[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55826-55827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28497]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan; San
Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, California; Record of
Decision
Introduction
Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190 (as amended), and the regulations promulgated
by the Council on Environmental Quality at 40 CFR 1505.2, the
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, has prepared this
Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement
on the General Management Plan for San Francisco Maritime National
Historical Park. The ROD is a concise statement of what decisions were
made, what alternatives were considered, the environmentally preferred
alternative, the basis for the decision, and the mitigating measures
developed to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Selected Action
The National Park Service (NPS) will implement Alternative A,
described as the proposed action in the Draft and
[[Page 55827]]
Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The NPS will emphasize the
preservation and maintenance of the park's collection, including the
fleet of historic vessels, small watercraft, historic structures,
library, and archival materials. Minimal measures to slow down
deterioration of the steam schooner Wapama will be implemented, but the
vessel's underlying structural decay will not be addressed. The park
will pursue multiple strategies for ship restoration, such as continued
use of commercial shipyards and appropriate agreements with San
Francisco Bay Area dry dock facilities. Efforts will be made to seek
out other agencies or private organizations interested in
reconstructing or preserving Wapama as a dryberth exhibit. If such
efforts are unsuccessful, the ship will be dismantled when it can no
longer be maintained in a safe condition. Wapama will suffer an adverse
effect if she is dismantled. Greater use of the park's collection by
the public for research and interpretive purposes will be provided
through the use of additional facilities, including rehabilitation of
the Haslett Warehouse. The intersection of Hyde and Jefferson Streets
will be redesigned to enhance pedestrian access and visibility of the
pier and historic ships, and to expand interpretive opportunities.
Aquatic Park will be enhanced and maintained as a public open space,
and recreational activities in the lagoon such as swimming, rowing, and
the temporary mooring of sailboats will continue to be provided to all
users. Park volunteer programs will be enhanced and visitors will be
encouraged to experience other related sites in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Historic properties will generally benefit from a consistent
maintenance and preservation approach aimed at perpetuating their
historic integrity. The library and museum collection will receive the
space, equipment, and staffing needed to protect, preserve, and use
them appropriately. Local traffic patterns and parking will be affected
during peak use times. There will be minor disturbance along the
shoreline from construction activities.
Other Alternatives Considered
Two alternatives to the selected plan were detailed and evaluated
in the Draft and Final EIS documents. Alternative B emphasized
preservation and maintenance of the historic ships, small watercraft,
historic structures, library, and archival materials. Space would be
upgraded and expanded for the park's collection. The park would pursue
multiple strategies for major ship restoration work. The intersection
of Hyde and Jefferson Streets would be further developed as an
expanded-permanent pedestrian plaza with public seating, unobstructed
views of the ships and Bay, and additional space for interpretive
demonstrations, displays, and public programs. Impacts from Alternative
B would be very similar to the selected action, except: the Eppleton
Hall would be deaccessioned; there would be a permanent change in local
traffic and parking patterns; the swimming and rowing clubs would be
relocated to the west side of the Aquatic Park lagoon; and slightly
more disturbance from construction activities along the shoreline would
occur.
Alternative C (No Action-Minimum Requirements) would continue
current management strategies, with minimum actions implemented to
stabilize and preserve the park's collection and historic properties.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The NPS has determined Alternative A (the selected action) to be
the environmentally preferred alternative. It causes the least damage
to the biological environment; it best protects, preserves, and
enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources; and it would
disturb the least acreage. Both Alternative A and Alternative B would
greatly benefit the preservation and maintenance of the park's
collection. Both alternatives would improve the visitor experience
through creation of a pedestrian plaza, although under Alternative B
the plaza would be expanded and permanent. Creation of a pedestrian
plaza would result in some adverse effects on traffic and parking,
which would primarily be confined to certain times during summer
weekends under Alternative A.
Basis for Decision
As presented in the Draft EIS, the National Park Service developed
twenty-six (26) management objectives, covering resource management,
visitor experience, park development/facility design, and local
context. After evaluation of public comments on the alternatives
presented in the Draft EIS, it was determined that the selected action
best achieves the stated management objectives and achieves the park's
purpose which is to preserve and interpret the history and achievements
of seafaring Americans and the Nation's maritime heritage, especially
on the Pacific Coast.
Measures to Minimize Harm
The NPS consulted with the California State Historic Preservation
Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation according to the
Council's implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). A Programmatic
Agreement completed April 25, 1997 stipulates mitigative measures that
will be implemented. Further conservation planning and impact analysis
will be conducted for any individual construction projects, and
recorded in separate environmental decision documents subject to public
review. Appropriate mitigation, such as erosion control measures, would
be identified during that time. A traffic and transportation analysis
will be completed before implementing any vehicular access/circulation
or parking proposals.
Conclusion
The above factors and considerations warrant selection of the
alternative identified as the proposed action in the Final EIS.
Dated: October 9, 1997.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 97-28497 Filed 10-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
