Fort Funston Closures: Some
Facts
You=re probably aware of a large controversy and
a federal lawsuit regarding installation of fences and a closure here at Fort
Funston. This closure was undertaken
without any public input, and despite a commitment in 1995 by the Park Service
that there would be no more closures.
Under the law, public input is required if a closure
is Ahighly controversial.@ Documents which have been turned over to
park users in the discovery phase of this lawsuit demonstrate that this closure
is controversial and that the Park Service recognized this controversy almost a
year ago. AWe do not want this to blow
up in our faces,@ said one Park Service staff member in an e-mail
turned over in discovery.
It is important that all park users know the whole
story regarding the Fort Funston fences and closure. Below is a summary of the facts taken from the recent brief filed
on behalf of Fort Funston Dog Walkers (FFDW), San Francisco Dog Owners Group
(SFDOG), and three individuals in this federal case.
Introduction
In February 2000, the Park Service began
constructing new fences at Fort Funston to close a very popular area of the
park to the public. Dog owners believe
they are the largest user of the park.
This closure was commenced with no input from dog owners. The only input the Park Service sought in
planning and implementing the closure came from groups who favored the closure,
namely the Native Plant Society and the Audubon Society.
The evidence demonstrates that the closure plan was
conceived in October 1998. Throughout
1999, the Park Service finalized and approved the closure still without
requesting any input from dog owners,
all along realizing how controversial the project would be. In fact, evidence suggests that the Park
Service attempted to hide the pending closure from dog owners more than six
months before the closure actually was implemented.
The closure was not presented to dog owners until
early December 1999. Even then, the
Park Service gave dog owners the clear impression that the closure was in the
planning stages. The dog owners
believed they had ample opportunity to provide input into what they believed
was merely a proposal. The Park Service
gave the dog owners no indication that the closure was a done deal.
In mid-December 1999, the dog owners learned that
the closure was definite and imminent.
Understandably, there was a huge outcry. Due to this outcry, the Park Service did agree to modify the
closure slightly, to make a portion of the closure seasonal, and a portion
permanent.
The closure is hugely controversial to dog
owners. It follows a similar but larger
closure in 1995 of adjacent park land, which occurred with no input from
dog owners or public input of any kind.
After this closure, the Park Service assured dog owners and others that
there would be no further closures. The
current closure, therefore, was in violation of clear assurances made by the
Park Service.
Moreover, it was determined on March 6, 2000, a week
before this lawsuit was filed, that the size of the closure is actually 9.9
acres, rather than the 6 acres reported to dog owners and to the Court. The size of the closure, albeit small in
terms of the percentage of park acreage being fenced off, results in a major
alteration in the public use pattern of the park. The area closed is tremendously popular to dog owners and other
park users both for exercise benefits and enjoyment. Dog owners believe the Park Service never evaluated the usage of
this area of the park and the alterations that would result if this area were
closed. Finally, dog owners believe
that this closure is just another in a series of small closures that eventually
will shut them out of most or all of the park.
Background Information
Fort Funston Dog Walkers, founded in 1992, is an organization comprised of dog owners
and dog lovers who want to protect and preserve what they believe is one of
the largest and most beautiful dog-friendly parks in the country . . . Fort
Funston. The group meets at Fort Funston
on the first Saturday of each month. They
spend the first hour of each gathering picking up human and dog litter throughout
the park. Following their clean-up,
the group meets for refreshments and to discuss any items of interest to the
group. The group currently has approximately
600 members.
The group makes every effort to be good stewards of
the park. In addition to conducting
monthly clean-ups, the group supplies clean-up bags to be used by all park
users. Since 1996, the group has spent
approximately $8,700 on these bags.
Prior Closures
In late 1994 or early 1995, Park Service officials
closed approximately 26 acres in the northern part of Fort Funston. The stated reason was to restore native
habitat and provide protection for the bank swallows. The members of FFDW were outraged because there had been no
public input prior to the closure.
Letters were written and petitions were signed, but to no avail. Fences were installed and the land closed
nonetheless.
