SFFA Letter to Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors

May 30, 2012 1 Comment

As readers of this site will know, SFFA recently launched a petition drive to “Stop NAP from cutting down healthy trees, spraying toxic herbicides, disrupting a healthy ecosystem that supports hundreds of species, and restricting access to our city parks.” 

Within a few months, it has nearly 3,000 signatures (online and on paper). We had no professional or paid signature gathering, just volunteers informing  people about the Significant Natural Areas Management Plan (SNRAMP, pronounced sin-ramp).

Many of the signers have inquired when we would be sending the signatures to Mayor Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors.  We did so earlier this month. It somewhat resembled a phone-book in size…

However, the petition drive continues. If you have not already signed, and wish to, please do so. (If you’ve signed, you don’t need to sign again; we remove duplicates before submitting.)

LETTER TO THE SUPERVISORS

Each of the Supervisors got a similar letter in hard copy and by email.  At the time, the number of signatures reported to the Supervisors was only 2,500. By the time we wrote to Mayor Lee, the number was nearly 3,000.

May 15, 2012
(Letter also being sent via U.S. mail)

San Francisco Forest Alliance
PO Box 460668
San Francisco, CA 94146
Email: sfforestnews@gmail.com
Web: http://sfforest.net

Supervisor [Name of Supervisor]
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, Ca 94102-4689

RE:  2012 Park Bond Funding for the Natural Areas Program

Dear Supervisor [Name]:

The San Francisco Forest Alliance was formed several months ago to give a unified voice to neighbors and park users who care deeply about the stewardship of wilderness in municipal parks and open space, particularly those designated as “natural areas” and managed by the controversial Natural Areas Program within the Recreation & Park Department. We have found widespread support for our mission. In just a short time, more than 2,500 people have signed our petition to “Stop NAP from cutting down healthy trees, spraying toxic herbicides, disrupting a healthy ecosystem that supports hundreds of species, and restricting access to our city parks.”

The Natural Areas Program is dedicated to the conversion of one-fourth of San Francisco’s park acreage and 236 acres in Pacifica to the pre-settlement landscape of predominantly coastal and dune scrub and grassland. This conversion requires the removal of thousands of trees and existing vegetation, and uses dangerous herbicides and other destructive methods. These methods have had a profoundly negative impact on the animals that live in our parks due to the loss of the habitat they have come to depend on for food and safety. The Natural Areas Program has already installed several fences to close people out of park areas and, if its plan gets approved, more than 25% of popular trails will be closed, further shutting off access to large portions of our parks.

We are writing to request your help to ensure the success of the forthcoming 2012 Parks Bond.   The Recreation & Park Department has said repeatedly in public meetings that this bond will not fund more capital projects in the “natural areas” managed by the Natural Areas Program. However, this commitment is not explicitly stated in current versions of the ballot measure. We request that the Board of Supervisors add language to the ballot measure explicitly prohibiting funding of capital projects in the “natural areas.” If the Recreation and Park Department is sincere in its claim that the new park bond will not fund capital projects in the “natural areas,” it should have no objection to stating this explicitly.

This request is based on our experience with the park bond that was approved by the voters in 2008. That park bond provided $5 million dollars for “trail improvements” that could only be used for trails in “natural areas.” The projects done as part of these “trail restorations” were extremely destructive and seemed to have little to do with trail improvements. Rather, they destroyed existing habitat in areas far removed from trails and destroyed trees that were not hazardous. They seemed to be implementing large portions of the SNRAMP management plans for the parks, even though the EIR for the SNRAMP General Management Plan has yet to be finalized or approved by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. Incidentally, Bond funding was not available for trail improvements in 75% of the park acres which are not “natural areas.” This action seemed to disregard a Recreation & Park 2004 assessment that showed trails were, by a wide margin, the most important park facility for park users (55%).

