Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Fire Management Plan; Golden Gate National Recreation Area; Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California; Notice of Availability, 13538-13540 [05-5448]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13538
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Superintendent, Flight 93 National
Memorial, 109 West Main Street, Suite
104, Somerset, PA 15501–2035.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public
Law 107–226 (116 Stat. 1345, 16 U.S.C.
431 note), dated September 24, 2002,
established the Flight 93 National
Memorial to commemorate the
passengers and crew of United Airlines
Flight 93 who, on September 11, 2001,
courageously gave their lives, thereby
thwarting a planned attack on our
Nation’s Capital. Public Law 107–226
established the Flight 93 Advisory
Commission and directed the
Commission to advise the Secretary of
the Interior on the boundary of the
memorial site. On July 30, 2004, the
Commission’s Resolution 0401 advised
the Secretary of the Interior to establish
the boundary as depicted on Map No.
04–01. By a letter to the Commission,
dated January 14, 2005, the Secretary of
the Interior accepted the Commission’s
advice to establish the boundary as
provided in Resolution 0401.
The map is on file and available for
inspection in the Land Resources
Program Center, Northeast Regional
Office, U.S. Customs House, 200
Chestnut Street, 3rd Floor, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106–2988, in the Office
of the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, Washington,
DC 20240 and in the Office of Flight 93
National Memorial, 109 West Main
Street, Somerset, Pennsylvania 15501.
Dated: February 7, 2005.
Joanne M. Hanley,
Superintendent, Flight 93 National Memorial
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 05–5449 Filed 3–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–WH–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft Environmental Impact Statement;
Fire Management Plan; Golden Gate
National Recreation Area; Marin, San
Francisco and San Mateo Counties,
California; Notice of Availability
Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, 42 U.S.C. 4321–
4347, January 1, 1970, as amended), and
the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through
1508), the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, has prepared
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
identifying and evaluating three
alternatives for a Fire Management Plan
for Golden Gate National Recreation
Area (GGNRA), in northern California.
SUMMARY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:36 Mar 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
Potential impacts and mitigating
measures are described for each
alternative. The alternative selected
after this conservation planning and
environmental impact analysis process
will serve as a blueprint for fire
management actions for the GGNRA
over the next 10–15 years.
This Fire Management Plan (FMP)
and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) identifies and analyzes
two action alternatives, and a No Action
alternative, to update and revise the
1993 Fire Management Plan for the
GGNRA, Muir Woods National
Monument and Fort Point National
Historic Site; the latter two sites are
administered by GGNRA. The 1993 FMP
focuses primarily on natural resource
management issues and needs to be
revised to more fully address cultural
resource concerns. In addition, the
revisions will bring the FMP into
conformance with current federal
wildland fire policies and standards,
address lands added to GGNRA since
1993, and plan for fire hazard reduction
in the extensive wildland urban
interface on the park’s boundary.
This FMP DEIS evaluates fire
management options for approximately
15,000 acres of GGNRA’s nearly 75,000
legislated acres. The planning area for
the FMP contains lands in Marin, San
Francisco and San Mateo counties—
three of the nine counties that make up
the San Francisco Bay area. Several of
the smaller national park sites are
within the City of San Francisco itself;
remaining areas are in southern and
southwestern Marin County,
northwestern San Mateo County and the
Phleger Estate, in southeastern San
Mateo County near the Town of
Woodside. The FMP planning area does
not included the following lands:
(1) The northern lands of GGNRA,
comprising 18,000 acres north of the
Bolinas-Fairfax Road in western Marin
County, which are managed by the Point
Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) under
an agreement between the two park
units. Fire management responsibilities
for these northern lands are addressed
in the PRNS FMP (approved October 29,
2004).
