GGNRA dog management plan!
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:57 pmAfter many years of study and public involvement, the GGNRA has released the Draft Dog Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement!
You can find the most relevant documents here:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cf ... ntID=38106
The PDF’s that are of special attention to the Fellow Feathers are: “Executive Summary” , “Summary, Contents, Chapters 1-2” and “Map 16, Fort Funston”
The “Preferred Alternative C” looks like a good compromise and is a plan that should work for everyone, including us!
I have copied the language that would apply to Fort Funston, see below.
Please plan on attending the public workshops and support adoption of Alternative C!
Times and locations found here:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/meetingNoti ... ctID=11759
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document page 74 = pdf page 123
ALTERNATIVE C: EMPHASIS ON MULTIPLE USE
– BALANCED BY COUNTY
This alternative balances a variety of dog walking opportunities with areas
where dogs are not allowed within each of the three counties containing
park sites, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo, and contains the
consensus agreement for the Oakwood Valley site resulting from the
negotiated rulemaking process. Details of the Committee consensus are
provided in chapter 1.
Alternative C would emphasize recreational opportunities and experiences
for multiple user groups, including dog walkers, while considering visitor
and dog safety and minimizing conflict between dog walkers and other
visitors. The alternative would provide a no-dog experience for visitors to
some sites within GGNRA and protection for significant cultural and
natural resources.
Alternative C, like alternatives D and E, would include ROLAs, areas for dog walking under voice and
sight control, where users would have to adhere to specific guidelines initiated by the Committee and
finalized by NPS staff (appendix E).
Alternative C allows all dog walkers, including commercial dog walkers, to walk one to three dogs
without requiring a permit. Any dog walker, private or commercial, can obtain a permit to walk more than
three dogs, to a maximum of six dogs. See appendix F for details on the Special Use Permit conditions.
All dogs are required to be on a leash unless in a ROLA, where allowed. Permits may restrict use based
on time and location. Permits would be issued for Alta Trail, Rodeo Beach, Fort Baker, Fort Mason,
Crissy Field, Baker Beach, and Fort Funston.
NEW LANDS
New lands that come under GGNRA management following the implementation of this dog management
plan/EIS would fall under 36 CFR 2.15, the NPS-wide pet regulation. This approach would be consistent
with all other park units Service-wide. New lands would not be considered for voice and sight control
(ROLAs). An area would be closed to on-leash dog walking if this activity would impede the attainment
of the park’s desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources as identified through the park’s
planning process, create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or employees, impede or
Alternative C balances a
variety of dog walking
opportunities with areas
where dogs are not
allowed, and contains the
consensus agreement for
the Oakwood Valley site
resulting from the
negotiated rulemaking
process.
Alternative C: Emphasis on Multiple Use – Balanced by County
Draft Dog Management Plan / EIS 75
interfere with park programs or activities, or trigger the compliance-based management strategy’s process
for closure.
COST OF IMPLEMENTATION
The total costs of implementing alternative C are estimated at $1,511,270. The bulk of these costs are
associated with the hiring of additional personnel for implementing the dog management plan. For a more
detailed explanation of personnel costs under alternative B, see the “Park Operations” section in
chapter 4.
DOG WALKING ACTIVITIES PROPOSED UNDER ALTERNATIVE C
The following rationale for the alternative options for each site describes resource impacts from dog
walking in a generalized way. Details on these resource impacts can be found in the impact analyses in
chapter 4. Below is a description of alternative C for each park site, listed in order from north to south,
and shown on alternative C maps (see “Maps”).
Document page 78 = pdf page 127
Fort Funston
Dog walking under voice and sight control would be allowed in two designated ROLAs, one on the beach
south of the beach access trail and a second between (and not including) the Chip Trail, Sunset Trail, and
parking lot. On-leash dog walking would be allowed on all trails north of the parking lot except the
Sunset, Battery Davis, and Horse trails, which would be closed to dogs. South of the main parking lot, onleash
dog walking would be allowed on the sand ladder and ADA-accessible trails. The combination of
ROLAs and on-leash trails would provide a loop for dog walkers from either the main parking lot or the
John Muir parking lot to the beach access trail, then down to the beach and into the ROLA south of the
beach access trail. From the southern end of the beach ROLA, the sand ladder trail would return dog
walkers to the main parking lot and the adjacent ROLA. No dog walking would be allowed north of the
Beach Access Trail.
This alternative would provide protection to migratory and wintering shorebirds and bank swallow habitat
north of the beach access trail and would provide visitors with the opportunity to experience the area both
with and without the presence of dogs. Alternative C would also provide protection for cultural resources
Alternative D: Most Protective of Resources and Visitor Safety
Draft Dog Management Plan / EIS 79
(Battery Davis) and habitat areas undergoing restoration. Requiring on-leash dog walking along trails
would provide protection for dogs and their owners near the sand cliffs and would reduce the potential for
user conflicts and safety incidents among dogs as well as with visitors as a result of having dogs under
voice control.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can find the most relevant documents here:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cf ... ntID=38106
The PDF’s that are of special attention to the Fellow Feathers are: “Executive Summary” , “Summary, Contents, Chapters 1-2” and “Map 16, Fort Funston”
The “Preferred Alternative C” looks like a good compromise and is a plan that should work for everyone, including us!
