[PDF] Presidio Trails and Bikeways - National Park Service PDF PRES%20Trails%20and%20Bikeways.pdf

The Presidio of San Francisco is part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) It is also a National Historic Landmark District (NHLD), the highest

[PDF] Hiking in Northern California - Golden Gate Area Council

San Francisco Bay Area Council established the Presidio Historic Trail Program After visiting Fort Point (interesting exhibits and films here, and great views

[PDF] The Presidio Trail A Historical Walking Tour of - City of Tucson

The Presidio Trail A Historical Walking Tour of Downtown Tucson This historical walk, designed as a loop, begins and ends at the intersection of Church and

[PDF] San Francisco Chronicle - Features Lodge at the - Presidio Lodging

17 jui 2018 · SF's newest hotel may have best view in town By Spud experience, with the running trails and the bay views and the much more relaxed

[PDF] El Solitario -- Big Bend Ranch State Park - Texas Parks and Wildlife

Presidio County line in the ocotillo forests and along ancient streambeds on the Encino Loop Trail The Encino Loop Trail, experience, the trail offers great

[PDF] 2012 REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY - Golden Gate National Parks

tors to the Haas, Jr Fund challenge grant for Presidio Trails, Bikeways, and Overlooks If America's best idea is the nation- al park—as author Wallace Stegner

[PDF] PRESIDIO TRAIL RUN - YMCA of San Francisco

Presidio Community YMCA 63 Funston Ave , San Francisco, CA 94129 PRESIDIO TRAIL RUN YMCA SPONSORSHIP PACKET healthiest, best selves

[PDF] best international long distance rates in canada

[PDF] best javascript cheat sheet pdf

[PDF] best latex fonts

[PDF] best latex fonts for thesis

[PDF] best latex tutorial pdf

[PDF] best linux cheat sheet pdf

[PDF] best lms 2020

[PDF] best metro systems in the world

[PDF] best online french course with certificate

[PDF] best practice in therapeutic drug monitoring

[PDF] best restaurants paris 5

[PDF] best ruby on rails tutorial reddit

[PDF] best salesforce certification for business analyst

[PDF] best seats on eurostar to paris

[PDF] best train tickets for europe

Presidio Trails and BikewaysMaster Plan & Environmental AssessmentNational Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

The Presidio Trust

Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area

July 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTSChapter 1: Introduction

A Vision of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

The Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Analysis and Alternatives Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Document Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

The Presidio's History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Planning Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Changes to the Trails Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Plan Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Prioritization and Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Chapter 2: Purpose and Need

Project Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Project Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Chapter 3: Trail Classifications and Design Guidelines

User Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Trails and Bikeways Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Pedestrian Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Bikeway Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Accessible Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Presidio Trails & Bikeways

master plan

Trail Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Chapter 4: Alternatives

Alternative Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Changes to Existing Trail Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

New Trail Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Overall Trail Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Comparisons at Key Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Environmentally Preferrable Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences

Introduction and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Geologic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Hydrologic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

Traffic Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Visitor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

Chapter 6: Consultation and References

Interagency Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

List of Persons and Agencies Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

iii

Chapter 7: Appendices

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1

Appendix B: Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1

Appendix C: Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1

Appendix D: Cumulative Project List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-1

Figures

1-1. Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

1-2. The Presidio of San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

1-3. Changes to the Preferred Alternative, Pedestrian, Multi-Use Trails and Bicycle Routes . . . .12

3-1. Pedestrian Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

3-2. Pedestrian Trail Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

3-3. Multi-Use Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3-4. Typical Bike Lanes on Roadway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

3-5. Uphill Bike Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

3-6. Shared Roadway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

3-7. Beach Access Route (Plastic Mat Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

3-8. Primary Trailhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

3-9. Secondary Trailhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

3-10. Existing Trail Marker, Bay Area Ridge Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

4-1. Street Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

4-2. Trail Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

4-3A. Alternative A: No Action, Pedestrian and Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

4-3B. Alternative A: No Action, On-Street Bicycle Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