In conjunction with the closure, the Park Service held
a meeting at the Fort Funston Rangers Station to explain it. Approximately 250 members of FFDW attended
this very contentious meeting. This was
the largest turnout the group had ever had, and demonstrated the highly
controversial nature of the closure. At
the meeting, the Park Service promised that there would be no further fencing
and no further closures. Defendant
Brian O=Neill, the General Superintendent of the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area (GGNRA), also wrote to the President of the San
Francisco SPCA stating that there would be no closure of the land south of the
1995 closure. The land that recently
has been closed is south of the 1995 closure.
Plans for the Current Closure
Discussions regarding the current closure of a portion of Fort Funston commenced in
October 1998. Also in October 1998, a
grant request was submitted soliciting funds for this closure. Apparently, a subsequent grant request also
was submitted. This subsequent request
indicates that the project was being undertaken in two stages, and that the
activities planned under the first phase were delayed due to the need to get
public comment. Regarding public
comment, the grant request states:
Unfortunately the activities planned under [the
first] phase were delayed, due to an extended public comment period - so as to
ensure that all public comment could be weighed before project implementation.
The project was approved on February 24, 1999.
By May 1999, the Park Service expected that the
current closure would take place and began developing a plan as to which
particular plants to plant in the closed area.
Members of the Native Plant Society were supportive of the revegetation
plan as early as February 1999.
Park Service staff generated numerous e-mails over
the remainder of 1999 and into 2000 which demonstrate the controversial nature
of the project, the lack of foundation for it, the Park Service=s efforts to keep the
project a secret, and the intentional lack of opportunity given to dog owners
for input, while providing ample opportunity for input to user groups in favor
of the plan. These e-mails were turned
over by the Park Service during this litigation and are described below in the
chronology of events from July 1999 through early March 2000.
On July 31, 1999, one e-mail discussed the Aimplementation of the Bank
Swallow Site Extension.@ In
that e-mail, Park Service staff stated,
we do not
want this to blow up in our faces
[emphasis added].
The
e-mail was concluded with the following:
A* *NOTE: Everyone copied on this should be very
discreet with this information, PLEASE.@
In September 1999, GGNRA officials drafted an
information sheet on the Fort Funston project entitled, ABank Swallow Protection Plan
at Fort Funston, Questions and Answers, 9/99.@ This report addresses the size of the area being closed and many
other aspects of the closure. Fort
Funston Dog Owners never received this report or any version of it.
Sometime in September 1999, a biologist from the
California Fish & Game Department met with Park Service representatives at
Fort Funston to view the bank swallow burrows on the bluffs. At the conclusion of his visit, Park
Service staff asked the biologist to prepare a letter or a report in support of
the closure. In this regard, two Park
Service staff members sent e-mails to the Fish & Game biologist on October
12, 1999 and October 27, 1999, respectively, requesting written support for the
closure. One staff member specified
items she wished to see in the report, including a statement that the decline
in the bank swallows was due to Arecreational impacts.@ The biologist never sent the requested documentation.
On December 3, 1999, representatives from FFDW met
with representatives from the Park Service to walk through Fort Funston. The parties discussed the recent closure of
the Sunset Trail, more trash cans, additional dispensers for the dog cleanup
bags, and the requested water fountain.
As the group was walking the property, they stood on the trail at the
northeast corner of Battery Davis and looked north over the site of the new
closure. A Park Service staff member
tried to explain the closure to the FFDW representatives using a map that he
did not understand and couldn’t=t read.
He even told the group that the map wasn=t a very good map.
During and after this meeting, the FFDW
representatives were under the clear impression that the proposed closure was
in the preliminary stages and that there would be plenty of time to negotiate
the scope and duration of the project.
On December 21, 1999, the Park Service e-mailed FFDW
proposed minutes of the December 3 walk-though. Only after reading these
minutes did FFDW realize that the proposed closure was imminent. The minutes also state that the major topic
of discussion was the closure of the Sunset Trail. The last page of the minutes provides that the dogowners stood Aready to assist the park in
getting the word out on issues to hundreds of dog owners once they are
clarified (emphasis added).@ The
issues are then listed, with the bank swallow area closure being listed as the
fourth of five issues, after the dog water fountain and bag dispensers.