(2) Lands within the jurisdictional
boundary of GGNRA that are not
directly managed by the National Park
Service. This includes the San Francisco
Watershed, managed by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(with overlays of NPS easements) and
the interior portion of the Presidio of
San Francisco (referred to as Area B),
which is managed by the Presidio Trust,
a federal corporation. The coastal
portion of the Presidio (Area A),
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
managed by the GGNRA, is included in
the planning area.
In addition to lands currently under
the management of the NPS, the FMP
planning area includes those lands
within the legislative boundary that may
pass to NPS management in the near
future. These areas, all in San Mateo
County, include Cattle Hill, Pedro Point,
Picardo Ranch, and northern coastal
bluffs along Highway 1.
GGNRA was created in 1972 to
preserve for public use and enjoyment
certain areas of Marin and San
Francisco Counties, California,
possessing outstanding natural, historic,
scenic, and recreational values, and in
order to provide for the maintenance of
needed recreational open space
necessary to urban environment and
planning. The legislation charged the
Secretary of the Interior to ‘‘utilize the
resources [of GGNRA] in a manner
which will provide for recreation and
educational opportunities consistent
with sound principles of land use
planning and management’’ and to
‘‘preserve the recreation area, as far as
possible, in its natural setting, and
protect it from development and uses
which would destroy the scenic beauty
and natural character of the area.’’[16
U.S.C. 460bb]. GGNRA protects a
remarkably diverse cluster of coastal
ecosystems, landscapes, and historical
sites, from the rural hills of Tomales Bay
and the San Mateo watershed to the
scenic headlands and military outposts
of the Golden Gate and the urban
shorelines of San Francisco. This
diversity centers on the singular
geographic feature of Golden Gate,
portal between the United States and
the Pacific Basin, and includes a Civil
War fort, an ancient redwood forest, the
former Alcatraz federal penitentiary,
and most of the last remaining open
spaces and forests on the ocean coast of
the metropolitan Bay Area. The
parklands include beaches, coastal
headlands, grasslands, coastal scrub,
Douglas fir and coast redwood forests,
freshwater and estuarine wetlands,
marine terraces, and riparian corridors.
GGNRA contains the highest
concentration of historic buildings (over
1,250 buildings and five national
historic landmark districts) in any single
unit of the National Park System.
In the past, wildland fire occurred
naturally in the park as an important
ecosystem process that kept forest fuels
and vegetation structure within the
natural range of variability. Past logging
and fire suppression activities have lead
to increased fuel loads and changes in
vegetation community structure. This
has increased the risk of large, highintensity wildland fire within the park,
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
13539
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Notices
threatening the park’s developed zones,
its natural and cultural resources, and
residential areas close to the park
boundary in the wildland urban
interface zone.
Alternatives. Though the three
alternatives vary in the strategies used
to achieve fire management goals, there
are several common elements of the
FMP that are the same under each
alternative. The fire management
approach for Muir Woods National
Monument would be the same,
including the use of prescribed fire as
well as mechanical fuel reduction. Some
actions, including continued
implementation of the Wildland Urban
Interface Initiative, maintenance of the
park’s fire roads and trails, vegetation
clearing around park buildings,
suppression of unplanned ignitions,
public information and education,
construction of a new fire cache for
equipment storage and continuation of
the current fire monitoring program,
would be carried out under all three
alternatives. The three alternatives meet
the park’s goals and objectives to an
acceptably large degree, and are within
constraints imposed by regulations and
policies, by risks associated with the
wildland urban interface, and by
technical and funding limitations. The
three alternatives differ in combinations
of prescribed burning and mechanical
treatments in the park interior versus
parklands that share a boundary with
development. Each alternative has an
upper limit set on the number of acres
that could be treated by either
prescribed burning or mechanically
treated in one year (see Table 1).
