p.o. box 475372 san francisco, ca 94147-5372 please ......p.o. box 475372 san francisco, ca...

P.O. Box 475372 San Francisco, CA 94147-5372 Please Visit Our Website: www.crissyfielddog.org

January 31, 2007

Brian O’Neill Superintendent, GGNRA Building 201, Ft. Mason San Francisco, CA 94123

Dear Superintendent O’Neill,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Crissy Field Dog Group (CFDG) regarding an important issue regarding the Wildlife Protection Area (WPA) at West Beach, Crissy Field.

The GGNRA implemented a new rule in November 2006 designating a WPA in the West Beach area at Crissy Field to protect the Western Snowy Plover (plover). In the last two months, CFDG members have noticed numerous people walking in the high dune area, unaware that they are traversing a sensitive habitat.

We are concerned about this area because there are a number of open beach access points, and the signs are not very visible or clear. We were told by staff that the existing signs were placed as an interim measure, but sufficient time has passed for better signage. We believe the existing signs neither educate nor inform the public about the need for a resting habitat for the plover.

CFDG has been trying to educate beach users. I have personally spoken to at least two dozen beach users and NONE of them had the slightest clue that there is a seasonal restriction for the plover, that they should have their dogs on leash near the water’s edge and that they should not walk in the plover (high dune) resting area. Also, due to low tides this time of year, beach users do not see the signs that are posted on the outskirts of the WPA. The daily dog walkers at Crissy Field, many of whom are CFDG members, have been dutifully informing other beach users about this seasonal restriction. However, more education is needed.

People observed in the WPA in the last two months include bird watching groups, joggers, walkers, families having picnics, kite flyers, sunbathers, and weekend dog

GGNRA005078

http://www.crissyfielddog.org/

walkers. Last Tuesday, a large school group set up orange cones and played games all day in the high dune area of the WPA. CFDG strongly suggests the following to support the seasonal restriction of the plover:

• Install a low post and cable fence around the circumference of the WPA; • Install more and better interpretive signs with a large photo of the plover and a

good explanation of the need for a resting habitat around the WPA in strategic locations;

• Include sign language that “all beach users” should be careful where they walk (or any other activity) in the WPA and clearly explain that it is to protect the plover;

• Develop a broader outreach program for the public, including the dog walking community, the birdwatcher community, school districts/private schools and the general public.

CFDG considers the use of any physical barriers in the GGNRA to be examined with great care, both because of the character of public parkland and concerns about inappropriate access limitations for beach users. This should not be viewed as a precedent for simply placing fences in any location of concern. CFDG believes that the installation of a two-foot post and cable fence around the WPA is consistent with the Marsh WPA section at Crissy Field. There is a higher fence for the Marsh WPA but we do not think that a high fence is necessary for the Plover WPA. We think that a low post and cable fence, and appropriate and well-placed signage is necessary to protect the plover from ALL beach users. The presence of a threatened or endangered species does not mean an area simply becomes off limits to any activity. There are many areas in the nation where informal or formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act has preserved recreational and multiple uses with conservation measures to protect threatened and endangered species. We are also aware that financing is always an issue for the GGNRA and suggest that GGNRA approach the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy to assist in supporting this proposed post and cable fence project as a capital improvement project to protect the plover. CFDG looks forward in working with you about resolving this important issue and for taking similar care in developing appropriate solutions throughout the GGNRA. Sincerely, Martha Walters Chair, Crissy Field Dog Group Cc: GGNRA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Dog Management members

GGNRA005079

GGNRA005080

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Names for a GGNRA Regulatory Negotiation Committee Prepared by: J. Michael Harty and Gregory Bourne

Date: September 13, 2004

A FACA committee will require designated representatives of key interests and alternates. In some cases alternates may come from the same organization as the designated representative, and in others the alternate may come from a different organization. The following list of potential designees and alternates is a work in progress. In some cases the Assessment Team was able to identify a potential alternate whose name is listed after that of the designated representative. In other cases further discussions with the organization will be needed. Names with an asterisk * require particular confirmation; others appear likely at this time. In some cases we anticipate organizations will prefer to exercise significant control over their choice of alternates. Private Dog Walking Interests

1. Crissy Field Dog Walkers: Martha Walters, Gary Fergus* 2. Fort Funston Dog Walkers: Linda McKay 3. Ocean Beach Dog Owners: John Keating* 4. San Francisco Dog Owners Group: Keith McAllister, Anne Farrow* 5. Pacifica: Jeri Flinn

Professional Dog Walkers

6. ProDog: Joe Hague Animal Welfare Interests

7. Marin Humane Society: Cindy Machado 8. San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Daniel Crain

Environmental Interests

9. California Native Plant Society: Jake Sigg*, Randy Zebell*, Mike Mooney* [one representative and one alternate maximum]

10. Center for Biological Diversity: Brent Plater* 11. Golden Gate Audubon Society: Arthur Feinstein 12. Marine Mammal Center: Kathy Zagzebski; Farallones Marine Sanctuary

Association, Susan Andres* 13. Presidio Sustainability Project: Stephen Krefting 14. Sierra Club (local chapter): Norman La Force, Gordon Bennett

Note: The local National Parks Conservation Association representative advised that they would not participate due to resource constraints. We are communicating with NPCA management in Washington, DC to ascertain their interest.

Comment [PC1]: , Volunteer/Outreach Coordinator SFAC&C also participated

GGNRA005081

Other Park User Interests 15. Coleman Advocates for Youth: David Robinson; Individual Interest: Kevin

Kendrick 16. Senior Action Network: Bruce Livingston* [Note: Mr. Livingston is consulting

with advocates for the disabled in San Francisco about his potential participation, along with SAN board members]

17. Equestrian: Judy Teichman* (Marinwatch), Alice Caldwell-Steele* (Miwok Valley Ass’n)

Former GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission

18. Paul Jones (Pacifica) Presidio Trust

19. Joanne Marchetta, Craig Middleton* GGNRA

20. Chris Powell, Howard Levitt City and County of San Francisco—one representative from among the following:

21. Department of Animal Care & Control: Carl Friedman,* Deb Campbell* Recreation and Parks Department: Becky Ballinger* Office of the Mayor*

GGNRA005082

Proposed GGNRA Off Leash Tag System (“OTS”)

(Non-Commercial)

Overview

To promote public awareness within the dog walking community of the unique resources within the GGNRA where off leash dog recreation is permitted as well as to inform GGNRA visitors with dogs of their rights and responsibilities for voice and sight off leash dog recreation within the GGNRA, the National Park Service should implement a mandatory Off Leash Tag System (“OTS”).

OTS Voice and Sight Rules and Regulations

All GGNRA visitors with dogs who wish to engage in off leash recreation with their dogs would be required to obtain an OTS tag that would have to be attached to the collar of each off leash dog. In order to obtain the OTS tag, each GGNRA visitor with a dog (including each member of their household who wishes to walk a dog off leash) would be required to view an educational video through a variety of media, acknowledge that they had viewed the video and agree to abide by the OTS voice and sight rules and regulations. The OTS tag is specific to the GGNRA visitor – not the dog. No off leash dog recreation would be possible in the GGNRA without an OTS tag. Violation of the OTS voice and sight rules and regulations will subject the GGNRA visitor with dogs off leash to fines which escalate. If a GGNRA Visitor with a dog off leash has 3 violations in 24 months, they lose their OTS rights. GGNRA visitors with dogs who lose their OTS rights must successfully complete an OTS approved certification course and agree to be bound by the OTS voice and sight rules and regulations in addition to paying a reinstatement fee before they can walk dogs off leash in the GGNRA again.

Voice and Sight Control;

• Each dog must be under voice and sight control at all times.1 Voice and Sight control means that GGNRA visitors with dogs off leash must be able to recall their dog promptly, and shall demonstrate this ability when requested by authorized personnel. For example, a GGNRA visitor with a dog off leash must be able to recall a dog to their side that has started to chase any wildlife.

1 Hand signals or other forms of communication are deemed to be included in the term “voice and sight control” where used to issue commands.

GGNRA005083

• GGNRA visitors with dogs who promptly recall their dogs or have promptly and successfully leashed their dogs shall have complied with these regulations.

• GGNRA visitors with dogs off leash are responsible for knowing where their dogs are and for being able to recall their dogs.

• Limit to 3 off leash dogs per GGNRA visitor.2 • Aggressive dogs must be leashed immediately (snarling, unwanted

jumping) Visitors:

Visitors to the GGNRA will be able to review the video and sign the necessary acknowledgement of OTS voice and sight rules and regulations at designated Visitor Centers in addition to web access. During the implementation phase, there will also be outreach programs to make sure that OTS tag is available to the public across a broad spectrum including, if possible, through public libraries online access programs.

Fees: Initial Fee $20 Annual Renewal $10 Lost OTS Tags $5 Fines: 1st Violation: $50 2nd Violation in 24 months: up to $100 3rd Violation in 24 months: minimum of $250

Reinstatement only after passing OTS approved certification course, agreeing in writing to abide by OTS voice and sight rules and regulations and paying a reinstatement fee of $50.

Initial Start Up Costs

Estimated start up costs are approximately $250,000 with an annual budget of $75,000. The goal for the start-up costs would be corporate sponsored funding, donations, revenue produced by the purchase of OTS tags and National Park Service allocation of personnel. In addition, the OTS program may include a partnership arrangement between the National Park Service and a non-profit organization to assist with administration of the program.

2 At Land’s End, because of its unique characteristics, only two dogs may be off leash at the same time on the Coast Trail.

GGNRA005084

United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Fort Mason, San Francisco, California 94123 IN REPLY REFER TO:

L30 (GOGA-PASE) Dear Participant: This letter is an invitation to participate in the next phase of the rulemaking process for addressing dog management policies, including off-leash dog walking, at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). Consistent with our commitment to include the public meaningfully in development of a GGNRA dog management rule, we are inviting you to be a key part of this phase of the process. This letter is being sent to people like yourself who have a demonstrated interest in and commitment to GGNRA dog management issues. This phase of the process is a “Situation Assessment” that will involve a series of interviews with members of identified interest groups. Under the auspices of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, a highly qualified team of experienced mediators was brought on board to complete the Assessment and facilitate the process. These interviews will determine whether certain key conditions are satisfied in order to justify forming a committee, including whether there is a representative committee of persons who could adequately express the concerns of affected interest groups and would be willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on a proposed rule for GGNRA allowing off-leash dogwalking. Subsequently, a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee could be formed under the Federal Advisory Commission Act to work formally with the GGNRA to investigate a regulation for Golden Gate to allow off-leash dogwalking in certain areas of the park where resources and visitor safety will not be impacted. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, January-April 2002, listed initial perimeters for consideration for off-leash use. Concurrent to the committee meetings, an environmental review following federal NEPA guidelines would also be completed on any proposed regulation allowing off-leash dogwalking. Rulemaking typically is managed entirely by a federal agency, which develops a draft rule, publishes that rule in the Federal Register for public comment, and then publishes a final rule following analysis of the public comments. However, we are moving forward with Negotiated Rulemaking, an alternative process, where a representative committee of stakeholders works with an agency to develop a consensus recommendation regarding a proposed rule. We feel that your input is vital to helping us explore a potential new regulation allowing off-leash dogwalking in certain areas of the GGNRA, as well as to contribute to education, public awareness and implementation of the new rule should we reach consensus. The federal rulemaking process is explained on our web site at www.nps.gov/goga/pets/regneg. The Assessment Team will be led jointly by Greg Bourne (Center for Collaborative Policy) and J. Michael Harty (CDR Associates). The Team worked with GGNRA staff to identify appropriate individuals to contact, and will make independent decisions about who is interviewed based on input from GGNRA and other stakeholders like you.

GGNRA005085

I am writing to personally seek your support for the situation assessment. You can expect to be contacted directly by either Greg or Mike, or another member of the assessment team. They will provide details about the assessment process and make arrangements to speak with you. The GGNRA will participate in the assessment process as one of the interest groups and I will be interviewed, along with members of my staff. Greg and Mike and team members expect to conduct multiple sets of interviews. If you have any questions about GGNRA’s rulemaking process, please contact Chris Powell at (415) 561-4732 or Shirwin Smith at (415) 561-4947. Please direct any questions about the situation assessment process to Greg Bourne (916-445-2079) or Mike Harty (530-297-7234). I appreciate your support and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, /s/ Brian O’Neill General Superintendent

GGNRA005086

DRAFT

4/12/04

Negotiated Rulemaking Assessment Team Orientation April 14, 2004

Checklist

Organizational Overview

• Integration of NEPA and Reg-Neg processes

• Roles and responsibilities of GGNRA staff; NPS Environmental Quality Division staff; DOI/NPS Solicitor; contractor co-leads; U.S. Institute's project manager.

• Process for ongoing communication and coordination between GGNRA, the

assessment team and the U.S. Institute. Reg-Neg Overview

• Mutual understanding of the need and purpose of the proposed Reg-Neg process; review of ANPR

• Review and highlight relevant background information regarding GGNRA dog

management issue - past lawsuits, etc. • Discussion of focus of the regulation to be developed under the Reg-Neg process • Clarify legal, policy, and procedural parameters for the overall stakeholder

process. Refer to matrix of integrated processes developed by NPS and Institute. • Briefing on other Bay Area agency processes addressing dog management

Assessment Overview

• Determine the purpose and desired outcomes from the stakeholder assessment process

• Discuss how to describe the assessment process to stakeholders • Identify likely areas of conflict and controversy • Identify issues likely to emerge during the stakeholder process and their relative

priority for GGNRA • Identify key stakeholder interests in the dog management issue • Identify key representatives and/or spokespersons for stakeholder groups

GGNRA005087

DRAFT

4/12/04

• Determine criteria for selecting assessment interview candidates (e.g., can effectively articulate concerns, represents an important constituency, good source of expertise or information, etc.)

• Prioritization and sequencing of assessment interviews (determine any absolute

budget constraints affecting number of people who could be interviewed)

GGNRA005088

Committee membership chosen for following reasons:

• Crux of the issue is between dog walking and environmental positions • Need all voices from those affected groups at the table; if not made part of group,

likely not to attend and could affect outcome from outside process • Representation of children is from well-recognized org with much prior

involvement in dogwalking issue with the City of San Francisco. • Senior Action Network is umbrella org under which come a number of other rep

organizations: o Senior Action Network (SAN) is a citywide federation of senior

organizations organizing to improve the lives of San Francisco's seniors and all of our city's residents. We are an umbrella coalition of over 140 member groups representing over 30,000 seniors. SAN has activists from every neighborhood, ethnicity, linguistic background, economic status and cultural identity that the diverse city of San Francisco represents.

• If additional rep of seniors/children needed, could go back to those groups to bring in additional voices.

GGNRA005089

http://www.senioractionnetwork.org/members.htm

http://www.senioractionnetwork.org/members.htm

Committee Members: (alpha list; alternates marked w/ *) Cynthia Adams * Crissy Field Dog Group Carol Arnold * San Francisco Dog Owners Group Gordon Bennett * Sierra Club (Local Chapter) Erin Brodie Marine Mammal Center Daniel Crain San Francisco SPCA Betsey Cutler * Former member of GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission Anne Farrow * Pacifica Dog Walkers Arthur Feinstein Environmentalist (Birdwatching) Gary Fergus CalDog Jeri Flinn Pacifica Dog Walkers Joe Hague ProDog Mark Heath California Native Plant Society Steve Hill * Marin Humane Society Karin Hu * Fort Funston Dog Walkers

Michelle Jesperson * S. F. League of Conservation Voters Paul Jones Former member of GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission Steven Krefting S. F. League of Conservation Voters Norman LaForce Sierra Club (Local Chapter) Howard Levitt * NPS Bruce Livingston Senior Action Network Cindy Machado Marin Humane Society Keith McAllister San Francisco Dog Owners Group Linda McKay Fort Funston Dog Walkers Jeff Miller * Center for Biological Diversity Joanne Mohr * Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association Elizabeth Murdock * Golden Gate Audubon Bob Planthold * Senior Action Network Brent Plater Center for Biological Diversity Christine Powell NPS

GGNRA005090

Holly Prohaska * Mar Vista Stables David Robinson Coleman Advocates for Youth Christine Rosenblat * San Francisco SPCA Jake Sigg * California Native Plant Society Donna Sproull * ProDog Judy Teichman Marinwatch (Equestrian) Suzanne Valente * Ocean Beach Dog Marybeth Wallace * Coleman Advocates for Youth Martha Walters Crissy Field Dog Group

GGNRA005091

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR REG-NEG CONVENER - DRAFT

last modified 12/10/03 SM 1

INTRODUCTION During the first (assessment) phase of the negotiated rulemaking process, the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution will hire a convener – an impartial person(s) – to assist the NPS in determining whether the establishment of a reg-neg committee is feasible and appropriate. The convener will: 1. interview interested parties to determine if a balanced committee can be convened to adequately represent the concerns of interest groups; 2. identify representatives willing to negotiate in good faith; 3. recommend if the process can succeed and should move forward. This chart is intended to assist in defining criteria important to selecting a convener. USE OF THIS CHART 1. For each criterion, please review the “points to consider” and mark the options you feel are most important to the selection of a convener

for this process. In some cases, an initial preference has determined by the project team. 2. Please feel free to comment on each criterion/preference in the far right column. 3. If there are “criteria” or “points to consider” that you would like to see added to the list, please note them in the relevant column or at the

end of the document.

GGNRA005092



SELECTION CRITERIA

POINTS TO CONSIDER PREFERENCE (Please check the option(s) you prefer)

COMMENTS

1) LOCATION OF CONVENER

Should convener should be based locally?

√

Convener within car-commuting distance (concern that significant travel would increase costs and slow down process). Will still request list of conveners for all of northern CA.

GGNRA005093



SELECTION CRITERIA

POINTS TO CONSIDER PREFERENCE (Please check the option you prefer)

COMMENTS

2) AFFILIATION OF CONVENER

Is it acceptable for convener to be formally affiliated with any interests connected to stakeholder group(s)? Interests to consider: • Dog owners • Parents with children • Seniors • National/state parks • Environmental Groups • Other interests?

√

A convener who is not formally affiliated with any groups that might relate to stakeholders in this issue.

3) EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF CONVENER

Is training in a particular subject desired? (If so, which subject(s)?)

√

Convener does not need to be specifically trained in a discipline relevant to this issue. Technical expertise can then be sought from Park staff and other resources.

Is a particular level of education desired? (If so, what level?)

GGNRA005094



SELECTION CRITERIA


COMMENTS

4) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE OF CONVENER (Please check areas of desired professional experience, and list any others you may think of).

Familiar with land management and resource issues

√

Has facilitated for the federal government before (ie. familiar with federal regulations and processes)

√

Familiar Bay Area urban issues √

Familiar with NEPA

√

Experience with FACA

√

Familiar with dog walking issues

Has dealt with similar stakeholder groups before (in terms of professions, age, interests, etc.)

Are there other important areas of experience?

GGNRA005095



SELECTION CRITERIA


COMMENTS

5) NEED FOR A CONVENER TEAM

Is one convener only sufficient?

Is pair or trio of conveners is preferred? (If so, is it necessary that they are each allied/familiar with different viewpoints?)

Should the convener be willing to collaborate with community-based conflict resolution organizations?

√

Should convener be able to provide logistical support, or have a team that can do so? (If so, what logistical tasks must the convener be able to perform – either for reasons of efficiency or neutrality?)

√

Convener with enough logistical support to allow prompt delivery of the following: • Meeting minutes • Transcripts

GGNRA005096



SELECTION CRITERIA


COMMENTS

6) STYLE OF CONVENER

What characteristics are desired?

√

Convener who is firm but calm, not adding to existing emotions.

Other desired characteristics?

Please fill in additional criteria you feel should be evaluated in the selection of a convener. SELECTION CRITERIA POINTS TO CONSIDER PREFERENCE

(Please check the option you prefer)

COMMENTS

GGNRA005097



COMMENTS RECEIVED NAME COMMENT

Howard Levitt Via e-mail, 12-10-03 “I think you've got the right criteria...you'll know the right convernor when you see her/nim/them. References will be the key. HL”

Susan Hurst Don’t consider location too much, because this might prevent getting the best candidate out there. Don’t overemphasize either geographic location, or familiarity with issues specific to San Francisco (these can both be overcome).

GGNRA005098

SITUATION ASSESSMENT REPORT:

PROPOSED NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING ON DOG

MANAGEMENT IN THE

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

September 14, 2004

PREPARED JOINTLY BY CDR ASSOCIATES AND THE CENTER FOR COLLABORATIVE POLICY, CSUS

UNDER CONTRACT TO THE U.S. INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION

GGNRA005099

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE FOR THIS REPORT 3 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT PROCESS 4 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THIS REPORT 5

KEY INTERESTS AND CONSIDERATIONS 5

OVERVIEW 5 SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS RELATED TO OFF-LEASH DOG WALKING 6 PROCEDURAL INTERESTS RELATED TO A POTENTIAL NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 7

POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT 8

AGREEMENTS ON SUBSTANTIVE OFF-LEASH ISSUES 8 AGREEMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A REGULATORY NEGOTIATION 9 DISAGREEMENTS AND THEIR POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE 9

KEY VARIABLES AND UNKNOWNS 10

RECOMMENDATIONS 13

SUMMARY 13 FEDERAL NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING ACT 13 PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING COMMITTEE AND PROCESS 15 CHARTER AND PROTOCOLS 17 POTENTIAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS 18

CONCLUSION 18

Page 2 of 2 GGNRA005100

INTRODUCTION

Background and Purpose for this Report National Park Service (NPS) regulations require that all pets, where allowed in national park sites, are crated, caged, or restrained at all times.1 The regulations apply to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), which was created in 1972 and presently encompasses approximately 75,500 acres around San Francisco’s Bay Area.2 A significant portion of GGNRA-managed land includes recreational waterfront in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. In 1979 the GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission (Commission) adopted a policy that recommended off-leash dog walking and the use of voice control, and this policy generally guided GGNRA’s management of dog walking for the next 20 years. In 2001 the Commission acknowledged that its 1979 policy was null and void because it was contrary to NPS regulations.3 Over the past five years NPS staff and park users, including those seeking to walk dogs off leash, have experienced increasing conflict around GGNRA’s changed approach to dog management based on enforcement of NPS regulations. This significant change has created both confusion and animosity among those who had used GGNRA areas for off-leash dog walking, in some cases for decades.4 GGNRA has decided to address this conflict through rulemaking, with a goal of writing a new regulation covering dog management for this park.5 As part of rulemaking, and as a reflection of its stated “commitment to include the public meaningfully” in developing a dog management rule, GGNRA has proposed creating a regulatory negotiation committee that includes members of the public consistent with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (Rulemaking Act) and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In a “Dear Participant” letter dated May 10, 2004, GGNRA General Superintendent Brian O’Neill initiated a process to assess the potential for creating a Negotiated Rulemaking

1 36 CFR 2.15(a)(2); see also Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Pet Management in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 67 Fed. Reg. 1424 (Jan. 11, 2002) (ANPR). 2 GGNRA currently manages 55,827 acres and anticipates additional acreage will be transferred in the near future. 3 This description comes from the ANPR and is consistent with the written report of a panel of senior federal officials convened in 2002 to review GGNRA’s off-leash policies and recommend whether to proceed with rulemaking. The Assessment Team acknowledges there are competing views about the effects of the Commission’s actions in 2001 and that these views may be at issue in pending litigation. The key point for this assessment report is the change in GGNRA’s approach to off-leash dog walking since 2001 and the consequences of that change. The Team also notes that the Commission no longer functions. 4 This summary intentionally omits a wealth of detail about the history of the off-leash conflict at GGNRA, including its multiple causes and relationship to dog management in San Francisco, in order to focus attention on options for the future. 5 The ANPR contains a detailed perspective on dog management issues in GGNRA. Information on rulemaking and the negotiated rulemaking process can be found on the GGNRA web site at http://www.nps.gov/goga/pets/regneg/. Other perspectives can be found on the web pages of different Bay Area organizations, including the San Francisco Dog Owners Group, http://www.sfdog.org/ ,as only one example.


Committee (Committee) and incorporating it into the rulemaking process.6 Such a committee would “work with GGNRA to investigate a regulation to allow off-leash dog walking in certain areas . . . where resources and visitor safety would not be impacted.” This Situation Assessment Report is intended to assist GGNRA in making its threshold decision about forming a Regulatory Negotiation Committee based on the framework laid out in the Rulemaking Act.7 Summary of Assessment Process The assessment process was conducted jointly by a team of experienced mediators from the Center for Collaborative Policy (CSUS) in Sacramento and CDR Associates in Davis (the “Assessment Team”) under contract to the U.S Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (Institute). GGNRA consulted with the Institute on the situation assessment process and the hiring process for the Assessment Team.8 The Assessment Team spoke with approximately 45 people in individual and group interviews to gather information for this assessment report during the May-August 2004 time period.9 The team began with a list of names developed by GGNRA as a result of its extensive interactions with members of the public, but expanded its list based on advice received during interviews. Most interviews were conducted in person by one or two team members; follow up typically occurred via telephone. The Assessment Team relied on the same agenda as the starting point for all interviews and adjusted its approach for each discussion to focus on priorities and opportunities. This agenda was sent in advance to interview participants whenever possible. Use of a standard agenda allows some generalization about the interviews, although this assessment process does not rely on a statistical approach.10 The Assessment Team conducted two group interviews with advocates for off-leash dog walking, in addition to individual conversations, and also met as a group with representatives of environmental organizations. The Assessment Team had multiple goals in conducting its interviews, consistent with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. The first was to identify the key interests of various individuals and organizations concerned about dog management in the GGNRA who would be significantly affected by a rule and would need to be represented to constitute a balanced committee consistent with the Rulemaking Act. The second was to evaluate the potential for reaching consensus on a recommended rule for GGNRA through a

6 A copy of Supt. O’Neill’s letter can be found at Appendix A to this report. 7 See the considerations identified in the Rulemaking Act at 5 U.S.C. § 563(a). 8 Information about USIECR can be found at www.ecr.gov. USIECR also reviewed and commented on an initial draft of this report, but left final decisions about content and structure to the Assessment Team. 9 Appendix B to this report contains the names of people who were interviewed. 10 GGNRA commissioned two statistical evaluations in connection with the ANPR. The Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University was contracted to analyze public comments submitted in response to the ANPR, and prepared a report entitled “Public Comment Analysis, August 2002.” The same contractor conducted a telephone survey of residents in Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties during May-July 2002. The results of this survey are available in a Technical Report dated December 2002. Both documents are available on the GGNRA web site.


negotiated rulemaking process. The third was to identify prospective candidates who were able and willing to serve on the Committee. Given the high level of interest in off-leash dog walking issues in the Bay Area there were many more people seeking to participate in the assessment process than there were available hours under the contract. Schedules of potential participants and time constraints also were factors influencing interview decisions. The Assessment Team believes it has achieved its goals: all significant interests have been considered in the assessment process, even though all people with an interest could not participate in this phase. Structure and Content of this Report This report is organized as follows: (1) a presentation of the key interests and related considerations disclosed during assessment interviews, consistent with commitments about confidentiality and without attribution; (2) key points of agreement among assessment participants revealed through interviews; (3) key points of disagreement and their potential significance for a decision by GGNRA; and (4) a recommendation about whether to proceed with formation of a committee. There are three Appendices: A is Superintendent O’Neill’s letter, B identifies participants in the assessment process, and C is a general process diagram for a negotiated rulemaking. The primary purpose for this assessment and report (the “project”) is to assist GGNRA and NPS decision makers in their decision making process about forming a committee. The Assessment Team discussed an initial draft of this report with NPS staff in order to determine whether the draft was likely to meet the project’s intended purpose. The Assessment Team also sought input from the Institute on the same report draft, which was both required under the Team’s contract with the Institute and useful given the Institute’s unique perspective as a federal dispute resolution organization. The report’s final structure and contents reflect the views and professional judgments of the Assessment Team and are solely attributable to the Team. The final report is being made available to GGNRA, the Institute, and people who participated in the assessment. Questions about the report are welcome and should be addressed to the Assessment Team.

KEY INTERESTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Overview One consideration for GGNRA in deciding to create a committee is whether there are a “limited number of identifiable interests that will be significantly affected by the rule.”11 The following list compiled by the Assessment Team from interviews is intended to complement information about interests gained from the ANPR comment process and telephone surveying. The interests are organized into two categories: substantive interests

11 Rulemaking Act § 563(a)(2)


related to off-leash dog walking and procedural interests related to the potential formation and operation of a committee. It is important to understand a threshold choice facing those participating in the assessment (and others who may participate in a committee). The question of “whether” dogs should be allowed off-leash in GGNRA under any circumstances implicates a number of core values for different groups. For those who believe the answer should be “no,” the decision to participate in a potential discussion of “how” dogs might be allowed off-leash may be difficult and appear inconsistent with other interests. On the other hand, GGNRA and NPS leadership are committed to addressing this issue, in keeping with legal mandates, due to the unacceptability of the current situation. As such, while not dismissing or overlooking the perspective that opposes any rule allowing off-leash dog walking, the GGNRA is interested in determining through rulemaking whether there are circumstances under which off-leash dog walking could be consistent with its mandates and with significant interests of the public. Their preference is to involve the public in the rulemaking process. All participants in a negotiated rulemaking process must be willing to consider in good faith the potential for designating some areas for off-leash use, even though there is no a priori commitment being made to this outcome by GGNRA. The interests likely to be significantly affected by a rule are presented below without attribution to individuals or groups, consistent with ground rules for the assessment process. Interviews revealed that these interests are, in most cases, not confined to a single individual or group, although there are variations in the way they are framed or their relative importance. Substantive Interests Related to Off-leash Dog Walking Ensure the safety of all GGNRA user groups—including children, frail, elderly, or

handicapped individuals—and NPS employees Protect GGNRA’s natural resources

Comply with relevant federal laws including NPS Organic Act, GGNRA authorizing

legislation, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Act, among others

Ensure compatibility with other uses

Improve the status quo [which a number of participants described as “unacceptable”]

Develop rules that are understandable, enforceable, and have broad buy-in from the

public and NPS staff Provide opportunities across the GGNRA landscape to the maximum extent possible


Acknowledge attachments to specific GGNRA locations

Maintain social relationships related to dog walking in specific locations

Provide access to beaches and water for off-leash dog walking

Protect economic interests in commercial dog walking

Avoid creating a national precedent for benefiting single user groups in parks or off-

leash dog walking in other national parks, or creating inconsistencies with the Uniform Code of Regulations [Note: there are different views about uniformity, consistency, and uniqueness across the National Park System]

Develop clear land use criteria for designating all GGNRA uses. Another framing of

this interest is: develop principled and objective justifications for resource use decisions by GGNRA

Create defined off-leash areas with appropriate and effective separation from other

uses Procedural Interests Related to a Potential Negotiated Rulemaking Maximize prospects for reaching agreement

Avoid getting caught up in debates about whether or not dogs create impacts

Be clear about what is open for discussion and negotiation and what is not

Ensure a committee is representative of all key perspectives related to potential

outcomes Coordinate with other federal laws including National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), the Administrative Procedures Act, and FACA Focus on constructive problem solving while establishing clear agreements to avoid

advocacy “blitzes” that might undermine the process of building consensus Build partnerships that can assist in implementing and enforcing agreements and a

regulation Identify topics for joint fact-finding efforts intended to build shared confidence in data

and information relied on for decision making Be sensitive to the demands placed on committee members who have other

employment, family, and personal commitments


POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT

One of the potential benefits of a formal assessment process is that it can highlight areas of agreement perhaps not fully perceived by those enmeshed in a conflict. These agreements can include values (about right and wrong, for what is important in a particular situation), interests or needs, and options for meeting interests. The Assessment Team identified a number of apparent points of agreement during the interviews and offers these to assist people in reaching decisions about whether to support or participate in a regulatory negotiation committee. The test for including agreements is “significance,” either because there is broad support (although perhaps not unanimity) or because of the identities of those in apparent agreement. Interviews also disclosed some clear disagreements which are presented below. For the disagreements, the Team has focused on those likely to affect the ability of a committee to reach consensus on off-leash dog walking. Agreements on Substantive Off-leash Issues There appears to be a broad—not unanimous—expectation that GGNRA ultimately

will publish a rule allowing some off-leash dog walking. This prospect engenders a mix of feelings that includes enthusiasm, frustration, and resignation.

Most people concur with the general proposition that off-leash dog walking causes

resource impacts, as do other uses within GGNRA. (There are sharp disagreements, however, about the nature and extent of these impacts, as well as their relative significance. See discussion below of disagreements.)

The interviews disclosed very little specific opposition to on-leash dog walking in

most parts of GGNRA. This may be the result of several factors, including the structure of the interview agenda. Nevertheless, the broad lack of attention to this topic is worth noting.

Dogs and off-leash dog walking play a significant role in the social fabrics of

communities where this use traditionally has been allowed. Being a proponent of off-leash dog walking and a supporter of protecting natural

resources and the environment are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This is a highly emotional issue that implicates core values for many people and is

often closely linked to personal and group identity. There is broad—not unanimous—agreement on the need for balance in GGNRA dog

management policy.


Agreements on the Proposal to Conduct a Regulatory Negotiation There appears to be broad agreement on the importance of participating in a regulatory

negotiation process, particularly if, as the GGNRA has indicated, the alternative is rulemaking by the NPS alone. There is somewhat less agreement on the value of the regulatory negotiation alternative, particularly among those who may feel the existing NPS regulation is sufficient, but the breadth of agreement about participation remains significant.

There also is broad—not unanimous—agreement that it will not be useful for a

committee to argue legal issues related to off-leash dog walking because this will not change minds, will further entrench people in positions, and will detract from constructive dialog and problem solving.

In discussing impacts of different uses on GGNRA resources it will be important to

have credible scientific and technical information. In the absence of such information previous discussions have resulted in deeper disagreements and frustration.

It is important to base policy decisions on credible information and scientific data

where these have a role.

Disagreements and Their Potential Significance There is basic disagreement over whether off-leash dog walking is an appropriate use

of GGNRA under its various mandates. This basic disagreement has multiple facets. One is a difference in views about the purpose underlying an “urban” national park: to protect what’s left of natural resources and perhaps even restore them, or provide for recreation and other uses in a way that minimizes and mitigates impacts? Another facet is a concern about creating precedents for other national parks, let alone other “urban” parks: some people acknowledge the concern but believe it is possible to distinguish the GGNRA situation, while others resist giving this possibility any weight. It will be important to acknowledge and move beyond these disagreements within a Committee if the goal of examining how dogs might be allowed off-leash is to be explored.

There is disagreement about whether off-leash dog walking is a shared use (more like

bicycling) or is actually an “exclusive” use (like playing loud music) because of inevitable impacts on most other users. This disagreement is likely to appear in a committee’s future discussion of off-leash impacts on GGNRA users. If GGNRA intends to rely on a “shared or exclusive use” criterion as part of rulemaking then stakeholders will have to grapple with nuances and choices.

As noted above, there have been strong disagreements in the past over the nature and

extent of off-leash dog walking impacts on GGNRA resources. Interviews suggest communication has become difficult on this issue and that “denying the obvious” is


widespread. Stakeholders will need to find ways to discuss the issue of impacts constructively, despite their strong differences.

Most people interviewed offered one or more options for addressing past problems

around off-leash dog walking. There are disagreements over the potential utility of specific management options at different locations. For example, some believe that time-of-day restrictions can work, while others only see problems. Physical barriers are another example: some see fencing or other physical barriers as acceptable, while others offer strong objections depending on specifics and locations. While some level of disagreement is to be expected, stakeholders will need to bring flexibility to discussions about specific options if a consensus is to be achieved.

The interviews suggest there will be disagreements about beach access at specific

locations, as off-leash advocates insist on the importance of beach access around GGNRA and others suggest restrictions on such access are necessary, depending on the location. Again, flexibility will be needed to achieve consensus.

There are important disagreements about the ability of GGNRA to match enforcement

resources to a realistic management program that would allow off-leash dog walking given projected budget constraints. Stakeholders will have to grapple with practicability, and it will be important for GGNRA to provide reliable information on this issue.

There is potential disagreement about the role of scientific data and other technical

information in GGNRA’s decision making about use of park resources. It will be important for GGNRA to be prepared to address this issue in a committee process.

KEY VARIABLES AND UNKNOWNS

The Assessment Team’s interviews highlighted a number of variables and unknown factors that will influence the potential for reaching consensus on a proposed regulation. The Team discussed these variables openly during interviews, and in some cases scheduled follow up discussions, in order to understand how they might affect the potential success of a committee. The variables in the GGNRA context create a band of uncertainty that is reflected in the Assessment Team’s recommendations, set out below. These variables are: The commitment and ability of stakeholders to move beyond their well known differences on the “whether” issue to focus on “how” off-leash dog walking might be allowed. The significance of this issue, and the difficult choices facing those opposed to off-leash dog walking, are described above in the “Key Interests” section of the report.

The commitment of advocacy group representatives to focus on constructive problem solving and demonstrate flexibility around objectives. The intensity of feeling over the off-leash issue has been expressed through a range of strategies and tactics in other Bay Area forums, including public demonstrations and media-oriented actions. GGNRA


also has experienced at least one significant public demonstration. A Committee seeking consensus will not thrive if stakeholder groups pursue their goals using similar approaches. Stakeholders must be willing to do their work within a Committee, including the potentially difficult process of making tradeoffs. The Assessment Team views the “commitment to reaching consensus” as the single most important unknown based on its interviews.

The lingering consequences of past conflicts over this issue in San Francisco and the Bay Area. Activists will bring their experiences, perceptions, judgments and assumptions about other people and organizations to a regulatory negotiation committee. This history can be an asset: people understand many of the issues and potential options, and also may have built positive relationships that can contribute to reaching consensus. History can also create barriers to cooperation. The assessment suggests it will be necessary for potential participants on the Committee to begin with a “clean slate” to the extent possible, finding ways to avoid simply re-enacting difficult experiences from the past.

The future impacts of San Francisco’s Dog Advisory Commission (DAC) process. The DAC is evaluating the appropriateness of, and in many cases approving, off-leash dog walking in numerous San Francisco parks. The Assessment Team interviewed several DAC members. Under one possible scenario a gradual increase in available options for walking dogs off-leash across the city resulting from DAC decisions would reduce pressures on GGNRA resources. Another possible scenario is that the commitment of people to favorite local off-leash areas, whether in GGNRA or the city, means there would not be any significant effect. Based on the assessment interviews the latter is considered more probable.

The impact of GGNRA’s NEPA analysis of different alternatives for off-leash walking. The NEPA process will go on concurrently with the work of a Committee, and it is likely a draft NEPA document analyzing a set of options, perhaps including a consensus recommendation from the Committee, would be published only after the Committee has completed its work. A Committee cannot reach consensus and expect GGNRA simply to adopt their recommendation because of the requirement for analysis of a range of alternatives under NEPA. For this reason, it will be important for the Committee to interact appropriately with GGNRA’s NEPA team as they seek consensus, in order to gain as much understanding as possible about how a Committee proposal may fare when analyzed under NEPA.

The potential for legal action related to off-leash dog walking before or during a regulatory negotiation process, or prior to the conclusion of rulemaking. Litigation over the restoration process at Fort Funston filed by off-leash advocates several years ago is part of the fabric of the off-leash controversy.12 While that particular suit is no

12 Fort Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (N.D.Cal. 2000).


longer active, other litigation is pending and more is possible.13 These lawsuits could prove to have only minor substantive impact on a committee’s work, or could have a significant effect on rulemaking by changing the relevant legal framework for decision making. Adversarial litigation could limit the willingness of stakeholders, including government employees, to speak freely during Committee discussions or otherwise provide information. Litigation also could also strengthen the convictions of those who believe it will not be possible to achieve consensus or who would prefer an outright victory.

The internal NPS and DOI policy making process for a GGNRA rule. One of the considerations specified in the Rulemaking Act for the decision whether to form a committee is that “[t]he agency, to the maximum extent possible consistent with the legal obligations of the agency, will use the consensus of the committee with respect to the proposed rule as the basis for the rule proposed by the agency for notice and comment.”14 The enormous time commitment required of a participant in a committee consistently generates a fundamental question: “Will the agency use our work product or not?” No agency will commit in advance to simply adopting a committee’s recommendations, but the Rulemaking Act’s language offers a balanced approach that is essential to gaining citizen participation. For this reason, the internal process by which GGNRA, NPS, and the Department of the Interior will reach a policy decision on any recommendation from a Committee is a key variable. The Assessment Team discussed this issue with GGNRA staff during assessment interviews.

The outcome of November’s elections. Creating a Committee, participating in the Committee, and addressing recommendations from a Committee in rulemaking are three GGNRA and NPS actions that could be affected by a change of administration resulting from November’s elections. There is less likelihood that a continuation of the current administration would have any affect, although that cannot be ruled out.

Any significant leadership change within DOI, NPS, or GGNRA. Apart from the election outcome, any change of top leadership within DOI and the NPS could also affect GGNRA actions related to a Committee and rulemaking. Such changes are not unusual across the federal government following presidential elections, even when there is not change of administration. A change of leadership at GGNRA also could have similar impacts on rulemaking.

13 One perspective on legal developments is a web site maintained by off-leash advocates: http://oceanbeachdog.home.mindspring.com. The Assessment Team cannot predict the likelihood of further litigation with any confidence. 14 §563(a)(7)


RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

Based on the results of interviews with stakeholders representing personal and organizational interests, as well as with GGNRA leadership, we recommend that GGNRA proceed with a negotiated rulemaking process. A significant majority of interviewees, when asked whether they preferred GGNRA conducting a rulemaking on its own following traditional procedures, or a negotiated process where they could be directly involved, preferred the latter. This preference is a key element of the foundation for the Assessment Team’s recommendation to proceed. Our recommendation was not obvious at the beginning of the assessment process, and should be considered in the challenging context presented above. Nonetheless, we believe it is appropriate given the circumstances. Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Act The Assessment Team used Rulemaking Act guidelines to develop its recommendation to proceed, as follows: 1. There is a need for a rule [§563(a)(1)].

GGNRA management, after extensive analysis and in consultation with NPS leadership, has clearly stated that the need exists and that under the current circumstances rulemaking is preferable to relying on existing NPS regulations. Interviews reveal a broad but not unanimous preference for rulemaking. The senior federal panel’s report in 2002 buttresses this determination of need in its recommendation that GGNRA pursue rulemaking.15

2. There are a limited number of identifiable interests that will be significantly affected

by the rule [§563(a)(2)]. Interviews have identified the interests likely to be significantly affected by a rule. A detailed discussion of these interests can be found in the Key Interests section of this report. The universe of significant interests is consistent with forming a negotiated rulemaking committee and building a consensus that reflects those interests.

3. There is a reasonable likelihood that a committee can be convened with a balanced

representation of persons who can adequately represent the interests identified [under paragraph 2] and are willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on the proposed rule [§563(a)(3)]. The Assessment Team specifically asked participants in interviews about their interest in participating, about others who could represent their interests, and about their willingness to negotiate in good faith. We believe balanced, adequate representation of the significant interests on a Committee is a reasonable goal.

15 See Federal Panel Recommendation §4, p. 7.


4. There is a reasonable likelihood that a committee will reach a consensus on the proposed rule within a fixed period of time [§563(a)(4)]. It is not possible to guarantee consensus in any situation, particularly where there are significant differences in core values and a history of conflict and adversarial interaction. Most of those likely to participate in a Committee expressed belief that consensus is attainable despite the past if all parties enter the process with a commitment to work constructively. Expressions of doubt more often reflected uncertainty about the motivations of other groups and individuals than one’s own commitment to reaching consensus. As noted above, one important factor is that the alternative of having GGNRA write a rule without a committee process—the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)—is not attractive to most people who participated in the assessment. The Assessment Team’s judgment at this time is that a Committee is reasonably likely to achieve a substantial level of agreement on a proposed rule. The Team anticipates that such a proposal will be quite detailed, addressing different locations and situations across GGNRA, and that some differences may prove difficult to resolve. While remaining open to the possibility of perfect consensus—unanimity—the Team recommends that decision makers assume a lower but still significant level of agreement to be a reasonably likely outcome.16

5. The negotiated rulemaking procedure will not unreasonably delay the notice of

proposed rulemaking and the issuance of a final rule [§563(a)(5)]. We anticipate a six- to nine-month negotiated rulemaking process which, in comparison to more traditional approaches to rulemaking, should not unreasonably delay the issuance of a final rule.

6. The agency has adequate resources and is willing to commit such resources, including

technical assistance, to the committee [§563(a)(6)]. GGNRA’s leadership expressed their commitment during the assessment process to ensuring adequate resources will be made available to support the project.

7. The agency, to the maximum extent possible consistent with the legal obligations of

the agency, will use the consensus of the committee with respect to the proposed rule as the basis for the rule proposed by the agency for notice and comment [§563(a)(7)]. This guideline has been reviewed in detail with GGNRA management. In particular, the Assessment Team has emphasized the importance of GGNRA and NPS playing an active role in a Committee and raising any concerns directly with the Committee so that solutions can be developed before a proposed rule is submitted. GGNRA and NPS management understand the importance of this provision and are prepared to make a commitment consistent with this guideline.

16 The Rulemaking Act proposes a standard of unanimity, or perfect consensus, as a starting point for a committee, but provides for committee members to adopt their own version of consensus. See § 562 (2).


Proposed Structure of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and Process The Assessment Team proposes creation of a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and four supporting subcommittees to achieve the goals of the negotiated rulemaking process. The Committee would be created consistent with legal requirements including FACA. A committee of approximately 20-22 members, including GGNRA, is likely. The make-up of the Committee must provide for a balance across the various perspectives held by individuals and organizations with an interest in the issues. The proposed subcommittees and their purposes are:

1) Technical Subcommittee – to identify links between issues and data; to advise the Committee on the availability of data for use in making management decisions about off-leash dog walking; to advise the Committee on the quality of available data; and potentially to recommend data collection initiatives in support of decision making and adaptive management strategies consistent with the Committee schedule.

2) Operations Subcommittee – to evaluate potential approaches to improving enforcement and enhancing compliance with the rules that emanate from the Negotiated Rulemaking process; this includes identifying strategies and mechanisms to provide sufficient funding. This subcommittee also would consider approaches for supporting maintenance and other operational needs associated with implementation of a new rule.

3) Public Outreach and Education Subcommittee – to promote public understanding and support for the implementation of any new rule; this subcommittee will focus on developing strategies to ensure the public understands the content and implications of a new rule that reflects the Committee’s consensus recommendations.

4) Implementation Subcommittee – this fourth committee potentially would focus on concrete issues arising from implementation of a proposed rule, but only if the three subcommittees proposed above were not sufficient to cover those issues. If needed an implementation subcommittee likely would be created later in the regulatory negotiation process, once the shape of a proposed rule is clearer.

An extended collaborative problem solving process must be responsive to changing dynamics during the course of negotiations. With this caveat, the following schedule and process are proposed to achieve the objectives of negotiated rulemaking.17 This section is intended primarily to give readers and GGNRA decision makers a clear sense of the many choices associated with organizing and supporting a successful negotiated rulemaking. The details of this proposed approach inevitably will be modified. Appendix C to this report provides a general graphic depiction of the proposed process.


Week 1:Committee Meeting #1 Agenda: provide an overview of the regulatory negotiation process to date, discuss make-up of the Committee, review Committee charter and protocols and confirm commitment, clarify geographic scope for off-leash options and other “sideboards,” confirm committee objectives, provide an overview of the assessment report, describe and discuss the negotiation process, identify key issues to be addressed, discuss proposed subcommittees and membership, reach agreement on decision making process including definition of consensus, discuss the role of objective criteria and data in decision making, address the potential for adaptive management, and discuss linkages to NEPA and related processes.

Week 4:Technical Subcommittee Meeting #1 Agenda: identify data essential to decision making, review available data, review data by geographic areas, and identify data gaps.

Week 5:Committee Meeting #2 Agenda: provide an overview of agency mandates, identify potential locations for off-leash dog walking, discuss attributes and limitations by location (possibly use a straw man developed by GGNRA), seek agreement on decision criteria, and discuss outcomes of Technical Subcommittee Meeting #1. Possibly present findings of draft internal scoping report prepared for the concurrent NEPA process. A joint field trip to all prospective dog walking locations within GGNRA is also recommended at this time.

