The enabling legislation requires the GGNRA to utilize sound principles of land use planning and management. Accepted practice
would be 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 the DEIS was announced on 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 the 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. Approximately five years after our initial FOIA request, the DOI confirmed in writing that no data, documents
and/or reports exist to substantiate the GGNRA claims in the DEIS.
The lack of data or any documentation providing justification to proceed with this Environmental Review calls into question
the intentions of the GGNRA. This SEIS/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 SEIS/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 SEIS/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
portions located in San Francisco County."
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 mitigations have 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 SEIS/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 SEIS/DEIS should be thrown out and the 1979 Pet Policy,
in its original form, should be instituted as a Section Seven Special Regulation.