Alternative A (No Action)—This
alternative would update the 1993 FMP
only to reflect changes to the park’s
boundary (e.g., addition of new lands
since 1993) and current national fire
management policies. The focus of the
1993 FMP program is on vegetation
management through the application of
prescribed fire to perpetuate firedependent natural systems. In recent
practice, many fire management actions
have been mechanical fuel reduction
projects (e.g., mowing, cutting to remove
non-native shrubs and trees, and
selective thinning in forested stands)
funded through the Wildland-Urban
Interface Program. This alternative
would rely on the continued
implementation of the 1993 FMP
supplemented by mechanical fuel
reduction along with prescribed fire,
and suppression of all wildfires. Current
research projects would continue and
would focus on the role of fire to
enhance natural resources and the
effects of fire on key natural resources
to determine the effectiveness of various
fuel treatments.
Alternative B—Hazard Reduction and
Restricted Fire Use for Research and
Resource Enhancement. This alternative
would emphasize use of mechanical
methods to reduce fire hazards and fuel
loads in areas with the highest risks.
Compared to Alternative A, Alternative
B would increase the number of acres
mechanically treated each year, with a
focus on the reduction of high fuel loads
in the wildland urban interface area.
Limited use of prescribed fire could
occur for research purposes within the
park interior. Research projects would
examine the role of fire to enhance
natural resources and the effects of fire
on key natural resources to determine
the effectiveness of various fuel
treatments. Natural and cultural
resource goals and objectives would be
integrated into the design and
implementation of fuel reduction
projects.
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
(Environmentally Preferred)—Hazard
Reduction and Resource Enhancement
through Multiple Treatments. This
alternative would allow for the greatest
number of acres to be treated on an
annual basis to achieve fire management
and resource objectives through the use
of a broad range of fire management
strategies. Mechanical treatment and
prescribed burning would be used
throughout the park as a means to
reduce fuel loading and achieve
resource enhancement goals.
Mechanical treatments, complemented
by prescribed fire, would be employed
to assist with restoration and
maintenance of the park’s natural and
cultural resources. An expanded
research program would examine the
role of fire and mechanical treatments in
enhancing natural resources, reducing
fuel loading, and specific impacts of fire
on key natural resources; research
would also be used to adaptively guide
the fire management program and help
to maximize the benefits to park
resources. As in Alternative B, natural
and cultural resource goals and
objectives would be integrated into the
design and implementation of fuel
reduction projects.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES BY ANNUAL ACRES TREATED AND TREATMENT TYPE
[Source: GGNRA Fire Management Office, 2004.]
Alternative A1
Treatment type
County
Alternative B
Alternative C
Mechanical Treatment 2 (ac/year) .............
Marin .........................................................
San Francisco ..........................................
San Mateo ................................................
75
5
20
180
10
40
225
10
40
Total ...................................................
Prescribed Burning (ac/year) ....................
...................................................................
Marin .........................................................
San Francisco ..........................................
San Mateo ................................................
100
100
<1
10
230
120
<1
0
275
285
<1
35
Total ...................................................
...................................................................
110
120
120
1 Estimated
2 Includes
based upon current practice, since 1993 FMP did not specify number of acres per year for treatments.
fuel reduction through methods such as mowing, cutting, short-term grazing, and selective thinning.
Planning Background: Public scoping
for the FMP EIS began on August 8,
2003, with publication in the Federal
Register of the Notice of Intent to
prepare an environmental impact
statement for the GGNRA Fire
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:36 Mar 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
Management Plan. In addition to the
Federal Register notice, the scoping
period was publicized through a mass
mailing to the public and a notice
advertising scoping workshops, which
were held in each of the three counties
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in the planning area. Scoping comments
were solicited from the public,
regulatory agencies, local fire
departments and park staff from August
8, 2003, to December 5, 2003.
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
13540
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Notices
Comments: The FMP/DEIS will be
sent directly to those who request it in
writing received by regular mail or email. Copies and compact discs of the
document will be available at park
headquarters, park visitor centers, and
at local and regional libraries. The
complete document will be posted on
the park’s Web site at https://
www.nps.gov/goga/admin/planning.
