Regional Map

In 1848, the U.S. Army took over the area andremained in control of the Presidio until 1994.The military base was then closed and thePresidio transferred to the National Park Serviceto become part of the Golden Gate NationalRecreation Area. Up to that time, the Presidiowas the oldest continuously operated militarypost in the nation.

As part of the transition, NPS completed andadopted a comprehensive land use plan called theGeneral Management Plan Amendment (GMPA)in 1994. The GMPA defined the direction forresource preservation and visitor use of thePresidio, and proposed that a comprehensivetrails and bikeways plan be created.

In 1996, Congress passed the Presidio TrustAct. The Act created the Presidio Trust andgave it jurisdiction over the park's non-coastalareas (Area B) _ about 80 percent of thePresidio land. The NPS retained jurisdictionover the coastal areas (Area A). Areas A and Bare shown in Figure 1-2.

The Act included a mandate that the Trustachieve financial self-sufficiency by 2013. On July1, 1998, the Trust assumed administrativejurisdiction over Area B; and in August 2002 theTrust adopted an updated management plan forArea B, called the Presidio Trust ManagementPlan (PTMP).

Planning ContextThe Trails Plan is coordinated and consistentwith Presidio and regional plans.

The GMPA now serves as thecomprehensive land use plan for Area A ofthe Presidio. A key goal of the GMPA is toincrease pedestrian and bicycle use. Itproposes a trail circulation plan to improvebicycle and pedestrian safety, resourceprotection, user access, visitor amenities andtrail connections.

The PTMP is the Trust’s comprehensive landuse plan for Area B of the Presidio. Itdefines objectives for resource preservationand enhancement and public access. ThePTMP calls for a comprehensive bicycle andpedestrian network, and includes policiesregarding transportation demandmanagement, public use and accessibility.

The Presidio's Vegetation Management Plan(Presidio VMP) was prepared jointly by NPSand the Trust and completed in 2001. Itdescribes restoration and maintenance goalsfor three landscape zones: 1) natural, nativeplant zones; 2) cultural, planted orornamental landscape zones; and, 3) planted,historic forest zones. All the proposed trails

and bikeways improvements are consistentwith the VMP.

The Trails Plan also considers relevant regionaltrails and bikeways plans to enhance connectionsto and through the Presidio. Plans consideredinclude the San Francisco Bicycle Plan, the SanFrancisco Bay Trail Plan, the Juan Bautista deAnza National Historic Trail Plan, and Bay AreaRidge Trail planning documents.

Planning ProcessA multi-disciplinary core planning teamconsisting of NPS and Trust staff andconsultants guided the planning process. Theteam consisted of experienced park planners andstaff with expertise in natural and culturalresources, facilities management, interpretation,visitor protection, and transportation. Theplanning process included:

Scoping and public outreach

Reviewing existing conditions

Field analysis of site conditions

Analyzing opportunities and constraints

Developing a range of alternatives

Describing the probable environmentalimpacts of the alternatives


4 INTRODUCTION


5INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-2. The Presidio of San Francisco


6 INTRODUCTION

The Golden Gate Bridge from the Presidio

Preparing a plan

Inviting the public to comment on the plan

Responding to public comment and revisingthe plan

Implementing the plan

Public InvolvementScoping

NPS and the Trust invited and encouragedpublic comments between October 1999 andJune 2000 to identify issues and develop goalsand objectives for the Trails Plan. The scopingprocess included a public meeting, a series offocus group meetings, a design conceptworkshop, a survey of park users, and variousopportunities for written comment. Key issuesthat emerged from public scoping have beenconsidered and addressed in the Trails Plan orresponded to in the Response to Commentsprovided in Appendix B. Major scoping issuesincluded the following:

Preserve and protect park resources

Maintain and enhance the Presidio’s wildernessfeel

Emphasize trail and park interpretation

Improve trail signage and park wayfinding

Develop a hierarchy of connected trails withpermitted uses for each (e.g., restrict bicyclesto certain trails)

Improve on-street bicycle connections withstriped and, where possible, separated bicyclelanes

Enhance trail-related park amenities (e.g.,provide more garbage cans, improve lighting attrailheads, construct restroom facilities)

Calm park traffic and consider limited streetclosures (e.g., weekend closures)

Provide additional parking at major trailheads

Enforce existing and new park regulations

Increase the number of designated off-streetbicycle trails

Develop sanctioned off-leash dog areas

Trails Plan

Prior to being made available to the public, theTrails Plan was featured in a cover article in theSeptember 2002 edition of the Presidio Post, theTrust’s monthly newsletter with a distribution ofmore than 14,000 individuals, organizations andagencies that are interested in activities at thePresidio. The article provided information on theTrails Plan planning process; the issues identifiedthrough the public scoping process and addressed

the public were also encouraged to submit writtencomments. Staffed tables were also set up at CrissyField on February 2 and February 9, 2003 todistribute information and help the publicunderstand the Trails Plan. The 90-day publicreview period ended on February 12, 2003.

Comments

NPS and the Trust received a total of 100 writtencomment letters, faxes and emails on the TrailsPlan. In addition, 27 individuals provided oralcomments at the January 28, 2003 public meeting.Fourteen of those individuals also submittedwritten comment letters. The names of agencies,organizations and individuals commenting on theTrails Plan, and a summary of comments andresponses, are provided in Appendix B. Copies ofall written comments and the transcript andminutes of the public meeting are available forreview in the Trust’s library.

In general, key issues raised by the public included:

A desire for greater separation betweenpedestrians and bicycles on the more populartrails to avoid user conflicts

A desire to retain many existing trails toenhance pedestrian access to the park

A desire for better signage, especially on theregional trails and major bike routes, and

provide traffic calming measures for usersafety and comfort

A desire for improved access to andinterpretation of historic and culturalresources, such as a historic trail through theMain Post

A desire for off-road mountain biking withinthe Presidio

Support for the use of trails in the park bydog walkers (either on- or off-leash)

Changes to the Trails PlanIn responding to specific suggestions from thepublic comments, NPS and the Trust madeseveral changes to the Trails Plan, includingmodifications to the Preferred Alternative asevaluated in the Trails Plan. These changes weresummarized at a joint GGNRA and PresidioTrust public meeting on May 20, 2003, and at aPresidio Trust Board meeting on June 17, 2003.The changes are explained further within theResponse to Comments included in Appendix B.

User Conflicts

In response to requests for greater separation ofpedestrians and bicyclists, the number of multi-usetrails decreased slightly, and in some cases thelocations were modified. For example, the trail

7INTRODUCTION


in the document; goals and proposedimprovements within the plan; and publicinvolvement opportunities. The Trails Plan waspresented at a public meeting held at the GGNRACitizen’s Advisory Commission on October 22,2002. In addition, three plan-related walks and bikerides were offered on October 26, November 1and November 2, 2002 for the public to learnmore about proposed trails and bikewaysimprovements.

At the time of release of the Trails Plan onNovember 14, 2002, about 1,500 copies of itsExecutive Summary were distributed to Presidiotenants and residents, local neighborhoodorganizations and groups, and project neighbors.The Executive Summary provided an overviewand key elements of the Trails Plan, andinformation on the NEPA review process. About150 copies of the entire Trails Plan weredistributed to city, state and federal governmentagenices, public interest groups, neighbors andvarious individuals. The Trails Plan was alsoavailable from the NPS website(www..nps.gov/goga). The Presidio Trust provideda link from its web site (www.presidiotrust.gov).The public was invited to provide oral commenton the Trails Plan at a joint GGNRA and PresidioTrust public meeting held at the GGNRA ParkHeadquarters on January 28, 2003. Members of

Baker Beach, and a connection from theWashington Boulevard overlook to LincolnAvenue. In addition, in response to commentsrequesting smaller, narrower multi-use trails, thewidth of multi-use trails within the PreferredAlternative could be reduced from between 2.4and 3.0 m (8 and 10 ft) to 1.8 m (6 ft) to permit amore intimate visitor experience whereappropriate.

Off-Road Mountain Biking

In response to comments supporting off-roadmountain biking, the Trails Plan clarifies thataccess for off-road mountain biking is providedthrough the multi-use trails within the park. Inaddition, a new multi-use trail has been included,connecting the Broadway Gate via Pacific Groveto Arguello Boulevard and the Bay Area RidgeTrail. As several commentors indicated, this trailprovides an off-road connection through thePresidio from the southeast corner of the park tothe Golden Gate Bridge. The trail can also beused with other multi-use trails and bike lanes tocreate loops throughout the park. Due to potentialunacceptable impacts on park resources andvalues, an unpaved, single-track mountain bikeexperience is not being considered as requested.

immediately adjacent to West Pacific Avenue isnow proposed as a pedestrian trail, and the paralleltrail through the Pacific Grove and below JuliusKahn Playground is proposed as a multi-useconnection. The change is intended to reduce thepotential for conflicts between bicyclists on themulti-use trail and users of the playground.

Pedestrian Access

In response to suggestions to provide morepedestrian-only trail experiences and to retainmore of the existing social trails, the Trails Planclarifies that the majority of social trails will beretained, in most cases as secondary pedestriantrails, except where the trails would have anadverse effect on overriding resource values. Tothis end, the Preferred Alternative now convertsmore social trails to designated trails, including thetrail leading from Battery Marcus Miller to North

Dog Walking and Off-Leash Recreation

In response to commentors' suggestions, theTrails Plan now acknowledges that on-leash dogwalking is a popular form of pedestrian use oftrails in the park, and clarifies that Presidio visitorswith dogs on leash are allowed everywhere thatpedestrians are allowed, including all pedestrianand multi-use paths. The Trails Plan also refers tothe ongoing rulemaking process to develop analternative pet management regulation for off-leash dog walking within the Presidio and theGGNRA as a whole. No decision regarding off-leash dog walking within the park will be madeuntil the rulemaking process is completed.

Signage

In response to commentors' requests to improvesignage, the Trails Plan now provides specificinformation that may be included on trailheadsigns and guides. Clear and concise roadway andtrail signage will identify trails and bikeways, guideusers to their destinations, and inform motoristsof the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians. Thenumber and type of signs will not, however, be sopervasive as to create "sign clutter" and detractfrom the park setting. The Trust and NPS willcontinue to incorporate traffic calming into plansfor roadway and intersection improvements withintheir separate jurisdictions.


8 INTRODUCTION

Public Scoping Meeting, December 1999


Specific Trail Modifications

The following changes (shown in Figure 1-3) havebeen made to the Preferred Alternative toincorporate suggestions offered during publiccomment:

Coastal Trail. A pedestrian connection fromBattery Crosby, across to the sand ladder, thendown and across Baker Beach has beenadded. This will create a pedestrian corridorconnecting the Golden Gate Bridge to the25th Avenue Gate. The multi-use trailadjacent to Lincoln Boulevard and bike laneson both sides of Lincoln Boulevard has beenretained.

Bay Area Ridge Trail. The Bay Area Ridge Trailnow crosses Washington Boulevard farther tothe west, and includes a new multi-usesegment adjacent to Washington Boulevard,connecting to Nauman Road and AmatoryLoop. A new pedestrian crossing at ParkBoulevard, as well as a new trail connection inthe forest from Park Boulevard to BatteryMcKinnon-Stotsenberg is also beingprovided. The Bay Area Ridge Trail segmentthrough the Rob Hill Campground will nowcontinue as a multi-use trail, and a newpedestrian spur has been added from north ofBuilding 1347 to the east of Building 1202 in

Fort Scott. The trail alignment has beenchanged to connect the HarrisonBoulevard/Kobbe Avenue intersection toRalston Avenue, rather than using GreenoughAvenue, skirting Building 1340. The KobbeAvenue/Merchant Road intersection will alsobe improved.

Park Boulevard Trail. The Park Boulevard/Washington Boulevard intersection has beenmodified to create a better crossing. Thesidewalk is now proposed on the west side ofMcDowell Avenue rather than the east side,and a new pedestrian connection to CrissyField between Stilwell Hall and Building 649has been added.

Ecology Trail. The connection from QuarryRoad onto Arguello Boulevard has beenimproved for both wheelchair users travelingto Inspiration Point, and for users who wishto cross to the Presidio Golf Course.

West Pacific/Mountain Lake Corridor. Both apedestrian and a multi-use corridor will beprovided in this heavy use location to reduceuser conflicts. The locations of the multi-usetrail and the pedestrian trail through PacificGrove and Julius Kahn Playground have beenchanged so that the pedestrian trail will beadjacent to the road and the multi-use trail

9INTRODUCTION

Army Museum

will cut through the grove north of theplayground.

Tennessee Hollow Trail. A pedestrian trail will belocated within the eastern tributary as part ofthe Tennessee Hollow trail corridor.

Lovers Lane. The intersection of Lovers Laneand West Pacific Avenue will be modified toimprove the spur to the Broadway Gate.

Presidio Promenade. A consistent sidewalkroute and bike lanes will be provided withinthis corridor, but not a continuous multi-usetrail. The bike lanes will separate near theCavalry Stables, using Patten Road for thewestbound bike lane, and Lincoln Boulevardfor the eastbound bike lane. Crissy FieldAvenue will serve as a two-way multi-use pathwith no automobile traffic, subject to furtherTrust review and approval.

Wedemeyer Street/Battery Caulfield Road. Theconnection from the 15th Avenue Gate toWashington Boulevard will include both anuphill bicycle lane and a pedestrian path(sidewalk) rather than a multi-use path toreduce user conflicts.

Plan ImplementationTrust and NPS will develop specific site plans forindividual trails and bikeways as they implement

the management actions recommended in theTrails Plan. Site-specific planning will addressprecise trail configurations and locations, trailwidth, surface, signs, trailheads, slopes, drainageand other physical attributes. Theseimprovements will be developed within thecontext of the broader vision and BMPsidentified in this plan. Additional compliance willbe conducted as necessary.

Prioritization and PhasingIndividual trail and bikeway improvementprojects will be implemented based on priority,phasing and funding. The Trust and NPSdeveloped the following criteria for determiningan implementation schedule:

1) Trails and intersections with safetyconcerns

2) Trails and intersections with personalsecurity concerns

3) Trails currently causing natural resourceand/or cultural resource damage

4) Trails with accessibility concerns

5) High use and highly desired trails

6) Trails where other construction activity isoccurring (e.g., areas such as Letterman)

7) Trail segments that complete corridorconnections

8) Trails that provide an outside funding ormatching fund opportunity

The Trail Corridors map, Figure 4.2, illustratesthe implementation priorities of the Trust andNPS. These corridors provide the majorframework of connectivity within the Presidio,and respond to the list of implementation criteriaabove. Improvements to these corridors willimprove accessibility, connectivity and safetythroughout the Presidio. After the major networkdescribed in the Trail Corridors map is fundedand implemented, the smaller connectors thatform the complete Trails Plan will beimplemented.

Corridor improvements will be made over time,and elements of each corridor will notnecessarily be implemented concurrently. Forexample, installing striped bike lanes andpedestrian trails may precede constructing multi-use trails.

Environmental AssessmentThe Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ)regulations implementing the NEPA allowfederal agencies to prepare an EA on any action


10 INTRODUCTION


(when no Environmental Impact Statement isnecessary) to assist agency planning and decisionmaking (40 CFR 1501.3). The Trails Planincludes an integrated EA, which evaluates thepotential environmental effects of four trails andbikeways alternatives.

While NPS and the Trust have separatejurisdictional responsibilities in the Presidio andseparate authority to approve, veto or finance allor part of the Trails Plan (jurisdiction by law),the agencies collaborated in the preparation ofthis document to comply with NEPA. Accordingto the CEQ NEPA Regulations, an EA is aconcise public document prepared by federalagencies when a proposed action is not coveredby a categorical exclusion or otherwise exemptfrom the NEPA. Both NPS and the Trustprepare EAs when they have insufficientinformation with which to determine whether aproposed action has the potential to causesignificant environmental effects. An EAprovides evidence and analysis to determinewhether an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is required, aids a federal agency'scompliance with NEPA when an EIS is notnecessary, and facilitates preparing an EIS whenone is necessary (40 CFR 1508.9(a)).

11INTRODUCTION


12 INTRODUCTION

Purpose & Need2



This chapter explains the need for the PresidioTrails and Bikeways Master Plan and describes itspurpose, goals, and objectives.

Project PurposeThe project will establish a comprehensive trailsand bikeways network in the Presidio toeffectively address the agencies’ mandates forland and resource management, and to reflectthe input received from the public and otheragencies.

Project NeedThe Presidio is a national park used and enjoyedby the public for its open spaces, vistas, scenery,opportunities for active recreation and exercise,and for its contemplative settings. The majorityof Presidio trails evolved over time. The TrailsPlan is needed to establish a well-functioningnetwork of trails and bikeways, and to enhancethe public’s exploration and experience of thePresidio’s open spaces and resources. The planis also needed to improve connections betweenkey features of the Presidio, increaseaccessibility, enhance visitor safety andencourage use of alternative modes oftransportation.

Under existing conditions, visitors and parkusers often find some Presidio trails andbikeways challenging and difficult to navigate.Trails and bikeways can be confusing orinconsistent, and can be the cause ofenvironmental degradation. In certain areas, thetrails are causing erosion, fragmenting nativeplant communities and wildlife habitat,disrupting natural seeps and drainage, degradingviews, and damaging historic coastalfortifications.

There are approximately 30.5 km (19 mi) ofexisting designated pedestrian and multi-usetrails and bike lanes in the Presidio. There aremany miles of additional unofficial trails andshortcuts that have been developed throughinformal use. These “social trails” criss-crossmuch of the Presidio, including natural areasand sensitive habitats. About 14.5 km (9 mi) ofsocial trails have been mapped.

The GMPA directs NPS to identify pedestrianand bicycle route improvements that supportthe Presidio's recreational, natural, cultural, andhistoric resource goals. The PTMP states thatthe Trust will improve pedestrian and bicycleroutes in Area B to promote convenient, safeand enjoyable walking and bicycling. The TrailsPlan is needed to provide trails and bikeways

design guidelines, and identify unofficial trailsthat should either be closed or incorporatedinto the official trails network. The plan is alsoneeded to address the significant increase inusers during the last decade.

GoalsWorking together, the NPS and the Trust havedeveloped goals for creating a safe andenjoyable Presidio trails and bikeways network.These goals are consistent with both the GMPAand the PTMP. The public scoping processhelped further refine the goals and objectives.The five principal goals are:

1) Enhance public use, access and experience

2) Support resource preservation

3) Contribute to a comprehensivetransportation strategy

4) Provide for sustainable design andconstruction

5) Promote ongoing public involvementthrough volunteer stewardship

Enhance Public Use, Access and Experience

The first goal of the Trails Plan is toaccommodate a variety of recreational andeducational activities, including walking,

13PURPOSE & NEED

running, cycling on a road or trail, rollerblading,dog walking, natural and cultural historyexploration and quiet contemplation. Acohesive, clear network of trails and bikewaysshould provide a variety of route choices andchallenges, as well as make desired connectionsthroughout the Presidio for visitors, residentsand tenants. Routes should travel through thePresidio's varied landscapes, including forests,coastal areas and the bayshore, and alonghistoric buildings, batteries and other features.Accessible trails should be included wherefeasible. Access to views should be improved.Landscape buffer zones should be providedwhere trails travel along roadways to improveuser experience. The public’s experience shouldalso be enhanced with information, services,shuttle stops and, in some cases, automobileparking at trailheads. Trail classifications anddesign guidelines should provide consistentguidance for meeting the needs of diverse users.

User safety is an important component of thevisitor experience at the Presidio. Wherefeasible, separating pedestrian trails and multi-use trails from vehicular traffic lanes willimprove the visitor experience. Bike lanes alongvehicular roads will be clearly marked. Signs willalert motorists to the presence of bicyclists andpedestrians.

The following objectives support the goal ofenhancing visitor use, access and experience:

Provide a variety of trail experiences tomeet diverse user needs ranging fromcontemplative solo activities to active grouprecreation

Provide diverse interpretive and educationalexperiences

Create consistent, well-made and sustainabletrails

Improve bikeways to minimize the potentialfor conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclistsand cars

Promote safety and security on trails androads and at intersections

Enhance the accessibility of trails, andprovide supporting facilities

Improve access to views of outstandingnatural and cultural features

Support Resource Preservation

The resource preservation goal of the TrailsPlan is focused on preserving the valuablenatural and cultural resources that make thePresidio an outstanding national park. Resourcemanagement objectives of both agenciesinclude protecting sensitive plant and animalspecies, preserving unique cultural resources(including historic earthworks, batteries,buildings and archeologic resources), andprotecting unique cultural landscapes. The planproposes trail realignments, improvedmanagement and maintenance of trails, and


14 PURPOSE & NEED

Walkers Enjoying a Trail in the Historic Forest

2 Purpose & Need

specialized trails (such as permeable paving andboardwalks) to minimize impacts on natural andcultural resources.

The following objectives support the goal ofresource preservation:

Coordinate and integrate trail design withnatural and cultural resource planning

Upgrade or remove informal social trails

Protect and enhance natural resources

Protect and enhance cultural resources

Contribute to a Comprehensive TransportationStrategy

Another plan goal is to promote alternativeforms of transportation and discourage privateautomobile travel within and to the Presidio. Anattractive, well-functioning trail system thatprovides convenient connections betweenhousing and work areas and is coordinated withtransit and shuttle stops can increase use ofalternative transportation modes. Additionally,trails and bikeways will connect to regionaltrails, such as the California Coastal Trail, theBay Area Ridge Trail, the San Francisco BayTrail, and the Juan Bautista de Anza NationalHistoric Trail. Providing both loop trails andthrough trails should encourage pedestrian andbicycle use.

The following objectives support the goal ofcontributing to a comprehensive transportationstrategy:

Establish a trails and bikeways network tomake direct connections, link main activityand residential areas, and provide keyconnections to the City of San Francisco

Promote recreational and commuter bicycleuse to, through, and within the Presidio asan alternative to automobile use

Provide a system of trailheads that includesbicycle and/or vehicle parking andcorresponds to transit or shuttle stoplocations

Encourage alternative forms oftransportation and facilitate and coordinatemovement from one form oftransportation to another, including buses,shuttles, bicycles and foot-traffic

Encourage Sustainable Design and Construction

The Trails Plan is consistent with NPS andTrust goals for sustainability and environmentalprotection.

Prior planning recommendations call for parkfacilities, including trails and bikeways, to bedesigned, constructed, retrofitted and operatedto minimize adverse effects on natural and

cultural resources and to be reflective of theirenvironmental setting.

NPS defines sustainability as the capability ofnatural and cultural systems to maintainthemselves over time (NPS 1993). Many factorsaffect trail sustainability, including managementpolicies, design, construction techniques andmaintenance. The following objectives supportsustainability:

Minimize disturbance during and afterconstruction

Design trails for durability, erosion controland minimal environmental impact

Use sustainable and renewable materials fortrail construction, including both recycledand recyclable materials from the Presidio

15PURPOSE & NEED

7 Appendices1 Introduction 4 Alternatives 5 Environmental Consequences 6 Consultation and References3 Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

Runners on the Golden Gate Promenade

Design low-maintenance trails andcoordinate trails and bikeways upkeep witha viable, high-quality maintenance program

Consider re-use of disturbed areas for trailalignments such as along existing roads andsocial trails

Promote Ongoing Public Involvement throughVolunteer Stewardship

The final Trails Plan goal is to develop long-term partnerships with community groups,schools, park neighbors, and other trail users.

Public participation provides opportunities foreducation and community involvement and mayinclude funding, building and maintaining trails,and monitoring their long-term use. Any long-term trail monitoring and maintenance strategywill require collaboration with visitors,neighbors and volunteers.

To promote stewardship activities, keyobjectives include:

Foster volunteer programs and otherpartnerships

Promote interagency cooperation andvolunteer coordination

Create training and educationalopportunities


16 PURPOSE & NEED

Trail Classifications& Design Guidelines3

7 Appendices1 Introduction 2 Purpose & Need 4 Alternatives 5 Environmental Consequences 6Consultation and References3 Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

17TRAIL CLASSIFICATIONS & DESIGN GUIDELINES


This chapter desribes the Presidio’s trails andbikeways classification system and designguidelines, including accessibility guidelines. Theclassification system and design guidelines areflexible and anticipate that constraints defined byresource protection goals, safety or topographywill, on occasion, require an alternative trail designwithin identified corridors.

User GroupsTo ensure that all visitors are served, the needsof many different bikeway and trail users areaddressed:

Pedestrians of all kinds, from those seekingphysically challenging walks to those whowant a convenient connection between twoactivity centers. This group includesrecreational walkers, commuters andexercisers of different abilities. Dog walkerswho walk with their dogs on-leash areincluded as pedestrians, and would haveaccess to all pedestrian and multi-use paths.

Bicycle commuters who live or work in thePresidio or pass through the Presidio wanta direct, easy-to-use route to theirworkplace. Most of these bicyclists wouldprefer bike lanes or low-volume roadwaysand routes that minimize their travel time.

Serious recreational cyclists who often areout for a long ride and are not intimidatedby hills or traffic. This group usually preferswide shoulders or bike lanes, but the lack ofthese facilities does not affect their choiceof a route. Unlike bicycle commuters, thisgroup puts more importance on a scenicroute where they can ride fast than they doon time-savings.

Family or touring bicyclists, with or withoutchildren, who want to see the sights and thebeauty of the Presidio. Their choice ofroutes is affected by traffic and hills, and justas importantly, the route's access to thePresidio's major attractions, such as theGolden Gate Bridge, Fort Point, Crissy Field,the Golden Gate Promenade and the NPSVisitor Center. They would prefer to be onmulti-use trails or roadways with little or notraffic. Often these users may not ride at allunless bikeways meet these conditions.

Skaters and skateboarders who are out fora recreational skate or ride can beaccommodated on hardened pedestrian andmulti-use trails.

Recreation or travel with dogs off leash iscurrently prohibited in all National Parks withinthe National Parks system. However, in

response to public comment, there is ongoingreview of this issue within the GGNRA. Theprocess to change this regulation is called anAdvanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.Under this process, the policy is currently beingreviewed at a national level to consider a policyand framework for allowing dogs off leash inthe Presidio and the rest of the GGNRA.Additional discussion of dog walking and therule-making process is provided in the responseto comments in Appendix B.

Trails and Bikeways Classification SystemThe three basic trail classifications of the TrailsPlan are pedestrian trails, multi-use trails, andbikeways.

An accessible trail can be either pedestrian ormulti-use. Although not a separate classification,accessible trails have unique characteristics. Twosubcategories, “outdoor recreation access route”and “beach access route,” have specific legalrequirements. They are therefore included inTable 3-1, which summarizes major trail typecharacteristics and design guidelines.


18 TRAIL CLASSIFICATIONS & DESIGN GUIDELINES

MULTI-USE TRAILSPrimary Trails Secondary Trails (Class I) Striped Bike Lanes

(Class II)Shared Roadway

(Class III)Pedestrian or

Multi-use Outdoor Recreation

Access RouteBeach Access

RouteDescription Major inter-connected

routes to prov ide access to important Presidio destinations

Secondary routes to prov ide users access to unique cultural, historical, natural and scenic resources

Major routes between destinations for pedestrians, slower-speed recreational cyclists, and other users as a shared trail separated from auto traffic

Bike lanes on each side of the roadway or uphill bike lane only

Shared routes (auto and bicycle) on serv ice roads and low auto volume roadways

Accessible portions of pedestrian and multi-use routes

A continuous, unobstructed path that connects accessible elements within a picnic area, campground or designated trailhead

An accessible route to link nearby main trail routes to some of the Presidio's important coastal beaches

Surface Soft surfaces and hard surfaces

Soft surfaces and hard surfaces

Generally hardened surfaces with pedestrian shoulders, which are soft-surface walking or running paths

Pavement Pavement surfaces may be upgraded

Firm, stable and slip-resistant

Firm, stable and slip-resistant

Boardwalk or other firm, stable and slip-resistant surface

Width Between 1.2 m and 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft)

Typically narrower than primary trails and between 0.6 m and 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft), except 0.9 m to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) for accessible trails

From 1.8 to 3 m (6 to 10 ft) hardened surfaces and 0.3 to 0.6 m (1-2 ft) pedestrian shoulder on both sides

Typically 1.5 m (5 ft) wide; steep uphill segments may be wider; minimum of 0.9 m (3 ft) where design conditions allow

NA 1.5 m (5 ft) or greater with a minimum of 0.9 m (3 ft)

At least 1.5 m (5 ft) wide

At least 1.5 m (5 ft) wide

PEDESTRIAN TRAILS BIKEWAYS ACCESSIBLE TRAILS

Table 3-1. Trails and Bikeways Classification


Sidewalks and Designated TrailsThere are many sidewalks throughout thePresidio. Many of these sidewalks are notpart of the proposed designated trailssystem. The Trails Plan designates trailcorridors, which include segments of, but notall, Presidio sidewalks. Trail design guidelinesdo not apply to those sidewalks that are notpart of the trail system.

Pedestrian TrailsThe plan classifies pedestrian trails as primaryor secondary (Figure 3-1).

Primary trails occur in the major trail androad corridors, and provide connectingroutes to important Presidio destinations.Wider trails accommodate a larger numberof trail users

Secondary trails allow visitors, residents andtenants to experience many of thePresidio's less visited environments and themany cultural, historical, natural and scenicresources

Primary and secondary pedestrian trails aredesigned for a wide range of pedestrian uses(Figure 3-2). Typically, secondary trails are soft-surfaced, single-track footpaths, while primarytrails are wider and often hard-surfaced. Bothwould have firm, slip-resistant surfaces.

Surface

Surfaces would be designed to encourage usersto stay on trails, avoid erosion, and to maintainsoil cover over tree and other plant roots.

Depending on the intended use of the trail,underlying soil, and nearby resources, trail surfacescould be soft (permeable) or hard (with varying


A Presidio Sidewalk

Figure 3-1. Pedestrian Trails

Figure 3-2. Pedestrian Trail Detail

degrees of permeability). For example, the trailsurface might be on boardwalks, designed toprotect resources or provide access in areas withunstable surfaces, such as beaches or sandy soils.

Examples of soft surfaces include soil, crushedrock, sand, mulch and rubber-based paving.Hardened surfaces include asphalt (permeable orimpermeable); concrete; crushed rock or soilstabilized with resin products or cement; and openor solid masonry such as brick, “Turf-block” orother cast concrete products. Other hard surfacesinclude boardwalks, bridges, steel grates or plates.

Width

Pedestrian trails would vary in width. Typically,clear tread widths of trails could range from 0.6 m to 1.8 m (2 ft to 6 ft).

Grades

Pedestrian trails would be designed with gradesranging from flat to steep to provide trail userswith a variety of challenges. In general, steeptrails would have hardened surfaces to avoiderosion and boardwalks would have easy grades.Pedestrian trails may include stairs or bridges.

Buffers

Where feasible and appropriate, a planted orconstructed buffer would separate pedestriantrails from roadways.

Access

Both the proposed pedestrian and multi-usetrail network would also increase trailaccessibility for people with disabilities,although not all pedestrian and multi-use trailswould be fully accessible because of steepgrades and other constraints.

Multi-Use TrailsMulti-use trails offer safe, enjoyableopportunities to travel through the Presidiofor pedestrians, slower-speed recreational orfamily bicyclists, non-motorized wheeledsports users and groups with a combination ofthe above (Figure 3-3). These trails wouldprovide major connections between importantPresidio destinations, entry gates and otherlocal, regional and national trail systems.Multi-use trails are the same classification asCalTrans Class I bike paths (CalTrans 2001).

All multi-use trails proposed in this planwould be designed to meet or exceed theminimum design standards of American



Social TrailsThe classification system does not include socialtrails, which are unofficial, unplanned, informalpaths or shortcuts that have been created byconsistent human use. Over 15 km (9 mi) ofsocial trails have been mapped, and many moreexist. In some cases, these unplanned and non-maintained trails cross through areas of fragilenatural and cultural resources. Although they mayappear no different than other trails to users,social trails tend to have a greater impact onnatural, cultural, and historic resources thanroutes that were designed and constructed astrails. The Trails Plan includes the following socialtrail recommendations:

Upgrade many social trails to an officialpedestrian or multi-use trail, includingmaking improvements to reduce impacts onpark natural and cultural resources, increasevisitor safety and enjoyment and increaseaccessibility for persons with disabilities.

Close some social trails to increase visitorsafety and/or protect Presidio natural,cultural and historic resources.

Replace some social trails with a designedtrail in the same general area to maintainimportant connections while enhancingpublic safety and resource preservation.


Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials (AASHTO 1999).Where width is available, trails will be designedto meet recommended rather than minimumwidths. Exceptions will be considered if a trailis unable to meet the minimum AASHTOdesign standards due to topography, natural orcultural resources or other constraints.Consideration will include an evaluation of thepotential impacts and benefits of the projectand development of appropriate designelements to minimize impacts and to provide asafe non-standard facility.

Multi-use trails would be located on existingformer roadways, or in previously developed areaswhenever feasible. All new multi-use trails wouldbe designed to minimize impact on natural orcultural resources. Some former service roadscurrently used as informal, multi-use trails wouldbe developed as official multi-use trails.

Surface

Multi-use trails generally have hardened surfacesand adjacent soft-surface pedestrian shouldersthat can be used as walking or running paths.Hardened surfaces for most multi-use trailscould consist of asphalt or granular aggregatematerial stabilized with a binder. Soft-surface

portions could be fine granular stone (crushedrock or decomposed granite). Trails for skaterswould have a smooth, paved surface.

Width

Typically, multi-use trail corridors range from2.4 m to 4.2 m (8 ft to 14 ft) wide. The trailcorridor would have a hard surface, 1.8 m to3 m (6 ft to 10 ft) wide, with 0.3 to 0.6 m(1 to 2 ft) wide soft-surface pedestrianshoulders on one or both sides. The preferredclear tread width of hard surfaced multi-usetrails is 2.4 m (8 ft). Minimum clear tread widthwould be 1.8 m (6 ft).

Grade

In general, multi-use trails would have easygrades. Minimum running slopes of no morethan 1:20 (5 percent) provide greateraccessibility for persons with disabilities andbicyclists. Where steeper grades are needed, theAASHTO guidelines would apply. Wherefeasible, cross slopes will be kept to a minimumof 1:50 (2 percent), unless a curve requires agreater cross-slope for safety or to ensureproper drainage.


Figure 3-3. Multi-Use Trail

BikewaysNearly all Presidio roads (whether they havepavement markings or not), are currently openfor bicycle use. In the Trails Plan, Presidiobikeways would continue to make importantconnections to City Bike Routes and other localand regional bikeways.

Bikeway classifications used in this plan areconsistent with federal guidelines (AASHTO1999). However, many Presidio bikewaysconnect to bikeways and bike routes outside thepark. For this reason, and to provideinformation in a context that is familiar to mostreaders, the plan also identifies Caltrans bikewayclassifications for each type of bikeway(Caltrans 2001). Only on-street facilities (ClassII and III bike routes) are considered in thisclassification. Class II bikeways are marked on-street bike lanes. Class III bikeways indicate asigned bike route where bikes and cars share alane. Off-street bikeways (Class I) are addressedas multi-use trails. Only designated bikeways aremapped in this plan, although nearly allroadways in the Presidio would continue to beopen to bicycle use.

Road width constraints and volume of trafficare the primary determinant for the type ofbikeway provided. Where possible, striped bike

Edge Protection

Some types of edge protection, such as raisedsurface elements, curbs, or rails that areimmediately adjacent to the paved surface, maybe of concern to bicyclists and skaters.Proposed multi-use trails would address thespecial safety needs of these users by providinga wide path of travel away from curbs or rails.

Obstacles

Bicyclists have a higher vertical profile than doother trail users. For this reason, a minimum of3 m (10 ft) vertical clearance would be providedon multi-use trails. Tread obstacles such as stepsor waterbars would typically be avoided onmulti-use trails. Openings large enough topermit wheelchair or bicycle wheels to enterwould be avoided. Drainage grates generallywould be located outside the trail. If this is notfeasible, grates would be designed forwheelchair and bicycle safety. For example,grates that use small openings perpendicular tothe path of travel would be selected.

Buffers

If feasible and appropriate, a planted orconstructed buffer would separate multi-usetrails from roadways.

lanes would be provided on both sides of majorroads. In a few instances where road width isconstrained, only uphill bike lanes are proposed.In some instances, roadways would beincrementally widened to provide a safe bikewayin each direction. Striped wide shoulders maybe appropriate for Class III bike routes onshared roadways where width constraintspreclude bike lanes. On some low-volumestreets, bicyclists would continue to shareroadways with motor vehicle traffic withoutlane or shoulder marking. Presidio bikewayswould provide a range of difficulty, from easyto challenging. The Trails Plan would improveroadway safety for bicyclists, and ensure thatthere are no gaps in the bicycle circulationnetwork.

Bikeway Design All bikeways proposed in this plan would bedesigned to meet or exceed the minimumdesign standards (AASHTO 1999). If pavedwidth is available, bikeways will be designed tomeet recommended rather than minimumwidths. Exceptions will be considered if a trailis unable to meet the minimum AASHTOdesign standards due to topography, natural orcultural resources, or other constraints.Consideration will include an evaluation of the




potential impacts and benefits of the projectand development of appropriate designelements to minimize impacts and to provide asafe non-standard facility.

The Trails Plan recommends bikeways toaccommodate all bicycle user groups, conformto roadway constraints, and accommodatevaried traffic volumes on roadways. These recommendations address major streets usedmainly by experienced cyclists _ such asPresidio Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard _ aswell as roads used by family and recreationalcyclists. Providing continuity on street-basedbikeways for recreational cyclists is challenging.Some cyclists will not use busy roadways to fillgaps in their routes. Therefore, some multi-usetrails would be provided along busy roadways,such as Lincoln Boulevard. The Trails Planincludes the following bikeway designguidelines:

Marked bike lanes on each side of the roadway(Class II): Bike lanes 1.5 m (5 ft) wide orgreater are preferred. AASHTO guidelinesallow for narrower bike lanes in certaincircumstances. Bike lanes would beprovided and striped on each side of theroadway (Figure 3-4).

Marked bike lane in the uphill direction only(Class II): In constrained sections onsustained grades _ for example, on ArguelloBoulevard and Presidio Boulevard – toprovide bike routes in both directionswithout widening the road, an uphill bikelane would serve as a climbing lane forbicyclists (Figure 3-5). Downhill bicyclistswould be permitted to use the signed, fulltraffic lane with cars. Bicycles goingdownhill reach nearly the same speed limitas motor vehicles. In addition, it can beunsafe to confine fast-moving downhill


Figure 3-5. Uphill Bike Lane

Contraflow Cyclist on One-way Segment of Lincoln Boulevard

Figure 3-4. Typical Bike Lanes on Roadway

bicyclists to a narrow bike lane at higherspeeds.

Marked bike lanes on one-way streets (Class II):Since Presidio streets are not laid out in agrid pattern, some existing one-way roadsections require bicyclists to travelsignificantly out of their way. Thisencourages some bicyclists to ride againsttraffic. Circulation for bicycles in bothdirections is needed on some of these one-way sections. For example, a short segmentof Lincoln Boulevard near the Main Postcurrently is striped to have a “contraflow”(against the direction of auto traffic) bikelane. Contraflow and with-flow bike laneswould be considered for the one-waysections of Crissy Field Avenue, andWashington Boulevard between KobbeStreet and Lincoln Avenue.

Shared roadway (Class III bike routes): Someroadways and service roads have low trafficvolumes that are not likely to increase in thefuture. On those roads, bicyclists andmotorists can share the road withoutmarked bike lanes and/or shoulders (Figure3-6). These segments are often short andtraffic speeds are correspondingly low. Inthese cases, the roadway would be signed asa bike route. Signage per AASHTO guide-lines or state motor vehicle code wouldnotify motorists that bicyclists are allowedfull use of the lane. Other traffic calmingmeasures will be provided where feasible.

Surface

Typically, bikeways would occur on existingpavement. If a road is widened toaccommodate a bikeway, the new bikewaywould be constructed of the same material asthe roadway. Where feasible, bikeways would be



designed with smooth surfaces and would befree of obstacles such as drainage inlet grates.Grates in bikeways will be to Caltrans StandardPlan D778B.

Grade

Bikeway grades would follow existing roadwaygrades and vary from nearly flat to very steep.

Signs

Bikeways would be signed to indicateappropriate usage for cyclists and motorists.

Buffers

Class II bike lanes would be separated frommotor vehicle traffic by bike lane markingsrather than raised pavement markings or raisedbarriers, because those can cause steeringdifficulties for bicyclists.

AccessibilityIn this plan “access” and “accessibility” refer toopportunities for people of differing abilities totravel to a site or along a trail. The ADAAccessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) provide a setof uniform design requirements that ensureaccess to public and commercial spaces. Theseguidelines already provide general technicalrequirements for public and commercial

Figure 3-6. Shared Roadway

facilities, such as restrooms, parking andaccessible routes of travel that also apply torecreation facilities. The Federal Access Boardhas published new guidelines for accessible trailconstruction and trail rehabilitation, which willbe incorporated into the existing ADAAGguidelines (Regulatory Negotiation Committee1999). The guidelines provide additionalguidance specific to trails that address the slopeand cross-slope of the trail, resting intervals andpassing areas, the width and stability of trailsurface and signs that alert visitors withdisabilities to trail conditions. These guidelinesapply where feasible to the pedestrian trails andmulti-use trails proposed in this plan. Thefollowing are instances when these guidelineswould not be feasible:

If compliance would cause substantial harmto cultural, historic, or significant naturalfeatures or characteristics

If compliance would substantially alter thenature of the setting or the purpose of thetrail

If compliance would require constructionmethods or materials that are prohibited bylaw or

If compliance would not be feasible due toterrain or prevailing construction practices

If a trail cannot meet the guidelines because ofany of the above exceptions, efforts would bemade to ensure that as much of the trail asfeasible is accessible. These exceptions allowsteep trails or trails with steps to be developedin some areas where existing conditions prohibitconstructing accessible pedestrian trails. Signageat trailheads would provide information abouttrail conditions to visitors with disabilities.

Accessible TrailsAccessible pedestrian and multi-use trails wouldmeet these additional requirements:

Surface

Soft surfaces will be stabilized to provideincreased trail accessibility. Trails can bestabilized and strengthened using amendmentsof fine granular stone (also referred to ascrushed rock or decomposed granite) orrecycled materials. Hard surfaces may includesoil treated with soil stabilizers, asphalt, concreteor boardwalk (wood, recycled wood or plasticlumber).

Width

The minimum width of accessible trails is 0.9 m (3 ft). When trails have less than 1.5 m(5 ft) of clear tread width, passing spaces will be

provided at least every 300 m (1000 ft).Boardwalks will have a minimum clear treadwidth of 1.5 m (5 ft).

Grade

No more than 30 percent of the total length ofa designated accessible trail will exceed arunning slope of 1:12 (8.3 percent) or have across slope greater than 1:20 (5 percent). Ingeneral, the running slope of an accessible trailwould be less than 1:20 (5 percent), however,steeper trails could be considered accessible inthe following conditions:

Maximum “running slope” (in the directionof travel) of 1:12 (8.3 percent) for 60 m (200 ft) with resting intervals

Maximum running slope of 1:10 (10 percent) for 9 m (30 ft) with restingintervals

Maximum running slope of 1:8 (12.5 percent) for 3 m (10 ft) with restingintervals

Resting Intervals

Due to the Presidio's steep terrain, existing trailshave running slopes close to the maximum foraccessible trails. Resting intervals, properlyspaced, provide a greater degree of accessibility



for persons with disabilities. These resting areaswould be at least 1.5 m (5 ft) long and as wide asthe trail, with a preferred cross slope of 1:50(2 percent) and a maximum cross slope of 1:20(5 percent).

Edge Protection

Edge protection is often provided on trails toincrease safety. If it is provided, it would be atleast 75 mm (3 in) high. A lower surface might notbe obvious or detectable to people with limitedvision who use canes.