Week 9:Technical Subcommittee Meeting #2

Agenda: assess data base for the various sites discussed during Committee Meeting #2.

Operations Subcommittee Meeting #1

Agenda: discuss appropriate levels of enforcement and how to support enforcement; this could include funding options. Identify other operational impacts such as increased maintenance requirements. Outreach/Education Subcommittee Meeting #1 Agenda: discuss challenges based on prior experiences; identify potential outreach and educational options and opportunities to support potential rulemaking, including needs for signage and other informational materials.


Week 12:Committee Meeting #3 Agenda: discuss results of subcommittee meetings; using available data and agreed upon decision criteria conduct initial screening of potential locations for off-leash dog walking; begin building consensus on recommendation to GGNRA; begin the discussion of management strategies for each potential site to ensure meeting NPS guidelines.

Week 15:Subcommittee Meetings

Agenda: each subcommittee will evaluate screened locations from the perspective of their group and begin developing elements of possible management strategies.

Week 19:NRC Meeting #4

Agenda: receive reports from subcommittees; craft components of proposed rule; continue building consensus around specific locations and management strategies.

Depending on agency preference, GGNRA/NPS staff begin developing technical language consistent with emerging Committee consensus on a recommendation.

Week 23:NRC Meeting #5

Agenda: review and comment on Committee’s proposed rule as drafted by NPS technical staff.

Week 25:Implementation Subcommittee Meeting #1

Agenda: discuss steps in implementing the new rule and identify tasks that need to be undertaken in support of the Committee’s consensus recommendation; develop an action plan.

Week 28:Committee Meeting #6

Agenda: finalize Committee consensus recommendation on proposed rule and agree on the implementation action plan.18

Charter and Protocols A Committee will be created by a formal federal charter and its deliberations will be guided by working principles and operating protocols (collectively “protocols”). Protocols will cover attendance at meetings, role of alternates, withdrawal or replacement of a committee member, contact with the media, transparency of related activities outside the process, and communications with constituencies. A proposed set of protocols will be shared with prospective participants as part of ascertaining their willingness to participate, and a commitment to the protocols will be expected as the basis for their appointment on a Committee.

18 One important point requiring ongoing attention is the relationship of the NEPA process to the Committee’s process. Further information about the likely NEPA and Committee timetables is needed before specific decisions about coordinating the two processes can be made.


Prospective members of the Committee must commit to making a good-faith effort to reach consensus while advocating for the interests of the organization or viewpoints they are chosen to represent. The Assessment Team recommends that all participants make an explicit commitment to discussing constructively the possibility of off-leash dog walking in GGNRA regardless of individual views about whether that use is either legal or appropriate as part of their decision to participate on a Committee. Potential Committee Members and Alternates The Assessment Team developed a list of potential candidates to serve on a committee consistent with the goal of balance outlined in the Act and provided that information to GGNRA staff. The Assessment Team also discussed with GGNRA the role and selection process for committee alternates. GGNRA and NPS management will decide on the composition of a Committee including alternates consistent with federal law, with the formal appointments to be made by the Secretary of the Interior.

CONCLUSION The Assessment Team appreciates the opportunity to work with GGNRA and members of the public in this phase of a potential negotiated rulemaking process. The Team will work with the GGNRA and other assessment participants to ensure that this report and recommendations are understood by all potential stakeholders. Subject to a decision by NPS, the Team will also provide support for activities leading to the initiation of the Negotiated Rulemaking phase of the project. The Assessment Team wishes to acknowledge the positive response to its interview requests and the flexibility and commitment shown by people in order to participate in the assessment. This support greatly enhanced the assessment process and is appreciated. The Team also acknowledges the cooperation of GGNRA and Institute staff during the course of the assessment.


APPENDIX A

Invitation letter from Superintendent O’Neil

(See attached PDF file)


APPENDIX B

GGNRA SITUATION ASSESSMENT CONTACTS The Assessment Team contacted many people by telephone, e-mail, letter, and in person in connection with the assessment process. These contacts served multiple purposes that included evaluating initial interest, assistance in finding contact information, advice about who to call, and arranging an in-depth interview. In most cases the Team was able to hold a discussion or exchange information, but in a few we were not. Efforts to contact or follow up with one or more organizations based on recent discussions may be underway but likely will not affect the substance of the assessment report. The following list covers people in all these categories without distinction. For specific information about the nature of each contact please contact either Gregory Bourne or J. Michael Harty, co-leads for the Assessment Team. Elected Officials

o Office of U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (Dan Bernal) o Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (Michelle Moss) o Office of U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (Michelle Senders) o Mayor Jim Vreeland (City of Pacifica) o Office of State Senator Jackie Speier (Margo Rosen) o Office of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (David Gutierrez)

Government Agencies

o California Department of Fish & Game (Carl Wilcox) o US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bay, Delta Branch (Dan Buford, Supervisor) o San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (Becky Ballinger)


o California Native Plant Society (Jake Sigg and Randy Zebell) o Center for Biological Diversity (Brent Plater) o Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association (Susan Andres and Trent Orr) o Golden Gate Audubon Society (Arthur Feinstein) o Marine Mammal Center (Kathy Zagzebski) o National Parks Conservation Association (Courtney Cuff) o Presidio Sustainability Project (Stephen Krefting) o Sierra Club (Norman La Force and Gordon Bennett) o Natural Resources Defense Council (Johanna Wald)

Dog Walking Interests

o Crissy Field Dog Walkers (Martha Walters) o Fort Funston Dog Walkers (Linda McKay) o Ocean Beach Dog Owners Group (John Keating) o ProDog (Joe Hague) o San Francisco Dog Owners Group (Anne Farrow, Jeri Flinn, and Keith

McAllister)


General Animal Welfare Interests

o Marin Humane Society (Diane Allevato and Cindy Machado) o San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Christine

Rosenblatt and Daniel Crain) o City and County of San Francisco, Department of Animal Care & Control (Carl

Friedman and Deb Campbell) Equestrian Interests

o Miwok Valley Association (Alice Caldwell-Steele) o Ft. Funston area rider (Antoinette Mogannam) o Marinwatch (Judy Teichman)

Park User Interests

o Mischa Arp o Kevin Kendrick o Kyle Mizokami o Richard Sipser o Paul Varghese

Other Groups and Individuals/Interests

o Association of National Park Service Rangers (Ken Mabery) o Coleman Advocates for Youth (David Robinson) o Author, California Dog Lover’s Companion and Bay Area Dog Lover’s

Companion (Maria Goodavage) o Access 4 Bikes, Marin (Brian Foster) o City of Pacifica (Paul Jones) o Gary Fergus o Leslie Gordon o Mother of Twins Club, San Francisco (Stephanie Crump) o Presidio Trust (Craig Middleton) o San Francisco Boardsailing Association (Peter Thorner, President) o Senior Action Network (Bruce Livingston)

Mediation/Community Groups

o Northern California Mediation Center, Marin County (Nancy Foster) o Community Mediation Board of West Marin (Sadja Greenwood) o Superior Court MAP Project (Sheila Purcell) o San Mateo County Small Claims Mediation o Peninsular Conflict Resolution Center (Jen Bullock) o Peninsular Conflict Resolution Center (Florence Beier and Tara Russell) o City of San Mateo Park and Recreation Dept (Valerie Berland) o San Mateo Civil ADR Coordinator o Marin County Mediation Services (Barbara Kob) o California Community Dispute Services (Thom Bateman) o Community Boards of San Francisco (Chuck Regal)


APPENDIX C

Proposed Negotiated Rulemaking Schedule

(See attached Excel file)


July 28, 2005 Brian O’Neill, Superintendent Delivered by messenger Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Mason, Building 201 San Francisco, CA 94123 Attention: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Re: Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee and status of the Presidio Trust Dear Superintendent O’Neill: By publication in the Federal Register of June 28, 2005, the Department of the Interior (DOI) gave public notice of its intention to establish the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (the Committee). The purpose of the Committee is to negotiate and develop a special regulation (proposed rule) for dog management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). Within the public notice, the DOI proposed 25 committee members including a representative from the Presidio Trust (Trust). The Presidio Trust is a wholly-owned United States government corporation, chartered by Congress in the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 460bb appendix (enacted as P.L.104-333). The Trust has administrative jurisdiction over Area B of the Presidio of San Francisco within the GGNRA. While appreciative of the DOI’s offer to include the Trust on the Committee, by this letter the Trust respectfully withdraws from consideration as a member. However, the Trust does wish to participate in the concurrent NEPA process for dog management in GGNRA referred to at page 37109 of the public notice. Accordingly, we request to be involved as a cooperating agency under the National Environmental Policy Act and specifically 40 C.F.R. Section 1501.6 for the reasons set forth below. Area A of the Presidio, which is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS), is immediately adjacent to Area B. In light of this fact, the outcome of the NPS dog management rulemaking process has the potential for spillover impacts in Area B and, as noted in the GGNRA Dog Management Plan Draft Internal Scoping Report without citing Area B by name, “the potential to impact or influence policy at other regional parks—municipal, state, and federal.” For these reasons the Presidio Trust intends to monitor closely the rulemaking process and will give future consideration to the Trust’s regulation regarding pet management once the GGNRA rulemaking process is concluded.

GGNRA005121

Brian O’Neill, Superintendent July 28, 2005

Page 2

Finally, for the record we note that the DOI public notice proposed the Presidio Trust as a committee member that would represent “the interests of local government.” As a United States government agency, the Trust is charged with representing national interests, and any future reference to interests represented by the Trust should clearly so state. The Trust looks forward to working with you in the NEPA process for dog management. If there are further questions, I may be reached at 415 561 5419. Thank you very much. Cordially, Al Rosen Assistant General Counsel

GGNRA005122

DRAFT SITUATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

ON PROPOSED NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING ON DOG

MANAGEMENT IN


August 31, 2004

PREPARED JOINTLY BY CDR ASSOCIATES AND THE CENTER FOR COLLABORATIVE POLICY, CSUS

GGNRA005123

DRAFT—CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Page 2 of 15

Table of Contents

[To be created following completion of this report]

GGNRA005124


Page 3 of 15

INTRODUCTION

Background and Purpose for this Report National Park Service regulations require that all pets, where allowed in national park sites, are crated, caged, or restrained at all times.1 This regulation applies to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), which encompasses manages (acreage actually managed by the park is much smaller – exact number in the Prelim. Planning Director’s Report if needed) approximately 75,000 acres around San Francisco’s Bay Area, including a significant portion of recreational waterfront in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. In 1979 a the GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission Committee adopted a policy that allowed off-leash dog walking, and this appears to have generally guided dog walking for almost 20 years. Conflicts (what conflicts does this refer to?) arose over this local policy in light of existing NPS regulations requiring the restraint of dogs in national parks. GGNRA eventually was ordered to enforce the NPS regulation, which is the current situation. This significant change created both confusion and animosity among those who had used these areas for off-leash dog walking. GGNRA has initiated a process to address this conflict through rulemaking, with a goal of writing a new regulation, specifically for this park, covering dog management.2 As part of rulemaking, and as a reflection of its stated “commitment to include the public meaningfully” in developing a dog management rule, GGNRA has proposed creating a regulatory negotiation committee that includes members of the public consistent with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In a “Dear Participant” letter dated May 10, 2004, GGNRA General Superintendent Brian O’Neill initiated a process to assess the potential for creating a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) and incorporating it into the rulemaking process.3 Such a committee would “work with GGNRA to investigate a regulation to allow off-leash dog walking in certain areas . . . where resources and visitor safety would not be impacted.” This Situation Assessment Report is intended to assist GGNRA in making its threshold decision about forming a Regulatory Negotiation Committee based on the framework laid out in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act.4 Summary of Assessment Process The assessment process was conducted jointly by a team of experienced mediators from the Center for Collaborative Policy (CSUS) in Sacramento and CDR Associates in Davis 1 36 CFR 2.15(a)(2); see also Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Pet Management in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 67 Fed. Reg. 1424 (Jan. 11, 2002) (ANPR). 2 The ANPR contains a detailed perspective on dog management issues in GGNRA.. Information on rulemaking and the negotiated rulemaking process can be found on the GGNRA web site at http://www.nps.gov/goga/pets/regneg/. Other perspectives can be found on the web pages of different Bay Area organizations, including the San Francisco Dog Owners Group, http://www.sfdog.org/ as only one example. 3 A copy of Supt. O’Neill’s letter can be found at Attachment [A] to this report. 4 See the considerations identified in the NRA at 5 U.S.C. § 563(a).

Formatted

Comment [MSOffice1]: The Assessment Team expects to review this brief history with GGNRA and NPS staff for accuracy.

GGNRA005125

http://www.nps.gov/goga/pets/regneg/

http://www.sfdog.org/


Page 4 of 15

(the “Assessment Team”) under contract to GGNRA. The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR) advised GGNRA on the situation assessment process, participated in the hiring process, and administers the contract with the Assessment Team.5 The Assessment Team spoke with approximately 45 people in individual and group interviews to gather information for this assessment report during the May-August 2004 time period.6 The team began with a list of names developed by GGNRA as a result of its extensive interactions with members of the public, but expanded its list based on advice received during interviews. Most interviews were conducted in person by one or two team members; follow up typically occurred via telephone. The Assessment Team relied on the same agenda as the starting point for all interviews, and adjusted its approach for each discussion to focus on priorities. This agenda was sent in advance to interview participants whenever possible. Use of a standard agenda allows some generalization about the interviews, although this assessment process does not rely on a statistical approach.7 The Assessment Team conducted two group interviews with advocates for off-leash dog walking, in addition to individual conversations, and also met as a group with representatives of public interest environmental organizations. The Assessment Team had multiple goals in conducting its interviews. The first was to identify the key interests of various individuals and organizations concerned about dog management in the GGNRA, who would be significantly affected by a rule and who would need to be represented to constitute a balanced committee consistent with the NRA. The second was to evaluate the potential for reaching consensus on a recommended rule for GGNRA through a negotiated rulemaking process. The third was to identify prospective participants who were able and willing to serve on the NRC. Given the high level of interest in off-leash dog walking issues in the Bay Area there were many more people seeking to participate in the assessment process than there were available hours under the contract. Schedules of potential participants and time constraints also were factors influencing interview decisions. The Assessment Team believes it has achieved its goals: all significant interests have been considered in the assessment process, even though all people with an interest could not participate in this phase. It should be noted, however, that participation in the assessment interviews is not a prerequisite to participation in a committee if one is formed.

5 Information about USIECR can be found at www.ecr.gov. USIECR also reviewed and commented on an initial draft of this report, but left final decisions about content and structure to the Assessment Team. 6 Appendix [] to this report contains the names of people who were interviewed. 7 GGNRA has previously commissioned two statistical evaluations in connection with the ANPR. The Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University was contracted to evaluate analyze public comments submitted in response to the ANPR, and prepared a report entitled “Public Comment Analysis, August 2002.” The same contractor conducted a telephone survey of residents in Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties during May-July 2002. The results of this survey are available in a Technical Report dated December 2002. Both documents are available on the GGNRA web site.

GGNRA005126

http://www.ecr.gov/


Page 5 of 15

The Assessment Team wishes to acknowledge the overwhelmingly positive response to its interview requests, and the flexibility and commitment shown by people in order to participate. This support greatly assisted the assessment process and was appreciated. Structure of this Report This report is organized as follows: (1) a presentation of the key interests and related considerations disclosed during assessment interviews, consistent with commitments about confidentiality and without attribution; (2) key points of agreement among assessment participants revealed through interviews; (3) key points of disagreement and the potential significance for a decision by GGNRA; and (4) a recommendation about whether to proceed with formation of a committee.


Overview One consideration for GGNRA in deciding to create a committee is whether there are a “limited number of identifiable interests that will be significantly affected by the rule.”8 The following list compiled by the Assessment Team from interviews is intended to complement information about interests gained from the ANPR comment process and telephone surveying. The interests are organized into two categories: substantive interests related to off-leash dog walking, and procedural interests related to the potential formation and operation of a committee. It is important to understand a threshold choice facing those participating in the assessment (and others who may participate in a committee). The question of “whether” dogs should be allowed off-leash in GGNRA under any circumstances implicates a number of core values for different groups. For those who believe the answer should be “no,” the decision to participate in a potential discussion of “how” dogs might be allowed off-leash may be difficult and appear inconsistent with other interests. On the other hand, GGNRA and NPS leadership are committed to addressing this issue, in keeping with legal mandates, due to the unacceptability of the current situation. As such, while not negating or overlooking the perspective that opposes any rule allowing allows off-leash dog walking, the GGNRA is interested in determining whether any areas are appropriate for this use. Their preference is to involve the public in the rulemaking process. All participants in the negotiated rulemaking process must be willing to consider the potential for designating some areas for off-leash use, even though there is no a priori commitment being made to this outcome. The interests likely to be significantly affected by a rule are presented below without attribution to individuals or groups, consistent with ground rules for the assessment process. Interviews revealed that these interests are, in most cases, not confined to a

8 NRA, Section 563(a)(2)

GGNRA005127


Page 6 of 15

single individual or group, although there are variations in the way they are framed or their relative importance. Substantive Interests Related to Off-leash Dog Walking Ensure the safety of all GGNRA user groups—including children, frail, elderly, or

handicapped individuals—and NPS employees Protect GGNRA’s natural resources Comply with relevant federal laws including NPS Organic Act, GGNRA authorizing

legislation, ESA, MMPA, and Migratory Bird Act, among others Ensure compatibility with other uses Improve the status quo [which a number of participants described as “unacceptable”] Develop rules that are understandable, enforceable, and have broad buy-in from the

public and NPS staff Provide opportunities across GGNRA area to the maximum extent possible Acknowledge attachments to specific locations Maintain social relationships related to dog walking in specific locations Provide access to beaches and water for off-leash dog walking Protect economic interests in commercial dog walking Avoid creating a national precedent for benefiting single user groups in parks or off-

leash dog walking in other national parks, or creating inconsistencies with the Uniform Code of Regulations [Note: the issue here is maintaining consistency throughout the National Park System] Develop clear land use criteria for designating uses (for both off leash dogwalking and

other uses as well?) Develop principled and objective justifications for decisions by GGNRA (is this

essentially the same as the preceding interest?) Create defined off-leash areas with appropriate and effective separation from other uses Procedural Interests Related to a Potential Negotiated Rulemaking Maximize prospects for reaching agreement Avoid getting caught up in debates about whether or not dogs create impacts Be clear about what is open for discussion and negotiation and what is not Ensure a committee is representative of all key perspectives related to potential

outcomes Coordinate with other federal laws including NEPA, the Administrative Procedures Act,

and FACA Focus on constructive problem solving while establishing clear agreements to avoid





GGNRA005128


Page 7 of 15


One of the potential benefits of a formal assessment process is that it can highlight areas of agreement perhaps not fully perceived by those enmeshed in a conflict. These agreements can include values (about right and wrong, for what is important in a particular situation), interests or needs, and options for meeting interests. The Assessment Team identified a number of apparent points of agreement during the course of its interviews and offers these to assist people in reaching decisions about whether to support or participate in a regulatory negotiation committee. The test for including agreements is “significance,” either because there is broad support (although perhaps not unanimity) or because of the identities of those in apparent agreement. Interviews also disclosed some clear disagreements, which also are presented below. For the disagreements, the team has focused on those with potential significance to affect the ability to reach (?)for reaching consensus on off-leash dog walking. Agreements on Substantive Off-leash Issues There appears to be a broad—not unanimous—expectation that GGNRA ultimately will

publish a rule that allows some off-leash dog walking. Most people concur with the general proposition that off-leash dog walking causes

resource impacts. (There are sharp disagreements, however, about the nature and extent of these impacts, as well as their relative significance. See discussion below of disagreements.) The interviews disclosed very little specific opposition to on-leash dog walking in most

parts of GGNRA. This may be the result of several factors, including the structure of the interview agenda. Nevertheless, the broad lack of attention to this topic is worth noting. Dogs and off-leash dog walking play a significant role in the social fabrics of


resources and the environment are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This is a highly emotional issue that implicates core values for many people, and is

often closely linked to personal and group identity. There is broad—not unanimous—agreement on the need for balance in pet management

policy.


negotiation process, particularly if, as the GGNRA has indicated, the alternative is rulemaking by the NPS alone. There is somewhat less agreement on the value of the

GGNRA005129


Page 8 of 15

regulatory negotiation alternative, particularly among those who may feel the existing NPS regulation is sufficient, but the breadth of agreement is still significant. There also is broad—not unanimous—agreement that it will not be useful for a

committee to argue legal issues related to off-leash dog walking because this will not change minds, will further entrench people in positions, and will detract from constructive dialog and problem solving. In discussing impacts of different uses on GGNRA resources it will be important to

have credible scientific and technical information. In the absence of such information previous discussions have resulted in deeper disagreements and frustration. It is important to base policy decisions on credible information and scientific data.

Disagreements and Their Potential Significance There is basic disagreement over whether off-leash dog walking is an appropriate use of

GGNRA under its various mandates. This basic disagreement has multiple facets. One is a difference in views about the purpose underlying an “urban” national park: to protect what’s left of natural resources and perhaps even restore them, or provide for recreation and other uses in a way that minimizes and mitigates impacts? Another facet is a concern about creating precedents for other national parks, let alone other “urban” parks: some people acknowledge the concern but believe it is possible to distinguish the GGNRA situation, while others resist giving this possibility any weight. There is disagreement about whether off-leash dog walking is a shared use (more like

bicycling) or is actually an “exclusive” use (like playing loud music) because of inevitable impacts on most other users. This disagreement is likely to appear in a committee’s future discussion of off-leash impacts on GGNRA users. If GGNRA intends to rely on a “shared or exclusive use” criterion as part of rulemaking then stakeholders will have to grapple with nuances and choices. As noted above, there have been strong disagreements in the past over the nature and

extent of off-leash dog walking impacts on GGNRA resources. Interviews suggest communication has become difficult on this issue and that “denying the obvious” is widespread. Stakeholders will need to find ways to discuss the issue of impacts constructively, despite their strong differences. Most people interviewed offered one or more options for addressing past problems

around off-leash dog walking. There are disagreements over the potential utility of specific management options at different locations. For example, some believe that time of day restrictions can work, while others only see problems. Physical barriers are another example: some see fencing or other physical barriers as acceptable, while others offer strong objections depending on specifics and locations. While some level of disagreement is to be expected, stakeholders will need to bring flexibility to discussions about specific options if a consensus is to be achieved. The interviews suggest there will be disagreements about beach access at specific

locations, as off-leash advocates insist on the importance of beach access around GGNRA, and others suggest restrictions on such access are necessary, depending on the location. Again, flexibility will be needed to achieve consensus. There are important disagreements about the ability of GGNRA to match enforcement

resources to a realistic management program that would allow off-leash dog walking

GGNRA005130


Page 9 of 15

given projected budget constraints. Stakeholders will have to grapple with practicability, and it will be important for GGNRA to provide reliable and consistent advice on this issue.


The Assessment Team’s interviews highlighted a number of variables and unknown factors that will influence the potential for reaching consensus on a proposed regulation for consideration (is “consideration” strong enough wording?) by GGNRA. The Team discussed these variables openly during interviews, and in some cases scheduled follow up discussions, in order to understand how they might affect the potential success of a committee. The variables in the GGNRA context create a band of uncertainty that is reflected in the Assessment Team’s recommendations, set out below. These variables are: The commitment and ability of stakeholders to move beyond their well known

differences on the “whether” issue to focus on “how” off-leash dog walking might be allowed. The significance of this issue, and the difficult choices facing those opposed to off-leash dog walking, are described above in the “Key Interests” section of the report. The commitment of advocacy group representatives to focus on constructive problem

solving. The intensity of feeling over the off-leash issue has been expressed through a range of strategies and tactics in other Bay Area forums, including public demonstrations and media-oriented actions. GGNRA also has experienced at least one significant public demonstration. A regulatory negotiation committee seeking consensus will not thrive if stakeholder groups pursue their goals using similar approaches. The Assessment Team views the “commitment to reaching consensus” as the single most important unknown based on its interviews. The lingering consequences of past conflicts over this issue in San Francisco and the

Bay Area. Activists will bring their experiences, perceptions, judgments and assumptions about other people and organizations to a regulatory negotiation committee. This history can be an asset: people understand many of the issues and potential options, and also may have built positive relationships that can contribute to reaching consensus. It can also create barriers to cooperation. The assessment suggests it will be necessary for potential participants on the NRC to begin with a “clean slate” to the extent possible, finding ways to avoid simply re-enacting difficult experiences from the past. The future impacts of San Francisco’s Dog Advisory Commission (DAC) process. The

DAC is evaluating the appropriateness of, and in many cases approving, off-leash dog walking in numerous San Francisco parks. The Assessment Team interviewed several DAC members. Under one possible scenario a gradual increase in available options for walking dogs off-leash across the city resulting from DAC decisions would reduce pressures on GGNRA resources. Another possible scenario is that the commitment of people to favorite local off-leash areas, whether in GGNRA or the city, means there would not be any significant effect. Based on the assessment interviews, the latter is considered more probable. The impact of GGNRA’s NEPA analysis of different alternatives for off-leash walking.

The NEPA process will go on concurrently with the work of a committee, and it is likely a draft NEPA document analyzing a set of options, perhaps including a consensus

GGNRA005131


Page 10 of 15

recommendation from the committee, would be published only after the committee has completed its work. A committee cannot reach consensus and expect GGNRA simply to adopt their recommendation because of the requirement for analysis of a range of alternatives under NEPA. For this reason, it will be important for the committee to interact appropriately with GGNRA’s NEPA team as they seek consensus, in order to gain as much understanding as possible about how a committee proposal may fare when analyzed under NEPA. The potential for legal action related to off-leash dog walking before or during a

regulatory negotiation process, or prior to the conclusion of rulemaking. Litigation over the restoration process at Fort Funston filed by off-leash advocates several years ago is part of the fabric of the off-leash controversy.9 While that particular suit is no longer active, other litigation is pending and more is possible.10 These lawsuits could prove to have only minor substantive impact on a committee’s work, or could have a significant effect on rulemaking by changing the relevant legal framework for decision making. Adversarial litigation could limit the willingness of stakeholders, including government employees, to speak freely during committee discussions or otherwise provide information. Litigation also could also strengthen the convictions of those who believe it will not be possible to achieve consensus or who would prefer an outright victory. The internal NPS and DOI policy making process for a GGNRA rule. One of the

considerations for the decision whether to form a committee specified in the NRA is that “[t]he agency, to the maximum extent possible consistent with the legal obligations of the agency, will use the consensus of the committee with respect to the proposed rule as the basis for the rule proposed by the agency for notice and comment.”11 The enormous time commitment required of a participant in a committee consistently generates a fundamental question: “Will the agency use our work product or not?” No agency will commit in advance to simply adopting a committee’s recommendations, but the NRA language offers a balanced approach that is essential to gaining citizen participation. For this reason, the internal process by which GGNRA, NPS, and the Department of the Interior will reach a policy decision on any recommendation from a committee is a key variable. The Assessment Team discussed this issue with GGNRA staff during assessment interviews. The outcome of November’s elections. Creating a committee, participating in the

committee, and addressing recommendations from a committee in rulemaking are three GGNRA and NPS actions that could be affected by a change of administration resulting from November’s elections. There is less likelihood that a continuation of the current administration would have any affect, although that cannot be ruled out. Any leadership change within DOI. Apart from the election outcome, any change of top

leadership within DOI could also affect GGNRA and NPS actions related to a committee and rulemaking. Such changes are not unusual across the federal government following presidential elections, even when there is not change of administration.

9 Fort Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (N.D.Cal. 2000). 10 One perspective on legal developments is a web site maintained by off-leash advocates: http://oceanbeachdog.home.mindspring.com 11 §563(a)(7).

GGNRA005132


Page 11 of 15

RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

Based on the results of interviews with stakeholders representing personal and organizational interests, as well as with GGNRA leadership, we recommend that GGNRA proceed with a negotiated rulemaking process. A significant majority of interviewees, when asked whether they preferred GGNRA conducting a rulemaking on its own following traditional procedures, or a negotiated process where they could be directly involved, preferred the latter. This preference is a key element of the foundation for the Assessment Team’s recommendation to proceed. Our recommendation was not obvious at the beginning of the assessment process, and should be considered in the challenging context presented above. Nonetheless, we believe it is an appropriate action given the circumstances. Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Act The Assessment Team used Negotiated Rulemaking Act guidelines to develop its recommendation to proceed, as follows: 1. There is a need for a rule [§563(a)(1)].

GGNRA management, after extensive analysis and in consultation with NPS leadership, has clearly stated that the need exists and that under the current circumstances rulemaking is preferable to relying on existing NPS regulations. Interviews reveal a broad but not unanimous preference for rulemaking. (Should the results of N. Arizona’s analysis of ANPR comments and the survey be noted here?)




representation of persons who can adequately represent the interests identified [under paragraph 2] and are willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on the proposed rule [§563(a)(3)]. The Assessment Team specifically asked participants in interviews about their interest in participating, about others who could represent their interests, and about their willingness to negotiate in good faith. We believe balanced, adequate representation of the significant interests on a committee is a reasonable goal.

4. There is a reasonable likelihood that a committee will reach a consensus on the

proposed rule within a fixed period of time [§563(a)(4)].

Formatted

GGNRA005133


Page 12 of 15

It is not possible to guarantee consensus in any situation, particularly where there are significant differences in core values and a history of conflict and adversarial interaction. Most of those likely to participate in a committee expressed belief that consensus is attainable despite the past if all parties enter the process with a commitment to work constructively. Expressions of doubt more often reflected uncertainty about the motivations of other groups and individuals than one’s own commitment to reaching consensus. As noted above, one important factor is that the alternative of having GGNRA write a rule without a committee process—the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)—is not attractive to most people who participated in the assessment. The Assessment Team believes it is reasonably likely that consensus can be achieved based on current information, and has developed a proposed process design consistent with the need to regularly evaluate prospects for consensus as stakeholders interact.


proposed rulemaking and the issuance of a final rule [§563(a)5]. We anticipate a six- to nine-month negotiated rulemaking process which, in comparison to more traditional approaches to rulemaking, should not unreasonably delay the issuance of a final rule.


technical assistance, to the committee [§563(a)6)]. GGNRA’s leadership expressed their commitment during the assessment process to ensuring adequate resources will be made available to support the project.


the agency, will use the consensus of the committee with respect to the proposed rule as the basis for the rule proposed by the agency for notice and comment [§563(a)(7)]. This guideline has been reviewed in detail with GGNRA management. GGNRA and NPS management understand the importance of this provision and are prepared to make a commitment consistent with this guideline.

Proposed Structure of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and Process The Assessment Team proposes creation of a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) and three supporting subcommittees to achieve the goals of the negotiated rulemaking process. The NRC would be created consistent with legal requirements including FACA. A committee of approximately 15 members, including GGNRA, should be a goal in constituting the NRC. The make-up of the NRC must provide for a balance across the various perspectives held by individuals and organizations with an interest in the issues. The proposed subcommittees and their purposes are:

1) Technical Subcommittee – to identify links between issues and data; to advise the NRC on the availability of data for use in making management decisions about off-leash dog walking; to advise the NRC on the quality of available data;

GGNRA005134


Page 13 of 15

and potentially to recommend data collection initiatives in support of decision making and adaptive management strategies consistent with the NRC schedule.

2) Enforcement Operations Subcommittee – to evaluate potential approaches to improving enforcement and enhancing compliance with the rules that emanate from the Negotiated Rulemaking process; this includes identifying strategies and mechanisms to provide sufficient funding. Committee would also consider approaches for supporting maintenance and other operational needs associated with implementation of a new rule.

3) Public Outreach and Education Subcommittee – to promote public understanding and support for the implementation of any new rule; this Subcommittee will focus on developing strategies to ensure the public understands the content and implications of a new rule that reflects the NRC’s consensus recommendations.

An extended collaborative problem solving process must be responsive to changing dynamics during the course of negotiations. With this caveat, the following schedule and process are proposed to achieve the objectives of negotiated rulemaking.12 This section is intended primarily to give readers and GGNRA decision makers a clear sense of the many choices associated with organizing and supporting a successful negotiated rulemaking. The details of this proposed approach inevitably will be modified. Week 1 - NRC Meeting #1

Agenda: provide an overview of the regulatory negotiation process to date, discuss make-up of the NRC, review NRC charter and protocols and confirm commitment, clarify geographic scope for off-leash options and other “sideboards,” confirm committee objectives, provide an overview of the assessment report, describe and discuss the negotiation process, identify key issues to be addressed, discuss proposed subcommittees and membership, reach agreement on decision making process including definition of consensus, discuss the role of objective criteria and data in decision making, address the potential for adaptive management, and discuss linkages to NEPA and related processes.

Week 4 - Technical Subcommittee Meeting #1 Agenda: identify data essential to decision making, review available data, review data by geographic areas, and identify data gaps. Present findings of draft internal scoping report prepared for the concurrent NEPA process. (Should this could go here, with the subcommittee then briefing the full NRC, or be presented at the NRC #2 meeting?)

Week 6 - NRC Meeting #2 Agenda: provide an overview of agency mandates, identify potential locations for off-leash dog walking, discuss attributes and limitations by location (possibly use a straw man developed by GGNRA), seek agreement on decision criteria, and discuss outcomes of Technical Subcommittee Meeting #1.

12 The Assessment Team recommends creating a graphic timeline for the final version of this report.

Formatted

GGNRA005135


Page 14 of 15

A field trip to all prospective dog walking locations within GGNRA is also recommended at this time.

Week 9 – Technical Subcommittee Meeting #2

Agenda: assess data base for the various sites discussed during NRC Meeting #2. Enforcement Operations Subcommittee Meeting #1

Agenda: discuss appropriate levels of enforcement and how to support enforcement; this could include funding options. Discuss other operational impacts, such as increased maintenance requirements, needs for signage and other informational materials. Outreach/Education Subcommittee Meeting #1 Agenda: discuss challenges based on prior experience; identify potential outreach and educational options and opportunities to support potential rulemaking.

Week 12 - NRC Meeting #3

Agenda: discuss results of subcommittee meetings; using available data and agreed upon decision criteria conduct initial screening of potential locations for off-leash dog walking; begin building consensus on recommendation to GGNRA; begin the discussion of management strategies for each potential site to ensure meeting NPS guidelines.

Week 15 – Subcommittee Meetings


Week 19 – NRC Meeting #4

Agenda: receive reports from subcommittees; craft components of recommended rule; continue building consensus around specific locations and management strategies.

Depending on agency preference, GGNRA/NPS staff begin developing technical language consistent with emerging NRC consensus on a recommendation.

Week 23 – NRC Meeting #5 Agenda: review and comment on draft rule as drafted by NPS. Week 25 – Implementation Subcommittee Meeting #1

Agenda: discuss steps in implementing the new rule and identify tasks that need to be undertaken in support of the NRC’s consensus recommendation; develop an action plan.

Week 28 – NRC Meeting #6

GGNRA005136


Page 15 of 15

Agenda: finalize NRC consensus recommendation on proposed rule and agree on the implementation action plan.13

Guidelines for Participation A formal set of guidelines for participation on the NRC are essential to maximizing prospects for reaching consensus. The prospective members of the NRC must commit to making a good-faith effort to reach consensus while advocating for the interests of the organization or viewpoints they are chosen to represent. The Assessment Team recommends that all participants make explicit their willingness to discuss the possibility of off-leash dog walking in GGNRA regardless of their individual views about whether that use is legal or appropriate. Prospective participants must agree to abide by meeting protocols developed for the rulemaking process. Protocols will cover attendance at meetings, role of alternates, withdrawal or replacement of a committee member, contact with the media, transparency of related activities outside the process, and communications with constituencies. The detailed protocols will be shared with prospective participants as part of ascertaining their willingness to participate, and a commitment to the guidelines will be expected as the basis for their appointment. Potential Committee Members

[The Assessment Team is still developing a potential list of committee members and will work with GGNRA staff to complete this task.]

CONCLUSION The Assessment Team appreciates the opportunity to work with GGNRA and members of the public in this phase of a potential negotiated rulemaking process. The Team will work with participants in the assessment process to ensure that this report and recommendations are understood by all potential stakeholders.

13 One important discussion point for the Assessment Team with GGNRA and NPS is the relationship of the NEPA process to the NRC’s process. We will address NEPA in the assessment report following this discussion.

GGNRA005137

DRAFT

9/10/04

Dear : It gives me great pleasure to appoint you to the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Your appointment is for the duration of the negotiations. The purpose of the Committee is to assist directly in the development of a revised dogwalking regulation for Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The Committee will attempt to reach consensus on concepts and language to use as the basis for a special regulation for dogwalking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area to be published by the National Park Service in the Federal Register. A copy of the Committee’s charter is enclosed for your information. The Superintendent of Golden Gate National Recreation Area will contact you regarding Committee activities. Thank you for your willingness to participate in this important process. I am certain Golden Gate National Recreation Area will greatly benefit from your advice on the activities to be undertaken by the Committee. Sincerely, Gale A. Norton Secretary Department of the Interior Enclosure

GGNRA005138

Confidential Powell/SES edits Page 1 7/14/2016

Draft Talking Points for Environmental Caucus 9/18/07

Topic: Introduction and recognition that they are part of the process Thanks for taking more time to meet with us—I know that it has been difficult for many of you to be in this conversation and I thank you for remaining on the Reg-Neg Committee I asked for this meeting with you as we only have two Reg Neg meetings left and we all have hard work in front of us I am well aware of the fact that you would prefer not to have off-leash dogwalking in the park, but tThe Alsup decision has dictated that off leash dogwalking this is now a legal use until we come up with an alternative rule. I am well aware of the fact that . your preference would be to simply reinstate the NPS leash regulation park wide, but we felt, and the Federal panel agreed, that it was reasonable at this point to consider whether some off leash use could be allowed in this park. With the Alsup decision, we have resources that are vulnerable due to off-leash use, and we are determined that any new rule must protect them. By jointly working on a plan for the future, we will have the tool to manage our sensitive resources and to restrict this activity to areas where it is not appropriate. If the Committee doesn’t come to agreement in the next two meetings, than you are by default leaving the decision to me, and I don’t believe that you want to do that. Topic: If we don’t move forward together, then the only way out of the current dogwalking status is a decision by the NPSAlsup decision is the defacto regulation There are some major difference between the dogwalking caucus and the environmental groups that are preventing this discussion from moving forward and reaching some agreements. Now is the time to move past those major disagreements. The dogwalkers are still holding out hope that the 1979 Pet Policy will remain in effect. I met with them last week and I told them that the dogwalking situation was going to look different in the future and that we have been clear from the beginning that we are not just staying with the 1979 Pet Policy.

GGNRA005139


Some of you have been unwilling to move forward until we can get complete agreement on overall policies, which include the issue of fencing and barriers. If the Committee doesn’t come to agreement in the next two meetings, than you are by default leaving the decision to me, and I don’t believe that you want to do that. Topic: Ask them to befor flexibility on the Issue of Confinement barriers I would like to challenge you to immediately use your time and effort to help resolve this issue instead of criticizing what you don’t like We need you to take ownership of this process so that you can influence the outcome. While understanding the importance of this issue, I’m asking you to be flexible as the NPS will need to do further analysis to see what will work in each area. We agree with you in concept that off-leash use should be confinedseparated from other uses, but there are variety of tools that can be used to confine accomplish this use:

• Buffers • Signs • Barriers • Fences

We will need to evaluate any tools for confinement through the EIS. We will also utilize adaptive management and will develop a monitoring plan and triggers which will determine a fallback. While putting out continuing to support the concept of confinementseparation of uses, allow us to use our toolbox to determine what tool might work at each location. Topic: Broad Principles vs. Site Specific Proposals We have spent a lot of time in the last few meetings on broad principles and ROLAS. The principles are important, but we need to now turn our attention to specific park sites. I am not asking you to give up a discussion of overall principles. But the discussion of site-specific elements is equally important. The Facilitation Team is organizing a small meeting in the next few weeks to explore whether site This meeting will involve about eight people—those who offered at the last meeting that they were willing to have the discussion of broad principles and addressed to specific park sites.

GGNRA005140


The dogwalking caucus has volunteered to be part of this discussion and some members of the “other groups” will also take part. Topic: They want fencing/barriers because they don’t believe that we will enforce any new regulation When we have a final regulation, our job will be to enforce it and ensure that all dogwalkers understand when and where they can walk their dogs. Even though we don’t see any increase of field officers in the next few years, we will diligently enforce any new regulation. Once an actual regulation is in place – one that will certainly be The new regulation will be clearer and simpler than the current situation - so it will be more efficient for our officers to enforce. Education and outreach teamed with enforcement will be critical in the success of any new regulation. We need to use a precautionary approach when we are developing a new rule. We can’t assume that the rule will never be violated, but , but we must draft regulations that will engender a certain degree the highest possible level of compliance to best meet the need for visitor and resource protection, knowing that there will be violations. There is no perfect world, and if we hold out for that, we would never have any regulations. Barbara Goodyear spoke reinforced that point several meetings ago.

GGNRA005141

Confidential Powell Page 1 7/14/2016

Draft Talking Points for Dogwalking Caucus 9/5/07

Topic: Introduction and reminder that we undertook this process at their request Thanks for taking more time to meet with us—I know how much time you’ve already put into this process I asked for this meeting with you as we only have two meetings left and we all have hard work in front of us You asked us to undertake Negotiated Rulemaking in order to be the first national park to consider a special regulation to allow off-leash dogwalking and I did that- Now it is up to you to keep your commitment to help find resolution to this issue Topic: The future means change—not the 1979 Pet Policy I know from the correspondence that I’ve seen that some of you feel that we should remain with the 1979 Pet Policy, but we were clear from the beginning that dogwalking would look differently going into in the future The Alsup decision did not say we needed to stay with the 1979 Pet Policy—Magistrate Alsup directed us to reinstate former off leash areas follow the plan until or unless we went through a public process such as we are doing now. have finished our process If we were going leave things the same, we wouldn’t have undertaken this process – given its cost in funding and participants’ time. and spent all the funding that we did and use up everyone’s time You have a chance to help formally establish legally walk dogs off-leash dogwalking sites in a national park and you’re throwing it away by spending time blaming others instead of focusing on how you will put plans forward that can really work

• You have been very critical of the facilitators • You have criticized the other representatives on the Committee • You have blamed criticized the NPS when we tell you what we’re presently

thinking in certain areas of the park (even though you keep asking us) Topic: Challenge them to take charge of the process

GGNRA005142


I would like to challenge you to immediately use your time and effort to help resolve this issue instead of criticizing what you don’t like We need you to take ownership of this process and put forth proposals that work and address the needs of all committee members. The plans that have come forth so far have been more of the sameall had the same weaknesses:

• they don’t say how you’ll protect shorebirds • they don’t tell us how you would protect the safety of other visitors and staff • they don’t provide for a national park experience without dogs • they don’t tell us how you will be partners in the management and outreach)

You need to be open to the realization that there will be some barriers in the park and you need to be willing to make that compromise in order to be the first national park with a special regulation allowing some areas for off leash dogwalking that legally allows dogwalking I also challenge you to be willing to continue the dialog on overall characteristics. We have spent a lot of time talking about this in the past meeting, but it is important and we need to hammer out more agreements Topic: Are we taking away all the off-leash opportunities? Why should the dogwalkers continue? I know you’d like to hear about what we’re thinking. We are still developing our alternatives and we need to move through the next phases of the NEPA process (Impact Analysis). I can tell you that at this stage, we are looking at our preliminary range of alternatives does contain off-leash opportunities in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties. As to the Promenade: we must follow the “Purpose and Need” when considering a reasonable range of alternatives and since this area is so busy we feel that allowing off-leash would not provide for safety of other users (bicyclists, strollers, families, etc.) Topic: Doubt that we will enforce any new regulation so they can disregard the rules When we have a final regulation, our job will be to enforce it and work with you to ensure that all dogwalkers understand when and where they can walk their dogs. Even though it we don’t see an increase of field officers in the next few years, we will diligently enforce the any new regulation. The new regulation will be clearer and simpler so it will be more efficient for our officers to enforce. You must support will be part of that enforcement process. Before we put any new regulation in place, the paerameters state that you will work with us to develop an outreach program and ensure that your constituents have the correct information.

GGNRA005143


GGNRA005144

DRAFT EMAIL TO LYNN SCARLETT Hello Lynn, I'm writing to update you on our negotiated rulemaking package for dog management at GGNRA and to thank you for help in facilitating the process. The final package is circulating and is currently in the DOI Solicitor's Office. We are hoping the package and appointment letters are ready for your signature within the next few weeks. I want to let you know we are requesting one change to the package at this point, which we have discussed with the NPS Office of Policy. After consultation with our facilitators and solicitor, we are requesting that name of Suzanne Valente, representing Ocean Beach Dog (OBDOG), be removed. Circumstances have changed and we are requesting the removal of her name for the following reasons:

• Continual request that NPS utilize the 1979 Pet Policy as a baseline, which allows off-leash dogwalking in many areas of the park, which does not take into account expanded boundaries of the park and changed resources and conditions, and

• Unwillingness to voluntarily comply with GGNRA's Good Faith Guidelines," • Unwillingness to remove from the OBDOG website a public petition urging the

NPS to “…terminate negotiated rulemaking and to implement the 1979 Pet Policy as a Special Regulation for GGNRA,” and

• Unwillingness to return calls from NPS officials or to dialog directly in a manner other than through documented emails.

The Negotiated Rulemaking Act requires that the convening agency determine if all proposed participants are willing to negotiate in good faith. To this end, Good Faith Guidelines were drafted by the NPS and facilitators with input from the Committee members. All proposed members, except Ms.Valente, agreed to abide by the guidelines for three months, at which time they would be reviewed by the Committee for any needed modifications. We have attached the guidelines (and correspondence between Ms. Valente and NPS?) for you information. If you or your staff have any questions regarding this modification, please do not hesitate to call me at (415) 561-4738.

GGNRA005145

Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National

Recreation Area

Facilitation Team Report

Submitted by:

Gregory Bourne J. Michael Harty Catherine McCracken

Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento

Harty Conflict Consulting & Mediation

Date: March 24, 2008

GGNRA005146

i

Executive Summary

Background: In 1979 the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) Citizens Advisory Commission (Commission) recommended that GGNRA allow off-leash dog walking under “voice control” at multiple locations including beaches. This recommendation was inconsistent with National Park Service (NPS) regulations prohibiting off-leash pets. Nevertheless, GGNRA implemented the policy and dogs were permitted to be off-leash for over 20 years at specific locations. During this period the park experienced increased visitor use along with increased off-leash use. This resulted in increased conflict and the potential for conflict, and in heightened public sensitivity, in the view of the NPS. As one example, off-leash users initiated litigation in 2000 over a proposed 12-acre closure at Fort Funston intended to protect threatened and endangered species. In 2001 the Commission acknowledged that the policy was null and void because it conflicted with NPS regulations. The NPS stated in a 2002 Federal Register notice seeking input on dog management options that “recent events . . . have dramatically changed the climate in which the park had previously allowed off leash pets in certain areas of the park.” Later in 2002 a panel of senior NPS officials suggested off-leash use might be compatible with NPS mandates at some park locations, and recommended the park pursue rulemaking, either traditional or negotiated, to develop a revised policy. In 2004 the NPS chose to assess prospects for conducting a Negotiated Rulemaking (NR) process to develop a special regulation for dog management at GGNRA. The purpose of the NR process would be to ascertain whether, and under what conditions, off-leash dog walking should be allowed in light of increased use of the park and changing use patterns. The NR process would allow a representative group of stakeholders to have significant, direct input into development of a special regulation for GGNRA as an alternative to traditional rule making, NR Process: The NPS, in consultation with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, selected a facilitation team (Team) experienced in negotiated rulemaking and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the potential for a NR process. The Team conducted confidential interviews with a broad cross-section of groups and individuals having interests in dog management at GGNRA. The Team’s Situation Assessment Report concluded that a Committee was reasonably likely to achieve a substantial level of agreement on a proposed rule, although unanimity was not a likely outcome. The NPS decided to proceed with a NR process and to conduct the required environmental review under NEPA concurrently with rulemaking. NPS established a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (“Committee”) comprised of 19 primary representatives and an equal number of alternates. The Committee members represented a diverse set of interests in dog management at GGNRA that fit into three informal caucuses: off-leash advocates, environmental and conservation organizations, and other park users including equestrians, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and children and youth. The Committee’s goal was to reach consensus on a special regulation on dog management at GGNRA and recommend that regulation to the NPS.