The Forest Alliance has no objection to the removal of hazardous trees. Indeed, it is the obligation of the Recreation & Park Department to ensure the safety of visitors and neighbors of our parks by identifying and mitigating such hazards. In an effort to gain the public’s support for its projects, the Natural Areas Program claims that it is removing solely hazardous trees. This claim is disingenuous because the management plan makes it perfectly clear that trees have been selected for removal in the “natural areas” because they are shading native plants, which require full sun, not because they are hazardous. Likewise, claims that “thinning” the urban forest will benefit it may have an intuitive appeal to the public, but it will actually make the remaining trees more hazardous by exposing them to wind from which they were previously protected.

We want language inserted into the 2012 Parks Bond that will ensure Bond money cannot be used to implement the SNRAMP General Management Plan in the guise of “trail restoration” or “forestry” while children’s programs, renovation of facilities and playgrounds, and employment of park personnel who actually serve the public have been cut. We believe our position has strong support among a majority of San Franciscans who want to improve our parks.

We are happy to provide more information, including specific examples of how these projects have been destructive, and will contact your staff to schedule a meeting if you are willing. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

San Francisco Forest Alliance

LETTER TO MAYOR LEE

Here is a photograph of the letter to Mayor Lee. (Clicking on it once and then again will yield a larger version.)

SFFA Letter to Mayor Lee

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program

Glen Canyon Park: What’s That Brown Area?

May 26, 2012 Leave a comment

We’ve been wondering why this area around a rock formation in Glen Canyon Park is so brown, when all around it, there’s greenery. Could it be pesticides?

Rock formation in Glen Canyon Park

We know that San Francisco’s so-called “Natural Areas Program” (NAP) — not very “natural,” because of their constant management –  regularly uses pesticides to control plants they don’t want. But NAP is supposed to post a warning for several days ahead of time when toxic herbicides or pesticides are to be used. None was posted here.

The dead brown plants around the rocks are wild radish. The wild radish only a few feet away is very green and full of purple and white flowers.

A hill only a few feet away is covered with wild radish which remains green and lush

In February this area was covered with colorful yellow wild mustard. That was soon removed by volunteers, leaving the area not yellow, but green. At least it was green. Wild radish grew there abundantly as it has elsewhere in the park. Unlike the mustard, this radish growth was not pulled out by hand, but was left in place.

February wild mustard

However, now it is dead and brown. Did someone think we were not going to notice?

Did poison only hit parts of this plant, where the holes, black spots and yellow are?

[Note: This post was updated on 30 May 2012 to show pictures more clearly and add the close-up of the dead plant.]

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Applies Pesticides Tagged with ,

Writing Cal Fish & Game about Glen Canyon’s Breeding Season

May 18, 2012 1 Comment

Two of the three Great Horned Owl triplets, taken on April 28, 2012

As readers may know, we have been concerned about the aggressive bush and tree work at Glen Canyon, during the spring breeding season for birds and animals.

(Relevant material: Glen Canyon Park – Chainsaws in the Nesting Season  also,  NAP Lops off Tree Limbs)

The Natural Areas Program is operating under a Streambed Alteration Permit from California Department of Fish & Game. The permit clearly states that work should be avoided during the breeding season.

When our verbal protests to the NAP and to SFRPD got no result, we wrote to Cal Fish & Game. Here is the letter (to which we have had no response thus far):

April 11, 2012

Sandy Brunson
California Department of Fish and Game, District 3
PO Box 47
Yountville, CA 94599

RE:    Violation of Streambed Alteration Permit
Islais Creek, San Francisco, California

Dear Ms. Brunson:

The San Francisco Forest Alliance (SFFA) is a coalition of San Franciscans dedicated to the preservation of the municipal parks of San Francisco for the benefit of people and wildlife.  Please visit our website for information about our mission.  (http://sfforest.net)

In keeping with our mission, we are writing to inform you of the violation of a Streambed Alteration Permit issued by California Department of Fish and Game (see attached application).  This application commits the Natural Areas Program of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department to “perform the work between late summer and early fall (approximately July to November).”  The application makes the following commitment to avoid work during the breeding season:

“It is the policy of RPD’s Natural Areas Program that no new projects will begin during the breeding season (December to May).  Follow up work in previously cleared areas may be done during the breeding season, however, because areas will have been cleared previously. Wildlife will not likely be using these areas for breeding.  This protocol has been effective in reducing impacts to breeding wildlife.”