Obstacles

The presence of any of the following obstacleswould prevent a pedestrian trail from being adesignated accessible trail and should be minimized:

Openings in trail surfaces that allow thepassage of a 13 mm (½ in) diameter sphere,or elongated openings that are parallel tothe dominant direction of travel that allowthe passage of a 6.5 mm (¼ in) diametersphere

Protruding objects, for example, signs thatare less than 2 m (80 in) above the trailsurface

Tread obstacles such as water bars greaterthan 50 mm (2 in) high. On trails with

running slopes and cross slopes less than1:20 (5 percent), tread obstacles, even thosewith beveled edges, should not be greaterthan 75 mm (3 in) high

Outdoor Recreation Access Routes

An outdoor recreation access route is acontinuous, unobstructed path designated forpedestrian use. It connects accessible elementsat picnic areas, campgrounds, designatedtrailheads and designated overlooks. In general,the recommendations for outdoor access routesare identical to those for accessible trails, withthe following exceptions:

Passing spaces would be provided at leastevery 60 m (200 ft) when trails have lessthan a 1.5 m (5 ft) clear tread width

Cross slopes of these routes would notexceed 1:33 (3 percent), except in areaswhere steeper cross slopes are necessary toensure proper drainage. Those cross slopeswould not exceed 1:20 (5 percent)

Maximum running slope would be 1:20 (5 percent)

No surface obstacles greater than 25 mm (1 in) high would be permitted, or 50 mm

(2 in) if the edges of the obstacle arebeveled

Beach Access Routes

Beach access routes link nearby main trailroutes to the high tide line (Figure 3-7). Theywould be provided in all action alternatives.These routes would provide access near thehigh-tide line at Baker Beach and Crissy Field.In general, the recommendations for beachaccess routes are identical to those for outdooraccess routes, with the following exceptions:



Figure 3-7. Beach Access Route (Plastic Mat Option)

Maneuvering, resting, and viewing spaceswould be provided at the high-tide level,normal recreation water level, or at the endof each beach access route. These spaceswould be at least 1.5 m by 1.5 m (5 ft by5 ft) and would not overlap with the route.

Curbs, walls or edge protection at least50 mm (2 in) high would be provided ifthe drop-off from the route to the beach isgreater than 150 mm (6 in). If the drop-offis less than 150 mm (6 in), but greater than25 mm (1 in), the route edge would bebeveled.

Trail FeaturesThe Trails Plan also includes overlooks,trailheads and trail signs as described below.

Overlooks

Overlooks allow park visitors to pause andenjoy a spectacular natural feature, observewildlife, or take in a unique view of animpressive structure or building. Primaryoverlooks would be located along Presidioroadways. In some cases, an overlook might alsofunction as a trailhead. Primary overlooks wouldinclude such facilities as:

Automobile parking, including parkingspaces reserved for persons with disabilities

Interpretive signage

Access to site elements

Places to sit

Other amenities, such as trash receptaclesand bike parking

Secondary overlooks would be provided ontrails without auto access. These secondaryoverlooks would be designed to take advantageof unique viewpoints resulting from trailalignment and topography. These "off thebeaten track" overlooks are intended as quietplaces of solitude.

Most overlooks would be accessible to personswith disabilities. This plan considers makingimprovements to existing overlooks and theirviewing areas, and developing new accessibleoverlooks. If viewing areas are provided ondesignated overlooks, each viewing area wouldhave at least one wheelchair maneuvering spacewith a firm and stable surface. The followingspecific requirements would apply:

The maneuvering space would have aminimum dimension of 1.5 m (5 ft)diameter and typically 1:50 (2 percent) slope

in any direction (in areas where a steeperslope is necessary to ensure properdrainage, a 1:33 or 3 percent slope would bepermissible)

Overlooks would provide at least oneunrestricted viewing opportunity for eachdistinct point of interest at a heightbetween 0.8 m (32 in) and 1.3 m (51 in)



A Presidio Overlook at Dusk

Trailheads

Trailheads typically serve as multi-modaltransfer points, allowing users to change fromtransit or auto to bicycle or foot, or frombicycle to foot. Trailheads would provide trailinformation and user amenities whereappropriate. Trailheads would incorporate many,if not all, of the following elements:

Convenient access to shuttle and/or transitstops

Automobile parking, including parkingspaces reserved for persons with disabilities

Secure bicycle parking (racks or lockers)

Wayfinding kiosks, with orientation andinterpretive information

Standard trail signs with informationregarding trail conditions and degrees ofdifficulty

Drinking water

Trash receptacles

Benches, or other places to sit

Restrooms or directions to restrooms

Scenic viewpoints or overlooks

Places to sit

Staging or gathering spaces

The plan includes two trailhead types, primaryand secondary. Both types would be locatedwhere they would provide access to major trailstarting points, to locations where major trailsconverge and to the starting points of accessibletrails.

Primary trailheads include automobile parkingand most of the elements listed above(Figure 3-8).

Secondary trailheads would provide a limited setof standard components, such as trailinformation and bicycle parking (Figure 3-9).These trailheads would not provide autoparking and would be most appropriate forchanging the mode of travel from bicycle orpublic transit to foot.

Trail Signs

Several types of trail signs would be used toprovide visitors with information aboutdirections, trail conditions, and trail locations.Signage would comply with NPS and Trust signguidelines. The Presidio is within the NHLD,and signs are subject to review under theNHPA. Signs would be designed and sited toavoid adversely affecting the features thatcontribute to the landmark status of thePresidio and to be compatible with, andsensitive to, the Presidio's historic character. Anexample of existing signage is shown in Figure3-10.



Figure 3-9. Secondary TrailheadFigure 3-8. Primary Trailhead

TRAIL

PAVED AREA

BIKE RACK

DRINKINGFOUNTAIN

SIGN

KIOSK

BENCHTRASH

HC

Trailhead Signs. Trailhead signs would belocated at the starting points of trails and at keyintersections of major trail corridors. Thesewould provide some or all of the following:

Name of the trail

Running and cross slope

Clear tread width

Trail surface characteristics

Distance to points of interest

Trail elevation change

Designated accessible trails would display theinternational symbol of accessibility. If the trail

is not accessible, it would be signed “NotAccessible” at the trailhead.

Directional Signs. Directional signs would belocated at key trail intersections and indicate thedirection to major park destinations and trails.

Trail Markers. Trail markers similar to the BayArea Ridge Trail marker, would identify eachtrail along its entire route. The post signs wouldinclude:

Trail logo identifying the particular trail

Trail symbol indicating permitted trail use(s)

Direction indicator

Trail Guides

Several trail guides may be proposed fordevelopment in conjunction with park signage.Possible topics include a general Presidio trailguide; guides for historic loops such as the MainPost, the Batteries and Bluffs Trail, and FortScott; and children’s guides, for trails such as theEcology Trail.

Best Management Practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) are traildesign and construction techniques thatpromote resource conservation (see AppendixC). The techniques will be integrated into trail

design to protect, restore and enhance theenvironment, increase trail safety and minimizeuser conflicts. BMPS can include schedules foractivities, regulations, maintenance and designguidelines and other trails and bikewaysmanagement practices. The BMPs are intendedto supplement, not replace, existing NPS/Trusttrail management and maintenance practices. Inthe future, knowledge gained throughoperational experience and technologicaladvances would help refine and improve theBMPs. The BMPs are divided into twelvegeneral categories:

1) Drainage control

2) Trails in wet areas

3) Trails on steep cross slopes

4) Trails on flat grades

5) Eroding and hazardous trail edges

6) Trails on sandy soils

7) Trails damaged by vehicle use

8) Bicycle safety improvements

9) Social trail closures

10) Trails in proximity to sensitive resources

11) Air quality

12) Natural resource conservation measures



Figure 3-10. Existing Trail Marker, Bay Area Ridge Trail

Alternatives4

7 Appendices1 Introduction 2 Purpose & Need 4 Alternatives 5 Environmental Consequences 6 Consultation and References3 Trails Classifications & Design Guidelines

4 Alternatives

31ALTERNATIVES

7 Appendices1 Introduction 2 Purpose & Need 5 Environmental Consequences 6 Consultation and References3 Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

This chapter describes the four trails and bikewaysalternatives and summarizes the similarities anddifferences between the alternatives. Existingdesignated trail corridors are described, along withproposed changes and new trail corridors. Inaddition, the overall trails and bikeways network isdescribed and illustrated.

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONSThree action alternatives have been identified thatwould meet the project purpose and need, as wellas the goals and objectives outlined in Chapter 2.In order to meet all of the goals and objectiveswithin all of the alternatives, the action alternativesuse similar strategies to improve the trail system.They differ primarily in the type of userexperience they provide.

No Action AlternativeAlternative A is the No Action Alternative, whichmaintains the Presidio's current trails and bikewaysnetwork. It assumes that no comprehensivechanges or major new trail building would takeplace within the timeframe of the Trails Plan(20 years).

The Action AlternativesAlternatives B, C and D are the plan's actionalternatives:

Alternative B: Mixed Use (PreferredAlternative) – emphasizes the widest range oftrail types and connections

Alternative C: Shared Use – emphasizes multi-use trails to accommodate large numbers ofdifferent types of users

Alternative D: Dispersed Use – emphasizes awide variety of narrow, pedestrian-only trails

All of the action alternatives provide a wide rangeof differing experiences, from quiet solitude to anurban promenade experience. The actionalternatives create strong connections between theentrances and major points of interest, and allowvarious opportunities for travel between thesepoints.

Improved connections between residential areas,employment centers, and transit stops would helpreduce the number of automobile trips within thePresidio, and provide safer and more convenientroutes for residents, employees, neighbors andvisitors. Primary trailheads located at high useareas provide automobile parking, but no parkingareas would be provided at secondary trailheadlocations.

The action alternatives increase opportunities foraccess to and interpretation of historic andcultural resources. For example, trail destinationsinclude places such as El Polin Springs, Fort Scott,historic sites at the Main Post, and the PresidioStables, which are all important to the Presidio’shistory. There would be better access to Fort Pointfrom the Golden Gate Bridge Plaza, as well alongthe Golden Gate Promenade. Historic batteriesalong the coast, including Batteries Cranston,McKinnon-Stotsenberg, Godfrey, Crosby, andChamberlin, would be connected by the trailsystem. A new trail alongside Battery McKinnon-Stotsenberg would increase opportunities forinterpretation. An existing trail rerouted aroundBattery East would prevent further degradation ofthe historic earthworks there. Rehabilitation ofLovers Lane would reveal that portion of thePresidio’s history.

In addition, the action alternatives would includethe following:

Trailhead locations coordinated with shuttlestops

Multi-use paths for regional trails includingthe Bay Area Ridge Trail, De Anza Trail, theSan Francisco Bay Trail, American DiscoveryTrail (a shared alignment) and the CaliforniaCoastal Trail

corridors would require some improvement ofsocial trails to provide a consistent, connectedexperience. All alternatives use the same namedtrail corridors, and differ only in the treatment ofthe trails within those corridors. There areadditional trails that connect the named corridors,and these also vary within each alternative.

Figure 4-1 identifies street names and locations forreference in the descriptions that follow.Figure 4-2 is a consolidated map showing all thenamed trail corridors.

Pedestrian trails separated from the roads inmany areas to provide opportunities forsolitude

A comprehensive network of on-streetbikeways

About half of the mapped 14+ km (9+ mi)of social trials designated as trails, and halfrestored to vegetated open land

All action alternatives propose about 48.2 km(30 mi) of newly designated trails; however thealternatives provide substantially different userexperiences. The alternatives vary in the proposedamount of pedestrian-only trail versus multi-usetrails, and how those trails are dispersedthroughout the Presidio.

In the text and illustrations that follow, thealternatives are described in two ways: first bydescribing principal trail corridors, and second bydescribing the entire network of trails, divided intopedestrian, multi-use and bike trails. In some cases,trail corridors follow existing trails, such as the DeAnza Trail or the Bay Area Ridge Trail. In othercases, the trail corridors are “new.” New corridorsmay not require construction of new trails, butinstead involve designation and improvement ofexisting, disconnected trails or social trails as anamed, continuous corridor. Generally, new


32 ALTERNATIVES

4 Alternatives

33ALTERNATIVES



34 ALTERNATIVES

4 Alternatives

35ALTERNATIVES


CHANGES TO EXISTING TRAILCORRIDORS

California Coastal Trail Corridor

The existing California Coastal Trail (Coastal Trail)will eventually traverse the entire Pacific coastlineof California. The 4.8 km (3 mi) section throughthe Presidio travels along the coastal bluffs, whichsupport some of the most intact natural habitat inthe Presidio and provide expansive views of thePacific coastline. The trail provides access to gunbatteries that were built in the 1890s for coastaldefense and abandoned after World War II. Thebatteries are scattered along the bluffs from theGolden Gate in the north to Battery Chamberlinat Baker Beach. Currently classified as a pedestriantrail and City Bike Route, the trail is accessed from

the Golden Gate Bridge Plaza, Battery Godfreyparking area, and Baker Beach. No formaltrailheads exist.

At its north end, the trail merges with the BayArea Ridge Trail and the De Anza Trail as itapproaches the Golden Gate Bridge. Widths varyfrom 0.9 m to 2.4 m (3 ft to 8 ft). The trail surfacealso varies from bare earth to gravel on portionsthat are used as maintenance roads.

The middle section of the trail is a narrow 0.6 mto 1.5 m wide (2 ft to 5 ft) dirt path immediatelyadjacent to Lincoln Boulevard. At the southernend near Baker Beach, the trail drops down to theocean on an existing gravel maintenance road,connecting to Battery Chamberlin and the parkingarea. A parallel social trail exists immediately westof the guardrail on Lincoln Boulevard.

The Coastal Trail is also City Bike Route #95.This bike route enters the Presidio at the 25thAvenue Gate and travels along Lincoln Boulevardto Merchant Road and the Golden Gate Bridge,primarily as a Class III shared roadway.

Proposed Improvements

The action alternatives propose the followingimprovements where feasible, given topographyand other factors:

New trailheads at the bridge plaza, and at the25th Avenue Gate

A new multi-use trail on the west side ofLincoln Boulevard

Bowman Road reconfigured as a new multi-use trail east of Batteries Cranston andMarcus Miller, connecting to the GoldenGate Bridge

A new multi-use trail along Bowley Street

A new multi-use loop trail at BatteryChamberlin and Baker Beach

New bike lanes on both sides of LincolnBoulevard (City Bike Route #95) from theGolden Gate Bridge to the 25th AvenueGate

A new direct bike route to the Golden GateBridge via a multi-use trail

Variations Between Alternatives

Alternative B provides:

An improved pedestrian trail traversing thecoastal bluffs

A connection on an existing social trailfrom Lincoln Avenue up to the Washingtonoverlook (which would remain untilrestoration of Baker Beach housing areabegins)


36 ALTERNATIVES

An improved connection at Story andMerchant Avenues

A new pedestrian spur trail connectingfrom below Battery Marcus Miller to northBaker Beach (may be subject to additionalU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]consultation)

Redevelopment of the existing social trailwest of Batteries Cranston and Miller as apedestrian trail

Alternative C provides:

Closure of the pedestrian trail to the westof the coastal batteries

Alternative D provides:

A new pedestrian trail from the GoldenGate Bridge to the Lincoln Boulevard andRalston Street intersection

A pedestrian spur trail connecting frombelow Balbery Marcus Miller to NorthBaker Beach (may be subject ot additionalUSFWS consultation)

Redevelopment of the existing social trailwest of Batteries Cranston and Miller as apedestrian trail

Ecology Trail CorridorThe existing Ecology Trail is a moderately steep3.2 km (2 mi) hike that provides access to some ofthe less developed areas of the Presidio. The trailbegins behind the Officers' Club at the Main Post

and travels through a forest of eucalyptus, cypressand redwoods to the overlook at Inspiration Point.From there, the trail loops past serpentinegrassland supporting endangered plantcommunities to Quarry Road and back to theMain Post. A spur connects to El Polin Springs.

Informal social trail access is available at the northend from a hidden parking lot at Funston Avenueand Hardie Street. Informal social trail access alsois available from Barnard Avenue near Pop HicksField. Access from the south is provided at

Inspiration Point and at several points along WestPacific Avenue.

In its existing configuration, the upper section ofthe corridor is a packed-earth pedestrian trailranging from 0.9 m to 3 m wide (3 ft to 10 ft).The lower section runs along the abandonedQuarry Road alignment. Inspiration Point and ElPolin Springs are major destinations.

Bicycles are not permitted on the western portionof the Ecology Trail. With no trail controls,however, bicyclists currently use the trail.


The action alternatives would relocate the MainPost trailhead to the intersection of ArguelloBoulevard and Moraga Avenue and wouldimprove wheelchair accessibility betweenInspiration Point and Quarry Road.

4 Alternatives

37ALTERNATIVES



In addition to the changes proposed above,Alternatives B and C provide:

An accessible connection to the south of thenew trailhead at Inspiration Point

A new multi-use trail from the Main Posttrailhead to Barnard Avenue, Hicks Road,and Quarry Road

Redevelopment of Quarry Road as a multi-use trail

An accessible connection from Quarry Roadto Arguello Boulevard


A partially accessible connection

New pedestrian trails connecting to ArguelloBoulevard behind the Officers’ Club

Reconfiguration of Quarry Road as apedestrian trail

Bay Area Ridge Trail

A new 4-km long (2.5 mi) segment of the BayArea Ridge Trail was opened in 1999. The trailenters the Presidio from the south at the ArguelloGate and accommodates both hikers andbicyclists. The trail connects with the De AnzaTrail at Washington Boulevard and with theCalifornia Coastal Trail near the Golden GateBridge. Along with the Golden Gate Promenade,the trail's sections near the ArguelloBoulevard/Washington Boulevard intersection andthrough Rob Hill provide the Presidio's onlyofficial off-street multi-use trails.

The Presidio Golf Course provides trailheadparking for southern access to the trail. The

Battery East parking area provides access from theGolden Gate Bridge area.

In its current configuration, the off-street multi-use trail near Arguello and Washington Boulevardsis surfaced with recycled paving materials andvaries between 2.4 m and 3 m in width (8 ft to10 ft). The Rob Hill section is on a gravel-surfacedservice road and is 3.3 m to 7.5 m wide (11 ft to25 ft). At Fort Scott, the multi-use trail divides intoa shared service roadway for bicycles, and a wide,interior sidewalk for pedestrians. Anotherpedestrian section of the Bay Area Ridge Trail islocated to the west of the coastal batteries.

The on-street portions of the Bay Area RidgeTrail are designated as City Bike Route #65. Thisbike route enters the Presidio at the Arguello Gateand converges with the California Coastal Trail atLincoln Boulevard and Merchant Road.


The action alternatives provide the followingimprovements where feasible, given topographyand other constraints:

Improvements to the Presidio Golf Coursetrailhead

A new multi-use trailhead on the north sideof Washington Boulevard


38 ALTERNATIVES

Striped bike lanes on both sides of ArguelloBoulevard and Washington Boulevard (CityBike Route #95)

A shared roadway on Kobbe Avenue andGreenough Avenue, and on the Ralstonservice road


In addition to the improvements listed above,Alternative B provides:

Improvements to the multi-use routethrough the forest from Nauman Road nearthe cemetery to Rob Hill

An alternate route for the Rob Hillalignment with a new multi-use trail south ofBattery McKinnon-Stotsenberg and alongWashington Boulevard

Improvements to Rob Hill campground

Improvements to the Rob Hill pedestriantrail, routing traffic around the campground

Retention of the existing alignment throughFort Scott

An improved Lincoln Boulevard crossing atStorey Avenue and connection to theCalifornia Coastal Trail at Merchant Avenueand Battery Boutelle

An accessible multi-use path to Rob Hillcampground from Central Magazine Road

Future consideration of weekend closures tovisitors’ automobiles on WashingtonBoulevard from Arguello Avenue to KobbeAvenue

Alternative C would provide:

A new multi-use alternate route fromNauman Road near the San FranciscoNational Cemetery to Fort Scott

Improvements to the Rob Hill alignment asa multi-use trail to the south of BatteryMcKinnon-Stotsenberg and alongWashington Boulevard

A new multi-use trail connecting toGreenough Avenue and Fort Scott and amulti-use loop trail in the interior of FortScott

A re-route of the trail to an improvedLincoln/Merchant intersection with a newmulti-use trail connection to the CaliforniaCoastal Trail

Alternative D would provide:

A realigned pedestrian trail to the south sideof Washington Boulevard and upgrades tothe existing roadside path to meetaccessibility standards

A new pedestrian trail south of Battery McKinnon-Stotsenberg

Reconfiguration of the existing multi-usetrail from Compton Road to Hunter Roadand Rob Hill as a pedestrian trail

Juan Bautista de Anza National HistoricTrail

The De Anza Trail was established in 1990 tocommemorate the route followed by Juan Bautistade Anza in 1775-76, when he led a contingent of30 soldiers and their families to found a presidioand mission at San Francisco Bay. In 1999, it wasnamed a National Millennium Trail. The nationaltrail starts in Nogales, Arizona, and travelsnorthwest to the Presidio.

4 Alternatives

39ALTERNATIVES


Although a formal trailhead has not yet beenconstructed, the existing trail can be accessedfrom the Mountain Lake and Coastal Batteriesparking areas and from the Golden Gate Bridge.

About 4.8 km (3 mi) of trail from Mountain Laketo Fort Point have been marked. From MountainLake to Wedemeyer Street, the trail is a 4.8 m to7.5 m wide (16 ft to 25 ft) asphalt paved serviceroadway. In the Battery Caulfield Road corridor,the trail occurs on sidewalks or in the roadway. AtWashington Boulevard, it converges with the BayArea Ridge Trail.

The Juan Bautista de Anza Trail is designated asCity Bike Route #69. The bike route enters thePresidio at the 14th Avenue Gate and travels alongBattery Caulfield Road, converging with the BayArea Ridge Trail at Washington Boulevard.


The action alternatives provide the followingimprovements where feasible, given topographyand other constraints:

A new trailhead with parking and anoverlook constructed near the 15th AvenueGate

Reconfiguration of the MountainLake/Public Health Service Hospital serviceroadway and parking lot as a multi-use trail

A connection to the Bay Area Ridge Trail atWashington Boulevard via a pedestriantrail/sidewalk along Wedemeyer Street andBattery Caulfield Road

An uphill bike lane for bicycles along BatteryCaulfield Road


In addition to the improvements listed above,Alternative D provides:

A new accessible pedestrian trail with an off-street alignment on Battery Caulfield Road

A new pedestrian trail along the west side ofWashington Boulevard

Lobos Creek Valley Trail Corridor

Containing one of the last free-flowing creeks inSan Francisco, Lobos Creek Valley providesimportant native plant and wildlife habitat. It alsoprovides a source of water for the Presidio. Justinside the 25th Avenue Gate, where LincolnBoulevard crosses the valley, an 800 m(0.5 mi) long boardwalk winds around a parkinglot and Trust maintenance facilities. The existingboardwalk passes through a recently restored dunehabitat planted with native species. A sandy socialtrail at a slightly higher elevation leads to the 15thAvenue Gate and the De Anza Trail. The creekcannot be seen or accessed from the currentalignment.

In its existing configuration, the trail consists of a1.4 m wide (54 in) boardwalk, constructed of


40 ALTERNATIVES

recycled plastic lumber. It travels through restoreddunes and native plantings in an alignment nearLobos Creek, which is protected by a high fence.The upper portion of the trail is between 1.5 mand 4.5 m wide (5 ft to 15 ft) and sand based.Social trails to the west of Lincoln Boulevardprovide links to south Baker Beach. The trailheadfor the lower trail is located near the 25th AvenueGate. Bicycles are not permitted on any portion ofthe Lobos Creek Valley Trail.


The action alternatives would provide thefollowing improvements where feasible, giventopography and other constraints:

A new trailhead at Baker Beach

Relocation of the trailhead at theintersection of Lincoln Boulevard andBowley Street

A new creekside overlook on a gated spurfor ranger-led tours

Realignment of the trail in steep areas toprovide greater accessibility

Stabilization of the surface of the upper trail

A new east-west route from the De AnzaTrail to the California Coastal Trail throughthe Baker Beach Housing area


In addition to the above improvements,Alternative D provides:

Improvements to the existing social trailfrom upper Lobos Creek Valley Trail to thenew pedestrian alignment of the De AnzaTrail

Lovers Lane

Lovers Lane is one of the oldest foot trails in thePresidio. The existing trail begins at FunstonAvenue and Presidio Boulevard. It crosses a brickfootbridge over El Polin Creek. From there, itpasses enlisted men's and officers' houses datingfrom the 1930s and ends at the PresidioBoulevard Gate. Historically, the path continued

four miles southwest to Mission Dolores andconnected the Spanish presidio to the mission.

In its current configuration, the trail consists of ashared roadway and sidewalk at PresidioBoulevard in the Main Post area and a 1.2 m to1.8 m wide (4 ft to 6 ft) pedestrian trail connectingto MacArthur Drive. A 1.2 m to 2.4 m wide (4 ftto 8 ft) paved pedestrian trail then leads to thePresidio Gate.

Trailhead parking is provided near the intersectionof West Pacific Avenue and Presidio Boulevard.The trail can also be accessed from the Main Post.Bicycles are not permitted on Lovers Lane. Thetrail is not accessible.


The action alternatives would provide thefollowing improvements, where feasible:

A new pedestrian trailhead at the Main Post

A new trailhead for a multi-use segment atthe junction of Presidio Promenade nearLincoln and Presidio Boulevards

A new pedestrian connection to the NPSVisitor Center

Enhancements consistent with the historiccharacter along the entire corridor

An improved crossing at Pacific Avenue

4 Alternatives

41ALTERNATIVES


Improvements to the spur to the BroadwayGate

Bike lanes on both sides of PresidioBoulevard, except for an uphill-only bikelane along Presidio Boulevard betweenSimonds Loop and Pacific Avenue

Variations between Alternatives

In addition to the improvements listed above,Alternative B provides:

A multi-use trail along MacArthur Avenue,Morton Street and Clarke Street

Reconfiguration of the existing social trail tothe west of Presidio Boulevard as multi-usetrail

A multi-use trail along MacArthur Avenue,Morton Street, and Clarke Street


A new multi-use trail to the east of LoversLane from MacArthur Avenue to SimondsLoop


No multi-use trails in the Lovers Lanecorridor

Reconfiguration of the existing social trail tothe west of Presidio Boulevard as apedestrian trail

Golden Gate PromenadeThe existing Golden Gate Promenade providesaccess to Fort Port and the newly restored tidalmarsh and beaches along Crissy Field. Trails areused both by pedestrians and bicyclists. The trails

offer expansive views and access to water birds,native plants and sandy beaches. The 6.4 km(4 mi) Golden Gate Promenade is part of the SanFrancisco Bay Trail – a planned recreationalcorridor that will provide a continuous 640 km(400 mi) network of bicycling and hiking trailsaround San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. TheSan Francisco Bay Trail will connect the shorelineof all nine Bay Area counties, and link 47 cities.To date, approximately 336 km (210 mi) of thealignment, or slightly more than half the SanFranciso Bay Trail's ultimate length, have been

completed. The Bay Trail will provide a commutealternative for bicyclists, as well as connections tonumerous public transportation facilities, includingferry terminals, light-rail lines, bus stops, Caltrain,Amtrak, and BART.

In its current configuration, the multi-use trail,which begins at the Marina Gate, is 9 m wide(30 ft) with 6 m (20 ft) of paved trail and 3 m(10 ft) of unpaved trail. From Torpedo Wharf toFort Point both cyclists and pedestrians shareMarine Drive with automobiles.

City Bike Route #2 parallels the Golden GatePromenade while it travels along Old MasonStreet, Crissy Field Avenue, Long Avenue, andMarine Drive to Fort Point.

This corridor is the same for all action alternatives.


The action alternatives provide the followingimprovements where feasible, given topographyand other factors:

New trailheads at the Golden Gate BridgePlaza and Fort Point

A marked pedestrian trail from TorpedoWharf to Fort Point

A Class III shared road for cyclists alongMarine Drive (City Bike Route #2), withappropriate signage


42 ALTERNATIVES

An uphill bike lane on Long Avenue

A two-way Class I bike lane along the westbluff parking lot near the Warming Hut

West Pacific/Mountain Lake CorridorWest Pacific Avenue and Mountain Lake are

located at the southern edge of the Presidio. In1776, Mountain Lake was the original campsite ofthe Anza settlement party. It later became a sourceof fresh water for San Francisco. Much of thelake's shoreline was buried in the 1930s to providea freeway approach to the Golden Gate Bridge.An existing multi-use trail and bikeway along thewestern portion of West Pacific Avenue providesaccess to Mountain Lake from the Arguello Gate.

An off-street pedestrian trail along the easternportion of West Pacific Avenue currently providesa link from the Arguello Gate to the Presidio Gateas it passes by Julius Kahn Playground, LoversLane and portions of the Presidio Forest, amature forest of pine, cypress and eucalyptus,planted by the army from the 1880s through the1940s.

In its current configuration, the trail consists of a1.5 m to 4.5 m wide (5 ft to 15 ft) trail along WestPacific Avenue from Presidio Boulevard toArguello Boulevard. The unmarked trail passesthrough the Presidio Golf Course parking lot andalong a service road to Mountain Lake and theformer Public Health Service Hospital. The upperLobos Creek Valley Trail and adjacent social trailsprovide connecting links to the De Anza Trail,Baker Beach Housing and the California CoastalTrail.

Bicycles currently share the roadway with carsalong West Pacific Avenue from the Presidio Gateto 5th Avenue. Both bicyclists and pedestriansshare the service road to Mountain Lake.


The action alternatives provide the followingimprovments where feasible, given topographyand other constraints:

Improvements to the existing pedestrian trailalong West Pacific Boulevard from PresidioBoulevard to Arguello Boulevard

Reconfiguration of the Presidio Golf Courseparking lot to provide a continuous multi-usetrail from Arguello Boulevard to MountainLake

A new multi-use trail from the Lobos Creektrailhead to the Baker Beach picnic area

Class III shared bikeway and traffic calmingmeasures on West Pacific Boulevard


In addition to the improvements described above,Alternative B provides:

A new multi-use trail between the EcologyTrail and Lovers Lane, reconfiguring existingsocial trails

Upgrades to the social trail on the north sideof the Public Health Service Hospital to asecondary pedestrian trail with connectionsto the De Anza Trail

4 Alternatives

43ALTERNATIVES



Upgrades to the existing pedestrian trailalong West Pacific Boulevard to a multi-usetrail between Presidio Boulevard andArguello Boulevard

A new multi-use trail between the EcologyTrail and Lovers Lane. The segment fromthe Ecology Trail to Paul Goode Field wouldbe new construction, while the segmentfrom Paul Good Field to Lovers Lane wouldreconfigure the existing service road and thesocial trail

Upgrades to the social trail on the north sideof the Public Health Service Hospital to amulti-use trail with connections to the AnzaTrail

A new multi-use trail from the De Anza Trailto Lincoln Boulevard and a new multi-usetrail connecting to the Upper Lobos CreekValley trail


Reconfiguration of an existing service roadand social trails to a pedestrian trailconnecting Lovers Lane to Paul Goode Fieldand the Ecology Trail, via the Pacific Grove

An additional pedestrian trail connection tothe upper portion of the Lobos Creek ValleyTrail and with the De Anza Trail on upperBattery Caulfield Road

Upgrades to the social trail on the north sideof the Public Health Service Hospital to asecondary pedestrian trail with connectionsto the De Anza Trail


44 ALTERNATIVES

NEW TRAIL CORRIDORS

Presidio Promenade

The new Presidio Promenade corridor wouldfollow Lincoln Boulevard, which links many ofthe cultural and historic resources of the Presidio.This includes the Golden Gate Bridge at thenorthwest reaches of the park, Fort Scott, theCavalry Stables, the San Francisco NationalCemetery, the Main Post and the NPS VisitorCenter. Presidio Boulevard, Letterman Avenueand Lombard Street would also be included in thecorridor, and would connect the Main Post to theLombard Gate and the Letterman Complex at thepark's eastern edge. The accessible route and thebicycle route of the San Francisco Bay Trail sharesthe alignment with the Presidio Promenade from

Long Avenue to the Golden Gate Bridge.

With such rich historical resources, the newPresidio Promenade would become a primaryroute for visitors, residents and tenants. It wouldprovide multi-use and pedestrian trail segmentsand a bikeway from the Golden Gate Bridge to anew gate at Greenwich Street, designed toaccommodate pedestrians and bicycles only.Visitors arriving by foot, bicycle, publictransportation, or automobile from either thenorth or the east would have easy access to mostother major Presidio trail corridors.

Trailheads would be provided at Golden GateBridge Plaza, the NPS Visitor Center and insidethe Lombard and Greenwich Gates.


The action alternatives provide:

New trailheads at Golden Gate Bridge Plaza,Battery East, the NPS Visitor Center andinside the Lombard and Greenwich Gates

A multi-use “shortcut” south of the stablesthat connects to Lincoln Boulevard, with thePatten Road segment reconfigured as amulti-use trail, providing a west-bound bikeroute as a companion to the east-bound bikelane on Lincoln Avenue

A new pedestrian trail on Lincoln Boulevardwest of McDowell Street

A new multi-use trail from Sheridan Avenueto Crissy Field Avenue to be constructed inconjunction with Doyle Drive

Closing Crissy Field Avenue from LincolnBoulevard down to the Mason StreetIntersection to provide a multi-use trail(subject to separate review and approval)

A connection from the trailhead atGreenwich Gate, with a multi-use trailbetween Lincoln Boulevard and LettermanDrive


In addition to the improvements listed above,Alternatives B and C provide:

A new multi-use trail from Fort Pointoverlook to the Golden Gate Bridge VisitorCenter along the existing maintenance road

A multi-use trail on Battery East Road fromthe Golden Gate Bridge Visitor Center toBattery East, continuing on the north side ofLincoln Boulevard

A new multi-use trail on the northeast sideof Montgomery Street, connecting to theMain Post and the NPS Visitors Center

4 Alternatives

45ALTERNATIVES



A connection from Fort Point overlook tothe Golden Gate Bridge Plaza, with a newpedestrian trail along the existing road

An alternative pedestrian route betweenBattery East and the Long/Lincolnintersection on Andrews Road

A new pedestrian trail along SheridanAvenue, connecting with the Main Post andthe NPS Visitor Center

A connection from the NPS Visitor Centerto Lincoln Boulevard, with pedestrian trailsas part of the Main Post rehabilitation

Park Boulevard Trail

The new Park Boulevard corridor follows ParkBoulevard, which is a major north-southconnector. The corridor travels through significantportions of the Presidio Forest – a mature forestof pine, cypress and eucalyptus, planted by thearmy from the 1880s through the 1940s. The newmulti-use trail would connect Mountain Lake withPresidio and Golden Gate Promenades.



Improvements to the existing Mountain Laketrailhead

Bike lanes on both sides of Park Boulevardbetween Washington and Lincoln Boulevards

Bike lanes on both sides of McDowellAvenue


In addition to the above improvements,Alternative B provides:

A new sidewalk on the left side ofMacDowell Avenue

Improvements to the connection from thePresidio Golf Course intersection atWashington Boulevard and Park Avenue

Alternatives B and C would provide:

A new multi-use trail from Crissy Field toMountain Lake


A new pedestrian trail from Crissy Field toWashington Boulevard, connecting to themulti-use trail at Mountain Lake

Batteries and Bluffs Corridor

The new Batteries and Bluffs Corridor provides apedestrian trail from Battery Boutelle to BatteryCrosby and Baker Beach, replacing the manysocial trails that now contribute to the degradationof the area.


46 ALTERNATIVES

Baker Beach Corridor

The new Baker Beach Corridor accesses SouthBaker Beach and provides an alternative route tothe California Coastal Trail on Lincoln Boulevard.The 1.6 km (1 mi) beach offers views of theGolden Gate Bridge, Marin Headlands and Land’sEnd. A multi-use trail would provide an accessibleroute from the California Coastal Trail and the25th Avenue Gate for visitors who wish tosightsee, fish, beachcomb, picnic or visit a coastalbattery. Pedestrian trail connections to the LobosCreek Valley Trails would also be available on thiscorridor. A trailhead would be located at the BakerBeach picnic area.



A new trailhead at the South Baker Beachpicnic area to serve multiple trails via BakerBeach

A new multi-use trail to connect LobosCreek trailhead to Baker Beach and theCoastal Trail just north of Pershing Drive

A beach access route from the beach parkinglot to the high tide line

A new accessible pedestrian loop trailencircling the picnic area


In addition to the above improvements,Alternatives B and C provide:

A new multi-use trail on the west side to theparking area and Battery Chamberlin


A new pedestrian trail on the west side ofthe parking area and Battery Chamberlin



A new trailhead with parking at BatteryGodfrey

A new pedestrian trail upgraded from thesocial trail from North Baker Beach toBattery Godfrey trailhead



A new, challenging pedestrian trail fromBattery Crosby to North Baker Beach


No pedestrian trail from Battery Crosby toNorth Baker Beach (subject to separatereview and approval)


No pedestrian trail from Battery Crosby toNorth Baker Beach

A new pedestrian trail on Battery Crosbyservice road

A new pedestrian trail from Battery MarcusMiller to North Baker Beach

4 Alternatives

47ALTERNATIVES


Tennessee Hollow Corridor

The new Tennessee Hollow Corridor connectsrecreational areas at the south side of the Presidio(e.g., Julius Kahn Playground) through theTennessee Hollow watershed to the restoredCrissy Marsh. El Polin Spring, the source of freshwater for the Spanish Presidio, lies at the head ofTennessee Hollow. In 1898, the First TennesseeVolunteer Infantry Regiment camped there, andtoday visitors often picnic in this place of quietretreat. The NPS and the Trust propose to restorethe historic watershed from El Polin Spring toCrissy Field Marsh. A new trail would follow oneof the three tributaries to the point where theyconverge above the Lovers Lane footbridge,continuing from there to Crissy Marsh. Trailheads

would be provided at Julius Kahn playground,Lincoln Boulevard/Girard Road, and MasonStreet.



Trailheads at Julius Kahn Playground,Lincoln Boulevard near Funston Avenue,Halleck Street at Mason Street, and CrissyField Beach

A new trail corridor developed incoordination with Tennessee Hollowrestoration plans

A connection to the Golden GatePromenade and Crissy Field Beach trailheadvia the existing pedestrian trail

Spur trails with overlooks to view wetlandand riparian environments

Upgrades to Halleck Street to include bikelanes on both sides of the street, if feasible



A new pedestrian trail east of Halleck Streetfrom Lincoln Boulevard to the Mason Streetbikeway and path

Alternatives B and C provide:

A new pedestrian trail from Julius KahnPlayground to Presidio Boulevard,connecting via a multi-use trail to Funstontrailhead at Lincoln Boulevard


A new multi-use trail east of Halleck Streetfrom Lincoln Boulevard to the Mason Streetbikeway and path


48 ALTERNATIVES

OVERALL TRAIL NETWORKIn addition to improving and increasing corridorswithin the Presidio, each action alternative wouldimprove overall connectivity by providing anintegrated trail network. Table 4.1 quantifies of thedifferences between the alternatives.

Alternative A: No Action The No Action Alternative would maintain thePresidio's current trails and bikeways network.No new trails or bikeways would be constructed,but existing facilities would be maintained. Thealternative is illustrated in Figure 4-3A. Figure 4-3B illustrates the existing road-based bicycleroutes in the Presidio.

In this alternative:

No comprehensive changes or major newtrail building activities would take place

No new multi-use trails or off-streetbicycling opportunities would be provided

Park facilities and operations would continueusing current procedures

(km) (mi) (km) (mi) (km) (mi) (km) (mi)Trail TypePedestrian Trails 16.5 10.2 33.1 20.7 16.9 10.5 44.5 27.6

Multi-Use Trails 9.8 6.1 30.1 18.8 42.1 26.1 17.6 10.9

Bikeways (Class II bike lanes) 3.7 2.3 22.4 14 23.2 14.4 20.8 12.9

Social Trails (not included in total)** (15.9)** (9.9)** 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 30.0 18.6 85.6 53.5 82.2 51.0 82.9 51.4

Trails ModificationNew Trails n/a n/a 21.4 13.4 20.3 12.7 24.8 15.5

Pedestrian Converted to Multi-use Trail n/a n/a 4.8 3.0 57.7 4.8 3.4 2.1

Multi-use Converted to Pedestrian Trail n/a n/a 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3

Social Trails Converted to Pedestrian Trails n/a n/a 5.8 3.6 2.1 1.3 2.0 1.2

Social Trails Converted to Multi-use Trails n/a n/a 3.0 1.9 4.4 2.7 0.5 0.3

Service Roads Converted to Multi-use Trails n/a n/a 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.5

Total Newly Designated Trails n/a n/a 36.3 22.7 85.4 22.0 32.1 19.9

ALTERNATIVE DALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE CALTERNATIVE B

**Note: All Action Alternatives will close some social trails and/or convert them to pedestrian or multi-use trails.

Table 4-1. Trails and Bikeways by Alternative

4 Alternatives

49ALTERNATIVES


Limited closure of certain social trails mightoccur as part of ongoing maintenanceoperations to implement the VMP

Alternative A's overall concept is to maintain thestatus quo and to preserve the basic framework ofexisting vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle use. Inemphasizing the traditional uses of the Presidio,Alternative A would maintain the 16.5 km(10.2 mi) of existing pedestrian trails, 9.8 km(6.1 mi) of multi-use trails, and 3.7 km (2.3 mi) ofbikeways. A minimum of 15.9 km (9.9 mi) ofsocial trails would remain substantially unchanged,but would be subject to incremental closures overtime as directed by the VMP.

Alternative B: Mixed Use The Mixed Use Alternative features a mix ofurban and natural visitor experiences to emphasizeboth traditional uses of the Presidio and thePresidio’s unique location in a large metropolitanarea. It would provide the widest range of trailtypes and connections. The alternative is illustratedin Figure 4-4A. Road-based bicycle routesprovided in both Alternatives B and C are shownin Figure 4-4B.


Many opportunities would be provided forsafe and enjoyable trails and bikewaysexperiences for the widest variety of parkusers

New pedestrian and multi-use trails wouldprovide access for people with disabilities tomany Presidio destinations

Off-street bicycling routes on many multi-use trails would be provided for family andrecreational bicyclists

Social trails that may be hazardous orthreaten resources would be closed,consistent with the VMP. The social trailswould be replaced with more sustainabletrails providing access to the same parkdestinations

Alternative B provides:

85.6 km (53.5 mi) of total designated trails

33.1 km (20.7 mi) of primary and secondarypedestrian trails

30.1 km (18.8 mi) of multi-use trails

22.4 km (14.0 mi) of bikeways

A minimum of 7.1 km (4.4 mi) of socialtrails would be closed and 8.8 km (5.4 mi)would be improved and designated as officialtrails

Alternative C: Shared UseThe Shared Use Alternative provides the mostmulti-use trails that access major points of interestin the Presidio. The alternative emphasizes thewider, multi-use trails that would accommodatelarge numbers of different types of users. Thealternative would provide the fewest opportunitiesfor dispersed visitor experiences, such as enjoyingquiet solitude. The alternative is illustrated inFigure 4-5. Road-based bicycle routes provided inboth Alternatives B and C are shown inFigure 4-4B.


The largest number of off-street bicyclingopportunities would be provided for familyand recreational bicyclists on shared, multi-use paths

The fewest pedestrian-only trails would beprovided


50 ALTERNATIVES


The most pedestrian trails would bedeveloped to provide the greatest degree ofphysical challenge for pedestrians, thegreatest variety of pedestrian experiences,and the greatest opportunity for pedestriantravel throughout the Presidio

Many opportunities would be provided forsafe and enjoyable trails and bikeways alongsuch major corridors as the CaliforniaCoastal Trail and the Presidio Promenade

A limited number of multi-use trails would beprovided (about half the number of miles ofmulti-use trails as compared to other actionalternatives)

In general, trail connections would not be asconsistent and continuous as the other actionalternatives, such as along the De Anza Trail andthe Bay Area Ridge Trail corridors.

Alternative D would provide:

82.9 km (51.4 mi) of total trails

44.5 km (27.6 mi) of pedestrian trails


20.8 km (12.9 mi) of marked bike lanes(Class II)

A minimum of 13.4 km (8.4 mi) of socialtrails would be closed and 2.5 km (1.5 mi)would be improved as designated trails


82.2 km (51 mi) of total trails

16.9 km (10.5 mi) of total designated trails


23.2 km (14.4 mi) of bikeways

A minimum of 9.4 km (5.9 mi) of social trailswould be closed and 6.5 km (4.0 mi) would beimproved and designated.

Alternative D: Dispersed UseThe Dispersed Use Alternative emphasizesseparating of pedestrians and bicycles. It offerssignificant opportunities for pedestrians only toexperience natural and cultural resources in anatmosphere of quiet solitude. The alternative's keyconcept is to provide an individual experience ofthe Presidio and to permit more opportunities forsolitude. It emphasizes narrower pedestrianlinkages and connections. Alternative D wouldpreserve the Presidio's established trail corridors.It would provide limited accessible trails and theleast amount of off-street recreational bicycleopportunities. The alternative is illustrated inFigure 4-6A. Figure 4-6B shows road-basedbicycle routes provided in this alternative.

4 Alternatives

51ALTERNATIVES



52 ALTERNATIVES

4 Alternatives

53ALTERNATIVES



54 ALTERNATIVES

4 Alternatives

55ALTERNATIVES



56 ALTERNATIVES

4 Alternatives

57ALTERNATIVES



58 ALTERNATIVES

COMPARISONS AT KEYLOCATIONSTo help visualize changes, illustrations comparingproposed development to existing conditions atkey locations are shown. The selected locations arenot comprehensive, but are representative ofproposed trails and bikeways development.