Written comments must be postmarked
(or transmitted by e-mail) no later than
sixty days from the date of EPA’s notice
of filing published in the Federal
Register—as soon as it is confirmed, the
close of the commenting period will
also be posted on the park’s Web site.
All comments should be addressed to
the Superintendent and mailed to
Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
Fort Mason, Building 201, San
Francisco, CA 94123 (Attn: Fire
Management Plan); E-mail should be
sent to: goga_fire@nps.gov (please mark
the e-mail subject line ‘‘FMP DEIS
Comments’’). A public meeting will be
held be held to hear comments on the
DEIS. Please visit the GGNRA Web site
at https://www.nps.gov/goga/ for the
date, location, and time, or call the
GGNRA Fire Management Office at
(415) 331–6374.
All comments are maintained in the
administrative record and will be
available for public review at park
headquarters. If individuals submitting
comments request that their name and/
or address be withheld from public
disclosure, it will be honored to the
extent allowable by law. Such requests
must be stated prominently in the
beginning of the comments. As always,
NPS will make available to public
inspection all submissions from
organizations or businesses and from
persons identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations and businesses; and
anonymous comments may not be
considered.
Decision Process: It is anticipated that
the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Fire Management Plan
would be completed in spring, 2005.
The availability of the Final EIS will be
published in the Federal Register, and
announced via mailings and Web site
postings. Not sooner than thirty days
after the distribution of the Final EIS/
FMP, a Record of Decision may be
approved (as a delegated EIS the
approving official is the Regional
Director, Pacific West Region of the
National Park Service). After approval,
the official responsible for
implementation of the FMP will be the
General Superintendent, Golden Gate
National Recreation Area.
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:36 Mar 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
Dated: February 15, 2005.
George J. Turnbull,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05–5448 Filed 3–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Availability of a Record of
Decision on the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the ArrowheadWeston Transmission Line River
Crossing/Right-of-Way Request, Saint
Croix National Scenic River
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, Public Law 91–190, 83 Stat. 852,
853, as codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C), the National Park Service
(NPS) announces the availability of the
record of decision for the ArrowheadWeston Transmission Line River
Crossing/Right-Of-Way Request. On
February 23, the Director, Midwest
Region, approved the record of decision
for the crossing/right-of-way (ROW)
request. Specifically, the NPS has
selected the preferred alternative
(alternative 1: Long-span option) as
described in the final environmental
impact statement (EIS). Under the
selected action, the NPS will issue a
120-foot wide ROW permit to Minnesota
Power, Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation, and American
Transmission Company (the Applicants)
to allow for construction and operation
of alternative 1: Long-span option,
which is a double-circuited, alternating
current, 161 and 345-kilovolt
transmission line crossing of the
Namekagon River, a segment of the
Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway
(Riverway).
The selected action and four other
alternatives were analyzed in the draft
and final EIS. The full range of
foreseeable environmental
consequences was assessed. Among the
alternatives the NPS considered, the
selected action best provides a
combination of limiting impacts in the
crossing area and providing
enhancements throughout the Riverway.
The NPS believes the preferred
alternative allows for a transmission
line crossing of the Namekagon River
while minimizing and compensating for
impacts to the Riverway. The river
crossing will have no impact on the
free-flowing characteristics of the
Namekagon River and is consistent with
the park’s general management plan
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
which calls for new crossings to be
consolidated in existing crossings. The
preferred will allow supporting
structures to be set back from line-ofsight of the river, and will require less
ground, vegetation, and ongoing
maintenance disturbances. The
compensatory mitigation package will
eliminate up to eight distribution line
crossings, provide noise abatement
measures on a nearby stretch of the
Riverway, and provide funds for studies
and activities to enhance scenery and
recreation along the Riverway.
The record of decision includes a
statement of the decision made,
synopses of other alternatives
considered, the basis for the decision,
the rationale for why the selected action
is the environmentally preferred
alternative, a finding on impairment of
park resources and values, and an
overview of public involvement in the
decisionmaking process.
