The Smoking Gun On GGNRA Illegalities

There is a very revealing document prepared by the Director of the National Park Service in 2002, Ms. Fran Mainella. This document clearly explains why the GGNRA violated the promises made to the citizens when the National Recreation Area was created, and abolished off-leash recreation in 2001. This document explains how the NPS has perverted the Organic Act of 1916 to justify doing so. Further, it reveals that the DEIS process is a template utilized by the NPS to restrict access for humans engaged in various activities in National Park Units. So, despite our comments on this DEIS, it is obvious the GGNRA will not provide us the access we desire or deserve through the DEIS process.

Lastly, this document reveals that some Superintendents of NPS units believe these activities are unlawful. This may explain why we have had some relief in the courts, and why Congress or the courts are the only entities that will provide us the access we are entitled to. It is in the best interest of all citizens who enjoy recreating in the GGNRA to take note as it is not dogs that are the target of the NPS, but people, regardless of their recreational interests. We are just the first to be exiled.

The document is entitled, “Briefing Paper-Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation , and Public Lands-Subcommittee Oversight Hearing-April 25, 2002-2:00 p.m. 1334 LHOB”. The document is embedded in its entirety at the Ocean Beach DOG web site.

First, the paper describes how the GGNRA/NPS has altered the interpretation of the Organic Act so as to eliminate the priority for access and enjoyment of our park-the GGNRA.

The Organic Act of 1916 established the National Park Service and stated its purpose "to conserve the scenery and the national historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The purpose of the Park Service, then, can be summarized in two emphases: (1) to conserve park resources and (2) to provide for the enjoyment of these resources by the public. A proper balance must be found between the two.

There is concern that the 2001 Park Management Policies seem to be highly biased in favor of the first objective of the Act at the expense, and to the exclusion of, the second objective. In fact, when the new policies were introduced NPS Director Robert Stanton stated, "We believe this update of Management Policies will improve the Service's ability to protect park resources and values as Congress intended when it passed the 1916 Organic Act ..." No mention was made of the second requirement of the Organic Act. Moreover, the handbook itself lists as the sole fundamental purpose of the Service to conserve park resources and values while omitting the second provision.

This sharply contrasts with the 1988 Management policies which distinctly support the balance of both resource conservation and providing enjoyment to the public.

The new management policies are to be used "as the basic Service wide policy manual used by park superintendents and other NPS managers to guide their decision-making (emphasis added]''' These policies have already permeated into local park units and have significantly affected users around the nation. Limitations on snowmobiles, personal watercraft, and even the ability to walk pets in a national recreation area have been limited under the guise of the 2001 policies.

Next the briefing paper describes one avenue for eliminating access to the public-the recovery of endangered and threatened species; which has been extensively utilized by GGNRA management. This explains the GGNRA’s repeated treatment of any habitat, no matter how deficient, as critical habitat. The GGNRA has also implemented the “build it and they will come” philosophy to further reduce public access.

A few issues of concern are outlined below:… While the 1988 Management Policies state that the NPS will participate in the recovery of endangered and threatened species within park boundaries, the 2001 policies state that the Service will "pro-actively" work to "survey for, protect, and strive to recover all species native to national park system units ... (4.4.2.3)" There is concern that the new policy does not seem to be limited by the park's boundaries. The policy would seem to greatly expand the jurisdiction and role of the NPS by directing the agency to monitor species living outside park boundaries that might be considered native to the area. This concern has heightened with the recent fraudulent placement of lynx hair in an effort to extend critical habitat.

Within this new prism of the NPS Management Objectives, the concept of impairment that is prohibited by the Organic Act is broadly defined. The briefing paper states:

An impact to any park resource or value may constitute an impairment….This policy seems to be a very broad interpretation of the impairment standard which will pose numerous problems for park management, as well as invite numerous legal challenges. In fact, some park superintendents have privately expressed concern regarding the problematic nature of the management polices and have specifically cited the impairment standard.

In addition, language in the policies have given NPS a foothold in regulating historically sound forms of recreation.

The DEIS process has been utilized to eliminate/minimize snowmobiles in National Parks. Now the GGNRA is using the same process to eliminate off-leash recreation here. You note the briefing paper classifies snowmobiling and off-leash recreation as historically sound forms of recreation (in selected Park properties). It is no surprise the decision to proceed with the current DEIS for pet management here in the GGNRA was not justified by any underlying data, documents or studies. Please see the page entitled “DEIS is Unlawful” on this site for a full explanation.