I have copied the language that would apply to Fort Funston, see below.
Please plan on attending the public workshops and support adoption of Alternative C!
Times and locations found here:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/meetingNoti ... ctID=11759
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document page 74 = pdf page 123
ALTERNATIVE C: EMPHASIS ON MULTIPLE USE
– BALANCED BY COUNTY
This alternative balances a variety of dog walking opportunities with areas
where dogs are not allowed within each of the three counties containing
park sites, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo, and contains the
consensus agreement for the Oakwood Valley site resulting from the
negotiated rulemaking process. Details of the Committee consensus are
provided in chapter 1.
Alternative C would emphasize recreational opportunities and experiences
for multiple user groups, including dog walkers, while considering visitor
and dog safety and minimizing conflict between dog walkers and other
visitors. The alternative would provide a no-dog experience for visitors to
some sites within GGNRA and protection for significant cultural and
natural resources.
Alternative C, like alternatives D and E, would include ROLAs, areas for dog walking under voice and
sight control, where users would have to adhere to specific guidelines initiated by the Committee and
finalized by NPS staff (appendix E).
Alternative C allows all dog walkers, including commercial dog walkers, to walk one to three dogs
without requiring a permit. Any dog walker, private or commercial, can obtain a permit to walk more than
three dogs, to a maximum of six dogs. See appendix F for details on the Special Use Permit conditions.
All dogs are required to be on a leash unless in a ROLA, where allowed. Permits may restrict use based
on time and location. Permits would be issued for Alta Trail, Rodeo Beach, Fort Baker, Fort Mason,
Crissy Field, Baker Beach, and Fort Funston.
NEW LANDS
New lands that come under GGNRA management following the implementation of this dog management
plan/EIS would fall under 36 CFR 2.15, the NPS-wide pet regulation. This approach would be consistent
with all other park units Service-wide. New lands would not be considered for voice and sight control
(ROLAs). An area would be closed to on-leash dog walking if this activity would impede the attainment
of the park’s desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources as identified through the park’s
planning process, create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or employees, impede or
Alternative C balances a
variety of dog walking
opportunities with areas
where dogs are not
allowed, and contains the
consensus agreement for
the Oakwood Valley site
resulting from the
negotiated rulemaking
process.
Alternative C: Emphasis on Multiple Use – Balanced by County
Draft Dog Management Plan / EIS 75
interfere with park programs or activities, or trigger the compliance-based management strategy’s process
for closure.
COST OF IMPLEMENTATION
The total costs of implementing alternative C are estimated at $1,511,270. The bulk of these costs are
associated with the hiring of additional personnel for implementing the dog management plan. For a more
detailed explanation of personnel costs under alternative B, see the “Park Operations” section in
chapter 4.
DOG WALKING ACTIVITIES PROPOSED UNDER ALTERNATIVE C
The following rationale for the alternative options for each site describes resource impacts from dog
walking in a generalized way. Details on these resource impacts can be found in the impact analyses in
chapter 4. Below is a description of alternative C for each park site, listed in order from north to south,
and shown on alternative C maps (see “Maps”).
Document page 78 = pdf page 127
Fort Funston
Dog walking under voice and sight control would be allowed in two designated ROLAs, one on the beach
south of the beach access trail and a second between (and not including) the Chip Trail, Sunset Trail, and
parking lot. On-leash dog walking would be allowed on all trails north of the parking lot except the
Sunset, Battery Davis, and Horse trails, which would be closed to dogs. South of the main parking lot, onleash
dog walking would be allowed on the sand ladder and ADA-accessible trails. The combination of
ROLAs and on-leash trails would provide a loop for dog walkers from either the main parking lot or the
John Muir parking lot to the beach access trail, then down to the beach and into the ROLA south of the
beach access trail. From the southern end of the beach ROLA, the sand ladder trail would return dog
walkers to the main parking lot and the adjacent ROLA. No dog walking would be allowed north of the
Beach Access Trail.
This alternative would provide protection to migratory and wintering shorebirds and bank swallow habitat
north of the beach access trail and would provide visitors with the opportunity to experience the area both
with and without the presence of dogs. Alternative C would also provide protection for cultural resources
Alternative D: Most Protective of Resources and Visitor Safety
Draft Dog Management Plan / EIS 79
(Battery Davis) and habitat areas undergoing restoration. Requiring on-leash dog walking along trails
would provide protection for dogs and their owners near the sand cliffs and would reduce the potential for
user conflicts and safety incidents among dogs as well as with visitors as a result of having dogs under
voice control.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>