Fort Funston Update - April 1st, 2006 (no joke - we're really having a cleanup on Saturday!)

Don't forget - weather permitting - the Fort Funston monthly cleanup is tomorrow. Meet at 9:30am in the upper parking lot for buckets, bags - everything you need to help clean the Fort. Later we'll have coffee and doughnuts at the Battery-Davis picnic tables. Rain cancels - let's hope we get a break between the storms!

 

Next, an update on the negotiated rulemaking process  and actions you can take now (sorry for the length, but this is SO complicated!)

 

As part of the rulemaking process, the GGNRA is conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a science-based assessment of the impact of various alternative dog management policies on the natural and cultural resources of the park.

The GGNRA wants to know what the public thinks the scope of the planning process and the EIS should be and what alternatives and issues they should consider while conducting the EIS. Your input is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT at the onset of this process. This is your chance to ensure the GGNRA is accountable to you, the dog-owning public, when it decides what issues the EIS should address and what alternatives it should consider. The document that they want comment on can be found at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=11759 (select the document link on the left side for the Scoping document which is open for comment, as well as other background documents for your reference).

The GGNRA will hold two public workshops to discuss the dog management plan/EIS. This is your chance to ask questions of the contractors who will be conducting the EIS, and to let them know what is important to you. The workshops will be:

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006
Marin County
Bay Model Visitor Center , Sausalito
4 - 7:30 pm

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006
San Francisco
Fort Mason Officers Club
4 - 7:30 pm 

 

At these workshops, the GGNRA will present information about dog management in the GGNRA, and what the EIS will consider. GGNRA staff and contractors will be on hand to answer questions and give information to the public. You will be able to submit written comments at the workshop. It is not necessary to attend both sessions, but please try to attend one so that your EIS comments are better informed.


You can also submit comments by mail:
Superintendent
GGNRA
Fort Mason, Building 201
San Francisco, CA 94123
Attn: Dog Management Plan

Or online:
Through the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/
Go to Golden Gate National Recreation Area and select "EIS/Dog Management Plan for GGNRA"

DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT - MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006 at 11:59 pm

GGNRA management will make the ultimate decision on whether dogs will be allowed off leash in the park and where, but they can be expected to give considerable weight to the alternatives recommended by the EIS. The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, whose members represent the diverse interests likely to be affected by a dog management plan, is a part of this process. The GGNRA plans to integrate recommendations from the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee into one or more alternatives for evaluations in the EIS. Note that both the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee meetings and the EIS will happen simultaneously.

 

It's critically important that you let the GGNRA know what issues and alternatives they should consider in the EIS. DO NOT LET THIS OPPORTUNITY PASS YOU BY. Please, attend the workshops if you can, but for certain take the time to write the GGNRA about the scope of the EIS (what issues and alternatives they should consider) during the public comment period which ENDS MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006 at 11:59 pm.


SUGGESTED ISSUES/QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER  in your comments 

1)    Questions to ask EIS contractors:

q       How will the EIS study be conducted?

q       What specific science/ecological impacts will be considered as part of EIS review?

q       How will the contractors evaluate off leash dog impacts versus other recreational and animal impacts in the GGNRA?

q       Over what period of time will the EIS study impacts?

q       How can we be sure the contractors conducting the EIS are impartial? Will we be able to review their testing methods and assessments? How many EIS have they done before, and for whom?

q       Where will evaluations (e.g., soil or water samples) be taken from, when and over what period of time?

q       How many labs will be used to process environmental samples? What are their records for accuracy in their analysis?

q       What will be the EIS reporting process? Will the public be able to review their work during the evaluation process and provide feedback? Will the public be able to review their work during the evaluation process and provide feedback? How transparent will the process be?

q       What, if anything, will the interested public's participation be in the EIS?

 

2)    The ultimate solution will be more enforceable if the public accepts it:

q       Identify the areas within the GGNRA where you have walked or currently walk your dog(s) off leash. Include areas where you have traditionally walked your dog which is now restricted. The GGNRA needs to hear where dogs have historically and traditionally been walked off leash. Let them know how often you walk with your dog in the GGNRA - once a day, twice a day, once a week, only periodically.

 

3)    Maintain continuity of use:

q       San Francisco residents have been walking dogs off leash in the GGNRA for decades and this is a valid consideration for maintaining off leash areas.  Off leash dog walking is the status quo. Banning or further limiting where off leash dogs are allowed constitutes a change to the current and historical use of the park. Continuing to allow significant off leash recreation opportunities constitutes a "continuity of use" of park land.

 

4)    Consider the cultural aspect of off leash walking as an "important park resource", as important as other park resources:

q       Banning or further limiting off leash dogs will have a significant negative impact on the community. The community of people recreating with off leash dogs represents a tremendous cultural resource in San Francisco and the GGNRA. Where else can you see people from nearly every ethnic background and race, all socio-economic levels, seniors, teens, families with kids, singles, gays, straights, men, women, disabled, and able-bodied – all getting together to socialize together while their dogs play off leash. Walking and playing with off leash dogs brings together (in a positive way) people who otherwise would rarely see or interact with one another.

 

5)    Consider the economic and health aspects of providing off leash recreation:

q       The community of dog owners contributes significantly to the local economy - contributing over $25 million in sales tax alone to the city coffers in San Francisco every year. Dogs provide much-needed companionship to seniors, singles, children, and the sick and disabled, and encourage people who would otherwise stay housebound to get out of the house at least once a day.

 

6)    Consider the positive affect on safety of including off leash recreation in urban parks:

q       Banning or further limiting off leash dogs will have a negative impact on park safety. A well-used park is a safe park. Seniors and women, in particular, are often reluctant to walk alone in parks because of fears of muggings or rapes. The presence of people with well-behaved dogs off leash discourages muggers, drug dealers and users, and rapists from hanging out in parks. Many people, including seniors and women, walk in the GGNRA precisely because there are so many people with off leash dogs there.

 

7)    Consider the impact on San Francisco if off leash walking is banned in the GGNRA (and remember that San Francisco gave ALL of its beaches to the Park Service with the direction to maintain existing uses):

q       Banning or further limiting off leash dogs will have a significant negative impact on San Francisco city parks. At least 10,000 dogs visit the GGNRA every day (and that is a very conservative estimate). San Francisco city parks are much, much smaller than the GGNRA and will be unable to absorb the impact of all those dogs if they are forced out of the GGNRA. The negative impact on city parks far outweighs any potential negative impacts in the GGNRA.

 

8)    The GGNRA should not hold dog walkers to different and more stringent standards than other park users.

 

9)    Identify other options to resolving perceived problems with off leash activity (other than an outright ban):

q       Education can significantly reduce conflicts and tensions, and should be tried before outright banning or significantly reducing areas available to off leash dogs.

q       Clearly identify areas where off leash walking is allowed so that park visitors know where they can enjoy watching off leash dogs, as well as where they can visit without encountering off leash dogs.

 

10)            Don't limit the areas within the GGNRA that the EIS and the negotiations can consider for off leash dogs:

q       The 1979 Pet Policy was developed through a public review and comment process and allowed dogs off leash on 1% of GGNRA land, including Fort Funston , Ocean Beach , and Crissy Field. Many of these previously off leash areas are excluded from the alternatives considered by the EIS and the negotiations. Wouldn't it be better to have maximum flexibility in deciding which areas can be considered for off leash recreation?