Snowmobile use has been under intense scrutiny in the park system…The Service recently released its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) motivated by concerns of motorists who were denied access because of the final rule. The new findings in the Draft SEIS heavily relied on the terminology and guidelines of the 2001 Management policies.

The path is now clear. Unfortunately, in 2002, Congress failed to act to protect our interests. In 2004 and 2005 we were fortunate enough to have three citizens spend the time and money to reverse the ban on off-leash recreation. This time, we cannot depend upon the Courts, especially considering the expense to challenge the GGNRA/NPS in court. Beyond this, any reversal we achieve in court will inevitably be followed by yet another plan by the GGNRA/NPS to again remove off-leash recreation. This time we must convince the Congressional Subcommittees that oversee the NPS to do the following:

Oppose not only the Preferred Alternative, but all Alternatives considered in the DEIS
Hold Congressional hearings that will look at the problems caused by the National Park Service’s improper interpretation of the Organic Act.
Introduce legislation that will do one of the following:
Create a Section 7 regulation to allow off-leash dog walking in all areas where it was allowed in the 1979 Pet Policy, plus off-leash in San Mateo County and on lands that are added to the GGNRA in the future, with no “poison pill”.
Clarify the enabling legislation to allow national recreation areas to be administered differently than national parks, and to be managed with an emphasis on recreation.
Alternatively, take the GGNRA out of the National Park Service and give it to the US Forest Service, with the understanding that recreational access will be protected within it.

All stakeholders interested in retaining off-leash recreation in the GGNRA must contact their legislative representative in Congress. The contact information is listed below.

CONTACT:
U.S. Representative Jackie Speier, (202) 225-3531
U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey, (202) 225-5161
U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (202) 225-4965
U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo, (202) 225-8104
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, (202) 224-3553
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, (202) 224-3841

If you’re not sure who your Congresswoman is, go to www.congress.org and enter your zip code.

More GGNRA Junk Science: An Open Letter To The Golden Gate Audubon Society

This is an addendum to Dr. Suzanne Valente's previous submission to the GGNRA with respect to the 2008 closure of a section of Ocean Beach referred to as the “Plover Protection Area”. This addendum is intended to supplement the previous comment and respond to the new plover issues as outlined in the 2011 DEIS for the GGNRA. (See Ocean Beach DOG)

As noted in my original comment, this 2011 DEIS again fails to mention a 2007 study by Warren that found plovers’ feeding was not negatively impacted by recreational activities of humans and dogs. This is critically important because the plover does not nest or breed at Ocean Beach or Crissy Field; its’ primary activity here is feeding and foraging for food. Instead of acknowledging the Warren study, this DEIS relies in large part upon a study by Matthew Zlatunich and Michael Lynes of the Golden Gate Audubon Society. This new study, like the Warren study, was conducted in cooperation with the GGNRA.

The new Zlatunich-Lynes study was conducted in 2009/2010 at Crissy Field in San Francisco. This study exhibits many of the scientific shortcomings noted in my original comment:
This study was merely an observational study
The observational collection of data was performed by Audubon volunteers who had a bias—the GGAS has publicly advocated the banning of dogs to protect the plover
This study made no attempt to ascertain comparative effects on the plover. There is no discussion of the disturbance level perpetrated by other sources, even though they tell us that data was collected
Raw data is not provided to the reader
The analysis appears to be biased because it is based upon incomplete data. For example, the level of disturbance is not categorized in the analysis even though we are told they were categorized in their collection.
Assumptions are made in this analysis without supporting explanation. For example, they decided to assign the disturbance to an on-leash dog if he was closer to the plover than his guardian. This ignores the possibility the disturbance was due to the number of bodies—e.g. two people walking would disturb a plover to the same extent as a leashed dog and a person.

To clarify the issue of comparative disturbance, it seems odd that although known predators of the plover are acknowledged to be at Crissy Field, no attempt is made to analyze the disturbance they create for the plover. The Common Raven and American Crow are present, yet ignored in the analysis. Beyond this, the California Gull is noted as being present. This is of interest because a recent study using surveillance cameras at plover nesting sites in San Francisco Bay documented California Gulls as being responsible for 25% of all predation of plover nests. (Robinson-Nilsen, Caitlin1, Jill Bluso Demers1, Cheryl Strong2, and Scott Demers 3; 1 San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, crobinson@sfbbo.org; 2 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge; 3 HT Harvey and Associates DETERMINING THE EFFECTS OF HABITAT ENHANCEMENTS AND PREDATORS FOR WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER). California Gulls are new to some of these areas—could the decline in the number of plovers at Crissy Field be related to an increase in the presence of California Gulls? This study makes no attempt to ascertain if there is any such correlation.