GGNRA005147

ii

Many Committee members devoted a significant amount of professional and personal time and resources to this effort, including vacations days and time away from their families. The NPS also committed significant resources to support the NR process. The Committee ultimately met seven times between March 2006 and October 2007. A smaller Technical Subcommittee met nine times, and a Work Group also met several times late in the process to develop recommendations for the Committee. Committee members also participated in site visits organized by the NPS to all locations open to consideration for off-leash use. Individual Committee members also met on their own, either as part of a caucus or across caucuses. Several threshold choices had a significant influence on the Committee process. One of these was the NPS decision to conduct the NEPA process concurrently with NR. A second set of choices was the appointments of members and alternates to the Committee, based in part on recommendations from the Team. The third set of choices was the Committee’s decisions contained in its Protocols, including: A rule requiring unanimous agreement for recommendations to the NPS, A set of good faith standards developed in the face of increasing polarization prior to

chartering the Committee, A commitment to addressing dog management issues inside the Committee and not through

public media including the Web; and A provision for the NPS to remove Committee members. Committee Agreements, Products and Outcomes: The Committee ultimately reached unanimous agreement on the following: nine Guiding Principles, guidelines for commercial dog walking, and site-specific alternatives for Oakwood Valley (Marin County).

This agreement will be part of at least one alternative included in the range of alternatives to be analyzed through the NEPA process. The NR process yielded a number of informal but significant products and outcomes that are also described in this report and its attachments. One such outcome was broad—but not unanimous—agreement on additional site-specific proposals and planning criteria. Committee polling on these proposals and criteria indicated broad support that included membership from each of the three caucuses. In the Team’s view, this consistent pattern illustrates a central challenge for GGNRA: the difference between broad support and unanimous agreement among Committee members was mathematically narrow—generally a one- or two-person difference—but fundamentally wide, reflecting basic differences in values and firm adherence to preferred solutions. Strategy: This report describes the overall strategy and approaches used by the Team to assist the Committee in building consensus and achieving these outcomes. This strategy evolved through four phases over time based primarily on Committee dynamics: Phase One focused on collaborative development of options; Phase Two shifted responsibility for options to the off-leash caucus; Phase Three involved creation of an Integrated Concept by the Team to generate Committee options; and Phase Four involved creation of the Work Group to find potential agreements.

GGNRA005148

iii

Process Dynamics: The report also describes critical process dynamics. One example is the conflicting priorities of Committee members over how to develop alternatives. Some insisted on developing planning criteria for Regulated Off-Leash Areas (ROLAs), while others insisted on the need for site-specific solutions. Other dynamics involved: (1) the meeting environment, (2) insufficient incentives to develop site-specific alternatives, (3) representative-constituency relationships, (4) skepticism about NPS commitment, (5) balanced representation, (6) limits on flexibility for off-leash use, and (7) perceived violations of good faith standards.

GGNRA005149

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope for the Committee and NPS ............................................................................. 3 Committee Structure for Building Consensus ................................................................................ 4 NR Process Products and Outcomes ............................................................................................... 7 Critical Process Choices ............................................................................................................... 10 Approaches and Tools for Collaborative Problem Solving and Consensus Building .................. 13 Process Dynamics ......................................................................................................................... 18 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 21

GGNRA005150

1

Introduction

On October 27, 2007, the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (the “Committee”) completed its effort to develop consensus recommendations to the National Park Service. The Committee’s official final report is the written summary of its final meeting, which was drafted and circulated to Committee members for comment following the final meeting. The Committee’s official charter expired on February 6, 2008, according to its terms. This report has been prepared by the Facilitation Team (“Team”) hired by the NPS through a contract with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR). Members of the Team prepared a Situation Assessment Report during 2004 to assist the NPS in reaching its decision whether to pursue negotiated rulemaking (see below). Once the NPS decided to proceed with negotiated rulemaking the Team served as facilitators for the Committee and its related forums. This Report focuses on the Negotiated Rulemaking (NR) process, including products, and outcomes, negotiation structures, strategies and approaches, and dynamics, It covers the time period from the Committee’s initial meeting on March 6, 2006, until its seventh meeting in October 2007. It is not a formal process evaluation or a judgment of individual Committee members.1 Instead, it is intended to describe in detail the negotiated rulemaking (NR) process from the Team’s perspective. The Report is not an official product of the Committee, although Committee members are aware of its preparation and will receive copies. The contents of the Report, while reviewed by the NPS and USIECR, are the work of the Facilitation Team. Finally, an acknowledgment and appreciation: Committee representatives and NPS staff devoted substantial personal and professional resources to the NR process. This often included taking personal vacation days and sacrificing family time. The discussions were often difficult and sometimes painful, and exacted a personal toll for many that had not been anticipated when they agreed to serve. This deep commitment should not be overlooked in reviewing the Team’s report and evaluating outcomes.

Background There is a rich and important “back story” associated with the Committee’s work that will not be presented in this report but provides useful context. More information on the background to the NR process may be found in numerous other documents2. Key references include: An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) published in the Federal

Register (FR) on January 11, 2002 [67 FR 1424]. The National Park Service requested 1 The USIECR will conduct a formal evaluation that seeks input from all Committee members as part of its role in supporting the NR process. 2 Available on the GGNRA website: http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/dog-management.htm.

GGNRA005151

2

comment on a range of potential dog management options for addressing pet management in Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). The ANPR provides a useful summary of dog management at GGNRA, including the “voice control” recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Commission in 1979 that were contrary to NPS policy.

A Federal Panel Recommendation to the General Superintendent on Proposed

Rulemaking for Pet Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, dated November 7, 2002. This document is the report of a panel of senior NPS officials from outside GGNRA who were asked to review comments submitted in response to the ANPR, as well as relevant technical information, and recommend whether GGNRA should proceed with rulemaking or retain the existing NPS regulation requiring pets to be leashed in all areas where they are allowed. The panel concluded, in part, “[T]hat off-leash dog walking in GGNRA may be appropriate in selected locations where resource impacts can be adequately mitigated and public safety incidents and public use conflicts can be appropriately managed.” In addition, the panel identified two alternative approaches for integrating a rulemaking process (either agency or negotiated) and development of a pet management plan. Finally, the panel identified 14 “suggested guidelines” for dog management.

A Situation Assessment Report: Proposed Negotiated Rulemaking on Dog

Management in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area dated September 14, 2004, prepared by the Team. The report discussed the challenges associated with seeking consensus agreement on dog management issues in GGNRA and recommended that NPS proceed with a negotiated rulemaking process. The Team’s judgment at that time was “that a . . . Committee is reasonably likely to achieve a substantial level of agreement on a proposed rule.” The report also recommended that while perfect consensus—unanimity—was possible, decision makers should “assume a lower but still significant level of agreement to be a reasonably likely outcome.”3 The report was based on interviews with 45 people, a number of whom eventually were named to the Committee as representatives or alternates. The report can be found on the Institute’s web site at: http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/GGNRASitAssessment.pdf.

A decision in U.S. v. Barley, et al., by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup dated

June 2, 2005. The defendants had been cited for off-leash dog walking at Crissy Field following the 2001 decision by GGNRA and its Commission to set aside the 1979 Pet Policy that allowed off-leash uses. Judge Alsup ruled that the NPS was required to engage in rulemaking, including notice and comment, before closing areas of the park to off-leash use, and effectively returned GGNRA to dog management under the 1979 Pet Policy. This ruling was issued following completion of the Team’s Situation Assessment Report and contributed to entrenchment in positions and polarization of attitudes and perceptions among groups and individuals, including some proposed Committee members. It also generated an “Emergency Petition” to GGNRA on August 16, 2005, requesting that the GGNRA engage in emergency rulemaking to

3 This recommendation is significant in light of the Committee’s subsequent decision to adopt a decision rule of unanimity as part of its Protocols, as discussed later in this report.

GGNRA005152

http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/GGNRASitAssessment.pdf

3

replace the 1979 Pet Policy with the existing NPS rule barring off-leash dogs. See 36 CFR § 2.15(a)(2). Petitioners included a number of organizations proposed for membership on the Committee, which had not yet been chartered.

A Notice of Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee

published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2005, followed by a Notice of Establishment almost eight months later, on February 17, 2006. The notices include the names and affiliations of the Committee members and alternates.

The Committee Charter describing, among other items, its Purpose and Function,

Objectives and Scope, Membership (including an obligation to participate in good faith and otherwise adhere to Committee ground rules), and Duration and Date of Termination. This document identified locations that could be considered for potential off-leash use. The Charter was signed by Interior Secretary Norton on February 6, 2006.

The Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 561 et seq. (“NR

Act”). This statute provides the framework for federal negotiated rulemaking. The NR Act includes a definition of consensus as “unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee” unless the committee agrees to either a “general but not unanimous concurrence” or specifies another definition. The act also describes a series of steps in the process, including preliminary findings by a federal agency of need for a committee, and exempts agency action related to negotiated rulemaking from judicial review (although the rule itself is not exempt).

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. The purpose of FACA is to

ensure that advice rendered to the executive branch by various advisory committees, task forces, boards, and commissions formed over the years by Congress and the president, is both objective and accessible to the public. The NR Act provides for compliance with FACA in scheduling meetings and related matters.

Purpose and Scope for the Committee and NPS According to its Charter, the Committee’s function was to assist in development of a proposed special regulation for dog management at GGNRA. As envisioned, this special regulation would supersede the existing NPS dog management regulation that requires dogs to be caged, crated or restrained on leash where they are allowed. The Committee was to “attempt negotiations to reach consensus on concepts and language” to be used as the basis for the special regulation. The Committee’s work was focused on a specific set of locations around GGNRA that could be the subject of a proposed special regulation. These locations had been identified in advance by the NPS and were described in the FR notices establishing the Committee. For example, the NPS decided in advance that areas of the park not previously open to pets were not available for consideration of off-leash use. Other areas were excluded

GGNRA005153

4

based on the sensitivity of resources. The Committee also was directed to work within a set of legal sideboards, including GGNRA enabling legislation, the NPS Organic Act, NPS Management Policies, and existing GGNRA management plans.4 The GGNRA dog management negotiated rulemaking initiative was based on a fundamental policy decision by the NPS: that the status quo for dog management in GGNRA, as reflected in the 1979 Pet Policy, was not consistent with its legal mandates and policies. The fundamental challenge for the Committee, therefore, was not finding agreement on whether the GGNRA’s dog management policy would be changed, because the NPS had already reached this conclusion. The Committee’s challenge was to find agreement on how to change that policy through rulemaking to address the diverse interests represented on the Committee. Early in the process GGNRA established sideboards for the Committee’s deliberations by identifying areas that were open for consideration of future off-leash use without committing to this outcome. GGNRA also identified areas that were open for on-leash consideration and those that were not open for any consideration of dogwalking. One additional sideboard involved the federally listed Western Snowy Plover. The NPS determined that issues related to the plover would be addressed in a separate rulemaking process. This proved challenging on a number of occasions, including a “boycott” of the NR by environmental representatives over plover protection in October 2006, and the presence of two areas dedicated to plover protection surrounded by areas open for off-leash consideration (Ocean Beach, Crissy Field). The NPS had multiple roles in the NR. The NPS was actively represented in all NR meetings by Chris Powell, the Designated Federal Officer, or her alternate Howard Levitt. GGNRA’s Deputy Superintendent, Mai-Liis Bartling, was a consistent presence at Committee and TSC meetings and addressed those sessions on several occasions. NPS staff were a primary source of information for the Committee about GGNRA resources and characteristics, and also served as sounding boards for different options. The GGNRA team included biologists, law enforcement staff, educators, and planners. The NPS Environmental Quality Division (EQD) provided project oversight. This team’s responsibilities also included data collection and analysis, conducting NEPA analyses, and preparing the NEPA document. They also interacted regularly with Committee members at their meetings to ensure a full understanding of the NEPA process. Finally, GGNRA’s legal counsel provided information on NPS legal mandates to the Committee.

Committee Structure for Building Consensus This section explains the organizational structure of the negotiated rulemaking process. This includes the formal and informal venues in which Committee members and others pursued consensus, and the roles and responsibilities of participants in those settings.

4 70 FR 37108 (June 28, 2005)

GGNRA005154

5

The formal setting for the Committee’s decision making was the Committee meeting in full committee session, consistent with requirements of FACA including public notice, published agendas, and written meeting summaries. A substantial amount of work was conducted in a smaller Technical Subcommittee, also consistent with FACA guidelines, established by the Committee. A Planning Team was established to provide input to the Facilitation Team on agendas and meeting scheduling. The Committee members’ interests were sufficiently aligned to identify three caucuses based on Committee appointments: one representing primarily environmental and conservation interests, one representing interests of dog groups advocating continued off-leash use, and one representing diverse interests of “other park users” such as child advocates, the elderly, people with disabilities, and equestrians. Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. The Committee was established consistent with the procedures and criteria identified in the NR Act and FACA. This process is described in the June 28, 2005 and February 17, 2006 FR notices identified above. The final Committee membership choices were recommended by the NPS, and confirmed by the Secretary of the Interior, based in part on information gathered during the assessment phase. Ultimately the Committee was comprised of 19 primary members and an equal number of alternates. The February 17th FR notice lists Committee members and alternates, along with their affiliations. The appointments suggest five sets of interests that would be “significantly affected” by a rule: NPS, off-leash advocates, environmental, commercial dog walkers, and other park users. These sets of interests generally were reflected in the caucuses described below. The Committee appointments raised several issues, either at the beginning or during the Committee’s existence: A decision by the NPS not to appoint someone to the Committee based on their

unwillingness to endorse explicit good faith standards, Decisions about who would be primary and alternate members; and Claims that one or more off-leash advocacy groups’ interests were not adequately

represented by others.5 The Committee met in plenary session seven times from March 6, 2006 to October 27, 2007. The dates of each meeting are included in the NR Timeline (Attachment A). As required by FACA, a detailed summary of each meeting was prepared and circulated for corrections by Committee members, revised as appropriate, and then posted on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) web site for the public.6

5 The NPS addressed an initial set of issues associated with appointments in the February 17th FR notice. 6 The Team acknowledges that these draft meeting summaries often took longer to draft, review internally and with NPS, edit, and distribute to the Committee members than the goal set by the Team, and accepts responsibility for this shortcoming. The Team does not agree with the general assertions made by some Committee members, both orally and in correspondence, that these delays had a significant impact on the NR process or its outcomes.

GGNRA005155

6

The Committee was the primary forum for decision making on a proposed rule. Only the Committee could agree to forward proposals or recommendations to the NPS for NEPA analysis. Alternates were encouraged to attend meetings along with primary representatives, and typically sat at the table and had opportunities to participate. The Committee meetings also provided an opportunity for the public to comment on agenda topics at the end of each meeting. Technical Subcommittee (TSC). The TSC was established by the Committee initially to review available technical information, identify specific needs or gaps, and develop joint plans with NPS to address these needs. The TSC was not a decision making forum, but rather a place to screen issues and develop recommendations for consideration and decision by the Committee. The TSC was comprised of a cross-section of Committee members and two non-Committee members added to represent Marin County interests.7 The public was welcome to observe meetings although public comment was not part of the TSC process. Committee members not officially named to the TSC were also welcome to attend consistent with FACA guidelines, and several Committee members contributed their perspective in this way. The TSC met nine times during the NR. Its role changed over time as it became the primary forum to build consensus on (1) options for off-leash dog walking at locations around GGNRA, and (2) general dog management guidelines. The TSC exhibited the same challenging process dynamics as the Committee’s. Planning Team. The Team recommended creation of a small, representative Planning Team (PT) to provide input on agendas and meeting planning for both the TSC and Committee. The PT met only via conference call, usually within the 10-day period leading up to meetings. The PT did not set agendas, but individual input was useful to the Team. The PT did not evolve into a significant decision making or advisory group as is often the case in long-term consensus-building efforts. The PT also reflected the Committee’s challenging communications and inter-personal dynamics. Caucuses and Interests. As noted above, the five sets of interests fit informally within a framework of three caucuses during the NR process: environmental, off-leash, and other park users. These caucuses operated independently and were self organizing in most respects. The off-leash caucus was a key structure for developing potential Starting Points and alternatives for site specific off-leash use later in the NR process. Over time a somewhat different alignment took shape based on flexibility about conditions under which off-leash dog use would be acceptable. This re-alignment crossed caucus lines: members of the “other park users” caucus aligned differently in terms of flexibility about off-leash options, as did members of the environmental caucus. The NPS and Team used the caucus structure to organize separate meetings with the GGNRA General Superintendent at three points in the NR process: to address issues arising during the period prior to official Committee appointments; to address issues 7 Only one of these additional Marin representatives was able to participate on a regular basis.

GGNRA005156

7

associated with a press release issued by the environmental caucus in October 2006; and to support consensus building in September 2007. Work Group. An informal Work Group of approximately 8-10 Committee members met several times during the final months of the NR process to develop recommendations for consideration by the TSC and Committee. The Work Group’s members came from each of the three caucuses and created a constructive working environment that contrasted noticeably with that in other NR forums. Apart from their meetings, some members attended site visits organized by the NPS at areas under consideration for off-leash use in order to test “on the ground” possibilities. In the judgment of the Team, the Work Group’s efforts reflected the most collaborative aspects of the NR, and their recommendations reflected the greatest progress toward agreements.

NR Process Products and Outcomes

This section discusses specific products and outcomes from the NR process. Part One focuses narrowly on products and outcomes that emerged from the Committee based on its charter and protocols. Part Two offers a broader perspective that encompasses a variety of products and outcomes, both concrete and perceptual, that also are part of the NR. Part One: Committee Products and Outcomes The Committee’s purpose was to reach consensus on a proposed special regulation. As noted earlier in this report, the initial focus was to reach unanimous agreement on elements of a Committee alternative for NEPA analysis. These could potentially have covered 12 locations open for consideration of off-leash dog walking, eight options for on-leash dog walking, and recommendations regarding commercial dog walking. The Committee also could have recommended general and detailed dog management principles for inclusion in NEPA alternatives to be analyzed. The Protocols provided for a Committee report detailing its agreements, and also for additional reports describing minority views. The Committee’s October 27, 2007 meeting was intended to finalize recommendations to NPS on proposals for inclusion in the NEPA analysis. The Committee agreed to use the meeting summary as its report pursuant to the Protocols. The summary reflects unanimous agreement—required by the Protocols—on the following: The nine Guiding Principles previously approved for use in creating Starting Points An off-leash alternative for Oakwood Valley with two variations A set of guidelines for commercial dog walking, with specific conditions These agreements will be specifically addressed in the NEPA analysis and draft EIS, consistent with NPS commitments.

GGNRA005157

8

The Committee also considered a set of 16 Dog Management Guidelines forwarded for consideration by the Work Group. A proposal to recommend 15 of these for NEPA analysis fell short of unanimous agreement. Based on these Committee outcomes and the correspondingly low expectation of future agreements following NEPA analysis and preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement, the NPS announced its decision not to extend the Committee’s charter past its scheduled expiration on February 6, 2008. Work Group Products The Work Group forwarded recommendations for potential off-leash options at three additional locations: Upper Ft. Mason Fort Funston Pedro Point The full Committee was unable to achieve unanimous agreement on these options on October 27th. The Work Group chose not to forward site-specific options for several other locations because of issues that could not be resolved within the Work Group and were unlikely to be resolved at the Committee level. It is not clear whether additional time would have contributed to solutions. Part Two: Other NR Products and Outcomes From the Team’s perspective, the NR process generated valuable interim products and outcomes beyond the Committee’s final agreements. Some of these are revealed by a review of meeting summaries for the Committee and TSC, including meeting materials and attachments. Others are not committed to paper, but rather are based on discussions, comments, and perceptions from the process. Broad Committee Agreement. The Committee fell short of unanimity on proposals

recommended from the Work Group for Upper Fort Mason, Pedro Point, Fort Funston, and 15 Dog Management Guidelines. The results of Committee polling, while differing slightly for each proposal, indicated broad support that included membership from each of the three caucuses. In the Team’s view, this consistent pattern illustrates a central challenge for GGNRA : the difference between broad support and unanimous agreement among Committee members was mathematically narrow—a one- or two-person difference for the Fort Mason proposal, for example—but fundamentally wide, reflecting basic differences in values and firm adherence to preferred solutions.

Dog Management Proposals from the Off-leash Caucus. The Off-leash Caucus

prepared site-specific proposals for each of the 12 locations open for consideration of off-leash walking. These were compiled in a single bound document entitled “GGNRA Management Plan for Visitors with Dogs” and submitted to each

GGNRA005158

9

Committee member at the October 27th meeting.8 The meeting summary also describes this document. A CD included as Attachment B to this report contains a complete version of the Off-leash Caucus’s submission.

Dog Management Guidelines. The TSC developed the concept of a Regulated Off-

Leash Area, or ROLA, and worked hard to build agreements on guidelines for dog management within and outside ROLAs. The ROLA concept was an important substitute for “voice control,” a term that consistently generated disagreement. The Work Group built on this effort and eventually agreed to forward 16 Dog Management Guidelines for consideration by the full Committee at its final meeting. The record of TSC and Work Group deliberations reveals the emergence of a set of broadly acceptable dog management guidelines that crossed caucus lines, as well as the inability to resolve differences related to physical separation. The extent of agreement ultimately was not sufficient to satisfy the Committee’s requirement of unanimous support for, or acceptance of, a recommendation, but the proposed guidelines are likely to influence NPS rulemaking since the discussion provided an in-depth view of stakeholder perspectives.

Integrated Concept. In June 2007 the Team developed an Integrated Concept(IC)

document for the Committee that was designed to demonstrate how a balanced package that included dog management guidelines and site-specific proposals might be achieved. It was not endorsed as a package by any Committee member, and in fact drew criticism from many. However, this criticism was consistent with the purposes for the document, and provided an opening to discuss sensitive issues such as limitations on off-leash dogs on Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and Crissy Field. The Team included controversial elements in the document in order to remove pressure from individual Committee members representing constituencies opposed to introduction of those elements. The Integrated Concept also was designed to stimulate generation of detailed options from the off-leash caucus and others, and achieved this result in the view of the Team.

Quality of Information and Data. There is reason to believe that the NEPA-NR

concurrent process influenced the quality of information and data developed to support NEPA analysis and decision making. Committee members raised questions and posed challenges that, in some cases, improved the quality of information but in others could not be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. In this respect the NEPA-NR relationship had multiple dimensions, and was more than simply a process where the NEPA team provided resource data to the Committee. Information of particular importance to Committee members included visitor use data for GGNRA, information about shorebirds, research about dog management approaches in other local and national jurisdictions (e.g., Boulder, CO), records of Incident Reports maintained by law enforcement, and some general details of alternatives likely to be analyzed (although the Team has no knowledge of these alternatives and did not participate in their development). The potential for future litigation may also have influenced information development.

8 GGNRA has reviewed, but not adopted these proposals from the off-leash caucus.

GGNRA005159

10

Education about NPS Commitment to Changing the Status Quo. The NPS

initiated the NR process by describing the reasons why the status quo was not acceptable, as noted earlier in this report. One of the recurring challenges for the NPS in the NR process was educating some off-leash caucus representatives and their constituents of their commitment to this goal. By one subjective measure—the declining number of references to “Keeping the 1979 Pet Policy”—there was a positive shift in understanding over the course of the NR process. While Committee members continued to disagree on the need for change as well as what change should look like, doubts about the NPS’ commitment to change appeared much less frequently in later deliberations and conversations.

NPS Understanding of Key Interests and Issues. The extended NR process, and

multiple efforts to build agreements, provided ample opportunity for NPS to learn in detail about key issues, interests, and needs that must be addressed in rulemaking. The difficult discussions afforded opportunities for learning from lack of agreement and criticism, and later from gradually emerging points of broad agreement on some site-specific options and ROLA characteristics.

Committee Understanding of Key Interests and Issues. The NR process also

provided an extended opportunity for many Committee members to gain a deeper understanding of key issues, interests, and needs related to dog management from the perspective of the NPS and other stakeholders. This was not a case of starting from scratch: many participants had interacted in other local forums on dog management issues. For those seeking insight, the many hours spent in meetings and in the field, and particularly discussions about potential options, increased the depth of understanding about the key issues, such as the practical meaning and importance of “separation” between off-leash dogs and other park users.

Improved Relationships. Despite the challenging inter-personal dynamics that

characterized parts of the NR process, one positive result reported to the Team was improved relationships which have continued beyond the NR process. This appears to be true particularly for NPS staff and some Committee members, and should be an asset for future policy development on dog management.

Critical Process Choices The deliberations and outcomes of the NR process were influenced significantly by three separate process choices. The first was made by the NPS: conducting NEPA and NR concurrently. The second also was made by the NPS with input from the Team and the public: the composition of the Committee. The third choice was made unanimously by the Committee: the content of the Committee Protocols, including the decision rule requiring unanimity for consensus on substantive issues. These three choices are summarized below.

GGNRA005160

11

Process Choice: Concurrent NEPA and NR. The NPS, based on the Federal Panel report, elected to conduct the negotiated rulemaking process concurrently with a planning process under NEPA. This decision had several implications for the process, as follows: The Committee’s ability to examine potential options was not shaped or constrained

by an existing analysis of alternatives and impacts under NEPA or identification of a preferred alternative.

Complete natural resource, visitor use, and other information to support Committee deliberations had not yet been developed.

The initial focus for consensus building became agreement on a Committee alternative that would be part of the NEPA impact analysis, and not a proposed rule based on completed impact analysis.

The NPS NEPA team became an important part of the negotiated rulemaking process as educators about the concurrent NEPA process and its requirements, and as a resource for information about visitor use, natural resources, and other attributes that would shape off-leash alternatives at different locations.

Legal and procedural requirements for NEPA and the federal Administrative Procedures Act influenced planning and decision making about the negotiated rulemaking. This was true for NPS staff, the NEPA team, the Team, and also for Committee members as they shaped their strategies. For example, the NEPA team was understandably vigilant in protecting the integrity of the separate NEPA process against a future legal challenge. The NPS was careful to avoid any action that could be perceived as being “pre-decisional” about key NEPA choices such as a reasonable range of alternatives for analysis. This caution severely limited discussions with Committee members, and inadvertently created suspicion in the minds of some Committee members that the NPS had made firm decisions about alternatives without advising the Committee. Some Committee members also expressed suspicion that the Team was part of the internal NPS alternatives development process. In fact, the Team never participated in the NPS internal deliberations and was effectively in the same position as Committee members in this regard.

There was an ongoing challenge to educate Committee members about NEPA requirements. At times compliance with NEPA requirements was a topic of discussion, and even disagreements, among Committee members and NPS staff. The off-leash caucus retained legal counsel to advise them specifically about NEPA matters, a decision that highlighted the perceived stakes associated with the NR process.

Process Choice: Committee Appointments. The NR Act provides criteria for appointments to a negotiated rulemaking committee and the NPS relied on these criteria in its decision making process. GGNRA also requested that alternates be appointed at the same time as primary representatives to avoid process delays in the event that a primary representative had to withdraw, as happened during the NR process at Fire Island National Seashore. The role of Committee Alternate was unsatisfactory for some appointees leading to a Committee decision to allow both primary and alternate representatives to fully participate in the NR meetings. The final choices involved balancing and tradeoffs, particularly in light of the adversarial history of dog

GGNRA005161

12

management in San Francisco. It was not feasible or practical to appoint a Committee that was representative of key interests and yet free from this history. Committee balance is discussed in the final section of this report. Also, since not every individual or group with an interest in GGNRA dog management policies could be a Committee member, members were selected to reflect the broad range of known public concerns and interests.9 Several members of the public who requested appointments to the Committee were not chosen because they were not representatives of identified stakeholder groups. The NPS relied on individual commitments to participate in good faith, to be collaborative, and to be flexible in considering options. For some individuals, these commitments became a source of controversy and conflict within the Committee and TSC that limited the potential for progress on substantive priorities. Process Choice: Committee Protocols. The Committee adopted a set of ground rules for its deliberations, called Protocols, over the course of its first three meetings. A copy of the Protocols is attached to this report as Attachment C. The Protocols addressed a wide range of topics and were intended to serve as guidelines for future choices by Committee members, both for individual behavior and Committee action. The Protocols depended on the good faith of Committee members, and included a detailed discussion of good faith criteria. However, the Protocols were not intended as a form of micro-management and could not practically be drafted to serve this function. Several provisions of the Protocols as adopted by the Committee proved to be problematic and are discussed below. Decision Making and Consensus. As noted above, the Negotiated Rulemaking Act

provides for decision making based on unanimous consensus, but also allows for variations from this decision rule. The Committee’s Charter provided for “consensus” without defining that term. The Team recommended to the Committee that it adopt a decision rule defining consensus as broad agreement across interest groups participating in the Committee, and that a rule requiring unanimity be avoided. This recommendation was based on the Assessment Report findings, subsequent events such as Judge Alsup’s ruling and associated dynamics, and professional experience. The “broad agreement” approach was intended to avoid giving one person an effective veto over Committee decision making in light of the polarized history of dog management. The Committee opted for unanimity of support for or acceptance of a recommendation as a decision rule for substantive issues, and adopted a rule of “broad agreement” for procedural matters. See Protocols Section 4.b. A number of Committee members from different caucuses insisted that only a requirement of unanimity would ensure their interests were addressed in deliberations, and even linked their continued participation to this outcome. This view reflected the deep suspicion, distrust, and polarization identified in the Assessment Report. The insistence on a unanimous decision rule had a significant impact on the potential for reaching agreements, by giving each member of the Committee the ability to block agreement, even if all or most other members of the Committee, including members of their own caucus, agreed. This scenario played out at the final meeting.

9 At least one group of off-leash advocates emerged late in the NR process and expressed concern that they had not been included on the Committee.

GGNRA005162

13

Communications Regarding Committee Matters. The Team recommended that

the Committee adopt guidelines limiting discussion of GGNRA dog management issues outside the Committee context. One goal was to make the Committee the primary forum for finding solutions. The language of the Protocols as adopted proved controversial in light of the outside activities of some Committee members and their organizations, which generated multiple requests to remove Committee members (see below).

Good Faith Standards. One explicit criterion for Committee membership was a

good faith commitment to seeking consensus. This requirement was stated in the FR notice inviting Committee nominations, and is described in the Act.10 During the assessment phase the Team took steps to test this commitment with each potential Committee members. This focus on good faith reflected the consistent theme of distrust among key organizations and some individuals representing them. The Committee eventually adopted, with strong support from the NPS, a set of Good Faith criteria that became part of the Protocols. These standards were created in response to events and reactions following the Assessment Report (September 2004) and prior to the initial Committee meeting (March 2006). They were an effort to identify specific expectations about good faith as the basis for initial selection as well as ongoing participation on the Committee. However, while the “letter” of the standards was maintained by most members, some Committee members cited violations of the intent or “spirit” of the standards as justification for requesting the removal of other Committee members. Enforcement of these standards became a focus of ongoing disagreement described later in this report.

Removal from the Committee. The Protocols allowed the NPS Designated Federal

Officer to remove Committee representatives or alternates if they acted in a manner inconsistent with the Protocols or good faith standards. The NPS received multiple requests to remove members from the Committee for alleged Protocol violations based on bad faith. These requests exacerbated already challenging Committee dynamics and forced the NPS into very difficult choices. Ultimately the NPS took steps to remove only one Committee member; this process was not completed prior to the Committee’s final meeting. The removal option was a source of disagreement for much of the Committee’s existence.

Approaches and Tools for Collaborative Problem Solving and Consensus Building

This section summarizes the Team’s overall strategy for reaching consensus as well as key adaptations along the way. It also describes the different approaches and tools used by the Team and Committee members in different forums to achieve the objective of consensus.

10 Section 564(b)(3).

GGNRA005163

14

As already noted, the strategic objective for the Committee was consensus on a proposed special regulation for dog management, primarily focusing on options for off-leash opportunities within GGNRA. The concurrent NEPA process focused the Committee on a critical initial objective: reaching consensus on a recommended Committee alternative for NEPA analysis, and not simply a final recommended rule. The concept was that the Committee would reach consensus on its initial recommendation, wait for the results of the impact analysis from the NEPA team, and then negotiate a final consensus recommendation on a special regulation to the NPS using those results. This two-step agreement process could have reduced the risks to individual Committee members of agreement on an initial recommended alternative, since that alternative would be analyzed in the draft EIS along with other alternatives, and the Committee would have the benefit of this analysis in seeking final agreement on a proposed special rule. This was not the perspective of some Committee members. Concerns about appearing to “endorse” off-leash dog walking in any form were paramount for some environmental representatives and hindered development of alternatives for analysis. For some off-leash representatives it was difficult to fashion alternatives that incorporated potential solutions they believed were not justified, even for the sake of analysis. A second basic challenge for consensus building was the relationship of planning principles and ROLA characteristics to site-specific solutions. Some Committee members made agreement on principles and criteria a priority and refused to discuss site-specific approaches without them. Other Committee members—essentially the off-leash caucus—made site-specific solutions a priority and resisted development of detailed planning principles. Proponents of the different approaches articulated clear reasons for their preferences, as illustrated in the following excerpts from two different Committee member communications:

“We do not believe that negotiating a list of ROLA characteristics is a productive use of time by either the Technical Subcommittee or the Committee. ROLAs will vary. Their characteristics will appear over the course of designing each ROLA. Several of the proposed “characteristics” are really proposed pet management policies, not characteristics of the off leash areas.”

“The way that land use is planned is by developing standards that incorporate articulated interests, and then applying those standards to specific sites. That is how you accomplish city zoning, and it is how you plan park use as well. This is what the GGNRA does in contexts other than dog management. If you look at specific sites for ROLAs absent any agreement regarding standards, or even agreement regarding what a ROLA fundamentally is (remember, we still have no agreement within the Committee that off-leash use should be limited to ROLAs), then the discussion is ad hoc, arbitrary, and unproductive, because it has no foundation.”

GGNRA005164

15

This difference in priorities and approach became a basic ground for disagreement within the Committee. The Team pursued a “both-and” strategy based on the conclusion that an agreement would require both ROLA characteristics and site-specific solutions. This strategy entailed seeking to make incremental progress on both fronts by alternating the focus at different meetings, and eventually led the Team to develop the Integrated Concept. This strategy was an ongoing focus of criticism from Committee members who preferred to focus exclusively on either planning principles (environmental caucus and others) or site-specific alternatives (off-leash caucus). Overall Approach to Consensus Building The NR effort evolved through four phases, with the Team adapting strategies in each phase in response to process dynamics. These phases were: (1) joint development of NEPA alternatives; (2) “starting points” from the off-leash caucus; (3) Integrated Concept document from Team; and (4) Work Group effort. These are described below, along with specific tools used to support consensus-building. 11 Phase One: Joint Alternatives Development Using Interest-based Bargaining. The initial strategy for development of a NEPA alternative anticipated a joint effort among all caucuses and representatives. This strategy relied on development of recommendations in the TSC followed by fuller discussion and decisions at the Committee level. It was based on an assumption that members from each of the three caucuses were motivated to assist in option development. Products would include site-specific recommendations and broader principles or guidelines, developed jointly. This strategy subsequently was refined to encourage a focus on an initial set of six locations. The Team prepared a memorandum for the TSC meeting on November 8, 2006 recommending this narrower approach in light of difficulty experienced to that point in generating meaningful options. The Team relied on the following process tools and approaches to promote consensus building.

Workshops on Interest-based Bargaining. Prior to convening the Committee for its initial meeting, the Team conducted two workshops designed to introduce the fundamentals of interest-based bargaining that would be needed to build consensus. The workshop materials included individual copies of “Getting to Yes” for Committee members. In the Team’s view these sessions had an uneven impact. They helped some Committee members understand collaborative decision making and provided a language to support this approach. But the sessions ultimately did not influence positional negotiation styles of some members sufficiently to allow consistently constructive problem solving in the Committee or TSC.

Key Interests Compilation. The Team compiled an initial set of key interests

linked to each location open for consideration of off-leash dog walking. This compilation was distributed to TSC and Committee members to promote

11 The detailed meeting summaries for the Committee and Technical Subcommittee offer an overview of the strategy for building consensus.

GGNRA005165

16

education and productive approaches to developing potential options. A copy of the September 2006 version of the interests compilation is attached (Attachment D).

Online Survey for Guiding Principles Consensus Building. The Team

designed an online survey to support consensus building on the initial set of Guiding Principles developed by the TSC. The survey was intended to identify the relative potential for finding agreement on each proposed principle to assist in setting priorities for discussions. The survey results were compiled and presented to members at the February 17, 2007 TSC meeting, with individual preferences remaining anonymous.

Straw Polling to Test Consensus Potential. The Team asked the TSC to

participate in different exercises aimed at showing preferences and the potential for finding agreements. One such straw poll addressed expectations about behaviors of dogs and dog guardians in GGNRA. Another addressed proposed specific ROLA characteristics. In each case the Team compiled the straw polling results in tables during the meeting, shared them with meeting participants, and used the results to shape next steps.

Individual Caucus Sessions with GGNRA Superintendent. Superintendent

O’Neill met with Committee members as caucuses on multiple occasions during the NR process. These sessions were intended as opportunities for a direct conversation about process issues and concerns with Committee members.

Phase Two: Starting Points from Off-leash Caucus. The second strategy for alternative development reflected learning about the resistance of some Committee members to support development of options for off-leash dog walking. Under this approach, off-leash representatives had the responsibility to develop Starting Points for discussion with other Committee members. The TSC and Committee eventually agreed on a set of nine Guiding Principles to inform this effort (see Products). This modified strategy generated Starting Points for some locations from the off-leash representatives. However, it became clear that off-leash representatives did not feel free to propose alternatives at all locations that integrated key interests of other Committee members in a meaningful way. One consequence was a strong negative reaction from some environmental representatives, who perceived their interests were being dismissed or ignored. These dynamics led to the next phase. Phase Three: Integrated Concept. To overcome the lack of integrated option development, open the door to explore controversial alternatives, and model a “balancing” of interests including those of the NPS, the Team developed an Integrated Concept (IC) for consideration by Committee members. The IC ultimately included general principles, ROLA characteristics, and site-specific options for the 11 locations open for off-leash consideration. A copy of the IC is attached (Attachment E). The IC generated a significant amount of response, as intended, including a separate proposal

GGNRA005166

17

from the off-leash caucus and a detailed set of ROLA characteristics from representatives of other caucuses. The comments and proposals brought into clear focus the challenge facing the Committee around different views of safety and physical separation of park users. The IC also set the stage for development of detailed site-specific proposals by the off-leash caucus and the Work Group (see below) that were recommended to the Committee. Phase Four: Work Group Proposals. By mid-2007 it was clear that dynamics within the TSC and Committee were a significant barrier to development of detailed, integrative site-specific proposals. It also was clear that a number of Committee members from all three caucuses were frustrated by these dynamics and wanted a different approach. A small (8-10 people including NPS staff) Work Group process developed with the goal of finding agreement on recommendations to the Committee for a sub-set of locations and ROLA characteristics. The Work Group largely achieved this goal despite meeting under severe time constraints, and had the potential to make even greater progress in the Team’s view. The Work Group’s recommendations were the focus of the Committee’s final meeting. Meeting Information Needs The Committee members had extensive needs for information in these broad categories:

o NR process, including NEPA. This was both an initial and an ongoing area of need. The NPS prepared an initial binder for Committee members with background information about the NR process. The NEPA process and schedule was a challenging topic to master. The NPS organized briefings for the Committee and TSC during the course of the NR process about the NEPA process, its unique rules, and its relationship to the rulemaking. For example, the NEPA team developed handouts on its approach to developing a reasonable range of alternatives, focusing on objectives, risk factors, management principles, and criteria.

o Legal sideboards established by NPS. The NPS included information about the key legal and regulatory sideboards for the Committee in the initial binder. This included FR notices, copies of the Act and FACA, the Organic Act, and the legislation establishing GGNRA. The GGNRA’s legal counsel gave an initial presentation on NPS mandates to the Committee with handouts, and also participated in additional meetings to answer questions or provide updates.

o Attributes Tables. The NEPA process was the primary vehicle for gathering, organizing, and communicating information to the Committee about key factors for development of alternatives. The NEPA team distributed Attributes Tables for each of the 12 potential locations for off-leash use to Committee members, and accepted proposed corrections and modifications from Committee members.

o Shorebird Data. Reliable information about shorebird populations on GGNRA beaches became a key need due to potential implications for off-leash dogs. The NPS provided a data compilation to Committee members along with a

GGNRA005167

18

presentation. The off-leash caucus expressed dissatisfaction with this approach and sought the underlying raw data.

o Incident Reports. Committee members sought records of law enforcement interactions with visitors, called incident reports. This information was significant because of its potential to influence perceptions about the levels of visitor conflict around GGNRA, including conflicts involving off-leash dogs, as well as impacts on natural resources. The off-leash caucus expressed concerns to NPS about access to this information and its reliability.

All presentations and handouts are identified in, and in some cases are a part of, the meeting summaries.

Process Dynamics The dynamics of the NR process were influenced significantly by factors summarized in this section under these headings: (1) meeting environment, (2) insufficient incentives to develop site-specific alternatives, (3) representative-constituency relationships, (4) skepticism about NPS commitment, (5) environmental participation, (6) limits on flexibility for off-leash use, and (7) perceived violations of good faith standards. The purpose for identifying these factors is to promote understanding of the complexity of the NR process. Some of these factors were anticipated through the assessment process, and the Team worked with the NPS and Committee members to address them using the approaches and tools described above. Other factors were a result of circumstances or events not addressed in the assessment, and these required process adaptations along the way. In addition to the factors discussed below, the NR process developed in an environment where litigation was broadly cited as a likely consequence regardless of the outcome. The NR process was not intended to prevent future litigation, although reducing the potential for litigation might have been a reasonable hope in the event of consensus on a special regulation. The BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) for interests represented by the off-leash and environmental caucuses explicitly included a legal challenge to the outcome of rulemaking, and this may have been true for other Committee members. The Committee included several lawyers with litigation and trial experience and the off-leash caucus retained counsel to advise them about NEPA. Committee members were unwilling to surrender the litigation option as a condition for Committee participation, but avoided initiating any new court action during the Committee’s existence. Whether the NR process and outcomes influenced the potential for litigation is unknown.

GGNRA005168

19

Meeting Environment The Team received comments from Committee members and others over the course of the NR process that the environment in Committee and TSC meetings was not consistently supportive of collaborative decision making. In contrast, comments about the Work Group indicated it was consistently a constructive environment despite the difficulty of the issues and lack of time. The Team’s observations generally match these perspectives. One factor was individual behaviors, including language, of a few Committee members that were seen as disrespectful, dismissive, or even aggressive. A second factor was a preference on the part of some Committee members for positional and adversarial styles of pursuing interests and goals. A third factor was history: several Committee members brought with them a prior history of difficult interactions in other forums; these continued to play out in the NR. The situation assessment process revealed significant polarization and this appeared to increase over time. Deep personal antipathy, based largely on differences in values, found a vehicle for expression through the NR process, with negative consequences for individuals and the Committee as a whole. These dynamics did not appear in the Work Group, largely because it was comprised of Committee members who valued constructive interactions. A final factor was the reluctance of other Committee members to take responsibility for identifying and, as a Committee, enforcing acceptable standards of behavior and more collaborative styles of negotiation. The Team was regularly asked to intervene and utilized diverse tactics to manage and promote changes in behavior. Ultimately these proved to be of limited effectiveness: behaviors might change for part or all of a meeting but would return at the next gathering. Insufficient Incentives to Develop Site-Specific Alternatives Off-leash dogs in national parks are fundamentally inconsistent with core values of some environmental representatives, and there was deep and persistent concern about GGNRA becoming a precedent for other national parks despite its unique history and geography. This concern acted as a disincentive for some environmental caucus representatives to develop site-specific alternatives that addressed both environmental and off-leash interests, and emerged as a barrier to collaborative generation of options.12 Instead, the task fell to other Committee members to generate site-specific options, which then were subjected to challenging critiques. As a result the environmental representatives did not propose any site-specific alternatives as a caucus, although some individual members participated extensively in the Work Group and supported its recommendations to the Committee. Environmental caucus members devoted considerable energy to developing General Principles and proposed ROLA characteristics described above in the section on Outcomes.

12 In fairness, off-leash caucus members also were limited in their ability to present alternatives, although for different reasons discussed below.

GGNRA005169

20

Representative-Constituency Relationships In negotiations to resolve a controversial and deeply polarized conflict it is not unusual for there to be differences between the views of negotiators “in the room” and the views of their constituents. This difference was a factor in the NR process. The off-leash representatives faced a challenging task in communicating with their diverse constituencies, clarifying their authority to discuss unpopular solutions, and trying to integrate the interests of other Committee members into alternatives. The off-leash representatives were limited in their ability to propose or discuss options or alternatives out of concern for the potential reactions of their constituencies. This was particularly true for proposals that would limit or eliminate off-leash use on parts of GGNRA beaches, and contributed to development of the IC. Skepticism about NPS Commitment One factor not fully developed in the assessment was a lack of confidence in the NPS’ commitment to enforce a new dog management rule. While perhaps not uniformly felt by all Committee members, this skepticism appeared to be present to some degree in all caucus groups. For some members this skepticism related to a perceived record of reluctance to enforce existing NPS rules and regulations. The anticipated scarcity of funding available to NPS for enforcement of a dog management rule in the future magnified this concern. For others skepticism—and even distrust—was linked to perceptions that the NPS had pre-judged the ultimate outcome and was going through the motions with the Committee. This was exacerbated by the inability of NPS staff to discuss with the Committee their internal discussions of potential alternatives, due to concerns about possible future legal challenges about the decision making process. Balanced Representation The NR Act provides for (1) identification of a limited number of interests that will be significantly affected by a rule, and (2) a committee with balanced representation by members who can adequately represent those interests and are willing to negotiate in good faith to reach consensus on a rule.13 Committee appointments were made with this standard in mind, relying on the use of primary and alternate members. Committee dynamics did not consistently reflect the goal of balanced representation according to input received by the Team. This contributed to perceptions of disproportionate influence and discouragement of diverse viewpoints in both the Committee and TSC. Each caucus was the focus of concerns about balanced representation at some point during the course of the NR process; the frequency and intensity of such concerns was noticeably higher for the environmental caucus. There are a number of possible factors that influenced views about balance, including: the actual Committee appointments; the challenge of consistent attendance at all meetings during the 19-month process, particularly for private citizens; the limits on flexibility discussed in the next paragraph; and the difficult meeting dynamics discussed above. 13 §563(a)(2), (3)

GGNRA005170

21

Limits on Flexibility for Off-leash Use During situation assessment interviews, the Team sought to evaluate the openness and flexibility of potential Committee members to a range of off-leash options. All Committee members advised the Team that they were “open” to off-leash dogs as an option, and also understood that a special regulation might also limit off-leash uses. Committee appointments relied on these individual commitments to flexibility. Once the Committee began meeting, however, significant limits on flexibility for some Committee members emerged. For example, some Committee members insisted on impermeable enclosures with specific minimum heights, which appeared to be a proposal to replicate fenced dog parks found in the Bay area. Other Committee members objected to any limitation of off-leash dogs on beaches, i.e., any significant change from the 1979 Pet Policy. In the end there was not sufficient flexibility about physical separation of off-leash dogs, other park users, and sensitive natural resources to reach unanimous agreement on ROLA characteristics or most site-specific alternatives. Perceived Violations of Good Faith The NR process was characterized by an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the NPS enforcement of good faith standards identified in the Protocols and required of all Committee members. Several incidents brought this dissatisfaction in to focus, including website postings, press releases, a letter to the editor, and a “boycott” in October 2006 that led to the cancellation of a full Committee meeting and its rescheduling as a TSC meeting. Various Committee members from different caucuses demanded that the NPS remove other Committee members for alleged good faith violations. This undercurrent, as well as the specific incidents, not only undermined trust and willingness to find consensus but also diverted attention from Committee objectives and required significant human resources to address.