On December 26, 1999, a FFDW representative met a
ranger at Fort Funston and asked him to clarify the closure as expressed in the
proposed minutes. After the ranger
explained to her the extent of the closure, he claims she walked away
muttering, AThis has nothing to do with the bank swallows, then.@ The ranger sent an e-mail to a Park Service staff person
confirming that the explanation given of the closure at the December 3
walk-though had not been clear, stating, AI=m afraid that maybe we didn=t make the boundaries too
clear to her at the meeting earlier this month . . . and I am afraid we will be
needing to perform LOTS of educational roves in the near future on this issue.@
On December 27, 1999, a FFDW representative sent an
e-mail to the Park Service in response to the proposed minutes of the December
3 walk-through. She explained that none
of their representatives had understood the extent of the closure. She also explained that, if the closure
occurred, there would be a Ahuge outcry,@ that Ahundreds of people play on
both dunes, hundreds more walk through the valley between the dunes and
flyover,@ and that the hills within the proposed closure area
were an especially Agreat place to run dogs@ when the tide was too high
for a beach walk. She closed by stating
that she=d Ahate to raise the issue and get everyone
upset if [she had] misunderstood@ the proposed minutes.
Representatives from FFDW were prepared to meet with
GGNRA in early January. Park Service
personnel, however, were not prepared to meet until January 20, 2000.
The Park Service=s Advisory Commission met on
January 18, 2000. Representatives from
FFDW and SFDOG attended this meeting. The
AUpdate on Bank Swallows Project@ was listed as a Anot for public comment item.@ Therefore, no one from FFDW or SFDOG was prepared to speak. In fact, this update was a report that the
San Francisco Committee of the Advisory Commission had approved the closure.
On January 20, 2000, representatives from FFDW met
again with Park Service staff at Fort Funston to discuss the proposed
closure. The representatives were
attempting to understand exactly where the new fences would be installed, and
why a closure purportedly for bank swallows had to extend all the way to the
Coastal Trail. They were told that the
Park Service could not figure out how to build the fence closer to the bluffs.
On January 24, 2000, a FFDW representative sent an
e-mail to the Park Service again expressing uncertainty as to the locations of
the fences and the sizes of the seasonal and permanent closures. She also expressed the Aanger@ of park users over the
closure, and she expressed that the closure was viewed as a Aland grab.@
In an e-mail dated January 26, 2000, a Park Service
staff member made the following comments regarding the controversial nature of
the closure:
As I have indicated on my messages we have completed
hte [sic] public process for the project (perhaps one of the more
contentious ones) and are ready to start.
The project involves the installation of approximately 1,750 linear feet
of fencing . . .
The project is to protect the state threatened bank
swallow species and involves closing 5.8 acres of Fort funston (much to some
of the dog owners dismay - however will have significant benefit to the
bank swallows).
The project is probably in the top 10% of the
park=s most visible projects . . . Brian wants to ensure
that we are in and out as quickly and professionally as possible, so if we can
have an experienced crew it will probably save us both headavhes [sic] in the
long run. The crew will need to work
continuously and consistently for the duration of the
project.
What I would like to propose is that if the crew finishes
earlier than the contract calls for then we pay you the balance in full - the
project is that political. [Emphasis added.]
In a series of e-mail
communications among Park Service personnel from February 10 through February
14, 2000, they concluded that there had never been public meetings with public
comment on the bank swallows issue.
By letter dated February 10, 2000, the President of
the Yerba Buena Chapter of the California Native Plant Society wrote to
defendant Brian O=Neill. In
this letter, he stated, AI am chagrined to learn that the bank swallow
informational briefing for the Advisory Commission [on January 18] did in fact
become yet another occasion for a loosely organized group of park users to
press their narrow agenda.@
In a February 15, 2000 e-mail, a Park Service staff
member concluded that there had been no formal notification of the closure, and
that he couldn=t locate any documentation that outreach to
dogowners actually had happened.
Portions of this e-mail are:
[A]fter reading the project review statements and
Mike=s documenting the lack of any formal input at any advisory meeting
going back to 1997, I believe there was no formal notification of the
closure of the area to protect bank swallows or to exclude dogs and that if
anything happened it was at the Fort Fuston [sic] level.