California Coastal Trail: Lincoln Boulevard atPershing Drive

The trail corridor section occurs just north of thePershing Drive North intersection on LincolnBoulevard. Figure 4-7 illustrates existingconditions. Figure 4-8 illustrates the proposeddevelopment for Alternatives B and C. The totalwidth of the existing developed area, from thesocial trail’s outside edge just west of the barrierrail to the drainage swale edge on the east, isapproximately 15 m (49 ft). By re-striping thetraffic lanes to a width of 3.3 m (11 ft), a multi-usetrail plus bike lanes in both directions can beaccommodated within the current developedwidth. Detailed evaluation should be conductedduring design to determine whether greaterseparation between the trail and roadway could beprovided, or if a barrier rail is required.

Alternative D, Dispersed Use, would provide apedestrian trail instead of a multi-use trail at thislocation.

Figure 4-8. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Pershing Drive North

Figure 4-7. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Pershing Drive North

4 Alternatives

59ALTERNATIVES


California Coastal Trail: Lincoln Boulevard at KobbeAvenue

The developed width of Lincoln Boulevard whereKobbe Avenue intersects is approximately 17.6 m(58.5 ft) between the existing restoration areaprotection fence on the west and the drainageswale edge on the east (Figure 4-9). By re-stripingthe roadway consistent with Presidio trafficcalming measures, bike lanes, 3.3 m (11-ft) vehiclelanes, and a standard multi-use trail can beaccommodated in all action alternatives (Figure 4-10). A buffer planting would be providedbetween the trail and road. The buffer plantingwould help reduce the barrier rail’s visual impact.The planting would vary slightly in width,depending on location constraints.

Figure 4-10. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Kobbe Avenue

Figure 4-9. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Kobbe Avenue


60 ALTERNATIVES

California Coastal Trail: Lincoln Boulevard atWashington Boulevard

The existing corridor just south of whereWashington Boulevard intersects LincolnBoulevard is very narrow, totaling only 9.8 m(32 ft) (Figure 4-11). It is constrained by trees andslopes on the west and a short steep slope and theWashington roadbed on the east. This conditionexists for a distance of 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft).A standard multi-use trail cannot be constructedwithout reconfiguring Washington Boulevard andexcavating into the hillside, providing a trailstructure on the west, or some combination ofthese. In this section of the corridor, all actionalternatives would widen the roadway on the eastto maintain safe bike lanes in each direction, butthis constricts the California Coastal Trail to only anarrow pedestrian trail (Figure 4-12). On the trail,bicyclists would be required to dismount and walktheir bikes in order to protect pedestrians on thismulti-use trail section.

Figure 4-12. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Washington Boulevard

Figure 4-11. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Washington Boulevard

4 Alternatives

61ALTERNATIVES


Presidio Promenade: Lincoln Boulevard at CrissyField Avenue

The roadway on Lincoln Boulevard just north ofthe Crissy Field Avenue intersection is wider thannecessary for two lanes of traffic, currently leavingroom for only a narrow social trail on the east side(Figure 4-13). By re-striping the roadwayconsistent with Presidio traffic calming measures,bike lanes and a minimum standard multi-use trailcould be accommodated in all action alternatives(Figure 4-14). During design, opportunities forgreater separation between the roadway and trailshould be investigated.

Figure 4-14. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Crissy Field Avenue

Figure 4-13. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Crissy Field Avenue


62 ALTERNATIVES

Golden Gate Promenade at Fort Point Extension

Extension of the Golden Gate Promenade fromthe Torpedo Wharf Mine Depot to Fort Pointalong Marine Drive is constrained between thebreakwater and the foot of steep slopes (Figure 4-15). Bicyclists would continue to sharethe roadway in this section. Vehicular traffic isgenerally slow and the number of cars is limited.To increase pedestrian safety, a designatedpedestrian trail is proposed in all actionalternatives, delineated by a new waterfront railand surfacing to match the rest of the promenade(Figure 4-16).

Figure 4-16. Proposed Development at Golden Gate Promenade at Fort Point Extension

Figure 4-15. Existing Conditions at Golden Gate Promenade at Fort Point Extension

4 Alternatives

63ALTERNATIVES


Ecology Trail Corridor at Arguello Boulevard

Arguello Boulevard is a narrow steep road,popular with cyclists and runners for its directconnection from the Main Post area to theArguello Gate (Figure 4-17). A portion of theroute is immediately adjacent to housing on asteep upslope, and separated from the street by ahistoric retaining wall. An uphill bike lane isproposed in all action alternatives with aminimum standard multi-use trail on the east side(Figure 4-18).

Figure 4-17. Existing Conditions at Ecology Trail Corridor at Arguello Boulevard

Figure 4-18. Proposed Development at Ecology Trail Corridor at Arguello Boulevard


64 ALTERNATIVES

Bay Area Ridge Trail at Washington Boulevard,Nauman Road and Amatury Loop

Existing conditions are illustrated in Figure 4-19.On this stretch of Washington Boulevard, Alter-natives B and C call for replacing the existingperpendicular parking with parallel parking (Figure 4-20). Alternative D, Dispersed Use, wouldmaintain existing conditions

In Alternative B, Washington Boulevard would bewidened and regraded to provide Class II bikelanes on both sides. The Bay Area Ridge Trailwould be put in a new alignment using NaumanRoad and Amatury Loop, and then going westthrough the forest to the existing alignment onCompton Road.

Figure 4-20. Proposed Development of Bay Area Ridge Trail at Washington Boulevard

Figure 4-19. Existing Condition of Bay Area Ridge Trail Corridor at Washington Boulevard

4 Alternatives

65ALTERNATIVES


Juan Bautista de Anza Trail at Battery Caulfield Road

This section of the De Anza Trail, just northwestof the Public Health Service Hospital, exceeds afive percent grade and is constrained by a nativeplant restoration area immediately west of theroad (Figure 4-21). Alternatives B and C proposewidening and regrading 48 to 90 m (160 to 300 ft)of the roadway to provide an accessible grade, anda sidewalk on the east side (Figure 4-22). SinceBattery Caulfield Road would remain a low-volume street for cars, bicycles would share theroad going downhill, and an uphill bike lane wouldbe provided.

Figure 4-22. Proposed Development of Juan Bautista de Anza Trail at Battery Caulfield Road

Figure 4-21. Existing Condition of Juan Bautista de Anza Trail at Battery Caulfield Road


66 ALTERNATIVES

ENVIRONMENTALLYPREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE NPS procedures require that the environmentallypreferable alternative be identified from the rangeof alternatives considered in the EA. The environ-mentally preferable alternative is the alternativethat best promotes NEPA's goals. The PresidioTrust and GGNRA are proposing reasonablealternatives to enhance visitor use and experience,support resource management, contribute to acomprehensive transportation strategy, encouragesustainable design and construction and promotestewardship. The evaluation of the alternatives inChapter 5 suggests that the Mixed Use Alternative(NPS's and the Trust's preferred alternative) is theenvironmentally preferable alternative because itbest enhances visitor use and experience byproviding diverse recreational and educationalexperiences, minimizing user conflicts, improvingconnections to regional trails, and ensuring accessto the Presidio's outstanding natural and culturalresources. This alternative also provides the widestrange of beneficial uses of the environmentwithout degradation, risk of health or safety, orother undesirable or unintended consequences.

The other alternatives were not identified as envi-ronmentally preferable for the following reasons.

The Shared Use Alternative would activelypromote bicycles as a transportationalternative, providing family, visitor andcommuter access to major destinations, andtherefore best contributes to acomprehensive transportation strategy.However, this alternative would also requirethe most significant modifications to openland by adding the most linear miles ofmulti-use trails; it would add the greatestincrease in hardened surface on currentlyundeveloped land.

The Dispersed Alternative would provide thegreatest variety of experience and physicalchallenge for pedestrians. However, thisalternative would not provide consistent andcontinuous trail connections and thereforewould not encourage a reduction inautomobile use to, and within, the Presidio.

The No Action Alternative would avoidconstruction effects, but would not attain thewidest range of beneficial uses identified inChapter 5 and would not enhance visitor useand experience.

EnvironmentalConsequences5


Bren

da T

harp

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGYIn the context of an EA, NEPA requires thatfederal agencies evaluate the proposed federalaction to determine whether it would result insignificant effects on the human environment.This chapter analyzes the environmental impactsof the four Trails Plan alternatives on geology,hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources,traffic safety, visitor use, visual resources, airquality and noise. This analysis provides the basisfor comparing the beneficial and adverse effectsof the alternatives, and includes an assessment ofcumulative effects and impairment to parkresources or values.1 The effects on floodplainsand environmental justice are also brieflyaddressed. Chapter 7, Appendices, includes theFinding of No Significant Impact, whichconcludes the NEPA evaluation of the TrailsPlan.

Both NPS and the Trust will use the EA to assistin their respecive planning and decision-making.The Trails Plan/EA is a programmatic plan andEA. Proposed trail routes and designs have notbeen finalized in every instance, and someconnections or routes may be subject to furtherplanning and environmental review prior toimplementation consistent with the provisions ofNEPA.

NEPA requires consideration of context, intensity,duration and type of impacts associated withproject alternatives:

Context. The context of the impactconsiders whether the impact would be localor regional. For the purposes of this analysis,local impacts would be those that occurwithin the immediate vicinity of the Presidio.Regional impacts would be those that wouldoccur in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Intensity. The intensity of the impactconsiders whether the effect would benegligible, minor, moderate or major.Negligible impacts would not be detectableand would have no discernible effect. Minorimpacts would be slightly detectable, butwould not be expected to have an overalleffect on the character of the resource.

Moderate impacts would be clearlydetectable and could have an appreciableeffect. Major impacts would have asubstantial, highly noticeable influence.

Duration. The duration of the impactconsiders whether the impact would occur inthe short term or the long term. A short-term impact would be temporary in durationand would be associated with transitionaltypes of impacts or construction-relatedimpacts. Long-term impacts are those effectsthat would last one year or longer.

Type of Impact. Impacts were evaluated interms of whether they would be beneficialor adverse. Beneficial impacts would improveresource conditions. Adverse impacts woulddeplete or negatively alter resources.

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

Affected Environment Various soil types have developed over time in thePresidio. Modern urban development has altereddistinguishing characteristics of some soil typeswhile others, not disturbed by changes to thetopography, remain in their natural state. Wind,water and human disturbance can and haveeroded these soils. The extent of erosion dependson the slope, the ability of the soil to infiltrate

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES


67ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

1To assure fulfillment of NPS' mission, NPS ManagementPolicies (NPS 2001b) and NPS Director's Order-12,Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, andDecision-making (NPS 2000a), require NPS decision-makers toconsider impacts, and determine in writing, that a proposedaction will not lead to "impairment" of park resources andvalues before approving the action. The statutory concept of"non-impairment" derives from NPS' enabling legislation, the1916 Organic Act. Analysis of impairment is not arequirement of the Trust and only applies to lands managed bythe NPS (Area A of the Presidio). An analysis anddetermination concerning impairment of park resources inArea A of the Presidio is made at the end of each resourcetopic to satisfy the NPS requirement.

2Serpentine soils in the Presidio, which host two of California'srarest plant communities (serpentine grasslands and serpentinecoastal bluffs), as well as other soil types found in the Presidio,create habitat for seventeen special status plants.

surface water and the degree of compaction.

The Presidio contains bedrock of the FranciscanAssemblage, a formation consisting of alteredvolcanic rocks, basalt, chert and sandstone, whichoriginated as ancient sea floor sediments. Thesecan best be seen as outcrops along the irregular,eroded coastal bluffs. Serpentinite, with its greencolor and soft, slippery appearance, along withassociated soils and habitat, is a sensitive naturalfeature of the Presidio.2 Serpentine soils can befound along the northern and western coastalbluffs between Battery Crosby and the GoldenGate Bridge. In other areas of the Presidio, wind-blown sand has formed over thousands of years.

Environmental ConsequencesAlternative A: No Action Alternative (Local, Long-Term, Minor, Adverse Impact)

Under the No Action Alternative, the Presidio'sgeologic resources, particularly the highlyweathered, fine-grained soils, the steep, erodedbluffs (e.g., California Coastal Trail), and the lowwooded hills (e.g., Ecology and Bay Area RidgeTrails) would continue to be adversely affected bysoil compaction and degradation caused by foot

traffic on existing trail alignments (particularly onsocial trails with poorly or infrequently maintainedsoil). Trails not improved under the currentmanagement procedures would continue to besubjected to compaction and degradation, whichwould increase soil loss through wind and watererosion, and impede natural material depositionand soil development. This wearing-away processwould expose an ever-increasing area toaccelerated rates of erosion and contribute toformation of scour areas, such as those locatedalong the sand dune bluffs near Baker Beach (e.g.,the California Coastal Trail).

Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative (Local, Long-Term, Minor, Beneficial Impact)

Implementing of the Mixed Use Alternativewould recondition many existing designated trails,and remove or recondition non-designated trailsthat have or could cause adverse impacts togeologic resources. These resources includesensitive areas with developed soil units orgeologically sensitive areas. This alternative wouldinstall new trails that are designed to avoid adverseimpacts to such resources. Removal andrehabilitation of social trails would reducedisruption to natural geologic processes in thePresidio, removing foot traffic in areas nearsensitive geologic resources and reducing access tosensitive areas that are vulnerable to heavy visitor

use (such as soils susceptible to erosion in theInspiration Point-El Polin Springs area).Placement and construction of new trails wouldavoid unnecessary removal or loss of soil ornatural earth material. Trails would be constructedto applicable design specifications as defined byNPS and the Trust. Best Management Practices asdescribed in Appendix C include a number ofbasic design strategies to improve drainagecontrol, stabilize trail cuts on steep slopes, protecteroding and hazardous trail edges and maintainstable trail surfaces on sandy soils. Earthquakesand their associated ground failures areunavoidable and unpredictable and the alternativewould not subject Presidio visitors to an increasedrisk of personal injury resulting from seismichazards.

Alternative C: Shared Use Alternative (Local, Long-Term, Minor, Beneficial Impact)

Impacts to geologic resources resulting fromimplementing the Shared Use Alternative wouldbe similar to the Mixed Use Alternative.

Alternative D: Dispersed Use Alternative (Local,Long-Term, Minor, Beneficial Impact)

Impacts to geologic resources resulting fromimplementing the Dispersed Use Alternativewould be similar to the Mixed Use Alternative.


68 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

ImpairmentImplementing the alternatives would not result inimpairment of park resources or values related togeologic resources.

HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES

Affected EnvironmentThree primary watershed basins in the Presidio,Western watershed, Lobos Creek watershed andEl Polin watershed, drain directly to the bay orocean. About 16 h (40 ac) of the 596 h (1,491 ac)park (surrounding the Public Health ServiceHospital) drain into the City of San Francisco'scombined storm water/sewer system.

The four major fresh water resources in thePresidio are Lobos Creek – which suppliesdrinking water to the Presidio – Mountain Lake,El Polin Spring and an unnamed spring locatedbetween Rodriquez and Sanchez Streets. Otherfeatures include wetlands, seasonal drainages andseeps. Although most of these water features haveundergone alteration from their natural statesometime in the past, they existed at the Presidioprior to European settlement and development.

Crissy Marsh, a recently restored tidal marsh, is a7.3 h (18 ac) water feature that receivesstormwater flows and limited perennial flowsfrom the Tennessee Hollow watershed.

Groundwater at the Presidio occurs withinFranciscan bedrock and overlying unconsolidatedsediments. The quantity of groundwater is highlydependent on the type and thickness of thegeologic materials present.

Water quality at the Presidio has been affected bypast activities, such as creating landfills, installingof underground petroleum and oil storage tanks,and using herbicides, fungicides and insecticideswhile the U.S. Army managed the Presidio.Nonpoint-source runoff from roads and parkinglots can affect water quality by introducing organicchemicals and heavy metals.

The Presidio's Stormwater Management Plan(Dames & Moore 1994), which is currently beingupdated, contains a stormwater pollutionprevention plan that outlines erosion andsedimentation prevention control measures toavoid contamination of storm drains and surfacewater resources. In many areas, stormwater runoffis treated with oil and water separators prior todischarge. The quality of surface water samples atLobos Creek, Mountain Lake and El Polin Springsis generally good.

Environmental ConsequencesAlternative A: No Action (Local, Long-Term, Minor,Adverse Impact)

The trails network in the Presidio would continueto affect surface water hydrology under the NoAction Alternative. Existing poorly maintainedtrails and social trails would continue to redirectsurface water flows, initiate soil erosion, and affectwater quality due to sediment transport.Hydrologic features would continue to be affectedby sedimentation and water quality impactsassociated with trail alignments, particularly wherea poorly designed trail or social trail traverses anarea close to such features as a water body, naturalgroundwater seep or spring.

Alternative B: Mixed Use (Local, Long-Term, Minor,Beneficial Impact)

Surface Water. Improvements to the pedestriantrails and removal of social trails under the MixedUse Alternative would minimize concentratedrunoff, reduce sediment transport, and improvethe quality of collected surface water. New andrestored trails, such as the multi-use and pedestriantrails proposed along the Coastal Bluffs and in theMountain Lake area, would be constructed toreduce formation of erosional features. Forexample, new trails would have permeablesurfaces to distribute runoff through the bed



material of the trail or would be out-sloped toprevent gullying. Trail slopes and gradients wouldcomply with standard guidelines so thatconcentrated quantities of surface water wouldnot run off at velocities capable of removing trailbase material. Appropriate design would drainsurface water from the trail to avoid ponding anddevelopment of soft, muddy surfaces that can leadto soil degradation and water quality impacts. Thedesign of trail features that intersect naturalsurface water bodies, such as bridges or woodenboardwalks (e.g., Lobos Creek Trail), wouldinclude measures to avoid or reduce interferencewith the feature's natural flow dynamics.

Replacement of certain existing social trails withplanned pedestrian routes (e.g., Battery Crosbyarea, Rob Hill area, Inspiration Point) woulddiscourage formation of new social trails, thuscontributing to restoring natural surface waterflow regimes and allowing natural runoffprocesses to prevail. Improvements to existingtrails and placing new multi-use trails in areasadjacent to hydrologic features would reduce thelikelihood of sedimentation and water qualityimpacts associated with visitor use of poorlydesigned or degrading trail alignments. Trailregrading and improvements would allow visitorsto access the Mountain Lake and Lobos CreekValley areas without causing adverse impacts to

shoreline soils and water quality, and avoiding thedamaging effects of current use of social trails,including surface water erosion, sedimentation,and the introduction of human and animal wastesinto surface waters.

New and rehabilitated trails would be constructedto avoid other hydrologic features, especially thesensitive areas surrounding groundwater seeps andsprings. Best management practices would be used

during trail construction activities to minimizeerosion, surface runoff, and siltation of any creek,spring, or water body. Trails would be constructedto applicable trail design specifications.Appropriately engineered base material such asgravel, or crushed rock would underlie proposedpaved trails. Non-paved trail surfaces would becompacted, surfaces composed of sand, gravel orcrushed rock or other materials described inChapter 3. Trails would be designed with adequate



No Action km (mi)

Mixed Use km (mi)

Shared Use km (mi)

Dispersed Use km (mi)

New Hardened Trail SurfaceNew Pedestrian Trail 0 4.3 (2.7) 1.6 (1) 8.2 (5.1)New Multi-Use Trail 0 10.4 (6.5) 11.9 (7.4) 2.4 (1.5)

Subtotal 0 14.7 (9.2) 13.7 (8.5) 10.6 (6.6)Hardened Surfaces to RemainNew Trails on Existing Hardened Surface 0 42.2 (26.4) 40 (24.8) 41.7 (25.9)Existing Designated Trails to Remain (Hardened Surface) 30 (18.6) 26.9 (16.8) 30 (18.6) 30 (18.6)

Subtotal 30 (18.6) 69.1 (43.2) 70 (43.4) 71.7 (44.5)Hardened Trails Restored to VegetationExisting Hardened Trail Surface to be Revegetated 0 0.0 0.0 0.0Social Trails to be Restored to Vegetation 0 -7 (-4.4) -8.7 (-5.4) -7 (-4.8)

Subtotal 0 -7 (-4.4) -8.7 (-5.4) -7 (-4.8)Changes to Social Trails (Considered Hardened)Social Trail to Pedestrian Trail 0 5.8 (3.6) 2.9 (1.8) 1.9Social Trail to Multi-Use Trail 0 3 (1.9) 4.4 (2.7) 0.5Social Trails to Remain 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal (Hardened Trail Surface to Remain) 0 8.8 (5.5) 7.3 (4.5) 8.2 (5.1)Total Increase in Hardened Surfaces 0 23.5 (14.7) 12.3 (7.6) 11.1 (6.9)Total Designated Trails 30 (18.6) 85.6 (53.5) 82.3 (51) 82.9 (51.4)Note: All action alternatives will close some social trails and/or convert them to pedestrian or multi-use trails

ALTERNATIVE

Table 5-1: Changes to Trail Surfaces

drainage to divert sheet and gully flow that couldresult from rainstorms. The drainage systemswould be designed to maintain the naturalfunction of the hydrologic system. Divertedrunoff would be dissipated to avoid rills, gullies,loss of soil, and water quality degradation.

The proposed increase in the amount of trailsthroughout the Presidio for the Mixed UseAlternative would increase the amount ofhardened surface by 3.8 h (9.6 ac) on what is nowopen, unpaved land (see Table 5.1). This wouldincrease the amount of surface water requiringpreventive erosional measures (as outlined inAppendix C and the Stormwater ManagementPlan) as well as increase the potential for minorimpacts in the form of increased concentration ofrunoff and sediment.

Groundwater Recharge. Incremental increases inhardened surfaces proposed by the Mixed UseAlternative would result in an incremental increasein stormwater runoff, although trail runoff wouldbe directed to drainages designed to minimizeerosion and sedimentation, as described above,and in some areas would permeate throughadjacent swales or natural areas. Hardened trailsmay be porous, such as a boardwalk or porousasphalt, or they may be non-porous such asnormal asphalt, concrete, "Road-Oyl"®,decomposed granite, or compacted soil. Where

feasible, auto lane widths, which vary throughoutthe Presidio, would be reduced to allow trails, orportions of trails to be constructed on what arenow existing paved surfaces. An example of thiswould be along Park Boulevard between LincolnBoulevard and Washington Boulevard, wheremuch of the road is wide enough toaccommodate a trail. Many bike lanes can beaccommodated in the current street width such ason Lincoln Avenue between Crissy Field Avenueand the Toll Plaza.

Alternative C: Shared Use (Local, Long-Term, Minor,Beneficial Impact)

The implementation of the Shared UseAlternative would result in more hardened surface,5.5 h (13.7 ac), compared with the Mixed UseAlternative, 3.8 h (9.6 ac). Preventive erosionalmeasures as outlined in Appendix C and theStormwater Management Plan would minimizeany adverse impact resulting from stormwaterrunoff. The beneficial effects of trail rehabilitationand reduction of existing social trails under thisalternative would outweigh the minor adverseimpact to hydrologic resources due to the slightincrease in hardened surfaces.

Alternative D: Dispersed Use (Local, Long-Term,Minor, Beneficial Impact)

The Dispersed Use Alternative would result in lesshardened surface, 3.4 h (8.5 ac), compared to the

Mixed Use Alternative, 3.8 h (9.6 ac).Implementing preventive erosional measures asoutlined in Appendix C and the StormwaterManagement Plan would minimize any adverseimpact resulting from stormwater runoff. Thebeneficial effects of trail rehabilitation andreduction of existing social trails under thisalternative would outweigh the minor adverseimpact due to the slight increase in hardenedsurfaces.

ImpairmentImplementation of the alternatives would notresult in impairment of park resources or valuesrelated to hydrologic resources.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment Sand dunes, grassland, coastal scrub, freshwatercreeks and saltwater marshes were once dominantfeatures in the City of San Francisco, until urbanexpansion and widespread planting of non-nativetrees eliminated nearly every indication of dunetopography and native vegetation (Wagstaff 1938;Cooper 1967). Today, only fragments of dunetopography, native vegetation, rare plants andwetlands remain in the City, and these featuresmainly occur in the Presidio.



Due to urban expansion, many animals, onceplentiful on the San Francisco Peninsula, are nowabsent and smaller species such as reptiles,amphibians and invertebrates are often restrictedto small areas of remnant habitat. While thehabitats and populations they support are notlarge, the Presidio still has a unique and importantrole to play in supporting wildlife in the Bay Area.

Vegetation and Wildlife. Plant communitieslocated in the project areas3 include central coastarroyo willow riparian scrub, northern coastalbluff scrub, northern coastal scrub, northernforedune, central dune scrub, central coast live oakriparian forest and serpentine prairie (refer to theNatural Areas described and mapped in the VMPfor a description of these plant communities andtheir associated wildlife). Of the identified plantcommunities, coast live oak woodland, centralcoast arroyo willow riparian, mixed serpentinechaparral, northern coastal bluff scrub, serpentinebunchgrass grassland and northern foredune areconsidered sensitive plant communities becausethey support a high diversity of native plants andspecial status plant species, or have limiteddistribution in the Presidio.

Wildlife Movement Corridors. Wildlife movementcorridors link areas of suitable wildlife habitat that

are otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain,changes in vegetation, human disturbance, orurban development. Movement corridors areimportant because urbanization has fragmented orseparated open space areas that otherwise wouldprovide for large, sustainable wildlife populations.At the Presidio, movement corridors occur alongthe coasts of the San Francisco Bay and thePacific Ocean; in an east-west corridor throughthe golf course and cemetery; and in a north-south corridor through the developed areas alongthe eastern Presidio boundary. Developed habitatsmay function as corridors, and thus are includedbecause some resident species (as opposed tomigrant species) appear to use these areas morereadily than more naturally vegetated habitats(Poague et al., 2000).

Special Status Species. A total of 17 specialstatus plant species are known to occur in thePresidio, five of which are federally listed asendangered or threatened, occuring on serpentineand/or sandy soils. Of these federally listed plantspecies, existing populations of Presidio clarkia(Clarkia franciscana), San Francisco Lessingia(Lessingia germanorum), Raven's manzanita(Arctostaphylos hookeri ravenii), and Marin dwarf flax(Hesperolinon congestum) occur within 30 m (100 ft)of proposed, constructed or enhanced trail

footprints. Proposed future habitat is described inthe Draft Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants of theSan Francisco Peninsula (Coastal Plan) (USFWS2001) and the Recovery Plan for Serpentine SoilSpecies of the San Francisco Bay Area (SerpentinePlan) (USFWS 1998).

Four species of nesting passerines (songbirds),several species of nesting raptors, and populationsof California quail may occur in or adjacent to theproject area during the nesting season (February15 through August 15). This includes severallocally uncommon birds that have been identifiedon the Presidio, and others for which suitablehabitat has been identified. A brief list of thesespecies includes Western screech owl (Otuskennicottii), Hutton's vireo (Vireo huttoni), Californiaquail (Callipepla californica), Saltmarsh yellowthroat(Geothlypis trichas), Red-shouldered hawk (Buteolineatus), Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) andAmerican kestrel (Falco sparverius).

Wetlands. There are approximately 23.4 h(58.5 ac) of water features, including wetlands, andother special aquatic areas in the Presidio. Theseareas include those subject to jurisdiction of theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404of the Clean Water Act of the United States(CWA), and USFWS wetlands according to theCowardin classification (Cowardin et. al., 1979).



3Defined as 20-ft wide corridors centered on proposedconstructed or enhanced trail alignments.

Specific wetland classes identified in the projectarea are riverine (rivers, creeks, and streams) andpalustrine (shallow ponds, marshes, swamps, andsloughs). These include:

Palustrine unconsolidated bottom (includingthe open waters of Mountain Lake)

Riverine upper perennial (main channel ofLobos Creek)

Palustrine emergent habitat (emergentwetland (e.g., marsh, meadow) throughoutthe Presidio, including areas near InspirationPoint, Lovers Lane and along LincolnBoulevard)

Palustrine scrub shrub habitat (riparian scrubsuch as willow) habitat at Mountain Lake, ElPolin Springs and Lobos Creek)

According to NPS data (Castellini 2001), wetlandslikely subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps aswaters of the U.S. include areas at Crissy Marsh,Dragonfly Creek, North Fort Scott, MountainLake, Lobos Creek and portions of TennesseeHollow and its tributaries.

Environmental Consequences4

Alternative A: No Action (Local, Long-Term, MinorAdverse Impact)

Under the No Action Alternative, many of theexisting special status plant species present at the

Presidio would remain protected from trail usersby fences or designated trails, such as boardwalks,that encourage trail users to remain on the trail.Although many special status plant species andtheir habitat are currently protected, individualspecimens of some populations would remainvulnerable to trampling because of current socialtrails and future social trails that might bedeveloped. Trampling of special status plantscould result in plant mortality and habitat loss,which could cause population decline, a decline inspecies fecundity rates and an increase in localextinction rates.

Existing wildlife habitats would remain in theircurrent condition along maintained trail andbikeway alignments. Trampling due to thepresence of existing and future social trails wouldcontinue to accelerate disturbance conditions,disrupting and fragmenting intact native plant andriparian communities and increasing native plantmortality. Trampling could result in native plantdisplacement by invasive non-native species,altered species composition of plant and animalcommunities, and habitat fragmentation. Social

trails that remain open would adversely affectnative wildlife habitat, associated wildlife species,and wildlife movement corridors due to humandisturbances such as trampling, excessive noiseand rapid movements, and harassment. Disruptionof wildlife movement corridors due to habitat lossand/or fragmentation could eliminate travel pathsfor individual animals as they wander or dispersefrom their home ranges. The continuation andpotential expansion of existing social trails wouldresult in a local, long-term, adverse impact onnative and riparian vegetation, including sensitiveplant communities, and wildlife habitat.

All Action Alternatives (Local, Long-Term, MinorBeneficial Impacts)

In addition to habitat restoration, the actionalternatives would benefit native plantcommunities, including federally listed plants andwildlife, by managing human access andredirecting access away from sensitive habitatareas. The effects of social trails would be reducedwithin areas supporting federally listed species orwithin recovery areas. Prioritization of trailremoval activities would be coordinated with bothnatural resource specialists and trail planners.Within natural areas, trails would typically belocated on existing disturbed areas. Disturbedareas include currently sanctioned trails, socialtrails, old roadbeds, and sidewalks. Trails may be



4This section is based primarily on information provided inthe July 23, 2002 USFWS Final Biological Opinion (USFWS2002) for the project, which applies to federally endangeredor threatened plant species. A copy of the Final BiologicalOpinion is on file in the NPS and Trust offices, and isincorporated here by reference.

realigned to reduce erosion or to bypass sensitiveareas. The conversion of informal trails todesignated trails would be reviewed by a multi-disciplinary natural resources team to ensure thatthe existing alignment had no negative effects onfederally listed plant habitat. Boardwalks may alsobe incorporated into trail alignments in habitat forspecial status species to prevent off-trail use. Trailalignments may be moved as a managementpractice to allow recovery of sensitive species orreduce erosion. Final trail alignment andconstruction specifications would be consistentwith the appropriate recovery plan objectiveswhen trails fall within recovery unit areas.

Within the lessingia recovery areas (to bedetermined as part of the forthcoming finalCoastal Plan), trails would be designed to theextent practicable to limit habitat effects, improvehabitat values, promote flexibility for speciespopulation movement, encourage sand movementwithin the trail corridor and promote persistenceof the dune annual community.

Within the potential recovery areas for Raven'smanzanita, dwarf flax, and clarkia, trails would bedesigned to avoid or protect serpentine outcropsand soils that are important recovery habitat.

Trail construction would limit the loss ordegradation of hydrological features, including

protected wetlands, and/or natural hydraulicprocesses, and avoid negative effects to surfacedrainage and groundwater flow rates anddirection. Buffers and erosion control measureswould be incorporated into projects withinhabitats for listed species. Where practicable, newtrails would be located at least 100 feet from theedge of listed plant habitats. In instances wherebuffer distance is limited, protective fencing orother protective measures (such as low shrubbuffers and boardwalks) around affected habitatmay be installed. Plant habitat areas adjacent toproject sites would be monitored regularly. Ifthese areas are found to be affected fromincreased visitor use, protective fencing or othermeasures would be either installed or modified.

A site-specific revegetation plan would beprepared for each trail project with revegetationneeds within habitat(s) for federally listed plants.Treatments would be consistent with the VMP (orany amendments to it). Revegetation of social trailremovals would be implemented in a timelymanner, typically within six months ofdisturbance-related construction activities,depending upon habitat type, timing of trail workand availability of native plant propagules. If trailremoval activities are discontinued due to lack ofresources, an invasive non-native plant controlprogram would be implemented until resources

for removal and restoration become availableagain. To the maximum extent practicable,immediate revegetation would be implemented forfederally listed species habitat and recovery areasthat have been disturbed by construction or otherproject-related activities.

Listed plant species would be protected bymanaging visitor and pet access in special statusspecies habitat and recovery areas. Interpretivematerials emphasizing resource and conservationvalues would be provided where visitors mayaccess habitat with federally listed species. Non-native wildlife control measures would beimplemented when necessary and feasible. Toprotect species under the Migratory Bird TreatyAct, vegetation would be cut only outside of birdnesting season (currently January 15 to August 15)unless monitoring indicates nesting birds are notpresent.

Existing trails would be surfaced and/or widenedand new trails would be constructed in the dunesnear Baker Beach housing, Inspiration Point,Lobos Creek Valley, western coastal bluffs and theTennessee Hollow Creek corridor. Trailconstruction would occur within or directlyadjacent to proposed or existing habitat for theRaven's manzanita, lessingia, clarkia and dwarfflax. All trail planning would be coordinated withfuture restoration implementation efforts, and



final alignments would be selected based uponavoiding optimum habitat for the listed species.Minimization and compensatory measuresincluded in the Final Biological Opinion (USFWS2002) and BMP’s included in Appendix C wouldbe incorporated into the project to minimizeeffects to biological resources.

Specific effects for each action alternative by trailsegment are described as follows.

Alternative B: Mixed Use

Trail construction activities under the Mixed UseAlternative have the potential to have a short-termeffect on a maximum of 1,444 sm (15,540 sf) ofexisting listed species habitat in natural areas.5 Thepotential permanent loss of existing listed specieshabitat in natural areas is 264 sm (2,838 sf). Thepotential permanent loss of proposed futurehabitat is 2,439 sm (26,256 sf). This also accountsfor area that would be restored and protected ashabitat for federally listed plants.

Multi-Use Trail Segment on Battery CaulfieldRoad. The Battery Caulfield Road restoration areasupports one of the five populations of lessingiafound on the Presidio. The construction of a trailsegment within the eastern corridor restorationsite could temporally eliminate approximately

342 sm (3,680 sf) of existing habitat, and couldresult in long term or permanent effects toapproximately 205 sm (2,208 sf) of existinghabitat and 123 sm (1,320 sf) of proposed futurehabitat for the lessingia. Concentrated visitoractivities in the newly constructed trail corridorcould also increase off-trail visitor and pet traffic,potentially causing trampling, inadvertent spreadof invasive non-native species, and erosion.However, conservation measures such asprotective fencing and removing non-designatedtrails would help ensure protection of the federallylisted plant population.

Multi-Use and Pedestrian Trail Segments withinthe Wherry Housing Area and Graded Area 9.Incremental disturbance from non-designated trailuse within sand dune habitat has had somebeneficial effects to lessingia habitat because it hascreated openings for establishment of duneannuals. However, continued incremental andlarge-scale disturbances could result in inadvertenttrampling of federally listed species, erosion,compaction of soils and reduced sand movement.The lessingia would benefit most from large-scalerestoration in the Presidio's southwestern area;including the restoration of natural processes likewind disturbance, which creates exposed gapswithin the dunes. Trail construction could hinderor allow surface movement of sand, encourage

spread of invasive species throughout the trailcorridors and subject lessingia to increasedtrampling and erosion from visitor use. Trailconstruction would avoid redirecting water flow toavoid causing erosion. The alternative's beneficialeffects include removing non-designated trailswithin the proposed recovery unit and habitatrestoration. Social trails not planned forenhancement within the southwestern cornerdunes would be removed and restored (actualsocial trail locations would be identified anddocumented during trail planning and designwithin the southwestern corner of the Presidio).To minimize negative effects, trail constructiondesign and implementation would be coordinatedand conducted in a manner consistent withrestoration goals, recovery objectives and theconservation measures identified in the BiologicalAssessment (Presidio Trust 2001a) for the FinalBiological Opinion. Trail segments in this vicinitywould permanently affect 3,979 sm (42,836 sf) ofproposed future habitat for the lessingia.

Multi-Use Trail Segment on Quarry Road atInspiration Point. Realigning Quarry Road couldcreate an increased buffer of approximately 0.9 to2.4 m (3 to 8 ft) between visitor access and thecurrent eastern distribution of Presidio clarkia.Realignment activities would involve removing fillfrom the eastern section of the current trail



5Effect estimates do not include existing disturbed areas suchas road surfaces, trails and social trails.

(exposing native serpentine soils) and removingthe drainage ditch east of the protective fencing,which currently undercuts and erodes the toe ofthe serpentine slope. Portions of an existingclarkia population currently located east of theprotective fencing could be disturbed and/orremoved during construction activities. Trailconstruction design specifications would ensurethe protection of the current serpentine grasslandtopography and local hydrology. Negative effectscould arise from an increase in encouraged visitoruse as well as off-trail visitor and pet use (althoughprotective fencing and the steep elevation changebetween the trail and the clarkia population wouldhelp ensure protection of the population).Additional consultation during the designspecification development, in accordance withSection 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended, may be warranted for this trailsegment. The width of historic Quarry Roadwould remain about the same. Thus, trailrealignment could result in temporal effects toapproximately 232 sm (2,500 sf) of existinghabitat. However, the alternative would result in anet gain of 46 sm (500 sf) of proposed futurehabitat for the clarkia.

Pedestrian Trail Segment (Batteries to BluffsTrail) Traversing the Western Serpentine Bluffs.Construction activities required to establish this

trail segment as a designated trail wouldpermanently eliminate approximately 684 sm(7,360 sf) of proposed future serpentine habitat.Concentrated visitor activities in the new trailcorridor could increase off-trail visitor and pet use,increasing trampling and erosion. Additionally,disturbance associated with trail construction andmaintenance could increase the spread of non-native plant species, as well as continue tofragment habitat. However, providing a cleardesignated route on a boardwalk-type trail wherenone currently exists to concentrate visitoractivities could also benefit special status specieshabitat. Interpretive signs would educate visitorsof habitat concerns. The alternative’s beneficialeffects would also include the removal andsubsequent restoration of social trails, focusedvisitor use on designated trails, correction of somedrainage problems, and increased safety.

Non-designated Trail Segments Traversing theWestern Serpentine Bluffs. Trail removal andrestoration would expand and enhance serpentinehabitat. Restoration activities such as soildecompaction and invasive species eradicationwould generally benefit Raven's manzanita, clarkiaand dwarf flax through seed scarification,removing competition and providing additionalhabitat that under current conditions do not exist.Adverse effects resulting from social trail removal

activities could include burial of existing seedbanks and losing soil disturbing activities that maybe necessary for seed scarification. Closing andremoving social trails would result in a minimumpermanent gain of 3,035 sm (32,670 sf) ofproposed future serpentine bluff habitat forRaven's manzanita, clarkia and dwarf flax.

Pedestrian Trail Segment Providing Access toLobos Creek from the Lobos Dunes Boardwalk.Trail construction could potentially result in theloss of lessingia specimens via removal,destruction or burial of individual plants and seed.Increased visitor activities in the newlyconstructed trail corridor could increase thepotential for trampling and erosion. Additionally,disturbance associated with trail construction andmaintenance would fragment habitat, increase thepotential spread of invasive non-native species andcould reduce movement of sand in the corridor.The construction of the boardwalk trail wouldtemporarily eliminate approximately 252 sm(2,800 sf) of existing habitat and permanentlyeliminate 56.7 sm (630 sf) of existing habitat forthe lessingia.

Pedestrian Trail Segment North of the PHSH(East-West Traverse). Trail construction couldlimit movement of sand, increase the potential forthe transport of invasive non-native species, and



attract off-trail visitor and pet use which couldincrease trampling and erosion. To minimize anyeffects, all trail construction design andimplementation would be coordinated andconsistent with the recovery objectives for thelessingia as described in the forthcoming finalCoastal Plan. Beneficial effects are the same asthose discussed under the effects described for themulti-use trail segment on Battery Caulfield Road.Trail construction would temporarily affect 609sm (6,560 sf) of existing habitat and wouldpermanently eliminate 451 sm (4,854 sf) existinghabitat.

Multi-Use Trail Segment North of BatteryMcKinnon-Stotsenberg. Construction activitiesrequired to establish this existing 2.4 to 3.6 m (8 to12 ft) wide (and degraded) trail footprint along theBay Area Ridge Trail near the Rob HillCampground between Hunter Road andCompton Road as a multi-use trail would have noeffect on existing habitat but would result in apermanent loss of 232.8 m (764 lf) of proposedfuture habitat for the lessingia. Beneficial effectswould include managed visitor and pet access andcorrection of erosion problems.

Alternative C: Shared Use

Trail construction activities resulting from theShared Use Alternative have the potential to have

a short-term effect on a maximum of 1.3 h(3.2 ac) of existing listed species habitat in naturalareas. The potential permanent loss of existinglisted species habitat in natural areas is 0.9 h(2.3 ac). This alternative would also result in apermanent loss of 0.8 h (2 ac) of proposed futurehabitat. This also accounts for areas that would berestored and protected as habitat for federallylisted plants. Specific effects for this alternativewould be the same as the Mixed Use Alternativewith the exceptions described below.

Multi-Use and Pedestrian Trail Segments withinthe Wherry Housing Area and Graded Area 9.This alternative would create a permanent loss of4000 sm (47,916 sf) of future habitat in thissegment.

Pedestrian Trail Segment North of the PHSH(East-West Traverse). This alternative wouldtemporarily affect 2000 sm (23,958 sf) of existinghabitat and would permanently eliminate 1080 sm(4,356 sf) of existing habitat for the lessingia.

Alternative D: Dispersed Use

Trail construction activities associated with theDispersed Use Alternative have the potential tohave a short-term effect on a maximum of7000 sm (78,408 sf) of existing listed specieshabitat in natural areas. The potential permanentloss of existing listed species habitat in natural

areas is 5000 sm (56,628 sf). This alternativewould also result in a permanent loss of 7000 sm(78,408 sf) of proposed future habitat. This alsoaccounts for area that would be restored andprotected as habitat for federally listed plants.Specific effects for this alternative would be thesame as the Mixed Use Alternative with theexceptions described below.

Multi-Use and Pedestrian Trail Segments withinthe Wherry Housing Area and Graded Area 9.This alternative would result in the loss of2000 sm (23,958 sf) of future habitat.

Pedestrian Trail Segment (Batteries and BluffsTrail) Traversing the Western Serpentine Bluffs.This alternative would not result in the permanentloss of existing or future habitat along this trailsegment.

Pedestrian Trail Segment North of the PHSH(East-West Traverse). This alternative wouldtemporarily affect 360 sm (4,000 sf) of existinghabitat and would permanently eliminate 486 sm(5,400 sf) of existing habitat for the lessingia.

ImpairmentThe integrity of natural resources are a keyelement of the Presidio. Implementation of thealternatives would not impair NPS resources orvalues related to biological resources. The action



alternatives would improve the long-term healthof resources that are "key to the natural or culturalintegrity of the park or to opportunities forenjoyment of the park" (NPS 2001b).

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment The Presidio of San Francisco was designated aNational Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1962. Witha period of significance from 1776 to 1945, thePresidio is recognized for its use as a Spanishcolonial, Mexican and U.S. Army military post. In1993, the landmark designation was updated tofurther identify this valuable resource (1993 NHLUpdate). At that time, more than 650 buildings,sites, structures and objects were considered ascontributing to the significance of the NHL as adistrict. The update includes both culturallandscape resources, including the historic forestand archaeological resources.

Examples of archaeological resources known toexist in the Presidio include late 18th centurybuilding foundations and subsurface remains ofpast uses. In addition to known prehistoric sitesalong Crissy Field, several areas have beenidentified as archaeologically sensitive because ofthe discovery of additional prehistoric sites. Theseare the Estuary Bluff, which overlooks the former

marshlands along the Letterman Complex, theNorth Cantonment, the Main Post, the Cemeteryand Cavalry Stables, additional areas of CrissyField and the Presidio's natural fresh watersources, such as El Polin Spring, Mountain Lake,Tennessee Hollow and Lobos Creek.