Conclusion The Team has prepared this report to support former Committee members, the NPS, and the broader public as they continue to develop a dog management program for GGNRA. The report is intended to document the NR process and offer a perspective on dynamics and their influence on outcomes. The Team hopes that the report will also be useful for future decision makers as they weigh the potential benefits of a NR process with constraints and costs.

GGNRA005171


Recreation Area


Submitted by:





GGNRA005172

i

Executive Summary


GGNRA005173

ii



public media including the Web; and A provision for the NPS to remove Committee members.

Committee Agreements, Products and Outcomes: The Committee ultimately reached unanimous agreement on the following:

nine Guiding Principles, guidelines for commercial dog walking, and site-specific alternatives for Oakwood Valley (Marin County).


GGNRA005174

iii


GGNRA005175

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope for the Committee and NPS........................................................................ 3 Committee Structure for Building Consensus ........................................................................... 4 NR Process Products and Outcomes ........................................................................................... 7 Critical Process Choices ............................................................................................................. 10 Approaches and Tools for Collaborative Problem Solving and Consensus Building .......... 13 Process Dynamics........................................................................................................................ 18 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 21 Attachment A: Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee Detailed Timeline ............... 22 Attachment B: Facilitation Team Report ................................................................................ 30 Attachment C: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Protocols.............................................. 31 Attachment D: Interests Compilation—September 2006 ...................................................... 43 Attachment E: Facilitation Team Report ................................................................................ 49

GGNRA005176

1

Introduction




GGNRA005177

2









GGNRA005178

3











GGNRA005179

4



4 70 FR 37108 (June 28, 2005)

GGNRA005180

5





GGNRA005181

6


GGNRA005182

7



This section discusses specific products and outcomes from the NR process. Part One focuses narrowly on products and outcomes that emerged from the Committee based on its charter and protocols. Part Two offers a broader perspective that encompasses a variety of products and outcomes, both concrete and perceptual, that also are part of the NR. Part One: Committee Products and Outcomes The Committee’s purpose was to reach consensus on a proposed special regulation. As noted earlier in this report, the initial focus was to reach unanimous agreement on elements of a Committee alternative for NEPA analysis. These could potentially have covered 12 locations open for consideration of off-leash dog walking, eight options for on-leash dog walking, and recommendations regarding commercial dog walking. The Committee also could have recommended general and detailed dog management principles for inclusion in NEPA alternatives to be analyzed. The Protocols provided for a Committee report detailing its agreements, and also for additional reports describing minority views. The Committee’s October 27, 2007 meeting was intended to finalize recommendations to NPS on proposals for inclusion in the NEPA analysis. The Committee agreed to use the meeting summary as its report pursuant to the Protocols. The summary reflects unanimous agreement—required by the Protocols—on the following: The nine Guiding Principles previously approved for use in creating Starting Points An off-leash alternative for Oakwood Valley with two variations A set of guidelines for commercial dog walking, with specific conditions

These agreements will be specifically addressed in the NEPA analysis and draft EIS, consistent with NPS commitments.

GGNRA005183

8

The Committee also considered a set of 16 Dog Management Guidelines forwarded for consideration by the Work Group. A proposal to recommend 15 of these for NEPA analysis fell short of unanimous agreement. Based on these Committee outcomes and the correspondingly low expectation of future agreements following NEPA analysis and preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement, the NPS announced its decision not to extend the Committee’s charter past its scheduled expiration on February 6, 2008. Work Group Products The Work Group forwarded recommendations for potential off-leash options at three additional locations: Upper Ft. Mason Fort Funston Pedro Point

The full Committee was unable to achieve unanimous agreement on these options on October 27th. The Work Group chose not to forward site-specific options for several other locations because of issues that could not be resolved within the Work Group and were unlikely to be resolved at the Committee level. It is not clear whether additional time would have contributed to solutions. Part Two: Other NR Products and Outcomes From the Team’s perspective, the NR process generated valuable interim products and outcomes beyond the Committee’s final agreements. Some of these are revealed by a review of meeting summaries for the Committee and TSC, including meeting materials and attachments. Others are not committed to paper, but rather are based on discussions, comments, and perceptions from the process. Broad Committee Agreement. The Committee fell short of unanimity on proposals




GGNRA005184

9









GGNRA005185

10










GGNRA005186

11

Process Choice: Concurrent NEPA and NR. The NPS, based on the Federal Panel report, elected to conduct the negotiated rulemaking process concurrently with a planning process under NEPA. This decision had several implications for the process, as follows:

The Committee’s ability to examine potential options was not shaped or constrained by an existing analysis of alternatives and impacts under NEPA or identification of a preferred alternative.







GGNRA005187

12

management in San Francisco. It was not feasible or practical to appoint a Committee that was representative of key interests and yet free from this history. Committee balance is discussed in the final section of this report. Also, since not every individual or group with an interest in GGNRA dog management policies could be a Committee member, members were selected to reflect the broad range of known public concerns and interests.9 Several members of the public who requested appointments to the Committee were not chosen because they were not representatives of identified stakeholder groups. The NPS relied on individual commitments to participate in good faith, to be collaborative, and to be flexible in considering options. For some individuals, these commitments became a source of controversy and conflict within the Committee and TSC that limited the potential for progress on substantive priorities. Process Choice: Committee Protocols. The Committee adopted a set of ground rules for its deliberations, called Protocols, over the course of its first three meetings. A copy of the Protocols is attached to this report as Attachment C. The Protocols addressed a wide range of topics and were intended to serve as guidelines for future choices by Committee members, both for individual behavior and Committee action. The Protocols depended on the good faith of Committee members, and included a detailed discussion of good faith criteria. However, the Protocols were not intended as a form of micro-management and could not practically be drafted to serve this function. Several provisions of the Protocols as adopted by the Committee proved to be problematic and are discussed below.

Decision Making and Consensus. As noted above, the Negotiated Rulemaking Act provides for decision making based on unanimous consensus, but also allows for variations from this decision rule. The Committee’s Charter provided for “consensus” without defining that term. The Team recommended to the Committee that it adopt a decision rule defining consensus as broad agreement across interest groups participating in the Committee, and that a rule requiring unanimity be avoided. This recommendation was based on the Assessment Report findings, subsequent events such as Judge Alsup’s ruling and associated dynamics, and professional experience. The “broad agreement” approach was intended to avoid giving one person an effective veto over Committee decision making in light of the polarized history of dog management. The Committee opted for unanimity of support for or acceptance of a recommendation as a decision rule for substantive issues, and adopted a rule of “broad agreement” for procedural matters. See Protocols Section 4.b. A number of Committee members from different caucuses insisted that only a requirement of unanimity would ensure their interests were addressed in deliberations, and even linked their continued participation to this outcome. This view reflected the deep suspicion, distrust, and polarization identified in the Assessment Report. The insistence on a unanimous decision rule had a significant impact on the potential for reaching agreements, by giving each member of the Committee the ability to block agreement, even if all or most other members of the Committee, including members of their own caucus, agreed. This scenario played out at the final meeting.


GGNRA005188

13

Communications Regarding Committee Matters. The Team recommended that the Committee adopt guidelines limiting discussion of GGNRA dog management issues outside the Committee context. One goal was to make the Committee the primary forum for finding solutions. The language of the Protocols as adopted proved controversial in light of the outside activities of some Committee members and their organizations, which generated multiple requests to remove Committee members (see below).







10 Section 564(b)(3).

GGNRA005189

14




GGNRA005190

15






GGNRA005191

16









GGNRA005192

17






GGNRA005193

18





GGNRA005194

19



GGNRA005195

20


GGNRA005196

21



GGNRA005197

22

ATTACHMENT A: FACILITATION TEAM REPORT

Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA)

DETAILED TIMELINE

January 11, 2002 Federal Register Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Pet Management in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California November 7, 2002 Federal Panel Recommendation to the General Superintendent on Proposed Rulemaking for Pet Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area May 10, 2004 GGNRA initiates process to assess potential for creating a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee May – August 2004 Assessment Team of mediators from the Center for Collaborative Policy (California State University, Sacramento) and CDR Associates met with approximately 45 people in individual and group interviews September 14, 2004 Situation Assessment Report: Proposed Negotiated Rulemaking on Dog Management in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area June 28, 2005 Federal Register Notice of Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee September 6, 2005 National Park Service (NPS) staff and facilitators meet with caucus groups December 20, 2005 NPS staff and facilitators meet with caucus groups February 17, 2006 Federal Register Notice of Establishment of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area February 17, 2006 Federal Register Notice of first Meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area

GGNRA005198

23

February 22, 2006 Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a Dog Management Plan for Golden Gate National Recreation Area March 1 and 6, 2006 Negotiation Workshops for members of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area March 6, 2006 Meeting #1: Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Committee) Agenda:

• Welcome from GGNRA Deputy Superintendent • Introduction of Designated Federal Officer and Committee

Members • Review of Facilitator Evaluation • Review Meeting Agenda and Objectives • Review and Approve Meeting Protocols • Overview of Applicable Regulations • Overview of NEPA Process and Tentative Schedules • Overview of NPS Sideboards for Committee Deliberations • Public Comment

April 3, 2006 Federal Register Notice of second Committee Meeting April 18, 2006 Committee Meeting #2 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Approval of March 6, 2006 Meeting Summary • Updates on Activities Since Previous Meeting • Committee Protocols • GGNRA Sideboards for Negotiation • Summary of Key Interests and Areas of Agreement from

Assessment Report • Committee Schedule, Logistics, Next Steps • Public Comment

May 1, 2006 Federal Register Notice of third Committee Meeting May 15, 2006 Committee Meeting #3 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives

GGNRA005199

24

• Approval of April 18, 2006 Meeting Summary and Final Protocol Revisions

• Updates Since Previous Meeting - Negotiated Rulemaking Schedule/Timeline and Status of Resource Protection Rulemaking

• GGNRA Parameters for the Negotiated Rulemaking Process

• Draft Approach to Collaborative Decision Making in the Negotiated Rulemaking Process

• No Action Alternative for Dog Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

• Information Needs for Negotiated Rulemaking Process • Next Steps • Public Comment

June 26, 2006 Federal Register Notice of fourth Committee Meeting July 18, 2006 Meeting #1: Technical Subcommittee of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Technical Subcommittee) Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Overview of NEPA Data Collection to Date (by site) • Review and Discuss Draft List of Information Needs to

Support Rulemaking (as identified by Committee members) • Discuss Approaches to Filling Outstanding Data Needs • Next Steps

July 31, 2006 Committee Meeting #4 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Approval of May 15, 2006 Meeting Summary • Updates Since Previous Meeting – Negotiated Rulemaking

Schedule/Timeline, Change in SFSPCA Participation, Updated GGNRA Parameters for the Negotiated Rulemaking Process, Plan for Site Visits by Committee Members, NEPA Update, including Current Conditions information request

• Report on Technical Subcommittee Meeting #1 • Compilation and Analysis of Interests: Collaborative

Problem Solving Process Step 1

GGNRA005200

25

• Potential Objective Criteria for Developing Options: NEPA and Collaborative Problem Solving Process Step 2

• Next Steps • Public Comment

August 28, 2006 Federal Register Notice of fifth Committee Meeting August and September 2006 Committee Member Site Visits within GGNRA September 13, 2006 Technical Subcommittee Meeting #2 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Data and NEPA Issues • NPS Environmental Quality Division proposal for Joint

Fact Finding • Next Steps

September 21, 2006 Committee Meeting #5 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Review and Adopt July 31, 2006 Meeting Summary • Update on Activities Since Last Meeting – Report on Site

Visits and Natural Resource Protection actions • Presentation on DOI (Department of Interior) Rule Writing

Process and Support for Reg-Neg (Negotiated Rulemaking) • Discuss Report from Technical Subcommittee Meeting #2 • NEPA Presentation of Summary of Public Scoping

Comments • Review Revisions to Key Interests and Issues Table • Discuss Potential Selection/Evaluation Criteria/Toolbox • Next Steps • Public Comment

November 8, 2006 Technical Subcommittee Meeting #3 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Address Questions and Issues Related to Rescheduling

from October 25 • Review Meeting Objectives • Review Key Criteria for Decision Making

GGNRA005201

26

• Walk Through the Approach for Analyzing an Area for Potential Off-Leash Activity (Upper Fort Mason)

• Full Subcommittee Application of the Analytical Approach (Muir Beach)

• Small Groups: Analysis of Additional Units and Report Back (Lands End and Oakwood Valley)

• Small Groups: Analysis of Additional Units (Crissy Field and Fort Funston)

• Dinner • Formulate Report and Proposals for the Full Committee

November 28, 2006 Off-Leash Dog Groups Caucus Meeting with GGNRA Superintendent Brian O’Neill November 29, 2006 Technical Subcommittee Meeting #4 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Review Principles of Collaborative Problem Solving • Discuss Proposed Approach to Developing Options • Upper Fort Mason • Muir Beach • Fort Funston • Crissy Field • Oakwood Valley • Lands End • Next Steps

January 12, 2007 Environmental Groups Caucus Meeting with GGNRA Superintendent Brian O’Neill January 13, 2007 Site Visits to San Mateo County GGNRA Locations January 24, 2007 Other Park Users Caucus Meeting with GGNRA Superintendent Brian O’Neill February 17, 2007 Technical Subcommittee Meeting #5 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Review of Applicable Statutes, Regulations, and Policies:

NPS Presentation • Criteria for Developing Proposals: Principles, Interests,

and Objective Factors

GGNRA005202

27

• Regulated Off-Leash Area (ROLA) Characteristics: Subcommittee Discussion

• Review Consensus-Building Approach, Goals, Timeline, and Deadlines: Subcommittee Discussion

• Information Packet for Remaining Six Off-Leash Locations: NPS Overview of Data

• Developments Since Last Subcommittee Meeting • Review Next Steps

March 21, 2007 Federal Register Notice of sixth Committee Meeting March 29, 2007 Technical Subcommittee Meeting #6 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Review and Approve Meeting Summary for Meeting #5 • Developments Since Last Subcommittee Meeting • Review Process for Developing Starting Points • Review and Adopt Structure and Guidelines for

Presentations and Subcommittee Discussion • Begin Presentations: Baker Beach • Continue Starting Points Presentations and Discussion: Ft.

Miley/Lands End • Regulated Off-Leash Area (ROLA) Characteristics:

Update on Compilation and Discussion of Next Steps • Plan April 5 Progress Report to Full Committee on Starting

Points and Related Topics • Review Next Steps

April 5, 2007 Committee Meeting #6 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Review and Adopt September 21, 2006 Meeting Summary • Updates on Activities since Previous Meeting – Committee

Protocols, Summary Presentation to Committee on NPS Management Policies 2006

• Report from Facilitation Team and Technical Subcommittees on Progress Toward Goal of Recommendations on Alternatives for NEPA Analysis

• Presentation from Technical Subcommittee on a Hypothetical Starting Point to Highlight Key Issues

• Presentation from NEPA Team on Approaches to Voice Control and ROLA

• Committee Discussion and Deliberation

GGNRA005203

28

• Next Steps: Logistics and Timing • Public Comment

May 11, 2007 Technical Subcommittee Meeting #7 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Review and Approve Meeting Summary for Meeting #6 • Developments Since Last Subcommittee Meeting • NPS Perspective on Bird Data • NPS Presentation: Enforcement of a Dog Management

Policy • Review Outcomes from recent Site Visits, Internal

Discussions, and Efforts to Develop or Refine Starting Points and Define ROLA Characteristics

• Development of an Integrated Proposal for Consensus Building on Dog Management

• Review Action Items, Next Steps, and Schedule June 8, 2007 Technical Subcommittee Meeting #8 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Review and Approve Meeting Summary for Meeting #7 • Developments Since Last Subcommittee Meeting • Presentation of Two Site-Specific Concepts for Crissy

Field and Rodeo Beach • Presentation of Facilitation Team (FT) Integrated Concept • Subcommittee Discussion of FT Concept • Approaches to Commercial Dog Walking • Development of a Recommendation to the Committee • Review Action Items, Next Steps, and Schedule

June 28, 2007 Technical Subcommittee Meeting #9 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Review and Approve Meeting Summary for Meeting #8 • Developments Since Last Subcommittee Meeting • Schedule and Context for Subcommittee and Committee

Actions • Review of Proposals Developed by Subcommittee

Members • Subcommittee Discussion and Consensus Building on a

Recommendation to the Committee

GGNRA005204

29

• Development of a Recommendation to the Committee • Review Action Items, Next Steps, and Schedule

September 27 and September 28, 2007 Small Workgroup Meetings October 3, 2007 Small Workgroup Meeting October 12, 2007 Federal Register Notice of seventh Committee Meeting October 19, 2007 Small Workgroup Meeting October 27, 2007 Committee Meeting #7 Agenda:

• Introductions, Agenda Review and Meeting Objectives • Review Meeting Ground Rules • Review and adopt April 5, 2007 meeting summary • Updates on Activities since Last Committee Meeting • Consideration of Work Group Recommendations and

Action • Identification of Outstanding Issues related to the Reg-Neg

Process and how GGNRA will Proceed • Next Steps • Public Comment

GGNRA005205

30

ATTACHMENT B: FACILITATION TEAM REPORT

OFF-LEASH CAUCUS DOG MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS

Copies of the Off-Leash Caucus Dog Management Proposals were distributed at the final Negotiated Rulemaking Committee meeting. This document, with some minor revisions from that distributed to the Committee, may be obtained on CD from the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. If you are interested in receiving a CD please contact Ozola Cody: [email protected] or (415) 561-4734.

GGNRA005206

31

ATTACHMENT C: FACILITATION TEAM REPORT


Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Protocols

GGNRA is proceeding with formal rulemaking to develop a proposed rule that may alter the application of the existing dog walking regulation, 36 CFR §2.15 (a)(2), at GGNRA through a new special regulation that will govern dog management within its boundaries. As part of rulemaking, and as a reflection of its stated “commitment to include the public meaningfully” in developing a dog management rule, the U.S. Department of Interior has created a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (Committee). In a “Dear Participant” letter dated May 10, 2004, GGNRA General Superintendent Brian O’Neill suggested a Committee would “work with GGNRA to investigate a regulation to allow off-leash dog walking in certain areas . . . where resources and visitor safety would not be impacted.” Creation of a Committee is guided primarily by two federal acts, the Negotiated Rulemaking Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. These Acts state the intent for a Committee to work by consensus, and to open discussion with a goal of reaching unanimous agreement, if possible, among all interests represented on the committee to the extent possible. With that goal in mind it is essential that Committee members and alternates commit to a set of working principles and operating protocols. The working principles for a GGNRA Committee are set out below, followed by a set of specific operating protocols. Working Principles In pursing the goal of reaching consensus on a proposed dog management rule for GGNRA the Committee members and alternates commit to work together, adhering to the following principles:

• Use the Committee to build good working relationships among representatives of various interest groups that shall last beyond the life of the Committee

• Be good listeners to the concerns of others, even a lone voice, and work

cooperatively to satisfy the concerns of all involved

• Be honest, transparent, and specific about concerns or interests, thereby creating opportunity for joint, interest-based problem solving

GGNRA005207

32

• Acknowledge that the process of listening to all voices and working towards consensus is essential for successful, durable and implementable outcomes

• Commit to participate in good faith, and to expend the time necessary to

meaningfully participate in and contribute to the process

• Recognize that while people come to the table with different interests, values and perspectives, acceptable outcomes are still possible using objective criteria and analysis

• Be prepared to set aside past differences and adversarial approaches and

work constructively with other Committee members • If not in agreement with a proposed solution, outcome or recommendation,

present an alternative that reflects and incorporates, to the extent possible, the various interests that have been expressed.

Operating Protocols for the Committee

1. Membership

a. Committee Members. Pursuant to FACA, the Secretary of the Interior has appointed Committee members and alternates. Members consist of representatives of various organizations, including environmental groups, off-leash dog proponents, youth and elderly advocates, other park users and other stakeholders. Committee members will be the primary voice for interests they represent in Committee discussions.

b. Alternates. Alternates will represent Committee members and/or

their interests at times when the member is unable to participate in Committee deliberations. Alternates will sit at the table with Committee members during meetings. Members will be the spokesperson for each member-alternate team during Committee discussions, with these exceptions: (1) the member and alternate may switch roles, and (2) the discussion lead for a team may ask that additional perspectives from the team be part of the discussion in order to promote a greater understanding of the issues within the Committee.

c. The DOI Secretary, in considering appointment decisions for the Committee, used a wide range of advice including:

• Recommendations from the GGNRA and Regional NPS Office

• Recommendations from the conveners

GGNRA005208

33

• Self-nominations from those who believe their interest(s) were not adequately represented on the Committee by others

d. Criteria considered in selecting individuals to be appointed

included: • Willingness and ability to work with other stakeholders in

achieving consensus • Contribution to balance among stakeholders and interest

groups represented • Commitment to participate actively in the process • Ability to resolve issues through collaborative deliberations

and consensus • Willingness to act in good faith consistent with the working

principles

e. Constituents’ Interests. Committee members will attempt to represent the interests and concerns of their organizations and related constituents as accurately and thoroughly as possible, and work to ensure that any agreement developed by the Committee is acceptable to their organization.

f. Dismissal from Committee. While not anticipated, if a Committee

member or alternate, or a Subcommittee member, acts in a manner inconsistent with the agreed upon Committee protocols or good faith standards (Appendix 1), GGNRA shall evaluate whether continued participation on the Committee is appropriate and may dismiss that person. If such a situation arises, GGNRA will bring the issue before the Committee for appropriate explanation and discussion prior to any dismissal. The NPS will provide a written explanation to the Committee of the reasons for dismissal of any Committee member or alternative, or Subcommittee member.

2. Meetings

a. FACA. The Committee is a FACA Committee and as such will follow FACA requirements at all times including, but not limited to, public notice, meeting records, and openness to the public.

b. Attendance at Meetings. Committee members agree to make a

good faith effort to participate in all scheduled meetings or activities. If a member is not able to attend a given meeting, his or her designated alternate shall participate in the member’s absence whenever possible. Excessive absence may lead to dismissal from the Committee.

GGNRA005209

34

c. Agendas. Agendas will be developed jointly by the Committee, with a draft distributed to Committee members in advance of each meeting.

d. Meeting Materials. To the extent possible, all Meeting Materials will

be distributed to Committee members and alternates prior to Committee meetings to provide an adequate opportunity to prepare for meetings.

e. Meeting Summaries. A draft summary of each meeting will be

prepared by the facilitation team, and adopted by the Committee at its next meeting. The Draft Meeting Summary will be provided to Committee members and alternates within two weeks after each meeting, or as soon thereafter as possible, to allow adequate time for review. The Committee’s approved meeting summaries will be the basis of documentation of the Committee’s work, discussions, and recommendations. Once approved by the Committee, meeting summaries will be made available to the public on the National Park Service website.

f. Caucus. Committee members can call for a “caucus break” at any

time to allow for discussions away from the table. The Committee will determine how much time will be allocated for the caucus break.

g. Meeting Attendees and Comment. Non-member meeting

attendees may comment during Committee meetings at times and in a manner designated by the Committee. Written comments may be provided at any time during the negotiated rulemaking process and will be attached to Committee meeting summaries for documentation purposes. A public comment period(s) of up to 20 minutes will also be provided during or after each Committee meeting as determined by the Committee (based on the agenda). Up to two minutes will be allocated to any person wishing to provide public comment at Committee meetings (for each public comment period), depending on available time and the number of people wishing to comment. Time for providing public comment may not be shared or transferred. All comments must be directly related to topics on the meeting agenda.

3. Subcommittees

a. Establishment. Subcommittees, and their membership, may be established at any time by the Committee to focus on and develop preliminary proposals concerning particular issues or sets of issues.

GGNRA005210

35

The Committee may provide in its charge to a Subcommittee whatever level of guidance regarding focus and process it deems necessary.

b. Committee Members. Committee members, or their alternates,

should actively participate on Subcommittees to the extent possible.

c. Subcommittee Participation. Participation in Subcommittees is

open to anyone with interest in, and knowledge about, the issues a Subcommittee is considering, with the agreement of the Committee. Subcommittee members must agree to participate in good faith and contribute constructively to the efforts of that Subcommittee, and abide by the same protocols and good faith criteria as the Committee.

d. Balanced Representation. Committee members agree to make a

good faith effort to assure that a balance of interests is represented on each Subcommittee. In particular, efforts will be made to include local government representatives on appropriate Subcommittees.

e. Process. Subcommittee meetings will be conducted in accordance

with any ground rules established by the Committee, consistent with FACA and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. The Subcommittees will be convened with the assistance of the facilitation team.

f. Subcommittee Products. Subcommittees are not authorized to

make decisions for the Committee; their sole role is to gather information, develop options, make recommendations (if requested) and report back to the Committee.

4. Decision Making

a. Commitment to Seek Inclusive Solutions. Committee members agree to strive for as broad, inclusive and informed a consensus as possible when making decisions, particularly with respect to final recommendations. Such decisions will be sought through effective meeting facilitation and active, open, constructive participation by Committee members. b. Consensus. The Committee shall operate consistent with consensus-seeking principles (rather than voting), as follows:

GGNRA005211

36

• Consensus is both a process and an outcome. Consensus is a flexible concept that must be adapted to each context and desired outcome, and a rigid rule of unanimity for all decisions will not provide this flexibility. The Committee is committed to decision processes that address as many significant interests as possible, regardless of the nature of the decision;

• The Committee’s primary task is to recommend to the GGNRA a proposed rule for dog management. For this decision and other substantive decisions related to developing a proposed rule, consensus shall mean either support for or acceptance of (meaning agreement not to oppose) a final recommendation to the GGNRA by all Committee members;

• With respect to the Committee’s report to the NPS on its deliberations (see “Report of Committee” below), consensus shall mean that all Committee members can support or accept a single version of the report;

• With respect to decision making on matters that relate primarily to Committee operation and administration, including, but not limited to, agendas and schedules, consensus shall mean, at a minimum, broad support for each such interim decision or outcome across the spectrum of interest groups represented on the Committee;

• With respect to adoption of these protocols, consensus shall mean that all Committee members can support or accept the same version of the protocols, even if that version might not be their first choice.

c. Absence of Consensus. In cases where consensus is not achieved despite good faith efforts, the facilitators shall make recommendations to the Committee about: 1) working further to reach consensus through appointed workgroups, or some other designated means; 2) transmitting to GGNRA individual member views or majority/minority views; or 3) tabling the issue, depending on the nature of and context for the decision. With respect to the Committee’s primary task, the absence of consensus on any aspect of the proposed rule, or the rule in its entirety, will not constrain GGNRA from proceeding with rulemaking or considering the results of the Committee’s work as part of rulemaking. d. Report of Committee. The Committee shall transmit a report to the National Park Service that reflects the outcome of its deliberations on a proposed rule. If the Committee reaches consensus on a proposed rule, the report will present the proposed rule. If the Committee does not reach consensus on

GGNRA005212

37

a proposed rule, the report will describe the extent of agreements reached by the Committee, and also points of disagreement and the interests that could not be integrated sufficiently to reach consensus. The Committee may include in a report any other information, recommendations, or materials that the Committee considers appropriate.

5. Safeguards

a. Good Faith. Committee members agree to participate in good faith at all times. Subcommittee participants also are required to participate in good faith. In critiquing an idea or proposal individuals shall make an attempt to provide a constructive alternative that meets other stakeholders’ needs. If that is not possible, then the individual shall attempt to clarify his/her concerns related to that idea or proposal. Attachment 1 defines “Good Faith” in greater detail pertaining to the GGNRA negotiated rulemaking process. These guidelines will be re-visited quarterly.

b. Right to Withdraw. Committee members may withdraw at any time,

for any reason, without prejudice to themselves or the organizations they represent. Committee members agree to provide a written explanation if they withdraw from the process. If a committee member withdraws, their alternate, if available, will replace him or her.

c. Open Dialogue. Committee members should be able to express

themselves without fear of retaliatory action by others. This includes showing respect for the views of others, refraining from personal attacks and clarifying views not fully understood.

6. Communications and Information

a. Sharing Information. Committee members agree to share all relevant information with other Committee members. This includes assisting the Committee to identify relevant information and making a good faith effort to provide such information in a timely manner.

b. Outside Activities. Participation on the Committee does not restrict

pursuit of other activities related to the intended objectives of the rulemaking. However, it is expected that Committee members will be forthcoming with other Committee members if such activities are undertaken.

c. Public Record. Information provided to the Committee will become

part of the public record. If a Committee member is interested in

GGNRA005213

38

obtaining information from GGNRA on issues relevant to the negotiated rulemaking process, that request will be brought to GGNRA and the Committee for action before any Freedom of Information Act requests or similar initiatives are taken.

7. Media

a. Statements to the Media. Committee members and alternates recognize that the content and manner of public statements may affect the ability of the Committee to work together constructively and/or reach consensus. In communications with the media, Committee members and alternates:

• will speak for themselves and not others unless authorized to do so;

• will not characterize other members’ and alternates’ viewpoints;

• will not attribute comments or motives to other members or alternates; and

• will not utilize the media as a means of unilaterally influencing Committee deliberations; and

• will not speak on behalf of the Committee unless explicitly authorized by the Committee to do so.

8. Schedule

a. Scheduling Meetings. Committee and Subcommittee meetings will be scheduled by the Committee and Subcommittees, respectively, with the assistance of the facilitation team.

b. Duration of the Process. The Negotiated Rulemaking process will

operate in concert with the NEPA process necessary to support any GGNRA rulemaking. As these schedules are finalized they will be made available to the Committee. The Charter for the Rulemaking Committee is in place for two years.

GGNRA005214

39

Roles and Responsibilities

1. GGNRA: GGNRA is the sponsor of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process and has ultimate responsibility to ensure that the applicable regulations (Negotiated Rulemaking Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act) are appropriately interpreted and applied. At the same time, GGNRA is a member of the Committee and will be treated in a similar fashion as all other Committee members with respect to meeting protocols, input on agendas, etc. GGNRA also appoints a Designated Federal Officer who has oversight of the FACA Committee and responsibilities to ensure the Committee adheres to FACA regulations.

2. Committee Members: Committee members represent a wide range of

interests and perspectives concerning dog management in GGNRA and are tasked with working together to find solutions, as possible, which meet the various interests of stakeholders, consistent with applicable National Park Service guidelines and policies. Committee members agree to work together in good faith and abide by these protocols.

3. Committee Alternates: The roles and responsibilities of alternates are

similar to those of Committee members, and vary mainly when both are able to attend Committee meetings. See Section 1.b above. Alternates also agree to work together in good faith and abide by these protocols.

4. Facilitators: The facilitators are responsible for working with the

Committee members and alternates to establish agendas, facilitate Committee meetings (and Subcommittee meetings if Subcommittees are formed), help the Committee identify interests, areas of agreement and areas of disagreement where additional attention is required to resolve outstanding issues, and generally assist the Committee reach its intended objectives of building consensus on dog management solutions in the GGNRA. The facilitators are also responsible for working with the sponsoring agency (GGNRA) to ensure all applicable regulatory guidelines are followed and provide input as requested on how to resolve critical issues facing the Committee.

GGNRA005215

40

Attachment 1 GGNRA Dog Management Negotiation Rulemaking

Good Faith Participation Standards: January 2006

(Discussed and revised April 18, 2006) Note: The purpose of these proposed standards is to establish a clear set of guidelines for evaluating good faith participation consistent with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. Participation in the Committee is voluntary and denotes an agreement to adhere to the principles. GGNRA expects all Committee members to honor their spirit as well as their wording. These standards will be used as a tool to convene the NR Committee on a forward-looking basis. GGNRA intends to re-visit the standards with Committee members after three months to gather input on their continued value to the NR process. Negotiated Rulemaking (“NR”) is a consensus-driven alternative to traditional federal agency rulemaking. GGNRA has made the choice to pursue this alternative in order to create an opportunity for key stakeholders to be involved in the process of developing a dog management rule for certain areas of the GGNRA. In particular, NR creates a forum for direct discussion of interests and joint development of potential solutions that is not available in agency rulemaking. GGNRA is committed to NR as long as key conditions for negotiating a proposed rule exist. If not, GGNRA intends to begin pursuing traditional agency rulemaking. A commitment to good faith participation is central to NR and the goal of seeking consensus among diverse perspectives. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act identifies the willingness to “negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus” as a criterion for Committee membership. Applications for membership on a NR committee require a written commitment to participate in good faith. The Act does not define good faith, however, ultimately leaving that to the convening agency. All proposed members of the GGNRA Dog Management NR Committee have, in the past, expressed a commitment to participating in good faith. Recent events have raised questions about this commitment in the minds of proposed Committee members and GGNRA staff alike. The following are the standards GGNRA will use to evaluate each Committee member’s commitment to good faith. The criteria will be reviewed by GGNRA three months after convening the first NR session, and input about potential modifications or the continued need for the criteria will be solicited from Committee members. In addition to regular review of the standards at three-month intervals, GGNRA will work with the Committee to address any issues related to the standards that appears to require timely action. These standards are different from the operating protocols to be adopted by the Committee at its first meeting, although some overlap is likely (e.g., approaches to interacting with the media). These criteria are intended primarily to apply to matters within the scope of the NR, i.e., dog management within GGNRA. While these standards do not apply to other settings in which prospective Committee members might interact (e.g., other rulemaking processes,

GGNRA005216

41

the San Francisco Dog Advisory Committee), GGNRA believes it is important that Committee members consider how interactions in those settings affect the likelihood of success of the NR process. Good faith criteria include:

1. A commitment to giving the NR process a reasonable chance to address the longstanding and complex issues involving dog management in the GGNRA . Participants agree that the NR process will serve as the primary vehicle for discussion of matters within the scope of the NR during the period of participation as a Committee member.

2. A commitment to civility in NR proceedings, including the Committee and any

Subcommittees that may be created to support the Committee’s work. This includes supporting the civil and constructive expression of the diverse values, perspectives, and opinions within the Committee’s membership, consistent with the NR goal of building consensus.

3. A commitment to an open and objective process for developing potential

solutions. This includes openness to suggested approaches or ideas that do not meet the initial preferences of individuals or organizations participating on the Committee, and the use of objective criteria as the basis for evaluating proposed solutions (to the extent possible). Openness does not imply acceptance of or agreement with the substance of proposed approaches or ideas but denotes a willingness to listen to different approaches.

4. A commitment to refrain from communications or other actions, whether direct or

indirect, which could fairly be considered as harassing or attacking another Committee member or their organization/agency.

5. A commitment to supporting the NR process in public communications during the

period of participation as a Committee member. This criterion encompasses use of the Internet and World Wide Web, whether direct or indirect, as well as communication with the media. All Committee members are responsible for the content of their respective organizational web pages under this criterion.

6. Committee members, alternates and Subcommittee members commit to ensuring

statements made in Committee meetings, Subcommittee meetings, and in public communications outside Committee meetings, regarding all issues relevant to this Negotiated Rulemaking, are accurate.

It is understood that the agreement of each Committee member to these standards shall be consistent with any professional ethical obligations. Proposed or appointed Committee members who cannot commit to or who do not follow these criteria for good faith participation understand that they are subject to removal from the Committee by GGNRA. These standards can be fairly applied only after all prospective Committee members have had a chance to review them and provide a written confirmation of their commitment (no later than January 4, 2006). During this interim period GGNRA expects

GGNRA005217

42

proposed Committee members to abide by the “spirit” of the proposed standards and will evaluate any issues that arise on a case-by-case basis. The basis for GGNRA actions that result from applying these standards, including removal from the Committee, will be explained to all Committee members by GGNRA.

GGNRA005218

43

ATTACHMENT D: FACILITATION TEAM REPORT

Areas open for discussion of dog-walking: voice control, on leash, or no dogs Area (listed North to South) Key Interests Compilation as of 9-20-06 (letters next to entries indicate who submitted - list at end of column B) 1. Muir Beach b. Beach play, water play for dogs and people. d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Very populated beach, dog use, marine mammals occasionally come ashore. f. T/E Species protection, ensure positive recreational experience. g. Horse back riding, multi use safety. j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. m. Keeping Muir Beach open to horses is very important to Ocean Riders. I love riding down to Muir Beach during the winter when no one is there and the tide is out. Sometimes we'll go down and work the horses on flat sand in circles since we have no arena. Having the beach to ride in the winter is very important to us because we try to preserve the trails after hard rains and it gives us the opportunity to get the horses out without trail damage. In general, most of these historically equestrian-accessible trails are used by equestrians in greater or lesser numbers. Most of them have fantastic scenery and views. Some provide access to a beach, which equestrians appreciate. They are also used by hikers and bikers and, where permitted, by dogwalkers as well, For sharing, the wider, fire roads are safer, unless they have a lot of blind curves. Most equestrians would like all user groups to have safe access to these beautiful trails and signage that instructs users how to share them safely. While the trails are used most frequently by people who have horses stabled on GGNRA land, the Horse Hill (Muir Valley) boarders have a long history of riding all of the trails presently incorporated in the GGNRA, including many currently closed to horses. For them, access to this area eliminates the need to have or use truck/trailer rigs to access many miles of trails. p. Multi use safety. q. Seniors and disabled, hiking and walking. Beach experience. (Issue: Dogs can disrupt sunbathers). 2. Oakwood Valley trails b. Trail hiking with dogs. d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Running, biking, hiking, wilderness viewing

GGNRA005219

44

f. Ensure positive recreation experience. g. Multi use safety. j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. m. A regular ride from Horse Hill. Quiet, flat and easy to access. Unfortunately, does not quite connect as a loop with Alta Avenue (fireroad). Lots of wildlife. p. Multi use safety. q. Seniors and disabled, hiking and walking. 3. Rodeo Beach b. Trails in Marin Headlands provide great hikes with dogs, as opposed to standing around and watching dogs play. Views. Water play on beach. d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Populated on weekends, school group use during week, surfing, hiking, horseback riding, wilderness viewing, marine mammals occasionally come ashore f. Ensure positive recreational experience. g. Multi use safety. j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. l. T/E species protection. p. Multi use safety. q. Seniors and disabled, hiking and walking. Beach experience. (Issue: Dogs can disrupt sunbathers). 4. Crissy Field d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Endangered species (wetlands), close proximity to Ft. Point (lots of visitors), windsurfing, running, biking, dog walking, marine mammals occasionally come ashore f. Ensure positive recreational experience, protect plover habitat. g. Multi use safety. j. Recreational: off leash and on leash dog walking, jogging, walking, bird watching, marine life watching, biking, boating, windsurfing, sunbathing, baby stroller boot camp, yoga/stretching, in-line skating, picnicking, kite flying, 4. Crissy Field swimming in the Bay, folks sitting on benches enjoying the scenery. Potential conflicts during Fleet Week/other large events. Cont. Aesthetic: spectacular setting of the Golden Gate Bridge, the light at sunrise and sunset, the beaches, the Bay, the view of the Marin Headlands, the fog as it rolls in along the water, the torrential rain and wind. Social: Dog walking (exercise and interactions between dogs/dogs, people/dogs, people/people, dogs/nature, people/nature, families, couples, singles, sporting groups-wind surfers, bikers, walkers, swimmers. Areas include all three beaches (east, central, and west beaches), the promenade and the grassy airfield area.

GGNRA005220

45

Natural: the spectacular scenery, sense of open space (and a large carrying capacity), restored dunes, marsh area and the associated flora and fauna at Crissy Field, observing wildlife, marine life, as well as fauna as they change throughout the year is another part of natural interests. Cultural: Safety (it is a safe place for a variety of user groups and safe to walk alone), pride of ownership in keeping it clean of human and doggie wastes, ability for folks to interact with dogs (who don't have dogs or tourists who want a "doggie fix"), easy access for parking, major world wide tourist destination. Safety concerns: Dogs loose in parking lot (especially on a very busy day), windsurfers ignoring everything around them as they set up their gear, windsurfers who bring their dogs and ignore them as they are putting together their gear and they do not pick up their dog's waste. Other: Amount of human and doggie waste on beaches, along promenade and adjacent to east beach parking lot (signage suggested to encourage visitors to become good stewards and cleanup after themselves). Danger from bicyclists who speed promenade. Concerns related to horses at Crissy Field (horses getting loose and scaring people/dogs, conflicts with people recreating (with or without dogs who may not be comfortable around horses), incidents involving professional dog walkers and horses approaching without warning, horse poop on pathway never cleaned up by riders creating a double standard for dog owners. Dogs and kids digging holes in sand and guardians not filling in holes. Two outflow seasonal ponds that are created from the channel--parents/kids play in these pools and it is known that dogs defecate in ponds (signage suggested to warn public about this potential public health issue). Problems at bathroom area since there are so many different users (suggest other side of men's bathroom be used as a designated "doggie area with possible extension of plumbing to other side of bathroom and potential funding from the Haas Fund as a capital improvement project. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. p. Multi use safety. Increased emphasis to poop removal by owners. q. Currently a major hiking and walking site. Accessible for senior and disabled dogwalking. Great potential for disabled access. 5. Upper Fort Mason Great b. Maintain off-leash recreation in this neighborhood. Meadow and Parade Ground d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Historical value f. Ensure positive recreational experience. g. Multi use safety. j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. p. Multi use safety. q. Seniors and disabled, hiking and walking. Pleasant walking experience. 6. Baker Beach b. Room to run, walk, throw balls and frisbees. Water play for dogs. d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's

GGNRA005221

46

unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Very populated beach (esp. families with small children), clothing optional portion of beach, marine mammals occasionally come ashore f. Safety (human and dog), Aesthetics (lack of dog feces, trash, etc.), Minimize conflicts, protect natural landscapes. g. Horse back riding, multi use safety. j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. p. Multi use safety. q. Seniors and disabled, hiking and walking. (Issue: Dogs can disrupt sunbathers). 7. Fort Miley q. Seniors and disabled, hiking and walking. 8. Lands End Trail b. Terrific views. Long walk. Trail confines dogs somewhat and discourages wandering. d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Historical value, hiking. f. Ensure positive recreational experience. g. Multi use safety. j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. q. Seniors and disabled, hiking and walking. Major hiking and walking potential. Great potential for disabled access. 9. Ocean Beach outside of b. Wide beach, long distances to run and/or walk with your dog. Room to throw balls and frisbees. Water play for dogs. The joy of Snowy Plover Management Area being on the ocean shore. Wide variety of activities sharing the space. Easy access, parking. d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Wide flat beach for running, walking, dogs, surfing, fishing, v. common area for live and dead marine mammals to come ashore f. Protect plover habitat, safety (human and dog), Ensure positive recreational experience, unimpeded, full access to park resources g. Horse back riding, multi use safety. j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. l. T/E species protection. p. Multi use safety. Increased attention to human and animal waste removal.

q. Seniors and disabled, hiking and walking. (Issues: Disabled access, ramps. Dogs can disrupt sunbathers).

GGNRA005222

47

10. Fort Funston b. Variety of walking conditions and territory: on beach, on bluffs and sand-dunes, through woods. Opportunity to walk on paved trail. Open, un-confined space. Very social community, friendly environment, very little conflict. Terrific views. Sufficient visitors at all times to feel very safe. Easy access, parking. d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Dog walking, hang gliding, horseback riding, marine mammals come ashore often f. Safety (human and dog), protect natural landscapes, protect bank swallow habitat, ensure positive recreational experience, minimize conflicts. g. Horse back riding, multi use safety. h. Spectacular views, spacious - able to absorb large numbers and various types of visitors - "recreational dispersion", for the most part, an absence of barriers so there is a feeling of open space, undiscovered areas…, strong social community of regular park users (with and without dogs), decent network of paved trails for disabled, seniors, and families with babies in strollers, access to beaches which are out of the way from most tourists-less conflict, easy access and safe parking lots (far from busy highway), places to toss balls and play frisbee with dogs, interesting military installations-sense of history, high number of visitors make it a safe place to walk anytime during the day, proximity permits daily or twice daily use-Fort Funston is used like a neighborhood city park, gathering place for like-minded people, less confrontation because people expect to share the space with dogs j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. l. Particular emphasis on bank swallow protection. While not a listed species, this population comprises some of the very few bank swallows remaining on the west coast and is thus particularly significant. Recreational/social: also birdwatching. p. Multi use safety. q. Seniors and disabled, hiking and walking. Currently a major hiking and walking site. Accessible for senior and disabled dogwalking. Great potential for disabled access. 11. Pedro Point Headlands b. Off-leash recreation in San Mateo Co. d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Hiking, dog walking f. Ensure positive recreational experience, protect natural landscapes. g. Horse back riding, multi use safety. j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. m. Pedro Point also has sort of secret access - the trail takes off behind a kitchen/bath shop next to Ace Hardware on the frontage road to Highway 1 just before you start up the hill over Devil's slide. Horse trailers could park anywhere around there on Pedro Point for access. This is beautiful country but not a lot of miles-cliffs of grass and wildflowers over a wild ocean.

GGNRA005223

48

11. Pedro Point Headlands Very isolated-feeling. You can also ride up the coast from Pedro Point over Linda Mar Beach, over the hill to Rockaway Cont. Beach, through the new sewage plant area, up over another hill to the Sharp Park beach, and/or I hear you can ride under Highway 1 on the golf course path and then up Cattle Hill. p. Multi use safety. 12. Cattle Hill b. Off-leash recreation in San Mateo Co. d. Visitor safety, dog safety, wildlife protection, wildlands access for all, preserving the NPS's unique role/mandate, access for the blind. e. Not familiar with that location to provide key interests f. Ensure positive recreational experience, protect natural landscapes. g. Horse back riding, multi use safety. j. Balanced coexistence between multiple users, including dogs under voice control. p. Multi use safety.

Compilation of submissions by:

a. Cindy Machado, Marin Humane Society b. Keith McAllister, San Francisco Dog Owners Group c. Mark Heath, California Native Plant Society d. Brent Plater, Center for Biological Diversity e. Erin Brodie, The Marine Mammal Center f. Paul Jones, former member of GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission g. Holly Prohaska, Mar Vista Stables h. Linda McKay, Fort Funston Dog Walkers i. Arthur Feinstein, Environmentalist j. Martha Walters, Crissy Field Dog Group k. Chris Powell, National Park Service, GGNRA l. Elizabeth Murdock, Golden Gate Audubon Society m. Judy Teichman, Marinwatch n. Norman LaForce, Sierra Club o. David Robinson, Coleman Advocates for Youth p. Christine Rosenblat, San Francisco SPCA q. Bruce Livingston and Bob Planthold, Senior Action Network

GGNRA005224

49

ATTACHMENT E: FACILITATION TEAM REPORT

DELIBERATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY EXPANDED FACILITATION TEAM INTEGRATED CONCEPT FOR DOG MANAGEMENT VERSION 2: 11 SITES VERSION

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS EXPANDED FTIC VERSION 2 INCLUDES CONCEPTS FOR MUIR BEACH, UPPER FORT MASON, CATTLE HILL, AND PEDRO POINT. IT DOES NOT OTHERWISE CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE 6-8-07 VERSION. IT IS

INTENDED TO SUPPORT CONSENSUS BUILDING BY ADDING: (1) ATTRIBUTES SUMMARIES AND (2) 1979 PET POLICY COMPARISONS FOR ALL POTENTIAL OFF-LEASH, ON-LEASH, OR NO DOGS LOCATIONS, AND (3) FT RATIONALES FOR

THE INITIAL SEVEN SITE-SPECIFIC PROPOSALS. SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS SHOULD REVIEW THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF THE

ATTRIBUTES SUMMARIES.

SUMMARY TABLE

Rodeo Beach

Muir Beach

Oakwood Valley

Upper Ft.

