[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8549-8551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1529]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Chapter I


Establishment of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog 
Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area

ACTION: Notice of establishment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior is establishing the Negotiated 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management to negotiate and 
develop a special regulation for dog management at Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area, in accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 
1990, 5 U.S.C. 564.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian O'Neill, General Superintendent, 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Ft. Mason, Building 201, San 
Francisco, California 94123, 415-561-4720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary has determined that 
establishment of this Committee is in the public interest and supports 
the National Park Service in performing its duties and responsibilities 
under the NPS Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.; the Endangered Species 
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; and the Golden Gate National Recreation 
Area Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb et seq.
    In accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 
564, a Notice of Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee was published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2005, 
providing a 30-day public comment period which concluded July 28, 2005. 
Three hundred thirty seven responses were received during the comment 
period.

Substantive Comments

Committee Additions

    Comments suggested additions to the Committee which can be grouped 
into the following broad categories: Volunteer restoration groups, 
general park users not affiliated with any group, representation of 
adjacent governmental agencies, communities of color, disabled, 
additional dogwalkers associated with specific GGNRA sites and 
additional recreational user groups and advocates for narrowly-defined 
outcomes.

Response

    The National Park Service is aware that a balanced Committee is 
necessary in order for discussions to be meaningful and fair. The 
Negotiated Rulemaking Procedure Act (U.S.C. Title 5, Part I, Chapter 5, 
Subchapter III) passed by Congress, states that a federal agency 
considering negotiated rulemaking must determine that there are a 
limited number of identifiable interests that will be significantly 
affected by the rule and that there is a reasonable likelihood that a 
committee can be convened with a balanced representation of persons who 
can adequately represent the interests identified. The Act also states 
that a federal agency can use the services of a ``convener'' to 
determine the above. NPS, working through the U.S. Institute of 
Environmental Conflict Resolution, hired the Center for Collaborative 
Policy (CCP) in March, 2004, and they subsequently assisted in 
identifying interests significantly affected by a proposed rule and 
representatives of those interests.

[[Page 8550]]

    However, as a result of comments received, NPS has proposed 
replacing one of the two initially proposed equestrian representatives, 
who both belonged to groups in the north district of the park, with a 
representative of equestrian interests in the south district of the 
park. The NPS, with the approval of other Committee members, will work 
to bring a broad range of input to the Committee through membership on 
subcommittees, by presentations to the Committee and subcommittees and 
through the public comment period at each Committee meeting.

Committee Deletions

    Comments were also received suggesting that some proposed members 
be removed. It was suggested the following representative groups be 
deleted: commercial dogwalkers, off-leash advocates (over-
representation), representatives of those opposing any off-leash use in 
the park and those who are perceived as being unable to negotiate in 
good faith. In addition, the Presidio Trust has withdrawn from the 
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee but stated that they will participate 
in the concurrent NEPA process.

Response

    The Negotiated Rulemaking Act states that interests must be willing 
to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on the proposed rule. 
Even though recent activities surrounding this issue have raised 
emotions, all proposed committee members except one have recently 
reaffirmed willingness to move forward with the process. The one off-
leash dogwalking representative who was unwilling to agree to good 
faith standards has been replaced by another off-leash representative 
who had been previously suggested for committee membership.
    In the final, proposed committee membership, commercial dogwalkers, 
off-leash dogwalkers, and those opposing off-leash uses are all 
interest groups who use the park and are noted in the Notice of Intent 
as interest groups significantly affected by this issue and thus, must 
be involved in any meaningful discussions. Among the interest groups 
supporting off-leash dogwalking, there are a numerous viewpoints; in 
addition, the proposed committee membership has been selected to 
provide a balance of groups with shared interests. The proposed 
membership balances those shared interests of groups advocating voice 
control, groups representing the environment and representatives of 
other park user groups.

Committee Purpose and Process

    Comments responded to a number of factors surrounding the 
establishment and scope of the Committee. Broadly categorized, the 
comments addressed: the NPS mandate to protect resources; the scope and 
sideboards for the Committee's discussions; the validity and 
effectiveness of the negotiated rulemaking process itself and the 
recent decision by Judge Alsup (U.S. vs. Barley).