Ms.
Jill Medland, Saint Croix National
Scenic Riverway, 401 Hamilton Street,
P.O. Box 708, Saint Croix Falls,
Wisconsin 54024; phone 715 483–3284,
extension 609. Copies of the record of
decision may be obtained from the
contact listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated: February 22, 2005.
Ernest Quintana,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 05–5446 Filed 3–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–96–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places;
Notification of Pending Nominations
and Related Actions
Nominations for the following
properties being considered for listing
or related actions in the National
Register were received by the National
Park Service before February 26, 2005.
Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part
60 written comments concerning the
significance of these properties under
the National Register criteria for
evaluation may be forwarded by United
States Postal Service, to the National
Register of Historic Places, National
Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280,
Washington, DC 20240; by all other
carriers, National Register of Historic
Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye
St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC
20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 53 (Monday, March 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13538-13540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5448]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Fire Management Plan;
Golden Gate National Recreation Area; Marin, San Francisco and San
Mateo Counties, California; Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1,
1970, as amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations
(40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), the National Park Service, Department
of the Interior, has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
identifying and evaluating three alternatives for a Fire Management
Plan for Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), in northern
California. Potential impacts and mitigating measures are described for
each alternative. The alternative selected after this conservation
planning and environmental impact analysis process will serve as a
blueprint for fire management actions for the GGNRA over the next 10-15
years.
This Fire Management Plan (FMP) and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) identifies and analyzes two action alternatives, and a
No Action alternative, to update and revise the 1993 Fire Management
Plan for the GGNRA, Muir Woods National Monument and Fort Point
National Historic Site; the latter two sites are administered by GGNRA.
The 1993 FMP focuses primarily on natural resource management issues
and needs to be revised to more fully address cultural resource
concerns. In addition, the revisions will bring the FMP into
conformance with current federal wildland fire policies and standards,
address lands added to GGNRA since 1993, and plan for fire hazard
reduction in the extensive wildland urban interface on the park's
boundary.
This FMP DEIS evaluates fire management options for approximately
15,000 acres of GGNRA's nearly 75,000 legislated acres. The planning
area for the FMP contains lands in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo
counties--three of the nine counties that make up the San Francisco Bay
area. Several of the smaller national park sites are within the City of
San Francisco itself; remaining areas are in southern and southwestern
Marin County, northwestern San Mateo County and the Phleger Estate, in
southeastern San Mateo County near the Town of Woodside. The FMP
planning area does not included the following lands:
(1) The northern lands of GGNRA, comprising 18,000 acres north of
the Bolinas-Fairfax Road in western Marin County, which are managed by
the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) under an agreement between the
two park units. Fire management responsibilities for these northern
lands are addressed in the PRNS FMP (approved October 29, 2004).
(2) Lands within the jurisdictional boundary of GGNRA that are not
directly managed by the National Park Service. This includes the San
Francisco Watershed, managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (with overlays of NPS easements) and the interior portion of
the Presidio of San Francisco (referred to as Area B), which is managed
by the Presidio Trust, a federal corporation. The coastal portion of
the Presidio (Area A), managed by the GGNRA, is included in the
planning area.
In addition to lands currently under the management of the NPS, the
FMP planning area includes those lands within the legislative boundary
that may pass to NPS management in the near future. These areas, all in
San Mateo County, include Cattle Hill, Pedro Point, Picardo Ranch, and
northern coastal bluffs along Highway 1.
GGNRA was created in 1972 to preserve for public use and enjoyment
certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties, California,
possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational
values, and in order to provide for the maintenance of needed
recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning.