Environmental ConsequencesAlternative A: No Action (Negligible, AdverseImpact)

The No Action Alternative would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on historic orarchitectural resources, including the culturallandscape. While no new trails would bedeveloped, the number of park visitors wouldincrease and demand would grow to access otherlocations in the park. Consequently, the numberand length of social trails would likely increase.Existing and additional social trails could affect thecultural landscape (including the historic forestand strategic vistas) and archaeological resourcesby increasing erosion, degrading vegetation andincreasing wear and tear on structures. Theintensity of impacts would depend upon thenature and location of the social trail, as well asthe quantity and data potential of thearcheological sites.

Alternative B: Mixed Use (Negligible, AdverseImpact)

The Mixed Use Alternative would add 56 km(35.1 mi) of trails in the park. This increase wouldchange the character of the cultural landscape atthe Presidio somewhat in some areas (e.g., byadding a multi-use trail along a historic roadcorridor). However, the width, surfacing andgeneral appearance of the historic road corridorson the Presidio have changed over time as thePresidio's development footprint expanded. Incases where a historic curb or retaining walldefines the edge, that feature would be preserved.Also, in cases where existing trail alignments arehistoric (e.g., Lovers Lane), these would bepreserved. The overall impact on the culturallandscape would be detectable, but would not beexpected to have an overall effect on the NHLDbecause some of the new trails (7.7 km or 4.8 mi)replace existing social trails or are presentlypedestrian trails or service roads to be convertedto a multi-use trail. In addition, the new trailswould be designed and constructed to visuallyblend with the existing topography and vegetationpatterns to the maximum extent feasible. Trailsurface materials would be tinted to blend in withsurrounding terrain, and historic materials such asred chert would be used if appropriate. Trailswould also provide controlled access to historic



batteries, buildings and landscapes throughout thePresidio.

Proposed construction activities would occurprimarily in previously disturbed areas such asalong existing road prisms and social trails.Disturbance to historic fabric, removal ofindividual trees or alteration of character-definingfeatures of the historic forest would beminimized. Final design of the trails would bereviewed by qualified personnel having experiencein cultural landscape preservation prior toconstruction to ensure that cultural landscapes areadequately protected. In addition, proposedconstruction activities would be coordinated withthe reforestation and natural areas restorationefforts under the VMP and done in accordancewith the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines forTreatment of Cultural Landscapes (NPS 1996b).All ground-disturbing construction activitieswould be subject to archaeological monitoring inaccordance with the NPS/GGNRAProgrammatic Agreement (PA) (NPS 1994b) orthe Presidio Trust PA (Presidio Trust 2002c)Stipulation XIII and the Presidio ArchaeologicalMonitoring Protocols (whichever is applicable atthe time of monitoring). Removal of 15.9 km(9.9 mi) of social trails would lead to long-termbenefits to surface and underground resources byconfining the effects of paths and reducing

erosion. However, some new trail segments wouldpass through archeologically sensitive areas andother areas may be found to have historic orprehistoric sites or artifacts. Additionally, other asyet unknown historic or prehistoric areas in thePresidio may be discovered. Should that occur,NPS or the Trust would follow 36 CFR, Part 800of the National Historic Preservation Actprocedures outlined in their respective PAs. NPSand the Trust would seek to avoid archaeologicalfeatures through the following options, listed inorder of preference:

1) Relocation: Relocate the trail segment to anadjacent area that does not cross the site.

2) Fill: Apply a separating geotextile layer andfilling over the site with a thick layer ofstabilized granular material.

3) Pave: Pave over the site in the trail area anduse a fence or in other ways confine users tothe trail.

4) Bridge: Only if relocation, fill or paving arenot feasible, build a bridge over the site.

If avoidance is deemed infeasible, consultationwith the State Historic Preservation Officer inaccordance with 36 CFR Part 800 and theprovisions of the applicable PA would beimplemented. Mitigation would include controlledexcavation prior to construction, using scientific

recording methods and recovery of any significantcultural materials or information. Archaeologicalexcavations would proceed in accordance with aresearch design and data recovery plan based onbackground data, sound planning, and acceptedarchaeological methods. The data recovery planwould provide for the reporting and disseminationof results, as well as interpretation of what hasbeen learned in a manner that is accessible andunderstandable to the public. Appropriatearrangements for the permanent curation ofarchaeological materials and records would becarried out in accordance with federal regulation36 CFR Part 79. All archaeological work to becarried out would be under the supervision ofpersons meeting the Secretary of the Interior'sProfessional Qualifications Standards (48 FR44738-44739).

Alternative C: Shared Use (Negligible, AdverseImpact)

The Shared Use Alternative would add thesmallest amount of new trails (51.9 km or32.4 mi) compared to the other ActionAlternatives. However, impacts on the culturallandscape at the Presidio would be the same as theMixed Use Alternative. Construction activitieswould occur primarily in previously disturbedareas such as along existing road prisms and socialtrails. Disturbance to historic fabric would be



minimized; historic curbs, retaining walls andhistoric trail alignments would be preserved; andhistoric materials would be used if appropriate.Alteration of character-defining features of thehistoric forest and removal of individual treeswould be minimized. Archaeological monitoringwould occur in accordance with applicable PAsand protocols. Procedures outlined in the PAswould be followed in the event historic orprehistoric sites or artifacts are discovered.Therefore, while the impact on individualresources would be detectable, the alternative isnot expected to have an overall effect on theNHLD.

Alternative D: Dispersed Use (Negligible, AdverseImpact)

The Dispersed Use Alternative would add fewernew trails (52.5 km or 32.8 mi) than the MixedUse Alternative (56.2 km or 35.1 mi). However,impacts on the cultural landscape at the Presidiowould be the same as the Mixed Use Alternative.The impact on individual resources would bedetectable but the alternative is not expected tohave an overall effect on the NHLD.

ImpairmentNone of the alternatives would result inimpairment of park resources or values related tocultural resources.

TRAFFIC SAFETY

Affected Environment Access to the Presidio. Roadways leading intothe Presidio and providing access for motorvehicles, transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestriansinclude Lincoln Boulevard, Merchant Street, 15thAvenue, Arguello Boulevard, Presidio Boulevard,Lombard Street, Gorgas Avenue, and MarinaBoulevard. Within the Presidio, the public hasunregulated motor vehicle access to the vastmajority of local roadways. Some intersections arecontrolled by stop signs and posted speeds areslow.

Presidio Roadway/Trail System. Trails forbicyclists and pedestrians run along and acrossmany roads in the Presidio, including LincolnBoulevard, Ralston Avenue, WashingtonBoulevard, Battery Caulfield Road, ParkBoulevard, Arguello Boulevard, Infantry Terrace,Marine Drive, Long Avenue, Mason Street andPresidio Boulevard. These roads typically have twotravel lanes, with pavement widths ranging fromabout 6 m (20 ft) to over 11 m (36 ft). Sidewalksare provided along portions of some, but not all,of the roads and marked crosswalks are providedwhere some, but not all, of the trails cross theroads.

City Bike Routes in the Presidio include # 95 (onthe California Coastal Trail), # 65 (on the BayArea Ridge Trail), # 69 (on the De Anza Trail)and #’s 2, 4, 55, 61, 195, 202 and 295.

Presidio Parking Facilities. Parking is provided atprimary vista points, near a number of trails andnear housing units and office buildings throughoutthe Presidio. Parking spaces are located alongroads in areas of the roadway margin eitherdesignated for parking or used for that purposeinformally. Paved parking lots are also providedwithin the Presidio, mostly associated with existingdeveloped areas (e.g., the Main Post). In general,the Presidio is oversupplied with parkingcompared to present and estimated futuredemand. Both the GMPA and the PTMP call forreducing the overall amount of parking over time.

Traffic Safety Conditions. These are roadwaysegments where pedestrians, bicyclists andmotorists either share a narrow paved space (e.g.,on Long Avenue and Marine Drive) or haveminimal physical separation (e.g., portions ofLincoln Boulevard and Washington Boulevard).There intersections with no delineated crossingcontrol (e.g., California Coastal Trail near LincolnBoulevard and Kobbe Avenue and WashingtonBoulevard between Arguello Boulevard and ParkBoulevard). Areas also exist where pedestrians and



bicycles share trails with limited physicalseparation (e.g., along the Crissy FieldPromenade). There also are locations where trailscross roadways with no delineation of the crossingor where the delineation of the crossing isinsufficient (e.g., several locations on LincolnBoulevard).

The current roadway network and pedestrianfacilities were established by the U.S. Army andwere built to military standards over a long periodof time. In many cases, the park has remnants offacilities that were built before moderntransportation standards were developed. Bicycleaccess was not historically considered in thedevelopment of Presidio roadways and trailsbetween different areas of the Presidio were notwidespread. With the Presidio’s change from amilitary base to a national park site, a new set oftraffic safety issues has developed, with currentusers expecting that facilities would be built tomodern civilian standards.

Environmental ConsequencesAlternative A: No Action (Local, Long-Term, MinorAdverse Impact)

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing(primarily discontinuous) network of substandardpedestrian trails, multi-use trails, bikeways and

social trails would remain substantially unchanged.Standard maintenance activities would beundertaken and social trails would be eliminatedover time, consistent with the VMP. Thisalternative would not reconfigure the currentnetwork of trails for pedestrians and bicyclists,which generally provides limited or no physicalseparation between these users and automobiles.The discontinuity of trails and bikeways would notincrease opportunities for recreational orcommuter bicycle use and therefore would nottherefore encourage reduction in automobile useto, from and within the Presidio. Roadside socialtrails generally would continue to be unbufferedfrom vehicular or bicycle traffic. Existing disconti-nuities on trails that connect to transit stops wouldremain.

Alternative B: Mixed Use (Local, Long-Term,Moderate Beneficial Impact)

The Mixed Use Alternative would provide abouttwice as many designated off-street trails ascurrently exist. The alternative would moderatelyreduce the potential for conflicts betweenautomobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists within thetrail corridors by separating pedestrian and bicycleuse from automobile use. Pedestrians andbicyclists would be accommodated within thevarious trail corridors by a series of pedestriantrails, multi-use trails and/or bikeways. Multi-use

trails would be engineered to meet AASHTOstandards, including buffer widths to separate trailsfrom roadways. The widths of trails would besized to provide room for safe pedestrian andbicycling activities, minimizing the potential forconflicts between these modes of transport. Trailintersections with roadways would be marked withappropriate pavement treatments and signage toalert motorists and trail users to the presence ofthe crossing. Roadway intersections (e.g.,Lincoln/Bowley, Lincoln/Kobbe andLincoln/Merchant) would be reconfigured toimprove bicycle, pedestrian and automobile safetyby improving sight distances, realigning awkwardgeometrics and reducing grades.

In addition, a network of bike lanes and routeswould be provided on roadways for bicyclistsriding at higher speeds, either in bike lanes (i.e.,separate pavement width delineated by striping),unmarked wide shoulders or in shared lanes onlow-volume roadways. The amount of existingmarked, designated on-street bike lanes wouldincrease from 3.7 km (2.3 mi) to 23 km (14.4 mi).These separate facilities would provide options forserious cyclists, further reduce the potential forpedestrian/bicycle conflicts on new multi-usetrails, and encourage the use of bicycles as analternative to the private automobile.



This alternative includes possibily closing CrissyField Avenue between Mason Street and LincolnBoulevard (uphill section) to auto traffic toprovide for bicycle and pedestrian use. Transit andemergency access would be maintained. Inaddition, this alternative includes possibily closingWashington Boulevard between ArguelloBoulevard and Lincoln Boulevard to through-traffic on weekends.

Short-term impacts on drivers from road closureswould include the inconvenience of detours andhaving to learn new routes. Drivers would beinformed in advance of road closures throughsignage and NPS and Trust publications.Detour/alternate cross-park routes would bedesignated, improved to handle increased traffic,and clearly signed in advance of closures asnecessary. Road closures would be coordinatedwith the U.S. Park Police and appropriate transitagencies, if needed.

Implementation of this alternative may alsoinvolve narrowing the auto traffic travel lanes ofpark roadways to provide for bicycle andpedestrian use. In general, narrowing vehicle travellanes would be proposed to minimize or avoidimpacts to natural or cultural resources arisingfrom the addition of bikeways, pedestrian facilitiesand/or multi-use trails. Travel lane narrowingwould be limited to the minimum required to

avoid sensitive resources. On roadways wherespeeds are low, the grade is slight and volumes areminimal, narrowing travel lanes would be easilyachieved, with no effect on motorists (forexample, on Moraga Street or Funston Avenue inthe Main Post area). In other areas, narrowing thetravel lanes would result in a small reduction intravel speed for vehicles and associated vehiclecapacity. This impact would be minor, andcapacity implications would not significantlyincrease congestion.

On major roadways, reductions in lane widthwould be considered carefully in the design ofsuggested trail and bikeway improvements, andwould be balanced with vehicular safety concerns.Roadway cross-sections in Chapter 4 and theexplanations of design exceptions in Chapter 3acknowledge this process of considering potentialimpacts and benefits, and adjusting proposedimprovements as necessary to avoid deleteriouseffects. Parking space reduction or relocation mayoccur, such as along Washington Boulevardbetween Arguello and Park Boulevards. Impactson parking would be coordinated with parkingplanning at the Presidio.

Implementation of this alternative would mostlikely require design exceptions (e.g., features suchas narrow bike lanes and/or multi-use paths, steepgrades, sight distances, and design speeds that do

not meet minimum design standards) in order toprovide improved access and safety for bicyclistsand pedestrians, and to protect natural and culturalresources. Design exemptions would be grantedafter careful study by qualified traffic engineers todetermine that implementation of the projectwould provide improved conditions for bicyclists,pedestrians and/or automobile traffic over currentconditions in terms of access, capacity and/orsafety.

Alternative C: Shared Use (Local, Long-Term,Moderate Beneficial Impact)

The Shared Use Alternative would provide about3½ times as many designated trails as currentlyexist. Similar to the Mixed Use Alternative, thisalternative would moderately reduce the potentialfor conflicts among automobiles, pedestrians andbicyclists within the trail corridors because itwould separate pedestrian and bicycle facilitiesfrom auto use areas. This alternative has thegreatest extent of multi-use trails (41.8 km or26.1 mi proposed). The network of multi-usetrails would conveniently link main activity andresidential areas. This would increase opportunitiesfor recreational and commuter bicycle use, andpromote bicycles as a transportation alternative.The alternative would also improve traffic safetyby encouraging a reduction in automobile use to,from and within the Presidio.



The same roadways considered for closure to autotraffic under the Mixed Use Alternative would beproposed for closure in this alternative. Theseclosures would result in the same short-termimpacts to drivers as they learn alternate routes ontheir destinations.

Narrowing roads for auto traffic to provide forbicycle and pedestrian use would result in thesame short-term impacts on drivers as the MixedUse Alternative, and would require the samecareful consideration prior to implementation.Implementation of this alternative would mostlikely require design exceptions similar to theMixed Use Alternative, to avoid safety issues onmajor roadways, as provided for in Chapters 3and 4. Impacts to parking would be the same asthe Mixed Use Alternative.

Alternative D: Dispersed Use (Local, Long-Term,Minor Beneficial Impact)

The Dispersed Use Alternative would provideabout three times as many designated pedestriantrails as currently exist. The alternative wouldmoderately reduce the potential for conflictsbetween automobiles and pedestrians by providing13.1 km (8.2 mi) of new pedestrian trails. Thealternative would reduce the potential for conflictsbetween automobiles and bicyclists within the trailcorridors only slightly. Because it emphasizes

pedestrian-only trails, bicyclists would need to useon-street bikeways to a greater extent than theother action alternatives. This alternative wouldnot provide for marked bike lanes around or inthe Main Post, and only uphill bike lanes would beprovided on Long and Crissy Field Avenues. Withthe least amount of interconnected multi-use trailsproposed (17.4 km or 10.9 mi), this alternativewould provide fewer opportunities forrecreational, family and slower-speed bicycle use.In addition, this alternative has about 20 moreintersections than the other action alternatives,where pedestrian trails would cross vehicular roadsindicated by marked crossings and vehicular speedlimits. Safety improvements would be designed forthese locations prior to trail implementation. Roadclosures and narrowing of roads to auto trafficwould result in the same short-term impacts ondrivers as the Mixed Use Alternative. Impacts onparking would be the same as the Mixed UseAlternative.

ImpairmentA key element of the Presidio is opportunities forpublic enjoyment. Without traffic controls and areduction of trail crossings, the No ActionAlternative could result in minor impacts onpublic enjoyment, but would not lead to

impairment of the Presidio's resources or values.None of the action alternatives would impairnational park resources or values related to trafficsafety.

VISITOR USE

Affected Environment The Presidio contains many of San Francisco'shighly valued recreation sites and popular openspace areas. The park offers a wide range of activepursuits, as well as opportunities for solitude,retreat and discovery. Recreational activities at thePresidio include walking, hiking, running, biking,sightseeing, photography, nature study, surfing,sailing, fishing, camping, sunbathing andpicnicking. The Presidio has nearly 30 km (19 mi)of trails and bikeways utilized by neighborhood,city and regional users, tourists and commuters.There are 3.7 km (2.3 mi) of marked bike lanes,16.5 km (10 mi) of multi-use trails, and 17.7 km(11 mi) of walking/hiking trails. A minimum of15 km (9.3 mi) of pedestrian trails are unofficialsocial trails created by park users, but not part ofthe Presidio's official designated trail system. ThePresidio trail system also features five trailheadsand six overlooks. National, state and regionaltrails traversing the Presidio include the JuanBautista de Anza National Historic Trail, the



California Coastal Trail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail,the San Francisco Bay Trail and the AmericanDiscovery Trail.

Use of the trails and bikeways network is hinderedin several areas by access limitations, includingdisjointed routes, unstable slopes, sandy soils,elevation changes, sensitive natural resources andinconsistent trail conditions.

Environmental ConsequencesAlternative A: No Action (Local, Long-Term, Minor,Beneficial Impact)

Under the No Action Alternative, the Presidiowould continue to provide a range of recreationalopportunities to visitors — from quiet walksthough restored native habitats or forest tobicycling along a bayside promenade past centuriesof military history. However, the 30 km (19 mi) oftrails and bikeways within the park would continueto be somewhat discontinuous and provide limitedconnections to major Presidio destinations (e.g.,between the Lombard Gate and the Golden GateBridge). Desired connections (such as between theCalifornia Coastal Trail and north Baker Beach)would not be provided. Discontinuous trails andbikeways would continue to make it difficult forcommuters traversing the Presidio on foot or bybicycle. The varying trail surfaces and types (e.g.,dirt paths, sidewalks, gravel access roads) and the

varying bikeways (e.g., wide road shoulders, low-volume shared roadways, striped bicycle lanes) thatprovide connections across the Presidio wouldremain. In addition, the hilly terrain andinconsistent trail surfaces, widths and gradeswould continue to limit universal access to manyPresidio recreational experiences, particularly forpeople with disabilities. The inconsistent provisionof trailheads, trail signs and amenities at trailheadsand overlooks would also continue to detract fromthe visitor experience.

Alternative B: Mixed Use (Local, Long-Term,Moderate Beneficial Impact)

Implementing the Mixed Use Alternative wouldsubstantially enhance the visitor experience byproviding more varied experiences for visitors,improving continuity and connectivity of the trailand bikeway system, improving trail and bikewayconditions and providing new trails, bikeways,trailheads, overlooks and trail signs. Trail types andconnections would provide a mix of "urban"(through the built environment) and "wild"(through a natural or forested environment) visitorexperiences, and trails would be constructed withvarying degrees of physical challenge. Recreationalroutes would be designed for safe and enjoyableuse of park facilities by visitors of all ages andabilities, including accessible connections to majoruse areas, points of interest, interpretive

opportunities and outstanding natural features.Public safety conditions would improve due to theplanned closure of many hazardous social trails,the addition of safe street crossings, and weekendor permanent closures of some roads to vehicles.The construction of new, sustainable pedestrianand multi-use trails (in areas such as north BakerBeach and the coastal bluffs) would balance theremoval of unsafe and unstable social trails.Visitors accustomed to using these social trailswould be directed to other trails in the vicinity.

The alternative would have consistent types oftrails (multi-use or pedestrian) based on designspecifications consistent with Recommendationsfor Accessibility Guidelines: Outdoor DevelopedAreas (U.S. Architectural and TransportationBarriers Compliance Board 1999). The trailswould have consistent surface types, widths andgrades within individual trail corridors. New trailswould typically be separated from vehicles andtrail crossings would be marked, thus creatingsafer routes for park visitors. East-west and north-south trail connections across the Presidio wouldbe created or improved through providing newtrail corridors. Trail connections to major useareas, points of interest and natural features wouldbe improved. In addition, the trail continuity ofthe regional, state and national trails in thePresidio would be improved.



The alternative would improve off-street bicyclingopportunities for family and recreational cyclists.Many of the proposed multi-use trails would formcontinuous loops, which would further enhancethe off-street bicycling experience. On-streetbicycle routes would be provided for fastercyclists. Bikeways would be improved to includemore linear miles of bike lanes, with reducedreliance on wide roadway shoulders for bicycleroutes. Trail improvements would also benefitbicycle commuters who travel through thePresidio. These benefits include new trails andconnections established between trails to providecommuters with more direct routes to or throughthe Presidio.

The alternative would substantially increase thenumber of trailheads, from 9 to 13. Trailheadswould provide consistent information, orientation,and amenities for visitors. Similarly, new trail signswould be installed throughout the Presidio,providing consistent visitor orientation andaccessibility information. Visitors would be lesslikely to lose their way or undertake a trail of toogreat or little challenge.

The number of overlooks at the Presidio wouldbe increased from 6 to 14. New overlooks wouldbe developed in such locations as the GoldenGate Bridge, Battery East and the San FranciscoNational Cemetery. New overlooks would provide

more consistent amenities, and additional vistasfrom which to observe natural and culturalresources.

Construction activities would introduceconstruction equipment (and associated noise),work perimeter fencing and signs and closure ofconstruction areas for public safety purposes.Construction activities would detract from thenatural setting of the park and somewhat limitaccess within the Presidio. Development of thenew trail alignments would occur gradually inphases, so that construction-related impacts wouldbe localized to specific areas of the Presidio,diminishing any short-term effect on visitors.

Alternative C: Shared Use (Local, Long-Term,Moderate, Beneficial Impact)

Similar to the Mixed Use Alternative,implementation of the Shared Use Alternativewould substantially enhance the visitor experience.However, this alternative would provide for aneven more comprehensive and interconnectedsystem of trails and bikeways. It would providebetter pedestrian and recreational access to majorpoints of interest, place more emphasis on wider,multi-use trails to accommodate large numbers ofusers, and provide a greater opportunity for groupexperience. As in the Mixed Use Alternative, trailsand bikeways would generally be consistent andcontinuous. In providing more pedestrian and

bicycle loop routes than the Mixed UseAlternative, it would provide fewer opportunitiesfor dispersed visitor experiences, such as enjoyingquiet solitude. The alternative would increase thenumber of trailheads from 9 to 13. The numberof overlooks at the Presidio would increase from 6to 18. As in the Mixed Use Alternative,construction activities would be phased, such thatimpacts would be localized to specific areas of thePresidio, diminishing any short-term effect onvisitor experience.


Similar to the Mixed Use Alternative,implementation of the Dispersed Use Alternativewould substantially enhance the visitor experience.However, trail connections would not be asconsistent and continuous. The alternative wouldprovide more opportunities for pedestrians toexperience solitude and greater physical challenges.Narrower pedestrian linkages and connections andfewer accessible trails and recreational bicycle trails



Alternative Trailheads OverlooksNo Action 9 6

Mixed-Use 13 14

Shared Use 13 18

Dispersed Use 25 18

Table 5-2: Trailheads and Overlooks

would be provided. About half the number ofmulti-use trails, 17.6 km (10.9 mi), would bedeveloped, as compared to the other actionalternatives. No multi-use loop trails would bemade available for family and recreationalbicyclists. Trailheads would be smaller and wouldincrease from 9 to 25. Some new trailhead parkingwould be constructed to accommodate peoplewith disabilities. The number of overlooks at thePresidio would increase from 6 to 18 (same as theMixed Use Alternative). Construction activitieswould have the same short-term effect on visitorexperience as the Mixed Use Alternative.

ImpairmentImplementation of the alternatives would notimpair National Park resources or values related tovisitor use.

VISUAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment The Presidio is a primary scenic resource of theSan Francisco Bay Area. Together with GoldenGate Park to the south, the forested, open-spacelandscape of the Presidio is a regional landmark,visually prominent within the built environment ofurban San Francisco. The Presidio affords a widevariety of distinctive views, ranging from

panoramic vistas to narrow views of regionallandmarks in the San Francisco Bay Area.Regional landmarks that appear in views from thePresidio include the Pacific Ocean and coastline,the Golden Gate, the Marin Headlands, SanFrancisco Bay, Alcatraz, Angel Island and the SanFrancisco skyline. The Presidio trails and bikewaysnetwork affords both fixed and dynamic,sequenced views of scenic resources locatedoutside of the Presidio, as well as of scenicresources located within the Presidio itself. Inaddition, the 6 scenic overlooks, located mostly inthe northern and western areas of the park, offerpanoramic views. They range from formal pavedviewing platforms with vehicle parking to informalwidened areas on the sides of trails, to roads withno vehicle parking.

As part of implementing the VMP, the NPS andthe Trust are restoring historic viewsheds thatinclude overlooks and other vantage pointslocated throughout the Presidio. These viewshedsinclude Inspiration Point, Rob Hill, vistas alongLincoln Boulevard and the coastal defensebatteries, and the Golden Gate Bridge viewingarea. Generally, historic viewsheds are beingrestored by removing non-native large trees, andplanting low-lying native plants so that clear viewscan be more easily maintained.

Environmental ConsequencesAlternative A: No Action (Local, Long-Term, Minor,Beneficial Impact)

Under the No Action Alternative, the current trailand bikeway alignments at the Presidio would bemaintained and the existing scenic overlookswould remain in their present condition. Limitedclosure of certain social trails could occur as partof ongoing maintenance operations. The trail andbikeway system at the Presidio would continue toprovide views of regional landmarks and otherimportant scenic resources. The proliferation ofsocial trails would continue to have both beneficialand adverse effects on visual resources. Whilethese social trails provide access to scenic vistas, aslandscape features the social trails appear as ahaphazard network of compacted dirt pathwaysthat detract from the otherwise scenicsurroundings.

Alternative B: Mixed Use (Local, Long-Term,Moderate, Beneficial Impact)

The implementation of the Mixed Use Alternativewould provide improved visual access to regionallandmarks and other important scenic resourcesof the San Francisco Bay Area. New pedestriantrails in the vicinity of Golden Gate Bridge Plazawould provide improved scenic viewingopportunities of the Golden Gate. New multi-use



trails in the vicinity of Baker Beach would provideopportunities for scenic views of the PacificOcean and the shoreline for both pedestrians andbicyclists.

This alternative would provide improved access tovisual resources within the Presidio, includingnatural features, native habitats, and cultural andhistoric resources. For example, the proposedTennessee Hollow Corridor would provideopportunities to view natural and culturalresources located between El Polin Spring and therestored marsh at Crissy Field. The alternativewould improve connections between Presidiopoints of interest, providing new dynamic viewsequences, as well as static views, for peopletraveling along these routes. For example, thePresidio Promenade, which would provide acontinuous multi-use trail between the GoldenGate Bridge and the new Greenwich Street Gate,would include views of Battery East, CavalryStables, the San Francisco National Cemetery, andthe Main Post.

New overlooks would establish additional vantagepoints from which to observe the abundant scenicresources within the Presidio's various viewsheds,both those outside and within the park. ProvidingPresidio visitors with new viewpoints that wouldaccommodate both social and solitary enjoymentof the available views, as well as variation in

seating arrangements and other improvements,would enhance the use of the Presidio's visualresources. Removal of select trees, if warranted, toenhance viewsheds would constitute noticeablevisual change, but would not alter the value of thePresidio as a scenic resource, or substantially alterthe visual character of the Presidio forest.

The replacement of the haphazard network ofsocial trails throughout the Presidio with carefullyplanned and designed pedestrian and multi-usetrail corridors would improve resource conditionsand enhance views within these corridors.

The increase in the linear miles of trails wouldexpand the visible presence of improvements andsomewhat detract from the natural setting. Theimpact would be moderately detectable, but wouldnot be expected to have an adverse effect onvisual resources. Some of the new trails wouldreplace existing social trails. In other cases,pedestrian trails or service roads would beconverted to a multi-use trail. In addition, the newtrails would be designed and constructed tovisually blend with the existing surroundings tothe maximum extent feasible. Vista views of thePresidio from Twin Peaks, the Marin Headlands,and Alcatraz would not be affected by new trails,due to the extensive vegetative cover of thePresidio, the low profile of trails, and the

placement of the wide multi-use trails alonghistoric and existing road corridors. Trail surfacematerials could be tinted to blend in withsurrounding terrain, and trail borders planted tokeep the trail surface out of view from somevantage points.

Construction of the new trails would result inlocal, short-term, minor adverse impacts to visualresources. Development of the new trailalignments would occur gradually in phases, soconstruction-related impacts would be local tospecific areas of the Presidio as well as temporary,thus lessening the short-term effect on visualresources.

Alternative C: Shared Use (Local, Long-Term, Minor,Adverse Impact)

Similar to the Mixed Use Alternative, the SharedUse Alternative would provide for improvedaccess to vistas of the scenic resources of theSan Francisco Bay Area and of the Presidio itself.It would provide improved connections betweenPresidio points of interest, new overlooks, and theremoval of social trails, which would improveresource conditions and scenic views within thesecorridors. However, under this alternative, accessto scenic vistas from the interior of the Presidiowould primarily be available via multi-use trails (ascompared to a balance of pedestrian and multi-use trails under the Mixed Use Alternative). The



beneficial effects of this alternative would besomewhat offset by the additional multi-use andpedestrian trails, as well as the conversion ofsmaller-scale social and pedestrian trails to larger-scale multi-use trails. These trails would expandthe area and the visible presence of improvementsat the Presidio and detract from the natural settingof the park. Although views of the new multi-useand pedestrian trails would be partially obscuredby the park topography and vegetation patterns,the emphasis on wider multi-use trails would beclearly detectable. The wider corridors created bythe multi-use trails could also affect views of thePresidio from Twin Peaks and the MarinHeadlands. The multi-use trails would likely besomewhat visible from these regional vistas,although views of the trails should be partiallyobscured by the vegetative cover at the park.


The Dispersed Use Alternative would have lessadverse impact on visual resources compared tothe other action alternatives, since this alternativewould include the fewest new multi-use trails. Asdiscussed above, these trails would be often visiblefrom roadways, and have a wide cross-sectioncompared to the pedestrian paths.

ImpairmentThe No Action Alternative would not lead toimpairment of the Presidio's visual resources orvalues. Implementation of the action alternativeswould not impair park resources or values relatedto visual resources. These alternatives wouldincrease opportunities for enjoyment of the parkby increasing the number of viewpoints toobserve scenic resources.

AIR QUALITY

Affected EnvironmentThe Presidio's location allows for excellent aircirculation due to the prevailing west andnorthwest winds. Because there are no pollutionsources west of the Presidio, the air moving intothe area is of a very high quality.

Federal, state and local agencies operate a networkof monitoring stations throughout California toprovide data on ambient concentrations of airpollutants. Recent monitoring data frommonitoring stations in San Francisco indicateoccasional events in excess of the state standardfor PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 micronsin diameter). All other criteria air quality standardshave not been exceeded in San Francisco over thepast five years. Motor vehicles are the majorsource of air pollution in San Francisco.

Environmental ConsequencesAlternative A: No Action (No Impact)

Under the No Action Alternative, there would beno construction-related dust impacts, and BayArea Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) recommended control measures foremissions of dust (see below) would not berequired.

Alternative B: Mixed Use (Local, Short-Term, Minor,Adverse Impact)

The implementation of the Mixed Use Alternativewould not require the installation or operation ofnew stationary sources of air pollutants. Thealternative would not locate sensitive noisereceptors close to an existing significant source ofair pollution. Consequently, the alternative wouldnot result in a substantial increase in air pollutantemissions.

Construction of approximately 56.2 km (35.1 mi)of new and regraded trails would generate dust(including PM10) primarily from "fugitive"sources. Fugitive sources are those emissions, suchas vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces, that arereleased through means other than through a stackor tailpipe, and lesser amounts of other criteria airpollutants primarily from operation of heavyequipment.6



With respect to emissions sources other thanfugitive dust, the related emissions are generallyincluded in the emissions inventory that is thebasis for regional air quality plans. These wouldnot be expected to impede attainment ormaintenance of ozone and carbon monoxidestandards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD 2000).

Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day today, depending on the level and type of activity,silt content of the soil, and the weather. To reduceconstruction-generated particulate matter (PM10)emissions, construction contractors wouldimplement as appropriate the BAAQMD’srecommended control measures for emissions ofdust during construction (see Fugitive DustControl Measures under Air Quality BMP inAppendix C). Implementation of these measureswould result in construction impacts on air qualitythat would be considered to be insignificant.

Alternative C: Shared Use (Local, Short-Term, Minor,Adverse Impact)

The Shared Use Alternative would generate thesmallest amount of dust since the fewest linearmiles of trails would be modified – 51.8 km(32.4 mi) compared to 56.2 km (35.1 mi) of trailsunder the Mixed Use Alternative). As appropriate,

construction contractors would implementBAAQMD's recommended control measures foremissions of dust during construction to ensurethat there would be a less than significant effecton air quality. Therefore, this alternative wouldgenerate the least amount of dust.

Alternative D: Dispersed Use (Local, Short-Term,Minor, Adverse Impact)

The Dispersed Use Alternative would involveslightly more new trail modifications (52.5 km or32.8 mi) than the Shared Use Alternative. SinceBAAQMD recommended control measureswould be implemented, air pollutant emissionsfrom construction activities would be considered aless than significant impact.

ImpairmentNone of the alternatives would impair nationalpark resources or values related to air quality.

NOISE

Affected EnvironmentThe Presidio is located in an urbanized area. Noiselevels within the Presidio can fluctuate greatly,largely depending on the proximity to majorroadways (e.g., 19th Avenue, Doyle Drive). Awayfrom roadways, the Presidio is generally quieter

than the surrounding urban environment ofSan Francisco because natural noise sourcesdominate and there is less urban activity. Non-traffic noise is caused by human activity (primarilyrecreational), occasional aircraft overflights anduse of mechanical equipment for buildingoperations (e.g., ventilation systems), landscaping,maintenance activities, building and pavingrenovation, and tree removal.

Environmental ConsequencesAlternative A: No Action (No Impact)

Under the No Action Alternative, there would beno construction-related noise impacts.

Alternative B: Mixed Use (Local, Short-Term, Minor,Adverse Impact)

The Mixed Use Alternative does not proposeinstallation or operation of new stationary noisesources. The alternative would not locate sensitivenoise receptors close to an existing significantnoise source. However, construction activitiesassociated with 56.2 km (35.1 mi) of trailmodifications (including 36.8 km, or 23 mi, ofnew trails) could result in a temporary increasenoise levels within the park vicinity. Constructionnoise levels are regulated by NPS and the Trust,which are committed to complying with standards



6Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead toadverse health effects as well as nuisance concerns such asreduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces.

contained within the City's Noise Ordinanceduring construction. Powered constructionequipment other than impact tools would also berequired by the Trust and NPS to comply with theSan Francisco Noise Ordinance (Article 20 of theCity Police Code, Section 2907b), which limitsconstruction noise to 80 decibels at 100 ft. NPSand the Trust, in accordance with the NoiseOrdinance (Section 2908) also prohibitconstruction work at night from 8:00 p.m. until7:00 a.m. Because the federal agencies wouldrequire contractors to comply with all applicableregulations of the San Francisco Noise Ordinanceduring the construction of trails and bikeways, thealternative would have a minor effect on noiselevels.

Alternative C: Shared Use (Local, Short-Term, Minor,Adverse Impact)

Temporary construction-related noise impacts ofthe Shared Use Alternative would be less than theMixed Use Alternative, since there would be fewertrails that would be upgraded, 51.8 km (32.4 mi)compared to 56.2 km (35.1 mi). All applicableregulations of the San Francisco Noise Ordinancewould be complied with during constructionactivities. Therefore, a minor effect on noise levelswould result.

Alternative D: Dispersed Use (Local, Short-Term,Minor, Adverse Impact)

The Dispersed Use Alternative would increasenoise levels less than the Mixed Use Alternative,with 52.5 km (32.8 mi) of new trail modificationsproposed. Contractors would comply with allapplicable regulations of the San Francisco NoiseOrdinance during construction, and thereforeconstruction-related noise impacts would beconsidered less than significant.

ImpairmentNone of the alternatives would impair NPSresources or values related to noise.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTSA cumulative impact7 is the impact on theenvironment that results from the incrementalimpact of the action when added to other past,present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.Cumulative impacts can result from individuallyminor but collectively significant actions takingplace over a period of time. In general, cumulativeeffects have been described within the 1994GMPA Final EIS (for Area A) and the 2002PTMP Final EIS (for Areas A and B). Theanalysis below summarizes relevant cumulativeactions (see Appendix D) and summarizes their

impact in conjunction with the impacts of thealternatives. Because most of the cumulativeprojects are in the early planning stages, theevaluation of cumulative impacts was based on ageneral description of the project. Overall, theincremental adverse effects associated with theTrails Plan are expected to be either short-term ornegligible and are not expected to result incumulative effects that are significant. In manyinstances, the incremental contribution of theTrails Plan to the cumulative effect on the Presidiowould be beneficial.

Geology. Neither the proposed action nor thecumulative projects would increase the likelihoodor intensity of seismic activity at the Presidio, orthe risk of other geologic hazards such assettlement or landsliding. Most seismic andgeologic hazards are unpredictable andunavoidable, and would continue to affect visitorsand residents at the Presidio regardless of theproposed cumulative actions. Short-termconstruction impacts, especially those related tosoil erosion and topsoil loss, could occur withadditional cumulative projects. These cumulativesoil erosion impacts would be offset by requiredcompliance with BMPs and project StandardConditions.



7Note: The following discussion applies to all alternatives withthe exception of the No Action Alternative.

Hydrologic Resources. Construction of a DoyleDrive tunnel could result in a change to thehydrologic regime and loss and/or alteration ofthe localized wetland features and processes,vegetation richness and associated wetland habitatvalues. The tunnel could also affect establishmentof a healthy functioning wetland system betweenthe freshwater inflow of Tennessee Hollow andCrissy Marsh. Removal of the majority of socialtrails, followed by habitat restoration as called forin the VMP and the proposed project, wouldprotect wetlands from negative human intrusionsand likely have a beneficial impact on hydrologicfeatures. Cleanup of the Presidio's numerousenvironmental remediation sites under thePresidio Environmental Remediation Programwould occur within or directly adjacent tohydrologic resources, and could result in either theshort-term or long-term redirection of surfaceand groundwater flow within these areas.However, it is anticipated that the program’s long-term beneficial impacts to hydrologic resourcesand water quality would exceed the short-termimpacts by their coordination of subsequenthabitat restoration efforts with implementation ofthe PTMP, the GMPA and the VMP. Appropriatemanagement practices or mitigation measures forsubsequent programs would be identified toprovide both short-term and long-term protection

and enhancement of hydrologic resources. Finally,the proposed Mountain Lake Enhancement Planwould benefit hydrologic resources and waterquality values through restoration andmanagement activities. This beneficial effect wouldcontribute cumulatively to the presence ofvaluable water resources within the Presidio.

Biological Resources. Cumulative projects thatwould have both adverse and beneficial effects onbiological resources include the Trails Plan, thePresidio Environmental Remediation Program,the VMP and the PTMP. Construction andrecreation activities associated with these projectsmay result in trampling or removal of individualplants, soil compaction, erosion, and effects thatmay influence the presence of invasive species.Moderate levels of ground disturbing activitiesmay reduce competition from more abundant orinvasive species. Erosion may result in burial ofseed or individual plants, thus reducing the geneticvariability of the population. Beneficial effectsinclude expanded habitat area, increased publiceducation, restricted pedestrian access to sensitivevegetation, and fencing. These adverse andbeneficial effects are discussed for the individualprojects contributing to cumulative impacts below.

In addition to habitat restoration, the Trails Planwould benefit native plant communities, including

federally listed plants, protected wetlands andwildlife, by managing human access andredirecting access away from sensitive habitatareas. The establishment of and the extent ofeffects within social trails would be reduced withinareas supporting federally listed species or withinrecovery areas. Existing trails would be surfacedand/or widened, and new trails would beconstructed in the dunes near Baker Beachhousing, Inspiration Point, Lobos Creek Valley,western coastal bluffs and the Tennessee HollowCreek corridor. All trail planning would becoordinated with future restorationimplementation efforts, and final alignmentswould be selected based upon avoidance ofoptimum habitat for the establishment of listedspecies. Minimization and compensatory measuresincluded in the Final Biological Opinion andBMPs included in the Trails Plan would beincorporated into the project to minimize effectsto biological resources.

Generally speaking, projects proposed under thePresidio Environmental Remediation Programwould provide beneficial effects to biologicalresources. The cleanup sites are not currentlycomposed of native soils capable of supportingnative plant communities and listed species, butappropriate soil conditions to support native plantcommunities would be restored, as feasible,



following cleanup actions. Although theconstruction activities may result in short-termloss to adjacent habitat affected by construction,there is no permanent loss anticipated. Throughimplementation of the remediation projects,approximately 6 h (15 ac) of federally listed planthabitat would be restored at sites that currently donot provide suitable habitat for these species.

The PTMP would benefit native plantcommunities, including wildlife habitat and habitatfor listed species, primarily through the removal ofexisting buildings and infrastructure built onhabitat in the southern portion of the park.Replacement construction would not occur withinhabitat for listed species. Native plant habitatwould be expanded from the existing 28 h (70 ac),to about 84.8 h (212 ac). Construction activitiesassociated with PTMP implementation have thepotential to have a short-term effect on amaximum of three acres of existing lessingiahabitat; however, no permanent loss of existinghabitat would occur.

Projects implementing the VMP would protect,enhance, restore and rehabilitate the native andplanted vegetation of the Presidio. Guidanceprovided by the VMP would reduce the potentialfor adverse effects to biological resources andestablish a framework for a coordinatedmanagement effort in rehabilitating and restoring

native plant communities, historic forests, andlandscaped areas of the Presidio. The VMPdesignates the southwest corner of the Presidio asa Special Management Zone to further focus onthe specific conditions in this area, includingrecovery tasks for restoration and management forthe lessingia. Specific plans for forested areaswithin this zone would be prepared inconsultation with the USFWS to ensure theconservation of lessingia in the long-term.

Other cumulative projects in the Presidio,specifically the Letterman Digital Arts Center andthe Presidio Water Recycling Project, would havenegligible impacts on biological resources. TheDoyle Drive project would occur in areas that arealready developed and have relatively fewbiological resources. These projects are thereforenot expected to contribute measurably tocumulative effects on biological resources. TheTennessee Hollow Restoration and Crissy MarshExpansion would result in a net benefit to plantsand wildlife.

Cultural Resources. The analyses of potentialcultural resource impacts associated withcumulative projects address the potential for NPSand Trust actions to result in an adverse effect onindividual historic resources, the Presidio culturallandscape, and on the overall significance of theNHLD, which encompasses both Areas A and B.

Potential cumulative impacts associated with therehabilitation of currently vacant historicbuildings, replacement of non-historic buildingswith compatible new construction, rehabilitationof cultural and natural landscapes, waterconservation, improvements to traffic safety andefficiency, and enhancements to the visitorfacilities and programs, would be beneficial. Forhistoric buildings to be rehabilitated, either acompatible new use or the use for which thebuilding was originally designed would be selectedso as not to materially alter the building's definingcharacteristics. Some historic buildings may haveto be altered to accommodate new uses. In theseinstances, the standards for rehabilitationcontained in The Secretary of the Interior'sStandards for the Treatment of HistoricProperties (NPS 1992) would set the minimumstandards for proposed changes. Under Section110 of the NHPA, all federal agencies must carryout their programs in accordance with nationalhistoric preservation policy, and make efforts tominimize harm to National Historic Landmarks.Furthermore, Section 110(f) of the NHPAcharges federal agencies to afford some specialprotection to National Historic Landmarks.Specifically, it requires that the agency "to themaximum extent possible, undertake suchplanning and actions as may be necessary to



minimize harm" to a National Historic Landmarkthat may be directly and adversely affected by anundertaking. Section 106 of the NHPA requiresfederal agencies to take into account the effects oftheir actions on historic properties and seekcomments from an independent reviewing agency,the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.Adherence to the Section 106 process through theNPS and Trust Programmatic Agreements, whichprovide the frameworks for the necessaryconsultation process for proposed undertakings,would avoid unnecessary harm to historicproperties.