Response

    The NPS has a responsibility to protect resources under the NPS 
Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq., the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1531 et. seq., and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Act, 16 
U.S.C. 460bb et seq. Concurrent to the Committee discussions, NPS is 
initiating preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to 
determine when and where off-leash and on-leash dogwalking can occur 
and under what conditions. The scope and sideboards of the Committee 
discussions were not affected by Judge Alsup's recent decision (U.S. 
vs. Barley), which was based on a procedural error and is in effect 
until such time as the procedural error is corrected or a new 
regulation is adopted. The NPS feels that Negotiated Rulemaking gives 
the best chance of success for resolving this controversial issue. The 
NOI states that the scope of the Negotiated Rulemaking discussions can 
include on-leash dogwalking, which will be included in a dog management 
plan for GGNRA.

Non-Substantive Comments

    A number of comments were received that did not address the 
establishment or membership of the negotiated rulemaking committee, but 
did address the general issue of off-leash dogwalking. Those comments 
addressed the following categories: support or opposition of 
establishing off-leash dogwalking in GGNRA; options for establishing 
and managing off-leash dogwalking in GGNRA; the history of off-leash 
dogwalking at GGNRA; the mandate of GGNRA to protect the resources for 
which it was established; the existence of an NPS-wide leash 
regulation; that GGNRA is not responsible for providing off-leash 
recreation; the need for dogs to be off-leash; the impact, or lack of 
impact, of off-leash dogs on natural resources; the safety, or risk, 
that off-leash dogwalking creates; that off-leash dogwalking has 
restricted use of park areas by other user groups and that all 
taxpayers are equally entitled to use the park.

Response

    The NPS will be preparing a comprehensive dog management plan and 
associated environmental impact statement that will evaluate a full 
range of reasonable alternatives for dog management at GGNRA. The NPS 
will take these comments into consideration when preparing the plan.

Committee Membership

    The Secretary has appointed the following primary and alternate 
members to the Committee:
    1. The interests of the Department of the Interior will be 
represented by:

National Park Service--Christine Powell
Alternate--Howard Levitt

    2. The interests of organizations and visitors advocating off-leash 
use will be represented by:

a. Crissy Field Dog Group--Martha Walters
    Alternate--Cynthia Adams
b. Fort Funston Dog Walkers--Linda McKay
    Alternate--Karin Hu
c. CalDog--Gary Fergus
    Alternate--Carol Copsey
d. Pacifica Dog Walkers--Jeri Flinn
    Alternate--Anne Farrow
e. San Francisco Dog Owners Group--Keith McAllister
    Alternate--Carol Arnold

    3. The interests of commercial dog walking businesses will be 
represented by:

ProDog--Joe Hague
Alternate--Donna Sproull

    4. The interests of environmental organizations will be represented 
by:

a. California Native Plant Society--Mark Heath
    Alternate--Jake Sigg
b. Center for Biological Diversity--Brent Plater
    Alternate--Jeff Miller
c. Birdwatchers--Arthur Feinstein (Environmentalist)
    Alternate--Elizabeth Murdock (Golden Gate Audubon)
d. Marine Mammals--Erin Brodie (Marine Mammal Center)
    Alternate--Joanne Mohr (Farollones Marine Sanctuary Association)
e. Sierra Club (Local Chapter)--Norman LaForce
    Alternate--Gorden Bennett
f. San Francisco League of Conservation Voters--Steven Krefting
    Alternate--Michelle Jesperson

    5. The interests of other park user groups will be represented by:

a. Coleman Advocates for Youth--David Robinson
    Alternate--Marybeth Wallace
b. Equestrian Groups--Judy Teichman (Marinwatch)

[[Page 8551]]

    Alternate--Holly Prohaska (Mar Vista Stables)
c. Seniors and Disabled--Bruce Livingston (Senior Action Network)
    Alternate--Bob Planthold (Senior Action Network)
d. Marin Humane Society--Cindy Machado
    Alternate--Steve Hill
e. San Francisco SPCA--Daniel Crain
    Alternate--Christine Rosenblat
f. Former member of GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission--Paul Jones
    Alternate--Betsey Cutler

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 
Appendix, copies of the Committee's chapter will be filled with the 
appropriate committees of Congress and with the Library of Congress.
    Certification: I hereby certify that the administrative 
establishment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for dog management 
at Golden Gate National Recreation Area is necessary and in the public 
interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the 
Department of the Interior by the Act of August 25, 1916, 16 U.S.C. 1 
et seq., and other statutes relating to the administration of the 
National Park System.

    Dated: February 6, 2006.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 06-1529 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-FN-M