The legislation charged the Secretary of the Interior to ``utilize the
resources [of GGNRA] in a manner which will provide for recreation and
educational opportunities consistent with sound principles of land use
planning and management'' and to ``preserve the recreation area, as far
as possible, in its natural setting, and protect it from development
and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural character of
the area.''[16 U.S.C. 460bb]. GGNRA protects a remarkably diverse
cluster of coastal ecosystems, landscapes, and historical sites, from
the rural hills of Tomales Bay and the San Mateo watershed to the
scenic headlands and military outposts of the Golden Gate and the urban
shorelines of San Francisco. This diversity centers on the singular
geographic feature of Golden Gate, portal between the United States and
the Pacific Basin, and includes a Civil War fort, an ancient redwood
forest, the former Alcatraz federal penitentiary, and most of the last
remaining open spaces and forests on the ocean coast of the
metropolitan Bay Area. The parklands include beaches, coastal
headlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, Douglas fir and coast redwood
forests, freshwater and estuarine wetlands, marine terraces, and
riparian corridors. GGNRA contains the highest concentration of
historic buildings (over 1,250 buildings and five national historic
landmark districts) in any single unit of the National Park System.
In the past, wildland fire occurred naturally in the park as an
important ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and vegetation
structure within the natural range of variability. Past logging and
fire suppression activities have lead to increased fuel loads and
changes in vegetation community structure. This has increased the risk
of large, high-intensity wildland fire within the park,
[[Page 13539]]
threatening the park's developed zones, its natural and cultural
resources, and residential areas close to the park boundary in the
wildland urban interface zone.
Alternatives. Though the three alternatives vary in the strategies
used to achieve fire management goals, there are several common
elements of the FMP that are the same under each alternative. The fire
management approach for Muir Woods National Monument would be the same,
including the use of prescribed fire as well as mechanical fuel
reduction. Some actions, including continued implementation of the
Wildland Urban Interface Initiative, maintenance of the park's fire
roads and trails, vegetation clearing around park buildings,
suppression of unplanned ignitions, public information and education,
construction of a new fire cache for equipment storage and continuation
of the current fire monitoring program, would be carried out under all
three alternatives. The three alternatives meet the park's goals and
objectives to an acceptably large degree, and are within constraints
imposed by regulations and policies, by risks associated with the
wildland urban interface, and by technical and funding limitations. The
three alternatives differ in combinations of prescribed burning and
mechanical treatments in the park interior versus parklands that share
a boundary with development. Each alternative has an upper limit set on
the number of acres that could be treated by either prescribed burning
or mechanically treated in one year (see Table 1).
Alternative A (No Action)--This alternative would update the 1993
FMP only to reflect changes to the park's boundary (e.g., addition of
new lands since 1993) and current national fire management policies.
The focus of the 1993 FMP program is on vegetation management through
the application of prescribed fire to perpetuate fire-dependent natural
systems. In recent practice, many fire management actions have been
mechanical fuel reduction projects (e.g., mowing, cutting to remove
non-native shrubs and trees, and selective thinning in forested stands)
funded through the Wildland-Urban Interface Program. This alternative
would rely on the continued implementation of the 1993 FMP supplemented
by mechanical fuel reduction along with prescribed fire, and
suppression of all wildfires. Current research projects would continue
and would focus on the role of fire to enhance natural resources and
the effects of fire on key natural resources to determine the
effectiveness of various fuel treatments.
Alternative B--Hazard Reduction and Restricted Fire Use for
Research and Resource Enhancement. This alternative would emphasize use
of mechanical methods to reduce fire hazards and fuel loads in areas
with the highest risks. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would
increase the number of acres mechanically treated each year, with a
focus on the reduction of high fuel loads in the wildland urban
interface area. Limited use of prescribed fire could occur for research
purposes within the park interior. Research projects would examine the
role of fire to enhance natural resources and the effects of fire on
key natural resources to determine the effectiveness of various fuel
treatments. Natural and cultural resource goals and objectives would be
integrated into the design and implementation of fuel reduction
projects.