In fact, the Natural Areas Program began the destructive phase of this project in November and the work has continued as recently as April 2, 2012.  We have documented the progress of this destruction in the attached photos which are dated.   As you can see, chainsaws are being used to severely cut trees and destroy shrubs (many of which are native) and pesticides are being used to kill vegetation.  We have also enclosed photos of animals that were taken in Glen Canyon Park.

We have repeatedly protested the destruction of the vegetation used by the wildlife that lives in Glen Canyon Park since the project began.  We wrote to Lisa Wayne, the Natural Areas Program Manager, when the project began.  She refused to stop the project.  We also met twice with her immediate supervisor, Ana Alvarez, Superintendent of Parks and Open Spaces.  Our requests for subsequent meetings were denied.

We learned of the violation of the Streambed Alteration Permit on April 5, 2012, as a result of a public records request. On Friday, April 6, 2012, we brought that information to the attention of Phil Ginsberg, the General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department.  Lisa Wayne was present at that meeting.

Ms. Wayne’s explanation for conducting this work during breeding and nesting season was that the grant that is funding this project is about to expire.  The work is therefore being done, in violation of the Streambed Alteration Permit, in order to avoid the loss of expiring funds.  We do not find this an acceptable justification for conducting this destructive project during breeding season.

We respectfully request that the California Department of Fish and Game instruct the Natural Areas Program and the Recreation and Park Department to stop this project immediately.  We also request that the California Department of Fish and Game use whatever legal sanctions are at its disposal to take appropriate punitive action and to prevent such violations of legal commitments in the future.

Please inform me of the actions taken by California Department of Fish and Game in response to this violation of the Streambed Alteration Permit of the Natural Areas Program of the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department.

Sincerely,

Eric Miller
President
San Francisco Forest Alliance

Cc:    Mayor of San Francisco, Edwin Lee
California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, District 12
San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener, District 8

Enclosures:    Streambed Alteration Permit Application
Photos of project
Photos of animals taken in Glen Canyon Park

And here are the attachments (Clicking on the pictures will give larger versions):

Glen Canyon “Restoration”

And here are a small selection of the numbers of species of wildlife that live and breed in Glen Canyon Park.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Ruins Habitat Tagged with , , , , ,

The Vision for McLaren: Golden Gate Park or San Bruno Mountain?

May 15, 2012 1 Comment

McLaren Park is the third-largest park in the city, after Golden Gate Park and Lake Merced. It’s being tagged as a “destination park” — that is, one of interest not just to its neighbors but to everyone who lives in or visits San Francisco. So the vision for McLaren concerns us all.

McLaren Park with non-native tree and off-trail recreation

Some park users have expressed their vision for it: Something like Golden Gate Park. Green, with good trails, usable recreational spaces, trees and flowers — while having enough forest, thickets, and habitat that millions of birds and small mammals find refuge there as they nest, breed, or pass through on migration.

However, almost every part of McLaren that is not actually playing fields or buildings or lake — over half the park — has been taken into the Natural Areas Program (NAP), which is really a “Native” Areas Program. The vision for that is closer to San Bruno Mountain than to Golden Gate Park, with an emphasis on “native plants” – scrub, rather than trees.

This will be achieved by removing non-native plants with the use of some of the more toxic pesticides that the city permits on its land, destroying the existing eco-systems. The plan is outlined in the Significant Natural Resource Area Management Plan (SNRAMP or Sin-ramp), which details what is intended for each of the 32 sites falling under the NAP.

Golden Gate Park boasts that it has no “Keep off the Grass” signs; the NAP by contrast has signs restricting access only to the limited number of “designated trails.” The idea is to create Native Plant museums, which you can look at but not touch.