. . . .
There was some language in the 1996 bank swallow
plan that talked about outreach to dogowners and public education, but I can=t find any documentation
that it actually happened.
Ultimately, I think we have to say that there was no
requirement for official public imput [sic] as this was consistent with the GMP
and did not involve NEPA. It would have
been a courtesy to reach out to the dog owners reagarding [sic] this change and
we may have done so to some degree. [Emphasis added.]
On February 17, 2000, representatives from FFDW went
on a walk-through at Fort Funston to further understand the closure. Park Service personnel arranged to have an
Audubon Society representative present to explain the justifications for the
closure. Although he addressed the bank
swallows, his emphasis was on the wildlife (quail and rabbits) that would live
in the closed area once the new plants were established.
Construction of the fence commenced during the week
beginning February 22, 2000.
FFDW had a general meeting on February 29,
2000. Among the topics of discussion
was installation of the new fences. A
representative from the Park Service was asked to attend, but declined.
On March 6, 2000, the Park Service reported that
there was Aa discrepancy in the information we first provided
the public@ regarding the acreage included the closure. Rather than 6.4 acres, the number of acres
closed was 9.9 acres. This represents a
variance of 54.7 percent above the 6.4 acres originally reported.
On March 14, 2000, the Park Service reported to the
Court that the total area closed was six acres.
Information on Bank Swallows
In May 1996, the Park Service prepared a report
entitled AFort Funston=s Bank Habitat and Flyway,
Management Plan and Site Prescription.@ The Vision Statement of this plan provides:
Recreate the original habitat of a coastal scrub
community with the proper vegetation structure to enhance the Bank Swallow
foraging in the flyway between Bank Swallow nest site and Lake Merced. Such a site restoration will further support
extirpated species like California quail and brush rabbits.
The plan further sets forth the vegetation plan as
follows:
The purpose of restoring the native plants in the
Bank Swallow Habitat and flyway is to increase the availability of native
insects for the swallows to feed upon.
By doing so, the site also becomes excellent habitat for restoring the
displaced quail and brush rabbit populations.
The swallow=s primary food source is Lake Merced=s aquatic insect
population. The Bank Swallow Flyway
restoration will supplement the existing food source presently found at Lake
Merced, but will never replace its critical role in supporting the swallow
population.
The plan contains the following regarding
communicating with FFDW:
Schedule one-on-one walking tours with key members
of the Fort Funston Dog Owners Association.
(Don=t Forget Them, they are key to the overall
success of the project. (Emphasis in
original.)
An article authored by Barrett A. Garrison in 1999,
which appeared in The Birds of North America, states in relevant part, AGenerally Bank Swallow is
quite tolerant of human disturbance in general vicinity of colonies, as
evidenced by propensity of this bird to nest in active sand and quarries.@
In a recent deposition, the Park Service=s Natural Resource
Management Specialist stated that flyover areas are not necessary to the
protection of the bank swallows. She
was asked whether an area of native habitat provides any additional protection
to the bank swallows. She replied that
she did not know. She also stated that
Lake Merced is the primary feeding area for the bank swallows.
In addition, she stated that bank swallow predators
once sat on the tops of the fence posts that sit on the edge of the cliffs and
attacked the bank swallows. She
explained that devices had been placed on the tops of the fence posts to deter
predators from roosting there. Recent
pictures, however, reveal that these deterrents are not presently in place on
the fence posts.
A daily report prepared by Park Service volunteers
in conjunction with the monitoring of bank swallows states, AMany dogs in this area, but
it doesn=t seem to bother the birds.@
Settlement Attempts
Before
filing the federal lawsuit, FFDW and SFDOG requested meetings with the Park
Service to discuss this controversy.
FFDW and SFDOG made it clear that they wanted to avoid litigation. Only after repeated efforts were rebuffed
was the lawsuit filed.
The
next phase in this case will be a hearing, which interested park users may wish
to attend:
Friday, April 14th, 8:00 a.m.
Federal Building: 19th floor, Courtroom 9
450 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco
For
more information on the issue of closures at Fort Funston, as well as the full
text of the complaint and brief, visit:
www.fortfunstonforum.com