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) (Environmentally Preferred)--
Hazard Reduction and Resource Enhancement through Multiple Treatments.
This alternative would allow for the greatest number of acres to be
treated on an annual basis to achieve fire management and resource
objectives through the use of a broad range of fire management
strategies. Mechanical treatment and prescribed burning would be used
throughout the park as a means to reduce fuel loading and achieve
resource enhancement goals. Mechanical treatments, complemented by
prescribed fire, would be employed to assist with restoration and
maintenance of the park's natural and cultural resources. An expanded
research program would examine the role of fire and mechanical
treatments in enhancing natural resources, reducing fuel loading, and
specific impacts of fire on key natural resources; research would also
be used to adaptively guide the fire management program and help to
maximize the benefits to park resources. As in Alternative B, natural
and cultural resource goals and objectives would be integrated into the
design and implementation of fuel reduction projects.
Table 1.--Summary of Alternatives by Annual Acres Treated and Treatment Type
[Source: GGNRA Fire Management Office, 2004.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment type County Alternative A\1\ Alternative B Alternative C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechanical Treatment \2\ (ac/year). Marin................ 75 180 225
San Francisco........ 5 10 10
San Mateo............ 20 40 40
------------------------
Total.......................... ..................... 100 230 275
Prescribed Burning (ac/year)....... Marin................ 100 120 285
San Francisco........ <1 <1 <1
San Mateo............ 10 0 35
------------------------
Total.......................... ..................... 110 120 120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated based upon current practice, since 1993 FMP did not specify number of acres per year for
treatments.
\2\ Includes fuel reduction through methods such as mowing, cutting, short-term grazing, and selective thinning.
Planning Background: Public scoping for the FMP EIS began on August
8, 2003, with publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of
Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the GGNRA Fire
Management Plan. In addition to the Federal Register notice, the
scoping period was publicized through a mass mailing to the public and
a notice advertising scoping workshops, which were held in each of the
three counties in the planning area. Scoping comments were solicited
from the public, regulatory agencies, local fire departments and park
staff from August 8, 2003, to December 5, 2003.
[[Page 13540]]
Comments: The FMP/DEIS will be sent directly to those who request
it in writing received by regular mail or e-mail. Copies and compact
discs of the document will be available at park headquarters, park
visitor centers, and at local and regional libraries. The complete
document will be posted on the park's Web site at https://www.nps.gov/
goga/admin/planning. Written comments must be postmarked (or
transmitted by e-mail) no later than sixty days from the date of EPA's
notice of filing published in the Federal Register--as soon as it is
confirmed, the close of the commenting period will also be posted on
the park's Web site. All comments should be addressed to the
Superintendent and mailed to Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort
Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, CA 94123 (Attn: Fire Management
Plan); E-mail should be sent to: goga_fire@nps.gov (please mark the e-
mail subject line ``FMP DEIS Comments''). A public meeting will be held
be held to hear comments on the DEIS. Please visit the GGNRA Web site
at https://www.nps.gov/goga/ for the date, location, and time, or call
the GGNRA Fire Management Office at (415) 331-6374.
All comments are maintained in the administrative record and will
be available for public review at park headquarters. If individuals
submitting comments request that their name and/or address be withheld
from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by
law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the
comments. As always, NPS will make available to public inspection all
submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
and businesses; and anonymous comments may not be considered.
Decision Process: It is anticipated that the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Fire Management Plan would be completed in
spring, 2005. The availability of the Final EIS will be published in
the Federal Register, and announced via mailings and Web site postings.
Not sooner than thirty days after the distribution of the Final EIS/
FMP, a Record of Decision may be approved (as a delegated EIS the
approving official is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region of the
National Park Service). After approval, the official responsible for
implementation of the FMP will be the General Superintendent, Golden
Gate National Recreation Area.
Dated: February 15, 2005.
George J. Turnbull,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05-5448 Filed 3-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-FN-P