The NAP plan for McLaren

  • Cut down >800 “invasive” trees (and more may be lost to storms and wind-throw). Trees under 15 feet may be removed at will.
  • Close 8.3 acres of dog play areas and “Monitor” the rest to see whether to close it. No new areas would be added.
  • Close or relocate over 3 miles of trail.

Since McLaren is so large, the plan breaks it into three sections: above Mansell, below Mansell and below the golf course. Each has a substantial portion claimed by the NAP.

In the maps below, all the colored areas are NAP lands.

Clicking on the thumbnails will bring up larger versions of the maps.

EIGHT MYTHS ABOUT NAP

There are a number of myths and misconceptions about what is planned for McLaren, resulting in the kind of questions we address here.

1.  Isn’t it just hazardous trees that will be removed?

NAP are not responsible for evaluating or for pruning/ removing hazardous trees. That’s a different department. The objective of NAP’s tree removal is to create Native Plant areas.

2. They’ll plant new trees, one for one, right?

First, there’s no plan to replace the trees one for one. The SNRAMP  calls for the creation of open areas of scrub and grassland. Second, if the city does indeed plant one for one (which, besides being unlikely and not in the plan, falls short of the usual standard of 5 new saplings for every mature tree removed), they may be anywhere in the city – probably in Golden Gate Park, where there actually has been some tree planting. Third, a lot of the trees they plant aren’t really trees – they’re large shrubs.

3.  The 809 trees will be removed over 20 years. Isn’t that just 40 trees each year?

Though it’s true the SNRAMP runs for 20 years, it’s not cost-effective to remove just a few trees each year. It’s much more efficient to do the whole job at one time as soon as funding becomes available.  Usually it involves calling in contractors, marking the trees, and then cutting them down in one go. Also, trees that are under 15 feet in height don’t count as “trees” and aren’t included in this number; they can be removed at will. Finally, even if it’s a slow death of the trees in the park, it’s still death.

4. But NAP will make the park safer by improving the paved trails and adding lighting and trail markers?

Those aren’t in the SNRAMP, which is essentially about converting the existing parklands to native plants. Improvements are a separate issue that will compete for funds with the Native Plant conversions. In fact, SFFA advocates diverting funds from NAP to such uses, as well as functioning toilets, safe playgrounds, and properly staffed clubhouses and park programs.

5. They’ll make it safer by increasing usage, right?

Usually, native plant areas see much less usage than a park like say Golden Gate Park. Native Plant Areas don’t provide much recreation, since they require people to stay on the trails. The main users of parks are dog-walkers, parents with children, and joggers. Of these, only the joggers get any benefit from Native Plant areas, because they would stay on the trails anyway.  We actually like parks to be popular with dog-walkers – even if we have no dogs – because that does increase usage and therefore safety. Closing or reducing the off-leash areas is counter-productive in this regard.

6. It’ll get the homeless out of the park, though?

Probably not. The signs say the park closes at 10 p.m. That means they’ll be deserted at night, but there’s no real funding for park patrols. Homeless people can move in after dark with impunity.

Imazapyr and Glyphosate in McLaren

7. They only use pesticides very occasionally, like once or twice every couple of years?

In some parks, that’s true. In Buena Vista Park’s NAP land, for instance, no pesticides were used in 2011 (according to city records).  In McLaren, though, they used pesticides designated as Tier II  (hazardous) some 15 times in 2011. NAP’s pesticide usage has been increasing, with Twin Peaks, McLaren, Mount Davidson, Glen Canyon Park, and Bayview being the main targeted parks.