Mason

Crissy Field

Baker Beach

Lands End/Fort

Miley

Ocean Beach

Fort Funston

Cattle Hill

Pedro Point

ROLA beach Y Y Y Y Y Y ROLA non-beach Y Y Y Y Y Y N On-leash beach Y Y Y Y Y On-leash non-beach Y Y Y Y Y Y Y No-dog beach N N Y Y Y N No-dog non-beach Y Y Commercial dog walking

N14 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N

14 This represents a FT change from the 6-8-07 version based on apparent absence of current commercial dog walking use

GGNRA005225

50

DRAFT: Proposed conditions at all GGNRA dog use locations (off-leash or ROLA)

Proposed Condition Comments

Dog use is a privilege in GGNRA that is based on compliance with applicable Federal laws, rules, regulations, and policies.

All GGNRA visitors should have clear expectations about the potential for interaction with a dog at all GGNRA locations where dogs are permitted. This potential will vary between on-leash areas and ROLAs.

All GGNRA visitors should have an expectation of personal safety from interaction with a dog in all dog use areas, whether on-leash or ROLA.

A dog guardian has a responsibility to obey all GGNRA dog management rules and regulations.

A dog guardian has a responsibility to prevent aggression by a dog toward humans, other dogs, or wildlife within GGNRA.

Note: The Subcommittee has discussed, but has not resolved, potential definitions related to acceptable dog behavior. The term “aggressive” dog has been the subject of some disagreement. The Subcommittee should seek a resolution of this question.

A dog guardian has a responsibility to prevent unwelcome dog-visitor or dog-dog interaction.

A dog guardian has a responsibility to prevent impacts to GGNRA resources, such as plants, birds, animals, and waters, caused by dogs.

All dogs must have a valid local jurisdictional license (includes rabies vaccination) to visit GGNRA dog use areas.

A dog guardian has a responsibility to clean up all dog waste If no waste bags are provided in a location, a guardian must carry these.

A dog guardian shall carry a leash that complies with NPS regulations for each dog. Current NPS regulation is a 6’ leash.

One issue is the use of extending leashes.

GGNRA dog rules and regulations shall be consistently followed by dog walkers and consistently enforced.

All GGNRA dog use areas shall have signage that clearly describes conditions of use by dogs and guardians, located to maximize visitor education and understanding.

GGNRA will manage dog use in consultation with a GGNRA-wide

GGNRA005226

51

Proposed Condition Comments Citizens Recreation Committee. Dog use within GGNRA shall be based on a monitoring and evaluation program linked to adaptive management with clear management goals, timeframes, and options that could include changing dog use conditions or areas.

Dog use within GGNRA shall be based on a robust visitor education program in partnership with the GGNRA-wide Citizens Recreation Committee.

Commercial dog walking will be permitted under specified conditions at certain locations within GGNRA

Need a separate set of commercial dog walking conditions See Joe Hague’s initial proposal

GGNRA005227

52

DRAFT Additional Conditions for GGNRA Regulated Off-Leash Areas (ROLA)

The FT has consistently recommended a dual-track approach to building consensus around potential off-leash use in GGNRA. The first part involves holding an ongoing, evolving discussion within the Committee/Subcommittee that addresses interests in a set of ROLA conditions. The second part involves developing site-specific proposals that reflect diverse attributes at potential dog use locations around GGNRA. The FT sees the two parts as related: site-specific proposals are a way to distill potential ROLA conditions, and proposed conditions should be evaluated against specific sites. The Subcommittee initial provided feedback to the FT on ROLA conditions, and this information was compiled in a document distributed earlier this year. The input reflected disagreements about the use of physical barriers and fencing to achieve separation and thereby protect GGNRA resources and visitors, as well as disagreements about the value of timed use management measures. In order to move the discussion forward, the FT has developed a set of proposed ROLA conditions for consideration by the Subcommittee. The FT anticipates that Subcommittee members will disagree with elements of its proposal—this disagreement, and the reasons for it, is intended to provide the basis for discussions and exploration of potential solutions. Nothing in the proposals is intended to be prescriptive or otherwise intrude into the full Committee’s ultimate decision making role.

Proposed ROLA Condition Comments

Purpose for ROLA Conditions: These conditions are intended to serve as a primary source of guidance to GGNRA in determining (1) whether to establish a ROLA, and (2) the management measures for each ROLA. The conditions are intended to balance interests in consistency, clarity, NPS management flexibility, enforceability and responsiveness to site-specific attributes.

Unique GGNRA History: GGNRA is unique in having a 26-year history of dog use within its boundaries under the 1979 pet policy, including off-leash use. This history does not exist at any other [national park.] The history is not a guarantee of future dog use in any area of GGNRA. It is a factor in determining whether to establish a ROLA and the management measures for a ROLA.

GGNRA-wide Dog Policies Apply: In addition to these ROLA This is intended to include federal regulations addressing proposed

GGNRA005228

53

conditions, all other GGNRA dog management rules and regulations apply within a ROLA.

conditions covering leashes, etc.

Visitor Notice: Visitors must have reasonable notice of the boundaries of a ROLA and what they should expect within those boundaries. Notice shall include signs at ROLA access points, in transition zones, and in conjunction with fencing or other physical barriers. A robust public outreach and education program is expected as part of implementing a ROLA.

Separation: ROLAs will be separated by a variety of management measures based on site conditions. The purposes for separation are to promote visitor safety, meet visitor expectations regarding dogs, protect natural resources, and provide a range of visitor experiences. Separation measures may include: signage, P&C fencing (with mesh as appropriate), natural features, fences with native vegetation, leash-area buffers, and time of day/day of week schedules.

ROLA-On-leash boundary: The boundary between a ROLA and an area where dogs are permitted on leash shall be clearly marked with signs. Where feasible, a physical barrier such as fencing or other feature should be incorporated to provide notice of the transition. The use of a physical barrier, and its characteristics, depend upon expectations about visitor use, the size of the area as well as wildlife and related considerations.

ROLA-No dog boundary: Boundaries between a ROLA and no dog area should support the reasonable expectations of park visitors about unwelcome dog interaction. Where practical and feasible, there should be an effective physical barrier such as a natural feature or non-permeable fence (with consideration for wildlife implications), and or buffer zones. The physical size of the no-dog area may also, in very limited circumstances, provide enough opportunity for separation that it addresses visitor expectations in conjunction with other management measures, e.g., signage, physical boundary such as P&C fence.

T&E Species: A ROLA is not appropriate where it is likely to cause significant impacts to T&E species or their habitat.

GGNRA005229

54

Resource protection: Management measures to protect natural resources located next to a ROLA boundary shall provide a level of protection consistent with the resource value. For example, T&E plant species or a lagoon providing T&E fish habitat shall be protected by a physical barrier such as impermeable fencing. Other plant species may be protected by a barrier that is permeable. Decisions shall reflect relative resource values assigned by NPS staff.

Trails: A ROLA established on a road, path, or trail shall include appropriate management measures to protect natural resources. For example, physical barriers, such as fences, shall be used to protect habitat for T&E species, or for ground-nesting animals.

Oakwood Valley [road] Fort Funston [paths] Lands End [El Camino del Mar] Crissy Field [Promenade]

Visitor Use Levels: The level of visitor use, including use patterns, is an important consideration in the decision to establish a ROLA and the selection of management measures. In areas with consistently high visitor use, there should also be reasonably available opportunities for other park experiences (on-leash, no dog). In areas with significant fluctuations in use, such as on weekends or holidays, a timed use ROLA may be appropriate, subject to monitoring and evaluation for compliance and other management objectives.

Beach and Non-Beach: ROLAs may be established on GGNRA beaches or non-beach areas, subject to bird populations, other site attributes, management goals, and appropriate rules, regulations, and policies, and to robust monitoring and evaluation.

ROLA Tag Program: All dogs within a ROLA must demonstrate participation in a tag program, i.e., valid ID tag. Details to be established by Committee, to include consequences of violations. The conditions under which a tag would be revoked should be specified.

Some Committee members have developed a proposed tag program for possible consideration by the Subcommittee and Committee.

Respect for ROLA Boundaries: Dog guardians are responsible for ensuring that their dogs remain within ROLA boundaries when they are off-leash.

Dogs in Sight: Dog guardians shall keep their dogs within eyesight at all times.

GGNRA005230

55

Recall Dog: Dog guardians shall have the ability to recall their dog promptly, and shall demonstrate this ability when requested by authorized personnel.

Unwelcome Interaction: Visitors shall have notice that there is a greater likelihood of an unwelcome dog interaction within a ROLA relative to the likelihood of such interactions in on-leash or no dog areas. Nonetheless, unwelcome dog interactions are not acceptable.

Visitor and Dog Safety: Visitors and their dogs shall have a reasonable expectation of physical safety within a ROLA based on compliance with management measures.

Time of day/Day of week restrictions: Timed use measures may be utilized as part of a ROLA so long as they are based on a robust monitoring and evaluation program. Timed use measures should be simple and consistent to promote understanding and compliance.

Marine Mammal Protection: In the event of a marine mammal’s presence in a ROLA, e.g., on a beach, all dogs must be immediately leashed (if not already on leash) and GGNRA shall have the discretion to temporarily suspend a ROLA in order to protect the animal.

Multi-use: ROLAs shall be managed to safely allow other recreational uses consistent with ROLA characteristics. ROLAs are not intended to exclude other recreational uses.

Difference from local dog play areas: ROLAs are not intended to replicate fully enclosed dog play areas available in jurisdictions adjacent to GGNRA.

GGNRA005231

56

LOCATION: MUIR BEACH

Comments ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY Redwood Creek watershed

Water quality issues in channel downstream of pedestrian bridge Major restoration projects in different stages including planned increase in wetlands and dune restoration Significant diversity of plant and animal species (including fish) in watershed and beach Federal threatened species: coho salmon and steelhead trout, and red-legged frogs; brown pelicans on beach Federal species of concern: marbled godwit, white-tailed kite, elegant tern State listed species: peregrine falcon State species of concern: foothill yellow-legged frog, coast range newt, western pond turtle Local species of concern: monarch butterfly, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, great egret, Swainton’s thrush, wrentit, and gray fox Visitation opportunities: walking, surfing, bikes, wildlife viewing, picnicking, horseback riding, lying on beach Visitors and dogs: low weekday use; moderate to high on weekends; heavy visitation on nice days Visitor conflict: vast majority [95%] of visitors reported “no conflict” on visits, dogs are largest source of reported conflicts Local community

This is a FT distillation of detailed attributes information prepared by NEPA team Low average shorebird densities based on Beach Watch data

INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL ROLA at all times

Fencing: enhanced fencing to protect lagoon

COMPARISON TO 1979 PET POLICY

Under 1979 Pet Policy: voice control or on leash on beach, on leash in parking/picnic areas Comparison to FTIC: Maintains off-leash use

GGNRA005232

57


RATIONALE Low shorebird densities

Relatively remote, local users Low conflict Simplifies enforcement Monitor and manage adaptively

GGNRA005233

58

LOCATION: RODEO BEACH

Comments KEY ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY

Lagoon and creek: water quality issues Lake, lagoon, and creek provide open water, marsh, and riparian habitats Marine mammal haul out unlikely Federal listed species: California red-legged frog habitat in lagoon, tidewater goby, brown pelicans bathe in lagoon State listed species: salt marsh common yellowthroat Federal species of concern: marbled godwit, elegant terns, great egrets, American bittern Visitation opportunities: organized educational opportunities at Headlands Institute, surfing, picnicking, walking, hiking, running, horseback riding Visitor use: moderate to high levels of dog use/low to moderate percentage of visitors have dogs Visitor conflict: low


INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL Organize Main Beach [MB] into North and South Section

MB North Section: On-leash only MB South Section: ROLA weekdays; weekends and federal holidays are on-leash between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., off-leash other times Remote Beach (to south): off-leash at all times Use P&C fencing perpendicular to waterline to delineate MB areas Coastal Trail: On-leash Lagoon Trail: On-leash Parking lots: On-leash Access to beach: On-leash Signage: At access points and MB divide point

Need to confirm MB divide point


Under 1979 Pet Policy: voice control Comparison to FTIC: Maintains overall dog use Maintains off-leash beach use Reduces overall off-leash use

GGNRA005234

59

LOCATION: RODEO BEACH RATIONALE Protect lagoon through separation

Maintain off leash beach opportunity given low conflict Offer on-leash opportunity with P&C fence as separation for visitors uncomfortable with off-leash dogs Consistency with other GGNRA locations on timed use Consideration of potential long-term increases in use Consideration of potential that some people do not come to this location because of no restrictions on off-leash dogs Apparent low value as shorebird habitat Apparent low value of beach to marine mammals Simplicity to promote enforcement Monitor and manage adaptively

GGNRA005235

60

LOCATION: OAKWOOD VALLEY

Comments ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY Vegetation includes lupine that is host plant for mission blue butterfly

(endangered) and this species has been observed Hardwood evergreen forest is northern spotted owl habitat but no known records of sightings Federal species of concern: White-tailed kite Local species of concern: CA Swainson’s thrush, wrentit, and gray fox Coyote-dog encounters resulted in NPS signage Visitation opportunities: low to moderate use by runners, bicyclists, hikers Visitors and dogs: moderate to high dog use Low visitor conflicts

This is a FT distillation of detailed attributes information prepared by NEPA team

INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL Trail: On-leash at all times

Road: ROLA at all times, subject to T/E species habitat [spotted owl] Fencing: Additional P&C fencing along road


Under 1979 Pet Policy: pets allowed under voice control on (1) Oakwood Valley Road to Alta Avenue, and (2) Alta Avenue between Marin City-Oakwood Valley Comparison to FTIC: Maintains overall dog use Maintains but reduces off-leash use

RATIONALE Allows loop walk, with portion off-leash and portion on-leash

Provides off-leash option Transition between on- and off-leash appears manageable Monitor and manage adaptively

GGNRA005236

61

LOCATION: UPPER FORT MASON

Comments ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY Landscape is non-native grasses, vines, and trees, with turf grass on Great Meadow

that is mowed and irrigated Monterey cypress and blue gum eucalyptus have colonized widely Regular coyote observations No significant species issues Visitation Opportunities: Great Meadow paved trail has bikers, runners, and walkers; other activities include sunbathing and non-organized sports, tai chi; Hostel in Bldg. 240; significant special events Visitor use: low to moderate (LE staff categorize as high); higher use early morning, late afternoon, weekends; low to moderate number of visitors walk dogs; mostly locals Visitor conflict: low according to LE GGNRA Headquarters location Commercial dog walking


INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL ROLA at all times in triangular area bounded by Bay and Laguna, and by existing

barriers including berm/vegetation on north and east Additional vegetation as barrier along Bay and Laguna Great Meadow on-leash only


Under 1979 Pet Policy: on leash only Comparison to FTIC: Expands off-leash use Maintains overall dog use

RATIONALE Relatively low use and low conflict area

Makes use of existing vegetation to provide separation Low natural resource value

GGNRA005237

62

LOCATION: UPPER FORT MASON Simplifies enforcement GGNRA Headquarters location

GGNRA005238

63

LOCATION: CRISSY FIELD

Comments ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY High visitor use area on beaches and promenade: bicyclists, joggers, walkers,

picnickers, windsurfers High conflict area per LE data Restored tidal marsh and dune habitat Over 90 bird species use tidal marsh and dunes Occasional marine mammals Wildlife Protection Area Plover habitat Significant special event use including large events like Fleet Week Significant LE workload Active dog group: Crissy Field Dog Commercial dog walking

This is a FT distillation of detailed Crissy Field attributes prepared by NEPA team plus comments from Crissy Field Dog Group and NPS responses Low average shorebird densities based on GGNRA analysis

INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL East Beach: ROLA weekdays; off leash weekends before 10 and after 4; on leash

weekends between 10 and 4; parking lot on-leash all times

Central Beach: ROLA same as East Beach; double latch gate at narrow spot separates from West Beach

West Beach: No dogs at all times Promenade: On leash at all times Grass Field (replanted?): ROLA as follows: one section to be off-leash on same

schedule as beaches; other sections to be on-leash at all times; section dimensions and locations TBD

Fencing: P&C (with mesh and natural vegetation) as needed to keep people and dogs out of protected resource areas and create separation from Promenade


Under 1979 Pet Policy: voice control or on leash, except on leash in parking/picnic areas Comparison with FTIC: Maintains off-leash beach use Less off-leash use area, and less total dog use area, on beaches and promenade Maintains on-leash in parking areas

GGNRA005239

64

LOCATION: CRISSY FIELD RATIONALE Adds “no dogs” at West Beach area for visitors seeking this experience

Increases resource protection at West Beach Limited impact on shorebirds given data and existing high uses on East and Central beaches Changing levels of use on promenade presents enforcement difficulties “through” users, e.g., bicycles, present promenade issues due to compact area Renovation of grassy field would effectively increase useable area for all visitors and potentially increase off-leash use by improving conditions Monitor and manage adaptively

GGNRA005240

65

LOCATION: BAKER BEACH

Comments ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY Lobos Creek is Presidio drinking water source

Water quality issues (bacteria) Fore dune vegetation restoration Dune scrub community above beach provides wildlife habitat Shorebird habitat Marine mammal haul outs usually sick or injured animals Special status plants: potential SF lessingia reintroduction under USFWS recovery plan, SF spineflower, dune gilia, and SF campion Federal listed species: brown pelican roosts on islets and forages over ocean; western snowy plover observed occasionally in migration Federal species of concern: elegant tern in July (low density) Visitation opportunities: fishing, shore recreation, developed picnic areas; demonstrations at Battery Chamberlin Visitor use: Moderate to heavy use Visitor conflict: low to moderate; occasional issues with human behavior including disorderly conduct

This is a FT distillation of detailed attributes information prepared by NEPA team Northern beach area is known as a nude beach

INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL Modification of initial proposal to address shorebird protection

North Section (northernmost point of beach south to a point TBD in vicinity of gun batteries): ROLA weekdays; weekends and federal holidays off-leash before 10 a.m. and after 4 p.m., on-leash between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Center Section (south parking lot access north to a point TBD in vicinity of gun batteries): On leash at all times South Section (south parking lot access to Lobos Creek and south): No dogs P&C fencing as needed to create separation from protected dunes and restoration areas Close social trails Create obvious and limited access points from parking lots and street Signage at access points Dogs on-leash in parking lots and when accessing beach, picnic areas Dog-Resource separation achieved through P&C fencing

GGNRA005241

66

LOCATION: BAKER BEACH Dog-Visitor separation achieved through signage and on-leash buffer area. Perpendicular P&C fencing


Under 1979 Pet Policy: voice control (north beach area), no pets (south beach area), on-leash only (picnic/parking area) Comparison to FTIC: Maintains off leash beach opportunity but reduces total amount of off leash use area Middle beach remains open to dog use but leash required South beach no change (no dogs)

RATIONALE Addresses NPS goal of protecting shorebird habitat while preserving off-leash

water play opportunity and allowing a leashed/unleashed walk up and down most of the beach. Provides more access for visitors comfortable with dogs on leash and retains no dogs option Natural barrier to north, limited access to north beach provides separation along with signage Protects dune restoration through P&C fencing/mesh and management of social trails Monitor and manage adaptively

GGNRA005242

67

LOCATION: LANDS END/FORT MILEY

Comments ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY Lands End

Widely distributed freshwater seeps support marsh habitat, native and non-native plants and trees Some dune vegetation Significant bird diversity, incl. East Wash and West Wash areas, based in part on seeps/wetlands Special status plant species: SF spineflower (federal) Federal listed species: stellar sea lion haul out; brown pelican State species of concern: bumble scarab beetle, elegant tern, saltmarsh common yellowtail Federal species of concern: marbled godwit, CA gray fox Local species of concern: great blue heron, Swainson’s thrush; CA yellow warbler; American peregrine falcon; CA quail; pigeon guillemont Visitation Opportunities: hiking, picnicking, running, family outings, bird watching, fishing, swimming, wading, surfing, sunbathing, strolling, and interpretive uses Visitors and Dogs/Issues: low to moderate dog walking use, with few visitor conflicts; busiest on weekends. Generally good compliance incl. with leash requirements. NPS redevelopment of Lands End system underway. Multiple social trails likely to be closed. Survey shows increased family use of improved Coastal Trail. Occasional dog rescues from bluffs. Other: human behavior issues per LE No organized dog group No commercial dog walking

Fort Miley Primarily Monterey cypress, with some wetland/riparian vegetation, limited ground cover due to close tree planting Dense tree canopy likely diminishes songbird use; landbird species likely similar to Lands End Local species of concern: possible Swainson’s thrush Visitation opportunities: picnicking; ropes course at W. Ft. Miley run by SF State University

This is a FT distillation of detailed attributes information prepared by NEPA team Coyotes are receiving recent media attention

GGNRA005243

68

LOCATION: LANDS END/FORT MILEY Visitors and Dogs/Issues: low dog use with few conflicts

INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL Treat as a single user opportunity rather than as three separate locations

Create on-leash, off-leash, and no-dog visitor options

Lands End Camino del Mar: ROLA all times, GGNRA will not manage coyote population for dogs Ocean View Trail: No dogs Coastal Trail: On leash

West Ft. Miley: No dogs East Ft. Miley: ROLA all times in fenced corridor running along side and parallel

with fencing along edge of the Lincoln Park golf course.


Under 1979 Pet Policy: voice control at Lands End and Fort Miley Comparison to FTIC: Reduces total off-leash area (Lands End Trail) Reduces total dog use area (West Ft. Miley, Ocean Trail

RATIONALE Anticipates increased use of significant trail restoration project

Protects picnic area at West Ft. Miley Protects habitat values at E. Ft. Miley while providing for an off-leash loop through a fenced corridor that also increases dog safety Offers off-leash, on leash, and no dog options to visitors Protects birds and wildlife with fencing Monitor and manage adaptively

GGNRA005244

69

LOCATION: OCEAN BEACH

Comments ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY Significant shorebird densities based on quality habitat, particularly Central and

South Sections Marine mammal haul outs, mostly sick or injured animals Federal listed species: Western snowy plover Federal species of concern: Elegant tern, marbled godwit Visitation opportunities: Moderate to heavy use; fishing, swimming, sunbathing, surfing, horseback riding, whale watching, parasurfing; moderate to high number of visitors with dogs Conflict: moderate conflict area, benefits from distribution across large area Significant LE attention due to human and dog behavior Commercial dog walking

This is a FT distillation of detailed attributes information prepared by NEPA team Plover Protection Area located in central beach section Central and South beaches demonstrate high shorebird densities based on Beach Watch data

INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL Manage in three sections North Section (north of Stairwell 21)

ROLA all times Separation: P&C fence perpendicular to waterline in Stairway 21 vicinity, signage

Central Section (current Plover protection area in Compendium): no dogs South Section (Sloat): On leash at all times COMPARISON TO 1979 PET POLICY

Under 1979 Pet Policy: voice control, subject to leashing on crowded days between Cliff House and Stairwell 15 or request to move south Comparison to FTIC: Maintains significant off-leash beach area Reduces overall dog use area by Central Section [Central Section use changed previously by Compendium amendment] Reduces off-leash use by South Sections

RATIONALE Offers mix of off leash, on leash, and no dog beach experiences

Substantial off leash area on northern section at all times

GGNRA005245

70

LOCATION: OCEAN BEACH Provides increased protection to shorebird habitat Provides on-leash connection to Ft. Funston for long walk opportunity Clear rules for public education and enforcement Monitor and manage adaptively

GGNRA005246

71

LOCATION: FORT FUNSTON Comments ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY Sea cliff erosion from undercutting by wave action, also slumping and slippage on

top due to park visitors, variable dune stability Restored native coastal scrub Recovery plan calls for re-establishing lessingia gernanorum and beach layia to dunes Diverse bird species include bank swallows, shorebirds, brown pelican State listed species: bank swallows State species of concern: Western burrowing owls Federal species of concern: marbled godwit Local species of concern: California quail Visitation opportunities: hang gliding, surfing, kite flying, whale and bird watching, sunbathing, fishing, walking, horseback riding (stables nearby), and environmental center activities Visitors and dogs: high visitor use area, with high number having dogs Visitor conflict: high number of dog-related visitor conflicts, including rescues Organized dog groups (Ft. Funston Dog Walkers) report cleanup days Commercial dog walking


INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL Manage in terms of corridors, separate beach and upland

Dogs on-leash in all parking areas and when accessing off-leash areas, e.g., sand ladders Provide for on-leash, off-leash and no dog long loop walks

North Beach Section (from access point north, current Bank Swallow seasonal closure area) On leash

Center Beach Section (from north access to south access/sand ladder) ROLA weekdays Weekends and federal holidays: ROLA before 10 a.m. and after 4 p.m., on-leash between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Separation: signage at access points

South Beach Section (south of access/sand ladder): On leash at all times

GGNRA005247

72

LOCATION: FORT FUNSTON Upland: West Corridor (closest to cliffs)

On-leash at all times Pave “chip trail” to provide accessibility to the ROLA area Fence with natural vegetation separates ROLA area in Central Corridor Close social trails Consider fencing with natural vegetation for separation from cliffs

Upland: Central Corridor ROLA at all time Fence with natural vegetation separates ROLA from West Corridor/on-leash Extends to closed vegetation area in north and beach access point

Upland: East Corridor No dogs P&C fencing (potentially with mesh) to separate from Central Corridor Anticipated equestrian use

Upland: South of Parking Lot On leash at all times


Under 1979 Pet Policy: voice control Comparison to FTIC: Maintains overall area for dog use Maintains off-leash beach use Maintains off-leash upland use Reduces overall area for off-leash use on beach and upland

RATIONALE Offers mix of off leash and on leash experiences

Long walk option mixing off and on leash (connecting to south Ocean Beach) Consideration of potential long-term increases in use Consideration of people who do not use this area due to off-leash dogs Reduces interaction with off leash dogs at access points Corridors above beach offer robust separation of different uses via fencing Provides for on-leash corridor above cliffs to improve safety and protect habitat Maintains commercial dog walking option Simple scheme to promote education, understanding, and enforcement Monitor and manage adaptively

GGNRA005248

73

LOCATION: PEDRO POINT

(SAN MATEO LOCATIONS OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION OF OFF LEASH USE) Comments ATTRIBUTES SUMMARY Very limited attributes information because not yet part of GGNRA

Very steep slopes Coastal scrub, bluff scrub, and prairie Rare pacific reed grass prairie on northern slope of peak Non-native evergreen forest, some eucalyptus and Monterey pine Visitation opportunities: hiking, horseback riding


INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL On-leash only


Under 1979 Pet Policy: not included Comparison to FTIC: NA

RATIONALE Terrain and natural resource issues don’t support ROLA

Consistent with input from San Mateo Committee members Monitor and manage adaptively

GGNRA005249

74

LOCATION: CATTLE HILL


Steep and somewhat unstable topography, landslide potential Coastal scrub, grassland, riparian forest and shrub Federal species of concern: white tailed kite Local species of concern: gray fox Visitation opportunities: hiking, possibly horseback riding


INTERESTS See September 20, 2006 interests spreadsheet PROPOSAL ROLA: from upper trail section (gate) to Discovery site

Fencing: P&C for separation from habitat On leash: from Fassler Ave. trailhead to gate

Subject to recent survey results for sensitive species



RATIONALE Steep terrain keeps users on trail

Signage and vehicle access support enforcement Monitor and manage adaptively Consistent with input from San Mateo Committee members

GGNRA005250

National Office: P.O. Box 151200, San Rafael, CA 94915-1200 • (800) 295-4050 • www.guidedogs.com California Campus: 350 Los Ranchitos Road, San Rafael, CA 94903 • (415) 499-4000 • Fax: (415) 499-4035

Oregon Campus: 32901 S.E. Kelso Road, Boring, OR 97009 • (503) 668-2100 •Fax: (503) 668-2141

Brian O’Neill, Superintendent Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Mason, Building 201 San Francisco, California 94123 [email protected] ATTN: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Dear Superintendent O’Neill: On behalf of Guide Dogs for the Blind, I would like to apply for membership in the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, announced in the Federal Register on June 28, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 37,109). The proposed Negotiated Rulemaking has the potential to significantly impact the interests of Guide Dogs for the Blind, and none of the proposed committee members are capable of representing these interests during this process.

Guide Dogs for the Blind is a nonprofit, charitable organization with a mission to provide Guide Dogs and training in their use to visually impaired people throughout the United States and Canada. Our dogs and services are free to those we serve, thanks to the generosity of donors and support of volunteers. Our headquarters and a training facility are in San Rafael, California—20 miles north of San Francisco. We are proud to have provided more than 10,000 dogs to people with vision loss since 1942.

Our schools accept visually impaired students from throughout the United States

and Canada for training with a Guide Dog. We offer follow-up services to each graduate of our program at their home or place of business for the lifespan of their dog. As part of this service, we survey our graduates to better understand the challenges they may face in working with, protecting, and enjoying Guide Dogs. A significant challenge faced by our graduates is off-leash dogs. A 2003 survey conducted by a national Guide Dog user group indicated that 89% of graduates have had Guide Dogs interfered with by off-leash dogs, and 42% of graduates have had their Guide Dogs attacked by off-leash dogs. Because of this, we recommend that our graduates avoid any place where off-leash dogs are known to roam.

Thus, the establishment of off-leash areas in the National Park System generally,

and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in particular, is of great interest to us, as it may create areas where our graduates will be excluded from entering. Guide Dogs

GGNRA005251

http://www.guidedogs.com/

National Office: P.O. Box 151200, San Rafael, CA 94915-1200 • (800) 295-4050 • www.guidedogs.com California Campus: 350 Los Ranchitos Road, San Rafael, CA 94903 • (415) 499-4000 • Fax: (415) 499-4035

Oregon Campus: 32901 S.E. Kelso Road, Boring, OR 97009 • (503) 668-2100 •Fax: (503) 668-2141

for the Blind therefore finds in necessary to participate in this process to discuss whether off-leash areas are appropriate in this National Park, and if so, how to insure that proper safeguards are put in place that will minimize the impacts on our graduates and their Guide Dogs.

Guide Dogs for the Blind actively encourages ‘Responsible Dog Ownership’ and

we feel that we can add positive and educated input to the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee. The interests of Guide Dogs for the Blind, with its decades of experience in promoting the animal/human bond and its expertise in dog management issues related to the visually impaired and highly trained Guide Dogs, are not represented by any of the categories of individuals currently proposed for the committee.

Guide Dogs for the Blind has designated Jim Power to be its representative on

the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee, and Brian Francis as the alternate. Mr. Power and Mr. Francis are employees of Guide Dogs for the Blind and both are authorized to represent Guide Dogs for the Blind and its graduates in this matter. Mr. Power and Mr. Francis have agreed to actively participate in good faith in the development of the rule under consideration.

If you have any questions about this application, please feel free to contact me at

any time. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with you on this matter.

Sincerely, Jim Power Field Service Manager Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc. San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel: 1 800 295 4050 or 415 499 4055

GGNRA005252

http://www.guidedogs.com/

DRAFT Confidential Mediation Communication—Subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution Act

1

DRAFT MEMORANDUM

To: Brian O’Neill From: Greg Bourne and Mike Harty, Center for Collaborative Policy Subject: Summary of Recent Negotiated Rulemaking Caucus Meetings and

Recommendation Date: September 20, 2005 _____________________________________________________________________ Introduction. A year ago we recommended that GGNRA proceed with its proposed Negotiated Rulemaking process on dog management. Our judgment at the time was “that a [Negotiated Rulemaking] Committee is reasonably likely to achieve a substantial level of agreement on a proposed rule.” We recommended that you assume a level of agreement that was less-than-unanimous but still significant as a reasonably likely outcome. This recommendation was based on extensive interviews with potential members of a GGNRA Dog Management Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) and other people interested in the complex set of issues associated with dog management in GGNRA, particularly off-leash dog management. During the year that has passed since our initial assessment report a number of factors have influenced the dynamics relevant to the proposed NRC process. These include: the death of a boy in San Francisco caused by his family’s pit bulls activities of various potential NRC members related to off-leash dog issues, including

preparations for participation in the NRC GGNRA’s internal preparations for the Negotiated Rulemaking effort publication of the NOI and identities of proposed NRC representatives and alternates

and comments in response changes in the proposed NRC makeup (based on withdrawal of certain prospective

members) the June 2, 2005 decision in U.S. v. Barley, and the Emergency Petition submitted to GGNRA by environmental interests in response

to the Barley ruling requesting rulemaking to enforce 36 CFR §2.15(a)(2). On September 2, 2005, GGNRA staff joined us in meeting separately with three caucuses of prospective members of the NRC: general park users (including representatives of parents, the elderly, and the disabled), environmental advocates, and off-leash advocates. A priority for the meetings was to re-evaluate the willingness of potential NRC members to “negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus” on a proposed rule, a key question in our original assessment report.1This memorandum summarizes our evaluations of these meetings and presents our updated recommendations to you about proceeding with the proposed Negotiated Rulemaking.

1 Other meeting purposes included updating people on the status of the effort to establish the Committee, gathering information to make final decisions about the makeup of the Committee, and reviewing proposed guidelines for participation in the NRC.

GGNRA005253


2

Summary Recommendation. Polarization has increased and confidence in the potential for finding substantial consensus has ebbed since our initial assessment. It is important for the National Park Service to have a realistic set of expectations for what can be achieved under these circumstances. We see potential benefits in shifting the focus to substantive discussions based on GGNRA’s proposed sideboards, and these benefits are at least equal to foreseeable risks. Our recommendation is to proceed with the next phase of the negotiated rulemaking process and convening the initial NRC meeting at which GGNRA will present its proposed sideboards and challenge NRC members to engage constructively on substantive issues during the negotiated rulemaking process. Key Factors. Several of the factors described in the Introduction have galvanized attitudes and perspectives of key interest groups and their representatives, as follows: The outcome of the Barley case has invigorated off-leash advocates despite its

procedural nature. In particular, it appears to have reinforced the view popular among some off-leash advocates that any deviation from the 1979 policy that limits off-leash opportunities will be a loss of an entitlement.

The recent Emergency Petition prepared by the Center for Biological Diversity is a direct response to the Barley ruling. It is endorsed not only by other environmental groups but by potential NRC representatives of other park users (Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth) and potentially new organizations (Guide Dogs for the Blind). The petition has provoked strong, negative reactions from some off-leash advocates, directed at individuals and organizations.

Comments on the NOI were generally consistent with expectations. However, some of those comments were interpreted as personal attacks and appear to have magnified existing resentment.

The fatal mauling underscored risks associated with the breed in question and prompted a public debate. Public radio presented a discussion that likely will be referred to in NRC proceedings. We previously discussed this factor with your staff.

In addition to the activities described above, we understand that environmental groups have been active in preparing to participate in the NRC. Whether accurate or not, it appears some off-leash advocates perceive these preparations as “digging in.”

We noted a “history of conflict and adversarial interaction” among individuals and interest groups in our initial assessment. The factors just described appear to have stimulated “positional” approaches and reinforced doubts held by some about the likelihood for finding consensus. Relationships among some prospective NRC members have held constant, while others have deteriorated since we completed our assessment. We believe overall that some NRC representatives in all caucuses and their organizations are more polarized and less inclined to seek agreements than they were a year ago. The critical counter-balance to these dynamics has been GGNRA’s public commitment to engage in traditional rulemaking in the event that polarization on core issues proves insurmountable. We do not perceive any doubt about this commitment among the different caucuses, but are uncertain about shifts in their BATNAs [Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement]. Traditional rulemaking, followed by inevitable legal

GGNRA005254


3

challenges, may now appear more desirable as an alternative as a result of events over the past year, particularly for some opponents of off-leash options. The final key factor is GGNRA’s internal preparation for a NRC process. Our perception is that the park has made significant progress toward developing its sideboards for discussions despite the external dynamics described above. It is likely that some of the current conflict results from uncertainty among interest groups about these sideboards. Our judgment is that presenting this substantive information to the NRC will shift the focus, away from individuals and historic conflicts and toward concrete issues, in a potentially useful way. We acknowledge the difficulty of predicting with confidence whether a significant majority of NRC representatives will respond constructively to this approach. Compared with the alternative of simply proceeding with traditional rulemaking and abandoning the NRC process, however, we believe the potential benefits of starting constructive discussions outweigh likely risks of harm to GGNRA’s interests. Caucus Meetings. A key goal in these meetings was to evaluate the potential for reaching consensus, i.e., the willingness of all NRC members to negotiate a proposed rule that does not fully address all their interests or reflect their preferred solutions. Consensus will require good faith: an open mind about solutions, an understanding that everyone may be required to make tradeoffs to achieve their key goals, and a commitment to reaching solutions within the NRC. Our initial assessment stated that “[m]ost of those likely to participate in a Committee expressed belief that consensus is attainable despite the past if all parties enter the process with a commitment to work constructively.” Combativeness and suspicion occasionally surfaced in the caucus meetings, reinforcing our judgment that the level of polarization has increased among some individuals and organizations likely to participate in the NRC. Our judgment is that confidence about the potential for reaching consensus has ebbed among some NRC representatives. The response to our probing about a good-faith commitment to reaching consensus was lukewarm in all three meetings. We sensed these shifts particularly in the joint attitude of the environmental community representatives. We can only speculate that this may reflect a changed view among some that the NRC process is less desirable as a way of achieving key goals than traditional rulemaking and litigation. CCP intends to circulate to NRC representatives a separate memorandum highlighting the “commitments” we believe were made during the caucus meetings: To participate in good faith, To rely on objective data to the extent possible to make decisions, To live with and even support results drawn from that objective analysis, To avoid using websites to inflame the situation or attack others involved in the

process, To use websites to convey information and gain broader support from constituencies

for outcomes, and To work hard to find a place for the diverse uses that have traditionally been part of

the park.

GGNRA005255


4

Representation. The organizations that “represent” various interests associated with GGNRA dog management policies have diverse structures and values. There is an open question about the extent to which we can reasonably expect organizations represented on the NCR to “deliver” their constituencies. Given the diversity of views even within the same organization and the volunteer nature of participation, we anticipate that organizational responses will be asymmetrical. Nevertheless, we assume the leadership of each organization will make a commitment to build support internally and among members. Conclusion and Recommendation. Our recommendation is to proceed with the next phase of the negotiated rulemaking process and convening the initial NRC meeting at which GGNRA will present its sideboards and challenge NRC members to engage constructively on substantive issues as the negotiated rulemaking process proceeds. This approach entails some risk, namely that after the dust settles the response to GGNRA’s proposal among the NRC representatives will extinguish hopes for building consensus, and that there will be negative media coverage of these dynamics. GGNRA must make its own evaluation of this risk. In our view, however, the potential for a constructive dialog on issues of substance among most NRC members is at least equal to this risk. It is not until we engage in negotiations that the creative possibilities of addressing the interests of the various parties can be fully explored. While the NEPA process can provide an objective analysis of technical information and alternatives, the negotiated rulemaking process provides the venue to discuss and fully explore the issues in the context of the values and interests that NRC members bring to the process. GGNRA’s unwavering commitment to proceeding with traditional rulemaking, and a NEPA process, remains critical. This commitment signals that GGNRA is intent on providing clarity and that the status quo is not acceptable. Taking the step of convening an initial NRC meeting should result in a more complete understanding of the concerns and perspectives of the various representatives, and serve as a test for GGNRA’s sideboards, regardless of the outcome. Even if consensus proves elusive the negotiated rulemaking will provide GGNRA with invaluable information that could not be obtained otherwise, and will buttress the foundation for future traditional rulemaking. It is important for the National Park Service to have a realistic set of expectations for what can be achieved under these circumstances. On balance, however, we see value in shifting the focus to substantive discussions based on GGNRA’s sideboards and putting to the test the stated commitment of key groups and individuals to seek consensus.

GGNRA005256


Recreation Area


Submitted by:





GGNRA005257

i

Executive Summary


GGNRA005258

ii







GGNRA005259

iii


GGNRA005260

Table of Contents


GGNRA005261

1

Introduction




GGNRA005262

2









GGNRA005263

3











GGNRA005264

4



4 70 FR 37108 (June 28, 2005)

GGNRA005265

5





GGNRA005266

6


GGNRA005267

7





GGNRA005268

8






GGNRA005269

9









GGNRA005270

10










GGNRA005271

11









GGNRA005272

12




GGNRA005273

13








10 Section 564(b)(3).

GGNRA005274

14




GGNRA005275

15






GGNRA005276

16









GGNRA005277

17






GGNRA005278

18





GGNRA005279

19



GGNRA005280

20


GGNRA005281

21



GGNRA005282

22



DETAILED TIMELINE


GGNRA005283

23









GGNRA005284

24















GGNRA005285

25














GGNRA005286

26












GGNRA005287

27


















GGNRA005288

28















GGNRA005289

29






GGNRA005290

30




GGNRA005291

31









GGNRA005292

32









1. Membership







GGNRA005293

33







principles




2. Meetings




GGNRA005294

34










3. Subcommittees


GGNRA005295

35












4. Decision Making


GGNRA005296

36







GGNRA005297

37


5. Safeguards












GGNRA005298

38


7. Media







8. Schedule




GGNRA005299

39









GGNRA005300

40




GGNRA005301

41














GGNRA005302

42


GGNRA005303

43



GGNRA005304

44


GGNRA005305

45


GGNRA005306

46



GGNRA005307

47


GGNRA005308

48




GGNRA005309

49







SUMMARY TABLE

Rodeo Beach

Muir Beach

Oakwood Valley

Upper Ft.

Mason

Crissy Field

Baker Beach

Lands End/Fort

Miley

Ocean Beach

Fort Funston

Cattle Hill

Pedro Point




GGNRA005310

50


















GGNRA005311

51





GGNRA005312

52







GGNRA005313

53








GGNRA005314

54










GGNRA005315

55








GGNRA005316

56









GGNRA005317

57




GGNRA005318

58










GGNRA005319

59



GGNRA005320

60











GGNRA005321

61











GGNRA005322

62


GGNRA005323

63













GGNRA005324

64



GGNRA005325

65







GGNRA005326

66






GGNRA005327

67






GGNRA005328

68











GGNRA005329

69











GGNRA005330

70


GGNRA005331

71









GGNRA005332

72










GGNRA005333

73










GGNRA005334

74












GGNRA005335


Recreation Area


Submitted by:





GGNRA005336

i

Executive Summary


GGNRA005337

ii







GGNRA005338

shirwinsmith

Highlight

shirwinsmith

Highlight

iii


GGNRA005339

Table of Contents


GGNRA005340

1

Introduction




GGNRA005341

2









GGNRA005342

3











GGNRA005343

4



4 70 FR 37108 (June 28, 2005)

GGNRA005344

5





GGNRA005345

6


GGNRA005346

7





GGNRA005347

8






GGNRA005348

9









GGNRA005349

10










GGNRA005350

11









GGNRA005351

shirwinsmith

Highlight

shirwinsmith

Highlight

12




GGNRA005352

shirwinsmith

Highlight

shirwinsmith

Highlight

shirwinsmith

Highlight

shirwinsmith

Highlight

13








10 Section 564(b)(3).

GGNRA005353

shirwinsmith

Highlight

shirwinsmith

Highlight

14




GGNRA005354

15






GGNRA005355

shirwinsmith

Highlight

16









GGNRA005356

17






GGNRA005357

18





GGNRA005358

shirwinsmith

Highlight

shirwinsmith

Highlight

19



GGNRA005359

shirwinsmith

Highlight

shirwinsmith

Highlight

20


GGNRA005360

shirwinsmith

Highlight

shirwinsmith

Highlight

21



GGNRA005361

22



DETAILED TIMELINE


GGNRA005362

23









GGNRA005363

24















GGNRA005364

25














GGNRA005365

26












GGNRA005366

27


















GGNRA005367

28















GGNRA005368

29






GGNRA005369

30




GGNRA005370

31









GGNRA005371

32









1. Membership







GGNRA005372

33







principles




2. Meetings




GGNRA005373

34










3. Subcommittees


GGNRA005374

35












4. Decision Making


GGNRA005375

36







GGNRA005376

37


5. Safeguards












GGNRA005377

38


7. Media







8. Schedule




GGNRA005378

39









GGNRA005379

40




GGNRA005380

41














GGNRA005381

42


GGNRA005382

43



GGNRA005383

44


GGNRA005384

45


GGNRA005385

46



GGNRA005386

47


GGNRA005387

48




GGNRA005388

49







SUMMARY TABLE

Rodeo Beach

Muir Beach

Oakwood Valley

Upper Ft.

Mason

Crissy Field

Baker Beach

Lands End/Fort

Miley

Ocean Beach

Fort Funston

Cattle Hill

Pedro Point




GGNRA005389

50


















GGNRA005390

51





GGNRA005391

52







GGNRA005392

53








GGNRA005393

54










GGNRA005394

55








GGNRA005395

56









GGNRA005396

57




GGNRA005397

58










GGNRA005398

59



GGNRA005399

60











GGNRA005400

61











GGNRA005401

62


GGNRA005402

63













GGNRA005403

64



GGNRA005404

65







GGNRA005405

66






GGNRA005406

67






GGNRA005407

68











GGNRA005408

69











GGNRA005409

70


GGNRA005410

71









GGNRA005411

72










GGNRA005412

73










GGNRA005413

74












GGNRA005414

DRAFT—CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION COMMUNICATION

1

APPENDIX A GGNRA ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS

Elected Officials

o Dan Bernal (Representative Nancy Pelosi) o Senator Barbara Boxer o Jim Vreeland (Mayor of Pacifica)


o California Native Plant Society (Jake Sigg and Randy Zebell) o Center for Biological Diversity (Brent Plater) o Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association (Susan Andres and Trent Orr) o Golden Gate Audubon (Arthur Feinstein) o Marine Mammal Center (Kathy Zagzebski) o National Parks Conservation Association (Courtney Cuff) o Presidio Sustainability Project (Stephen Krefting) o Sierra Club (Norman La Force and Gordon Bennett)

Off-Leash Dog Walking Advocates

o Crissy Field Dog Walkers (Martha Walters) o Ft. Funston Dog Walkers (Linda McKay) o Marin Humane Society (Diane Allevato and Cindy Machado) o Ocean Beach Dog (John Keating) o ProDog (Joe Hague) o San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Daniel Crain) o San Francisco Dog (Ann Farrow, Jeri Flinn, and Keith McAllister)

Equestrian


Park Visitors



o Northern California Mediation Center, Marin County (Nancy Foster) o Marin Humane Society o Community Mediation Board of West Marin (Sadja Greenwood) o Superior Court MAP Project (Sheila Purcell) o San Mateo County Small Claims Mediation o Peninsular Conflict Resolution Center (Jen Bullock) o Peninsular Conflict Resolution Center (Florence Beier)Tara Russell o City of San Mateo Park and Recreation Dept (Valerie Berland) o San Mateo Civil ADR Coordinator o Marin County Mediation Services (Barbara Kob) o California Community Dispute Services (Thom Bateman) o Community Boards of San Francisco (Chuck Regal)

Comment [PC1]: Christine Rosenblat (Public Information Director, SFSPCA, also participated in interview

Comment [PC2]: Deb Campbell, Volunteer/Outreach Coordinator SFAC&C also participated

GGNRA005415

DRAFT—CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION COMMUNICATION

2

Other o Association of National Park Service Rangers (Ken Mabery) o Open Space Committee, Pacifica (Ron Maykel) o California Department of Fish & Game (Carl Wilcox) o San Francisco Parks & Recreation (Becky Ballinger) o City and County of SF Dept of Animal Care & Control (Carl Friedman) o EQUP (David Robinson) o Dog walking book author (Maria Goodavage)

Invited to participate, but either unwilling or unavailable

o Access 4 Bikes, Marin (Brian Foster) o City of Pacifica (Paul Jones) o Crissy Field Dog Walkers (Gary Fergus) o Leslie Gordo o Marin Dog Walkers o Mother of Twins Club, San Francisco (Stephanie Crump) o Presidio Trust (Craig Middleton) o US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bay, Delta Branch (Dan Buford, Supervisor) o San Francisco Boardsailing Association (Peter Thorner, President) o Senior Action Network (Bruce Livingston) o State Senator Jackie Spier (Margo Rosen)

GGNRA005416

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Negotiated Rulemaking Off-Leash Dog Management

Suggested Members of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

Organization Lead Member Alternate Member Alt. Organization Crissy Field Dog Group

Martha Walters Chris Griffith Same

Fort Funston Dog Walkers

Linda McKay Karin Hu Same

San Francisco Dog Owners Group

Keith McAllister Carol Arnold Same

Ocean Beach Dog Owners

John Keating Suzanne Valente Same

Pacifica Dog Walkers Jeri Flinn Anne Farrow Same Presidio Dog Walkers Gary Fergus Carol Copsey Same ProDog Joe Hague Donna Sproull Same Marin Humane Society

Cindy Machado Steve Hill Same

San Francisco SPCA Daniel Crain TBA California Native Plant Society

Mark Heath Jake Sigg Same

Golden Gate Audubon Society

Arthur Feinstein Elizabeth Murdock Same

Sierra Club (Local Chapter)

Norman LaForce Gordon Bennett Same

San Francisco League of Conservation Voters

Stephen Krefting Michelle Jesperson Same

Center for Biological Diversity

Brent Plater

Jeff Miller Same

Marine Mammal Center

Kathy Zagzebski Joanne Mohr Farallones Marine Sanctuary Assoc.