Impacts associated with new constructionactivities would be considered less than significant,due to:

Limits set on the level of new construction

Commitments to additional planning,environmental analysis, and public input fora proposed undertaking

NPS and the Trust's policies to preserve theintegrity of the NHLD, and to followplanning, design and building-specificguidelines

The requirement for further consultationunder Section 106 and the PAs

The Doyle Drive project could have the potentialto remove multiple historic buildings affecting theintegrity of the NHLD. For example, if most ofthe World War I warehouses are demolished, theability to interpret the history of the NHLDwould be affected. Removal of Battery Slaughterand Battery Blaney would also affect the integrityof the NHLD.

The cumulative context for archaeologicalresources includes projects within the Presidio thatcould disturb or destroy archaeological resourcesduring excavation or grading. Such projectsinclude the Doyle Drive Project, the MountainLake Enhancement Plan, the Trails Plan, and theLetterman Digital Arts Center project. TheTennessee Hollow project and any proposedexpansion of Crissy Marsh cannot be evaluateduntil specific restoration/expansion alternatives areidentified. Cumulative impacts on knownprehistoric archaeological sites or historicarchaeological resources are, in general, notexpected to be adverse. Possible exceptionsinclude prehistoric and historic sites along CrissyField, which could be subjected to impacts fromthe Doyle Drive Project and any expansion ofCrissy Marsh. In particular, for the Doyle DriveProject, any below-ground or tunnel features posethe greatest threat to buried prehistoric andhistoric archaeological sites. The Federal Highway

Administration and Caltrans would be conductingfurther investigations to identify specificarchaeological site boundaries and impacts toarchaeological sites. The Crissy Marsh Study itselfwould have no cumulative effect on archaeologicalresources because it would not developalternatives, but would provide a technical basis toinform a later environmental review process. Assuch, it would be speculative to predict specificimpacts on archaeological resources from marshexpansion or Tennessee Hollow restoration untilspecific alternatives are identified. The MountainLake Enhancement Plan is an ongoing project forwhich an archaeological management assessmentwould be prepared prior to implementation. Thelake and its original shoreline have the potentialfor prehistoric archaeological sites and for remainsof the 1776 Anza Spanish encampment. Anarchaeological field survey and testing programwould be conducted and the project would beredesigned if necessary to avoid impacts tosignificant archaeological sites. No cumulativeimpacts on archaeological resources are expectedfrom the Trails Plan because the plan calls for theredesign of routes and facilities to avoid all sucheffects. The 9.2 h (23 ac) Letterman Digital ArtsCenter project is also not expected to contributeto cumulative archaeological impacts, because noevidence of buried archaeological sites was found



during a recent investigation. Archaeologicalmonitoring would take place during thedemolition and new construction phases, and theprocess defined in the Programmatic Agreementfor the Letterman project would be adhered to.

Because implementation actions under the PTMPand the above projects would involve siteinvestigations prior to excavation and monitoringfor archaeological resources as needed duringexcavation, the likelihood that archaeologicalresources would be destroyed or damaged withoutappropriate attention to recordation and recoverywould be minimized. Therefore, cumulativeimpacts are not expected to be significant.

Traffic Safety. A number of cumulative projectswould have a beneficial effect on traffic safety inthe Presidio's trail corridors. These projectsinclude the Crissy Field Project, the PresidioInternal Shuttle, and the Golden Gate Bridge TollPlaza Redesign. These projects, individually and incombination, would reduce congestion byencouraging travel to the park by alternative formsof transportation (e.g., nonprivate vehicles). Forexample, the promenade at Crissy Field is animportant connection between San Francisco andthe Golden Gate Bridge, while a second set ofpathways adjacent to Mason Street providesalternate routes through the area for bicycles and

pedestrians, separated from automobile traffic.The Presidio Internal Shuttle provides reliable,frequent alternative transportation for residents,tenants, and visitors to the Presidio, and facilitatesaccess within the park, and to and from the park,by connections with public transit.

Implementation of the PTMP would result in asubstantial increase (about 200 percent) inpedestrian and bicycle activity within the Presidio(between 14 to 18 percent of all trips generated bythe PTMP land uses are anticipated to occur bywalking and bicycling as the primary mode). Thecumulative pedestrian and bicycle activity wouldbe generally accommodated within the existingpedestrian and bicycle network, plus proposedimprovements outlined in the Trails Plan.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have ashort-term, adverse effect on traffic safety includethe Golden Gate Bridge District Seismic Retrofit,Phase II; the Doyle Drive Environmental andDesign Study; and the Letterman Digital ArtsCenter project. The adverse effects associated withthese projects would be short term in nature,primarily related to construction-generated trafficon existing roads and trails and possible use oftrail staging areas. Construction activities would begeographically dispersed, and would occurintermittently. Cumulative effects would be

minimized through preparation andimplementation of construction trafficmanagement plans, which would provide specifictruck routes and other measures, to ensure thatindividual projects are coordinated. These projectswould not result in any net, long-term effects ontraffic safety within the Presidio. The short-term,construction-related traffic impacts that couldresult from development of site-specificcumulative projects would not appreciably alterthese long-term, beneficial impacts.

Visitor Use. Cumulative projects would have abeneficial cumulative effect on visitor experiencedue to an increased array of visitor facilitiesincluding increased regional trail connectivity, anenhanced Presidio-wide interpretive program, newpublic gathering spaces, increases in open space,and improvements to the Golden GatePromenade. The Crissy Field Plan has already hada beneficial effect on the educational andinterpretative (as well as recreational) opportunitiesfor visitors. Such planning efforts as the TrailsPlan, Bay Area Ridge Trail, San Francisco BayTrail, San Francisco Bicycle Plan, andMetropolitan Transportation CommissionRegional Bicycle Plan would collectively promoteregional trail connectivity by linking the Presidio torecreation corridors in San Francisco and the BayArea through a robust network of pedestrian and



bicycle-friendly facilities. The NPS and Trust areembarking on a park-wide interpretive programthat would enhance visitor experience and identifylocations, such as trails, where interpretiveprograms could be presented. In addition,expanded facilities and programming under thePTMP would complement the visitor experienceoffered by the NPS' Presidio operations, the restof the GGNRA and other regional visitorresources. As discussed in the PTMP EIS, theTrust would implement measures to ensure thatfuture visitation does not adversely impact thePresidio's resources or the public's enjoyment ofthe park.

Visual Resources. Removal and revegetation ofthe majority of undesignated trails, as called for inthe Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan,would have a beneficial effect on the visual qualityin the park as the areas are returned to a naturalstate. Other cumulative projects that would have anet local, long-term, beneficial cumulative effecton scenic resources include those that wouldimprove the general health of ecosystems visiblefrom or within the Presidio, including the CrissyField Project, the VMP, the Mountain LakeEnhancement Plan and the Tennessee HollowRiparian Corridor Enhancement Project.Implementation of the Crissy Field Project hastransformed 100 acres of asphalt surrounded by

chain link fence to a restored dune and tidal marshsystem, with greatly enhanced naturalistic scenicresource values. The VMP would rehabilitate andrestore native plant, historic forest, and landscapedareas of the Presidio. In particular, the VMPwould restore historic viewsheds that includeoverlooks and other vantage points locatedthroughout the Presidio by removing nonnativevegetation, and planting low-lying native plants sothat native communities can become reestablishedand clear views within historic viewsheds can bemore easily maintained. Actions in the MountainLake Enhancement Plan would also enhancenative vegetation, but would not substantially alterthe visual environment in the Presidio.

Changes within the 9.2 h (23 ac) Letterman DigitalArts Center site include replacement of theexisting 10-story former hospital, which hasimproved views within the Presidio. Constructionof improvements to Doyle Drive would generallyimprove views by placing portions of the roadwayat or below ground level. Finally, the PTMP wouldprotect and enhance natural and cultural resources,and increase the quality and quantity of openspace at the Presidio, which would have a local,long-term, beneficial impact on visual resources.The PTMP would reduce the existing overallbuilding square footage with some compatiblenew construction balanced with building removal.

New built features would be required to conformwith planning district guidelines intended toprotect visual resources. Short-term constructionrelated activities and new built features associatedwith implementation of the PTMP couldtemporarily affect visual resources. However, theseimpacts would be incremental and localized.

Air Quality. Construction activities related to thecumulative projects could contribute cumulativelyto dust and other emissions, which would haveminor, temporary effects on air quality within theAir Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict requires implementation of variouscontrol actions to minimize these effects, and thecumulative projects' contribution to basin-wideconstruction emissions would be very small.

Noise. Noise is a localized issue limited to thegeographic area adjacent to or in the vicinity of aproject or activity. Noise can be short term, duringconstruction, or ongoing, as with noise from ahighway. Short-term cumulative impacts could berelated to concurrent Presidio constructionprojects and the reconstruction of Doyle Drive.All new development would be subject to thelimitations of the San Francisco Noise Ordinance.Over the long term, cumulative actions within thePresidio would coincide with anticipated region-wide growth in traffic noise, especially from traffic



on U.S. Highway 101 and U.S. Highway 1. Noisefrom other sources and activities within thePresidio would add to this effect. Thesecumulative effects were analyzed in both theGMPA and PTMP EISs, and were found to beminor. Should Doyle Drive involve constructionof a tunnel, this would have a cumulativebeneficial long-term noise impact on the Presidio.

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROMFURTHER ANALYSIS

FloodplainsExecutive Order 11988 requires that all federalagencies conduct an analysis of their proposedaction on floodplains. Pursuant to this Order,floodplains are defined by the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency as the 100-year floodplain.The Presidio of San Francisco is located entirelyoutside of the designated 100-year floodplain, andtherefore this topic is not addressed further.

Environmental JusticeExecutive Order 12898 requires that all federalagencies evaluate the impact of proposed actionson minority and low-income populations. ThisOrder is specifically designed to prevent dispro-portionate environmental impact of federalactions on these groups. Implementing the TrailsPlan would not have an adverse impact onsurrounding populations, and these populationsare not considered minority or low-income.



Consultationand References6


Bren

da T

harp


Interagency Review

The NPS and Trust prepared the TrailsPlan/EA concurrently with other applicableenvironmental reviews or consultation asrequired under Section 7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 (16 USC 1536), Section307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of1972 (16 USC 1456) and the implementingFederal Regulations in 15 CFR Part 930, andSection 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470f). Tocomply with these requirements, the NPS andTrust actively solicited the participation of theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the San FranciscoBay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission, the Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation, and the California State HistoricPreservation Officer. The views of theseagencies, which have been integrated into theTrails Plan/EA, are discussed below. Copies ofall relevant correspondence are available forreview as part of the formal public record.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

On November 25, 2001, the Trust and the NPSrequested formal consultation with the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant toSection 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

concerning the Trails Plan. Prior to initiation offormal consultation, NPS and Trust representa-tives met and toured the Presidio with the USFWSon November 6, 2000 to discuss and orient theparties to the Trails Plan. The Trust and NPSagain met with USFWS staff on May 17, 2002 topreliminarily discuss effects of the proposed plan.In the time between the initial meeting andrequest for formal consultation, the Trust andNPS corresponded verbally and in writing withthe USFWS to review and discuss the proposedplan and consultation requirements. On July 23,2002, the USFWS issued its Biological Opinion onthe effects of the Trails Plan/EA on theendangered Raven's manzanita, San Franciscolessingia, Presidio clarkia, and the threatenedMarin dwarf flax. After reviewing the currentstatus of these plants, the environmental baselinefor the action area, the effects of the plan and thecumulative effects, the biological opinionconcluded that the Trails Plan, as proposed, willnot jeopardize the continued existence of thesespecies or adversely affect critical habitat of thesespecies. The Biological Opinion also noted that,"in addition to habitat restoration, the Trails Planwill benefit native plant communities, includingfederally listed plants, and wildlife by managinghuman access and redirecting access away fromsensitive habitat areas." Since issuance of the

Biological Opinion by USFWS, the NPS andTrust have apprised the USFWS of severalchanges to the Preferred Alternative in responseto public comments, which have resulted in along-term beneficial effect (i.e., a net gain of86.6 sm [932 sf] of proposed future habitat forthe San Francisco lessingia). Due to the beneficialnature of these changes, it was determined that nofurther formal consultation was required.

San Francisco Bay Conservation andDevelopment Commission

As the coastal management agency for the SanPursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of1972, the San Francisco Bay Conservation andDevelopment Commission (BCDC) is required toreview Federal projects which could affect thecoastal zone and determine whether the project isconsistent with the BCDC's Amended CoastalZone Management Program for San FranciscoBay. On November 15, 2002, the NPS and Trustsubmitted a description of the Trails Plan/EA andrequested that the Commission concur that theplan is consistent with the BCDC's AmendedCoastal Zone Management Program for the SanFrancisco Bay segment of the California coastalzone. Based on the information contained inthose materials, on February 20, 2003, the BCDCconsidered and found that the Trails Plan is

97CONSULTATION AND REFERENCES

consistent with the provisions of the McAteer-Petris Act and the policies of the San FranciscoBay Plan. The BCDC's Letter of Concurrenceincluded the following statements:

…[I]mplementation of the plan would involve theplacement of small amounts of materials and thesubstantial change in use of areas such that theplacement, extraction, or change in use would nothave a significant adverse effect on present orpossible future maximum feasible public access tothe Bay consistent with the project, on present orpossible future use for a designated priority water-related use, and on the environment, as defined inCommission Regulation Section 10601(b)(1) andthus is equivalent to a "minor repair andimprovement." In addition, San Francisco BayPlan Map No. 4 identifies the Presidio as a parkpriority use area and contains a policy that states"[i]f and when not needed by Army, retain at leastshoreline and undeveloped areas as regional park."(Recreation Policy 5(a) and Bay Plan Map No. 4,Policy No. 24). The implementation of the TrailsPlan would be consistent with the Bay Plan Mapnotes by encouraging recreational use of thePresidio.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation/California State Historic Preservation Officer

Section 106 of the National Historic PreservationAct (NHPA) of 1966 requires the NPS and the

Trust to take into account the effect of theirundertakings on historic and cultural resources,including the National Historic Landmark District(NHLD). The NPS and the Trust each enteredinto programmatic agreements (PA) with theACHP and the SHPO that apply to allundertakings under their jurisdictions. The PAsprovide a framework for reviewing the projecteffects internally and for consulting with otherparties under certain circumstances.

NPS and Trust staff reviewed the Trails Plan/EAand determined that the proposed undertakingwill not have an adverse effect on historicproperties that contribute to the significance ofthe NHLD, because all work will be in keepingwith the Secretary of Interior's Standards for theRehabilitation of Cultural Landscapes andHistoric Properties and will conform to theStandards, Principles and Planning DistrictGuidelines of the Presidio Trust ManagementPlan to the maximum extent possible. The NPSand the Trust are committed to conductingadditional NHPA review within their separatejurisdictions as necessary at the time individualtrail segments are designed and proposed forfunding. On February 24, 2003, the NPS and theTrust submitted the Trails Plan/EA to the ACHPand SHPO with a request for concurrence withthis determination. The NPS and Trust

supplemented this information with the record ofpublic commentary during the public reviewperiod. On March 18, 2003, the Trust and NPSheld a telephone conference with the SHPO(ACHP could not be present). Based on review ofthe information, SHPO staff (and later, ACHPstaff) concurred with the NPS and Trust findingthat there will be no adverse effect to historicproperties caused by this undertaking. In a follow-up letter memorializing the course of theconsultation, the SHPO thanked the NPS andTrust staff for "preparing an informative andresponsive consultation package for thisundertaking and for committing your agencies tocarrying out all measures needed to secure thevalidity of the 'no adverse effect' finding whenindividual actions are implemented in accordancewith the final Trails and Bikeways Plan."

List of Persons and Agencies ConsultedValary Bloom, Coast-Bay-Delta Branch,Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service

Carla Chenault, Project Analyst, California StateCoastal Conservancy

Jane Crisler, Historic Preservation Specialist,Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Mike Fris, Deputy Assistant Field Supervisor,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


98 CONSULTATION AND REFERENCES



Oliver Gajda, Assistant Bicycle ProgramManager, City and County of San FranciscoDepartment of Parking and Traffic

Andrea M. Gaut, Coastal Program Analyst, SanFrancisco Bay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission

Don Hankins, Biologist, Sacramento Fish andWildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Harvey Katz, Senior Planner, Golden GateBridge, Highway and Transportation District

Hans Kreutzberg, Chief, Review andCompliance, California State HistoricPreservation Office

Joseph E. LaClair, Senior Planner, San FranciscoBay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission

Lindy L. Lowe, Coastal Planner, San FranciscoBay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission

Michael Sallaberry, Assistant TransportationEngineer, Bicycle Program, City and County ofSan Francisco Department of Parking andTraffic

David Snyder, Executive Director, San FranciscoBicycle Coalition

Laura Thompson, Bay Trail Planner, Associationof Bay Area Governments

Holly Van Houten, Executive Director, Bay AreaRidge Trail Council

Alan Zahradnik, Director of Planning, GoldenGate Bridge, Highway and TransportationDistrict

List of PreparersNational Park Service, Golden Gate NationalRecreation AreaAndrea Lucas, Landscape Architect, ProjectManager

Garrett Lee, Natural Resources Specialist

Wendy Poinsot, Environmental ProtectionSpecialist

Heather Marashi, Environmental ProtectionSpecialist

Michelle Rios, Architect

Pat Sacks, Landscape Architect

Presidio TrustChris Ottaway, Landscape Architect, ProjectManager

Mark Helmbrecht, Senior Transportation Planner

Sharon Farrell, Natural Resources Planner

Ben Jones, GIS Specialist

Jennifer Knauer, Landscape Architect

Allison Stone, Environmental Planner

Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc.Lawrence Wight, ASLA, Project Director

Sally McIntyre, Consulting Principal

Laurel Kelly, ASLA, Landscape Architect

Sharon McNamee, Planner

Environmental Science AssociatesDavid J. Full, AICP, Project Director

Tina M. Ogawa, Project Manager

ReferencesAmerican Society of State Highway andTransportation Officials (AASHTO)

1999 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.Washington, DC: AASHTO Task Forceon Geometric Design.

Arnold, R.A.1983 “Ecological Studies of Six Endangered

Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae);”“Island Biogeography, Patch Dynamicsand the Design of Habitat Preserves.”Entomology 99:1-161.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District1999 CEQA Guidelines.

2000 Final Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan.

Bellrose, F.C.1976 Ducks, Geese & Swans of North America.

Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books.

California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG)

2000 California Natural Diversity Data Basefor 7.5 minute topographic quadrangleSan Francisco North. Accessed June2000.

California Department of Transportation(CalTrans)

2001 “Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning andDesign.” In Highway Design Manual.Sacramento, CA: California Departmentof Transportation.

California Division of Mines and Geology1997 Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating

Seismic Hazards in California. SpecialPublication 117.

2000 Seismic Hazard Zones, Official Map, City andCounty of San Francisco, California, ReleaseDate: November 17, 2000.

California Office of Historic Preservation2003 Letter to Cherilyn Widell, Presidio Trust

and Ric Borjes, GGNRA/NPS. SanFrancisco, CA, March 18.

Castellini, L.1999 Tennessee Hollow Wetland Delineation:

Planning Recommendations for RiparianCorridor Restoration of the Presidio of SanFrancisco. Prepared for Wetland Ecologyand Management.

2001 “Draft Presidio of San Francisco WetlandDelineation: U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Jurisdictional Wetlands in AreaB.” Prepared for the Presidio Trust andthe Golden Gate National RecreationArea.

Chasse, M.2001 “New rare plant population found.”

California Native Plant Society YerbaBuena News, Yerba Buena News, 15(2).

Cooper, W.S.1967 Coastal Dunes of California. Denver, CO:

Geologic Society of America, Memoir104.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter., F. Golet., and E.T Roe 1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater

Habitats of the United States. Prepared forthe United States Fish and WildlifeService.

Dames and Moore1994 Presidio of San Francisco Storm Water

Management Plan. Prepared for theNational Park Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior.

Hart, E. W.1997 Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California:

Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of1972 with Index to Special Studies ZonesMaps. California Division of Mines andGeology, Special Publication 42.

Holland, R.F.1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial

Natural Communities of California.Sacramento, CA: Department of Fishand Game.

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.1997 Presidio of San Francisco Natural Resource

Inventory and Vegetation Management Options(JSA 93-168). San Francisco, CA: GoldenGate National Recreation Area.

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, (eds.)1988 A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.

Sacramento, CA: California Departmentof Forestry and Fire Protection.




Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck

1970 A California Flora with Supplement. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department ofthe Interior

1991 Natural Resources Management Guidelines.NPS-77. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior.

1992 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for theTreatment of Historic Properties..Washington, DC: U.S. Department of theInterior.

1993 Natural Resources Management.San Francisco, CA: Golden GateNational Recreation Area.

1994a Final General Management Plan Amendmentand Environmental Impact Statement. SanFrancisco, CA: Presidio of San Francisco,Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

1994b “The National Park Service's Presidio ofSan Francisco National HistoricalLandmark Programmatic Agreement.”San Francisco, CA.

1995 Vegetation Cutting and Removal StandardOperating Procedure. Procedure Number607. San Francisco, CA: Golden GateNational Recreation Area.

1996a Landscaping and Irrigation Management Plan.Prepared by Dames and Moore.San Francisco, CA: The Presidio of SanFrancisco.

1996b The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for theTreatment of Historic Properties withGuidelines for the Treatment of CulturalLandscapes. Washington, DC.

1998 Long Range Interpretive Plan: The Golden GateNational Parks. Working Draft.

1999a Natural Resources Section of the ResourcesManagement Plan. San Francisco, CA:Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

1999b 1999 Presidio Trails Survey Data.

1999c “Special Status Species Monitoring.Golden Gate National RecreationalArea.” San Francisco, CA. [unpublished].

1999e Wetland Vegetation Occurring in the Presidio,CA. Prepared by Lara Wood.San Francisco, CA: Golden GateNational Recreation Area.

2000a Director's Order 12 - Conservation Planning,Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision-making.

2000b Golden Gate Recreation Area Special StatusSpecies Monitoring Report. San Francisco,CA: Golden Gate National RecreationalArea.

2001a Alcatraz Island Historic Preservation and SafetyConstruction Program Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement. San Francisco, CA:Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

2001b Management Policies 2001.

NPS, U.S. Department of the Interior, PresidioTrust

1999b Presidio of San Francisco VegetationManagement Plan and EnvironmentalAssessment. San Francisco, CA.

2003 Determination of No Adverse Effect forPresidio Trails and Bikeway Plan – Area Aand B of the Presidio of San Francisco.

Oakeshott, G.1977 California's Changing Landscapes: A Guide to

the Geology of the State. Columbus, OH:McGraw Hill Higher Education.

Olofson, P. R., (ed.)2000 Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community

Profiles: Life histories and environmentalrequirements of key plants, fish and wildlife.Prepared for the San Francisco Bay AreaWetlands Ecosystem Goals Project.Oakland, CA: San Francisco Bay RegionalWater Quality Control Board.


Peccia, Robert, & Associates

1993 Presidio Transportation Planning Summary.Prepared for the National Park Service,Denver Service Center. Denver, CO.

1994 Presidio Transportation Planning Summary.Prepared for the National Park Service,Denver Service Center. Denver, CO.

Poague, K. L., R. J. Johnson, and L. J. Young2000 “Bird Use of Rural and Urban Converted

Railroad Rights-Of-Way In SoutheastNebraska.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:852-864.

Presidio Trust2000a Final Environmental Impact Statement and

Planning Guidelines for New Development andUses on 23 Acres within the LettermanComplex.

2000b Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan andEnvironmental Assessment.

2001a Presidio of San Francisco Biological Assessment.

2001b Memorandum from James Meadows,Executive Director, Presidio Trust, andBrian O'Neill, General Superintendent,GGNRA, San Francisco, CA, to J. C.Kinight, Chief, Endangered SpeciesDivision, San Francisco, CA.November 26.

2002a Presidio Trust Management Plan: Land UsePolicies for Area B of the Presidio of SanFrancisco and Final Environmental ImpactStatement.

2002b Presidio Water Recycling Project EnvironmentalAssessment.

2002c “Programmatic Agreement Among thePresidio Trust, National Park Service, theAdvisory Council on HistoricPreservation and the California StatePreservation Officer Regarding thePresidio Trust Implementation Plan andVarious Operation and MaintenanceActivities for Area B of the Presidio ofSan Francisco.” San Francisco, CA:Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Rundel, Philip W., and Shari B. Stuner1998 “Native Plant Diversity in Riparian

Communities of the Santa MonicaMountains, California.” Madrono, 45(2):93-100.

San Francisco Bay Conservation andDevelopment Commission

2003 Letter of Concurrence for ConsistencyDetermination No. CN 13-02, PresidioTrails and Bikeways Master Plan.February 24.

U.S. Architectural and Transportation BarriersCompliance Board

1999 Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines:Outdoor Developed Areas.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers1990 Base Closure Draft Environmental Impact

Statement for Presidio of San Francisco.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)1989 Concept Plan for Waterfowl Habitat Protection.

Portland, OR: U. S. Department of theInterior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

1998 Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of theSan Francisco Bay Area. Portland, OR.

2000 Letter from Ecological Services Branch,Sacramento Field Office, San FranciscoCounty, California. Ref. No. 1-1-00-SP-2932. September 21.

2001 Draft Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants of theNorthern San Francisco Peninsula. Portland,OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2002 Memorandum from Acting FieldSupervisor, Sacramento Fish and WildlifeOffice, Sacramento, CA toSuperintendent, GGNRA, NPS, SanFrancisco, California. San Francisco, CA.July 23.




U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1999 “Working Group on California

Earthquake Probabilities (WG99).” InEarthquake Probabilities in the San FranciscoBay Region: 2000-2030 - A Summary ofFindings, Open-File Report 99-517.

Wagstaff, F.R.1938 “The Flora of the San Francisco Sand

Dunes: Its composition and adaptations.”MA Thesis. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia at Berkeley.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, and K.E. Mayer1988-1990 California's Wildlife, Vols I-III.

Sacramento, CA: CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game.


7 Appendices

Appendices

A. Finding of No Significant Impact

B. Response to Comments

C. Best Management Practices

D. Cumulative Project List

7

1 Introduction 2 Purpose & Need 4 Alternatives 5 Environmental Consequences 6 Consultation and References3 Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

A-1APPENDIX A


APPENDIX A. FINDING OF NOSIGNIFICANT IMPACT - PRESIDIOTRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTERPLAN AND ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT

PurposeThis Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)provides the basis for the National Park Service's(NPS) and the Presidio Trust's (Trust)determination that the Selected Action(Alternative B or the Preferred Alternative asmodified in response to public comments), asanalyzed in the integrated Presidio Trails andBikeways Master Plan and EnvironmentalAssessment (Trails Plan/EA or plan), will nothave a significant effect on the humanenvironment and does not require the preparationof an Environmental Impact Statement. Acomplete description of the Selected Action andits environmental consequences are contained inthe Trails Plan/EA, which is attached andincorporated by reference into this FONSI.

The Trails Plan/EA was developed to providepark visitors and Presidio residents and tenantswith a comprehensive and enjoyable trails andbikeways system, while protecting and enhancingthe Presidio's natural and cultural resources. A

coherent network of trails is needed to enhanceconnections among key features of the Presidio,and to create an organized, accessible, safe andmanaged means for the public to explore andexperience the Presidio's open spaces. The TrailsPlan/EA will guide management and stewardshipof the Presidio trails and bikeways network for thenext 20 years. The Trails Plan/EA is a joint effortof NPS and the Trust, the two agenciesresponsible for management of the Presidio, andmany members of the community who haveplayed a role in the planning process. The TrailsPlan/EA has been republished in its entirety toinclude changes made in response to publiccomments received on the November 2002document.

Selected ActionThe Trails Plan/EA analyzed four alternatives thatdiffered primarily in the mix of different trailtypes, and the different types of visitor experienceseach mix will create:

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative,maintains the Presidio's current trails andbikeways network and assumes that nocomprehensive changes or major new trailconstruction will take place.

Alternative B, the Mixed Use Alternative(Preferred Alternative in the Trails Plan/EA),

provides the widest range of educational andrecreational opportunities for the broadestrange of park users. This alternative offers amix of urban and natural visitor experiencesto emphasize both traditional uses of thePresidio and the park's unique location in alarge metropolitan area.

Alternative C, the Shared Use Alternative,provides the greatest number of multi-usetrails that access major points of interest inthe Presidio. This alternative accommodateslarge numbers of park users but with feweropportunities for solitude.

Alternative D, the Dispersed Use Alternative,focuses on single use trails, and providesfewer opportunities for accessible trails andoff-street recreational cycling.

NPS and Trust developed the alternatives basedon the plan's purpose and need, issues raised inscoping and other public comment. The TrailsPlan/EA disclosed the potential environmentalconsequences that may result from implementa-tion of each alternative. Based on the assessmentof potential effects, consideration of public andagency comment, and the entire administrativerecord, the modified Alternative B is designated asthe NPS' and the Trust's Selected Action. Thisalternative includes the following:

Trails and Bikeways

Implementation of the Selected Action willinclude both improvements to existing trails andbikeways and the development of new trail andbikeway corridors at the Presidio. Three basic trailtypes will be provided: pedestrian trails, multi-usetrails and bikeways. Pedestrian trails will beseparated from bike and auto traffic, offering usersthe opportunity to experience the Presidio withoutdistractions from other types of trail users. Multi-use trails will offer safe, enjoyable opportunitiesfor pedestrians, slower-speed recreational or familybicyclists, and other wheeled sports users to travelthrough the Presidio. Several different types ofbikeways will be included, depending on theintended bicycle user, roadway constraints andvehicle traffic volumes. Safety upgrades will bemade on trails and bikeways throughout thePresidio and at intersections and roadwaycrossings. Connections to city and regional bikeroutes will be improved. Specific trails andbikeways improvements will include:

Coastal Trail. Improvements will be made to anexisting 3-mile trail and bike route traversingthe coastal bluffs.

Batteries and Bluffs Corridor. A new trailcorridor will provide safe access to historicgun batteries and the shore, replacing "social"trails that are causing severe erosion.

Bay Area Ridge Trail. Improvements will bemade to an existing 2.5-mile multi-usesegment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail,connecting the Arguello Gate to the GoldenGate Bridge.

Baker Beach and Lobos Creek Valley Loop. Newand existing trail corridors will provide a 2-mile loop, including the Lobos Creek Valleyboardwalk, remnant native sand dunes andBaker Beach.

Park Boulevard. A major new north-southconnector will travel from Mountain Lake,through the Presidio Golf Course, overforested Presidio ridgetops, and through thehistoric Cavalry Stables to Crissy Field.

Ecology Trail. Improved accessibility will beprovided along the existing 2-mile loop trailfrom the top of the Main Post to InspirationPoint, with its serpentine grassland anddramatic overlook.

West Pacific/Mountain Lake Corridor.Improvements to existing trails will create amixed-use corridor paralleling the Presidio'ssouthern boundary, connecting the BroadwayGate, Julius Kahn Playground, the PresidioGolf Course, Mountain Lake, and the LobosCreek Valley.

Tennessee Hollow Corridor. A new trail throughthe restored Tennessee Hollow streamcorridor will connect Julius Kahn Playgroundto Crissy Field.

Lover’s Lane. One of the oldest foot trails inthe Presidio, Lover’s Lane will be revitalizedto improve pedestrian access and create a newparallel bikeway on Presidio Boulevard.

Presidio Promenade. Improvements to theLincoln Boulevard corridor will create a newcontinuous trail from the east edge of thePresidio, through the historic Main Post, tothe Golden Gate Bridge and the Coastal Trail.

Golden Gate Promenade. Improvements will bemade at the west end of the existing 4-miletrail providing access to Crissy Field, FortPoint and the Golden Gate Bridge. This trailis part of the regional San Francisco BayTrail.

Trailheads and Scenic Overlooks

A comprehensive system of new and improvedscenic overlooks will be included in the SelectedAction. Scenic overlooks will be strategically sitedto take advantage of the Presidio's spectacularviews. Trailheads will improve connectionsbetween trail corridors and bikeways, roadways,parking and major points of interest in the park.


A-2 APPENDIX A

Resource Protection

New trails and bikeways will help visitors enjoy thePresidio and prevent damage to sensitive habitatsand irreplaceable cultural resources. Networks ofundesignated social trails will be replaced with newsustainable trails, reducing impacts and improvingvisitor mobility. Interpretive trails will introduceusers to the Presidio's rich history and ecology.

Rationale for Not Selecting OtherAlternativesThe other alternatives were not chosen as theSelected Action for the following reasons:

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative,provided few beneficial effects orimprovements and would not correct existingtrail network deficiencies. This alternativewould avoid construction effects, but wouldnot attain the widest range of beneficial usesidentified in Chapter 5 of the Trails Plan/EAand would not enhance visitor use andexperience.

Alternative C, the Shared Use Alternative, hasthe highest potential to degrade the Presidio'senvironmental resources. Although thisalternative would actively promote bicycles asa transportation alternative and, therefore,best contribute to a comprehensive

transportation strategy, it would also requirethe most significant modifications to roadcorridors by adding the most linear miles ofmulti-use trails. Thus, the balance betweenresource protection and the promotion ofbicycle transportation was considered lessfavorable in this than the Selected Action.

Alternative D, the Dispersed Alternative, wasrejected because it failed to provide ascohesive and comprehensive a trail system asthe other alternatives. Although it wouldprovide the greatest variety of experience andphysical challenge for pedestrians, thisalternative would not provide for consistentand continuous trail connections for multipleuser groups and therefore would notencourage a reduction in automobile use to,from and within the Presidio.

Modifications to the PreferredAlternativeIn responding to specific suggestions from thepublic comments, the NPS and Trust madeseveral changes to the Trails Plan/EA, includingmodifications to the Preferred Alternative asevaluated in the Trails Plan/EA. These changesare summarized below and explained furtherwithin the responses to comments included inAppendix B of the republished Trails Plan/EA.

None of the modifications to the PreferredAlternative raise any environmental concerns orimpacts that have not been previously examined inChapter 5 of the November 2002 Trails Plan/EA.

User Conflicts

In response to requests for greater separation ofpedestrians and bicyclists, the number of multi-usetrails decreased slightly, and in some cases thelocations were modified. For example, the trailimmediately adjacent to West Pacific Avenue isnow proposed as a pedestrian trail, and the paralleltrail through the Pacific Grove and below JuliusKahn Playground is proposed as a multi-useconnection. The change is intended to reduce thepotential for conflicts between bicyclists on themulti-use trail and users of the playground.

Pedestrian Access

In response to suggestions to provide morepedestrian-only trail experiences and to retainmore of the existing social trails, the TrailsPlan/EA clarifies that the majority of social trailswill be retained, in most cases as secondarypedestrian trails, except where the trails wouldhave an adverse effect on overriding resourcevalues. To this end, the Preferred Alternative nowconverts more social trails to designated trails,including the trail leading from Battery MarcusMiller to North Baker Beach, and a connection

A-3APPENDIX A


incorporate suggestions offered during publiccomment:

Coastal Trail. A pedestrian connection fromBattery Crosby, across to the sand ladder, thendown and across Baker Beach has beenadded. This will create a pedestrian corridorconnecting the Golden Gate Bridge to the25th Avenue Gate. The multi-use trailadjacent to Lincoln Boulevard and bike laneson both sides of Lincoln Boulevard has beenretained.

Bay Area Ridge Trail. The Bay Area Ridge Trailnow crosses Washington Boulevard farther tothe west, and includes a new multi-usesegment adjacent to Washington Boulevard,connecting to Nauman Road and AmatoryLoop. A new pedestrian crossing at ParkBoulevard, as well as a new trail connection inthe forest from Park Boulevard to BatteryMcKinnon-Stotsenberg is also beingprovided. The Bay Area Ridge Trail segmentthrough the Rob Hill Campground will nowcontinue as a multi-use trail, and a newpedestrian spur has been added from north ofBuilding 1347 to the east of Building 1202 inFort Scott. The trail alignment has beenchanged to connect the HarrisonBoulevard/Kobbe Avenue intersection toRalston Avenue, rather than using Greenough

APPENDIX A

from the Washington Boulevard overlook toLincoln Avenue. In addition, in response tocomments requesting smaller, narrower multi-usetrails, the width of multi-use trails within thePreferred Alternative could be reduced frombetween 8 feet (2.4 meters) and 10 feet (3.0meters) to 6 feet (1.8 meters) to permit a moreintimate visitor experience where appropriate.

Off-Road Mountain Biking

In response to comments supporting off-roadmountain biking, the Trails Plan/EA clarifies thataccess for off-road mountain biking is providedthrough the multi-use trails within the park. Inaddition, a new multi-use trail has been included,connecting the Broadway Gate via Pacific Groveto Arguello Boulevard and the Bay Area RidgeTrail. As several commentors indicated, this trailprovides an off-road connection through thePresidio from the southeast corner of the park tothe Golden Gate Bridge. The trail can also beused with other multi-use trails and bike lanes tocreate loops throughout the park. Due to potentialunacceptable impacts on park resources andvalues, an unpaved, single-track mountain bikeexperience is not being considered as requested.


In response to commentors' suggestions, theTrails Plan/EA now acknowledges that on-leash

dog walking is a popular form of pedestrian useof trails in the park, and clarifies that Presidiovisitors with dogs on leash are allowed on allpedestrian and multi-use paths. The TrailsPlan/EA also refers to the ongoing rulemakingprocess to develop an alternative pet managementregulation for off-leash dog walking within thePresidio and the GGNRA as a whole. Nodecision regarding off-leash dog walking withinthe park will be made until the rulemaking processis completed.

Signage

In response to commentors' requests to improvesignage, the Trails Plan/EA now provides specificinformation that may be included on trailheadsigns and guides. Clear and concise roadway andtrail signage will identify trails and bikeways, guideusers to their destinations, and inform motoristsof the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians. Thenumber and type of signs will not, however, be sopervasive as to create "sign clutter" and detractfrom the park setting. The Presidio Trust and NPSwill continue to incorporate traffic calming intoplans for roadway and intersection improvementswithin their separate jurisdictions.

Specific Trail Modifications

The following changes (shown in Figure 1) havebeen made to the Preferred Alternative to


A-4

A-5APPENDIX A



A-6 APPENDIX A

Avenue, skirting Building 1340. The KobbeAvenue/Merchant Road intersection will alsobe improved.

Park Boulevard Trail. The Park Boulevard/Washington Boulevard intersection has beenmodified to create a better crossing. Thesidewalk is now proposed on the west side ofMcDowell Avenue rather than the east side,and a new pedestrian connection to CrissyField between Stilwell Hall and Building 649has been added.

Ecology Trail. The connection from QuarryRoad onto Arguello Boulevard has beenimproved for both wheelchair users travelingto Inspiration Point, and for users who wishto cross to the Presidio Golf Course.

West Pacific/Mountain Lake Corridor. Both apedestrian and a multi-use corridor will beprovided in this heavy use location to reduceuser conflicts. The locations of the multi-usetrail and the pedestrian trail through PacificGrove and Julius Kahn Playground have beenchanged so that the pedestrian trail will beadjacent to the road and the multi-use trailwill cut through the grove north of theplayground.

Tennessee Hollow Trail. A pedestrian trail will belocated within the eastern tributary as part ofthe Tennessee Hollow trail corridor.

Lover’s Lane. The intersection of Lover’s Laneand West Pacific Avenue will be modified toimprove the spur to the Broadway Gate.

Presidio Promenade. A consistent sidewalkroute and bike lanes will be provided withinthis corridor, but not a continuous multi-usetrail. The bike lanes will separate near theCavalry Stables, using Patten Road for thewestbound bike lane, and Lincoln Boulevardfor the eastbound bike lane. Crissy FieldAvenue will serve as a two-way multi-use pathwith no automobile traffic, subject to furtherTrust review and approval.

Wedemeyer Street/Battery Caulfield Road. Theconnection from the 15th Avenue Gate toWashington Boulevard will include both anuphill bicycle lane and a pedestrian path(sidewalk) rather than a multi-use path toreduce user conflicts.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative The environmentally preferable alternative is thealternative that best promotes NEPA's goals.Although each alternative does so with a differentbalance among values, all of the ActionAlternatives would enhance visitor use andexperience, support resource management,contribute to a comprehensive transportationstrategy, encourage sustainable design and

construction, and promote stewardship. TheSelected Action is, however, the environmentallypreferable alternative because it best enhancesvisitor use and experience by providing diverserecreational and educational experiences,minimizing user conflicts, improving connectionsto regional trails, and ensuring access to thePresidio's outstanding natural and culturalresources. The Selected Action provides this widerange of beneficial uses without degradation ofthe physical environment, risk to health or safety,or other undesirable or unintended consequences.

Basis for DecisionBased upon the Trails Plan/EA and the entireagency record, NPS and the Trust determined thatthe Selected Action will not have direct, indirect orcumulative significant impacts on the humanenvironment. The detailed analysis supporting thisconclusion is in Chapter 5 of the Trails Plan/EA.NPS and the Trust will impose Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) such as those identified inAppendix C as specific conditions during thedesign of individual trails projects implementingthe Selected Action. The following summarizesfactors considered in this determination.

Geologic Resources

Trails and bikeways improvements will notincrease the likelihood or intensity of seismic

A-7APPENDIX A


Visitor Use

Proposed improvements will substantially enhancethe visitor experience. Although constructionactivities may temporarily detract from the naturalsetting of the park and somewhat limit accesswithin the Presidio, development of new trailalignments will occur gradually in phases, so thatconstruction-related impacts will be localized aswell as temporary, thus lessening any short-termeffect.

Visual Resources

The increase in linear miles of trails could expandthe visible presence of improvements at thePresidio. The potential impact may be somewhatdetectable from regional vistas, but is not expectedto have a significant effect on visual resources dueto the extensive vegetative cover of the Presidioand the low-profile nature of trails. In addition,some of the new trails will replace the deleteriousimpact of inappropriately placed social trails, andin other cases, pedestrian trails or service roadswill be converted to more accessible multi-usetrails. All new trails will be designed andconstructed to visually blend with the existingsurroundings to the maximum extent feasible, andto provide access to the Presidio's remarkablescenic vistas.

activity at the Presidio or the risk of othergeologic hazards, such as settlement or landsliding. Potential soil erosion impacts will be offsetby required compliance with the BMPs included inthe Trails Plan/EA and project StandardConditions.

Hydrologic Resources

New and rehabilitated trails will avoid hydrologicfeatures, such as sensitive areas surroundingcreeks, springs, seeps and water bodies, and will bedesigned to reduce erosion and therefore reducethe likelihood of sedimentation and water qualityimpacts.

Biological Resources

Trail routes will be aligned or redesigned tomanage human access and bypass sensitive habitatareas, and designed to the extent practicable tolimit habitat effects, improve habitat values, andpromote wildlife movement. Minimization andcompensatory measures included both in the finalBiological Opinion and the BMPs in the TrailsPlan/EA will be incorporated into individual trailsprojects to minimize effects on biologicalresources.

Cultural Resources

Trail alignments will occur primarily in previouslydisturbed areas such as within existing road prisms

and along social trails to avoid disturbing historicfabric (e.g., historic curbs and retaining walls),removing trees within the cultural landscape oraltering character-defining features of the historicforest. All ground-disturbing constructionactivities will be subject to archaeologicalmonitoring in accordance with NPS' GGNRAProgrammatic Agreement or the Presidio TrustProgrammatic Agreement Stipulation XIII and thePresidio Archaeological Monitoring Protocols(whichever is applicable at the time ofmonitoring).

Traffic Safety

Any narrowing of traffic lanes on park roadwaysto provide for bicycle and pedestrian use mayresult in a small reduction in travel speed forvehicles and associated vehicle capacity. Thisimpact is considered minor because changes incapacity will not be sufficient to substantiallyincrease congestion. Reductions in lane width ordesign exceptions will be granted after carefulstudy by qualified traffic engineers to determinethat proposed projects will result in animprovement over existing conditions forpedestrians, bicyclists or automobile traffic interms of access, capacity or safety.


A-8 APPENDIX A

Air Quality

Construction of new and regraded trails maygenerate dust from "fugitive" sources, which couldhave minor, temporary effects on air quality withinthe park. As appropriate, construction contractorswill implement the Bay Area Air QualityManagement District's recommended controlmeasures incorporated as BMPs into the TrailsPlan/EA to reduce fugitive dust emissions andminimize any effects.