The Zlatunich-Lynes study notes the number of plovers has been steadily declining since 2005/2006 records. They choose to rely upon previous conclusions that the greatest disturbance impact to wildlife within the Wildlife Protection Area at Crissy Field is caused by dogs, joggers and walkers. The data from this study showed the number of dogs and humans in the plover area spiked in 2008/2009, and declined dramatically in 2009/2010. The number of plovers continued to decline, despite the reduction in recreational disturbance in 2009/2010. This could lead one to conclude that there is no correlation between the number of dogs and people and the number of plovers present. There is no discussion of this possibility in the data analysis of this study.

The Zlatunich-Lynes study is without scientific merit because it deliberately misleads the reader about the GGNRA’s legal obligations to protect the plover. Ocean Beach and Crissy Field are not designated as critical habitat by the USFWS. Therefore, the GGNRA is obligated only to prevent the harassment or taking of the plover within its boundaries. Appendix B contains the legal definition of a disturbance which would constitute harassment and be a violation of the law: “If the observer witnesses a blatant violation of the law, such as a dog owner knowingly and without regard allowing his dog to harass wildlife, the observer shall make note on the comment sheet and shall, upon completion of the survey, file a wildlife harassment report at the park police station…” There is no indication in this study analysis that any observer EVER witnessed this type of harassment of a plover during their observations.

Alternatively, the Zlatunich-Lynes study records “disturbances” which they define as minor, moderate and major—none of which rise to the level of the legal and accepted definition of a disturbance that is utilized by USFWS and other studies. For example, the Zlatunich-Lynes study states: “a minor disturbance will cause a resting bird to stand”. A clear thinking individual can conclude that a minor “disturbance” as defined by this study is really no disturbance at all. Worse yet, when analyzing the number of “disturbances” observed, there is no acknowledgement as to how many of these “disturbances” are actually minor, moderate or major based upon these authors’ criteria. It is entirely possible (and I believe probable) that each of the disturbances recorded and utilized to justify the restriction of recreation were merely minor “disturbances”. This would be consistent with the conclusions of other studies including the following which states: “…snowy plovers in other areas have become habituated to relatively constant and non-threatening human trail use.” (Trulio, Lynne1 , Caitlin Robinson-Nilsen2, Jana Sokale3 and Kevin Lafferty4 1 San Jose State University; Lynne.Trulio@sjsu.edu ; 2San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory; 3 Sokale Environmental Planning; 4 Western Ecological Research Center, US Geological Survey NESTING SNOWY PLOVER RESPONSE TO NEW TRAIL USE.)

In summary, the Zlatunich-Lynes study and its recommendations are flawed, dishonest and biased. The DEIS advocates recreational restrictions based upon this study. Clearly, the failure in this study to find any violation of the law with respect to the protection of the plover, and the omission of studies that contradict the need for recreational restrictions should render this aspect of the DEIS invalid and discredit the conclusion that recreational restrictions must be implemented to protect the plover in the GGNRA.

Newfoundlands To The Rescue

An SICS Weekend of Rescue and Helicopter Training

The GGNRA: Let's Take Back Our Land

The GGNRA was established in part through a campaign in 1970 by Secretary of Interior Walter Hickel "to bring parks to the people", putting the National Park Service in a movement to increase outdoor recreation in urban areas. (U.S. Department of Interior News Release, September 14, 1970.)

In recent years, we have wondered if the GGNRA really wants us in “their park”. If you look at some of the GGNRA’s management activities, you have cause to wonder. For example, in 1989 the GGNRA, under the supervision of Brian O’Neill, signed on to a biosphere habitat program entitled “Man and Biosphere Habitat Programme” (“MAB” or “MAP”). One would be hard pressed to find a philosophy in greater conflict with the recreational priority of the GGNRA than that of Peter Bridgewater, Secretary of the MAB/MAP Programme, who has said, “Earth would be a better place if we had no people.”

This DEIS is premised as a necessity to save the GGNRA from being permanently degraded by overuse of the park. From the GGNRA DEIS Executive Summary (see: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=303&projectID=11759&documentID=38106):

"Since the 1990s, the San Francisco Bay Area population and overall use of GGNRA park sites have increased…”

From ABC News (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=8000372):

"But the GGNRA says the number of visitors to the park has increased dramatically in the past 20 years, threatening the condition of the parks. The GGNRA also points out that it is the only recreation area in the national parks system that has any off-leash areas at all.”

