Pet Pages
It will take more than a resolution to save dog walking in the GGNRA

The public comment period on the proposed dog management plan and draft environmental impact statement for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) closes on May 30.

The 2,400-page document was released for a 90-day comment period on Jan. 14. However, after outcry from the public and local governments over the feasibility of reviewing such a massive report, the GGNRA lengthened the comment period an additional six weeks to the May 30 closing date.

That extension of time allowed the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee the chance to hold a hearing on the GGNRA proposals and to approve a resolution recommending opposition to the plan. Introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener, a resolution “opposing the Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s currently proposed preferred alternatives for dog management and supporting the on-going dialogue between GGNRA and San Francisco to achieve an improved plan” was brought before the Board of Supervisors on April 26 and passed by a vote of 10 to 1, with Supervisor Elsbernd being the only member opposed.

Land Use Committee Hears Citizens’ Concerns, but Will GGNRA?

How much weight will the resolution hold? A discussion between Supervisor Wiener and GGNRA superintendent Frank Dean during the committee hearing may shed some light on that.

Wiener: Apart from San Francisco, say, submitting a public comment, will there actually be a collaborative process to shape the plan going forward?

Dean: We can certainly have discussions with the City – I wouldn’t characterize it as negotiating. We have a NEPA process (an environmental review process) underway, and we have alternatives on the table, and constructive comments from the public – and from working with city officials – we’re all ears. If there are certain things we need to tweak to make this thing work, we are open to that.

Wiener: As I understand, the White House has instructed that under NEPA, federal agencies are to work with local officials. Am I correct about that?

Dean: Yes, we will work with you. We’re all ears. [But] we can’t come up with another alternative midstream here. We have to take the comments that are gathered here, and perhaps a new alternative will evolve from that.”

“Perhaps” is the key word. The conundrum that arises from this discussion is that the City has not been involved in the process that got the GGNRA’s plan to this point. Nor were the probable effects on city resources addressed substantively in the plan.

Sarah Ballard of the S.F. Recreation and Park Department addressed the committee following Dean. “We do have significant concerns over this plan. Most importantly, I think, the study does not adequately speak to impact on land outside the jurisdiction of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. It stands to reason that if you restrict dogs in a certain part of the City, they will necessarily go somewhere else, and that somewhere else will be our parks.”

Rebecca Katz, the director of S.F. Animal Care and Control, noted that the GGNRA has not been receptive to suggestions of compromise in their draft plan. “Peaceful coexistence requires understanding and movement from both sides, and is the only way a city like San Francisco, with such diverse interests, can seek solutions to our challenges,” said Katz. She stated that Animal Care and Control is opposed to the dog management plan not only because it fails to address the needs of San Francisco stakeholders, but also because it “dramatically changes the nature of the current and intended use of GGNRA land.”

Wiener had earlier mentioned to Dean the repeated comments he heard from constituents pointing out that the GGNRA is a national recreation area, not Yosemite.

Dean replied, “It may be a national recreation area, [pause] technically, [pause] but it’s still a national park. It’s not any different than Yosemite or Yellowstone in that respect.”

Attempts to change the name to Golden Gate National Park were quashed several years ago as users and neighbors made it clear to the bill’s sponsor, Nancy Pelosi, that the park was created for recreational activities, not wilderness preservation. But GGNRA staff continually refers to it as a national park, and seem to want to manage it similarly.

Where Does it go From Here?

The GGNRA will decide how to adjust the preferred alternative (if at all) based on the comments received. There is no Round 2 in this volley, and if a new preferred alternative arises, it is solely developed and selected by the GGNRA. A final plan and EIS will be developed and published, presumably in 2012. There is usually a 30-day comment period after the final documents are issued, but no changes are required based on comments received, no matter how negative. It becomes an issue for the federal courts after that.

It’s a process where the proposal is created, reviewed, and approved by the same entity. Where are the checks and balances in that?
And it’s the reason that submitting your comments now is imperative.

During the Land Use Committee hearing, superintendent Dean stated, “I don’t believe the status quo is working. If it were, I don’t think we would be here today.”

Today has little to do with the equation. The status quo has never worked in the eyes of the National Park Service (NPS). When the GGNRA was established in 1972, dog walking was immediately targeted as unacceptable per blanket NPS rules. The fact that it was an existing and popular recreational use inherited with the donated land had little bearing. A citizens’ advisory board worked over several years to develop what became known as the 1979 Pet Policy to establish special rules in exception to NPS policy. The Pet Policy, still in effect today, defines exactly where both on- and off-leash dog walking is allowed within the GGNRA.

Unfortunately, the 1979 Pet Policy was never entered into the Federal Register, so did not become law. Despite that formal oversight, the status quo of where dogs are allowed has not changed since the policy was established. Neither have the GGNRA’s attempts to enforce their preferred, more restrictive, regulations. It’s taken 39 years, but it has culminated in the negotiated rulemaking process that produced the 2011 draft dog management plan.

The GGNRA maintains that a plan is necessary because:
• Under current conditions, park resources and values could be compromised to the extent that, without action, these resources and values in some areas of the park might not be available for enjoyment by future generations.

• A dog management policy inconsistent with NPS regulations and increased public expectations for use of the park for dog recreation have resulted in controversy, litigation, and compromised visitor and employee safety, affecting visitor experience and resulting in resource degradation. These conflicts will likely escalate if not addressed in a comprehensive plan/DEIS.

The GGNRA’s proposed dog management plan will affect tens of thousand of recreational users by severely restricting the already limited access for dog walking. Shouldn’t such a drastic plan be based on more than “could be” or “might not” suppositions?

Implying that there are “increased public expectations for use of the park for dog recreation” is an undocumented perception as well. The same areas have been designated and used for recreation with dogs for the last 39 years. There has been no request for additional access for dogs by any stakeholder.

• Likewise, where are the details of litigation or compromised visitor and employee safety? There are no facts in 2,400 pages to say that these things are a threat to the park.

Unfortunately, this dog management plan is for the sole purpose of limiting access, not managing access. That’ been the GGNRA’s goal since 1972.

At the Land Use Committee hearing, 54 spoke in opposition to the GGNRA’s plan, 11 spoke in favor of it. The Board of Supervisors made the right call in asking the GGNRA to go back to the drawing board to create a plan that addressed the needs of all San Franciscans. But will they listen?

Dog-walking advocates stress the importance of making your voice heard before May 30. You may only comment on the DEIS in one of two ways:

• Submit comments online via the “Comment on Document” link on the project website: www.parkplanning.nps.gov/dogplan

• Mail comments to Frank Dean, General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Building 201, Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA 94123-0022

Comments will not be accepted by phone, fax or e-mail. Bulk comments collected and submitted on behalf of a group will not be accepted.