There is great value in submitting a personal comment that includes your own personal insights and experience in the GGNRA and on the General Management Plan. However, if time is short, here are quick way to supports keeping recreation in the GGNRA. Remember, encourage everyone you know to submit a comment supporting keeping “recreation”.
2) Cut and Paste Responses
Form Question 1:
What proposals or aspects do you like about the preferred alternative in this Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (DGMP/EIS)?
Creating additional recreational facilities and maintaining the neglected facilities that exist, particularly at Ocean Beach and Fort Funston. This should be one of the top priorities for GGNRA funding.
Form Question 2:
Do you have any suggestions for improving the preferred alternative in this DGMP/EIS? If so, what are they?
The GGNRA Foundational Purpose should not be to “offer a national park experience”. The Purpose needs to specifically include “public use and enjoyment” and “provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space”. Also, recreation needs to be the highest priority goal for evaluating all plans, and none of the plan alternatives provide the needed recreational open space for public use and enjoyment.
Plan to increase not decrease recreational use. Except for highly sensitive areas, remove “involve controlled access” and “aggressively administer”. These lands are part of local communities where millions of people should be actively encouraged to continue enjoying regular relaxation, exercise, and inspiration that make it one of the most valued and visited lands in America. Allow the same recreational activities to continue on these lands as occurs currently (e.g., dog walking, family events, running, informal sports, picnicking, etc.)
Form Question 3:
Do you have any other comments related to this DGMP/EIS?
I oppose the draft foundational purpose and all management alternatives for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties; the plan is deceptive and disregards the legislative mandate to “preserve for public use and enjoyment” and “provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space”. The plan effectively seeks to change the enabling legislation which is unlawful without an Act of Congress and also does not restore and maintain the recreational value agreed to when SF deeded Ocean Beach and Fort Funston to the US government.
Please submit any additional comments in the box provided. You can enter up to 35,000 characters in the comment field (approximately equivalent to a 10 page letter). If you wish to send us more detailed comments, you may submit them in hardcopy by clicking on Print Form in the left navigation.
Also this plan was not publicized in an adequate or timely manner, and even the 60-day public comment period is not adequate to allow for meaningful participation by the general public. This new draft plan only allows 47 days from the date of the press release for the community to learn about the draft plan, understand the major changes proposed, and respond.