Noise

Construction activities associated with trailmodifications could result in a temporary increasein noise levels within the park vicinity. Contractorswill comply with all applicable regulations of theSan Francisco Noise Ordinance to minimizeconstruction-related noise impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

Overall, the incremental impacts associated withtrails and bikeways improvements will be short-term or negligible and are not expected to result incumulative effects that are significant. In manyinstances, even when combined with other past,present or future projects, the incrementalcontribution of the Selected Action to thecumulative effect on the Presidio will be beneficial.

Non-Impairment of Park Resources Pursuant to the 1916 Organic Act, NPS has amanagement responsibility "to conserve thescenery and the natural and historic objects andthe wildlife therein and to provide for theenjoyment of the same in such manner and bysuch means as will leave them unimpaired for theenjoyment of future generations." Therefore, NPScannot take an action that would "impair" parkresources within the meaning of the organicstatute.

According to NPS guidance, impairment is animpact that, in the professional judgment of theresponsible NPS manager, would harm theintegrity of park resources or values, includingopportunities that otherwise would be present forthe enjoyment of those resources or values. Animpact would be less likely to constitute animpairment to the extent that it is an unavoidableresult from an action necessary to preserve orrestore the integrity of park resources or values.An impact would be more likely to constituteimpairment if it affects a resource or value whoseconservation is:

Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identifiedin the establishing legislation or proclamationof the park;

Key to the natural or cultural integrity of thepark or to opportunities for enjoyment of thepark; and

Identified as a goal in the park's GeneralManagement Plan or other relevant NPSplanning documents.

Impairment of park resources is evaluated basedon the type and intensity of impact and in termsof the types of resources affected. In general,beneficial impacts do not constitute impairment.With respect to the intensity of impacts, negligibleand minor adverse impacts are not of sufficientmagnitude to constitute impairment. Moderateand major adverse impacts may constituteimpairment but do not automatically cause it.Rather, these impacts must be analyzed withrespect to the three criteria listed above.

An analysis concerning impairment of parkresources in Area A of the Presidio is provided atthe end of each resource topic in Chapter 5 of theTrails Plan/EA. The analyses conclude thatimplementation of the Selected Action will onlyhave minor adverse impacts to park resources orvalues. Taken as a whole, the Selected Action willimprove the long-term health of resources key to

A-9APPENDIX A


involvement opportunities. The Trails Plan/EAwas presented at a public meeting held at theGGNRA Citizens' Advisory Commission onOctober 22, 2002. In addition, three plan-relatedwalks and bike rides were offered on October 26,November 1 and November 2, 2002 for the publicto learn more about proposed trails and bikewaysimprovements.

At the time of release of the Trails Plan/EA onNovember 14, 2002, approximately 1,500 copiesof its Executive Summary were distributed toPresidio tenants and residents, local neighborhoodorganizations and groups, and project neighbors.The Executive Summary provided an overviewand key elements of the Trails Plan/EA, andinformation on the NEPA review process.Approximately 150 copies of the Trails Plan/EAwere distributed to city, state and federalgovernment agencies, public interest groups,neighbors and various individuals. Both theExecutive Summary and the Trails Plan/EA werealso available for review and accessible fordownload on the NPS' and Trust's websites(www.nps.gov/goga and www.presidiotrust.gov).The public was invited to provide oral commenton the Trails Plan/EA at a joint GGNRA andPresidio Trust public meeting held at theGGNRA Park Headquarters on January 28, 2003,during which members of the public were also

the natural and cultural integrity of the park andwill increase opportunities for public enjoyment ofthe park. Consequently, implementation of theSelected Action will not constitute or result inimpairment of park resources as provided underNPS' 1916 Organic Act.

Public InvolvementScoping

The Trust and NPS invited and encouraged publicscoping comments between October 1999 andJune 2000 to identify issues and develop goals andobjectives for the Trails Plan/EA. The scopingprocess included two public meetings, a series offocus group meetings, a design concept workshop,a survey of park users, and various opportunitiesfor written comment. Key issues that emergedfrom public scoping have been considered andaddressed in the Trails Plan/EA or responded toin the Response to Comments in Appendix B.Major scoping issues included the following:

Preserve and protect park resources

Maintain and enhance the Presidio'swilderness feel

Emphasize trail and park interpretation

Improve trail signage and park wayfinding

Develop a hierarchy of connected trails withpermitted uses for each, i.e., restrict bicyclesto certain trails

Improve on-street bicycle connections withstriped and, where possible, separated bicyclelanes

Enhance park amenities, e.g. , provide moregarbage cans, improve lighting at trailheads,construct restroom facilities

Calm park traffic and consider limited streetclosures, e.g., weekend closures

Provide additional parking at major trailheads

Enforce existing and new park regulations

Increase the number of designated off-streetbicycle trails

Develop sanctioned off-leash dog areas

Trails Plan/EA

Prior to being made available to the public, theTrails Plan/EA was featured in a cover article inthe September 2002 edition of the Presidio Post,the Trust's monthly newsletter with a distributionof more than 14,000 individuals, organizationsand agencies that are interested in activities at thePresidio. The article provided information on theTrails Plan/EA planning and environmentalreview process, issues identified through the publicscoping process and addressed in the document,goals and proposed improvements, and public


A-10 APPENDIX A

encouraged to submit written comments. Staffedtables were also set up at Crissy Field on February2 and February 9, 2003 to distribute informationand help the public understand the TrailsPlan/EA. The 90-day public review period endedon February 12, 2003.

Public Comments

By the close of or shortly after the expiration ofthe public review period, NPS and the Trust hadreceived a total of 100 written comment letters,faxes and emails on the Trails Plan/EA. Inaddition, oral comments were provided by 27individuals at the January 28, 2003 public meeting.Fourteen of those individuals submitted writtencomment letters. The names of agencies,organizations and individuals commenting on theTrails Plan/EA, and summary responses tocomments are provided in Appendix B of therepublished Trails Plan/EA. Copies of all writtencomments and the transcript of the publicmeeting are available for review in the Trust'slibrary.

In general, key issues raised by the public included:

A desire for greater separation betweenpedestrians and bicycles on the more populartrails to avoid user conflicts

A desire to retain as many existing trails aspossible as secondary pedestrian access toenhance pedestrian access to the park

A preference for greater opportunities for off-road mountain biking within the Presidio

Support for the use of trails in the park bydog walkers (either on- or off-leash)

A desire for better signage, especially on theregional trails and major bike routes, andtraffic calming measures for user safety andcomfort

A desire for improved access to andinterpretation of historic and culturalresources, such as a historic trail through theMain Post

Selected Action

The modifications to the Preferred Alternativedeveloped in response to comments weresummarized at a joint GGNRA and PresidioTrust public meeting held at the GGNRA ParkHeadquarters on May 20, 2003, and at a Trustpublic board meeting on June 17, 2003. Thechanges are included in this final version of theTrails Plan/EA.

Agency Coordination and ConsultationNPS and Trust prepared the Trails Plan/EAconcurrently with other applicable environmental

reviews or consultation as required under Section7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16U.S.C. 1536), Section 307 of the Coastal ZoneManagement Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456) andthe implementing Federal Regulations in 15 CFRPart 930, and Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). Tocomply with these requirements, NPS and theTrust actively solicited the participation of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the SanFrancisco Bay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission (BCDC), the Advisory Council onHistoric Preservation (ACHP) and the CaliforniaState Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Theviews of these agencies, which have beenintegrated into the Trails Plan/EA, are discussedbelow. Copies of all relevant correspondence areavailable for review as part of the formal publicrecord.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

On November 25, 2001, the Trust and NPSrequested formal consultation with USFWS,pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973. Prior to initiation of formalconsultation, NPS and Trust representatives metand toured the Presidio with USFWS onNovember 6, 2000, to discuss and orient theparties to the Trails Plan/EA. The Trust and NPSagain met USFWS staff on May 17, 2002, to

A-11APPENDIX A


not have a significant adverse effect on present orpossible future maximum feasible public access tothe Bay consistent with the project, on present orpossible future use for a designated priority water-related use, and on the environment, as defined inCommission Regulation Section 10601(b)(1) andthus is equivalent to a ‘minor repair andimprovement.’” In addition, San Francisco BayPlan Map No. 4 identifies the Presidio as a parkpriority use area and contains a policy that states"[i]f and when not needed by Army, retain at leastshoreline and undeveloped areas as regional park."(Recreation Policy 5(a) and Bay Plan Map No. 4,Policy No. 24.) The implementation of thePresidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan wouldbe consistent with the Bay Plan Map notes byencouraging recreational use of the Presidio.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation /California State Historic Preservation Officer

Section 106 of the National Historic PreservationAct (NHPA) of 1966 requires NPS and the Trustto take into account the effect of their under-takings on historic and cultural resources,including the National Historic Landmark District(NHLD). NPS and the Trust each entered intoprogrammatic agreements (PA) with the ACHPand the SHPO that apply to all undertakingsunder their jurisdictions. The PAs provide aframework for reviewing the project effects

preliminarily discuss effects of the proposedaction. In the time between the initial meeting andrequest for formal consultation, the Trust andNPS corresponded orally and in writing with theUSFWS to review and discuss the proposed planand consultation requirements. On July 23, 2002,USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on theeffects of the proposed action on the endangeredRaven's manzanita, San Francisco lessingia,Presidio clarkia and the threatened Marin dwarfflax. After reviewing the current status of theseplants, the environmental baseline for the actionarea, the effects of the proposed action and thecumulative effects, the Biological Opinionconcluded that the Trails Plan/EA, as proposed,will not jeopardize the continued existence ofthese species or adversely affect critical habitat ofthese species. The Biological Opinion also notedthat, "in addition to habitat restoration, the planwill benefit native plant communities, includingfederally listed plants, and wildlife by managinghuman access and redirecting access away fromsensitive habitat areas." Since issuance of theBiological Opinion by USFWS, NPS and theTrust have apprised USFWS of several changes tothe Preferred Alternative in response to publiccomments, which have resulted in a long-termbeneficial effect (e.g., a net gain of 932 square feetof proposed future habitat for the San Francisco

lessingia). Due to the beneficial nature of thesechanges, it was determined that no further formalconsultation was required.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission

Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of1972, the BCDC is required to review Federalprojects which could affect the coastal zone anddetermine whether the proposed action isconsistent with the BCDC's Amended CoastalZone Management Program for San FranciscoBay. On November 15, 2002, the NPS and Trustsubmitted a description of the proposed actionand requested that the Commission concur thatthe Trails Plan/EA is consistent with the BCDC'sAmended Coastal Zone Management Program forthe San Francisco Bay segment of the Californiacoastal zone. Based on the information containedin those materials, on February 20, 2003, theBCDC considered and found that the TrailsPlan/EA is consistent with the provisions of theMcAteer-Petris Act and the policies of the SanFrancisco Bay Plan. The BCDC's Letter ofConcurrence included the following statements:

“…[I]mplementation of the plan would involvethe placement of small amounts of materials andthe substantial change in use of areas such thatthe placement, extraction, or change in use would


A-12 APPENDIX A

internally and for consulting with other partiesunder certain circumstances.

NPS and Trust staff reviewed the Trails Plan/EAand determined that the proposed undertakingwill not have an adverse effect on historicproperties that contribute to the significance ofNHLD, because all work will be in keeping withthe Secretary of Interior's Standards for theRehabilitation of Cultural Landscapes andHistoric Properties and will conform to theStandards, Principles and Planning DistrictGuidelines of the Presidio Trust ManagementPlan to the maximum extent possible. NPS andthe Trust are committed to conducting additionalNHPA review within their separate jurisdictions asnecessary at the time individual trail segments aredesigned and proposed for funding. On February24, 2003, the NPS and the Trust submitted theTrails Plan/EA to ACHP and SHPO, with arequest for concurrence with this determination.NPS and the Trust supplemented this informationwith the record of public commentary during thepublic review period. On March 18, 2003, theTrust and NPS held a telephone conference withthe SHPO (ACHP could not be present). Basedon review of the information, SHPO staff (andlater, ACHP staff) concurred with NPS and theTrust finding that there will be no adverse effect

to historic properties caused by this undertaking.In a follow-up letter memorializing the course ofthe consultation, SHPO thanked NPS and Truststaff for "preparing an informative and responsiveconsultation package for this undertaking and forcommitting your agencies to carrying out allmeasures needed to secure the validity of the 'noadverse effect' finding when individual actions areimplemented in accordance with the final Trailsand Bikeways Plan."

FindingHaving considered the information and analyses inthe Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan andEnvironmental Assessment, the comments ofagencies and the public, the incorporation of BestManagement Practices to protect, restore andenhance the environment and the entire planningproject record of NPS and the Trust, it is thedetermination of the National Park Service andthe Presidio Trust that the Selected Action is not amajor federal action having the potential tosignificantly affect the quality of the humanenvironment. There are no significant direct,indirect or cumulative effects on public health orsafety, threatened or endangered species, siteslisted on the National Register of Historic Placesor other unique characteristics of the region. No

activities implementing the Selected Action willinvolve resource effects warranting mitigations.Implementation of the Selected Action will notinvolve unique or unknown risks, cause loss ordestruction of significant park resources or violateany federal, state or local law. Implementation ofthe Selected Action will not automatically triggerother actions that may require EnvironmentalImpact Statements.Therefore, in accordance withthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969and regulations of the Council on EnvironmentalQuality (40 CFR 1508.9), an EnvironmentalImpact Statement will not be prepared.

A-13APPENDIX A


Recommended:

_______________________________________Mai-Liis BartlingActing Superintendent, Golden Gate National RecreationArea

_______________________________________Date

Approved:

_______________________________________Jonathan JarvisRegional Director, Pacific West Region, NPS

____________________________Date

_______________________________________Craig MiddletonExecutive Director, Presidio Trust

____________________________Date

This is a true and correct copy of the final,

signed version of the Record of Decision.

Executed copies are available for review at

the GGNRA Park Headquarters and in the

Presidio Trust Library.

APPENDIX B: RESPONSE TOCOMMENTS ON THE PRESIDIO TRAILSAND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN ANDENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The public involvement process for the PresidioTrails and Bikeways Master Plan andEnvironmental Assessment (Trails Plan or plan) isdescribed in Chapter 1 of the Trails Plan and inthe text of the Finding of No Significant Impact(Appendix A). This appendix provides: 1) asummary and analysis of the number, form, originand content of comments and characteristics ofcommentors; 2) a list of all commentors (agencies,organizations and individuals); and 3) commentsummaries and detailed responses.

General

The Trails Plan was circulated for public andagency review from November 14, 2002 toFebruary 12, 2003, a period of 90 days. By theclose of or shortly after the expiration of thepublic review period, NPS and the Trust receiveda total of 100 emails and written comments onthe Trails Plan (Table B-1). In addition, 27individuals provided oral comments at a January28, 2003 public meeting. Fourteen of theseindividuals submitted written comment letters orcomment cards prepared for the meeting(included in the following total).

Written comments were received from threepublic (regional and local) agencies, six bicycle andtrails advocacy groups, five neighborhoodassociations, three historic preservation andnatural resource conservation organizations, and92 individuals (several individuals submittedmultiple written comments). Copies of all writtencomments and the transcript of the January 28,2003 public meeting are available for review in theTrust Library, at 34 Graham Street in the Presidio.

About one-third of the commentors supported orexpressed overall favorable views of the TrailsPlan (Table B-2). The Bay Area Ridge TrailCouncil (BARTC) commended the Trails Plan,saying that "when implemented, [it] will go a longway towards creating a safe and enjoyable trailsystem at an important national park." The MarinCounty Bicycle Coalition (MCBC) stated that theTrails Plan "is an excellent starting point toimproving the use of alternative transportation inthe Presidio." The Neighborhood Associations forPresidio Trails Planning (NAPP) stated that the

Trails Plan is a "comprehensive and well-considered response to the goals" set forth.

Those that expressed disapproval of the TrailsPlan generally did so because they felt that theywere part of a user group that was not wellrepresented within the Trails Plan (e.g., off-leashdog walkers and off-road mountain bicyclists). Forexample, the International Mountain BicycleAssociation (IMBA) commended the Trails Plan asbeing "generally well thought-out," but "short-sighted to completely ignore mountain biking."Others believed there to be a "glaring omission"that the Trails Plan was silent with respect to dogwalkers and off-leash recreation within the park.These issues are addressed in greater detail in theresponses to comments provided below.

Many of those commentors expressing generalsupport for the Trails Plan also stated a position infavor of one of the alternatives (Table B-3). Onlyone individual supported Alternative A (the NoAction Alternative), because, among other reasons,"any further development of areas for usage bythe public will only be invasive and destructive to

B-1APPENDIX B


Table B-1. Format of Written Comments

E-Mails 66

Letters or Faxes 28

Comment Cards from Public Meeting 6

Total 100

Table B-2. General Position of Commentor

Offered General Support of the Trails Plan 31

Expressed Dissatisfaction with the Trails Plan 13

No Stated Position on the Trails Plan 68

the park's natural environment" and "the changesproposed will not bring any more revenue to thepark but will surely incur ongoing increasedexpense." Seven commentors, including NAPP,stated a preference for Alternative B (with severalrecommended modifications) because they believeit provides the broadest range of trail types andwould be inclusive of the most park users. MCBCcalled Alternative B a "well-developed balance forthe Presidio." BARTC and seven others favoredAlternative C because they believed it providedmore multi-use/shared trails than the otheralternatives: "We believe multi-use trails can besafely enjoyed when properly planned andconstructed." The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition(SFBC) and three others endorsed eitherAlternative B or C, "as they seem to offer the bestand most promising choices for bicycles in thePresidio." Only one commentor preferredAlternative D, because he favored separatingbicyclists from pedestrians.

Half of the individuals submitting writtencomments explicitly characterized themselves insome particular manner (e.g., "I am a trailrunner"). Of those individuals who identifiedthemselves as a particular type of user, the largestgroups were mountain bikers followed by SanFrancisco residents (Table B-4).


B-2 APPENDIX B

Table B-4. Self Identity of Commentors(User Types)

Mountain Biker 13

San Francisco Resident, Nonspecific 8

Neighbor 7

Presidio Bicycle Rider and Commuter 3

Dog Owner/Walker 3

Business Executive 1

Ex Presidio Soldier 1

Frequent to San Francisco 1

Hike Leader 1

Hiker 1

Industrial Light and Magic Employee 1

Marin County Resident 1

Monterey County Resident 1

Presidio Resident 1

San Francisco Home Owner 1

San Francisco Property Owner 1

A “Senior About to Join the Presidio YMCA” 1

No Identified Type 46

Table B-3. Preference of Commentors in Supportof the Trails Plan

Preferred Alternative A 1

Preferred Alternative B 7

Preferred Alternative B or C 4

Preferred Alternative C 8

Preferred Alternative D 1

Roughly half of all comment letters offered apersonal preference or opinion on a single issue(Table B-5).

Finally, only one comment letter received offeredcomments on the environmental consequences ofthe alternatives (Chapter 5), and these commentswere limited to the No Action Alternative and thediscussion of impairment to park resources andvalues.

A list of commentors on the Trails Plan isprovided in Table B-6.

Table B-5. Single Issue Letters, Emails andComment Cards

Allow Off-Road Mountain Biking 19

Prohibit Off-Road Mountain Biking 11

Allow Off-Leash Dog Walking 18

Prohibit Off-Leash Dog Walking 1

Prohibit Crushed Rock for Trail Surfaces 1

B-3APPENDIX B


City and County Government Agencies

Individuals Michael Alexander Alan Frame Keith Kelsen Dan ReynoldsCasey Allen Gary S. Fergus Chris Lang Brian RogersTerri Alvillar Jeff Gibson Ellen Lapham Kathy RothCarol Arnold Merel Glaubiger Jennie Lee Jacques RutschmannJonathan Baker Kent Goldman Jo Leggett Keith Saggers*David Green Baskin, Baskin & Grant, LLP Stephen Golub* John Lewis Robert G. SchuchardtJean Behse Rebecca Gray T. Lovato Kelsey SchwindKelly Bennett Thackary Grossmansky Frank Lurz Charlotte ShultzBob Berry Meeghan and Jon Guidi William R. Mains Karl W. Steinbrecher, CFAConnie Berto William Hadley Evan Marquit Joseph StromanElaine Best Alice Wiley Hall Keith McAllister Aaron DelloIacono ThiesLucia Bogatay* Jane F. Hickerson and Glenn L. Mary McAllister Peter ThompsonRod Brown Karin Hu Joanne McGarry* Vicki TiernanRobin Buckley Anthony Imhof* Shawn McGhie Sharon TsiuChristy Cameron Valerie S. Iwata Gilman Miller Martin Unversaw*Margory Cohen Lorene Jackson Nancy Montgomery Suzanne M. ValenteTom Coleman Marilyn Jasper, Clover Valley Michael Mooney Mike VandemanJessica Conner* Fimban Jewell* Margaret Moore Lisa Vittori*Carol C. Copsey, Esq., The Berkeley Law Group, P.C. Mary Johnson Jeff Morley, DDS Mike Waite Peggy da Silva Rebecca Johnson William Newmeyer Elisabeth WarrenJohn Dalessio William R. Kales Paul W. Nordquist Margaret Zegart*Matthew E. Dambrov, Esq. Erika L. Karr Susann Novalis, PhDDavid Deuber John Keating, Esq.* Jonathan Rayner*

National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)

Historic Preservation Organizations

Natural Resource Conservation Organizations

Regional Agencies

Bicycle and Trails Advocacy Groups

Neighborhood AssociationsSan Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC)Cow Hollow Association Inc. (CHA)Lake Street Residents Association (LSRA)

Fort Point and Presidio Historical Association (FPPHA)

Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Trails Planning (NAPP)Trails Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR)Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors (PHAN)California Heritage Council (CHC)

San Francisco Tree Council (SFTC)*

Table B-6. Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Commenting on the Trails PlanGolden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD)San Francisco Bay Trail (SFBT) (Administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments)Recreation and Park Department of the City and County of San FranciscoBay Area Ridge Trail Council (BARTC)International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC)Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, California Field Office (RTC)Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers (ROMP)

*Oral Comments at Public Meeting Only.

Responses to CommentsSummaries of the comments received andresponses are provided below. Comments andresponses are organized by subject matter, withsimilar comments grouped together for response.In many instances, the source(s) of the commentis noted within the comment summary. Allsubstantive comments have been considered andresponded to equally. Responses may provideexplanations and clarifications, as well as indicateany changes to the Trails Plan made in response tocomments. Original comments are available forreview in the Trust Library at 34 Graham Street,in the Presidio. Comment summaries andresponses are organized into the following topicareas:

Comprehensibility of Trails Plan

Goals and Priorities

User Separation and Conflicts

Secondary Pedestrian Trails vs. Social Trails

Improved Signage and Traffic CalmingMeasures

Non-Infrastructure Improvements and PublicTransit

Character and Width of Trails and Bikeways

Historic and Cultural Resources

Mountain Biking and Off-Road Trails


Equestrian Use

Tennessee Hollow

Greenwich Gate

Trail Programs and Organized Bicycle Events

Future Public Input and Adjustments to TrailsPlan

Environmental Consequences

Changes to the Preferred Alternative

Miscellaneous Suggestions

Comprehensibility of Trails Plan

Several commentors requested that the Trails Planbe clearer, particularly to those with littleknowledge of the Presidio. One individualsuggested that the maps include street names andmore detailed maps to show the differencesbetween trail segments.

Response. A new location map has been addedto Chapter 4 to show street names, and manylocations within the park are now identified on thefigures. Modifications to the Preferred Alternativefrom the November 2002 Trails Plan arehighlighted in Figure 1-3. Pedestrian and multi-usetrails describe pedestrian circulation inFigures 4-3A, 4-4A, 4-5 and 4-6A. On-streetbicycle routes appear on Figures 4-3B, 4-4B and4-6B. In addition, trails that are part of the trailcorridor network appear in Figure 4-2.

Goals and Priorities

One individual commented that the goal of theTrails Plan should be to provide access, yetmaintain a quiet reflective atmosphere in keepingwith the spirit of a national park. "[T]his planseems to err on the side of bicycle traffic and notto walkers, hikers, the disabled and birdwatcherswho have little to call their own." SFBC believedthat the Trails Plan's priorities should be placed onaccommodating bicyclists of all skill levels andtypes in the Presidio. "[A]s many choices aspossible in bike facilities should be offered… notonly to existing cyclists, but also to potential riderswho may choose to bike if the park's facilities areimproved to be more inviting to new cyclists."

Response. A variety of users share the Presidioof San Francisco, including walkers, hikers, dogwalkers, birdwatchers, recreational and commutingcyclists, families with children, family bicyclegroups, runners and mountain bikers. In anattempt to accommodate all user groups to someextent, the Preferred Alternative in some areasemphasizes a quiet, reflective atmosphere, and inothers a more social, promenade experience. Asreflected in the goals in Chapter 2 of the TrailsPlan, the intent is to provide for a variety ofrecreational experiences for the many users of thePresidio, while also providing for both cultural and


B-4 APPENDIX B

natural resource protection. The PreferredAlternative, as modified in response to comments,provides a balance between recreational uses andthe other goals of the Trails Plan. For a summaryof the changes to the Preferred Alternative, seeChanges to the Plan in Chapter 1. Where thebalance is drawn is a complex task involving theweighing of the needs of many different usersand many different interests.

User Separation and Conflicts

SFBC and others suggested that, in general, autotraffic should be de-prioritized throughout thepark: "This means that car parking should not bemade ample and speed limits should be kept at 15miles per hour… for the safety of all park users."

NAPP, Trails Planning Association for theRichmond (PAR), Presidio Heights Association ofNeighbors (PHAN), the California HeritageCouncil (CHC), and a number of individualsrecommended that for the safety of both parties, agreater separation between pedestrians andbicycles be provided on the more popular trails,especially on steep trails where bicyclists' speedmay be of greater significance. One individualstated that, because of the difficulty of enforcingspeed limits, multi-use trails tend to createconflicts for both pedestrians and bicyclists.Another urged to "[f]orce cyclists to obey traffic

laws and avoid swearing at and running downpeople," and "[m]ake abusive language fromcyclists an offense." Yet another stated that theTrails Plan's emphasis on multi-use trails "bydefinition" forces conflict between the differinguses that "must share the common path." "It ishard to contemplate the scenic beauty if you arebumping into other users." Another individual,who also made reference to off-leash recreation,said that "[c]onflicts can and should be addressed,but elimination of the activity (mountain biking)clearly would cause far more problems than itsolves." The issue may be best summarized by thefollowing comment: "While trail sharing can beboth workable and desirable, many cyclists, as wellas many hikers and other pedestrians, would prefersome opportunities for usage separation."

Response. The suggestion that auto traffic be de-prioritized in the park is consistent with the goalsand objectives of the Trust and NPS. Primarytransportation objectives include minimizingprivate automobile use, increasing the use andavailability of transit and increasing pedestrian andbicycle options. The Trust's parking managementpractices include reducing parking supplies to alevel just five percent greater than demand, andreducing the demand for parking with highparking fees and other measures. Transit service isprovided by MUNI, Golden Gate Transit, and the

PresidiGo Shuttle. Currently, the speed limitwithin the Presidio is 25 mph or less, with theexception of Lincoln Boulevard between the 25thAvenue Gate and Merchant Road where the speedlimit is 30 mph. Per the California Vehicle Code,speed limits of 15 mph are only appropriate onalleys or at rail crossings or intersections withextremely limited sight distance. The existingspeed limits within the park are intended toprovide for a comfortable environment forbicyclists and pedestrians without overly restrictingthe flow of automobile traffic.

The Trails Plan provides an appropriate balancebetween all existing park recreational uses, whilealso providing improved resource protectionthroughout the park. Given the substantialdemand for public use within the park, somechange in the visitor experience is inevitable aslocation-specific trail adaptations are implementedor as use increases. The Trails Plan does providefor some instances of separate use, but given therelatively small acreage of the Presidio and thehigh demand for open space and recreationalopportunity, shared use trails are appropriate inmany areas within the Presidio. Use conflicts canand will be reduced by developing trails of anappropriate width and grade for expected uses. Anappropriately graded multi-use trail will not besteep enough to encourage high speed cycling. In

B-5APPENDIX B


other areas, dispersed pedestrian trails and bikelanes for high-speed bicycle travel are provided. Inresponse to comments, a number of changes havealso been made within the Preferred Alternative toreduce potential user conflicts by improving trailconnections and intersections.

With regard to the enforcement of bicycle speedlimits, one goal is to initiate a trails stewardshipprogram, in which users would be encouraged toparticipate in trail maintenance activities, includingmonitoring and controlling bicycle speed limits.Enforcement of speeding in the Presidio is theresponsibility of the U.S. Park Police (USPP) andin Area A, NPS rangers. The Trust and NPS meetregularly with the officers and rangers to discussincreased enforcement of speeding and othermoving violations that apply to both vehicles andcyclists.

Secondary Pedestrian Trails vs. Social Trails

NAPP, PAR and several individuals recommendedthat the Trails Plan retain as many existing trails aspossible as secondary pedestrian access routes.They suggest that some existing social trails couldbe better designed to protect vegetation and avoiderosion. Several individuals expresseddisappointment that few pedestrian-only trailsseemed to be contemplated. ("The social trail westof the guardrail along the Coastal Trail is an

example.") Several neighborhood associationsclaimed that closed social trails are likely to be re-established if a designated trail is not provided.One individual remarked that social trails "are theproduct of short term thinking: if I trompthrough here, it will take me from A to B.Subsequent users are typically exhibiting herdbehavior." He continues: "[B]efore removing asocial trail, the reason for its creation needs to bedetermined, and an alternative with fewer or noimpacts provided where possible." Anotherindividual seeks greater accommodation of trailuses with natural resource protection: "Theoperating assumption ought to be preservation ofexisting trail uses with the minimum impactnecessary to accomplish other park goals." Andlater: "The presumption must be to preserve – notto close down the existing trail system." TheNational Parks and Conservation Association(NPCA) and others support the removal of socialtrails that impede natural processes or disruptsensitive habitat: "[W]e urge you to remaincommitted to restoring a more native naturalenvironment to the Presidio." However, not allshared this opinion: "Do not plant sensitive nativeplants that remove recreational space," and "thePark Service should be in the business offacilitating appreciation and use of the park, not inthe business of fencing the public out of parks."

Another requested that the Trails Plan clearly statehow many social trails will be replaced bydesignated trails. "We will not be herded into ahandful of public spaces that have not yet beenclaimed by the native plant movement…Closingone-third of the trails in the Presidio is notreasonable accommodation."

Response. The Preferred Alternative providestrail connections where there is a clear demand forone, but removes social trails that create redundantconnections or where the resource valueoutweighs the need for trail access. NPS and theTrust recognize that a social trail is evidence of adesired connection through the park. In manycases, the Preferred Alternative calls for a socialtrail corridor to be upgraded as the permanentalignment for a designated trail, except in areaswhere doing so would exacerbate problems suchas erosion or damage to native ecosystems orhistoric forest. In most cases where the Trust andNPS have proposed to close social trails, there area multitude of small, interwoven social trails thatoften provide a similar experience in similarconditions. By creating a single, well-designedcorridor, the connection can be maintained whileeliminating or minimizing the deleterious effectson resources associated with social trails.

The Trails Plan preserves the trail system andcreates a sustainable, well-designed trail network,


B-6 APPENDIX B

so that trails and trail use do not lead to damageof natural and cultural resources. Smaller,secondary trails that have a very similar feeling andprovide nearly equivalent access to existing socialtrails are provided for and shown in the PreferredAlternative as secondary pedestrian trails. Withinthe Preferred Alternative, there are 33.1 km(20.7 mi) of pedestrian trails. Of the 15.9 km (9.9mi) of social trails that are mapped within thepark, 8.8 km (5.5 mi) are being converted todesignated trails. Refer to Table 5-1 in the TrailsPlan for details of social trail conversion.

In response to comments, the PreferredAlternative has been altered to reflect the desirefor fewer trail closures and more pedestrian-onlypaths. More social trails will be converted todesignated trails, including the trail leading fromBattery Marcus Miller to North Baker Beach, anda connection from the Washington Boulevardoverlook to Lincoln Avenue. These changes willimprove public access where there is a highdemand, without sacrificing resource values orprotection because the number of multi-use trailsis being decreased, and more emphasis is beingplaced on improved pedestrian trails and thenetwork of on-road bike lanes.

With regard to the California Coastal Trail,Lincoln Boulevard is a narrow, busy street. Theconversion of the existing social trail west of the

guard rail to a multi-use trail will allow familybikers, hikers and runners to experience thisunique corridor without having to negotiate heavytraffic. An additional opportunity for pedestriansto get away from traffic and experience the coastalbluffs and ocean is provided by the trail thatextends down the bluffs to North Baker Beach.

Improved Signage and Traffic Calming Measures

Several commentors encouraged NPS and theTrust to provide better signage, especially on theregional trails. "The Presidio, despite all the goodwork since it was turned over by the Army,remains a confusing place and lack of trail signsadds to this." And: "Picking up [the Ecology Trail]from the Main Post was pure guesswork, and itwasn't until I could identify Inspiration Point onthe upper end that I knew I was on the rightpath." PAR cautioned that pedestrians andbicyclists must be informed "clearly and concisely"of the designated use for each trail and bikewaysection in the Presidio, and recommended usingdiagrams and electronic media. However, PHANrecommended that signage along all trails be as"discreet" as possible.

Several commentors requested signage at specificlocations. BARTC requested that the Trust andNPS encourage the Bridge District to providesignage for the Bay Area Ridge Trail, theCalifornia Coastal Trail and the San Francisco Bay

Trail, as well as a kiosk or wayside sign aboutregional trails near the Golden Gate Bridge plaza.One individual requested better signage on LongAvenue. NAPP requested that signs be added"reminding bicyclists to limit speed and watch forpedestrians along the Golden Gate Promenadeand West Pacific Avenue from Arguello Boulevardto 15th Avenue." The San Francisco Bay Trail(SFBT) requested that Bay Trail signs be includedin the design of trailhead displays, trail markersand directional signs.

SFBC commented that all major bike routes in thepark should be striped, including the length of thefollowing streets: Lincoln Boulevard, ArguelloBoulevard and Presidio Boulevard. For areaswhere Class II and Class III bike routes are theonly feasible alternatives, NPCA recommendedappropriate steps be taken to slow traffic in theseareas, have clearly defined bike lanes, lighting andsignaling to improve the safety and comfort ofroad cycling. One individual approved of onlystriping Class 2 bike lanes in the uphill direction,but would like to see signs posted at the start ofdownhill roadway segments reminding motoriststo watch for bicycles and share the road. SFBCconcurred: "Where streets are too narrow to addbike lanes, signage should be installed stating'Bikes Allowed Use of Full Lane' as is being donein hundreds of places around the city."

B-7APPENDIX B


MCBC and several individuals had specificsuggestions for traffic calming and signage, suchas raised pedestrian sidewalks for increased userawareness, map kiosks at key trailheads for userroute finding, and "fog line" striping (stripingalong the shoulder) on Class III bike routes toincrease separation of motor vehicles andbicyclists. The Rails to Trails Conservancy (RTC)and others also encouraged clearly delineated bikelanes, improved lights and signaling, and otherefforts to improve bicycle safety and comfort.One individual recommended investigating one-way roads with contra flow bike lanes to increasesafety for pedestrians, joggers and bicyclists.PHAN encouraged developing a means to enforce"No Bicycling" signs on trails where bicycles areprohibited.

Response. The Trails Plan calls for clear andconcise roadway and trail signage to identify trailsand bikeways, to guide users to their destinationsand inform motorists of the presence of bicyclistsand pedestrians. The number and type of signscalled for will not, however, be so pervasive as tocreate "sign clutter" and detract from the parksetting. The specific information that may beincluded on trailhead signs and guides is nowlisted in Chapter 3 of the Trails Plan. The Trustand NPS are currently working with the GoldenGate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District

(GGBHTD) to develop improvements to the BayTrail connecting Crissy Field and the bridge plaza.These improvements will include addressingwayfinding issues.

The Trust and NPS will continue to incorporatetraffic calming into plans for roadway andintersection improvements within their separatejurisdictions. Several projects that specificallyaddress pedestrian and cyclist safety and slow thespeed of vehicular traffic are currently underwayor scheduled for construction, and others will beplanned in the future as funding and budgetspermit. Near term projects include providing ClassII bike lanes and a continuous sidewalk onLincoln Boulevard between the 25th Avenue Gateand Pershing Drive. Providing for safe andefficient pedestrian and bicycle travel with theimprovements identified in the Trails Plan and theassociated increased presence of alternative modesof transportation will also inherently reduce thespeed of vehicular traffic by making motoristsaware of cyclists and pedestrians. On bikewayswhere adequate width for striped bike lanes is notavailable, signage or paving stencils will beprovided over time to designate a bikeway as aClass III shared bike route, which will both warnmotorists and guide cyclists. Road widening maybe considered in some cases to allow the additionof bike lanes.

With regard to striping on all major bicycle routes,striping is proposed on Lincoln Avenue, exceptnear the Cavalry Stables where the westboundcyclists will use Patten Road and a new multi-useconnector. Arguello Boulevard will be striped onthe uphill side only, expecting that downhillcyclists will take the lane; and Presidio Boulevardwill also be striped in the uphill direction only.Other striping is shown in Figure 4-4B, Alter-natives B and C - Mixed Use and Shared Use On-Street Bicycle Routes. Signs that read "BicyclesAllowed Full Use of Lane" will be posted whereappropriate.

Non-Infrastructure Improvements and Public Transit

NPCA and MCBC stated that the Trails Plancould go further in providing policy recommenda-tions, guidelines and incentives for current andfuture employees, users and residents of thePresidio to use alternative transportation modes toget to and around the Presidio. Recommendationsincluded valet bicycle parking for special events,transportation demand management programs forPresidio employees and tenants, weekend closureof roads to motor vehicle traffic (such as onWashington Boulevard), bicycle rentals andbikeways and trails information. SFBC and otherscommented that there is a clear need for morebike parking in the park, particularly at highdestination spots. "Many a time I've locked my


B-8 APPENDIX B

bike to a forlorn signpost (if not already taken!),hoping it will be there when I return." GGBHTDsupports efforts to coordinate bicycle-pedestriancirculation with public transit: "It is also importantthat a trail's impact on safe and efficient busoperation be considered during the developmentof a specific trail plan."

Response. Many of the suggested policy recom-mendations and guidelines have already beenadopted as part of the Presidio TrustManagement Plan (PTMP) or are part of the NPSGeneral Management Plan Amendment (GMPA),and therefore do not need to be reiterated in thenewly proposed actions under the Trails Plan. ThePTMP describes the jobs-housing balance that willallow more Presidio-based employees to live in thepark, as well as the Transportation DemandManagement (TDM) Program and parkingmanagement program that provide incentives touse alternative transportation modes (see PTMPAppendix D). The PTMP (page 49) also calls forfurther study of the pros and cons of trafficrestrictions on Washington Boulevard. NPS isincluding many of these concepts in its planningfor Area A.

The Trust and NPS may consider implementationof measures that are not explicit in the policies ofPTMP or the TDM program (e.g., valet bicycleparking at events, bicycle rentals or temporary

weekend road closures) as part of the ongoingmanagement of Presidio events and programs.For example, the Trust has committed to futurestudies to evaluate the pros and cons of trafficrestrictions on Washington Boulevard. No long-term commitments are being made on these issuesin the Trails Plan beyond the policies adopted inPTMP.

The Trails Plan calls for bike racks to be placed atmany trailhead locations. Installation of bike racksthroughout the Presidio is part of the TDMprogram described in the PTMP. The Trust andNPS will continue to install bike racks in the parkand assist tenants with adding bicycle parking.

During trail and bikeway implementation, theTrust and NPS will consider the locations oftransit stops in specifically locating trails andbikeways, as well as the additional lateral spaceneeded by transit buses within the roadway crosssection, particularly where buses will need tonegotiate turns.

Character and Width of Trails and Bikeways

One individual suggested that pedestrian trailsshould generally be narrower to permit a moreintimate and calm visitor experience: "Trail widthshould be matched to surrounding scenery." Herecommends a 1.8 m (6 ft) minimum standard forClass 2 bikeways to allow safe passing. Another

suggested that multi-use trails need not be 4.2 m(14 ft) wide, and that 1.2 m (4 ft) wide wouldeasily accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists: "Awonderful example exists at Old Springs Trail inMarin in the Tennessee Valley area. A perfectmodel for dispersed." Another commentordisagreed: "The handlebars on a mountain bikeare typically 24 inches wide, and the width of aperson's shoulders ranges in size, but can be asmuch as 22 inches or more. This leaves very littleroom for clearance on a 36- to 48-inch path." Headded: "The experience of repeatedly beingpassed by cyclists traveling at speeds of 15 milesper hour and more, commonly makes pedestriansexceptionally nervous and apprehensive. These arenot experiences sought by people that come tovisit parks." One commentor noted that"[t]hroughout all counties of the Bay Area, fireroads are roughly 6-foot wide dirt trails thataccommodate multi-use traffic well."

Another commentor noted that, where possible,trails should be wheelchair accessible: “[H]owever,there may be places where that is not possible dueto the destruction that a wide multi-use trail wouldcause (such as along the California Coastal orEcology Trails). In those cases, I would encourageupgrading existing roads (such as LincolnBoulevard or Arguello Boulevard) to safelyaccommodate wheelchairs." Finally, one individual

B-9APPENDIX B


suggested that "crushed rock" not be used for trailsurfacing because such surfaces are "veryaggressive" to bare feet.

Response. The Trust and NPS have carefullyweighed the needs and desires of trail usersagainst the available overall width in trail corridorsand the objective of minimizing negative impactsto natural and cultural resources. Thisconsideration led to identification of multi-usetrails in some corridors and pedestrian trails andbike lanes in others.

The Trails Plan strikes an intricate balancethroughout the planned system among these manycompeting issues, factors and interests. Indetermining the standard width of multi-use trailsas discussed in Chapter 3, the Trust and NPSconsidered the comfort of two-way cyclist andpedestrian travel. Based on the commentsreceived, the minimum width has been changedfrom 2.4 m (8 ft) to 1.8 m (6 ft). It should benoted that this is proposed as a standard width,and may be adjusted in some situations whereappropriate. In addition, most trails that appear inthe Preferred Alternative as multi-use trails will bewheelchair accessible, as will certain pedestriantrails. Although many commentors wereconcerned about shared trails, proper design,alignments and trail user education are appropriate

means to minimize potential user conflict. Multi-use trails remain necessary and appropriate insome areas. With increasing use of the park, it isimportant that all users be encouraged to sharetrails courteously.

Similarly, the standard width of Class II bike lanesuses AASHTO and Caltrans standards, andexceptions are determined based on the availableoverall width, the minimum width that wouldsafely accommodate cyclists and the maximumwidth beyond which motorists tend to use thebike lane for parking or as a passing lane. Per theTrails Plan, bike lanes may be as narrow as 4 feetin very constricted locations, with the standardClass II bike lane 5 ft wide.

In response to the request that crushed rock notbe used, the Trust and NPS carefully select surfacematerials for trails, taking into account factorssuch as the purpose and location of a trail or walk,and the potential for erosion and otherenvironmental impacts. While crushed rock maybe used, stabilized, compacted decomposedgranite is a proposed granular surface and it issmoother than crushed rock. In other cases, thenative soil material may be used, where feasible.For safety reasons, neither the Trust nor NPSendorse barefoot trail use.

Historic and Cultural Resources

Both CHC and the Fort Point and PresidioHistorical Association (FPPHA) urged the Trustand NPS to provide better access to andinterpretation of historic and cultural resources,such as a historic trail through the Main Post anda trail spur to the former Nike Missile site.

Response. The Trails Plan includes the PresidioPromenade and connectors throughout the MainPost, providing access to historic sites in the MainPost area and other areas, and to non-historic sitessuch as the former Nike Missile site. Interpretationof historic, natural and other resources may beaccomplished along the trails through the use ofsigns or trail guides. Development of a guide tothe historic Main Post, using the route suggested,is compatible with goals of the Trails Plan, as is aguide to the Batteries and Bluffs loop, whichwould include the former Nike Missile site. Inresponse to the comments, the sentence about"access to and/or interpretation of historic andcultural resources" in the November 2002 TrailsPlan has been revised in the republisheddocument to read "access to and interpretation ofhistoric and cultural resources."


B-10 APPENDIX B

Mountain Biking and Off-Road Trails

The issue of off-road mountain biking generatedmore comments than any other issue within theTrails Plan, and was the subject of at least oneletter writing campaign (see "Access Alert:Mountain Biking in the Presidio" onwww.romp.org). Many commentors believed thatnone of the alternatives allow for any off-roadmountain biking within the Presidio, and notedthe absence of trails in San Francisco and thelimited opportunities for the sport. "The Presidiois a tremendous resource that represents anoutstanding opportunity for this kind ofrecreation in the midst of an urban environment."And: "It is hard to imagine that trail cycling –shared-use, narrow trails, dedicated wider trails, orboth – could not be accommodated somehow."On the whole, mountain bicyclists maintained thatthe sport is a legitimate form of trail use withmanageable physical and social impacts (i.e.,through proper design and trail maintenance) andassert that they are responsible trail users,respectful of others ("it seems both wasteful andunfair to declare that certain users must goelsewhere").