8. But aren’t these harmless herbicides? They only affect plants?

They are indeed herbicides, and to NAP’s credit, it seldom uses chemicals against animals. However, they are not harmless; even though they are targeted at plants, they have an effect on people and animals as well. Click HERE for more information on the pesticides NAP uses.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program Tagged with , , , , , ,

A Single Mission Blue Butterfly on Twin Peaks

May 5, 2012 5 Comments

Aricia Icarioides Missionensis, Photo Copyright Joe O’Connor

If you are lucky, you might be able to see a couple of Mission Blue Butterflies on Twin Peaks within the next week. Since they don’t seem to survive on Twin Peaks, they are being imported from San Bruno Mountain, about seven miles away. This photo was taken by Joe O’Connor on May 2nd at about noon. The so-called “restored butterfly habitat” — which requires a dousing in toxic herbicides every four months to be maintained as a butterfly habitat — has not produced a continuing stable Mission Blue Butterfly population since it was begun many years ago. Every year, more pregnant butterflies are captured from San Bruno Mountain, and imported — few, if any, that we know of have ever survived to produce offspring the following year.

One is prompted to ask: How “natural” is something when you have to go to other places to import “natives” that then do not survive, leading you to import more. . . ad infinitum?”

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program

NAP Lops Off Tree Limbs In The Middle Of Nesting Season

April 29, 2012 4 Comments

Two of the three Great Horned Baby Owlets, taken on April 28, 2012

Three weeks ago, at a meeting with Recreation and Parks Department Director Phil Ginsburg and Natural Areas Program Director Lisa Wayne, we asked why there had been a huge amount of clearing in Glen Canyon Park during the denning and nesting season — wasn’t this in violation of the grant which stipulated specifically that work must be confined to Summer and Fall when the animals were not nesting?  The nesting season runs from Winter through the Spring, yet clearing and toxic herbicides have been applied continuously from November through April in Glen Canyon Park. See Nesting Bewick’s Wren in a “Naturalized Area”. Phil Ginsburg didn’t know the answer, but he assumed Lisa Wayne would give a good answer. But she had no good explanation, only a bad one. Lisa admitted that she broke the rules in order not to lose funds from a grant that was about to expire.

One would have thought that with our reminder during that meeting on April 6th, this breach might not be made again. But no. Yesterday, April 27th, there were at least five trucks with tree-cutting equipment in that park. There was also a sign: “tree work”.  Visitors to the park at first were deceptively relieved when they heard that trees were simply going to be trimmed — they were not going to actually be cut down. But few had thought the issue through: This is nesting season. Everyone who knows anything about wildlife knows that you don’t interfere with habitat when animals are raising their young.

We don’t know how many birds were displaced, nor how many nests were destroyed. We do know that lopping off limbs occurred within less than 100 feet of our owl family — there was tremendous noise, and tremendous activity. The owl triplets nesting in the crook of a Eucalyptus tree have not fledged — they cannot fly yet. And the Red Tail Hawks, though further away, are still sitting on their eggs. Countless songbirds live in these trees. Nesting season is in full swing. This activity should be protested to your Supervisors, the Parks Commissioners and to the Recreation and Parks Department.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Ruins Habitat, Wastes Money

Nesting Bewick’s Wren in a “Naturalized Area”

April 19, 2012 1 Comment

Here is a Bewick’s Wren. In the few minutes that I watched it, it and it’s mate made 30 or more trips to this exact same location, each time carrying another insect in it’s beak. They were obviously feeding their young — the nest is located in the hollow under some English Ivy that has grown to cover a tree trunk. The tree trunk is in a forest next to a naturalized grassland.

What is interesting is the incorrect description of this bird sent to me by an “informed” birder and nativist:

These are mostly sedentary (non-migratory) birds that are now quite rare in San Francisco. They can still be found in the Presidio, Fort Funston, Bayview Hill, McLaren Park, Glen Canyon. There has been one singing on territory on Mt. Davidson for about a month and I saw it with a second bird a few weeks ago. This would be the first confirmed nesting of this species up there. They appear to be responding to the restoration that’s taking place there as this is a bird that shuns forests but prefers wooded edges near scrub. They are cavity nesters and will use any sort of cavity natural or artificial. Definitely not an English Ivy obligate, without the ivy they would use another cavity.

I think the description is the birder’s preferred habitat for this bird! He is a nativist who would love to believe that all birds prefer native plants over non-native ones. But obviously, this is not what the bird itself has chosen.