Coleman Advocates for Youth

David Robinson Marybeth Wallace Same

Senior Action Network

Bruce Livingston Bob Planthold Same

Marinwatch (Equestrian Group)

Judy Teichman Alice Caldwell-Steele Miwok Valley Association

Former GGNRA CAC Paul Jones Betsy Cutler Same Presidio Trust Joanne Marchetta Al Rosen Same City of San Francisco, Recreation and Parks

Dan McKenna Lemar Morrison Same

GGNRA Chris Powell Howard Levitt Same

GGNRA005417

GGNRA Negotiated Rulemaking on Dog Management

Proposed Committee Member Caucuses

September 6, 2005

Agenda 1. Update on Activities Since Assessment and Recommendations

• Review in Washington, DC • Federal Register Comment Period • Nature of Comments from Comment Period • Response to Comments

2. Crissy Field Court Ruling and Related Activities 3. Where We Are Today - Proceeding in Good Faith

• Acceptance of Facilitation Team • Agreement with Draft Protocols • Proposed Additional Protocols from GGNRA

4. Where Do We Go From Here

• Committee Names Submitted to DOI Secretary for Appointment • Notice to Proceed in Federal Register • Planning for First Meeting

5. Remaining Questions and Comments 6. Adjourn

GGNRA005418

GGNRA Talking Points/Anticipated Questions 1. Viewpoints and Proposed Actions Related to the Crissy Field Court Decision 2. Sideboards for the Negotiation 3. Potential Changes in the Composition of the Committee 4. Views on Indicators of Negotiating in “Good Faith”

• FOIAs • Litigation • Websites and Internet Activity • Other?

5. Appropriateness of Using Negotiated Rulemaking on These Issues 6. Links to the NEPA Process 7. Other?

GGNRA005419

Dear : It gives me great pleasure to appoint you to the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Your appointment is for the duration of the negotiations. The purpose of the Committee is to assist directly in the development of a revised dogwalking regulation for Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The Committee will attempt to reach consensus on concepts and language to use as the basis for a special regulation for dogwalking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area to be published by the National Park Service in the Federal Register. A copy of the Committee’s charter is enclosed for your information. The Superintendent of Golden Gate National Recreation Area will contact you regarding Committee activities. Thank you for your willingness to participate in this important process. I am certain Golden Gate National Recreation Area will greatly benefit from your advice on the activities to be undertaken by the Committee. Sincerely, Gale A. Norton Secretary Department of the Interior Enclosure

GGNRA005420

Oct 22, 2006 7:17 pm US/Pacific From CBS5.com

SF Leash Law Negotiations On Hold

(BCN) SAN FRANCISCO Golden Gate National Park Recreation Area officials have

temporarily halted negotiations with citizens who want to change current dog leashing

rules in the park, following a series of dog attacks and accidents that threaten human and

animal safety, Brent Plater of the Center for Biological Diversity said Saturday.

Plater said that after six months of leashing negotiations, off-leash dogs continue to be

lost, killed or injured, citing three different incidents in which off-leash dogs wreaked

havoc.

According to the Golden Gate Audubon Society, a one-year-old terrier ran into traffic and

had to be rescued after it was attacked by two standard poodles. Another dog fell off a

cliff at Fort Funston and was stranded for over 24 hours during a rainstorm as police

searched for it. On September 16, three dogs attacked a horse and rider, leaving the horse

with cuts and bite marks on its legs and posing a serious danger to the rider.

Plater also expressed distress at the danger presented to a "small endangered fluffy bird''

called the western snowy plover.

According to Plater, scientists studying the snowy plover say off-leash dogs present a

great threat to the animal's survival.

Plater said that because the Golden Gate National Recreation Area had not been

enforcing leash laws for a long period of time, officials needed to get special permission

before they could begin enforcing them.

GGNRA005421

However, according to Plater, leash laws will be enforced at Ocean Beach and Crissy

Field beginning November 8, protecting the snowy plover until a more complete leashing

agreement can be reached.

There are more than 12,000 pet dogs in San Francisco, and while a few people oppose

leashing dogs on principle, over 71 percent of people want leash laws enforced in the

park, Platter said, citing a statistic gathered by a private surveyor for Golden Gate

National Park.

(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Bay City News contributed to this report.)

GGNRA005422

Negotiated Rulemaking for Dog Management at GGNRA Substantive Issues Report

(08/05/2005)

AL4000 Alternatives: New Alternatives Or Elements (Substantive) Correspondence Id: 63381 Comment Id: 13487 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Please consider off-leash and on-leash time periods in the parks. Most dog owners walk their dogs in the morning before work and in the evening after work during the weekdays. they do it also on the weekends because that's the dog's schedule. There can be on-leash times in between when parents with children can feel unmolested. Organization: Commenter: Maurice E Lee Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63281 Comment Id: 13489 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Dog walkers/owners cannot expect to bring an offleash dog onto GGNRA land, and when Something bad happens, blame it on the fact that the horse got too close- or that the kid was running by flapping his arms- Likewise, the safety advocates must accept the fact that dogs are Not just ;at best, happy little descartian dumb beasts/law suits waiting to happen. Native plant & Audobon need to see that dogs CAN coexist with wildlife and native plantings- but only if they too Recognize that things that can be done, NEED to be done. But first they must be able to see that things CAN be done, that Are not currently being looked at. For instance: (excerpt from Tiered park plan) Task: Dog owner must transit area without disturbing wildlife onshore. Dog owner establishes buffer zone, dog owner leads dog/dog group along a ?box shaped path? around obstacle. Or Task: Dog owner must transit picknicking family on beach. Dog Owner places dog/dog group at 50 yards, walks forward, asks permission to Transit around their activity, walks back to dog or dog group and Leads dog/dog group around that activity. Organization: Performance Offleash Commenter: Robin L Gipson Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63206 Comment Id: 13495 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Create designated off-leash areas for dogs and dog walkers. Limit 6 dogs per dog walker. Perhaps professional dog walkers should pay a monthly usage fee ($20.00/month). Organization: Commenter: Julia Frink Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 14930 Comment Id: 13024 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Dogs need socialization, with humans and with other dogs, in order to be able to coexist in our urban world. When they are constantly leashed it brings out their defensive instinct and territorial behavior. As a lifetime dog owner, having access to a place like Crissy Field is pure heaven. My dog can run,swim, and play with other dogs - I've been going there weekly since it opened and have never once had a problem with another dog or dog owner. It seems to me that there is plenty of room for both those who want no dogs and those that do, it's a very long beach and large field area. Why not simply give part of the beach and field to each? Organization: N/A Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes

GGNRA005423

Correspondence Id: 28422 Comment Id: 13618 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I feel that all dogs should be banned from the GGNRA except for very limited areas (clearly marked and fenced). Organization: Commenter: Berenice D Palmer Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 62883 Comment Id: 13531 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: National Park Service regulations regarding dogs should be the model for the GGNRA regulations. National Park Service regulations, such as the posted rules in Yosemite park are an appropriate model for GGNRA. Relevant parts of "Pets in Yosemite" language are as follows: 1. ?Pets are only allowed in developed areas, on roads and paved bike paths. They are not allowed on other trails or in wilderness areas." 2. "Pets must be on a leash or otherwise physically restrained." 3. "Human companions are responsible for cleaning up and depositing pet feces in trash receptacles. This protects park visitors, pets and wildlife from disease." 4. "Pets may not be tied to an object or left unattended." Although the practical application of similar rules at the GGNRA would translate to having leashed dogs in parking lots and sidewalks only, leaving the remainder of the park closed to dogs, perhaps there could be several specific fenced-in areas designated as dog runs, clearly marked and attractively situated. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 62140 Comment Id: 13537 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I support the model in place at Ocean Beach, where a portion of the beach tolerates off-leash access under voice control, and a sensitive ecological habitat is closed to off-leash dogs. This effectively separates families who don?t want to be near off-leash dogs from families which include off-leash, well-trained, carefully-supervised dogs. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60597 Comment Id: 13567 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: make sure the owners are in charge and control of their dogs - perhaps with some required certificate from a dog organization or a training program. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60820 Comment Id: 13582 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Electronic collars should be considered as an alternative to a leash as they are effective and promote further dog training. Pit Bulls and similar fighting breed dogs should not be allowed in the Parks at all, or if allowed, should always be muzzled. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 15385 Comment Id: 13647 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Sensitive habitats and restoration areas can rightly be made dog free zones. However our extensive cypress and eucalytpus forests are not harmed by off-leash dogs. Let's remember that the Presidio

GGNRA005424

Golf Course is one of the dominant land uses of the presidio. The golf course is a poor habitat and is likely enjoyed by fewer people than enjoy walking their dogs. We have accomodated other human pursuits at the expense of the ecosystem of the GGNRA. Organization: Commenter: andrew e scavullo Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15385 Comment Id: 13646 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: During fall and spring bird migration, beaches should be open only to on leash dogs. Public education about shorebirds and dogs should proceed along the same lines as the effective Quail campaign. Similarly, some areas coud be open for dogwalking only during certain hours or days, ie. off-leash from 7-10am etc, Organization: Commenter: andrew e scavullo Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15385 Comment Id: 13645 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: On Baker Beach, west of the Lobos Creek outflow should be an off-leash area. This area is seldom peopled and naturally contained. Back beach dune and scrub habitat is absent here Organization: Commenter: andrew e scavullo Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15385 Comment Id: 13644 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Commercial dogwalkers should pay to use the GGNRA. Excellent examples of such regulation of dogwalkers can be found in the East Bay Regional Park District system. Organization: Commenter: andrew e scavullo Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15220 Comment Id: 13635 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: However I would recommend that the committe considers implementing a set of rules which will help insure that responsible dog owners and their dogs can continue to enjoy these natural resources. THese rules would be designed to prohibit the actions of irresponsible dog owners that have damaged the reputation of all dog owners. Organization: Commenter: Tom Rodgers Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27550 Comment Id: 13606 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: To incourge owners/walkers to be responsible make some rules that ALL can agree upon. 1:Every one must have a devise to pick up after the dog on their person at ALL times.(Always carry an extra bag) 2: dog never out of sight or hearing. 3: Dogs never off trail. How about a obedence trial to certify owners control? Award a collar badge to passing animals. Dog walkers must WALK the dogs not stand in one place and throw things off trail to exersise them. this happens all the time. "Dog walkers have as many as 6 to 8 at a time and meet to talk and throw "toys" There should never be more than 6 in any gathering. Large sections of the park in J.K.Play. and S.West of park destroyed by this practice. How about an "Auxiliary Patrol" to help with enforsement. Train them,give them a cap with "POP Patrol" on it ("protect our privlege") along with copies of rules & extra bags. You can't do this alone and "awareness" must be

GGNRA005425

learned. A "leash-law" gets nothing done and just lights a fire that is hard to put out. Just revisit your minutes of the meeting in the park last year! Organization: Commenter: Andre' Armand Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15450 Comment Id: 13026 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Dogs have no business in any national park area whether it is in an urban environment or wilderness area. Dogs are a menace to a healthy ecology, natural areas, native plants, wildlife, and humans who don't like dogs. Keep dogs out of our parklands! No dogs. If we have to have those horrible dogs in our urban park lands can't you at least make the owners keep them on leashes? I have been attacked by off leash dogs at Crissy Field on more than one occasion. Organization: Commenter: Michelle D Brody Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27864 Comment Id: 13601 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: keep crissy field off leash-increase enforcement/ticketing of aggressive dogs and owners who do not pick up after their dog-or allow their dog to go into environmentally sensitive areas... Organization: Commenter: eric p anderson Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15305 Comment Id: 13596 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: In order to protect those who do not like dogs or who have dogs who are agressive and should be on leash, I suggest that off-leash areas be well posted announcing in pictographs and various languages that this is an off-leash area and people and their dogs enter at their own risk. Organization: Commenter: Selma Alderson Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 22376 Comment Id: 13695 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: All dogs belong on leashes except when they are in a designated fenced area set aside for them. Organization: Commenter: Connie Corkhill Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 28208 Comment Id: 13677 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I beleive that Milagra Ridge, Sweeney Ridge, Mori Point and the to be aquired land at Devils Slide should ALL be re-evaluated for off leash dog walking AND Mt. Biking, which were both part of the recreational uses established BEFORE the NPS aquired the land, just as was th case in the Presidio, Ocean Beach and Fort Funston. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 15418 Comment Id: 13675 Coder's Initials: MB

GGNRA005426

Comment Text: I would advocate for a designated area for dogs possibly with a fence and the leash law strictly enforced elsewhere Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 15180 Comment Id: 13673 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: One possibility would be to increase enforcement during the spring and fall migrations, when birds who are harassed by dogs are at much higher risk due to malnutrition and fatigue, from a lack of peace for feeding. Another would be to educate dog owners about the impact on the birds, many of whom are threatened species. Another important step is to enforce basic licenselaws in teh Bay Area, as the vast majority of dogs are unlicensed. Education about the impact of dogs on fragile plants and animals could be part of the licensing and adoption processes. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 28212 Comment Id: 13670 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Park policy should accomodate pet owners by providing fenced areas in a few city locations for off-leash romping that allow their pets to cavort and people to go at their own risk without infringing on the space of other park goers. Organization: Commenter: Claude Shade Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 28607 Comment Id: 13663 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I would like to record my views that no dogs should be allowed on or off leash in any of the GGNRA lands, including the Presidio. The only way to protect the park, the users and dogs themselves is to completely ban all dogs from the park. Organization: Commenter: Jan Blum Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27775 Comment Id: 13661 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: To suggest a law change to allow dogs to go leashless is simply an effort to recognize reality. There is nothing left to protect so why not? Dog owners have ignored leash laws for years because there is no enforcement. Unless you plan to put in restricted paths and enforce leash laws, write off whatever species were there before the dogs. Having said that, you should seriously consider withdrawing the NPS logo from the Bay Area dog runs. Let the American Kennel Club encourage the use of plastic bags as the last remaining courtesy. It seems to me that the NPS should have better things to do than pick up after the dogs of the Marina residents and others... Organization: Commenter: Ben G Schreiner Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15042 Comment Id: 13050 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Fort Funston, the West Pacific Trail, and Ocean Beach are a few obvious park lands that provide terrific shared use opportunities. Organization:

GGNRA005427

Commenter: kortney eichenberger Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 31178 Comment Id: 13658 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: HOW ABOUT THIS? Pick a picnic table in your park of choice, build a high fince around it, with a gate that closes, and a sign outside that says: PEOPLE ONLY * NO ANIMALS. Organization: Commenter: Dolores J Bishop Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60816 Comment Id: 13758 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I would like to refer you to the East Bay Regional Parks dog policy: http://www.ebparks.org/dropdown/dogs.htm#fun Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 27706 Comment Id: 13755 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Also, incombent on the dog owners should be held civil/criminaly responsible for the action of their dogs on persons/property!!!! Organization: none Commenter: Robert J Foley Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 22401 Comment Id: 13748 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I would hope that the Committee would permit dogs off leash between the hours of 8:00-10:00A.M. and 5:00-7:00P.M. My experience at Rodeo Beach, down slope of the dunes to the ocean, is that only a few odgs and their owners are present on the beach during these hours. No families seem to arrive until at least 10:30 in the morning and the dogs and their owners so enjoy the freedom to throw balls and let the dogs run in the water. Organization: Commenter: Margaret G Fawcett Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15322 Comment Id: 13743 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I would like to be able to take my standard poodle, Sophie to the beach and allow her off leash. She loves to run and is generally quite obedient. I understand that some beaches may have sensitive plant and or animal life and may not be appopriate. It would be nice if there were a few such beaches spreadout in the available areas. I believe there should be fines for folks who do not pick up their dogs poop; perhaps $25. Thank you. Organization: Commenter: Amy Knight Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 22470 Comment Id: 13722 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Pit bulls, dobermans, rottweilers, and other "strong-arm" breeds and mixes should be leashed and muzzled when not in restricted areas. Organization:

GGNRA005428

Commenter: Michele Wright Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 22470 Comment Id: 13720 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Nonetheless, as we understand that while we can give our pups good workouts and fun on leash and they too would relish romps without limits, some fenced off areas in parks or other designated arenas would be nice for owners willing to assume the hazards that go with having their pups run loose with other pups. Organization: Commenter: Michele Wright Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15313 Comment Id: 13718 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Set an area aside for dogs to be allowed unleasded but on voice control of caregiver--people who do not want to be around the dogs should have a area nearby where dogs are not allowed. Provide cans for dog waste-scoopers or bags would be great--altho people should be encouraged to bring bags.Un-neutered dogs-aggressive dogs should NOT be allowed.No exceptions-- Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 24155 Comment Id: 13716 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I personally like to see certain rules enforced and even penalties assessed against dog owners who act irresponsibly and allow their dogs to defecate everywhere creating an unhygenic environment for people, especially children. I believe certain parts of the GGNRA (beaches and parks) should be totally off limits to dogs. Organization: Commenter: M I Dajani Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 31206 Comment Id: 13698 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: A compromise might be to install large fenced dog parks. Organization: Commenter: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Cossins Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63532 Comment Id: 13480 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Many trails in the GGNRA, such as the Miwok and Oakwood Valley, are virtually deserted on weekdays between 9 and 5. This is the perfect time to take a dog for a run or energetic walk. So why not designate specific times when dogs can be walked off or on leash? Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 63547 Comment Id: 13478 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I would support increased fines for people who do not clean their dogs' droppings, and fines for people who allow their dogs to disrupt non-dog owners' enjoyment of the area. Organization:

GGNRA005429

Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 65767 Comment Id: 13457 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I advocate that the GGNRA create 2 or 3 enclosed dog parks to allow dogs to run off leash without being a danger to others. An additional suggestion might be the creation of separate small and large dog parks to prevent injury to the small dogs by the large ones. Organization: Commenter: Pam Aden Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63858 Comment Id: 13454 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I propose the following elements for an effective off-leash dog walking plan for the GGNRA: --Designation of substantial acreage in an attractive setting for off leash dogs --Posting of sunup to sundown hours for off-leash dog walking to accommodate people?s varied schedules --Establishment of rules requiring waste pickup and voice control --Designation, including fencing if necessary, of habitat preserves --Establishment of on-leash rules on busy walkways The current uses of Fort Funston and Chrissy Field illustrate that the balance between environmental goals, off-leash dog walking, and other activities can work very well: Large areas are fenced off for habitat restoration and the dog owners respect this. Other areas, large enough for a good walk, are open to off-leash dogs. Primarily dogs are leashed on the highly trafficked walkways at Chrissy Field where people jog or stroll with families. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 28299 Comment Id: 13831 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I strongly oppose putting a time limit for people walking their dogs. Organization: Commenter: Michelle A Jones Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 24104 Comment Id: 13821 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: 1) Don't allow addtional off-leash areas 2)Reduce the ones in existence 3) Confine off-leash dogs and owners to fenced areas 4) Enforce existing off-leash restrictions! Organization: Commenter: Joan Intrator Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 30578 Comment Id: 13805 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: We therefore support the same pet regulations employed by Yosemite National Park, which require as follows: 1. Dogs within the park are only allowed in developed areas, and on roads and paved bike paths. They are not allowed in any other areas; 2. Dogs must be on a leash or otherwise physically restrained; 3. For the courtesy of others, human companions are responsible for cleaning up and depositing dog feces in trash receptacles to protect pets and wildlife from disease; and 4. Dogs may not be tied to an object or left unattended. Organization: Commenter: Jeff Hoffman Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No

GGNRA005430

Correspondence Id: 29664 Comment Id: 13802 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: It seems as though the various beaches have distinct uses and maybe it makes sense to divide and conquer - have West Beach for families with children and the windsurfers and dogs on leash and then the beach past the estuary all the way to the beach protected for the birds for dog-walkers. Similarly the large expanse of Chrissy field could be for dogs off leash and the paths require leashes. Another thought is to have seasonal rules. Particularly in winter in the cold, fog and rain especially on weekdays and both early in the day and late in the day, there is absolutely no one out on the beach (all the beaches) except for dogwalkers. Just something to consider as you are looking at various options. Good luck. As both a parent of a young child and someone who favors off-leash dog-walking I do think a very amicable compromise can be worked out. I think it is also important to note that most dog-walkers are very diligent about picking up after their pets and having them leashed and behave appropriately without requiring onerous rules. Organization: Commenter: Frances S Hochschild Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 24118 Comment Id: 13798 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Please consider ALLOWING DOG OWNERS TO WALK THEIR PETS OFF-LEASH UNTIL 9:00AM. I have not seen families or childres at that hour. If there are any humans at 7:00am when I arrive, they are fishermen. I also make a point to pick up all the trash, cans, liqour bottles and fireworks left by the visitors to that beach. Dog walkers are all a very conscientious group. I have yet to see a dog fight on that beach. Organization: Commenter: Deborah A Hatch Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15231 Comment Id: 13797 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Instead of punishing all dogs for the viscious attacks of a few, make laws tougher on violent dogs. How about a $50,000 fine in ten days or your dog is euthanized for any dog that seriously injures and human beign unprovoked? Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60792 Comment Id: 13795 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am writing to request that NO DOGS be permitted within Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In developeing regulations for dog management at GGNRA I think it is time to stop the destruction dogs have caused over the years. The plant and animal life has suffered enough damage. Our National Parks were established for the preservation of natural surroundings and for the enjoyment of the public. For too long Fort Funston has been nothing more than a desolate open latrine for dogs. To quote a fellow bird watcher at Crissy Field, "you don't need a Bird Guide here, you need a Dog Guide." The last time I walked there I counted 53 dogs in a 35 minute period. All were off leash and many were chasing shore birds on the beach. The Golden Gate National Recreation Areas from Point Reyes to the south are not comfortable or safe for children, disabled, elderly, hikers, birders or people in general. Organization: Commenter: Janet Harrison Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27613 Comment Id: 13794 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Please allow Baker Beach to remain an off leash area between 7:00 am and 10:00 am daily.

GGNRA005431

Organization: Commenter: Stephen G Lyon Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15272 Comment Id: 13787 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I am a dog owner who feels that if we raise the fine for dog behavior that harms the natural surroundings it is less likely to happen and the money raised could go back to protecting the enviornment Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 26777 Comment Id: 13786 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Clear signage must be posted as to where dogs can be off leash and where they must be on leash or not allowed at all. ENFORCE the rules that are posted or they will mean nothing at all. It would be better to do nothing than to post rules that will be ignored by dog owners. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60562 Comment Id: 13782 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: If any changes are made to the GGNRA dog policy, I ask (beg) that Fort Funston remain a voice-control zone. I will happily accept leash rules anywhere but there; that one spot in all of the GGNRA should be reserved for dogs. Organization: Commenter: Donna L Long Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60816 Comment Id: 13759 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Basically, dogs are allowed off-leash but under strict voice control, and you will be asked to prove your voice control over your dog to the ranger. Dogs are not allowed off-leash in high use picnic areas, golf courses, etc.. or in ecologically sensitive areas. In addition, no dangerous dogs are allowed (in the past the policy stated "No Pit Bulls in any parks" a sentiment I must agree with). The EBRP district's dog policy is clear, fairly enforced, and most importantly it respects not only the park resources, wildlife, and other recreationists but the citizen dogs and their owners. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60820 Comment Id: 13579 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I approve of appropriate regulations in the National Park which limit, yet allow off-leash dog walking. I firmly believe that a model policy for this currently exists and works well in the East Bay Regional Parks off-leash dog walking policy ( http://www.ebparks.org/dropdown/dogs.htm) and I hope that a similar program is adopted here. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60581 Comment Id: 13559 Coder's Initials: MB

GGNRA005432

Comment Text: 1) Small areas set aside for people who do not like dogs where dogs are not allowed. 2) That there be no leash law, that owners are responsible for their dogs, and that they use their judgement based on the individual dog (for example, I often take care of a dog who is somewhat a scavenger for food, so if the beach is busy, I do not allow him off leash because I don't want him to bug people, while my big rot lab mix is always off leash because he doesn't ever bother anyone). 3) Owners buy a permit - like a drivers liscense that allows their dog to be an off leash animal - maybe this requires a training class of some sort. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 62881 Comment Id: 13532 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I feel that the National Park Service regulations regarding dogs should be the model for the GGNRA regulations. Established National Park Service regulations, such as the posted rules in Yosemite park would be an appropriate model for GGNRA. The relevant parts of "Pets in Yosemite" language are as follows: ?Pets are only allowed in developed areas, on roads and paved bike paths. They are not allowed on other trails or in wilderness areas." "Pets must be on a leash or otherwise physically restrained." "For the courtesy of others, human companions are responsible for cleaning up and depositing pet feces in trash receptacles. This protects pets and wildlife from disease." "Pets may not be tied to an object or left unattended." Although the practical application of similar rules at the GGRRA would translate to having leashed dogs in parking lots and sidewalks only and leaving the remainder of the park as no dogs, perhaps there could be several specific fenced in areas designated for dog runs, clearly marked and attractively situated. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 31156 Comment Id: 13654 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: PLEASE NO DOGS IN PUBLIC AREAS of the parks!! How to monitor this problem? Where to get money for this? Triple the price of dog licenses! Maybe a very expensive Park Service license for animals in the parks: enough to pay for more rangers/cops/trucks to haul them away. Organization: Commenter: Dolores J Bishop Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15065 Comment Id: 13057 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Make a permanent variance to allow off leash pet walking at Crissy Field and Fort Funston. Organization: Immunology, Inc. Commenter: Alan S Levin Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63248 Comment Id: 13494 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I propose that you look at the Seattle program COLA which is highly successful and has acres of areas for off leash dogs. I also would like to suggest time periods for off leash dogs. For example Ocean Beach dog time from sunrise until 9am and after 5pm or 6pm. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes

GGNRA005433

NOI1000 Committee Membership:general (Substantive) Correspondence Id: 63281 Comment Id: 13491 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: With regards to the composition of the Advisory committee- it is not just The make-up of that committee that is important. If it is just the composition that is addressed then I believe hindsight will help predict the outcome. A continued source of frustration for NPS and it?s visitorship. All representatives must look beyond their selves to see that until : A. Dogs are looked upon as more than a source of recreation. B. Dog Walkers are looked upon as more than a business interest. C. Off leash dogs are given access to sensitive areas based on demonstrated performance, and not some ideological pre dispostion. . D. We cease to see dogs and their need for offleash (as pointed out by today?s ethologists,) as secondary to other urban needs. E. We as a society see that a concern for offleash availability need not displace public safety or concern for wildlife & native habitat. That the situation will remain unresolved in the long term. Organization: Performance Offleash Commenter: Robin L Gipson Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65440 Comment Id: 13522 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: 1. The negotiated rulemaking process threatens to undermine the protection of natural resources within the GGNRA. We are concerned that the Committee?s decisions will be biased due to overrepresentation of professional dog-walking groups and supporters of off-leash dogs. Environmental policies governing the conservation of park resources?held in the national public trust?should be based on scientific evidence and existing federal regulations, rather than through consensus building between parties with largely local interests. 2. Given the long history of community discussions on this issue, it is imperative that all parties participating in the committee must be able to work constructively in groups. Organization: Golden Gate Audubon Society Commenter: Elizabeth Murdock Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27842 Comment Id: 13688 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I support the advisory committee concept and it seems like something to try to work things out. We must find a way to have both dog-free and dog-use areas AND to get parties to follow the rules once in place. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 27809 Comment Id: 13671 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: i just became aware of the fact that mr. laforce is proposed as the representative of the sierra club on the negotiated rulemaking process. mr. laforce hates dogs and has shown himself to be completely unreasonable when it comes to negoatiating on the issue of dogs. there are years of documented incidents available that support this statement. if you are really interested in appointing a committee that will come to a resolution about dogs in ggnra then surely mr. laforce is not someone who should sit on it. furthermore, mr. laforce is not representative of the sierra club anywhere. a quick phone call to the state leadership of the sierra club will convince you that he is an extremist on the topic of dogs. he is well known in the eastbay as such and he has no business going to san francisco and taking his personal agenda there! Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 73784 Comment Id: 13633 Coder's Initials: MB

GGNRA005434

Comment Text: After 14 years of walking dogs in Marin County, I feel that we as "dog walkers" shouldhave a spokesperson to represent us. We, as a group are much more responsive than the community at large in caring for our animals. Organization: Hugs-A-Plenty Commenter: Susan Daniels Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 14921 Comment Id: 13023 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: As a resident of Daly City and a dog walker at Fort Funston, I find it curious that neither San Mateo county nor the Peninsula Humane society are represented on the proposed Committee for "Negotiated Rulemaking for Dog Management at GGNRA." In order to be fair to all users of GGNRA, could you at least include a representative and alternate from the Peninsula Humane society since Marin and San Francisco counties' Humane societies are represented on the committee? Organization: Commenter: Wolfgang Manowski Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 14918 Comment Id: 13020 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Third, you have people on the committee who already have demonstrated that they will not act in good faith or with an open mind. An example is Brent Plater, who has made his position clear that off leash dog walking should never be allowed anywhere at anytime. Mr. Plater and others are not fit or qualified to act as part of this process, a process I submit is illegal in light of the continued existence of the 1979 Pet Policy. Organization: Commenter: Stephen S Sayad Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15050 Comment Id: 13011 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Please consider adding representation for adult, non-dog-owning recreational users of San Francisco Parks. The current "visitor" representatives, I think, don't fully represent the diverse interests of park visitors.There should be representation for average adult users of the park who are non-dog owners. That is, the people who show up at the park regularly to run, throw a frisbee, or have a picnic with humans instead of dogs. It should also include average non-dog owners who use parks that are currently off leash. Organization: Commenter: Chris Hoofnagle Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 61099 Comment Id: 13586 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Underrepresentation As addressed in my application for membership on the committee, those who do not want dogs in the GGNRA are completely unrepresented. However, even those who don't want dogs off-leash in the GGNRA are underrepresented, because we are a large majority of Bay Area residents, as shown by a telephone poll conducted by your own agency [58% of Bay Area residents opposed off-leash dogs in the GGNRA after being read its mission statement; only 36% approved of off-leash dogs after hearing it. (NPS-contracted telephone survey in conjunction with public comment on potential management options for the GGNRA, (2002),p.7)] However, there are no representatives who are proposed to be on the committee and who explicityly oppose off-leash dogs in the entire GGNRA as the large majority of the pbulic does. (As discussed above, the environmental groups are not necessarily committed to removing off-leash dogs from the entire GGNRA.) As opposition to off-leash dogs in the entire GGNRA is the view held by the large majority of people in the Bay Area, the majority of the committee should be comprised of representatives who explicitly advocate this view. The proposed committee currently contains no one who does. Additionally, there are no representatives of those who

GGNRA005435

have spent many hours volunteering much hard work to restore native plants in the GGNRA. This work is put in jeopardy or destroyed by off-leash dogs, so these people should have a major voice on the committee. Organization: Commenter: Jeff Hoffman Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 61099 Comment Id: 13585 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Overrepresentation There are too many representatives of those who are advocating off-leash use in the GGNRA. Out of 20 proposed slots on the committee, six are proposed to be given to representatives of groups that will advocate for the GGNRA to be open to off-leash dogs, and six are proposed to be given to environmental groups, which will presumably advocate that dogs be restrained by leashes while in the GGNRA. However, most, if not all, of the environmental groups will undoubtedly advocate for some off-leash areas. As dog owners are a small minority of people in the Bay Area, those who advocate that he GGNRA should either be completely or mostly available for off-leash dog walking should not have so many representatives on the committee. Three representatives for off-leash dog walking would be more than adequate to accurately represent this group. Organization: Commenter: Jeff Hoffman Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 62644 Comment Id: 13565 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: 4) Too many groups proposed for the Committee are advocates for off-leash use in the GGNRA. (I count seven out of 20 proposed slots on the committee as off-leash advocates). Dog walkers represent less than 10% of GGNRA stakeholders and should be held to 2 seats. 5) I challenge the seating of Martha Walters of the Crissy Field Dog Group on the Committee as wholly inappropriate. I knew her from the Restoration Advisory Board and know her to lack the social and verbal skills needed to negotiate in good faith with conflicting interests in a communal process. 6) I am disappointed not to see any representatives from the Hispanic or Asian communities. About 40% of San Francisco school childresn ae Asian and another 40% Hispanic and they need to have a voice in the negotiated rulemaking - they are GGNRA's biggest stakeholders. 7)There needs to be representativeto speak for those of us who do want any dogs in the GGNRA. I suspect that we are a majority of the users. also, GGNRA is already banning dogs in several areas and I believe that general NPS policy is no pets in national parks. That point of view needs a voice on the Committee. Thank you for listening to my concerns. I hope that you will seriously consider my proposed changes on the Committee. Only by fiarly representing those of us who use the GGNRA can the committee come to a fair decision that we will all be able to live with in the years ahead. Organization: Commenter: Arlene Gemmill Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 62644 Comment Id: 13564 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: 1) The interests of the commercial dog walking do not belong on the Committee. You, the NPS, have a regulation prohibiting commercial activities within the National Park System. Unless and until the GGNRA sets up a permitting system for pro dog walkers, and begins enforcing the prohibition, the public interest is being injured by commercial dog walking in the GGNRA. 2) The Committee needs representation from those of us who have spent many thousands of hurs volunteering much hard work t habitat restoration in the GGNRA. I am one of the hundreds of people who have invested sweat equity in Crissy Field. We volunteers deserve a major voice on the committee as we have the biggest stake in the park's welfare. (I understand that the Dunes Ecological Restoration Team (DERT) is applying for a seat on the Committee) 3) The Committee needs representatives from the disabled population, particularly from Guide Dogs for the Blind, who may experience special problems in enjoying the GGNRA and to ensure the NPS is complaint with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

GGNRA005436

Organization: Commenter: Arlene Gemmill Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 62186 Comment Id: 13550 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am writing to recommend the group, Environmental Quality for Urban Parks (EQUP), be admitted to the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I believe that this Committee needs balance and EQUP is well suited to provide it. This group represents casual park users and children/parents. These park users are not as organized as the off-leash dog advocates, partly because most people have an expectation that other park users will respect their choice of use in the park. Organization: Commenter: Scott Hall Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 64354 Comment Id: 13547 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Our non-profit group, representing more than 250 members, seeks a final and equitable resolution to the dog management issue based on the long history of off-leash dog walking in the GGNRA. Crissy Field Dog Group will continue to educate the public, to encourage responsible shared park access, and to keep our beaches clean. We look forward in working together with all of the committee stakeholders in a cooperative manner and seek to resolve all conflicts in a practical way. We thank you for including CFDG in this important and historic effort. Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group Commenter: Martha Walters Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 62700 Comment Id: 13534 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I believe forming a committee to deal with Dogs and park-land usage to be a waste of already valuable resources. Marin parklands are already much stricter than those in nearly all other parks around the bay-area, with regard to where and how dogs are managed. If a committee is to be formed, I think a wiser goal would be to broaden the scope and aim to balance the use of parklands between its main user groups (hikers, bikers, equestrians). Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 15050 Comment Id: 13808 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: In short, there should be someone on this committee who represents adult, non-dog owner users of the parks. Organization: Commenter: Chris Hoofnagle Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 16538 Comment Id: 13638 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Please try to include a disabled/limited mobility dog owner or advocate on this panel. Organization: University of California Berkeley Commenter: Marilyn Saarni Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No

GGNRA005437

Correspondence Id: 60879 Comment Id: 13717 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: The City of Sausalito respectfully requests that a representative appointed by the Sausalito City Council be added to the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee Organization: City Manager, City of Sausalito Commenter: Dana H Whitson Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60900 Comment Id: 13705 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Lastly, I must comment upon the inclusion of one other member to this Committee. That would be Paul Jones. Mr. Jones has a mindset that is consistent with that of CBD, GGAS, and Coleman Advocates. He does not desire to see off-leash dog-walking anywhere in the GGNRA. In Pacifica, he opposed an off-leash area on Sharp Park Beach despite the fact that there were no threatened or endangered species present, and no habitat that would ever support any. (This is because the beach was modified by the construction of a berm to block flooding of the adjacent golf course.) When asked if he would alternatively support an off-leash dog park in an inland park area that was landfill and emitted methane gas so there would be no use of this park for children, he refused. When the City approved an off-leash area at Sharp Park Beach, he threatened to sue the City. I see no indication of his willingness to engage in meaningful negotiation or problem solving in this process Organization: Commenter: Suzanne Valente Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60900 Comment Id: 13703 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I also wish to address some of the entities who are listed as planned Committee Members. The litigation which resulted in the court?s decision to declare the 1979 Pet Policy as the controlling dog management policy in the GGNRA involved several of these entities which had previously been nominated for committee membership (and are listed here as planned members). Actually, I should say that three of these entities chose to insert themselves into the litigation process by filing an Amici Curiae Brief. These three organizations were: the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD spearheaded this effort and offered their counsel for the brief), the Golden Gate Audubon Society (GGAS), and Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth. Their position as stated on page one of the brief, lines 20-21 was, ??the GGNRA?s regulations allowing dogs in most of the park, so long as they are properly leashed, should be upheld.? Their stated position was that dogs should not be allowed off-leash anywhere in the GGNRA. Clearly, this is in direct opposition to the stated purpose of this Committee: to establish areas of the park that could be designated for off-leash walking areas. How could their participation ever allow for consensus? Organization: Commenter: Suzanne Valente Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60900 Comment Id: 13702 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Next, I want to address the omission of the 1979 Pet Policy (and the erroneous inclusion of the NPS Management Policies 2001) as one of the legal sideboards within which recommendations on dog management in the GGNRA must be formed. The courts have determined that the 1979 Pet Policy is currently the controlling dog management policy in the GGNRA. As such, it is required to be the starting point for negotiations in the rule-making process. This is in conflict with the premise for Negotiated Rulemaking which states that in 2001 the GGNRA determined that the 1979 Pet Policy was null and void. And, in fact, the Situation Assessment Report for the Proposed Negotiated Rulemaking contemplates that the 1979 Pet Policy may NOT be null and void. On page 18 it states specifically, ?These lawsuits could prove to have only minor substantive impact on a committee?s work, or could have a significant effect on rulemaking by changing the relevant legal framework for decision making?. Clearly, the latter is the case. The record should be revised to include the 1979 Pet Policy as one of the legal sideboards upon which the recommendations must be based. This change must be made before Rulemaking can begin. Additionally,

GGNRA005438

NPS Management Policies 2001 and Existing park management plans should be deleted from the list of legal sideboards to be considered in the Rulemaking process as the court has found them to be null and void. Organization: Commenter: Suzanne Valente Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15175 Comment Id: 13065 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: The rule-making process must inlcude a prominent place for advocates and scientists who care about protecting natural resources, such as birds and plants. In other words, there must be seats for these creatures at the table. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 15166 Comment Id: 13063 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: While I do not know anyone on the committee I would request the presence of members who favor areas for dogs to be off leash on this committee. Many breeds need this freedom to be properly excercised not to mention the natural enjoyment and pleasure this type of recreation offers. Organization: None Commenter: Ruth M Reynolds Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15451 Comment Id: 13054 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I would request that you only allow members who have actual experience in the areas where you will establish rules. Organization: Commenter: Barbara Fugate Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60903 Comment Id: 13591 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: We are glad that NPS has elected to establish a negotiated rulemaking process to help develop a consensus solution for dog management in the GGNRA. We are concerned, though, that in the Notice of Intent, under "The interests of local governments will be represented by ..." the Muir Beach Community Services District's name does not appear, nor, so far as we know, was there any attempt to contact us. Muir Beach is one of the few locations with a historic practice of off-leash dog walking, making it a key candidate for possible continued off-leash dog walking. The beach at Muir Beach is within our District boundaries (see the attached official map), and at a general election voters granted to the District the power to manage and regulate public recreation within the District. While the beach is within the GGNRA and federally owned, it is also within the boundaries of the Muir Beach Community Services District, making the District a likely local government to be part of the committee. We recently learned about the creation of this new committee and have notified our community members to learn who may be interested in representing the District views if it were to be a member of this committee. Time is obviously short, so we wanted to alert you that we may be requesting membership soon before the deadline. In the future, we would appreciate it if you would take into account the District's responsibilities regarding public recreation when needing representation from local governments. Organization: Commenter: Leighton Hills Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No

GGNRA005439

Correspondence Id: 61099 Comment Id: 13587 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Good Faith The third requirement for participation on the committee is that all members "participate in good faith in the development of a proposed rule." It is also incumbent upon the GGNRA to agree to enforce whatever regulations or rules come out of this process. Your agency has totally failed to enforce its own leash laws, citing lack of resources to do so. However, as a judge would tell you, lack of resources is not an excuse for failing to adhere to federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or the Organic Act. Your main job as part of the National Park Service is to protectthe resources within the GGNRA. As such you should be giving the highest priority to the allocation of resources toward that goal, including ensuring that all dogs within GGNRA are leashed if the law so requires. No one will have any faith in, or give any credibility to, the proposed committee if the GGNRA does not commit to enforcing whatever rules emerge from this process. As you expect others to participate in good faith, so must you! Conclusion Please make by proposed changes to the committee. Only by fairly representing those of us who live in the Bay Area and volunteer in the GGNRA will the committee come to a fair decision. A decision made by a committee that is not representative of Bay Area residents and park volunteers is certain to be challenged, and that committee is bound to fail. Finally, the GGNRA must firmly commit to enforcing whatever rules are decided upon by this committee in order for this committee to have any credibility. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Organization: Commenter: Jeff Hoffman Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63447 Comment Id: 13483 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I would point out, for the record that there are no off-leash dog-walking advocates proposed for this Committee that would argue there should be off-leash dog-walking in all of the GGNRA. Consider that this would be the flip side of the position CBD, GGAS, Coleman Advocates and Paul Jones have taken. Clearly their inclusion is not appropriate. There are, however, still on the Committee organizations who can effectively advocate for the interests of plants and wildlife (CNPS, the Sierra Club, and the Marine Mammal Center) and children (the City of San Francisco). Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 63478 Comment Id: 13481 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I hope for common sense and compromise to lead you in your meetings towards an agreement to give dogs their off-lease access that my dog has enjoyed for her entire life. Part of the appeal of dog ownership in San Francisco was due to the access to the GGNRA to off-leash use as established by San Francisco. Co-existance is necessary in a large urban environment and what appears to be lacking in many of the reports I read about these negotiations is about co-existence needs being addressed. Most of the information appears directed at restrictions and limits, not about how to safely allow all of us to make use of the park system. We all have the same desire at the end of the day ... to live in the outdoors in the Bay Area as responsible residents for all of the living beings here. Please limit each area represented on your panel - give everyone a bit of what they each need. No one should dominate these discussions or only look at winning their argument. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 63636 Comment Id: 13473 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am concerned that issues relating specifically to Fort Mason may be left off of the table, or otherwise negotiated away by other representatives whose concerns run toward other parks and beaches operated by the GGNRA. The dog owners who frequent Fort Mason generally come from the Russian Hill and Cow Hollow neighborhoods of San Francisco, and would not be represented by those people

GGNRA005440

representing Ocean Beach, Crissy Field, Pacifica, the Presidio or Fort Funston. Separately, I would encourage the Secretary, or her representatives, to require as a condition of participation in this process, a commitment by each member to try and find a negotiated solution. I am somewhat concerned by the presence of representatives (e.g., David Robinson) whose past activities and statements lead me to believe they would resist any attempts at compromise and negotiation. Participation by someone with these views would taint the whole process by encouraging everyone to maintain hardline views or at least to take the most extreme views possible in order to leave the maximum amount of negotiating room available. As a remedy for that possibility, an acknowledgement (preferably in writing) by each member as a precondition to membership that a negotiated solution is the goal, and that each person will endeavor to take into account each other person's viewpoint and concerns would hopefully make it harder for someone to pursue these tactics. Organization: Maya Legal Consulting Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 63698 Comment Id: 13470 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: The proposed committee participants appear to represent the appropriate stakeholders on this issue. Organization: The Marin Humane Society Commenter: Captain Cindy S Machado Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63873 Comment Id: 13451 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: The proposal to include the CA Native Plant Society on the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee as presented in the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2005 is supported wholeheartedly by the members of the local San Francisco (Yerba Buena) Chapter of the Native Plant Society. Our mission to increase understanding of California?s native flora and preserve it?s rich natural heritage for future generations is critical for the discussion of an off-leash dog policy for the GGNRA. In reviewing the list of the other proposed organizations for the Committee, it seems as if only City/State-wide environmental organizations with local chapters were chosen for representation. GGNRA-specific groups, especially those active in habitat restoration, trail construction and other volunteer activities throughout the park do not currently have representation on this very important topic. As a group that supports habitat restoration throughout the City, we feel it is imperative for the Committee to include individuals to represent the interests of volunteer stewardship within the park as they are directly impacted by these future policies. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 63879 Comment Id: 13449 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I enthusiastically support the additional nomination of a representative of another interest group: I would ask you to consider inclusion of representatives of one or more of the smaller, community-based organizations that are working to enhance our experiences in local parks, natural areas and the GGNRA. These groups are volunteers giving of their time to restore trailheads, restore habitat, and provide natural history and environmental education. Decisions make by the negotiated rulemaking committee would benefit from the thoughtful input of these already involved and knowledgeable participants. Decisions made by the negotiated rulemaking committee for the GGNRA definitely will impact the way in which these interested volunteers as well as the general public are able to use the GGNRA and its reources. Please invite and include one or more representative from these groups. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph:

GGNRA005441

Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 63907 Comment Id: 13447 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Looking at the Federal Register list of nominees for the negotiated rule making comittee, I was sad to see that there was no representation from any of the many GGNRA volunteer groups. Working with the Habitat Restoration Team, I know that many volunteers are concerned about this issue and would like their voices to be heard on the matter as well. It's great to have some major environmental organizations representing the interest of the Park and it's conservation, but I feel that people that have contributed to the stewardship of the Park week after week and year after year have insight and knowlwdge that would be of great value to the committee. It also appears to me that the dog walkers have more representation than the environmental groups. I would like to see a greater balance of representation from both sides so that a fair decision can be made. Organization: GGNPC Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 65574 Comment Id: 13440 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Groups to Exclude from the Committee On the other hand, I oppose the inclusion of commercial dog walking businesses on this committee and urge that this membership be rescinded. While these commercial businesses have an interest in this issue (as do tour groups, fitness boot camps, bicycling rental shops and other commercial ventures), they have no role in drafting the rules. These are private businesses exploiting a public national park for personal gain. They pay no fees, are not regulated, and contribute nothing to the maintenance of the park from which they make their profit. Their inclusion on this committee is akin to industry drafting pollution laws that govern their own operations and is a classic example of the proverbial "foxes guarding the hen house." Similarly, I question the inclusion of both the San Francisco SPCA and Marin Humane Society as visitor user groups. While both are worthy organizations, it would appear that they are representing the interest of dog owners who are more appropriately represented by the six private citizen groups on the committee. Unless these organizations represent the interests of pets other than dogs, their inclusion is an unnecessary duplication. There are other true visitor user groups representing a wider range of park users that should be included on this committee. Organization: Commenter: Sharon Tsiu Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65574 Comment Id: 13439 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Groups to Include in the Committee In the proposed membership of the committee, the National Park Service (NPS) has missed an opportunity for broader outreach to communities chronically underrepresented in the GGNRA. The lack of representatives from groups representing education, the disabled and communities of color is a concern. All of these user groups will be impacted by this issue in varying degrees. If vast areas of the GGNRA are opened to off-leash dog walking, educational opportunities in this urban national park would be restricted or curtailed, negatively affecting the long-term public good. The disabled, who already have few opportunities to experience nature close to their homes, would have even fewer safe areas to visit. Individuals from communities of color who have not visited the GGNRA in the past will not be attracted by making the park more ordinary. Still another large and important group lacks representation on the committee as proposed. There are thousands of individuals who choose to volunteer their time each year to the GGNRA. They are our docents, program volunteers, wildlife monitors, habitat restoration volunteers, office workers, research volunteers, plant nursery volunteers and more. They give their time to the park and expect nothing in return, yet the work they do and the quality of their park experience will be greatly impacted by the recommendations of this committee. The perspective and interests of this unique group are best understood and represented by the volunteers themselves. I urge the NPS to include representatives from any or all of these groups on the committee. I know specifically of a representative of the park volunteers, John Helding, who is applying to serve on this committee. I wholeheartedly support his nomination.