Mountain bicyclist advisory groups, such as IMBAand Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers(ROMP), offer reasons why off-road mountain

biking in the Presidio is important. They explainedhow and why multi-use off-road biking is safe andfeasible, how mountain biking can improve therecreational experience in the Presidio and howsustainable trail building techniques makemountain biking no more damaging to the trailthan any other use. Individuals wrote about theirbackgrounds, volunteer and trail buildingexperiences, and how the mountain bikingcommunity is instrumental in improving publictrails.

Commentors supporting off-road mountainbiking offered thoughtful suggestions. Twoindividuals suggested a system of alternate use inwhich all user groups have a designated use time("timesharing") which would be prominentlyposted at the trailhead and along the trail. Anotherrequested a trial period, the outcome to dependon "trail maintenance dedication, erosion controland effect, and balanced and structured publicfeedback." The same individual also suggested apermitting system: "For say, a moderate annualfee, users could have permits to ride on trails," andtrail use could be subject to "[w]eather/trailcondition-controlled access." Yet another notedthat mountain biking participants are often in highincome brackets, and given the Trust's need foreconomic self-sufficiency, to ignore mountainbiking "will serve only to alienate a large portion

of the area's population that might otherwise usethe trails and other income-generating facilities inthe Presidio." Several commentors suggested thatif off-road bikeways are permitted, they should bepart of a loop, "or bicyclists will create an off-roadsocial loop of their own."

Others did not share the views of mountainbicyclists and urged the Trust and NPS not toallow off-road mountain biking in the Presidio,and suggested that the activity is "an ugly can ofworms," "uncontrollable," "inappropriate," "totallyunnecessary," "industrial grade recreation" and a"frivolous pastime." Many offered their ownpersonal experiences, websites and supportinginformation to show the damage of mountainbiking, and "the safety hazards this high-speedsport presents to other users." Individuals pointedout bicyclists have many appropriate paved roadswith minimal traffic on which to ride in the park."Footpaths should be just that, for hikers andother foot traffic." And: "It's time to make it acrime – please keep bikes on paved roadwaysonly." One commentor remarked that "mountainbike adherents will promise you anything and tellyou anything to gain access to public lands. Onceaccess is obtained, they slide into anarchistbehavior." Another: "The situation will getcompletely out of hand, and too late, Presidiostaff will discover that the genie has escaped

B-11APPENDIX B


forever from the bottle." And: "If you do notthink mountain biking is, bottom line, a thrillsport, I invite you to stop by your local newsstandand peruse the mountain bike magazines." Somenoted that the bulk of bicyclists are thoughtful,law abiding individuals, but the "vocal andaggressive minority have made it miserable." "Thepeaceful contemplative trail experience isdestroyed by speed, rudeness, sometimesfrightening and dangerous interactions." Othersnoted the concerns of the elderly, not "spryenough to jump out of the way… and afraid ofbeing hit." "They have been displaced, and that isa shame." Still others contended that the"misdeeds of a few should not work to excludethose of us that respect the rules, the trails, andother trail users," and recommended "[u]se ofvolunteer, trained bike patrols for enforcement.("This has worked successfully in other areas.")And: "Hopefully, responsible bikers haveimproved the long-ago stereotype of 'bad boy'bikers tearing up trails all over the map. There maybe a handful still, but there are also drivers thatdrive recklessly in cars. That's why we have rulesand enforcement for violators."

Response. The Trust and NPS acknowledge thatthere is a wide range of differing, sometimesconflicting, opinions about the appropriateness ofmountain bike use within this and other public

parks. The Trails Plan creates a network thatserves the greatest diversity of users, withoutfavoring any one user type. The Presidio is both anational historic landmark and home to a numberof endangered species and rare ecosystems.Although high-speed mountain biking on steepsingle track trails will not be accommodated,opportunities to tour and explore the Presidio bybicycle, both on road and off-road, will beprovided along trails that have been designed so asnot to impair, impede or negatively affect valuablePresidio cultural and natural resources.

The Trails Plan provides a balance between all thedesired recreational uses of the Presidio, andprotection of natural and cultural resources. Themulti-use trail network provides off-road accessthroughout the park for mountain bikes andwheelchair users, as well as pedestrians. All of thealternatives provide some off-road mountain bikeuse, and the Preferred Alternative has about30.1 km (18.8 mi) of off-road trails appropriatefor mountain bikes. Mountain biking is thus oneof the many uses that is being accommodated.Because of the relatively small area of thePresidio, shared trails are a much more feasiblesolution than separate trails. Also, the relativeimpact on natural and cultural resources fromcompletely separate networks would beunacceptable. The Trust and NPS appreciate that

most mountain bike users are responsible trailusers, and willing to participate in trailmaintenance projects. The Trust and NPS agreethat with proper trail design and user education,mountain biking can be a safe and feasible use onsome trails within the Presidio, and look forwardto involving mountain bikers and other trail usersin the future trail stewardship program.

Creating a system of timesharing, where certaintypes of uses would be allowed at certain times ofday, is not currently being considered because itwould create a restriction difficult to enforce andunnecessarily complicates trail use andenforcement. Also, because there are such a widevariety of users within the Presidio, ranging frompeople who use the Presidio every day to thosewho are one-time visitors, having trails closed tosome uses during certain times of day wouldcreate confusion and frustration rather than asolution. With regard to the suggestion of a trialperiod for multi-use trails, any long-term planningeffort is subject to adjustments based onexperience gained, among other factors, during thelife of the Trails Plan. New multi-use trails will beintroduced gradually, and their success will informfuture implementation efforts. As was suggestedby another commentor, the multi-use trailnetwork, in combination with the on-road bikelanes, creates a number of loop opportunities for


B-12 APPENDIX B

cyclists throughout the Presidio. Mountain bikerswill be encouraged to participate in themaintenance of the designated trail network ofthe Presidio. At this time, there is no intention ofcreating a permit system or fee system. Mountainbiking, like any other outdoor recreational use ofthe Presidio, is an aspect of the public's use andenjoyment of a public park. The Trust and NPSintend to make the outdoor spaces in the parkgenerally accessible to the public. The Trust plansto do so through leasing (or possibly philanthropicsupport) that over time generates sufficientrevenue to pay for non-revenue generating usesand resource improvements, like the improvedsystem of Presidio roads and trails.


Many commentors noted that the Trails Planmakes no reference to the use of trails in thePresidio by dog walkers (either on- or off-leash) orfor pet recreation. "The analysis ignores the extentof the dog walking currently occurring in thePresidio." The Trails Plan "should reflect theextensive public comment in favor of off-leashrecreation on Presidio trails." And: "[w]e areconcerned that provisions for your manyneighbors that use the Presidio regularly forwalking our dogs may be being neglected oroverlooked." And: "[T]he plan… virtuallywhitewashes the input of the dog community

from the body of the document." Manyindividuals mentioned that the Trails Plan "at thevery least" should clearly state that the Trust andNPS are awaiting results of the Advanced Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) process forguidelines on management of off-leash recreationon GGNRA lands. More often than not, theseindividuals also wanted to see a clear reflection ofthe input from the off-leash community, stressingthe value of this activity to a significant segmentof the San Francisco population. ("This could benoted in a positive way by stating that the Trustand the Park Service support the activity and willinclude it as part of the overall recreationalnetwork, in conformity with local regulations.")

NPCA and others suggested that the Trails Planinclude on-leash dog walking and dog recreating inthe definition of multi-use trails (one individualwanted assurance that dogs on-leash wereintended to be allowed where pedestrians areallowed). The organization wished to seeenforcement of current regulations that requiredogs to be leashed in national park areas for thesafety of visitors and for maintaining the integrityof park resources: "We do feel it is important,however, to recognize this use of trails andpedestrian routes in the Presidio for those withpets." Others requested designation of specifictrails where off-leash dog walking would be

allowed, citing that off-leash dog walking is one ofthe "historical and traditional recreational activitiesin the Presidio." One individual commented that anumber of popular trails are particularly well-suited to people with off-leash dogs, becauseportions of the trails are set away from vehiculartraffic, while another at the public meetingdisagreed, stating some dogs "don't necessarily liketo encounter another dog surging ahead of itsowner, off-leash," concluding, "it's not very safe."Another suggested that there could be specifichours and areas where dogs could be off-leash,"thus making everyone happy." Yet another at thepublic meeting said she would "prefer to pay youten dollars a month, or ten dollars a year, for theprivilege of being in the Presidio with my dog,rather than have to fight with you…" However,one individual recommended that dogs should notbe allowed off-leash on Presidio trails andbikeways, stating that they are "dangerous to smallchildren and bike riders."

Response. The Trust and NPS acknowledge thepopularity of the Presidio for people and theirdogs. In the November 2002 Trails Plan, NPS andthe Trust assumed that on-leash dog walkers wereone of many different types of pedestrians, butdid not make this assumption explicit. Therepublished Trails Plan has been revised to clarifythat Presidio visitors with dogs on leash are

B-13APPENDIX B


allowed on all pedestrian and multi-use paths.Specifically, a new discussion on dog-walking hasbeen added to Chapter 2, under User Groups. Theadded discussion recognizes that people who arewalking and recreating with their dogs arepedestrian users of trails in the Presidio. As such,people with dogs on leashes would have access toall pedestrian and multi-use paths.

In response to commentors' suggestions, theTrails Plan now makes reference to the ongoingrulemaking process for off-leash dogs withinGGNRA as a whole. The Trust will be workingwith NPS in determining a future consistentpolicy. No decision regarding off-leash dogwalking within the Presidio will be made until therulemaking process is completed. If therulemaking determines that the off-leash dogwalking is permitted in GGNRA, it will then beappropriate to determine the location and extentof that activity. The following information fromthe GGNRA website(http://www.nps.gov/goga/pets/anpr/pdf/anpr-brochure.pdf) provides a brief history of the issueand its current status:

In 1979, the GGNRA Citizen's AdvisoryCommission developed and recommended apet policy to GGNRA that establishedguidance for location and criteria for "voice

control" of pets within certain areas of thepark. The Commission's "voice control"policy did not and could not override NPSsystem-wide prohibition of pets off leash;nevertheless, in error, this unofficial "voicecontrol" policy was in place within GGNRAfor more than 20 years.

Several recent events have underscored theneed for undertaking a public processconcerning pet management in GGNRA,including increased visitation to GGNRA,litigation concerning the Fort Funston area ofthe park, public concern about visitor and petsafety, park resource management issuesinvolving wildlife and vegetation protection,and the review of dog-walking issues by theGolden Gate National Recreation AreaAdvisory Commission.

The NPS service-wide pet regulation requiringpets to be leashed applies to this park as wellas all others. GGNRA has no authority toavoid or ignore the regulation. Educationefforts are underway with the public to clarifythis issue.

Some San Francisco dog organizationssupport the recreational benefits – for bothdogs and humans – of off-leash dog walking.

A recommendation is made by GGNRA tothe Director of the NPS as to whether or notto initiate the rulemaking process to developan alternative pet management regulation forGGNRA.

The existing regulation will continue to beenforced unless it is replaced by a newregulation.

If, through the ANPR (Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking) process, the NationalPark Service determines that the existing petregulation should be altered for GGNRA,then such a proposed regulation would bedrafted in accordance with applicable laws,including the Administrative Procedures Act(APA), the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA), and the National HistoricPreservation Act (NHPA).

Equestrian Use

BARTC requested that the Trails Plan contain thepossibility of equestrian use through specialpermits.

Response. Currently, equestrian use is not beingconsidered within the Presidio, other than by theUSPP for law enforcement. Within GGNRA,equestrian use is encouraged within other parkunits. Nothing would preclude reconsideration of


B-14 APPENDIX B

this issue in the future if there was sufficientinterest and infrastructure to support anequestrian program. Impacts of such a programon cultural and natural resources would have to beevaluated.

Tennessee Hollow

Both CHC and FPPHA emphasized thatincluding the Tennessee Hollow Corridor in theTrails Plan is premature, and the Trails Planshould be revised to be consistent with the statusof the planning process for the Tennessee HollowWatershed project. One individual agreed, urgingthat the corridor should be a separate processfrom the rest of the Trails Plan, and "new trailcorridors that cross the… watershed, such as thePresidio Promenade, should be deferred as well."

Response. The PTMP specifically identifiesrestoration of Tennessee Hollow as a futureaction, stating that "Surface drainage and nativeriparian habitat will be restored along the threenatural drainages in Tennessee Hollow, includingEl Polin Spring" (PTMP, page 19). The PTMPgoes on to establish a policy framework for howthis restoration will occur (refer to East HousingDistrict: Concepts and Guidelines, beginning onpg. 100). While some commentors correctly notethat the Trust is currently engaged in a publicplanning process to develop "on-the-ground"

alternatives for Tennessee Hollow, the concept ofits restoration has long been identified in plans forthe Presidio, first in the GMPA and subsequentlyin the PTMP public planning and environmentalreview process. Therefore, the text in the TrailsPlan, which indicates merely that there are "plansto restore" this area, has not been modified.

The Trails Plan shows that within the TennesseeHollow watershed, there will be a trail that mayinclude alignments within the eastern and/orcentral tributaries. The specific location andalignment of these trails will be determined as partof planning efforts for the Tennessee Hollowproject and Trails Plan implementation. Thegeneral trail corridors are described in the TrailsPlan in order to ensure trail network connectivityat the corridor level. This concept of connectivitycan then be used to provide direction in theTennessee Hollow planning process.

There appears to have been some confusion overthe reference to "plans to restore" TennesseeHollow. This is a technical term, with multiplemeanings, depending on the context. The term"restoration" as used in the ecological context ofthe watershed differs from "restoration" asdefined by the Secretary of the Interior'sStandards in the cultural resources context. Theterm is used in the Trails Plan with its natural

resource meaning to describe the ecologicalenhancement of the currently degraded creekcorridor and watershed. Because the term"restoration" has a very specific and differentmeaning in the treatment of historic propertiesand cultural landscapes, the generic use of thisterm may have been misinterpreted by somereaders. The intent of the Tennessee Hollowproject is not to culturally "restore" the watershedand habitat to a particular time period, but ratherto improve its ecological health and condition.

Greenwich Gate

The Cow Hollow Association (CHA) is concernedthat any opening of the wall in the proposedGreenwich Street location could be later widenedfor a transit entry. The neighborhood associationrequested that any opening of the gate be thesubject of a separate public process and a TrustBoard resolution prohibiting future opening ofthe gate to transit. The neighborhood associationalso suggested moving the location of the wallopening about 15.2 to 30.5 m (50 to 100 ft) south.

Response. The Trust is currently planning toreestablish an opening in the wall at GreenwichStreet for cyclists and pedestrians only, and doesnot support access by motor vehicles. Theplanned configuration cannot accommodatetransit vehicles, and the opening is not intended

B-15APPENDIX B


for transit use. The location at Greenwich Streetwas selected because it was the historic location ofa gate used by the streetcar; any other nearbylocation would not be appropriate. No additionalpublic process is required, although the Trust willseek to keep interested parties informed regardingthe status and implementation of the project. If atany time in the future a modification wereproposed to allow transit access at the GreenwichStreet location, the proposal would be subject toseparate environmental review and public input.Such a modification is not supported by the Trust.

Trail Programs and Organized Bicycle Events

Several commentors requested that NPS and theTrust incorporate programs to provide betterawareness of trails by creating or working withpark partners with environmental educationprograms. One individual suggested that moreopportunities for public support and participationshould be offered with respect to the trail system."[A]sk those who use it the most to help support,maintain and shape the future use of those trails."Another individual mentioned the possibility of a"Trail Users" group and indicated his interest inbeing involved or helping to organize such agroup. One individual asked that the Trails Planidentify a paved loop for small organized bicycleevents such as training races.

Response. The Trust and NPS are discussing avariety of possible initiatives with the GoldenGate National Parks Conservancy (GGNPC),including a future trails stewardship program. Thiswould include education and trail maintenanceopportunities for volunteers, in coordination withthe existing Natural Resource StewardshipProgram. This could include a "Trail Users" groupas suggested. The Presidio has and will continueto accommodate various types of formal bicycleraces; special use permits must be obtained fororganized events. Informal recreational use of thePresidio's paved roadways is available to allbicyclists interested in training or racing. Specificsof races or events are not within the scope of theTrails Plan.

Future Public Input and Adjustments to Trails Plan

NAPP and PAR requested that the public benotified in advance and given an opportunity toprovide input as implementation plans for specifictrails are developed. They also note that the TrailsPlan may need to be adjusted in future years tocoordinate with future changes in the park.GGBHTD wished to continue its close workingrelationship with the Trust, NPS and otheragencies in the Trails Plan planning process and bekept informed of trail changes in the vicinity ofthe Golden Gate Bridge.

Response. In general, the requirements of NEPAdetermine the specific process for public input,depending upon the potential effects of theproposed action. Projects that have the potentialfor causing significant environmental impacts notpreviously analyzed in the Trails Plan wouldtrigger further public review and input. Much ofthe Trails Plan implementation will proceeddirectly from the Environmental Assessmentprepared on the Trails Plan without furtherdetailed environmental review. Other aspects ofTrails Plan implementation may trigger additionalenvironmental review and public input. Prior toimplementation, specific measures will bereviewed for compliance with NHPA and otherfederal requirements. In addition, the public willbe notified generally (e.g., through the PresidioPost newsletter or web site notices) or by targetedoutreach before specific segments orimprovements are implemented.

The Trust and NPS also recognize that the TrailsPlan may need to be adjusted as time goes by.Material adjustments or changes to the Trails Plan,the effects of which are uncertain or potentiallysignificant, would be subject to furtherenvironmental and public review.

The Trust and NPS will continue to work closelywith GGBHTD on planning and trail changes inthe vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge.


B-16 APPENDIX B

Environmental Consequences

One individual asserted that the No ActionAlternative would, over time, cause significantimpairment and degradation of the park's naturalresources, and should be rejected. The sameindividual suggested that the Trails Plan addressthe impacts of fencing trails, and anotherimplored "[s]igns not fences – which keep peoplefrom enjoying the vista… and create a jail-likefeeling." On the subject of fences, yet anothersuggested a "sunset provision" whereby the fencesare eventually taken down.

Response. The description of the No ActionAlternative states that no comprehensive changesor major new trail building would take place.Under this alternative, trail rehabilitation andrepair would only occur as needed to protectresources and public health and safety, and tomeet statutory requirements. Thus, while certainimpacts would occur as discussed under eachimpact topic in Chapter 5, the impairment of parkresources and values would not be allowed.Nonetheless, the No Action Alternative is notbeing selected for implementation because it doesnot fulfill the goals in the GMPA and the PTMPto establish a comprehensive walking and bikingnetwork in the park.

With regard to the issue of fences, NPS and theTrust agree with the commentors that the practice

of fencing to protect natural resources is notnecessarily the ideal solution. Fences within thepark will be limited to these necessary to protectpark resources and meet park management needs.Meanwhile, NPS and the Trust will attempt tofind better solutions to fencing (including signageand vegetative buffers) in order to preserve thenatural resources in their care while providing ahigh-quality visitor experience. In the limitedcircumstances where fences may be necessary,once the objective of the fencing has beenaccomplished, the physical barrier will beremoved, subject to a determination that theremoval would not lead to unanticipated andunacceptable impacts to park resources or values.

Changes to the Preferred Alternative

A number of commentors suggested that theTrails Plan identify a different PreferredAlternative or incorporate elements of the variousalternatives. BARTC, for example, preferredAlternative C because it provided moreopportunities for multi-use/dispersed use than theother alternatives.

Response. In responding to specific suggestionsfrom the public comments, NPS and the Trustmade several changes to the Trails Plan, includingmodifications to the Preferred Alternative. Thechanges include added trail connections, changes

from pedestrian to multi-use paths and vice versa,and narrowing of some multi-use paths, alongwith other modifications. These changes areexplained further below and summarized at thebeginning of Chapter 1 of the Trails Plan. ThePreferred Alternative remains, however, thealternative that provides the best balance betweenpedestrian, bicycle and multi-use trails, and theother goals of the Trails Plan.

Bay Area Ridge Trail. Various commentors madesuggestions for modifications to the Bay AreaRidge Trail. One commentor requested bike laneson each side of Arguello Boulevard andWashington Boulevard from the Arguello Gate toLincoln Boulevard, and on Lincoln Boulevarditself. One commentor requested that WashingtonBoulevard be made a Class III bike lane for itsentire length.

The BARTC supports pedestrian only paths fromNauman Road to the cemetery to Park Boulevard,and behind Battery Boutelle. The BARTC alsomade a number of other suggestions, both byletter and at the public hearing, includingrecommending that the Bay Area Ridge Trailcontinue as a multi-use corridor through Rob Hill,rather than routing through Battery McKinnon-Stotsenberg; routing the multi-use path throughFort Scott in front of the western barracks ratherthan routing the bikeway behind the barracks on

B-17APPENDIX B


Ralston; creating better access to the Golden GateBridge toll plaza; realigning the trail at KobbeAvenue for a more direct connection to FortScott; and keeping the Bay Area Ridge Trail alongthe west side of Lincoln Boulevard south to theparking lot at Battery Godfrey rather than creatinga sidewalk on Merchant Road.

Response. In response to comments, severalmodifications to the Bay Area Ridge Trailalignment have been made in the PreferredAlternative. The Preferred Alternative alreadystated that all of Washington Boulevard will haveClass II striped bike lanes. Class III is a sharedroadway, not a bike lane. In addition, the existingcrossing of Washington Boulevard will be movedslightly west, and a new multi-use segmentadjacent to Washington Boulevard, to NaumanRoad and connecting to Amatury Loop isprovided. Changes also include a new pedestriancrossing at Park Boulevard and a new multiusetrail connection in the forest from Park Boulevardto Battery McKinnon-Stotsenberg.

As requested by the BARTC, there will bepedestrian-only paths from Nauman Road to SanFrancisco National Cemetery to Park Boulevard,and behind Battery Boutelle. The Bay Area RidgeTrail segment through Rob Hill Campground willremain as a multi-use trail, adding a newpedestrian spur from north of Building 1347 to

the east of Building 1202 in Fort Scott, andchanging the alignment of the multi-use trail toconnect the Harrison Boulevard/Kobbe Avenueintersection to Ralston Avenue, as well as a contra-flow bike lane on Greenough Avenue, skirtingBuilding 1340. With regard to connections to theGolden Gate Bridge, see the response tocomments under the Golden Gate Bridge below.

The bicycle route will not be routed in front ofthe Fort Scott barracks, as requested, as thehistorically significant inner loop is anticipated tobe maintained primarily as a pedestrian area.

Batteries and Bluffs Trail. The FPPHA requestedthat a trail spur be added from the Bay Area RidgeTrail south down Battery Caulfield Road then eastup the hill to the former Nike Missile site.

Response. In response to comments, a spur trailhas been added from the trail on Battery CaulfieldRoad to the former Nike Missile site, which is notconsidered a contributing feature to the NationalHistoric Landmark District, but does adjoinCalifornia Quail habitat.

Bay Trail. SFBT and NPCA, as well as severalindividuals (including speakers at the publichearing), suggested changes to the Bay Trail,including incorporating a multi-use trail or a bikelane on the south side of the West Bluff parkinglot; creating a multi-use trail from the top of Long

Avenue to the Battery East parking lot; andproviding traffic calming measures on LongAvenue.

Response. NPS and the Trust are planning toimplement improvements to the San FranciscoBay Trail within the Presidio. They are currentlyworking with GGBHTD on improvements to theconnection from Crissy Field to the Golden GateBridge. This project (Bay Trail Study) is sponsoredby SFBT, through the Association of Bay AreaGovernments (ABAG).

In response to the comments, the segmentbetween Crissy Field and the Golden Gate Bridgewill be improved for pedestrians and cyclists. Adedicated Class I bike lane is proposed along theoutside of the West Bluff parking lot near theWarming Hut. An uphill bike lane is proposedalong Long Avenue, which would connect to theproposed bike lanes and multi-use path alongLincoln Boulevard (the Presidio Promenade). TheSan Francisco Bay Trail route includes the currentsteps and pedestrian path that connect MarineDrive at Building 989 with Battery East andBattery East Road. This is a non-accessible routeto the Golden Gate Bridge, so a key planning goalis to provide an accessible route from Crissy Fieldto the Golden Gate Bridge. An accessible pathwill be provided along Long Avenue that will


B-18 APPENDIX B

connect with the multi-use Presidio Promenadeand the accessible pedestrian route to Battery Easton Andrews Road. These two segments, alongwith Battery East Road, will provide an accessibleloop trail through Battery East for those visitingthe bridge. Users would access the Golden GateBridge and the bridge plaza via the multi-usePresidio Promenade along Battery East Road. Theroad, which allows only service vehicles, would bestriped for bicycles in each direction, with apathway marked for pedestrians.

California Coastal Trail. Various commentors,including NAPP, PAR, and the Lake StreetResident's Association (LSRA), as well ascommentors at the public hearing, suggestedchanges to the California Coastal Trail alignment.These included adding a secondary pedestrian trailextending the Batteries and Bluffs Corridor westof and removed from Lincoln Boulevard, toconnect Battery Crosby directly with the sandladder off Baker Beach just above the steepsection of the ladder. Other suggestions includedimproving the section of Lincoln Boulevard forcyclists, from the intersection of Merchant Roadsouth to the vista point at Washington Boulevard(or providing an interim measure); creating acontinuous, off-road trail between the GoldenGate Bridge and Baker Beach, along the bluffabove North Baker Beach and through the Fill

Site 5 renovation area; and retaining the social trailwest of the guardrail along the California CoastalTrail as a pedestrian-only trail and developing aseparate multi-use trail. One commentorsuggested creating a multi-use trail from Merchantat Battery Boutelle to the Golden Gate Bridge,with a pedestrian trail adjacent to it.

Response. Many commentors' suggestions havebeen incorporated into the Trails Plan. TheCalifornia Coastal Trail corridor has beenmodified to include a pedestrian-only connectionfrom Battery Crosby, above remediation site BakerBeach DA3, and then down the sand ladder andacross the beach. This trail will be planned inconjunction with the planning for management ofthe remediation site. The Preferred Alternative willcontinue to include Class II bike lanes on LincolnBoulevard, as requested. The trail adjacent to theguard rail will continue as a multi-use trail, not apedestrian trail, as requested; however, the multi-use trail will be narrower than originally proposed(1.8 m [6 ft] wide rather than 2.4 m [8 ft]). Inaddition, the trail connection at Storey Avenue andMerchant Road will be improved, as will the trailcrossing near the entrance to Building 1750.Merchant Avenue from Battery Boutelle to theGolden Gate Bridge is also currently designated inthe Preferred Alternative as a multi-use trail, whichwill accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians.

In trail guides, the beach trail will be marked toindicate that it is not useable during high tides.This will create a continuous pedestrian corridoraway from Lincoln Boulevard between the GoldenGate Bridge and the 25th Street Gate, assuggested by commentors.

Lovers Lane. PHAN and one other commentorsuggested that Lovers Lane is inappropriate forbicycle use.

Response. Lovers Lane is currently a pedestrianonly trail, and is retained as such in the PreferredAlternative. This historic trail corridor is notappropriate for bicycle use.

Park Boulevard. One commentor suggested thatPark Boulevard should be Class II bike lanes onlyin the uphill direction from Lincoln Boulevard toWashington Boulevard. One commentor at thepublic hearing observed that the Park Boulevardtrail through the Presidio Golf Course is oftenclosed earlier than dusk as signed.

Response. Park Boulevard is one of the lesssteep connections from the south to the northside of the park. The steeper routes, such asPresidio Boulevard and Arguello Boulevard willhave uphill bike lanes with cyclists entitled to shareor take the full lane in the downhill direction. ParkBoulevard is in a less urban environment than

B-19APPENDIX B


Arguello Boulevard and Presidio Boulevard. Forthese reasons, Park Boulevard is expected to havea greater number of inexperienced and/orrecreational cyclists than some of the steepernorth-south routes. The Trust and NPS believethat bike lanes should be provided on both sidesof Park Boulevard because of the less experiencedcyclists expected to use this corridor. The PresidioGolf Course section of the trail is, by contract, tobe open until dusk. Enforcement is theresponsibility of the Trust's managementconsultants.

Presidio Promenade. RTC requested improvementsto the bike lanes on Lincoln Boulevard southwestof the Golden Gate Bridge. SFBC suggested thatthere should be dashed bike lanes along LincolnBoulevard as it passes Long Avenue. One othercommentor suggested providing improvements toLincoln Boulevard between the 25th Avenue Gateand Crissy Field Avenue: "[p]ossibly use a doublestripe, solid on the motor lane side, dashed on thebike lane side, to signal cars that they may notdrive in the bike lane but that bicycles can havefull use of lane."

Response. The Preferred Alternative provides forbike lanes within most of the referenced corridor.Improvements to the wide intersection of LongAvenue/Lincoln Boulevard are being consideredas part of an ongoing study to improve the

connection for the San Francisco Bay Trail fromthe Crissy Promenade to the Golden Gate Bridgeplaza. Current proposed improvements includenarrowing this intersection, which will minimizethe distance cyclists are in the intersection. Dashedbike lanes at this and other similar intersectionswill be considered as part of implementationplanning. The striping suggested is a non-standardstriping, and because it is familiar to neitherdrivers nor cyclists, could be confusing and unsafe.The California Vehicle Code describes permittedmovements from bicycle lanes. In localizednarrow areas where bike lanes may not be feasiblein both directions, the bike lane would bemaintained in the uphill direction and bicyclistswould be allowed use of the full lane in thedownhill direction. In these cases, signage wouldindicate to motorists and cyclists that the bike lanehas ended and cyclists are allowed use of the fulllane.

Tennessee Hollow. Various commentors, includingPHAN and FPPHA, supported creating a trailfrom Julius Kahn Playground to Crissy Field.

Response. The Preferred Alternative includes atrail corridor from Julius Kahn Playground toCrissy Field, with one or two possible trailalignments: the eastern tributary of TennesseeHollow (going by Paul Goode Field and MortonStreet Field); or the central tributary, following

MacArthur Avenue. The Trails Plan establishes thegeneral location of this corridor; the specificlocation of the trail alignments will be developedin conjunction with Tennessee Hollow planning.

West Pacific/Mountain Lake Corridor. NAPP, PAR,PHAN, SFBC and several individuals madesuggestions for the West Pacific Avenue corridor.Suggestions included creating separate bicycle andpedestrian trails; not redesignating the pedestriantrail as a multi-purpose trail; and encouragingbicycles to use Pacific Avenue rather thanconverting the trail to a multi-use trail.

Response. The Preferred Alternative has beenrevised to reflect that the trail immediatelyadjacent to West Pacific Avenue to the southwould be a pedestrian-only trail, and the trailcrossing through the center of the Pacific Grove,farther north, would be a multi-use trail. This trailwould start from the Broadway Gate, extend justsouthward of the new tree plantings in PacificGrove, connect with the existing trail south ofPaul Goode Field, and then continue through theeucalyptus grove to connect with Quarry Roadand the Arguello Gate. This change woulddecrease bicycle traffic around the entrance toJulius Kahn Playground, which is used by manyfamilies with young children. It also provides anappealing cross-park off-road connection forcyclists via a wooded multi-use trail.


B-20 APPENDIX B

Other Corridors. FPPHA suggested an additionalloop trail, creating a double loop through the MainPost. The proposed trail would allow visitors toenjoy the historic character of the Main Post. Oneindividual suggested a new east-west trail corridor,created by connecting a section of the WestPacific Trail to the Bay Area Ridge Trail.

Response. In response to the request for anadditional loop trail within the Main Post, theTrust and NPS are cooperating to developinterpretation for the entire Presidio, including theMain Post. Most of the described loop usesexisting sidewalks and roadways. Specific sidewalkroutes are not being designated as trails within theTrails Plan. Development of a guide to thehistoric Main Post, using the route suggested, iscompatible with the goals of the Trails Plan. Thenew east-west trail corridor has not been addedbecause an east-west multi-use trail corridor isalready provided by the eastern part of the WestPacific/Mountain Lake corridor (as describedabove) and the Bay Area Ridge Trail. This willcreate an accessible cross-park connection forpedestrians and bicyclists.

Golden Gate Bridge. Numerous commentorssuggested improvements to Golden Gate Bridgetrail connections. Suggestions included developinga shoulder improvement or a bike lane on theuphill section of Merchant Avenue from the

bridge; providing a better connection from theMerchant intersection to the west side of thebridge; creating access through the western sectionof the GGBHTD's parking lot; routing a multi-use trail north of Battery East parking lot;providing bike and pedestrian separation on thebridge approach and descent (as in Alternative D);routing a multi-use trail along the existing CoastalTrail between Battery Boutelle and the southwestbicycle entrance to the bridge; and restructuringthe bicycle exit off the west end of the bridge tobe a smooth curve.

Response. Several of the commentors' suggest-ions have been incorporated into the Trails Plan.Specifically, the Trails Plan provides a multi-usetrail connection and bike route extending from thebridge south near Battery Cranston in the vicinityof the GGBHTD maintenance yard and parkingarea. The exact route and design of this highlydesired bike access to the west side of the bridgewill be further studied during future NPS andGGBHTD implementation planning.

In response to requests for improvements onMerchant Avenue, the road is proposed to have astriped Class II in-street bike lane on each side ofthe street. A pedestrian walkway is proposed alongthe west side of Merchant Avenue, which willconnect to the trailhead for the California CoastalTrail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail and the De Anza

Trail (all on the same alignment) located on theeast side of Battery Boutelle. The road east ofBatteries Boutelle, Godfrey and Marcus Miller(Bowman Road) will be further developed as amulti-use trail.

To address conflicts between cyclists andpedestrians where the regional trails come togetherand pass under the bridge to reach the westwalkway of the bridge and the coastal trails, thetrail under the bridge will have separately markedbike lanes and pedestrian lanes as an extension ofthe Battery East Road trail segment. Wherepedestrians need to cross the bike lanes, signs andstriped pedestrian crossings are proposed to alertboth user groups to the need for care. Thepedestrian segment is proposed to be an accessibleroute to a small overlook on the west side of thebridge, which will mark the start of a pedestrian-only, non-accessible portion of the CaliforniaCoastal Trail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail and the DeAnza Trail (all on the same alignment).

Baker Beach Access. NAPP and PAR bothrecommended constructing a secondarypedestrian trail from Battery Marcus Miller to thenorthernmost section of Baker Beach.

Response. The Preferred Alternative has beenrevised to include a pedestrian trail that willprovide access to the northern beaches from the

B-21APPENDIX B


California Coastal Trail near Battery Marcus Miller.The trail alignment and surfacing will bedetermined during implementation planning, andmay require additional consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Structures such as stairsand railings are anticipated, along with possibleseasonal closures for wet soil conditions.

Presidio Boulevard Uphill Bike Lanes. Onecommentor requested that bicycles have the fulluse of the lane on Presidio Boulevard from thePresidio Gate to the Lombard stop sign. (ThePreferred Alternative shows bike lanes on bothsides of Presidio Boulevard between lowerSimonds Loop and Lombard Street.)

Response. The Preferred Alternative has beenrevised to include a bike lane only in the uphilldirection on Presidio Boulevard between thePresidio Gate and Lombard Street. Cyclists areentitled to the full use of the lane in the downhilldirection and signage will indicate this.

Washington/Lincoln Trail Connection North of BakerBeach Housing. Three organizations, LSRA, NAPPand PAR, recommended that a connection becreated between Washington Boulevard andLincoln Boulevard in the area west of Rob Hill.

Response. Several existing deep, highly erodedsocial trails extend from the existing overlook onWashington Boulevard down to Lincoln

Boulevard. In response to the comments, a trailwill be maintained in the vicinity, providing aconnector until the removal of Baker BeachApartments provides the opportunity to create abetter corridor to the west, using the generalalignment of existing roads through the residentialneighborhood.

Battery Caulfield Road. Various commentorsremarked on the steep section of Battery CaulfieldRoad. LSRA requested an extension of thesidewalk on the west side of Battery CaulfieldRoad/Wedemeyer Street up to the WashingtonBoulevard intersection. NAPP and PAR bothrecommended allowing cyclists uphill only on thesteep sections of the multi-use trail on the westside of Battery Caulfield Road. They alsorecommended interim measures if the trailimprovements cannot be implemented soon.

Response. The trail adjacent to Battery CaulfieldRoad has been changed from a multi-use trail to apedestrian trail (on the sidewalk) and an uphillbike lane. Cyclists in the downhill direction willhave use of the full lane. Because of naturalresource values on both sides of the roadway,minimizing the amount of impervious surface forthe trail corridor is preferable. In addition, theTrust agrees that the steepness might lead to userconflicts on a multi-use trail, so having bicycles in

an on-road bike lane rather than in a multi-use trailfor this section will remove the possibility ofconflict.

Crissy Marsh Extension to Battery Blaney Overlook.NAPP requested the addition of a secondary trailextending southwest from the southwest corner ofCrissy Marsh past the former Commissary to theoverlook north of Doyle Drive.

Response. To implement the suggested revision,this trail would need to go down a steep slopewhich is in an erosion control project associatedwith Doyle Drive. This trail connection is includedin the Preferred Alternative, but will beimplemented in conjunction with the Doyle Driveproject.

Intersections. Various commentors requestedintersection improvements. BARTC requestedrealignment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail to thenew stop-controlled Lincoln Avenue andMerchant Avenue intersection. NPCA and severalindividuals requested improvements for bike safetyat the Lincoln Boulevard, Washington Boulevardand Kobbe Avenue triangle section. SFBCrequested improvements to the intersection ofLong Avenue including asphalt removal andinstallation of bulb outs at the entrance to LongAvenue. NPCA requested provision of bike lanes,lighting and signaling at the intersection of


B-22 APPENDIX B

Lombard and Presidio Boulevards. SFBCrequested that a stop sign be added at the cornerof Lincoln Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue. Theyalso recommended that a left turn lane and centerisland be added on Merchant Road at the entranceto the new pathway on Battery Boutelle.

Response. Most of the commentors' suggestionsare being addressed in this or other planningprocesses. The Preferred Alternative incorporatesBARTC's suggestion that the Bay Area Ridge Trailbe realigned to the new stop-controlledintersection of Lincoln Boulevard and MerchantRoad. The Trust has plans to improve the LincolnAvenue, Washington Avenue and Kobbe Avenueintersection by increasing the size of the triangulartraffic island at Lincoln Boulevard and KobbeAvenue, which will improve visibility forwestbound motorists on Kobbe Avenue andcreate a narrower travel lane for vehicular traffic inthis area. The larger traffic island will provideadequate width for the bike lanes proposed in theTrails Plan and help to slow traffic on LincolnBoulevard, thus improving bicyclist safety.

Improvements to the connection between CrissyField and Lincoln Boulevard via Crissy FieldAvenue and/or Long Avenue are being consideredas part of the Bay Trail Study. The PreferredAlternative has been modified to reflect a proposal

to close Crissy Field Avenue to automobile traffic,and provide a two-way multi-use connectionbetween Crissy Field and Lincoln Boulevard,subject to further review and approval. Specificimprovements to the intersection of Long Avenueand Lincoln Boulevard will be considered as partof the Bay Trail Study and subsequentimplementation planning for those improvements.The commentors' suggested improvements toLong Avenue are current preliminary recommen-dations of the Bay Trail Study.

As described in the PTMP Environmental ImpactStatement, it is expected that increased trafficcongestion will warrant traffic signals and/orother improvements at several intersections in andnear the park, including the intersection ofPresidio and Lombard, within a 20-year planninghorizon. The Trust and NPS will consider andstudy further the needs of pedestrians andbicyclists in signalization or other intersectionimprovements. Neither a left turn lane nor acenter island is designated for Merchant Road aspart of the Trails Plan; nevertheless, theseimprovements will be considered as part of futuretraffic planning.

Trailheads. One individual requested trailheadparking areas at several locations, including

parking areas at Pop Hicks Field, Julius KahnPlayground, and Paul Goode Field for access totrails and overlooks.

Response. Some trailhead parking will beprovided at all primary trailheads, and somesecondary trailheads, as discussed in Chapter 3.Parking will continue to be provided at thesuggested locations.

Road Closures. Several commentors, includingMCBC and NPCA, recommended weekendclosures to automobile traffic on WashingtonBoulevard. Other commentors, including SFBC,also suggested that Washington Boulevard beconverted to a non-through street for autos.Numerous commentors requested a betterconnection from the west end of Crissy Field tothe Golden Gate Bridge, particularly for bicycles.Suggestions included creating a contra flow bikelane on Crissy Field Avenue, closing Crissy FieldAvenue to auto traffic, and closing Long Avenueto auto traffic. SFBT also asked the Trust andNPS to consider closing Marine Drive to all autotraffic except shuttles, to give pedestrians andbicycles better access to Fort Point.

Response. The Preferred Alternative has beenmodified to reflect a proposal to close Crissy FieldAvenue to automobile traffic, to provide a two-way multi-use connection from Crissy Field and

B-23APPENDIX B


Mason Street up to Lincoln Boulevard and theGolden Gate Bridge. This closure is subject tofurther Trust review and approval. Temporary orweekend closures of Washington Boulevard areproposed in the Preferred Alternative; however,the impacts of a road closure of this type wouldrequire additional analysis. Temporary or weekendclosures of Marine Drive are under considerationby the NPS and the Trust.

Miscellaneous Suggestions

MCBC recommended using bioswales as acomponent of buffers to "meet requirements ofStorm Water Pollution Prevention plan." Thegroup also suggested use of narrow gutter pansfor new construction to extend usable roadwaywidth for bicyclists. BARTC requested that theFort Scott Parade Ground be considered anoverlook.

Response. The Trails Plan assumes use of themost sustainable trail construction techniquesavailable. These techniques will change over timeas new and better materials and techniquesbecome known. In response to the comment, twobest management practices (BMPs) have beenadded to Appendix C of the Trails Plan describingbioswales, where feasible, and narrower gutterpans.

The Fort Scott Parade Ground provides a scenicvista of the Golden Gate Bridge and the MarinHeadlands. It is not listed in the Trails Plan as anoverlook because, depending on the future use ofFort Scott, it may not provide all the characteris-tics of an overlook.


B-24 APPENDIX B

7 Appendices

APPENDIX C. BESTMANAGEMENT PRACTICESThis appendix provides a detailed description ofthe Best Management Practices (BMPs) describedin Chapter 3. The BMPs are divided into 12general categories:

1) Drainage Control

2) Trails in Wet Areas

3) Trails on Steep Cross Slopes

4) Trails on Flat Grades

5) Eroding and Hazardous Trail Edges

6) Trails on Sandy Soils

7) Trails Damaged by Vehicle Use

8) Bicycle Safety Improvements

9) Social Trails Requiring Closure

10) Trails in Proximity to Sensitive Resources

11) Air Quality

12) Natural Resource Conservation

1. Drainage Control Trails in hilly terrain are particularly subject toerosion caused by water movement. Design andconstruction errors can allow water to build upvolume and velocity, which often causes trail

C-1APPENDIX C


damage. There are several basic design strategiesto improve drainage control, such as usingalignments perpendicular to sheetflow directionand full or half bench construction. Figure C-1illustrates a typical location of existing, non-accessible drainage control measures.

1-1 Outsloping

Outsloping is slightly elevating the uphill edge of atrail. It encourages water to flow across the trailsurface and reduces the potential for erosion. Allproposed trail designs include outsloping. Fullbench construction provides a more stable trailbed (Figure C-2). Where cross slopes are not steep(generally less than 30 percent), half benchconstruction may be used.

Figure C-2. Outsloping (BMP 1-1)

Figure C-1. Typical Location: Existing Drainage Control

2-2 Boardwalk Bridge

Trail structures such as bridges help maintaindrainage patterns. They can be constructed oftimber or recycled plastic lumber (Figure C-5). Tomaximize accessibility for people with disabilities,bridge entrances and exits should be at graderather than elevated or ramped. Additionalmaintenance might be required to ensure thatsurfaces that adjoin the entrances and exits do notvary more than 50 mm (2 in) from the bridgesurface.


C-2 APPENDIX C

trail alignment may be the best choice. Techniquesthat allow access for users with disabilities arepreferred.

2-1 Surface Reinforcing

Placing flat stones or cobbles on the trail surface,in combination with geotextile or sheet drainmaterials, is an aesthetically pleasing way toprovide a stable trail surface in wet areas. Sincewater can pass through the entire structure, thissolution offers the additional advantage of onlyminimally disrupting existing drainage patterns(Figure C-4). Another alternative is a short,concrete-paved section that would be moreaccessible for people using wheelchairs.

