Opinion
Public has until Dec. 9 to help preserve recreational use in the GGNRA
December 2011
Public has until Dec. 9 to help preserve recreational use in the GGNRA
December 2011
Many readers have followed the battle for dog walking in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in our past issues. In June 2011, the National Park Service (NPS) issued a 2,235-page Draft Dog Management Plan that proposed eliminating 90 percent of existing off-leash dog walking areas and severely restricting dog walking rights and usage at 21 properties in Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo counties, and all future GGNRA properties. The public comment period closed on May 30 and 4,713 comments were received. The NPS is now analyzing those comments in preparation for a final environmental impact statement and dog management plan.
On Sept. 21, 2011, the GGNRA issued a more broad-reaching draft general management plan (GMP) for public review and comment. This plan is intended to guide management, development and policies of park properties for the next 20 years. Unfortunately, the GMP proposes reclassifying most lands from recreation-based management to restoration-based management, allowing for the elimination of popular recreation activities such as biking, informal sports and dog walking in a single stroke.
Over the past 20 years, the U.S. Congress has denied the GGNRA’s official request to change its name (and implicit purpose) to “Golden Gate National Parks.” Through this management plan, the GGNRA effectively seeks to sidestep its enabling legislation, which reads:
Legislated mandate (Pub.L. 92-589, § 1, Oct. 27, 1972): In order to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties, California, possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values, and in order to provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (hereinafter referred to as the “recreation area”) is hereby established. A summary edition of the plan can be downloaded from www.parkplanning.nps.gov/ggnra_gmp (click on the “Open for Comment” link). A quick preview of the “preferred alternative” is provided by the maps of each park area in the summary. The colors on the maps refer to the management zones proposed. Green denotes “natural” zones: “This management zone would retain natural, wild and dynamic characteristics and ecological functions. Natural resources would be managed to preserve and restore resource integrity while providing for backcountry types of visitor experiences.”
Yellow “diverse opportunities” zones and blue “scenic corridor” zones are the only ones that mention recreation in their purpose. Look at the maps and note how much is green (natural) and how little of any other color shows up in the preferred alternatives, especially in San Mateo County. While a backcountry-type experience may be appropriate for Muir Woods, it is hardly the way a majority of Bay Area users have experienced the GGNRA for the last 50 years.
The newest GMP was initiated with scoping meetings in April 2006. It has been a five-year process to create the draft plan, yet few who use the parks know about it. The public was originally allowed only 47 days for comment after its release in September, but that was extended to 80 days last month, which is still little time for the affected public to have heard about the draft plan, let alone understand the changes proposed.
Interested parties have only been given until Dec. 9, 2011 to comment on the 1,000-plus page general plan document. Without their input and comment, Bay Area residents and visitors will imminently lose significant recreational use of nearby urban open spaces.
The group Save Recreation in Bay Area Parks has put together a list of substantive talking points for commenting on the plan, including these pertinent issues:
Purpose: The GGNRA’s foundational purpose should not be to “offer a national park experience.” The purpose specifically needs to comply with the legislative mandate to preserve public use and enjoyment and “provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space.” The plan is a significant change from both the legislative mandate and the existing 1980 general management plan.
Goals: Recreation needs to be the highest priority in evaluating all plans, and no alternative provides the needed recreational open space for public use and enjoyment. Recreation and the health and well-being of people are not even stated as goals of Alternative 1: Connecting People with the Parks, the GGNRA’s preferred plan for traditional recreation areas.
Social value: The social and economic value of recreational areas needs to be included in the plan’s introduction and summary; not obscured in Volume III of the plan. The public and decision makers need to understand how vital the GGNRA is to the health and well-being of local communities.
Plan to increase, not decrease, recreational use: Except for highly sensitive areas, remove “involve controlled access” and “aggressively administer.” These lands are part of local communities where millions of people should be actively encouraged to continue enjoying regular relaxation, exercise and inspiration that make these the most valued and visited lands in America.
Nature in our neighborhood: The GGNRA is not a wildlife refuge; other large areas in the Bay Area and Northern California are designated as wildlife refuges, bird sanctuaries, and critical habitats for endangered birds, but not the GGNRA.
Science not dogma: Management decisions should be based on conclusive science, not on preference and anecdotal evidence. The GGNRA should not be allowed to use arbitrary decisions to create new wildlife or native plant corridors that displace recreation without a public comment process and scientific evidence supporting the need for a change.
Top these off with the one-time capital cost estimates of each alternative provided in the summary: $10.4 million for the “no action” alternative vs. $149.9 million for the preferred alternative.
Comments can be submitted online at www.parkplanning.nps.gov/ggnra_gmp (click on the “Open for Comment” link), or mailed to: General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, ATTN: Draft GMP/EIS, Building 201, Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA 94123-0022. All comments must be postmarked or transmitted no later than December 9, 2011.