The article further quotes GGNRA spokesperson Howard Levitt,

“We need to consider the spectrum of visitor use of an area, people who want to enjoy the park with their dogs off leash, people who want to experience it as dog-free, and all of our, as you can imagine, 16 million visitors that fit along that spectrum."

Funny thing, when you actually get a look at the NPS official visitor statistics for the GGNRA, you see that the GGNRA management is once again, lying.

From http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/park.cfm?parkid=296:

Total GGNRA Recreation Visits

1973 - 42,600

1974 - 702,300

1975 - 1,196,900

1976 - 1,457,600

1977 - 6,300,200

1978 - 8,960,938

1979 - 11,321,127

1980 - 18,421,773

1981 - 20,279,789

1982 - 19,897,389

1983 - 17,604,551

1984 - 16,731,706

1985 - 18,355,365

1986 - 21,582,368

1987 - 21,767,176

1988 - 21,759,271

1989 - 16,656,896

1990 - 14,650,213

1991 - 14,695,771

1992 - 15,309,338

1993 - 14,695,777

1994 - 14,695,771

1995 - 14,695,771

1996 - 14,043,984

1997 - 13,803,382

1998 -14,046,590

1999 - 14,048,085

2000 - 14,486,065

2001 - 13,457,900

2002 - 13,961,267

2003 - 13,854,750

2004 - 13,270,547

2005 - 13,602,629

2006 - 13,486,826

2007 - 14,397,313

2008 - 14,554,750

2009 - 15,036,372

2010 - 14,271,503

Total - 522,102,545


The year of 1989, when the Biosphere program began, saw visitors drop by over 5 million in this Recreation Area that otherwise had shown steady growth in recreation visitors since they started tracking visitors in 1973.

The number of park visitors has increased dramatically over the past 20 years. In fact, in 1988 the GGNRA experienced close to its greatest number of visitors, (second only to 1987 which had about 8,000 more) coming in at 21,759,271 recreational visitors. According to NPS statistics, in 2010, the total number of recreational visitors was 14,271,503, down about 34% from 1988.

Consider also that in the past 20 years the GGNRA acreage has almost doubled in size, and expanded into San Mateo County. This puts a far larger population in direct proximity to the Recreation Area, yet the visitor numbers are down dramatically.

The DEIS is just a reflection of the management priorities that Brian O’Neill started with his Biosphere commitment that have systematically denied and discouraged access for the public to this Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The DEIS is not about increased conflicts in the park because of dogs, or degradation of the park; it’s about keeping people out of the GGNRA. With the GGNRA now owning close to sixty percent of the open park space in cities like San Francisco and Pacifica, don’t you think it’s about time that we take back our parks?

It's Going To Take A Little Time

An Open Sentence To GGNRA Superintendent Frank Dean

Dear GGNRA Superintendent Fran Dean:

The National Park Service regulation mandating a permit to conduct expressive activities within a national park is "antithetical to the core First Amendment principle that restrictions on free speech in a public forum may be valid only if narrowly tailored." (Boardley v. Department of Interior, No. 09-5176, p. 2 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 6, 2010).) In short, shove it!

Why The GGNRA's DEIS Is Illegal

The GGNRA's enabling legislation requires the GGNRA to utilize sound principles of land use planning and management. An accepted practice is illustrated by the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness ("RNRAW") which produces an annual monitoring report. The report assesses current recreation trends, needs, and impacts, and thereby serves as a tool for long-term management of the RNRAW. The following is taken from the Introduction of the Report for 2009:

“This is the seventeenth annual monitoring report for the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) based Management Direction for the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area (NRA) and Wilderness (RNRAW), which was approved in December 1992. Monitoring is the final step in the LAC planning system. It is an ongoing, continuous process and is instrumental for evaluating management effectiveness and sustainability of resource values and conditions. The LAC process recognizes that wilderness conditions change. Wilderness areas are dynamic systems with many forces continually affecting the landscape. These forces of change include people and their impacts, fire, insects and disease, invasive species and many others. It defines what conditions are desirable and how to achieve or maintain those conditions. Based on citizen involvement, laws and regulation, it identifies what changes are acceptable rather than attempting to prevent change. Monitoring is based upon the indicators and standards outlined in the LAC direction. The indicators and their specific standards provide methods of measurement to effectively monitor factors and area wide issues. Refer to the December, 1992 Limits of Acceptable Change Based Management Direction for the RNRAW for a more complete discussion of the LAC process. The factors monitored during the 2009 field season include: education, use and users, trails and roads, Wilderness characteristics, vegetation, vandalism, wildlife, fire, goals and policies. Refer to Table 1 for a complete description of the factors, indicators and standards for each opportunity class (OC).”