GGNRA005442

Organization: Commenter: Sharon Tsiu Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65547 Comment Id: 13437 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: You don't say where this committee is from, And if people from out of our area are part of this committee what do they know about love of the Ocean, And walking with your Best Friend, without leash, Your dog just wants to be with me, And I want to be with him. Organization: Commenter: Eugene Pointer Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27507 Comment Id: 13407 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: The proposed committee seems heavily weighted with dog advocates and other narrow interests. It isn't just seniors or people with children or horses who may have concerns about dog management. Who is representing the average park users on this committee? I would hate to see the negotiated rulemaking occur without the largest group represented, that is, the thousands of users who don't fit one of these groups and so have not organized. I like dogs but, as a runner and a hiker prefer not to subject myself to unnerving approaches by unknown and often poorly trained dogs. Allowing off-leash use in an area effectively denies access to that area to anyone who is uncomfortable with unleashed dogs. Please do whatever is necessary to ensure this view is also reflected in the negotiations, perhaps through representatives from local running or hiking clubs or by bringing unaffiliated citizens onto the committee. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 62579 Comment Id: 13830 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I would like to suggest that someone from the disabled communities groups or services be included. Organization: Commenter: Donna Francesconi Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15010 Comment Id: 13825 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: While I think that the idea of creating a committee to oversee the negotiation of the establishment of guidlines regarding off-leash recreation for dogs, I fear that you'll get nowhere with the enormity of the committee itsself. I see no way that 20+ people are going to be able to come to consensus. Organization: Commenter: Eve L Meelan Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 28937 Comment Id: 13815 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: That being said, it is concerning to know that three groups that may be represented on the committee appear to be joining the committee with their opinions already formed: Coleman Advocates, Center for Biological Diversity and GG Audubon Society. It is imperative that all who join the committee come to the table with an open mind, the willingness to listen to one another, and the willingness to negotiate the best solution for all. If that openness is absent at the start, people/organizations should not be allowed on the committee. Organization:

GGNRA005443

Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60904 Comment Id: 13790 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Over the years the NPS has worked to protect the natural environment and the native species, while at the same time accommodating the many interests of the non-native humans that live next to it. These interests include horseback riding and bicycling, and dog walking both on and off leash. Over time the latter activity has been ?squeezed out? without public discussion. As the Federal Court decided, it is time for all interested parties to discuss how humans with dogs use the park and when and where. To succeed with this charge, the City of Sausalito needs to be included on the Committee. Organization: Commenter: Sonja Hanson Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60904 Comment Id: 13788 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I notice that the list of committee members includes: '6. The interests of local government will be represented by: a. City of San Francisco, b. Former member of the GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission, c. Presidio Trust. The City of Sausalito is not included. I would argue there is more GGNRA acreage surrounding Sausalito than there is surrounding San Francisco. If Sausalito is not included, the committee clearly does not 'represent all interests' that will be affected by the rules it is in charge of making. At this point membership, emphasis, and discussion of on-leash and off-leash areas all appear to be revolving around GGNRA land in San Francisco. There are some committee members from Marin: they are representing environmental organizations, and visitor user groups (i.e. special interest groups like equestrians). There are no members from Marin in the local government section, nor in the visitors advocating off-leash section; both rather blatant omissions (I think). Organization: Commenter: Sonja Hanson Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60797 Comment Id: 13780 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: It is clear to me that dog-walking issues in the GGNRA have thus far surrendered to the loudest voices while systematically ignoring well-documented environmental and public safety mandates. Also ignored are the 58% of your survey respondents who are opposed to off-leash dogs in the GGNRA. Your proposed Committee makeup again demonstrates that pro-dog voices have been able to obtain disproportionate representation. Seven of the proposed committee members embrace a pre-announced and unabashed "pro-dog" bias leaving the eclectic mix of "environmental organizations" to balance our the agenda, even though many of them are known to placate their dog owning membership. You have no participants that would vigorously resist the presence of dogs, which is the adapted policy of some other Bay Area park facilities. The fact that Bay Area residents with inadequate exercise facilities have purchased dogs does not mean that publically held resources and the NPS is responsible for their welfare. In order to genuinely address the contentious problem you will have to seek out and obtain committee members that are able to openly resist any presence of dogs in the GGNRA. You have ignored people that would like to have a place to sit quietly unmolested by dogs and simply observe nature! Silencing this side of the issue is tantamount to silencing the higher and time worthy goals of your own mission statement. Organization: Commenter: M. Bruce Grosjean Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60797 Comment Id: 13779 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I would like to make several comments and observations. I am a long time San Francisco resident and involved myself in the ANPR process with the hope that it would lead to dog enforcement

GGNRA005444

regulations that are consistent with the GGNRA mission statement, which emphasizes preservation of natural resources. The fact that we are still bogged down in process with no resolution in site is extremely discouraging. Organization: Commenter: M. Bruce Grosjean Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27486 Comment Id: 13776 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: The inclusion of Paul Jones, Brent Plater/CBD, GGAS and Coleman Advocates will ensure a deadlock in the process, returning the final decision making back to the GGNRA, in which case, the interests of the pro dog community would not be served. Organization: Commenter: Stephen R Golub Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27486 Comment Id: 13775 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: The appointment to the committee of Mr. Jones, as a former member of the GGNRA Citizens Advisory Committee and an employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, certainly would bring into question whether he would have undue influence in the process. The fact that the notice itself is posted on a U.S. EPA web site, i.e., The Federal Register Environmental Documents, can only lead one to conclude that there is an inherent professional conflict of interest. Is he representing the NPS/GGNRA , the U.S. EPA, environmental concerns, or all of the above? I maintain that it was improper to include Mr. Jones on the GGNRA Citizens Advisory Committee in the first place. Let?s not further compound our error! The inclusion of Mr. Jones on the Committee seriously compromises the entire Negotiated Rulemaking process. Additionally, as a Pacifica resident, I have personal acquaintance with Paul Jones, and I have observed and attempted to work with him in our hometown of Pacifica. Mr. Jones has a mindset that is consistent with that of CBD, GGAS, and Coleman Advocates. He does not desire to see off-leash dog-walking anywhere in the GGNRA. In Pacifica, he opposed an off-leash area on Sharp Park Beach despite the fact that there were no threatened or endangered species present, and no habitat that would ever support any. When I asked if he would alternatively support an off-leash dog park in an inland park area that was landfill and emitted methane gas so there would be no use of this park for children, he refused. In fact, he responded, ?That?s your problem, not mine.? When the City approved an off-leash area at Sharp Park Beach, he threatened to sue the City. I see no indication of his willingness to engage in meaningful negotiation or problem solving in this process. Organization: Commenter: Stephen R Golub Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27486 Comment Id: 13774 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: There are 9 anti dog groups listed as participants in the Negotiated Rulemaking process. The problem is, by and large, the anti dog groups are 100% against any off leash in the GGNRA. The premise for NR demands that the participants are willing to compromise in order to gain consensus. The dog advocacy reps enter the NR already in a compromise position, i.e., with the 1979 Pet Policy theoretically as baseline. Historians remind us that the '79 PP was the product of a diverse group of stakeholders including environmental orgs, e.g., Audubon. The 1979 Pet Policy, by its very existence, represents a compromise by dog advocates of significant proportions. The opponents to off-leash in the GGNRA demand that 0% of the GGNRA be allocated for off-leash. They are on record stating such (please reference Brent Plater's/Center for Biological Diversity?s Amicus Brief in recent Motion to Dismiss Tickets, U.S.A./GGNRA vs. Barley, Kieselhorst and Sayad; case no. CR04-00408 WHA - note that CBD, Coleman Advocates and Golden Gate Audubon were parties to the brief). The '79 PP provides for less than 1% of the GGNRA for off-leash recreation. A demand of 100% of the GGNRA for off-leash by the off-leash proponents would be comparable to the non compromising position of the opponents to off-leash. The

GGNRA005445

aforementioned groups, i.e., CBD, Coleman Advocates and GGAS should be excluded from participation in this process. Organization: Commenter: Stephen R Golub Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 26906 Comment Id: 13772 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: This is an excellent hopeful step towards reviewing the competing interests for our precious public lands. It is an opportunity to assure equity in park use rules. It is a forum that could provide a model for negotiotated rule making in other areas of conflicting public interests. Once again, I'm proud of the greater SF Bay area communities and their spirit of civic participation. I'm pleased with the NPS for providing the forum; and for being responsive to their local, natural constituencies. One observation in reading the list of committee participants: are there any "public" citizens or ombudsmen slots allocated for this process? It seems there should be someone without any particular agenda; but simple equity and enlightened stewardship. Organization: Commenter: marion getz Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60902 Comment Id: 13769 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: We hope to see the diverse interests of seniors and persons with disabilities represented on this committee. Some of this constituency walk dogs on leash, some run their dogs off-leash, and some (without dogs) simply wish to enjoy the amenities of GGNRA through walking and hiking and wish a safe and accessible passage throughout the park. Organization: Senior Action Network Commenter: Bruce L Livingston Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27476 Comment Id: 13761 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: The make-up of your proposed advisory committee is so biased in favor of dogs as to be illegal, and certainly unethical. You have nine people representing dog walking groups, dog walkers, or humane societies. You have one person representing children, and one representing the elderly. How about nine representing each of these groups, and another nine representing people who are just afraid of big dogs and pit bulls running up to them, or defecating in their path? Organization: Commenter: Cary Fulbright Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27554 Comment Id: 13734 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I applaud the formation of the Advisory Committee. However, I do not believe there is adequate representation from the two most important and vulnerable parties involved ? the elderly and young children. Out of 22 members, only two members are advocating solely for the elderly and young children. Please reconsider and have these most important groups given more representation. Organization: Commenter: Kevin Kendrick Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15474 Comment Id: 13725 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am writing to say I am totally in favor of special regulations for dog management at

GGNRA005446

GGNRA. Organization: Commenter: Sharon Dannemiller Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15027 Comment Id: 13048 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Off leash dog advocates need to be represented proportionally to their numbers. Contrary to their own beliefs, they are in fact a minority of the people who use the beach. However, the consequences of their actions and disregard for both the rules and rights of others has had far reaching impact on all of us. Attempts to point this out have thus far met with hostility. The committee is a good approach. I think there are significant opportunities for a mutually acceptable solution to this problem. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 15004 Comment Id: 13045 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I suggest that among the pro-dog representatives of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee there should be at least one member who owns a "water dog," that is, a dog with the special need to exercise in the ocean and bay waters of the GGNRA. The water dog breeds, including the retrievers and water rescue dogs, require water exercise as a result of centuries of breeding. The proximity of the GGNRA to the ocean and bay together with the number of water dogs in the San Francisco Bay Area make this issue especially acute. In the event such a representative is not found, I would be willing to service on the committee in that capacity. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 62966 Comment Id: 13530 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I also object to the presence among the proposed committee members of several groups and individuals who by their previous public statements in the press and at public meetings have declared themselves opposed to all off-leash dog activity. Specifically, I name Coleman Advocates for Children, The Northern California Audubon Society, and the Center for Biologic Diversity. I refer to the final Situation Assessment Report of September 14, 2004: "Prospective members of the Committee must commit to making a good-faith effort to reach consensus while advocating for the interests of the organization or viewpoints they are chosen to represent. The Assessment Team recommends that all participants make an explicit commitment to discussing constructively the possibility of off-leash dog walking in GGNRA regardless of individual views about whether that use is either legal or appropriate as part of their decision to participate on a Committee." These organizations and Brent Plater, of the Center for Biologic Diversity,in particular, consistently and repeatedly expressed views that indicate it is impossible for them to comply with that recommendation. I strongly urge they be removed from this Committee. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 65440 Comment Id: 13520 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: While Golden Gate Audubon respects the Park Service?s desire to arrive at a stakeholder consensus regarding the presence of dogs in the GGNRA, we wish to frame our comments by pointing to the Park Service?s overriding responsibility to protect the original values of the park that Congress sought to protect when it established the GGNRA roughly 30 years ago. Current National Park Service regulations limit the areas where pets may be possessed in national parks and prohibit failing to ?crate, cage, restrain on a leash?a pet at all times.? (36 CFR 2.15) In addition, the Park Service has other legal obligations (e.g.,

GGNRA005447

ESA obligations) to protect the wildlife in the park, which do not seem to be in keeping with the establishment of off-leash dog activity within the GGNRA. Organization: Golden Gate Audubon Society Commenter: Elizabeth Murdock Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65421 Comment Id: 13504 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Representation must be strong and considerable from those who speak for the hundreds of thousands of families, children, neighbors, and seniors who will be inhibited and will not use GGNRA if owners are allowed to take the leashes off their dogs. Many parks throughout the nation and the world ban dogs in parks for just these reasons. That point of view needs a voice on the Committee. Allowing dog owners to take off the leashes would just keep the vast majority of people away from GGNRA. Surely this is not what you want! Only by fairly representing those would like to feel comfortable using the GGNRA such as families, children, neighbors, and seniors can the committee come to a fair decision. A decision must be made that will look after the interests of the average park user, the common citizen, the person for whom the park was intended in the first place. It is your responsibility to stand up for the common citizen, and not to cave into the selfish and lawless actions of the irresponsible and militant dog owners. Please realize that Crissy Field, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and all of the GGNRA need to be preserved and open to everyone, for now and for the future. Please do not let the scare tactics of militant groups and local politics of San Francisco scare you into submission. Organization: Commenter: Daryl Browne Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65421 Comment Id: 13503 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: The Committee needs representation from those of us who have spent many thousands of hours volunteering much hard work to habitat restoration in the GGNRA. Individually and with the Girl Scouts, I am one of the hundreds of people who have invested many hours in Crissy Field and other parks throughout the area. Volunteer organizations like the Dunes Ecological Restoration Team and EQUP deserve seats. Commercial dog walking ruins the park and the park experience for the thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands of the public who would like to enjoy the GGNRA without being hounded by commercial dog walkers. The interests of the commercial dog walking do not belong on the Committee. Advocates for off-leash use in the GGNRA are a militant and thoughtless group who militantly flout the law all over the city, rudely and irresponsibly swear at and threaten responsible citizens. They inhibit the rest of the populace from comfortably using parks, including GGNRA. These irresponsible dog owners allow their dogs to defecate and urinate on parkland, and clearly consider GGNRA and other parkland to be their dog toilet. Representation from these irresponsible individuals should be minimized on the Committee. Their lawlessness and irresponsibility should not be rewarded. Organization: Commenter: Daryl Browne Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65432 Comment Id: 13512 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Decisions for who will be included on the committee to regulate dogs in the GGNRA should be made by someone familiar with the dynamics and players of dog issues instead of letting an outside consultant do it. They must understand that most dog groups are aggressive and use intimidation to get what they want at any cost to the rest of us. Environmental Quality for Urban Parks is the only group we have found in San Fran. that speaks for my family as regular citizens in park issues while not claiming to be anything more than park advocates or make a business off of parks. We volunteer in our local park and natural area, want to be a part of making our neighborhood a great place to live and then to go on with our busy lives. EQUP reminds the decision makers that my small children need a future that includes clean, safe and fun parks. They have ask WHAT IS THE BEST USE of the little park land we have and WHO

GGNRA005448

ARE THE PRIORITIES in its use. However, dog use is not dismissed. Other concerns we have about the make-up of this dog-use committee is whether or not the disabled will be represented (my wife has acute arthritis and cannot afford to be knocked-over again by a dog), restoration volunteers who do the work (we work on Crissy Field with our kids but gave-up on Ft. Funston ? dogs would run over plants just installed and often snatch away containers with plants still in them. Owners think its cute.), teachers who use parks/beaches as extensions of the classroom and sports advocates (like fellow surfers) who can?t always avoid dog feces and have frisbees stolen by uncontrolled dogs. Organization: Commenter: A. Zukara Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No NOI2000 Committee Membership: addition (Substantive) Correspondence Id: 63281 Comment Id: 13490 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I will submit my ?Tiered Park Plan? Draft to Dan McKenna (RPD) & Brian O?Neill by 15AUG05. I believe that off leash availability Based on demonstrated performance is NOT a caste system as stated by SFDOG, (caste systems don?t allow for upward mobility) Instead, I believe it would go far to resolve the ongoing conflict. I submit my application for membership on this committee as A person seeking responsible, performance oriented off leash in urban parklands. For I believe off leash is not just about recreation ( as The current roster of offleash advocates insist) it is also about Bringing this creature to a point to where he is the good little Citizen that he CAN be- but only if we allow him to. Not only Through treats and training- But adopting the old native American Philosophy of living WITH and not AT nature. For under this philos Ophy he is not a third rate creature, but our equal. I would commit to actively participate in good faith in the development of the proposed rule. Sincerely, Robin L. Gipson Organization: Performance Offleash Commenter: Robin L Gipson Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 28276 Comment Id: 13710 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Forming a committee is a great start. As a horsback rider in and around Fort Funston, I would like to be apart of this process to ensure that equestrians are being represented in San Francisco. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60749 Comment Id: 13685 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I [Donna Stewart] oppose any exceptions to the leash laws. If the committee is not made up of at least 50% of persons with this point of view (among the people who have a stated point of view), please accept my nomination to become a member Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 24028 Comment Id: 13683 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I nominate Colleen Lenihan, a P.h.d candidate in the Ecology Department at U.C. Davis and dog walker in Oakwood Valley to represent my interests and the interest of the Tam Junction neighborhood as the lead member of the Oakwood Valley Dog Walkers. She is the only candidate on your list representing dog walkers in Marin County, while six groups are listed from San Francisco County alone. Please see attached application document. Organization:

GGNRA005449

Commenter: Scott Stender Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27922 Comment Id: 13626 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I [Holly Prohaska]would also suggest adding another equestrian representative to the RAC. There seems to be multiple dog and environmental representatives and only one equestrian representative. I would volunteer to be that representative if you would allow me to. Please contact me and let me know if I can still join. There are two stables within a mile of Fort Funston that board equestrians that currently ride and have historically ridden horses in the recreation area...Mar Vista Stables and Palomar Stables. Both of these stables should be on the mailing list as well. Organization: Mar Vista Stables Commenter: Holly A Prohaska Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60932 Comment Id: 13622 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: On behalf of Guide Dogs for the Blind, I [Jim Power] would like to apply for membership in the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, announced in the Federal Register on June 28, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 37,109). Organization: Guide Dogs For the Blind Commenter: Jim Power Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15049 Comment Id: 13012 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Environmental Quality for Urban Parks (EQUP) submits Andrea O'Leary for your consideration to the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to represent the interests of average men, women and children seeking quality experiences in our outdoor play spaces. We suggest Arnold Levine as Alternate. EQUP specifically seeks to represent the interests of the average citizen who is not always politically connected or even aware of the complexities of managing parks, beaches and recreational facilities but who realize that those experiences are often compromised by elements outside their influence or control. EQUP is made up of park advocacy groups, environmental enthusiasts, working families, teachers, child caretakers, seniors and average citizens who work to make their neighborhoods better places to live, work and play in. We do not feel that current listed members on the Rulemaking Committee specifically represent that segment of the population who is not specifically associated with an "organized" agenda. Organization: Environmental Quality for Urban Parks Commenter: Andrea O'Leary Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 30956 Comment Id: 13605 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I would like to nominate myself (Chris Apicella) to the Advisory Committee. I have already submitted my comment but am very interested in this subject and would like to take an active role in it. I am a heavy user of Crissy Field both for windsurfing as well as jogging and general enjoyment of the park. I have been troubled by how things have turned out. I am not necessarily pro or anti off leash, but would like the discussion to based on reason, moderation, and a good deal of open mindedness on all sides. I believe that I would be an strong asset to the team and would like to help find a solution that is fair to all users of the park/beach. Organization: Commenter: Chris Apicella Apicella Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No

GGNRA005450

Correspondence Id: 66036 Comment Id: 13603 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I am writing to you on behalf of a group known as Environmental Quality of Urban Parks. I am urging you to appoint someone from their membership to the Rulemaking Committee as they most represent people like me. Organization: Environmental Quality for Urban Parks (EQUP) Commenter: Miriam Moss Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60944 Comment Id: 13599 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I (Karla Andersdatter) would like to volunteer to be on the ?Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at GGNRA? to negotiate and develop a special regulation for dog management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I am a resident of Muir Beach (30 years), Native San Franciscan, and Park Lover who would like to represent the residents of Coastal Marin, at least those of Muir Beach. Organization: Commenter: Karla Andersdatter Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 22398 Comment Id: 13593 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I support the nomination of Jeri Flinn for the Pacifica Dog walkers to the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. Jeri has been a long time member of the Pacifica P-Dog group and has always been the voice of reason, bridging the differences between the off leash and on leash advocates. Jeri has been the President of the Pacifica Beach Coalition for the past 7 years and President of Pcifica't Environmental Family for over 5 years. In these roles she has been a staunch advocate for the environment and has coordinated Beach Cleanups for Pacifica's 4 beaches and educationals programs for youth and adults. She has coordinated the california Coastal Cleanups in Pacifica each year and supports habitat restoration efforts at Linda Mar State Beach. Jeri understands the needs of both dogs and the environment and will be an excellent choice for the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for the GGNRA. If you have any further questions or need additional references for Jeri Flinn, do not hesitate to call me. I will be happy to assist in her nomination to your committee. Organization: Commenter: Lynn Adams Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60933 Comment Id: 13556 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am writing to apply for membership on the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I am a horse, cat, and dog owner and work for an environmental consulting firm in San Francisco. After reviewing your list of proposed committee members, I am concerned about the representation for equestrians. It appears that the two members you have nominated for equestrian representation are both from Marin County. I and the people I ride with, feel there should also be a representative for equestrians from the peninsula or even from the city of San Francisco because the GGNRA spans more than just Marin County. Organization: Commenter: Holly Prohaska Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 62186 Comment Id: 13552 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: EQUP is able to provide another viewpoint which is sorely needed among a group of organizations that often revolve around one issue; off leash dogs use. Dogs will never become taxpayers, so the idea that the needs of other park users, (which includes non-dog owners seeking a clean, safe, and

GGNRA005451

peaceful park, as well as parents and children)should also be represented in this Committee. Organization: Commenter: Scott Hall Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 66042 Comment Id: 13545 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: This is an application for membership on the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at the GGNRA. 1. My name is Susan McCarthy. 2. I hope to represent citizens like myself who have multiple interests, and who seek a compromise solution that benefits diverse parties. I am a birdwatcher with a strong interest in biological diversity and native plants (and a science writer). I am a San Francisco parent. I am a dog owner. I visit GGNRA lands in all these capacities. However, I am not a member of relevant organizations, and hence no one has "authorized" me. I have attended previous meetings on the issue of GGNRA use and have written to the GGNRA in the past. I envision cooperation and cooperative projects between groups that produce positive feeling (and positive publicity) and minimize strife. 3. If I become a member of the committee, I will actively participate in good faith in the development of the proposed rule. 4. While there are people on the committee who represent parts of my interests, no one appears to represent my entire interest in reaching a win-win rule. My complete interest is more than the sum of its parts. For example, I am concerned about bank swallows, as is the Audubon Society; am concerned about habitat restoration, as is the California Native Plant Society; and I am concerned about dog-walking, as are the Fort Funston Dog Walkers; but I am not sure these organizations share my interest in a solution that is favorable to all three. I am concerned that th present makeup of the committee is made up of representatives of groups, who are pledged to interests more narrowly defined than mine. Organization: Commenter: Susan McCarthy Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 62206 Comment Id: 13543 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am writing to urge to include a member of Environmental Quality for Urban Parks (EQUP) on your rule making committee. Protection of wildlife, preservation of species and habitat should be part of the equation for providing a recreational experiencce in our local parks that are adminstered by the National Park Service. Putting a member of EQUP on your committee would give voice to those people who believe that our parks should be for everyone. On our last trip to Fort Funston, while walking along the trail that provided us wonderful views of the ocean we were dismayed to find dog feces. It sort of distracted from the experience to have to be looking down to make sure where you were stepping rather than looking at the view. This process will produce a way for us to all get along only if we are all at the table. EQUP is one group that I feel will best represent my interests. Organization: Commenter: Bill Wilson Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 62285 Comment Id: 13536 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Put me on the committee to oversee regulations regarding people's use of the parks. I want to nominate myself for membership on the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Managementat GGNRA. Organization: Peace and Freedom Party Commenter: Norma J F Harrison Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65433 Comment Id: 13513 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I support Kyle Mizokami, County Coordinator for San Francisco, United Pier and Shore

GGNRA005452

Anglers of California(UPSAC) as member of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Dog Management. He is a shoreline angler and spokesman who knows and loves the area. He is a man of integrity who understands compromise and utility. Organization: Commenter: Anonymous Anonymous Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65441 Comment Id: 13809 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: Should you be forming a committee for further discussion on this, or any other facet of maintenance of the GGNRA, I[Tom McEachern] would be more than willing to take part in it. Organization: Commenter: Tom McEachern Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 24155 Comment Id: 13715 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: We are glad to know of the impending creation of the Advisory Committee for dog management at the GGNRA. I personally like to see certain rules enforced and even penalties assessed against dog owners who act irresponsibly and allow their dogs to defecate everywhere creating an unhygenic environment for people, especially children. I believe certain parts of the GGNRA (beaches and parks) should be totally off limits to dogs. Should there be no member of the Advisory Committee for Dog Management at the GGNRA who shares my views then I would like to nominate myself or my friend, Steven Krolik. Here is my address: 185 Seal Rock Drive, S.F. CA 94121. Steven's address: Steven Krolik, 400 Locust #1, San Francisco, CA 94118 Organization: Commenter: M I Dajani Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 71685 Comment Id: 13615 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: We, the undersigned, believe that the residents of Sausalito will be affected significantly by proposals to revise dog management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Further we believe that such interests will not be represented adequately by any person or organization currently identified in the `Committee Membership' . Therefore we are advocating that the City of Sausalito be granted membership on the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 1. We request a member who will represent the interests of our residents, both those who have dogs and those who do not, advocating for fair, reasoned and responsible use of our National Park. Our community adjoins the park and it is an integral part of our community, we should be part of any public discussion of its use. 2. We support the preservation of the park for responsible use by all interested parties; and advocate for fair and accountable dog management. 3. We will support our representative's mission to actively participate in good faith in the development and implementation of the proposed rule. 4. The current proposed members of the committee do not represent the interests of Sausalito and its residents. The only local government representation is from the South side of the Golden Gate, yet most of the GGNRA is on the North side of the Golden Gate. The City of Sausalito is on the North side of the Golden Gate and is surrounded on two sides by the GGNRA, our inclusion on this committee is essential. 5. We, the residents of Sausalito, are not currently represented, nor do we believe the current members can or will provide us adequate representation. Organization: Commenter: Susan Shea Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63636 Comment Id: 13474 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: To the extent that this group is not otherwise represented, I offer myself as a potential

GGNRA005453

committee member to represent these interests. There is no "Fort Mason Dog Owners Group" per se, but I believe I can faithfully represent the interests of dog owners who frequent the park, as I live 5-6 blocks away and have for more than 2 years, and I walk my dog at Fort Mason at least once every day, if not multiple times. I am a practicing attorney in San Francisco. As an alternate member to represent these interests, I propose Kirsten Mellor, another practicing attorney, of the same address. I can provide other alternate names, if requested. Organization: Maya Legal Consulting Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 63750 Comment Id: 13464 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I, Eleanor M. Roman, am hereby applying for membership on the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management Regulation at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The interests that I will represent are those of private persons who live in the neighborhood of, own homes in the neighborhood of and consistently and routinely walk their dogs off-leash in Sutro Heights Park in the outer Richmond District of San Francisco. I also hereby nominate my husband, Jonathan N. Roman as my alternate, who has agreed to participate as a Committee Member in the unlikely event that I am unable to attend any specific meeting or function required of the Committee. Organization: Commenter: Eleanor M Roman Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63825 Comment Id: 13460 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: since Residents of the Presidio are an important group who will be impacted by the final recommendations of the Committee, I suggest that a Presidio Resident be added to the group. Organization: Commenter: Sarah R Hummingbird Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63879 Comment Id: 13450 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: As hospitality chair for Golden Gate Audubon and a board member of Yuerba Buena chapter of the California Native Plant Society, I was very pleased to see both groups nominated for representation on the negotiated rulemaking committee. The expertise and concerns of both these organizations, and their duty to act on behalf of their memberships (which especially for GGAS is considerable) makes them definite stakeholders in policymaking for the GGNRA. I enthusiatically support the nomination of Mark Heath to represent Yuerba Buena chapter of the California Native Plant Society on the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for GGNRA. I enthusiatically support the nomination of Arthur Feinstein to represent Golden Gate Audubon Society on the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for GGNRA. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 65700 Comment Id: 13442 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: We are sending this letter as a recommendation for members of the group, Environmental Quality for Urban Parks (EQUP), to be included on the rulemaking committee for dog management now being formed. EQUP has been working on the dog issue for many years in the Sunnyside district, and with the neighborhood, helped facilitate a children's playground from becoming an off-leash dog park. They responsibly represented the many stakeholders previously left out of the decision making process. Organization: Friends of Sunnyside Conservatory

GGNRA005454

Commenter: Stacey Garfinkel Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65681 Comment Id: 13432 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Representing academic and professional concerns, applicant has been interested in negotiated rulemaking since knowing Ralph Mihan's office/helped assessed this process for NPS, and would like to actively participate in developing the proposed rule, with a critical perspective of the potential and limitations of the collaborative partnership (public-private/non-profit), informed by current research in the area. Organization: University of California Commenter: Chris Williams Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65677 Comment Id: 13431 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: The Dune Ecological Restoration Team (DERT), an organization of Presidio natural resource volunteers, is nominating one of our members, John Helding, to participate on the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee regarding pet policies within the GGNRA. Currently the proposed membership does not include a member of the volunteer community, and in particular a habitat restoration volunteer. We believe that to be a very significant oversight and one that can only be remedied by the addition of an experienced GGNRA volunteer. We propose John Helding. Organization: Dune Ecological Restoration Team Commenter: Jan Blum Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65591 Comment Id: 13429 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Sent under separate cover, Environmental Quality for Urban Parks (EQUP) has requested inclusion on the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee. We are sending this Addendum to our previous request for inclusion on the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for dog management at GGNRA. Organization: Environmental Quality for Urban Parks (EQUP) Commenter: Andrea O'Leary Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 30578 Comment Id: 13804 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: My name is Jeff Hoffman and I hereby apply for membership on the Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Michelle Brodie hereby applies for the alternate position. Organization: Commenter: Jeff Hoffman Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60902 Comment Id: 13770 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: SAN wishes to reaffirm that Bruce Livingston wishes to serve on the committee as our representative, and Robert Planthold as the alternate. Organization: Senior Action Network Commenter: Bruce L Livingston Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60816 Comment Id: 13763 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I would like to nominate myself to be a membe of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee. I am a professional wildlife ecologist/ Ecological Consultant. I am currently finishing a PhD in

GGNRA005455

Ecology at the University of California, Davis. I [Colleen Lenihan] would be representing the interests of the Oakwood Valley Dog Walkers and my Tam Junction neighborhood. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 22401 Comment Id: 13749 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Also, I (Margaret Fawcett) would be interested in serving on the Committee if you are looking for applicants. I am a retired City Attorney and Administrative Law attorney and therefore I am familiar with the process. Additionally, I have an open mind and do not belong to advocacy groups although I did sign up as a Friend of Ft Baker and I am thrilled that finally the project will go forward. It will be wonderful for Marin Countyr residents and the general public. I have additionally had a membership with the Discovery Museum which is a fantastic asset to the Bay Area and Marin. Organization: Commenter: Margaret G Fawcett Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27708 Comment Id: 13729 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: As to the composition of the Committee for Dog Management, I would like to suggest either the Three Stooges or the Marx Brothers as potential members. That the Marx Brothers are all dead is of little consequence; they would prove to be about as effective as the live members of your proposed committee in attempting to regulate the canine onslaught that is abroad in the land. At least my proposed members would provide an element of slapstick humor to counterbalance this sad capitulation to the forces that encourage the rapid bestialization of our society. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60558 Comment Id: 13719 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: It is important that the committee contain a balanced representation of dog owners and non dog owners who enjoy visiting Chrissy Fields. I (Janet Dancey) would like to nominate myself as a committee member. Organization: Commenter: Janet M Dancey Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 15451 Comment Id: 13055 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Please consider this individual for the committee: Carola Hamann 119 Shawnee Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 Ms. Hamann has a degree from Davis in Environmental Studies. Organization: Commenter: Barbara Fugate Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60820 Comment Id: 13577 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I, Scott Stender, a resident of Mill Valley, California, hereby nominate Colleen Lenihan, a P.h.d candidate in the Ecology Department at U.C. Davis and dog walker in Oakwood Valley to represent my interests and the interest of the Tam Junction neighborhood as the lead representative of the Oakwood Valley Dog Walkers. At this point, Ms. Lenihan is the only candidate representing dog walkers in Marin County, while six groups are listed from San Francisco County alone. Ms. Lenihan is a skilled biologist

GGNRA005456

with professional experience in mammology and ornithology, and is a wildlife consultant for H.T. Harvey and Associates, an environmental consulting firm. She is a founding board member of the California Burrowing Owl Consortium and sits on the board of the Alameda County Agricultural Advisory Committee. She is familiar with the East Bay Regional Park?s off-leash dog walking regulations. I believe Ms. Lenihan will become an instrumental member of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Her insight in to the issues has a strong background in science, while also having the unique perspective of a neighborhood citizen dog walker in Marin County, California. Her experience on other committees is a strong indication of her ability to act in good faith towards the development of the proposed rule. I firmly believe that she will be an asset to the Committee and is representing interests that are not adequately addressed by the current members. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60577 Comment Id: 13557 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I believe that accommodations for those who live adjacent to Mori Point and wish to walk their dog at Mori Point or elsewhere can be found on a day/time and/or specific area basis. This should accommodate endangered species in the area as well as those who fear dogs off-leash. A compromise which blends the needs of all is possible if the committee is composed of people of good will interested in considering the needs of others.Thus I nominate myself to serve on the committee. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 63346 Comment Id: 13488 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Linda McKay is an excellent choice to be on the committee Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 65440 Comment Id: 13524 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Finally, Golden Gate Audubon would like to submit one administrative comment on the committee make-up. Since the time this notice of intent was published, our staff has changed and proposed committee member Arthur Feinstein is no longer a staff member of Golden Gate Audubon and thus no longer represents Golden Gate Audubon and our over 6,000 members. We request that Elizabeth Murdock, Executive Director, be listed as the primary representative for Golden Gate Audubon and that our new conservation director be listed as alternate. We would be delighted for Mr. Feinstein to contribute to the committee and believe that he would make an excellent addition as an individual. Organization: Golden Gate Audubon Society Commenter: Elizabeth Murdock Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65420 Comment Id: 13500 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am writing to recommend the group, Environmental Quality for Urban Parks (EQUP), be admitted to the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Organization: Sunnyside Park Families and Neighbors Commenter: Daryl Browne Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No

GGNRA005457

Correspondence Id: 65437 Comment Id: 13507 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Please consider us for positions on the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee For Dog Management in the GGNRA. As home owners and residents of Muir Beach, we believe it is important that someone who understands the needs and concerns of our community is included on this committee. It is our understanding that at this time there is no one from Muir Beach on this committee. Thank you for considering the importance of including a member of our community in making decisions that will affect the quality of our neighborhood. Organization: Commenter: Bruce & Pam Barlow Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65428 Comment Id: 13510 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: It has recently been brought to our attention that Norman LaForce of the Sierra Club, wishes to be included on the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Organization: Point Isabel Dog Owners and Friends (PIDO) Commenter: Susan Obayashi Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65438 Comment Id: 13519 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am Katrinka McKay, a resident of Muir Beach for nine years, and of other nearby beach communities since 1974. I would like to be a representative on the committee addressing the issue of dog walking on our park beaches. I feel that the current representation does not adequately address the local residential concerns around the ability to walk our personally owned dogs on and around the beach and I would like to participate in the decision making process. Please let me know how and when I can further assist with this matter. Organization: Commenter: Katrinka McKay Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65435 Comment Id: 13514 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am writing to nominate myself to the Dog Management Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. As a recreational angler, I feel that the dog management issue has an impact upon my use and enjoyment of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. As the San Francisco County Coordinator for United Pier and Shore Anglers of California, I feel that the angling community of the San Francisco Bay Area should be represented on the Committee. Organization: United Pier and Shore Anglers of California Commenter: Kyle Mizokami Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No NOI2010 Committe Membership: withdrawal (Substantive) Correspondence Id: 65575 Comment Id: 13425 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: The Presidio Trust is a wholly-owned United States government corporation, chartered by Congress in the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 460bb appendix (enacted as P.L.104-333). The Trust has administrative jurisdiction over Area B of the Presidio of San Francisco within the GGNRA. While appreciative of the DOI's offer to include the Trust on the Committee, by this letter the Trust respectfully withdraws from consideration as a member. However, the Trust does wish to participate in the concurrent NEPA process for dog management in GGNRA referred to at page 37109 of the public notice. Accordingly, we request to be involved as a cooperating agency under the National Environmental Policy Act and specifically 40 C.F.R. Section 1501.6 for the reasons set forth below. Area A of the Presidio,

GGNRA005458

which is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS), is immediately adjacent to Area B. In light of this fact, the outcome of the NPS dog management rulemaking process has the potential for spillover impacts in Area B and, as noted in the GGNRA Dog Management Plan Draft Internal Scoping Report without citing Area B by name, "the potential to impact or influence policy at other regional parks?municipal, state, and federal." For these reasons the Presidio Trust intends to monitor closely the rulemaking process and will give future consideration to the Trust's regulation regarding pet management once the GGNRA rulemaking process is concluded. Organization: Presidio Trust Commenter: Al Rosen Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No NOI4000 NOI: Corrections (Substantive) Correspondence Id: 63447 Comment Id: 13485 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Next, I want to address the omission of the 1979 Pet Policy (and the erroneous inclusion of the NPS Management Policies 2001) as one of the legal sideboards within which recommendations on dog management in the GGNRA must be formed. The courts have determined that the 1979 Pet Policy is currently the controlling dog management policy in the GGNRA. As such, it is required to be the starting point for negotiations in the rule-making process. This is in conflict with the premise for Negotiated Rulemaking which states that in 2001 the GGNRA determined that the 1979 Pet Policy was null and void. And, in fact, the Situation Assessment Report for the Proposed Negotiated Rulemaking contemplates that the 1979 Pet Policy may NOT be null and void. On page 18 it states specifically, ?These lawsuits could prove to have only minor substantive impact on a committee?s work, or could have a significant effect on rulemaking by changing the relevant legal framework for decision making?. Clearly, the latter is the case. The record should be revised to include the 1979 Pet Policy as one of the legal sideboards upon which the recommendations must be based. This change must be made before Rulemaking can begin. Additionally, NPS Management Policies 2001 and Existing park management plans should be deleted from the list of legal sideboards to be considered in the Rulemaking process as the court has found them to be null and void. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 14918 Comment Id: 13018 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: First, the premise upon which such negotiated rulemaking is based is false and in violation of the law. Federal District Court Judge William Alsup recently ruled that the GGNRA's attempt to unilaterally rescind the 1979 Pet Policy was "illegal." Judge Alsup affirmed the order of Magistrate Judge Laporte in finding that the GGNRA's 1979 Pet Policy remains in full force and effect. Thus, the 1979 Pet Policy can only be altered by means of adherence to 36 C.F.R. 1.5. Unless and until notice and public comment occurs under Section 1.5, any attempt to alter the 1979 Pet Policy is illegal and in contempt of Court. Organization: Commenter: Stephen S Sayad Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60557 Comment Id: 13570 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I also suggest that the park service have a press release issued to clarify the apparent mistakes made by the San Rafael Independent Journal regarding where dogs may or may not be off leash. (Article stating off leash dog walking OK at Ft Baker among other places) when apparently that is incorrect. After an embarrassing encounter with a Park Ranger where I was chastised and ridiculed for believing the IJ article. I was walking my dog off leash. I plan to contact the IJ with my concerns as well.

GGNRA005459

Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 14918 Comment Id: 13019 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: In addition, the government chose not to contest or argue that changes to the 1979 Pet Policy, even if legal, should govern the current state of affairs with respect to off-leash dog walking in the GGNRA. Accordingly, any alleged modifications (whether in 1996 or thereafter) to the 1979 Pet Policy are null and void, and the areas deemed off-leash under the 1979 Pet Policy remain off-leash per the Court's decision. Thus, the comments about areas open to off leash dog walking are incorrect. Organization: Commenter: Stephen S Sayad Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65575 Comment Id: 13426 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Finally, for the record we note that the DOI public notice proposed the Presidio Trust as a committee member that would represent "the interests of local government." As a United States government agency, the Trust is charged with representing national interests, and any future reference to interests represented by the Trust should clearly so state. Organization: Presidio Trust Commenter: Al Rosen Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 63447 Comment Id: 13484 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I find some serious errors and omissions in the ?Supplementary Information? section that must be addressed prior to initiation of this process. My first step in analyzing the significance of this statement is to determine which areas in the GGNRA have been identified as having threatened and/or endangered species. In referring to a Natural Areas map produced by the National Park Service (NPS) and San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (SFRPD) it appears that the GGNRA has designated all of Ocean Beach, almost all of Fort Funston, and virtually all of the oceanfront property running north of Ocean Beach around Fort Point and through Crissy Field as Natural Areas. Natural Areas are by definition supposed to be areas which contain remnant populations of endangered or threatened species. This designation has, to my knowledge, been done without public notice or input which I believe is in violation of NPS policy and Federal law. Aside from that, it would lead one to believe that the premise of this rulemaking process would be that the areas listed above can at best be allowed on-leash dog walking, and at worst, dogs could be banned from these areas entirely. If this is the case, we have a serious problem. These areas provide the bulk of the off-leash recreation in the GGNRA. I might point out that the current areas allowed for off-leash recreation (by virtue of the 1979 Pet Policy) include most all of these areas, and comprise less than 1% of the GGNRA properties. So, if these areas are to be excluded, what is left? Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 63979 Comment Id: 13444 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: It's imperative that the Park Service acknowledge the court's affirmation of the 1979 Pet Policy as the current operative policy governing park visitors with dogs in the GGNRA. That the Pet Policy is not even mentioned in the Notice as part of the framework for the issue is a glaring omission and an affront to the court as well as to the public, who have the right to expect a fair and honest process throughout. Organization:

GGNRA005460

Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 31114 Comment Id: 13667 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: 1. The sentence that reads "On-leash dogwalking could be considered in areas with threatened and endangered species only if it is demonstrated that adverse effects or impacts are minimal and could be mitigated". I believe you mean to say "Off-leash dog-walking..." 2. The designation of natural areas appears to have been done without public notice or input which is a violation of NPS policy and Federal law. The 1979 Pet policy - determined by the Courts as the controlling dog management policy - has been omitted and the NPS Management Policies from 2001 have been erroneously included instead. 3. Some of the entities listed as planned Committee Members apear to be hostile to dogs: The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Golden Gate Audubon Society (GGAS), and Coleman Advocates for children and Youth. Their position as stated on page one of the brief, lines 20-21 is,"...the GGNRA's regulations allowing dogs in most of the park, so long as they are porperly leashed, should be upheld." Their stated position is that dogs should not be allowed off-leash anywhere in the GGNRA. Clearly, this is in direct opposition to the stated purpose of this Committee: to establish areas of the park that could be designated for off-leash walking areas. Similarly I have concerns about Paul Jones. He does not desire to see off-leash dog-walking anywhere in the GGNRA. In Pacifica, he opposed an off-leash area on Sharp park Beach despitethe fact that there were no threatened or endangered species present, and no habitat that would ever support any. When asked if he would alternatively support an off-leash dog park in an inland park area that was landfill and emitted methane gas so there would be not use of the park for children, he refused. When the City approved an off-leash area at Sharp Park Beach, he threatened to sue the City. Organization: Commenter: Denise Selleck Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No NOI4010 NOI: General Comments (Substantive) Correspondence Id: 65427 Comment Id: 13508 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Point Isabel Dog Owners and Friends (PIDO), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a membership of over 2100 households in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, supports the efforts of Ocean Beach DOG to secure areas in the GGNRA for off-leash recreation. We hope that the NPS will seriously consider the items commented on in Ocean Beach DOG's July 7th, 2005 NOI Comment letter to Superintendent Brian O'Neill. Organization: Point Isabel Dog Owners and Friends (PIDO) Commenter: Susan Obayashi Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65478 Comment Id: 13525 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: BARGAINING TOWARD THE NEW MILLENIUM: REGULATORY NEGOTIATION AND THE SUBVERSION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST By: William Funk Published in the Duke Law Journal, Vol 46, pgs 1351-1388 Organization: Center for Biological Diversity Commenter: Brent Plater Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65479 Comment Id: 13526 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: ASSESSING CONSENSUS: THE PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE OF NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING By: Gary Coglianese Published: Duke Law Journal Volume 46, Number 6, April 1997. Pgs 1255-1349 Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

GGNRA005461

Commenter: Brent Plater Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60809 Comment Id: 13576 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I am confident that rules can be developed that will allow responsible dogs and owners to enjoy these spaces, while at the same time making reasonable and consistently applied consequences for non-compliance the norm. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 27486 Comment Id: 13778 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: You have omitted the 1979 Pet Policy (and included the NPS Management Policies 2001) as one of the legal sideboards within which recommendations on dog management in the GGNRA must be formed. The courts have determined that the 1979 Pet Policy is currently the controlling dog management policy in the GGNRA. As such, it is required to be the starting point for negotiations in the rule-making process. Additionally, environmental review (e.g., NEPA, EIR) is required should the GGNRA decide to change the usage of a particular area from its designation in the 1979 Pet Policy. If an area currently designated as off-leash in the 1979 Pet Policy is declared to be on-leash only or off limits entirely, environmental review will be required to justify that change. The proper designation of our starting point (the current controlling dog management plan) is essential to complying properly with environmental review regulations. Organization: Commenter: Stephen R Golub Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 27486 Comment Id: 13777 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: I take exception to the inclusion of the text ?On-leash dog-walking could be considered in areas with threatened and endangered species only if it is demonstrated that adverse effects or impacts are minimal and could be mitigated? in the ?Supplementary Information? section. On-leash is not what is being considered in the NR process. After reviewing the maps provided by the S.F. Natural Areas Program, I am concerned that you are designating most of the GGNRA, including Fort Funston, Ocean Beach and Crissy Field, as natural land and habitat restoration sites. This certainly gives the appearance that you are positioning these areas for the complete exclusion of off-leash recreation and perhaps on-leash as well. This is not consistent with the stated intent of this process. Organization: Commenter: Stephen R Golub Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60900 Comment Id: 13701 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: My first step in analyzing the significance of this statement is to determine which areas in the GGNRA have been identified as having threatened and/or endangered species. In referring to a Natural Areas map produced by the National Park Service (NPS) and San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (SFRPD) it appears that the GGNRA has designated all of Ocean Beach, almost all of Fort Funston, and virtually all of the oceanfront property running north of Ocean Beach around Fort Point and through Crissy Field as Natural Areas. Natural Areas are by definition supposed to be areas which contain remnant populations of endangered or threatened species. This designation has, to my knowledge, been done without public notice or input which I believe is in violation of NPS policy and Federal law. Aside from that, it would lead one to believe that the premise of this rulemaking process would be that the areas listed above can at best be allowed on-leash dog walking, and at worst, dogs could be banned from these areas entirely. If this is the case, we have a serious problem. These areas provide the bulk of the off-leash