There has been clearing in this forested willow area during the last 4 months — though fortunately not in the small patch where I found the bird. Large five-foot swaths have been cut through the area. The Ivy and Blackberry brambles and underbrush — in other words, the wildlife habitat — have and are being cleared by the Natural Areas Program (NAP) staff during the nesting and denning season, when the grant that is paying for this specifically stipulates that clearing may only take place during the summer and fall months, so as to prevent disturbance when these animals are producing and raising their young. The clearing and application of poisons started in November and has continued through the first week of April. This dense wildlife habitat contains not only a vast number of bird species, but also raccoons, coyotes, opossums and squirrels.

We were told by the NAP management, that since “the staff” didn’t find any dens, they felt entitled to clear. They didn’t even look for nests. They should know, that by the time you bushwack an area to locate a den — a den that has been carefully chosen and worked on so as to prevent detection — you have already intruded too far. The NAP staff needs to leave our thickets alone, especially during nesting season — stay away and let nature work its magic.

NAP management apparently felt that using up their grant money was much more important than protecting the wildlife we have.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program

This Tree Is Tagged For Destruction

April 7, 2012 3 Comments

This photograph was submitted to us by Peter. This  healthy, majestic eucalyptus has been tagged for removal.

Photo credit: Peter Fairfield

When it’s gone, it will be missed by the neighbors, and also the insects that rely on its flowers, the birds that live there, and the animals that shelter there. The eucalyptus in this park are home to honeybees, bats, Great Horned owls, Red Tail Hawks, Nuthatches, Brown Creepers, hummingbirds, Monarch butterflies, squirrels, to name some species that come to mind.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees Tagged with ,

SFFA First Public Meeting Was Standing Room Only

April 6, 2012 2 Comments

The Rally we announced on this site a few days ago was a roaring success. The response maxed out the capacity of the Miraloma Park Improvement Clubhouse. Volunteers were watching the parking lot, because people had to double park. The room was full, people were spilling out, and some couldn’t get in at all. (For which we apologize. We’re  planning another meeting to make up for it.)

The agenda started with a presentation by Eric Miller, President of San Francisco Forest Alliance (SFFA), about the problems of  the “Natural” Areas Program (NAP): Public access restrictions, tree and habitat destruction, toxic pesticides, and most important, misguided priorities in funds allocation so the NAP is funded while public programs and amenities are closed. (CLICK HERE for more details about NAP.)

This was followed by a talk by Dr Morley Singer and Paul Rotter of SaveSutro, who explained the threat faced by the 80-acre Sutro Cloud Forest on Mount Sutro. Of this, 61 acres are owned by UCSF, and 19 by the City,  also under the NAP. Thousands of trees are planned to be cut. (CLICK HERE for more details.)

Then Jacquie Proctor explained the plan for Mt Davidson under the “Significant Natural Resource Area Management Program” (SNRAMP, pronounced Sin-ramp). The Sin-ramp plans to fell 1600 trees on Mt Davidson, including clear-cutting up to 83% in some areas. (CLICK HERE for more details.)

The audience was engaged and indignant. For many of the audience, the first they had heard of any plans for tree removals was from the outreach by SFFA. The question period was very lively.

Here are excerpts candid comments of one attendee (printed here with permission).

The turnout was great! Folks did a good job of getting the word out! I was impressed with the program. And you had so many facts & numbers on hand.

Some comments and ideas:

1) Seems like many in the crowd were there because they are directly affected, e.g. Miraloma neighbor who love the Mt. Davidson trees, Glen Park visitors, etc. All four issues are important (trees, pesticides, trail closure, budget) but I think the $$$ might emphasized… Not everyone goes to or sees [particular parks such as] Mt. Davidson, Glen Park, Sutro, McLaren, but most people know about the loss of playground directors, limited rec center activities, the rundown filthy bathrooms. And most of the audience pays property tax… It cost $9,000 per application of pesticide!!!

…how many applications of pesticide = 1 full-time gardener?