4-4A. Alternative B: Mixed Use, Pedestrian and Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

4-4B. Alternative B and C: Mixed Use and Shared Use, On-Street Bicycle Routes . . . . . . . . . . . .54

4-5. Alternative C: Shared Use, Pedestrian and Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

4-6A Alternative D: Dispersed Use, Pedestrian and Multi-Use Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

4-6B. Alternative D: Dispersed Use, On-Street Bicycle Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Presidio Trails & Bikeways

master plan iv

4-7. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Pershing Drive North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

4-8. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Pershing Drive North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

4-9. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Kobbe Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

4-10. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Kobbe Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

4-11. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Washington Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

4-12. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Washington Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

4-13. Existing Conditions at Lincoln Boulevard at Crissy Field Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

4-14. Proposed Development at Lincoln Boulevard at Crissy Field Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

4-15. Existing Conditions at Golden Gate Promenade at Fort Point Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

4-16. Proposed Development at Golden Gate Promenade at Fort Point Extension . . . . . . . . . . .62

4-17. Existing Conditions at Ecology Trail Corridor at Arguello Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

4-18. Proposed Development at Ecology Trail Corridor at Arguello Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

4-19. Existing Conditions of Bay Area Ridge Trail Corridor at Washington Boulevard . . . . . . . .64

4-20. Proposed Development of Bay Area Ridge Trail Corridor at Washington Boulevard . . . . .64

4-21. Existing Conditions of Juan Bautista de Anza Trail at Battery Caulfield Road . . . . . . . . . .65

4-22. 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-5

C-1. Typical Location: Existing Drainage Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1

C-2. Outsloping (BMP 1-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1

C-3. Rolling Grade Dip (BMP 1-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-2

C-4. Surface Reinforcing (BMP 2-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-2

C-5. Boardwalk Bridge (BMP 2-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-3

C-6. Drainage Lens (BMP 2-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-3

C-7. Typical Location: Steep Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-3

C-8. Retaining Wall (BMP 3-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-4

C-9. Trail Stairs (BMP 3-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-4

C-10. Above Grade Trail (BMP 4-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-5

C-11. Typical Location: Eroding and Hazardous Trail Edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-5

CONTENTSCONTENTS

C-12. Edge Protection (BMP 5-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-6

C-13. Trail in Sandy Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-6

C-14. Subsurface Geogrid (BMP 6-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-7

C-15. Moveable Textured Panel (BMP 6-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-7

C-16. Sand Ladder (BMP 6-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-7

C-17A.Trail Damaged by Vehicle Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-8

C-17B.Reinforced Trail Base (BMP 7-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-8

C-18. Typical Location: Bicycle/Auto Conflict on Washington Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-8

C-19. Social Trail Through Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-10

C-20. Vegetation Restoration (BMP 9-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-11

C-21. Lobos Creek Boardwalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-11

C-22. Boardwalk (BMP 10-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-12

Tables

3-1. Trails and Bikeways Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4-1. Trails and Bikeways by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

5-1. Changes to Trail Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

5-2. Trailheads and Overlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

B-1. Format of Written Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1

B-2. General Position of Commentor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1

B-3. Preference of Commentors in Support of the Trails Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-2

B-4. Self Identity of Commentors (User Types) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-2

B-5. Single Issue Letters, Emails and Comment Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-2

B-6. Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Commenting on the Trails Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-3

C-1. Backslope Cut Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-4

FPPHA Fort Point and Presidio Historical Association

FR Federal Register

ft Feet

GG Transit Golden Gate Transit

GGBHTD Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District

GGNPC Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy

GGNRA Golden Gate National Recreation Area

GIS Geographic Information System

GMPA General Management Plan

gpd Gallons Per Day h Hectares

IMBA International Mountain Bicycle Association

in Inch/inches km Kilometers lf Linear Feet

LSRA Lake Street Resident's Association

m Meters

MCBC Marin County Bicycle Coalition

mi Miles mm Milimeters mph Miles Per Hour

MUNI San Francisco Municipal Railway

NAPP Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Trails Planning

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHL National Historic Landmark