GGNRA005462

recreation in the GGNRA. I might point out that the current areas allowed for off-leash recreation (by virtue of the 1979 Pet Policy) include most all of these areas, and comprise less than 1% of the GGNRA properties. So, if these areas are to be excluded, what is left? Organization: Commenter: Suzanne Valente Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60900 Comment Id: 13700 Coder's Initials: bgm Comment Text: I find some serious errors and omissions in the ?Supplementary Information? section that must be addressed prior to initiation of this process. The first problem I want to address is the sentence that reads ?On-leash dog-walking could be considered in areas with threatened and endangered species only if it is demonstrated that adverse effects or impacts are minimal and could be mitigated?. I question why this sentence is included at all. It would make sense if it read, ?Off-leash dog-walking?? Perhaps this is merely a typographical error, but if it is not, it infers a situation which is not consistent with the stated intent of this process. Organization: Commenter: Suzanne Valente Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 60820 Comment Id: 13581 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: In the Notice of Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee, Federal Register, Vol.70, No. 123, it states under "Scope of the Proposed Rule", several areas, including Tennessee Valley, that are "precluded from consideration by the Committee for off-leash uses". I am concerned that Oakwood Valley, being adjacent to Tennessee Valley and dominated at it's head entrance by a large sign, incorrectly stating it as Tennessee Valley, will suddenly become officially off-limits to historical off-leash dog walking by these rules. I want to make sure that this is not the case, and that Oakwood Valley will continue to see neighbors with dogs using the trails as in the past. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60820 Comment Id: 13578 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: It is of my great concern that off-leash dog walking in a few, select and historically-used areas of Golden Gate National Park will be placed off-limits to this use. I appreciate the efforts of the National Park Service and this RegNeg process towards achieving a fair and balanced approach in dealing with people and dogs in the Urban/Park interface areas. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 60866 Comment Id: 13554 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Please, at least hold hearings so the voice of the people can be heard on the matter of pets in the GGNRA. Responsible pet owners have at least the same vested interest in keeping the area in a pristine condition as does the management of the parks. Please leave it open to comment and discussion before making an arbitrary decision of closing it to all pets. Organization: Commenter: peter scott-schwartz Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 66001 Comment Id: 13539 Coder's Initials: MB

GGNRA005463

Comment Text: I am writing to recommend that the proposed Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Dog Management not be funded by the GGNRA. Organization: Commenter: Robert Zatkin Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 62966 Comment Id: 13529 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Notably absent from the list of legal sideboards is any reference to the 1979 Pet Policy which two federal judges have ruled is the policy currently in effect. The areas to which the Negotiated Rulemaking are limited are clearly defined in that policy. I object to limiting the rulemaking to just those areas. Since the effort has been made to create a blue-ribbon committee of stakeholders, they should be given the opportunity to explore other areas in the GGNRA that may be suitable for off-leash activity.Ideally the whole of the GGNRA should be open to such scrutiny. Organization: Commenter: Kept Private Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: Yes Correspondence Id: 65440 Comment Id: 13523 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: 3. Wildlife and habitat destruction caused by dogs causes significant and continuing environmental destruction at the GGNRA. The GGNRA contains over 100 rare or special status plants and animals (67 Fed. Reg. 1424, 1428), including endangered species such as the Western Snowy Plover. This rich biodiversity was one of the primary reasons that the areas comprising the GGNRA are part of the National Park system. There are numerous studies and documented incidents that indicate the harmful impacts that dogs can have on birds, native plants, marine mammals and other wildlife. The Park Service has a legal responsibility to protect the resources present in the National Parks system. 4. As part of the National Parks system, the GGNRA has national?even global?significance. For this reason, it is imperative that the GGNRA be conserved as a national treasure and that any decisions regarding its management reflect a representation of interests in the park and its resources. According to a general public poll conducted by The Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University, 71 percent of people polled in the Bay Area ?support the current dog-walking regulation.? This study indicates that a broad section would likely support management of the GGNRA in keeping with current Park Service regulations, rather than expanded dog access. Given the comments above, Golden Gate Audubon is concerned that the Negotiated Rulemaking process will automatically undercut existing regulations in place to protect the wildlife and the national heritage present at the GGNRA. We believe that a national rulemaking process would be a more appropriate way to resolve the issues regarding dog presence at the GGNRA. Organization: Golden Gate Audubon Society Commenter: Elizabeth Murdock Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No Correspondence Id: 65440 Comment Id: 13521 Coder's Initials: MB Comment Text: Golden Gate Audubon is concerned that the park service?s very proposal to form this committee predetermines an outcome that will necessarily include the establishment of off-leash dog areas of the park. We urge the Park Service to ensure that this negotiated rulemaking committee does not begin with this foregone conclusion and thus imperil the National Park Service?s responsibilities to conserve our national heritage and ?leave [it] unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.? (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1). Organization: Golden Gate Audubon Society Commenter: Elizabeth Murdock Page: Paragraph: Kept Private: No

GGNRA005464

SITUATION ASSESSMENT REPORT:

PROPOSED NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING ON DOG

MANAGEMENT IN THE


September 14, 2004

PREPARED JOINTLY BY CDR ASSOCIATES AND THE CENTER FOR COLLABORATIVE POLICY, CALIFORNIA

STATE UNIVERSITY-SACRAMENTO

UNDER CONTRACT TO THE U.S. INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION

GGNRA005465

http://www.csus.edu/ccp/

http://www.mediate.org/

of 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE FOR THIS REPORT 3 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT PROCESS 4 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THIS REPORT 5

KEY INTERESTS AND CONSIDERATIONS 5

OVERVIEW 5 SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS RELATED TO OFF-LEASH DOG WALKING 6 PROCEDURAL INTERESTS RELATED TO A POTENTIAL NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 7

POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT 8

AGREEMENTS ON SUBSTANTIVE OFF-LEASH ISSUES 8 AGREEMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A REGULATORY NEGOTIATION 9 DISAGREEMENTS AND THEIR POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE 9

KEY VARIABLES AND UNKNOWNS 10

RECOMMENDATIONS 13

SUMMARY 13 FEDERAL NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING ACT 13 PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING COMMITTEE AND PROCESS 15 CHARTER AND PROTOCOLS 17 POTENTIAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS 18

CONCLUSION 18

APPENDICES 19 Appendix A – Letter of Invitation from Superintendent O’Neill Appendix B – List of People Contacted as Part of the Situation Assessment Appendix C – Graphic Representation of the Proposed Negotiated Rulemaking

Process

GGNRA005466

of 23

INTRODUCTION

Background and Purpose for this Report National Park Service (NPS) regulations require that all pets, where allowed in national park sites, are crated, caged, or restrained at all times.1 The regulations apply to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), which was created in 1972 and presently encompasses approximately 75,500 acres around San Francisco’s Bay Area.2 A significant portion of GGNRA-managed land includes recreational waterfront in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. In 1979 the GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission (Commission) adopted a policy that recommended off-leash dog walking and the use of voice control, and this policy generally guided GGNRA’s management of dog walking for the next 20 years. In 2001 the Commission acknowledged that its 1979 policy was null and void because it was contrary to NPS regulations.3 Over the past five years NPS staff and park users, including those seeking to walk dogs off leash, have experienced increasing conflict around GGNRA’s changed approach to dog management based on enforcement of NPS regulations. This significant change has created both confusion and animosity among those who had used GGNRA areas for off-leash dog walking, in some cases for decades.4 GGNRA has decided to address this conflict through rulemaking, with a goal of writing a new regulation covering dog management for this park.5 As part of rulemaking, and as a reflection of its stated “commitment to include the public meaningfully” in developing a dog management rule, GGNRA has proposed creating a regulatory negotiation committee that includes members of the public consistent with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (Rulemaking Act) and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In a “Dear Participant” letter dated May 10, 2004, GGNRA General Superintendent Brian O’Neill initiated a process to assess the potential for creating a Negotiated Rulemaking

1 36 CFR 2.15(a)(2); see also Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Pet Management in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 67 Fed. Reg. 1424 (Jan. 11, 2002) (ANPR). 2 GGNRA currently manages 55,827 acres and anticipates additional acreage will be transferred in the near future. 3 This description comes from the ANPR and is consistent with the written report of a panel of senior federal officials convened in 2002 to review GGNRA’s off-leash policies and recommend whether to proceed with rulemaking. The Assessment Team acknowledges there are competing views about the effects of the Commission’s actions in 2001 and that these views may be at issue in pending litigation. The key point for this assessment report is the change in GGNRA’s approach to off-leash dog walking since 2001 and the consequences of that change. The Team also notes that the Commission no longer functions. 4 This summary intentionally omits a wealth of detail about the history of the off-leash conflict at GGNRA, including its multiple causes and relationship to dog management in San Francisco, in order to focus attention on options for the future. 5 The ANPR contains a detailed perspective on dog management issues in GGNRA. Information on rulemaking and the negotiated rulemaking process can be found on the GGNRA web site at http://www.nps.gov/goga/pets/regneg/. Other perspectives can be found on the web pages of different Bay Area organizations, including the San Francisco Dog Owners Group, http://www.sfdog.org/, as only one example.

GGNRA005467

http://www.sfdog.org/

http://www.nps.gov/goga/pets/regneg/

of 23

Committee (Committee) and incorporating it into the rulemaking process.6 Such a committee would “work with GGNRA to investigate a regulation to allow off-leash dog walking in certain areas . . . where resources and visitor safety would not be impacted.” This Situation Assessment Report is intended to assist GGNRA in making its threshold decision about forming a Regulatory Negotiation Committee based on the framework laid out in the Rulemaking Act.7 Summary of Assessment Process The assessment process was conducted jointly by a team of experienced mediators from the Center for Collaborative Policy (CSUS) in Sacramento and CDR Associates in Davis (the “Assessment Team”) under contract to the U.S Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (Institute). GGNRA consulted with the Institute on the situation assessment process and the hiring process for the Assessment Team.8 The Assessment Team spoke with approximately 45 people in individual and group interviews to gather information for this assessment report during the May-August 2004 time period.9 The team began with a list of names developed by GGNRA as a result of its extensive interactions with members of the public, but expanded its list based on advice received during interviews. Most interviews were conducted in person by one or two team members; follow up typically occurred via telephone. The Assessment Team relied on the same agenda as the starting point for all interviews and adjusted its approach for each discussion to focus on priorities and opportunities. This agenda was sent in advance to interview participants whenever possible. Use of a standard agenda allows some generalization about the interviews, although this assessment process does not rely on a statistical approach.10 The Assessment Team conducted two group interviews with advocates for off-leash dog walking, in addition to individual conversations, and also met as a group with representatives of environmental organizations. The Assessment Team had multiple goals in conducting its interviews, consistent with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. The first was to identify the key interests of various individuals and organizations concerned about dog management in the GGNRA who would be significantly affected by a rule and would need to be represented to constitute a balanced committee consistent with the Rulemaking Act. The second was to evaluate the potential for reaching consensus on a recommended rule for GGNRA through a

6 A copy of Supt. O’Neill’s letter can be found at Appendix A to this report. 7 See the considerations identified in the Rulemaking Act at 5 U.S.C. § 563(a). 8 Information about USIECR can be found at www.ecr.gov. USIECR also reviewed and commented on an initial draft of this report, but left final decisions about content and structure to the Assessment Team. 9 Appendix B to this report contains the names of people who were interviewed. 10 GGNRA commissioned two statistical evaluations in connection with the ANPR. The Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University was contracted to analyze public comments submitted in response to the ANPR, and prepared a report entitled “Public Comment Analysis, August 2002.” The same contractor conducted a telephone survey of residents in Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties during May-July 2002. The results of this survey are available in a Technical Report dated December 2002. Both documents are available on the GGNRA web site.

GGNRA005468

http://www.ecr.gov/

of 23

negotiated rulemaking process. The third was to identify prospective candidates who were able and willing to serve on the Committee. Given the high level of interest in off-leash dog walking issues in the Bay Area there were many more people seeking to participate in the assessment process than there were available hours under the contract. Schedules of potential participants and time constraints also were factors influencing interview decisions. The Assessment Team believes it has achieved its goals: all significant interests have been considered in the assessment process, even though all people with an interest could not participate in this phase. Structure and Content of this Report This report is organized as follows: (1) a presentation of the key interests and related considerations disclosed during assessment interviews, consistent with commitments about confidentiality and without attribution; (2) key points of agreement among assessment participants revealed through interviews; (3) key points of disagreement and their potential significance for a decision by GGNRA; and (4) a recommendation about whether to proceed with formation of a committee. There are three Appendices: A is Superintendent O’Neill’s letter, B identifies participants in the assessment process, and C is a general process diagram for a negotiated rulemaking. The primary purpose for this assessment and report is to assist GGNRA and NPS decision makers in their decision making process about forming a committee. The Assessment Team discussed an initial draft of this report with NPS staff in order to determine whether the draft was likely to meet its intended purpose. The Assessment Team also sought input from the Institute on the same report draft, which was both required under the Assessment Team’s contract with the Institute and useful given the Institute’s unique perspective as a federal dispute resolution organization. The report’s final structure and contents reflect the views and professional judgments of the Assessment Team and are solely attributable to the Assessment Team. The final report is being made available to GGNRA, the Institute, and people who participated in the assessment.


Overview One consideration for GGNRA in deciding to create a committee is whether there are a “limited number of identifiable interests that will be significantly affected by the rule.”11 The following list compiled by the Assessment Team from interviews is intended to complement information about interests gained from the ANPR comment process and telephone surveying. The interests are organized into two categories: substantive interests

11 Rulemaking Act § 563(a)(2)

GGNRA005469

of 23

related to off-leash dog walking and procedural interests related to the potential formation and operation of a committee. It is important to understand a threshold choice facing those participating in the assessment (and others who may participate in a committee). The question of “whether” dogs should be allowed off-leash in GGNRA under any circumstances implicates a number of core values for different groups. For those who believe the answer should be “no,” the decision to participate in a potential discussion of “how” dogs might be allowed off-leash may be difficult and appear inconsistent with other interests. On the other hand, GGNRA and NPS leadership are committed to addressing this issue, in keeping with legal mandates, due to the unacceptability of the current situation. As such, while not dismissing or overlooking the perspective that opposes any rule allowing off-leash dog walking, the GGNRA is interested in determining through rulemaking whether there are circumstances under which off-leash dog walking could be consistent with its mandates and with significant interests of the public. Their preference is to involve the public in the rulemaking process. All participants in a negotiated rulemaking process must be willing to consider in good faith the potential for designating some areas for off-leash use, even though there is no a priori commitment being made to this outcome by GGNRA. The interests likely to be significantly affected by a rule are presented below without attribution to individuals or groups, consistent with ground rules for the assessment process. Interviews revealed that these interests are, in most cases, not confined to a single individual or group, although there are variations in the way they are framed or their relative importance. Substantive Interests Related to Off-leash Dog Walking Ensure the safety of all GGNRA user groups—including children, frail, elderly, or

handicapped individuals—and NPS employees Protect GGNRA’s natural resources

Comply with relevant federal laws including NPS Organic Act, GGNRA authorizing

legislation, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Act, among others

Ensure compatibility with other uses

Improve the status quo [which a number of participants described as “unacceptable”]

Develop rules that are understandable, enforceable, and have broad buy-in from the

public and NPS staff Provide opportunities across the GGNRA landscape to the maximum extent possible

GGNRA005470

of 23

Acknowledge attachments to specific GGNRA locations

Maintain social relationships related to dog walking in specific locations

Provide access to beaches and water for off-leash dog walking

Protect economic interests in commercial dog walking

Avoid creating a national precedent for benefiting single user groups in parks or off-

leash dog walking in other national parks, or creating inconsistencies with the Uniform Code of Regulations [Note: there are different views about uniformity, consistency, and uniqueness across the National Park System]

Develop clear land use criteria for designating all GGNRA uses. Another framing of

this interest is: develop principled and objective justifications for resource use decisions by GGNRA

Create defined off-leash areas with appropriate and effective separation from other

uses Procedural Interests Related to a Potential Negotiated Rulemaking Maximize prospects for reaching agreement

Avoid getting caught up in debates about whether or not dogs create impacts

Be clear about what is open for discussion and negotiation and what is not

Ensure a committee is representative of all key perspectives related to potential

outcomes Coordinate with other federal laws including National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), the Administrative Procedures Act, and FACA Focus on constructive problem solving while establishing clear agreements to avoid





GGNRA005471

of 23


One of the potential benefits of a formal assessment process is that it can highlight areas of agreement perhaps not fully perceived by those enmeshed in a conflict. These agreements can include values (about right and wrong, for what is important in a particular situation), interests or needs, and options for meeting interests. The Assessment Team identified a number of apparent points of agreement during the interviews and offers these to assist people in reaching decisions about whether to support or participate in a regulatory negotiation committee. The test for including agreements is “significance,” either because there is broad support (although perhaps not unanimity) or because of the identities of those in apparent agreement. Interviews also disclosed some clear disagreements which are presented below. For the disagreements, the Team has focused on those likely to affect the ability of a committee to reach consensus on off-leash dog walking. Agreements on Substantive Off-leash Issues There appears to be a broad—not unanimous—expectation that GGNRA ultimately

will publish a rule allowing some off-leash dog walking. This prospect engenders a mix of feelings that includes enthusiasm, frustration, and resignation.

Most people concur with the general proposition that off-leash dog walking causes

resource impacts, as do other uses within GGNRA. (There are sharp disagreements, however, about the nature and extent of these impacts, as well as their relative significance. See discussion below of disagreements.)

The interviews disclosed very little specific opposition to on-leash dog walking in

most parts of GGNRA. This may be the result of several factors, including the structure of the interview agenda. Nevertheless, the broad lack of attention to this topic is worth noting.

Dogs and off-leash dog walking play a significant role in the social fabrics of


resources and the environment are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This is a highly emotional issue that implicates core values for many people and is

often closely linked to personal and group identity. There is broad—not unanimous—agreement on the need for balance in GGNRA dog

management policy.

GGNRA005472

of 23


negotiation process, particularly if, as the GGNRA has indicated, the alternative is rulemaking by the NPS alone. There is somewhat less agreement on the value of the regulatory negotiation alternative, particularly among those who may feel the existing NPS regulation is sufficient, but the breadth of agreement about participation remains significant.

There also is broad—not unanimous—agreement that it will not be useful for a

committee to argue legal issues related to off-leash dog walking because this will not change minds, will further entrench people in positions, and will detract from constructive dialog and problem solving.

In discussing impacts of different uses on GGNRA resources it will be important to

have credible scientific and technical information. In the absence of such information previous discussions have resulted in deeper disagreements and frustration.

It is important to base policy decisions on credible information and scientific data

where these have a role.

Disagreements and Their Potential Significance There is basic disagreement over whether off-leash dog walking is an appropriate use

of GGNRA under its various mandates. This basic disagreement has multiple facets. One is a difference in views about the purpose underlying an “urban” national park: to protect what’s left of natural resources and perhaps even restore them, or provide for recreation and other uses in a way that minimizes and mitigates impacts? Another facet is a concern about creating precedents for other national parks, let alone other “urban” parks: some people acknowledge the concern but believe it is possible to distinguish the GGNRA situation, while others resist giving this possibility any weight. It will be important to acknowledge and move beyond these disagreements within a Committee if the goal of examining how dogs might be allowed off-leash is to be explored.

There is disagreement about whether off-leash dog walking is a shared use (more like

bicycling) or is actually an “exclusive” use (like playing loud music) because of inevitable impacts on most other users. This disagreement is likely to appear in a committee’s future discussion of off-leash impacts on GGNRA users. If GGNRA intends to rely on a “shared or exclusive use” criterion as part of rulemaking then stakeholders will have to grapple with nuances and choices.

As noted above, there have been strong disagreements in the past over the nature and

extent of off-leash dog walking impacts on GGNRA resources. Interviews suggest communication has become difficult on this issue and that “denying the obvious” is

GGNRA005473

of 23

widespread. Stakeholders will need to find ways to discuss the issue of impacts constructively, despite their strong differences.

Most people interviewed offered one or more options for addressing past problems

around off-leash dog walking. There are disagreements over the potential utility of specific management options at different locations. For example, some believe that time-of-day restrictions can work, while others only see problems. Physical barriers are another example: some see fencing or other physical barriers as acceptable, while others offer strong objections depending on specifics and locations. While some level of disagreement is to be expected, stakeholders will need to bring flexibility to discussions about specific options if a consensus is to be achieved.

The interviews suggest there will be disagreements about beach access at specific

locations, as off-leash advocates insist on the importance of beach access around GGNRA and others suggest restrictions on such access are necessary, depending on the location. Again, flexibility will be needed to achieve consensus.

There are important disagreements about the ability of GGNRA to match enforcement

resources to a realistic management program that would allow off-leash dog walking given projected budget constraints. Stakeholders will have to grapple with practicability, and it will be important for GGNRA to provide reliable information on this issue.

There is potential disagreement about the role of scientific data and other technical

information in GGNRA’s decision making about use of park resources. It will be important for GGNRA to be prepared to address this issue in a committee process.


The Assessment Team’s interviews highlighted a number of variables and unknown factors that will influence the potential for reaching consensus on a proposed regulation. The Team discussed these variables openly during interviews, and in some cases scheduled follow up discussions, in order to understand how they might affect the potential success of a committee. The variables in the GGNRA context create a band of uncertainty that is reflected in the Assessment Team’s recommendations, set out below. These variables are: The commitment and ability of stakeholders to move beyond their well known differences on the “whether” issue to focus on “how” off-leash dog walking might be allowed. The significance of this issue, and the difficult choices facing those opposed to off-leash dog walking, are described above in the “Key Interests” section of the report.

The commitment of advocacy group representatives to focus on constructive problem solving and demonstrate flexibility around objectives. The intensity of feeling over the off-leash issue has been expressed through a range of strategies and tactics in other Bay Area forums, including public demonstrations and media-oriented actions. GGNRA

GGNRA005474

of 23

also has experienced at least one significant public demonstration. A Committee seeking consensus will not thrive if stakeholder groups pursue their goals using similar approaches. Stakeholders must be willing to do their work within a Committee, including the potentially difficult process of making tradeoffs. The Assessment Team views the “commitment to reaching consensus” as the single most important unknown based on its interviews.

The lingering consequences of past conflicts over this issue in San Francisco and the Bay Area. Activists will bring their experiences, perceptions, judgments and assumptions about other people and organizations to a regulatory negotiation committee. This history can be an asset: people understand many of the issues and potential options, and also may have built positive relationships that can contribute to reaching consensus. History can also create barriers to cooperation. The assessment suggests it will be necessary for potential participants on the Committee to begin with a “clean slate” to the extent possible, finding ways to avoid simply re-enacting difficult experiences from the past.

The future impacts of San Francisco’s Dog Advisory Commission (DAC) process. The DAC is evaluating the appropriateness of, and in many cases approving, off-leash dog walking in numerous San Francisco parks. The Assessment Team interviewed several DAC members. Under one possible scenario a gradual increase in available options for walking dogs off-leash across the city resulting from DAC decisions would reduce pressures on GGNRA resources. Another possible scenario is that the commitment of people to favorite local off-leash areas, whether in GGNRA or the city, means there would not be any significant effect. Based on the assessment interviews the latter is considered more probable.

The impact of GGNRA’s NEPA analysis of different alternatives for off-leash walking. The NEPA process will go on concurrently with the work of a Committee, and it is likely a draft NEPA document analyzing a set of options, perhaps including a consensus recommendation from the Committee, would be published only after the Committee has completed its work. A Committee cannot reach consensus and expect GGNRA simply to adopt their recommendation because of the requirement for analysis of a range of alternatives under NEPA. For this reason, it will be important for the Committee to interact appropriately with GGNRA’s NEPA team as they seek consensus, in order to gain as much understanding as possible about how a Committee proposal may fare when analyzed under NEPA.

The potential for legal action related to off-leash dog walking before or during a regulatory negotiation process, or prior to the conclusion of rulemaking. Litigation over the restoration process at Fort Funston filed by off-leash advocates several years ago is part of the fabric of the off-leash controversy.12 While that particular suit is no

12 Fort Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (N.D.Cal. 2000).

GGNRA005475

of 23

longer active, other litigation is pending and more is possible.13 These lawsuits could prove to have only minor substantive impact on a committee’s work, or could have a significant effect on rulemaking by changing the relevant legal framework for decision making. Adversarial litigation could limit the willingness of stakeholders, including government employees, to speak freely during Committee discussions or otherwise provide information. Litigation also could also strengthen the convictions of those who believe it will not be possible to achieve consensus or who would prefer an outright victory.

The internal NPS and DOI policy making process for a GGNRA rule. One of the considerations specified in the Rulemaking Act for the decision whether to form a committee is that “[t]he agency, to the maximum extent possible consistent with the legal obligations of the agency, will use the consensus of the committee with respect to the proposed rule as the basis for the rule proposed by the agency for notice and comment.”14 The enormous time commitment required of a participant in a committee consistently generates a fundamental question: “Will the agency use our work product or not?” No agency will commit in advance to simply adopting a committee’s recommendations, but the Rulemaking Act’s language offers a balanced approach that is essential to gaining citizen participation. For this reason, the internal process by which GGNRA, NPS, and the Department of the Interior will reach a policy decision on any recommendation from a Committee is a key variable. The Assessment Team discussed this issue with GGNRA staff during assessment interviews.

The outcome of November’s elections. Creating a Committee, participating in the Committee, and addressing recommendations from a Committee in rulemaking are three GGNRA and NPS actions that could be affected by a change of administration resulting from November’s elections. There is less likelihood that a continuation of the current administration would have any affect, although that cannot be ruled out.

Any significant leadership change within DOI, NPS, or GGNRA. Apart from the election outcome, any change of top leadership within DOI and the NPS could also affect GGNRA actions related to a Committee and rulemaking. Such changes are not unusual across the federal government following presidential elections, even when there is not change of administration. A change of leadership at GGNRA also could have similar impacts on rulemaking.

13 One perspective on legal developments is a web site maintained by off-leash advocates: http://oceanbeachdog.home.mindspring.com. The Assessment Team cannot predict the likelihood of further litigation with any confidence. 14 §563(a)(7)

GGNRA005476

http://oceanbeachdog.home.mindspring.com/

of 23

RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

Based on the results of interviews with stakeholders representing personal and organizational interests, as well as with GGNRA leadership, we recommend that GGNRA proceed with a negotiated rulemaking process. A significant majority of interviewees, when asked whether they preferred GGNRA conducting a rulemaking on its own following traditional procedures, or a negotiated process where they could be directly involved, preferred the latter. This preference is a key element of the foundation for the Assessment Team’s recommendation to proceed. Our recommendation was not obvious at the beginning of the assessment process, and should be considered in the challenging context presented above. Nonetheless, we believe it is appropriate given the circumstances. Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Act The Assessment Team used Rulemaking Act guidelines to develop its recommendation to proceed, as follows: 1. There is a need for a rule [§563(a)(1)].

GGNRA management, after extensive analysis and in consultation with NPS leadership, has clearly stated that the need exists and that under the current circumstances rulemaking is preferable to relying on existing NPS regulations. Interviews reveal a broad but not unanimous preference for rulemaking. The senior federal panel’s report in 2002 buttresses this determination of need in its recommendation that GGNRA pursue rulemaking.15




representation of persons who can adequately represent the interests identified [under paragraph 2] and are willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on the proposed rule [§563(a)(3)]. The Assessment Team specifically asked participants in interviews about their interest in participating, about others who could represent their interests, and about their willingness to negotiate in good faith. We believe balanced, adequate representation of the significant interests on a Committee is a reasonable goal.

15 See Federal Panel Recommendation §4, p. 7.

GGNRA005477

of 23

4. There is a reasonable likelihood that a committee will reach a consensus on the proposed rule within a fixed period of time [§563(a)(4)]. It is not possible to guarantee consensus in any situation, particularly where there are significant differences in core values and a history of conflict and adversarial interaction. Most of those likely to participate in a Committee expressed belief that consensus is attainable despite the past if all parties enter the process with a commitment to work constructively. Expressions of doubt more often reflected uncertainty about the motivations of other groups and individuals than one’s own commitment to reaching consensus. As noted above, one important factor is that the alternative of having GGNRA write a rule without a committee process—the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)—is not attractive to most people who participated in the assessment. The Assessment Team’s judgment at this time is that a Committee is reasonably likely to achieve a substantial level of agreement on a proposed rule. The Team anticipates that such a proposal will be quite detailed, addressing different locations and situations across GGNRA, and that some differences may prove difficult to resolve. While remaining open to the possibility of perfect consensus—unanimity—the Team recommends that decision makers assume a lower but still significant level of agreement to be a reasonably likely outcome.16


proposed rulemaking and the issuance of a final rule [§563(a)(5)]. We anticipate a six- to nine-month negotiated rulemaking process, which, in comparison to more traditional approaches to rulemaking, should not unreasonably delay the issuance of a final rule.


technical assistance, to the committee [§563(a)(6)]. GGNRA’s leadership expressed their commitment during the assessment process to ensuring adequate resources will be made available to support the project.


the agency, will use the consensus of the committee with respect to the proposed rule as the basis for the rule proposed by the agency for notice and comment [§563(a)(7)]. This guideline has been reviewed in detail with GGNRA management. In particular, the Assessment Team has emphasized the importance of GGNRA and NPS playing an active role in a Committee and raising any concerns directly with the Committee so that solutions can be developed before a proposed rule is submitted. GGNRA and NPS management understand the importance of this provision and are prepared to make a commitment consistent with this guideline.

16 The Rulemaking Act proposes a standard of unanimity, or perfect consensus, as a starting point for a committee, but provides for committee members to adopt their own version of consensus. See § 562 (2).

GGNRA005478

of 23

Proposed Structure of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and Process The Assessment Team proposes creation of a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and four supporting subcommittees to achieve the goals of the negotiated rulemaking process. The Committee would be created consistent with legal requirements including FACA. A committee of approximately 20-22 members, including GGNRA, is likely. The make-up of the Committee must provide for a balance across the various perspectives held by individuals and organizations with an interest in the issues. The proposed subcommittees and their purposes are:

1) Technical Subcommittee – to identify links between issues and data; to advise the Committee on the availability of data for use in making management decisions about off-leash dog walking; to advise the Committee on the quality of available data; and potentially to recommend data collection initiatives in support of decision making and adaptive management strategies consistent with the Committee schedule.

2) Operations Subcommittee – to evaluate potential approaches to improving enforcement and enhancing compliance with the rules that emanate from the Negotiated Rulemaking process; this includes identifying strategies and mechanisms to provide sufficient funding. This subcommittee also would consider approaches for supporting maintenance and other operational needs associated with implementation of a new rule.

3) Public Outreach and Education Subcommittee – to promote public understanding and support for the implementation of any new rule; this subcommittee will focus on developing strategies to ensure the public understands the content and implications of a new rule that reflects the Committee’s consensus recommendations.

4) Implementation Subcommittee – this fourth subcommittee potentially would focus on concrete issues arising from implementation of a proposed rule, but only if the three subcommittees proposed above were not sufficient to cover those issues. If needed, an Implementation Subcommittee likely would be created later in the regulatory negotiation process, once the shape of a proposed rule is clearer.

An extended collaborative problem solving process must be responsive to changing dynamics during the course of negotiations. With this caveat, the following schedule and process are proposed to achieve the objectives of negotiated rulemaking. This section is intended primarily to give readers and GGNRA decision makers a clear sense of the many choices associated with organizing and supporting a successful negotiated rulemaking. The details of this proposed approach inevitably will be modified. Appendix C to this report provides a general graphic depiction of the proposed process.

GGNRA005479

of 23

Week 1 - Committee Meeting #1 Agenda: provide an overview of the regulatory negotiation process to date, discuss make-up of the Committee, review Committee charter and protocols and confirm commitment, clarify geographic scope for off-leash options and other “sideboards,” confirm committee objectives, provide an overview of the assessment report, describe and discuss the negotiation process, identify key issues to be addressed, discuss proposed subcommittees and membership, reach agreement on decision making process including definition of consensus, discuss the role of objective criteria and data in decision making, address the potential for adaptive management, and discuss linkages to NEPA and related processes.

Week 4 - Technical Subcommittee Meeting #1 Agenda: identify data essential to decision making, review available data, review data by geographic areas, and identify data gaps.

Week 6 - Committee Meeting #2 Agenda: provide an overview of agency mandates, identify potential locations for off-leash dog walking, discuss attributes and limitations by location (possibly use a straw man developed by GGNRA), seek agreement on decision criteria, and discuss outcomes of Technical Subcommittee Meeting #1. Possibly present findings of draft internal scoping report prepared for the concurrent NEPA process. A joint field trip to all prospective dog walking locations within GGNRA is also recommended at this time.

Week 9 – Technical Subcommittee Meeting #2

Agenda: assess database for the various sites discussed during Committee Meeting #2.

Operations Subcommittee Meeting #1

Agenda: discuss appropriate levels of enforcement and how to support enforcement; this could include funding options. Identify other operational impacts such as increased maintenance requirements. Outreach/Education Subcommittee Meeting #1 Agenda: discuss challenges based on prior experiences; identify potential outreach and educational options and opportunities to support potential rulemaking, including needs for signage and other informational materials.

GGNRA005480

of 23

Week 12 - Committee Meeting #3 Agenda: discuss results of subcommittee meetings; using available data and agreed upon decision criteria conduct initial screening of potential locations for off-leash dog walking; begin building consensus on recommendation to GGNRA; begin the discussion of management strategies for each potential site to ensure meeting NPS guidelines.

Week 15 – Subcommittee Meetings


Week 19 – Committee Meeting #4

Agenda: receive reports from subcommittees; craft components of proposed rule; continue building consensus around specific locations and management strategies.

Depending on agency preference, GGNRA/NPS staff begin developing technical language consistent with emerging Committee consensus on a recommendation.


Agenda: review and comment on Committee’s proposed rule as drafted by NPS technical staff.

Week 25 – Implementation Subcommittee Meeting #1

Agenda: discuss steps in implementing the new rule and identify tasks that need to be undertaken in support of the Committee’s consensus recommendation; develop an action plan.


Agenda: finalize Committee consensus recommendation on proposed rule and agree on the implementation action plan.17

Charter and Protocols A Committee will be created by a formal federal charter and its deliberations will be guided by working principles and operating protocols (collectively “protocols”). Protocols will cover attendance at meetings, role of alternates, withdrawal or replacement of a committee member, contact with the media, transparency of related activities outside the process, and communications with constituencies. A proposed set of protocols will be shared with prospective participants as part of ascertaining their willingness to participate, and a commitment to the protocols will be expected as the basis for their appointment on a Committee.

17 One important point requiring ongoing attention is the relationship of the NEPA process to the Committee’s process. Further information about the likely NEPA and Committee timetables is needed before specific decisions about coordinating the two processes can be made.

GGNRA005481

of 23

Prospective members of the Committee must commit to making a good-faith effort to reach consensus while advocating for the interests of the organization or viewpoints they are chosen to represent. The Assessment Team recommends that all participants make an explicit commitment to discussing constructively the possibility of off-leash dog walking in GGNRA regardless of individual views about whether that use is either legal or appropriate as part of their decision to participate on a Committee. Potential Committee Members and Alternates The Assessment Team developed a list of potential candidates to serve on a committee consistent with the goal of balance outlined in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act and provided that information to GGNRA staff. The Assessment Team also discussed with GGNRA the role and selection process for committee alternates. GGNRA and NPS management will decide on the composition of a Committee including alternates consistent with federal law, with the formal appointments to be made by the Secretary of the Interior.

CONCLUSION The Assessment Team appreciates the opportunity to work with GGNRA and members of the public in this phase of a potential negotiated rulemaking process. The Assessment Team will work with the GGNRA and other assessment participants to ensure this report and recommendations are understood by all potential stakeholders. Subject to a decision by NPS, the Assessment Team will also provide support for activities leading to the initiation of the Negotiated Rulemaking phase of the project. The Assessment Team wishes to acknowledge the positive response to its interview requests and the flexibility and commitment shown by people in order to participate in the assessment. This support greatly enhanced the assessment process and is appreciated. The Assessment Team also acknowledges the cooperation of GGNRA and Institute staff during the course of the assessment.

GGNRA005482

of 23

Appendix A

United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Fort Mason, San Francisco, California 94123 IN REPLY REFER TO:

L30 (GOGA-PASE) Dear Participant: This letter is an invitation to participate in the next phase of the rulemaking process for addressing dog management policies, including off-leash dog walking, at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). Consistent with our commitment to include the public meaningfully in development of a GGNRA dog management rule, we are inviting you to be a key part of this phase of the process. This letter is being sent to people like yourself who have a demonstrated interest in and commitment to GGNRA dog management issues. This phase of the process is a “Situation Assessment” that will involve a series of interviews with members of identified interest groups. Under the auspices of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, a highly qualified team of experienced mediators was brought on board to complete the Assessment and facilitate the process. These interviews will determine whether certain key conditions are satisfied in order to justify forming a committee, including whether there is a representative committee of persons who could adequately express the concerns of affected interest groups and would be willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on a proposed rule for GGNRA allowing off-leash dogwalking. Subsequently, a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee could be formed under the Federal Advisory Commission Act to work formally with the GGNRA to investigate a regulation for Golden Gate to allow off-leash dogwalking in certain areas of the park where resources and visitor safety will not be impacted. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, January-April 2002, listed initial perimeters for consideration for off-leash use. Concurrent to the committee meetings, an environmental review following federal NEPA guidelines would also be completed on any proposed regulation allowing off-leash dogwalking. Rulemaking typically is managed entirely by a federal agency, which develops a draft rule, publishes that rule in the Federal Register for public comment, and then publishes a final rule following analysis of the public comments. However, we are moving forward with Negotiated Rulemaking, an alternative process, where a representative committee of stakeholders works with an agency to develop a consensus recommendation regarding a proposed rule. We feel that your input is vital to helping us explore a potential new regulation allowing off-leash dogwalking in certain areas of the GGNRA, as well as to contribute to education, public awareness and implementation of the new rule should we reach consensus. The federal rulemaking process is explained on our web site at www.nps.gov/goga/pets/regneg.

GGNRA005483

of 23

The Assessment Team will be led jointly by Greg Bourne (Center for Collaborative Policy) and J. Michael Harty (CDR Associates). The Team worked with GGNRA staff to identify appropriate individuals to contact, and will make independent decisions about who is interviewed based on input from GGNRA and other stakeholders like you. I am writing to personally seek your support for the situation assessment. You can expect to be contacted directly by either Greg or Mike, or another member of the assessment team. They will provide details about the assessment process and make arrangements to speak with you. The GGNRA will participate in the assessment process as one of the interest groups and I will be interviewed, along with members of my staff. Greg and Mike and team members expect to conduct multiple sets of interviews. If you have any questions about GGNRA’s rulemaking process, please contact Chris Powell at (415) 561-4732 or Shirwin Smith at (415) 561-4947. Please direct any questions about the situation assessment process to Greg Bourne (916-445-2079) or Mike Harty (530-297-7234). I appreciate your support and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, /s/ Brian O’Neill General Superintendent

GGNRA005484

of 23

APPENDIX B GGNRA SITUATION ASSESSMENT CONTACTS

The Assessment Team contacted many people by telephone, e-mail, letter, and in person in connection with the assessment process. These contacts served multiple purposes that included evaluating initial interest, assistance in finding contact information, advice about who to call, and arranging an in-depth interview. In a few cases individuals either did not respond to our initial message or declined to participate in the assessment. Efforts to contact or follow up with one or more organizations or individuals based on recent discussions may be underway but likely will not affect the substance of the assessment report. The following list covers people in all these categories without distinction. Elected Officials

o Office of U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (Dan Bernal) o Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (Michelle Moss) o Office of U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (Michelle Senders) o Office of State Senator Jackie Speier (Margo Rosen) o Office of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (David Gutierrez, Aimee

Albertson) o City of Pacifica, Mayor Jim Vreeland

Government Agencies

o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bay-Delta Branch (Dan Buford) o California Department of Fish & Game (Carl Wilcox) o San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (Becky Ballinger) o San Francisco Department of Animal Care & Control (Carl Friedman and Deb

Campbell) o City of San Mateo Park and Recreation Department (Tara Russell)


o California Native Plant Society (Jake Sigg, Randy Zebell) o Center for Biological Diversity (Brent Plater) o Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association (Susan Andres) o Golden Gate Audubon Society (Arthur Feinstein) o Marine Mammal Center (Kathy Zagzebski) o National Parks Conservation Association: Pacific Regional Office (Courtney

Cuff) o National Parks Conservation Association: National Office (Ron Tipton) o Presidio Sustainability Project (Stephen Krefting) o Sierra Club (Norman La Force, Gordon Bennett) o Natural Resources Defense Council: San Francisco (Johanna Wald)

Dog Walking Interests

o Crissy Field Dog Walkers (Martha Walters) o Fort Funston Dog Walkers (Linda McKay) o Ocean Beach Dog Owners Group (John Keating)

GGNRA005485

of 23

o ProDog (Joe Hague) o San Francisco Dog Owners Group (Anne Farrow, Jeri Flinn, Keith McAllister) o Gary Fergus

General Animal Welfare Interests

o Marin Humane Society (Diane Allevato, Cindy Machado) o San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Daniel Crain,

Christine Rosenblatt) Equestrian Interests


Park User Interests


Other Groups and Individuals/Interests

o Association of National Park Service Rangers (Jeff McFarland, Ken Mabry) o Coleman Advocates for Youth (David Robinson) o Author, California Dog Lover’s Companion and Bay Area Dog Lover’s

Companion (Maria Goodavage) o Access 4 Bikes, Marin (Brian Foster) o Former Citizens Advisory Comm’n (Paul Jones, Trent Orr) o Leslie Gordon o Mother of Twins Club, San Francisco (Stephanie Crump) o Presidio Trust (Craig Middleton) o Senior Action Network (Bruce Livingston)


o Northern California Mediation Center, Marin County (Nancy Foster) o Community Mediation Board of West Marin (Sadja Greenwood) o San Mateo Superior Court MAP Project (assistant to Sheila Purcell) o San Mateo County Small Claims Mediation o Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (Jen Bullock, Florence Beier) o San Mateo Civil ADR Coordinator (Valerie Berland) o Marin County Mediation Services (Barbara Kob) o California Community Dispute Services (Thom Bateman) o Community Boards of San Francisco (Chuck Regal)

GGNRA005486

30

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Technical Subcommittee Implementation Subcommittee

Note: Identified timeframes for meetings are tentative and some activities Operations Subcommittee Public Outreach & Education Subcommittee may require more than one meeting.

15 18 21 24

Appendix C

Proposed Negotiated Rulemaking Schedule

Anticipated Timeline for Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to Develop Recommendation on Proposed RuleNumber of Weeks from Initiation of Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

3 6 9 12 27

Meeting #1

Meeting #1

Meeting #1

Meeting #2 with field trip

Meeting #2

Meeting #1

Meeting #3

Meeting #2

Meeting #2

Meeting #3

Meeting #4

Meeting #5

Meeting #6

Meeting #1

9/17/2004 Page 23 of 23GGNRA005487

CCP’s Meeting with Potential Stakeholders Tuesday, September 6, 2005

NPS Talking Points:

We have spent several years now preparing to review GGNRA dog management issues and have invited the community to join us. We are now at the critical point of sending the final representatives back to the Secretary’s office for appointment to the Committee. Before we do so, we need to ensure you are still willing to work with us to find a solution to this issue. Setting up this committee is a big step for the NPS and we are not taking it lightly (only 3rd committee in NPS history). Washington put their faith in the community that you could come together to determine an outcome that everyone could live with. We need that reassurance before we send any names back to the Secretary. There is a wide range of options before us, and together we can determine what is best for the park and the visitors.

If you come to the table to do the hard work with us, this can serve as a model for other national parks. This is an opportunity not given to many national parks, but in order to live up to the hard task before us we need to focus on the process at hand. In order to have a successful outcome to the negotiated rulemaking process, we need to all be willing to focus our energies into the committee and not on FOIAS, petitions, lawsuits, email action alerts and website misinformation. The Committee will determine as a whole what information is needed and then we will supply any needed information that we have available. There is not enough staff time and energy in your organizations or our to successfully undertake negotiated rulemaking while also working on FOIAs, lawsuits, petitions, etc. You have our assurance that we will work with you openly and honestly through the Committee to supply what is needed and we need your assurance that you will do the same. If you have decided at this time that you won’t join us to negotiate in good faith, we'll still move forward to address this issue, as the present situation is not healthy for the park resources and visitors. We will put out any change for public review and comment and we will welcome your comments then. If asked about Judge Alsup’s decision:

The current situation with Judge Alsup's decision hasn't changed our decision to review dog management issues—preferably through the negotitated rulemaking process. His decision was based on a procedural error and is only temporary until we rectify the procedural error. To fix this procedural error, we'd like you to help us determine the future of dog management in GGNRA.

GGNRA005488

The need to review this issue at this time is dictated by resource and visitor protection needs that have changed since the 1979 Pet Policy was first instituted. If asked how we will proceed if Negotiated Rulemaking does not move forward, we don’t know at this time. There are numerous options before us and NPS has not decided on which options best fits the needs of the park.

Logistics: Times and Attendees: 10:100-noon: Other Park Users: This group includes Marin Humane Society, SFSPCA, Coleman Advocates for Youth, Senior Action Network, Equestrian representatives, former Citizen’s Advisory Committee members Mai-Liis Bartling, Chris Powell, Shirwin Smith, Greg Bourne, Mike Harty 1p.m.-3p.m: Environmental Caucus: This group includes California Native Plant Society, Golden Gate Audoban, Marine Mammal Center, Sierra Club Mai-Liis Bartling, Brian O’Neill (late), Chris Powell, Shirwin Smith, Greg Bourne, Mike Harty 3p.m.-5p.m. Off-Leash Causcus: This group includes Crissy Field Dog Owners Group, SFDog, Pacifica Dog Walkers, Pro Dog (commercial dogwalkers group) Brian O’Neill, Chris Powell, Shirwin Smith. Greg Bourne, Mike Harty Location: Fort Mason Officers Club Main Dining Room NPS representatives have been asked to be at the first hour of the meeting, but to be flexible in case we are needed longer. Mike and Greg will let us know when we can leave so they can talk with the stakeholders.

GGNRA005489

Tasks for the Convener for the Reg-Neg

Organizational Meeting and Review of Background Materials Meet with NPS staff and the Institute’s project manager to establish mutual expectations regarding roles and responsibilities, review relevant background information regarding the various aspects of the dog management issue, and identify the legal and policy parameters for the stakeholder process.

Develop Interview Protocol Develop a letter of introduction and an interview protocol that will serve as the first point of interaction with potential participants in the negotiated rulemaking process, and for other interested parties whose opinion and sentiments towards the controversy may be important. The protocol will include: 1) an orientation to the origins, context, and purpose of the negotiated rulemaking

effort, an introduction to the assessment process and the neutral team, NPS staff and Institute, and overview of the anticipated approach, and

2) a series of questions to solicit information from the perspective of each party.

Identify and Contact Individuals to be Interviewed. Work closely with NPS to identify key parties who are likely to have a strong interest in participating in the negotiated rulemaking process, including those who play key roles relevant to the controversy and those with important information or expertise needed to inform the discussion.

Conduct Confidential Interviews The interviews will be used to: 1) gain an understanding of the most important issues and concerns of NPS and of

the different stakeholder interest groups with respect to dog management; 2) seek to identify possible common interests that could potentially serve as a

foundation for crafting broadly supported solutions; 3) explore the feasibility of convening a productive negotiated rulemaking process

and the appropriateness of different design options

Prepare Assessment Report The Assessment Report will: 1) summarize the scope of relevant issues and concerns identified; 2) clarify and neutrally describe the range of perspectives on these issues; 3) identify areas of potential agreement and shared interests; 4) evaluate the feasibility of a productive negotiated rulemaking process, including a

recommendation regarding whether or not to proceed and an assessment of conditions for success;

5) propose design options for moving ahead with a effort.

GGNRA005490