Figure C-4. Surface Reinforcing (BMP 2-1)

1-2 Rolling Grade Dips

Rolling grade dips are short sections of trail thatchannel water off the trail surface. Grade dipswork best on trails with slow, steady grades andare best placed at naturally occurring drainage-ways (Figure C-3). Typically, trails are outslopedmore at the point of the grade dip to providebetter drainage. Grade dip backslopes should beabout 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft) long to eliminateabrupt grade changes that may be barriers toaccess. For this reason, dips are preferable to bothwaterbars and open culverts. They typically requireless maintenance than covered culverts, which caneasily become clogged with leaves or other debris.

2. Trails in Wet AreasTrails in the proximity of areas with seasonal orpermanent soft and water-saturated soils poseproblems for visitor enjoyment and for resourceprotection and maintenance.

Trail users often walk to trail sides to avoid wetpatches, and that can cause destruction ofadjacent vegetation and surface soil horizons.However, relocating these trails to higher or drierground may not be the answer if the existing trailprovides special benefits to users or if reroutingthe trail would disturb sensitive habitat areas.Providing a hardened trail surface in the current

Figure C-3. Rolling Grade Dip (BMP 1-2)

Figure C-5. Boardwalk Bridge (BMP 2-2)

2-3 Drainage Lens

The low-volume water flow caused by ephemeralsprings or seeps can often be managed with adrainage lens (Figure C-6). The area beneath thetrailbed should be filled with progressively smallerquarry rock and then capped with fine aggregateor suitable native fill. Sandwiching the rock lensbetween two layers of geotextile material wouldprovide a more stable base, and would preventrock from mixing with surrounding soils.

3. Trails on Steep Cross Slopes As illustrated in Figure C-7, steep slopes presentmany challenges for safe and sensitive trail design.Trail cuts on steep slopes increase the visualimpact and the area of disturbance and oftenrequire special measures to stabilize the slope,such as slope protection or retaining walls. Insome cases, stairways may also be needed. Trailstructures and retaining walls, when required,should be designed to minimize impact on naturaland cultural resources and should use materialsappropriate to the area's landscape managementzone.

3-1 Area Avoidance and Trail Relocation

When possible, avoid locating trails on steepslopes. Where trails must cross a steep slope,consider a minimum width trail.

C-3APPENDIX C


Figure C-6. Drainage Lens (BMP 2-3)

Figure C-7. Typical Location: Steep Slopes

3-2 Reinforced Backslope or Retaining Wall

Depending on soil type, backslope cuts intohillsides may need protection in order to preventsevere erosion and slope destabilization. Table C-1illustrates typical backslope cut ratios. Backslopereinforcing and protection can be provided by apermanent structure or by temporary measuresduring revegetation.

Retaining devices may be as simple as a log curb,or they may need to be designed by a structuralengineer. Retaining materials may be poured-in-place or precast concrete segments, stones ortimber from vegetation management practices,depending on the landscape management zone.Figure C-8 illustrates the features of a typicalretaining wall. All retaining structures must allowwater to drain around or through the wall and notaccumulate behind it. Stepped-back wallconstruction may provide opportunities for more


C-4 APPENDIX C

planting. Green wall systems (a structurepermeated by plantings) may be an acceptablealternative to retaining walls in some areas of thePresidio. Ongoing maintenance, including repair,replacement and removal of broken or detachedcomponents, must be provided for all retainingstructures.

Figure C-8. Retaining Wall (BMP 3-2)

3-3 Trail Structure

Boardwalks, stairways, and decks may be usedwhere standard cut-and-fill techniques areinappropriate (Figure C-9). For example, on steeptrails on sandy or loose soils, stairways arerecommended to avoid excessive erosion. Steeldeck structures would allow light to penetrate tothe vegetation below and reduce impacts onhabitats sensitive to light.

4. Trails on Flat GradesSince trails exist in dynamic environments, it is notpossible to keep them clean and dry – especiallywhen they're on primarily level terrain. Withoutproper drainage, trails on level ground tend topond and collect debris, creating obstacles for allusers. This creates a cycle that further degrades the

Soil TypeRatio

(horizontal to vertical)Sand 3 or 4:1

Moist clay 2 or 3:1

Loose, gravelly soil 1.5 or 2:1

Loose rock 0.5:1

Stable rock 0.25:1Source: Rathke and Baughman 1987

Table C-1. Backslope Cut Ratios

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERINGREQUIRED IF OVER 900 mm(3’) HIGH 300 mm (12”)

SHOULDER

ORIGINAL GRADETRAIL WIDTH

2% MINIMUM SLOPE

EQU

ALEQ

UAL

300 mm (12”)GRAVELBACKFILL

Figure C-9. Trail Stairs (BMP 3-3)

7 Appendices

C-5APPENDIX C


trail and surrounding lands. Proper trail design canhelp mitigate this problem. There are several ap-proaches for providing good drainage. The goal inall cases is to maintain a firm, stable, slip-resistantsurface that is free of ponding.

4-1 Above Grade Trail

One technique is to elevate a trail slightly, about75 mm to 150 mm (3 in to 6 in), and providedrainage swales on each side (Figure C-10). Usinga gravel bed to elevate the trail would provideadditional subsurface drainage. Raised trails areoften used in conjunction with drainage lenses tofacilitate water movement. An elevated trail offersa more convenient pathway for users during wetperiods, provides the greatest degree ofaccessibility for persons with disabilities, and mayrequire less maintenance.

4-2 Boardwalks

This approach, described in BMP 10-2, Trails inProximity to Sensitive Resources, also provides anaccessible trail surface. Boardwalks are often themost appropriate solution on erodible soils, suchas sand or other loose, uncompacted soil.

5. Eroding and Hazardous Trail EdgesEdge protection has two purposes: to protect thetrail and adjacent resources, and to protect the user.

Clearly defined edges help keep users of all types onthe established trail surface and help protectresources. Properly constructed edges also protecttrails from water damage and erosion. Figure C-11illustrates typical eroding and hazardous trail edges.

Edge protection can also increase trail safety forvarious user groups. For example, a raised curb atleast 75 mm (3 in) high or a guardrail may help aperson using a wheelchair keep on track. However,some types of edge protection may be hazardous forbicyclists.

5-1 Edge Stabilization

Edge protection is sometimes required to stabilizethe trail structure, and prevent erosion of edgesand eventual undermining of the trail base.Reinforcement of both sides of the trailbed canimprove long term sustainability. Soft surfacessuch as those proposed for walking or jogging onthe edges of multi-use trails generally require full-depth edge protection to prevent breakdown oftrail edges.

Figure C-10. Above Grade Trail (BMP 4-1)

Figure C-11. Typical Location: Eroding and Hazardous TrailEdges


C-6 APPENDIX C

Since Presidio trails pass through many differentenvironments, including sensitive natural habitat orhistorically significant landscapes, edge protectionshould be consistent with the setting. Trailsrequiring edge protection in the VMP LandscapeManagement Zone or in areas of high use andurban character might use more traditionalmaterials such as curbs, manufactured or cutstones, and railings. In other VMP zones, edgeprotection could be provided by native materials,including plants, salvaged logs (from vegetationmanagement practices), or natural stones (FigureC-12). It must be installed to facilitate water flowacross the trail, and openings must be adequate toallow organic material to pass through them.

5-2 Edge Safety

Trail edge safety provisions are sometimesrequired and must be appropriate to the trail usergroup and the setting. On multi-use trails, edgeprotection and barriers must be designed forbicycle safety. For example, a raised curb thatmight aid a wheelchair user should not be locatedimmediately adjacent to a bicycle way or pavedportion of a multi-use trail, unless the trail iswidened to provide buffers. All vertical structuressuch as curbs and railings should be set back aminimum of 0.6 m (2 ft) from the bicycle way.

Where required for trail user safety immediatelyadjacent to a steep drop off, safety railings with aheight of 1.1 m (42 in) should be provided.However, because railings can be a visual intrusionin a natural setting, they should be used only whenthere is no other alternative.

5-3 Reducing Hazards at Drop-offs

An effective strategy for reducing hazardousconditions on hillside trails (with or withoutadditional edge protection) is to widen the trailand plant vegetation at the trail's edge.

6. Trails on Sandy SoilsMaintaining a stable trail surface can beparticularly challenging in areas with sandy soils(Figure C-13). Solutions depend on factors such asthe relative sensitivity of the surrounding habitat,continuing maintenance costs, accessibilityrequirements, and issues specific to each landscapemanagement zone.

6-1 Subsurface Geogrids

Geogrids or geocells, when used in combinationwith geotextiles, provide a relatively unobtrusivemeans of stabilizing sandy trails (Figure C-14).The geogrid confinement chambers distribute trailtread loads over a greater area and reduce settling,Figure C-12. Edge Protection: Trail Setting (BMP 5-1)

DRAINAGE GAPS

STEEL PIPE ANCHOR

PERMEABLEBIODEGRADABLEEROSION CONTROLBLANKET, ANCHOREDUNDER EDGING

TIMBER EDGEPROTECTION

3 cm (12”) SHOULDER

WIDTH OF TRAIL

3% OUTSLOPE

REVEGETATION

Figure C-13. Trail in Sandy Soil

C-7APPENDIX C


both of which help keep trail surfaces intact, inplace and dry. The geotextile material providesseparation between saturated soil and the tread fill,or increased containment over a sand base.Permeable tread fill provides drainage if the trail isbuilt with a grade or on a sideslope. Importedsoils should not be used for tread fill in areas ofsensitive natural habitat.

6-2 Permanent and Moveable Above-Grade TrailStructures

Boardwalks, which are permanent trail structuresdescribed in BMP 10-2, Boardwalks, aretraditionally used for access across sandy soils.Another option is textured panels with drainholes, which are installed directly on the surface

without excavation (Figure C-15). These panelsmeet current accessibility guidelines and can berelocated. They may require additionalmaintenance, such as sweeping and readjustmentof linked panels to provide a uniform surface.

Sand ladders are a series of logs connected bycable, such as the one in use on the dunes justsouth of Battery Crosby (Figure C-16). They arean option for sandy trails with a steep linear grade.Sand ladders do not provide an accessible routefor people with disabilities. Periodic maintenanceis required to restore sand ladders to grade levelafter sand accumulates on the surface.

Although temporary or moveable beach accessroutes are permitted, there are currently no rec-ommendations for products that meetaccessibility requirements. However, severalproducts have been evaluated by the National

Center on Accessibility and should be furtherevaluated by NPS.

7. Trails Damaged by Vehicle UseAs illustrated by Figure C-17A, maintenancevehicles can damage trails that were not designedto support vehicular traffic. Trail structural stabilityand strength should be increased on pedestrianand multi-use trails that will be used bymaintenance vehicles. Since many Presidio trailsare located in areas where sub-grades have a lowbearing strength or are poorly drained, sub-basesand trail surfaces would need to be thicker thanstandard practice to support greater design loads.

Figure C-14. Subsurface Geogrid (BMP 6-1)Figure C-15. Moveable Textured Panel (BMP 6-2)

Figure C-16. Sand Ladder (BMP 6-2)

accomplished by reducing motor vehicle lanewidths, removing travel lanes, or converting wideshoulder parking areas to bike lanes. Roadwayimprovements to improve safety along LincolnBoulevard at the coast have been identified as ahigh priority by the public and by researchers(Peccia 1994).

8-2 Crossing Island/Curb Extensions

Physical measures, such as installing crossingislands or curb extensions, are another means ofnarrowing roadways and increasing safety. Tomaximize accessibility, crosswalks should cutthrough crossing islands at the same elevation asthe roadway. Curb extensions may be appropriatein residential areas, but should only be used where


C-8 APPENDIX C

Figure C-18. Typical Location: Bicycle/Auto Conflict onWashington Boulevard

7-1 Geotextile Underlay and Deeper Sub-Base

Geotextiles can promote trail structural stabilityand increase the strength of trail cross sections.Wherever maintenance vehicle use is expected,geotextiles should be used to keep trail sub-basesintact and reinforce the structural qualities of trailsub-grades. In some cases, the depth of trail sub-bases should be increased to 0.2 m (8 in).

8. Bicycle Safety Improvements The Presidio is located in a highly urbanizedsetting. Many bicycles and automobiles passthrough the Presidio on roads linking SanFrancisco to the Golden Gate Bridge. As a result,there is high potential for user conflicts at roadintersections or at road-trail intersections. FigureC-18 illustrates one area of bicycle/automobileconflict. Recent studies indicate that 50 to 70percent of bicycle and motor vehicle crashesnationally are at intersections and intersection-related locations. In addition, the public hasexpressed concern about pedestrian safety and thepotential for user conflicts.

8-1 Roadway Narrowing

In conjunction with bicycle lanes, narrowingroadways can reduce motor vehicle speed, increasesafety, and redistribute space to bicyclists andpedestrians. Roadway narrowing can be

Figure C-17A. Trail Damaged by Vehicle Use

Figure C-17B. Reinforced Trail Base (BMP 7-1)

7 Appendices

C-9APPENDIX C


there are on-street parking lanes so that the curbsdo not extend into travel or bicycle lanes. Curbradius reduction is particularly effective inimproving pedestrian safety at crossings byslowing right-turning vehicles, reducing crossingdistances, and improving visibility between driversand pedestrians.

8-3 Raised Intersection and Raised PedestrianCrossingRaising an entire intersection or crosswalk is aneffective means of encouraging motorists to yieldthe right of way to pedestrians. Tactile warningstrips at edges enable people with visual disabilitiesto detect the crossings. Since these devices alsoslow down emergency vehicles, their placementshould be limited and these intersections shouldhave adequate sight distances. This techniquemight be appropriate where a multi-use trailcrosses the road or at intersections in the MainPost (such as on Moraga Street and LincolnBoulevard) that have been identified as hazardousby both the public and researchers (Peccia 1993).

8-4 Specific Paving Treatments

Paving treatments can visually delineate space forpedestrians and bicyclists. Paving can be usedalone or with BMP 8-3, Raised Intersection andRaised Pedestrian Crossing, to increase pedestrianand bicycle safety. Textured crosswalks, speed

bumps and colored bike lanes are examples ofpaving treatments used to visually delineatecrosswalks and bike lanes.

Textured crosswalks can be visual and tactilemarkers for pedestrian traffic, and also canprovide aesthetic enhancement. However,crosswalks should not be constructed of materialsthat create unsafe or inaccessible conditions forbicyclists or people with disabilities. Since texturedpaving might not be visible at night, it should alsobe marked with reflective lines. Installing texturedcrosswalks at key points where trails intersect theroadway could reduce speeding through thePresidio's housing areas. Colored bike lanes arestill under study in the United States. They haveproved to been effective in increasing bicyclesafety in many European countries

8-5 Roadway Lighting Improvements

Improved lighting enhances security and safety forall roadway users, particularly pedestrians.Commuter routes through the Presidio and fromPresidio employment centers to housing andtransit stops would benefit from improvedlighting, particularly where pedestrian trailsintersect with or cross roadways. Additionallighting would only be installed after carefulconsideration of wildlife and night sky sightingimpacts.

8-6 Multi-Use or Pedestrian Trail Overpasses

Traffic calming measures cannot always provideadequate pedestrian or bicyclist safety where trailsor bikeways cross busy streets. A pedestrian ormulti-use trail overpass can connect off-streettrails and paths across major barriers and providecomplete separation from motor vehicle traffic.One appropriate location for an overpass is wherethe Bay Area Ridge Trail crosses LincolnBoulevard from Fort Scott to the coastal batteries,near the intersection with Storey Avenue. Sightdistance is short and vehicle speed is fast. Gradechange on both sides of the road would reducethe visual impact of an overpass.

8-7 Special Roadway Intersection Treatments

Separating multi-use trail user groups atintersections can reduce confusion at trail-roadwayintersections. Each intersection could be used asan entry/exit point by users and should beconsidered a transition zone. Separateentrances/exits or trailheads for user groups –buffered from each other – increase trail users'awareness at intersections. Adjustments to multi-use trail alignments, such as jogs, offsets, or sharpbends near the intersection, help to slow biketraffic and alert users to the intersection. Cleardirectional signage at these intersections should beprovided.


C-10 APPENDIX C

8-8 Traffic Controls

Pedestrian and bicyclist safety can be improved atroadway/trail intersections with the addition oftraffic lights and signage, such as stop signs. Theseimprovements would be coordinated with Presidiotransportation planning.

8-9 Narrow Gutter Pans

Bicyclist safety can be improved by minimizing thewidth of gutter pans. Where feasible, the width ofgutter pans should be minimized, particularlywhere bike lanes are five feet or less in width.

8-10 Safe Bicycle Grates

Bicyclist safety can be improved by installingbicycle proof grates in drainage openings. Wherefeasible, existing grates will be replaced withbicycle proof grates such as those specified byCaltrans.

9. Social Trails Requiring ClosureAs noted in the VMP, the Presidio provides ashelter for remnants of San Francisco's naturalheritage, including communities of native plants,rare and endangered species, important wildlifehabitat, and the last free-flowing stream in the city.Off-trail hiking and the development of socialtrails is a serious threat to native plantcommunities in the Presidio (Figure C-19).Although considered convenient by users, social

trails are often unsafe, contribute to the loss ofplant communities, and disturb wildlife. They alsoimpact water resources through erosion and soilcompaction. In order to protect the Presidio'sunique natural resources, some social trails wouldbe closed.

9-1 Entrance Point Closures and Signs

Obscuring the entrance to social trails with brushpiles or permanent or temporary barriers, such asfences and signs, can discourage the use of socialtrails. Fencing should be kept to a minimum orused as a temporary measure to protect

Figure C-19. Social Trail Through Forest

revegetation areas until these areas are wellestablished. Trail closure signs might be installedtemporarily until vegetation is established. Signs ornotices posted at trailheads can inform people ofthe need for social trail closures and encouragethem to comply with trail closures. Naturalresources staff would help time the trail closures,to ensure that there is adequate time for seedand/or plant collection and salvage, and nurserypropagation for revegetation.

9-2 Vegetation Restoration

Figure C-20 shows several effective techniquesthat can be used to rehabilitate areas damaged bysocial trails. For instance, it might be necessary tocamouflage the trail surface to discouragecontinued use. One technique is vertical mulch orbrushing-in, where materials are collected fromthe immediate vicinity and "planted" into the trailsurface. Vertical mulch can facilitate the depositionof blowing soil, organic debris, and seeds whilecreating a protected site for plant reestablishment.Specific prescriptions for plant establishmentwould be done in consultation with parkvegetation restoration specialists. In heavily erodedareas, native soil fill, grading, and temporary checkdams may help slow and disperse water flow andencourage the deposition of sediments in ruts orlow points.

on trails. If this approach is not feasible, fences thatare compatible with each landscape managementzone are another design option.

10-2 Boardwalks

Boardwalks, permanent trail structures often used insensitive areas, are more easily constructed withminimum impact to the environment than standardtrails. They also encourage people to stay on thedesignated trail. An important consideration inboardwalk design is to ensure that the need for twopeople using wheelchairs to pass each other is takeninto account in the design.

Providing pullouts or overlook alcoves is anotherway to increase accessibility by allowing resting orobservation without impeding the movement ofother trail users. Boardwalk decking should beinstalled perpendicular to the direction of travel.Figure C-22 illustrates a boardwalk constructiondetail and typical cross section.

10-3 Moveable Panels

Moveable textured panels can be used in areas inproximity to sensitive resources. They are describedin BMP 6-2, Permanent and Moveable AboveGrade Trail Structures.

10. Trails in Proximity to SensitiveResourcesVisitor access to the Presidio's natural, cultural,and historic resources must be constructed toprovide as much protection as possible to thesesensitive resources. Figure C-21 illustrates thetypical location of a trail in close proximity tosensitive resources. The following BMPs shouldbe applied when developing trails in proximity tosensitive resources:

10-1 Multi-Use or Pedestrian Trail with Barrier

Designated interpretive routes for Presidio visitorswould help minimize the damage to sensitiveresources caused by social trails. Providing multi-use trails would allow access, while encouraging allusers to stay on established routes. Planted barrierscan also be an effective means of keeping visitors

C-11APPENDIX C


Figure C-20. Vegetation Restoration (BMP 9-2)

BRUSH AND/ORNEW PLANTINGS

MINIMUM RESTORATION TREATMENT:SCARIFY, DECOMPACT AND VERTICAL MULCH TRAIL BED

PREFERRED TREATMENT:VEGETATIVE RESTORATION

RESTORE VEGETATION ATEDGE OF TRAIL

CLOSEDSOCIAL TRAIL

BRUSH AND/OR PLANTINGS TOVISUALLY OBSCURE SOCIAL TRAIL

RESTORE VEGETATION ATEDGE OF TRAIL

RESTORATION TREATMENT ATSOCIAL TRAIL

PRIMARY TRAIL

CLOSED SOCIAL TRAIL

TRAIL

Figure C-21. Lobos Creek Boardwalk


C-12 APPENDIX C

10-4 Annual Trail Relocation

Periodically relocating non-permanent boardwalkand/or moveable textured panel trails canminimize trail impacts and permit previouslydisturbed areas to recover.

10-5 Bioswales

Non-point source pollution can be reduced bytreating runoff in bioswales before it enters creeksor storm drains. Where feasible, bioswales may beused adjacent to trails to treat runoff.

11. Air Quality MeasuresFugitive Dust Control

11.1 Basic Control Measures

The following controls would be implemented atall construction sites, as appropriate:

Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and otherloose materials or require all trucks tomaintain at least two feet of freeboard

Water all active construction areas at leasttwice daily

Pave, apply water three times daily or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpavedaccess roads, parking areas and staging areas

Sweep daily all paved access roads, parkingareas and staging areas at construction sites(with water sweepers)

Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) ifvisible soil material is carried onto adjacentpublic streets

11.2 Enhanced Control Measures

The following measures would be implementedat construction sites greater than 1.6 h (4 ac) inarea, as appropriate:

Implement all "Basic" control measureslisted in 11.1

Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soilstabilizers to inactive construction areas(previously graded areas inactive for tendays or more)

Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply(non-toxic) soil binders to exposedstockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to15 mph

Install sandbags or other erosion controlmeasures to prevent silt runoff to publicroadways

Replant vegetation in disturbed areas asquickly as possible

Figure C-22. Boardwalk (BMP 10-2)

7 Appendices

11.3 Optional Control Measures

The following contol measures would beencouraged at construction sites that are large inarea, located near sensitive receptors, or if anyother reasons may warrant additional emissionsreductions:

Install wheel washers for all exiting trucksor wash off the tires or tracks of all trucksand equipment leaving the site

Install wind breaks or plant trees/vegetativewind breaks at windward side(s) ofconstruction areas

Suspend excavation and grading activitywhen winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed25 mph

Limit the area subject to excavation, gradingand other construction activity at any onetime (BAAQMD 1999)

12. Natural Resource Conservation12-1 Planning

Perform natural resource planning efforts whereapplicable as part of project and/or site-specificplanning activities. Where feasible, projectimplementation strategies will incorporatesufficient planning time to collect and growpropagules necessary for native plant restoration

efforts, including special status speciesenhancement pursuant to applicable permits.

12-2 Limit Disturbance

Limit the size and intensity of disturbance allowedwithin and adjacent to listed species habitatswithin each calendar year.

12-3 Enhance Habitat

Select project designs that promote and enhancespecial status species habitat restoration to thegreatest extent practicable. Construction designspecifications will be developed and evaluated col-laboratively with natural resource specialists.

12-4 Reduce Social Trails

Reduce the extent of effects and preventestablishment of informal trails within areassupporting federally listed species or withinrecovery areas. Prioritization of trail removalactivities will be coordinated with both naturalresource specialists and trail planners.

12-5 Use Existing Disturbed Areas

Within natural areas, trails will be located onexisting disturbed areas. Disturbed areas includecurrently sanctioned trails, informal trails, oldroadbeds, and sidewalks. A multi-disciplinarynatural resources team will review the conversionof informal trails to designated trails to ensure

that the existing alignment had no negative effectson federally listed plant habitat. Boardwalks mayalso be incorporated into trail alignments toprevent off-trail use in habitat for special statusspecies.

12-6 Coordinate with Draft Recovery Plan for CoastalPlants of the Northern San Francisco Peninsula

Final trail alignment and constructionspecifications will be consistent with theappropriate recovery plan objectives when trailsfall within recovery unit areas. Within the lessingiarecovery areas to be determined as part of theforthcoming final Recovery Plan, trails will bedesigned to the extent practicable to limit habitateffects, improve habitat values, promote flexibilityfor species population movement, encourage sandmovement within the trail corridor and promotepersistence of the dune annual community. Withinthe potential recovery areas for Raven's manzanita,dwarf flax and clarkia, trails will be designed toavoid serpentine outcrops and soils that areimportant recovery habitat.

12-7 Limit Increase in Impervious Surface

Construction activities within habitat for specialstatus species will limit the loss or degradation ofhydrological features and/or natural hydraulicprocesses, and avoid negative effects to surfacedrainage and groundwater flow rates and

C-13APPENDIX C


direction. Within habitats for federally listedplants, trail construction will be designed to limitan increase or concentration of impervioussurface area. The use of pervious concrete forhardscaping will be considered as part of futureproject-specific trail planning efforts.

12-8 Buffers and Erosion Control

Buffers and erosion control measures will beincorporated into projects within habitats forfederally listed species. Where practicable, newdevelopment and planned intensive humanactivities will be located at least 30.5 m (100 ft)from the edge of federally listed plant habitat. Ininstances where buffer distance is limited, thefollowing measures may be implemented:

Install protective fencing or other protectivemeasures (such as low shrub buffers andboardwalks) around affected federally listedplant habitat

Federally listed plant habitat areas adjacent toproject sites will be monitored regularly. Ifthese areas are found to be effected fromincreased visitor and tenant use, protectivefencing or other measures will be eitherinstalled or modified

12-9 Develop Joint Study

Conduct a joint NPS/Trust study to determinerestoration-compatible trail rotation in restored(non-remnant) lessingia habitat.

12-10 Develop Revegetation Plans

A site-specific revegetation plan will be preparedfor each project with revegetation needs withinhabitat(s) for federally listed plants. Treatmentswill be consistent with the VMP (or anyamendments to it). Revegetation of non-designated trail obliterations will be implementedin a timely manner, typically within six months ofdisturbance-related construction activities,depending upon habitat type, timing of trail workand availability of native plant propagules. If trailobliteration activities are discontinued due to lackof resources, an invasive non-native plant controlprogram will be implemented until resources forobliteration and restoration become availableagain. To the maximum extent practicable,immediate revegetation will be implemented forfederally listed species habitat and recovery areasthat have been disturbed by construction,infrastructure repair, excavation, increased land useor other project-related activities.

12-11 Protect Soil

Develop best management practices for earthmoving and other soil-related activities to avoidharming federally listed plants during projectactivities. Where practical and appropriate, thesepractices and conditions will include:

Maintaining appropriate erosion and siltationcontrols during construction and stabilizingexposed soil or ecologically compatible fillafter construction

If fill is necessary, using only fill that iscertified weed free, is compatible with localhydrologic and ecological conditions, and isappropriate for the enhancement of listedspecies restoration activities

Avoiding over-compaction of fill soils

Maintaining trails and structures to avoideffects to habitat and public safety

Excavated materials will not be side-cast orspread into federally listed plant habitat

Minimizing the potential effects of dust anddebris generation during trail construction bywetting the soil or other applicable methodsas appropriate


C-14 APPENDIX C

7 Appendices

Designing trail construction to limit anyincrease or concentration of impervioussurface area within habitat for federally listedplants (a variety of pervious materials will beconsidered for trails surfaces)

12-12 Limit or Prevent Erosion

Limit or prevent erosion in areas of federally listedplants. Where practical and appropriate, measureswill include:

Limiting heavy equipment use in wet soilareas or where compaction could occur byminimizing the footprint of equipment accessareas

Including decompaction measures in sitegrading and drainage plans to promotegroundwater percolation

Returning disturbed soils to a stable conditionafter project completion

Controlling erosion in cases where projectoperations will expose soils on steep slopes orotherwise increase erosion potential

Identifying short-term erosion controlmeasures for use during inclement weather, aswell as long-term site stabilization measures,appropriate erosion control techniques andmaterials and specifications for installationand monitoring

12-13 Use Compatible Soils

Use compatible backfill soils (e.g., serpentine forserpentine) in cases where establishment offederally listed plants requires specific soil types orconditions. The final soil and topographicconditions of excavated areas will be coordinatedwith professional restoration ecologists,hydrologists and/or geologists. If this clean fill isfound to be incompatible with restoration andrecovery objectives, it will be removed from thearea.

12-14 Special Measures for Lessingia

In the event project activities require excavation ofmaterial directly within remnant lessingia habitat,the following measures will be implemented:

All propagules will be gathered from theremnant population and stored separatelyfrom other gathered propagules (i.e., differentspecies)

To the greatest extent feasible, the hydrologyand soil structure (texture, compaction, andcomposition) of the original habitat will berestored upon completion of excavationactivities

Propagules gathered from the remnantpopulation will be planted throughout therestored area

12-15 Minimize Establishment of Invasive Species

Measures will be taken to minimize theestablishment of invasive non-native species indisturbed soil areas. Such measures could includetemporarily covering the soil and/or revegetation.

12-16 Protect Threatened and Endangered Species

Protect any threatened or endangered speciesknown to occur within or adjacent to anyconstruction work areas using fencing, signage,and other barriers. Protective measures willinclude:

Qualified biological monitors shall be presentfor any activity within or adjacent to habitat

Qualified biological monitors shall trainconstruction workers in identification andecological needs of the plant reproduction,and health of special status species

Temporary construction barriers will beerected around listed species areas

Staging areas, temporary stockpiles, andmaterials sorting activities will be kept awayfrom listed species habitat as much aspossible (these areas will also be fenced offto exclude pedestrian or pet access)

C-15APPENDIX C


Ensure that construction has only minimalinfluence on normal movement, migration,reproduction and health of special statusspecies

Waste, waste water, or other project-relatedmaterials generated on site shall be containedto ensure that none enters habitat for federallylisted plants or other protected naturalresource area

Preventing unnecessary vehicular and humanintrusion and use in native and federally listedplant habitat from adjacent construction,demolition, intensive special events andrecreation activities (where necessary, formalor informal walking paths will be rerouted toaccommodate the public)

12-17 Protect Listed Plant Species

Protect listed plant species by managing visitorand pet access in special status species habitat andrecovery areas. Interpretive materials emphasizingresource and conservation values will be providedwhere visitor access within habitat for federallylisted species will occur. These measures willinclude:

Install interpretive signage to mark trailswithin endangered species habitat andassociated recovery areas

Incorporate boardwalks on trails wherenecessary

Allow only seasonal access to certain trailswhere seasonal conditions will be expected tohave a negative impact on special statusspecies habitat or areas proposed forconservation of federally listed species(seasonal or permanent trail closures will beevaluated if protective measures fail)

Restrict trail access to ranger-led activitieswhere appropriate

Install protective barriers, like fences, wheretrails pass through special status specieshabitats, and improve existing fences aroundthese areas to prevent pet access whereappropriate

Monitor these measures to determine theireffectiveness and evaluate if preventativemeasures are sufficient to ensure theconservation of listed species (if adverseimpacts are observed within the managementarea, remediation measures will be developedin consultation with the USFWS)

12-18 Protect Migratory Birds

Implement the following measures to protectspecies protected under the Migratory Bird TreatyAct:

Implement non-native wildlife controlmeasures when necessary and feasible

Cut vegetation only outside of bird nestingseason (currently January 15 to August 15)unless monitoring indicates nesting birds arenot present

12-19 Work Within Existing Disturbed Areas

Underground infrastructure work shall be stagedwithin existing disturbed or developed corridors inorder to prevent direct and indirect negativeeffects on federally listed plants. Where feasible,infrastructure maintenance activities will beminimized in habitat for federally listed speciesand recovery areas.

12-20 Prohibit Off-Trail Bicycle Use

Prohibit all off-trail bicycle use throughout thePresidio in order to prevent erosion, protectspecial status plant species and minimize damageto natural areas and wildlife habitat. In habitat forfederally listed plants, pedestrian use will beconstrained.

12-21 Protect Restoration Activities

Protect restoration activities by installingtemporary fencing (as needed) around specialstatus species habitat areas during restorationprojects. Temporary fencing will remain standing


C-16 APPENDIX C

7 Appendices

while native species establish and spread (about 3to 5 years, depending on climate-driven variables).

12-22 Coordinate Project Operations

Coordinate project operations involving vegetationor revegetation with natural resource staff toensure project sites are revegetated usingappropriate plants. To the maximum extentfeasible, native plants used for revegetation will begrown from existing Presidio genetic stock andpropagated either at the Presidio-based nurseryitself or in accordance with established practicesof the GGNRA nursery system. If onsite seedsand cuttings are unavailable, offsite sources will beevaluated to determine the most appropriatesource for reintroduction, and documentationjustifying the reintroduction decision will beprepared. Non-native plant control will continueafter restoration until the following goals are met:

Ensure the establishment of planted speciesby establishing success criteria and monitoringfor federally listed species

Prevent the spread of any opportunistic non-native species to existing Raven's manzanita,lessingia, dwarf flax and clarkia habitat

Protect and conserve existing native plantmaterial (cuttings and seed material) byconducting salvage efforts when determined

appropriate and feasible by a natural resourcespecialist (salvage will be coordinated by aqualified biologist prior to the proposedactivities)

12-23 Prevent Weeds

To the extent feasible, prevent the introduction ofnon-native plant and plant materials to listedspecies habitat and recovery areas. Preventativemeasures will include:

Use certified "weed free" rice straw or otherapproved "weed-free" materials for erosioncontrol and prohibit the use of any materialscontaining non-native plant seeds

Ensure fill is purchased from a certified weedfree source

Clean all non-native plant seeds or materialfrom equipment prior to it entering thespecial status species habitat area. Equipmenttraveling between areas will be cleaned eachtime it enters a special status species habitatsite

12-24 Develop Monitoring Program

Develop site-specific, USFWS-approved biologicalmonitoring protocols prior to implementingproject activities. This strategy will involve periodicsite visits by a qualified biologist, as well asbiologist consultation prior to the commencement

of any new activities in or adjacent to specialstatus species populations. The biologist will alsomonitor the removal and/or import of plantmaterial or soil during implementation, to ensuresalvage of as much native plant material asfeasible.

12-25 Monitor Rare Species

Monitor and protect rare or endangered plantspecies, including any federal and/or state listedthreatened or endangered species found to occurin the Presidio. Identified actions will be taken torecover these species, and their habitats will beenhanced to the greatest extent practicable. Anyfuture rare or endangered species found on thePresidio will also be afforded similar appropriateprotection and restoration measures.

12-26 Establish Monitoring Period

Establish a standard monitoring period andsuccess criteria for projects affecting federallylisted species, including photo documentation ofthe pre-project condition, restoration activities,and annual photo points

C-17APPENDIX C


APPENDIX D


D-1

APPENDIX D. CUMULATIVE PROJECTLIST

The following plans and projects wereconsidered during development of the TrailsPlan/EA:

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan(City and County of San Francisco)

The Master Plan provides for improved transitaccess for bicycles, and funding for bicycleimprovements to increase road safety. Its goalsinclude: improving regional connectors (the BayBridge is especially important for bike andpedestrian access); providing intermodalconnections (MUNI, BART, GG Transit, Ferries,SamTrans, CalTrain, etc.) for commuters betweencounties; and making San Francisco Bay Trailimprovements, including completion of thebicycle route along the San Francisco Bayshoreline. The Master Plan is being updated toreflect changes that have taken place since theplan was approved in 1997.

2001 Regional Bicycle Plan for theSan Francisco Bay Area (Metropolitan Transportation Committee)

The Plan, a component of the 2001 RegionalTransportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay

Area, is regional in focus and concentrates onbroader policies and programs, deferring to localdecision-makers on specific routes and facilities.Its objectives are to:

Define a network of regionally significantbicycle routes, facilities, and necessarysupport programs

Identify gaps in the network and recommendspecific improvements needed to fill thesegaps in the system

Develop cost estimates for build-out of theentire regional network

Develop a funding strategy to implement theregional bicycle network

Identify programs to help local jurisdictionsbecome more bicycle-friendly

Presidio Vegetation Management Plan(National Park Service/Presidio Trust)

The VMP provides a management framework forprotecting, enhancing, restoring and rehabilitatingthe native and planted vegetation of the Presidio(Areas A and B). The VMP guides the actionsaffecting plant resources of the Presidio. Itestablishes three broadly defined managementzones for the Presidio, develops goals, objectives,and strategies for each, and defines the baseline

extent of the historic forest. The guidanceprovided by the VMP will reduce the potentialfor adverse effects on park resources andestablish a framework for a coordinatedmanagement effort in rehabilitating and restoringnative plant communities, historic forests andlandscaped areas of the Presidio.

Crissy Field Marsh ExpansionTechnical Study

(National Park Service/PresidioTrust/Golden Gate National ParksAssociation)

The Marsh Study will identify a broad array ofoptions for ensuring the long-term viability ofCrissy Marsh and describe the benefits, costs,impacts, conflicting resource values and trade-offs associated with each option. It will providesufficient technical information to inform asubsequent decision-making process that wouldcarry selected options forward for further study,environmental analysis and potentialimplementation.


APPENDIX DD-2

Crissy Field Project (National Park Service )

The Crissy Field Project transformed a 100-acrearea of asphalt into a shoreline national parkthrough a unique partnership among public,private and philanthropic sectors. The GoldenGate Promenade at Crissy Field, part of the 400-mile San Francisco Bay Trail, is a multi-use trailthat is an important corridor between SanFrancisco and the Golden Gate Bridge.Secondary pathways adjacent to Mason Streetprovide alternate routes through the project areafor bicycles and pedestrians. Principal features ofthe project are a 28-acre grassy field representingthe historic Crissy airfield, a sheltered picnic area,a 10-acre tidal marsh and the Crissy Field Center(a community environmental center).

Presidio Trust Management Plan(Presidio Trust)

The PTMP is a comprehensive land use,transportation and program plan for Area B, theportion of the Presidio transferred to the Trust'sjurisdiction in 1998. The PTMP sets forth landuse preferences and development guidelines toinform future land use and implementationdecisions. Key components of the PTMP include

preservation of historic resources, expansion ofopen space, reduction in building space from5.96 million sf to 5.6 million sf, and providing anenhanced level of cultural and educationalprograms for park visitors. The PTMP calls for aseamless network of trails and bikeways throughthe Presidio, and commits the Trust toundertaking the most pressing trail repairs andsetting priorities for future enhancements. PTMPpromotes initiating a Trails Stewardship Programto promote public support and interest in trailmaintenance and improvement followingadoption of the Trails Plan.

Letterman Digital Arts Center (Presidio Trust)

The Letterman Digital Arts Center, a majorfacility currently under development, is locatedon a 23-acre site in the eastern portion of theLetterman District near the Lombard Gate. Itwill be the largest physical change to thePresidio's built environment. The 850,000-sffacility will be more consistent with the scale andarchitectural character of the historic district thanthe buildings it replaces. The LDAC will providea large, public open space at Lyon and LombardStreets, offering opportunities for passiverecreation and pedestrian access, including a new

gateway at the intersection of Lyon Street andChestnut Street. Parking will be providedunderground.

Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan(Presidio Trust / National Park Service /Golden Gate National ParksAssociation)

The Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan has threegoals: improve water quality, enhance habitat andimprove public access. Elements of the projectinclude dredging to remove sediment, replacingexotic trees with native woodland, removingweeds in existing habitat, planting trees alongPark Presidio Boulevard to buffer the lake fromthe roadway and constructing an unpaved,interpretive trail with several overlooks andbenches.

Presidio Water Recycling Project(Presidio Trust)

The Presidio Water Recycling Project entails theconstructing and operating of a small (500,000gallons per day) water recycling system (locatedwithin an existing Presidio building in theLetterman District) and corresponding systemcomponents, including delivery pipelines andrecycled water storage. The proposed water

recycling plant would treat wastewater generatedat the park so that it meets or exceeds Title 22water quality standards for recycled water. Phase1 would have a maximum treatment capacity of200,000 gpd and would serve Crissy Field andthe LDAC site.

Presidio Environmental RemediationProgram(Presidio Trust)

Pursuant to a 1999 agreement with the U.S.Army and the National Park Service, the PresidioTrust is cleaning up hazardous materialscontamination from prior military uses at thePresidio, in compliance with governingenvironmental clean-up agreements. Clean-upsites include landfills and areas contaminatedwith petroleum products. The Trust intends tocomplete the clean-up program in ten years, withArea A of the Presidio cleaned up in four years.Remediation will be followed by revegetation inconformance with the VMP.

Tennessee Hollow Riparian CorridorEnhancement Project(Presidio Trust)

In Fall 2001, the Trust initiated planning torestore Tennessee Hollow, to restore afunctioning stream ecosystem with associatedriparian and wetland habitats; improve the qualityof freshwater flows into Crissy Marsh; improvemanagement practices in the surroundingwatershed; protect and enhance cultural andarchaeological resources; provide recreational,educational and interpretive opportunities; andadapt existing infrastructure to support therestoration. Surface drainage and native riparianhabitat will be restored along the three naturaldrainages in Tennessee Hollow, including ElPolin Spring. Restoration will expand riparianhabitats and allow for an integrated system offreshwater streams and freshwater, brackish andtidal marsh, reestablishing a connection to CrissyMarsh.

Presidio Shuttle Service(Presidio Trust)

The Trust provides an alternative-fuel internalshuttle service ("PresidiGo") linked to publictransit stops. The service connects to both San

Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) andGolden Gate Transit bus lines and could bemade available upon request to school orcommunity groups for park-related activities.New bus shelters will be built to serve bothpublic transit and the internal shuttle, and willprovide lighting, visitor orientation, route mapsand schedules.

Golden Gate Bridge District SeismicRetrofit, Phase II(Golden Gate Bridge, Highway andTransportation District)

The Seismic Retrofit is divided into two phases.Phase I, now completed, is the retrofit of thenorth abutment of the bridge. Phase II, whichbegan in the summer of 2001, will retrofit thesouthern abutment of the bridge. Phase II alsorequires heavy truck traffic on existing roads andtrails, and possible use of trails as staging areas.Trail routes through and to the area may need tobe relocated temporarily to reduce vehicle,pedestrian and bicycle conflicts. Bicycles andpedestrians share Battery East Road andMarine/Long Drives with construction trucksfrom Monday to Thursday during working hours.

D-3APPENDIX D

7 Appendices1 Introduction 2 Purpose & Need 4 Alternatives 5 EnvironmentalAssessment

6 References andConsultation

3 Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

Golden Gate Bridge DistrictRemediation, Phase II(Golden Gate Bridge Highway andTransportation District)

Remediation of contaminated soils below theGolden Gate Bridge is occurring as a two-phaseproject. Phase I, now completed, focused oncleanup of contamination in areas directly belowthe bridge where safe access was needed forconstruction crews working on the Golden GateBridge Seismic Retrofit Project. Affected areasinclude Battery East and popular vista areas nearthe bridge. Phase II will continue to investigatecontaminated soils to determine whereremediation is required to protect public healthand natural resources. The Phase II planninghorizon is approximately 5 years.

Golden Gate Bridge Toll Plaza Redesign(Golden Gate Bridge, Highway andTransportation District)

The redesign of the Golden Gate Bridge Plazawill provide visitor facilities and interpretiveexhibits of the bridge and coastal fortifications,and provide visitor orientation to the GoldenGate National Recreation Area. The maintenanceyard used by GGBHTD will be relocated awayfrom the plaza to allow parking and pedestrian

improvements that will reduce safety hazards andenhance the viewshed. Trail and bikewayimprovements in the vicinity of Fort Point, theGolden Gate Bridge Plaza, and the Coastal Trailare part of this planning effort.

Doyle Drive Environmental and DesignStudy (San Francisco CountyTransportation Agency)

The Doyle Drive Environmental and DesignStudy proposes to replace the roadway leadingfrom San Francisco to the south anchorage ofthe Golden Gate Bridge to improve seismic,structural, and traffic safety of the roadway. Anumber of alternative roadway designs are beingconsidered. The project includes direct accessfrom Doyle Drive to the northeast corner of thePresidio near the Palace of Fine Arts parking lot.The project anticipates the connection of theTennessee Hollow drainage to an expandedCrissy Marsh. The project will maintainautomobile, pedestrian and bicycle access duringconstruction. Permanent trail and bikewayconnections provided for as part of the projectdesign would be consistent with those identifiedin the Trails Plan.


D-4 APPENDIX D

national park service, u.s. department of the interior the presidio … · 2017. 10. 29. · master...

Documents