NHLD National Historic Landmark District

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPCA National Parks and Conservation Association

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

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments

ac Acres

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Act Presidio Trust Act

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADAAG ADA Accessibility Guidelines

ANPR Advanced Notice of Professional Rulemaking

APA Administrative Procedures Act

Ave Avenue

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality District

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

BARTC Bay Area Rapid Transit Council

BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

BMPs Best Management Practices

CalTrans California Department of Transportation

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHA Cow Hollow Association

CHC California Heritage Council

cm Centimeters

Coastal Trail California Coastal Trail

CWA Clean Water Act of the United States

EAs Environmental Assessments

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

Appendices

Introduction

Purpose & Need

Alternatives

Environmental Consequences

Consultation and References

Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

NPS National Park Service

PA Programmatic Agreement

PAR Trails Planning Association of Richmond

PHAN Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors

PM10 Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns in Diameter

PTMP Presidio Trust Management Plan

ROMP Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers

RTC Rails to Trails Conservancy

SFBC San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

SFBT San Francisco Bay Trail

SFTC San Francisco Tree Council

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

sf Square Feet sm Square Meters

TDM Transportation Demand Management

Trails Plan Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan

Trust Presidio Trust

Trust Board Presidio Trust Board

USC United States Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USPP U.S. Park Police

VMP Vegetation Management Plan

vii

INTRODUCTION

Appendices

Introduction

Purpose & Need

Alternatives

Environmental Assessment

References and Consultation

Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

Introduction

Brenda Tharp

INTRODUCTION

Appendices

Introduction

Purpose & Need

Alternatives

Environmental Consequences

Consultation and References

Trail Classifications & Design Guidelines

A Vision of the FutureThe year is 2023, and as a beautiful summer day slides into evening, a group of people stop to enjoy a Pacific sunset at one of the Presidio's overlooks atop the coastal bluffs. The admirers include tourists, runners, a family out for a bicycle ride, a woman walking her dog, a wheelchair athlete taking a break from her training and a Presidio resident out for an evening stroll. All of them traveled to the overlook along the Presidio's well-maintained and interconnected network of pedestrian and multi- use trails and bikeways.

This idyllic scene had its start in 1999, when

work began on a plan to develop a pedestrian and bicycle network that provides access to the

Presidio's unique natural, cultural and historic

resources.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. It will guide management of Presidio trails and bikeways for the next 20 years.

The vision for the plan was based on public and

agency involvement and includes: connections of trail experiences to meet user needs skills and physical abilities cultural resources that make the Presidio an outstanding national resource transportation strategy that supports the use of alternative transportation and reduces dependence on cars trails and local bicycle routes that fully incorporates the best in sustainable design and construction practices and stewardship programs

The Golden Gate Bridge from the Presidio

Analysis and Alternatives DevelopmentThe NPS and Trust carried out extensive on-site evaluation of the existing trail system, identifying physical and structural problems, use patterns, safety concerns and trail destination and connection opportunities. Presidio resources were evaluated to determine constraints to potential trail alignments and opportunities to correct existing problems or create new recreation, commuter routes and interpretive experiences. This analysis also reviewed trail corridors relative to geologic and hydrologic factors, biological resources, traffic safety, and cultural and scenic resources.

The analysis was mapped on a Geographic

Information System (GIS) trail database so that

trail alignments could be adjusted accordingly. If the resource analysis mapping indicated potential conflicts between resource protection and desired trail alignments, field checks were conducted to verify conditions and determine an appropriate course of action.

Based on this analysis, four trails and bikeways

alternatives were developed for analysis in an

Environmental Assessment (EA):

maintains the Presidio's current trails and bikeways network and assumes no comprehensive changes or new trail buildingquotesdbs_dbs6.pdfusesText_12

[PDF] [PDF] Presidio Trails and Bikeways - National Park Service