You’ll find a two-minute comment template at www.saveoffleash.wordpress.com/two- minute-comment-to-gmp. Spend at least two minutes to comment on a plan that will affect you and your family’s use of GGNRA parklands for the next 20-plus years.
On Sept. 21, 2011, the GGNRA issued a more broad-reaching draft general management plan (GMP) for public review and comment. This plan is intended to guide management, development and policies of park properties for the next 20 years. Unfortunately, the GMP proposes reclassifying most lands from recreation-based management to restoration-based management, allowing for the elimination of popular recreation activities such as biking, informal sports and dog walking in a single stroke.
Over the past 20 years, the U.S. Congress has denied the GGNRA’s official request to change its name (and implicit purpose) to “Golden Gate National Parks.” Through this management plan, the GGNRA effectively seeks to sidestep its enabling legislation, which reads:
Legislated mandate (Pub.L. 92-589, § 1, Oct. 27, 1972): In order to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties, California, possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values, and in order to provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (hereinafter referred to as the “recreation area”) is hereby established. A summary edition of the plan can be downloaded from www.parkplanning.nps.gov/ggnra_gmp (click on the “Open for Comment” link). A quick preview of the “preferred alternative” is provided by the maps of each park area in the summary. The colors on the maps refer to the management zones proposed. Green denotes “natural” zones: “This management zone would retain natural, wild and dynamic characteristics and ecological functions. Natural resources would be managed to preserve and restore resource integrity while providing for backcountry types of visitor experiences.”
Yellow “diverse opportunities” zones and blue “scenic corridor” zones are the only ones that mention recreation in their purpose. Look at the maps and note how much is green (natural) and how little of any other color shows up in the preferred alternatives, especially in San Mateo County. While a backcountry-type experience may be appropriate for Muir Woods, it is hardly the way a majority of Bay Area users have experienced the GGNRA for the last 50 years.
The newest GMP was initiated with scoping meetings in April 2006. It has been a five-year process to create the draft plan, yet few who use the parks know about it. The public was originally allowed only 47 days for comment after its release in September, but that was extended to 80 days last month, which is still little time for the affected public to have heard about the draft plan, let alone understand the changes proposed.
Interested parties have only been given until Dec. 9, 2011 to comment on the 1,000-plus page general plan document. Without their input and comment, Bay Area residents and visitors will imminently lose significant recreational use of nearby urban open spaces.
The group Save Recreation in Bay Area Parks has put together a list of substantive talking points for commenting on the plan, including these pertinent issues:
Purpose: The GGNRA’s foundational purpose should not be to “offer a national park experience.” The purpose specifically needs to comply with the legislative mandate to preserve public use and enjoyment and “provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space.” The plan is a significant change from both the legislative mandate and the existing 1980 general management plan.
Goals: Recreation needs to be the highest priority in evaluating all plans, and no alternative provides the needed recreational open space for public use and enjoyment. Recreation and the health and well-being of people are not even stated as goals of Alternative 1: Connecting People with the Parks, the GGNRA’s preferred plan for traditional recreation areas.
Social value: The social and economic value of recreational areas needs to be included in the plan’s introduction and summary; not obscured in Volume III of the plan. The public and decision makers need to understand how vital the GGNRA is to the health and well-being of local communities.
Plan to increase, not decrease, recreational use: Except for highly sensitive areas, remove “involve controlled access” and “aggressively administer.” These lands are part of local communities where millions of people should be actively encouraged to continue enjoying regular relaxation, exercise and inspiration that make these the most valued and visited lands in America.
Nature in our neighborhood: The GGNRA is not a wildlife refuge; other large areas in the Bay Area and Northern California are designated as wildlife refuges, bird sanctuaries, and critical habitats for endangered birds, but not the GGNRA.
Science not dogma: Management decisions should be based on conclusive science, not on preference and anecdotal evidence. The GGNRA should not be allowed to use arbitrary decisions to create new wildlife or native plant corridors that displace recreation without a public comment process and scientific evidence supporting the need for a change.
Top these off with the one-time capital cost estimates of each alternative provided in the summary: $10.4 million for the “no action” alternative vs. $149.9 million for the preferred alternative.
Comments can be submitted online at www.parkplanning.nps.gov/ggnra_gmp (click on the “Open for Comment” link), or mailed to: General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, ATTN: Draft GMP/EIS, Building 201, Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA 94123-0022. All comments must be postmarked or transmitted no later than December 9, 2011.
You’ll find a two-minute comment template at www.saveoffleash.wordpress.com/two- minute-comment-to-gmp. Spend at least two minutes to comment on a plan that will affect you and your family’s use of GGNRA parklands for the next 20-plus years.
Cindy Beckman can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]