In contrast, in 2006 when this DEIS was announced in the Federal Register, OBDOG made a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to provide the data, documents, and/or Staff Report which substantiated the GGNRA’s claim that there was controversy over the dog policy, compromised visitor and employee safety and resource degradation which warranted this DEIS. The GGNRA’s response merely stated: “The Staff Report and other documents you seek do not exist at this time”.

An appeal to the Department of the Interior regarding this FOIA request elicited the following response after several letters: “Since the Department has not made a determination on your appeal within the time limits set in the FOIA, you may seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). However, we hope that you will delay filing the lawsuit so that the Department can thoroughly review the issues in your appeal and make a determination. We appreciate your patience to this point and the Department will make every effort to reach a decision on your appeal as soon as possible.” This letter is dated August 8, 2006. There has been no written response as of yet.

The lack of data or any documentation providing justification to proceed with this Environmental Review calls into question the intentions of the GGNRA. This DEIS is promulgated as the foundation for a policy change which does not address any identifiable problem. As such, the decision to proceed with the DEIS violates federal law because this agency action is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, this agency action, findings and conclusions should be set aside as prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706 (2)A.

This DEIS is also unlawful because its findings violate the enabling legislation for this National Recreation Area. As stated before, the enabling legislation requires adherence to sound principles of land use planning and management. The example of appropriate land use and planning and management here is the RNRAW. RNRAW management accepts that use can change the environment of the recreation area and wilderness. When the LoLo trail in RNRAW was being degraded by excessive use, they implemented a mitigating rule which limited groups using the trail to no more than 10 people at a time. The management at RNRAW did not use the degradation as an excuse to close the trail to humans.

On the other hand, increased usage over time was anticipated when this National Recreation Area was created. The House Report No 92-1391 made clear that the GGNRA would be confronted with problems in San Francisco that would require careful planning because of the high volume year-round visitation:

"As a national urban recreation area, this new component of the national park system will be confronted with problems which do not frequently occur at other national park and recreation areas. Great numbers of people can be expected to use the area-particularly those portions located in San Francisco County." (Pg. 11)

Yet here in the GGNRA, despite the huge numbers of visitors-human and canine, the GGNRA chooses now to limit access even when they cannot document degradation. Where is the careful planning? Where are the annual reports monitoring the state of the Recreation Area? What impacts have been documented? What are the acceptable levels of change in the environment? What mitigation has been proposed to address change that exceeds the acceptable levels?

RNRAW management also acknowledges external factors will create change and they choose to work to limit changes to an acceptable level. In the GGNRA, the adverse changes due to external factors are generally attributed to visitors and used to limit access. A perfect example of this would be Ocean Beach. The GGNRA’s own study concluded that the plover at Ocean Beach is affected more by a narrowing of the beach due to erosion than any activities of dogs or humans. The GGNRA’s response to this is to ban dogs from most of Ocean Beach in this preferred alternative. Also ignored is the data that establishes plover numbers have been higher when dogs are allowed here off-leash, or the data that concludes plovers are not disturbed in their foraging or feeding by off-leash dogs in the vicinity.

In fact, some of the greatest changes in the environment have been fomented upon the protesting public by GGNRA management themselves. So much for the citizen involvement as discussed in the RNRAW. At Fort Funston the creation of habitat by the GGNRA themselves killed off the majority of the Bank swallow population—not the activities of people or dogs. Yet the preferred alternative in this DEIS bans dogs from the majority of Fort Funston with the premise being the protection of the Bank Swallow.

The fact is that the National Park Service has had a shift in ideology, and this new ideology is in direct conflict with the enabling legislation and the promises the NPS made to citizens to persuade them and their governing bodies to turn over the properties that make up the GGNRA. The GGNRA is not above the law. This DEIS should be thrown out and the 1979 Pet Policy, in its original form, should be instituted as a Section Seven Special Regulation.

(Coming soon: proof from the NPS itself that it is knowingly violating the GGNRA's unique enabling legislation)