Parcel 4 was a good example of how NAP money is wasted, e.g. . [Ed: "Parcel 4" is the Sutro Dunes project.]  [Other] areas are [also] planted, then neglected as they revert back to naturalized vegetation.

2) I like how Eric gave his background to show he was not an activist, but just a regular parent who understood budget cuts, until he realized how money was being spent to work AGAINST his park interests. It made it easy for the audience to identify with him.

3) The girdled trees were good photos. Might describe girdling in more detail (i.e. how it kills the tree). Also, I think it’s OK to state “—, a native plant advocate, was convicted of killing trees.”  When I told that to [someone] who had come to the rally she gasped & said, “OMG I’ve bought plants from him. I know he’s a little weird, but killing trees???!!!”

It’s a good illustration of the “ideology” that Eric referred to.

4) Nice that Twin Peaks photos were included. Shows what the end result of cutting Mt. Davidson/Sutro trees might look like (and STILL need pesticides). Folks know that Twin Peaks looks barren and is windy & cold…

5) It was good for people to hear that the Sierra Club [SC], California Native Plant Society [CNPS]  (not the “native plant society” as Eric & Jackie called them), work with NAP and are NOT our friends.  NAP & SC and CNPS have been operating under the radar since the mid 1990s, without the required public approval and oversight. I was surprised to hear Jackie say that SF tree legislation does not apply to NAP areas. Why is NAP above the law?  (Especially when the city can dictate & charge fees & fine homeowners for taking down a street tree!).

8) I really liked Morley Singer’s catchy “Don’t waste time arguing with the native plant groups. It’s like arguing Women’s rights with the Taliban” and “Put away the video game and fight a real enemy.” At the same time pointing out how California Native Plant Society works the system.

9) It was good how Eric stated individual actions are good, but group actions are very powerful.

This would have been a good opportunity to give folks an action plan.

The observer is right. Many wanted to know how to help. Several people signed up to volunteer. We’re still getting back signature sheets.

Thanks everyone who came! And apologies again to those wanted to come but couldn’t get in. There’ll be more.

Meanwhile, if you would like to volunteer and didn’t sign up then, please email us at SFForestNews@gmail.com, or write us at SFFA, P.O.Box 460668, SF, CA 94146.

 CLICK HERE if you’d like to help gather signatures for the petition. You can direct people to the big green button, or download a copy and print it.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program Tagged with , ,

Why the NAP Plan comes as a surprise (And, Sign the Petition?)

March 27, 2012 1 Comment

If you’re a reader of this blog, you’ve probably signed this petition already. Between the electronic version (under the big green button) and the paper version (which you can download under the yellow button), we already have close to 1500 signatures – without using professional signature-gatherers or setting up signing tables or anything at all except explaining what is planned for the Natural Areas. (It’s technically called the “Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan” or SNRAMP — aka, according to a SFRPD employee,  “Sin-ramp.”)

Why didn’t most people know already? The most common response we get when we inform people what’s going on is, “Really? I had no idea!” (Also, “You must be joking!”)  They hadn’t heard, until they read about it in the press, or from one of our presentations, or from talking to someone.

Of course the  people who’ve been fighting this battle for years on either side of the issue actually were aware of it. They may have gotten their names onto SF Recreation and Park Department’s mailing list.  But that’s not true of most  living near “Natural Areas.” Folks are busy. Many weren’t even aware that their neighborhood park was one of the 32 “Natural Areas.” They certainly weren’t aware of major plans to fell thousands of trees, close miles of trail, restrict access to the parks, or that they were using toxic pesticides.

WHY DIDN’T PEOPLE KNOW?

The SF RPD is required to do a certain amount of outreach to let the public know about these things. When the Draft Environmental Impact Report came out for public comment, it did the following:

  • Posted public notices – in one low-traffic location. They did post a notice. But it wasn’t near the 32 affected parks. It was at McLaren Lodge, the SF RPD headquarters, a stand-alone building in Golden Gate Park, out of everyone’s way. You’d only look for a notice there if you knew to expect such a notice.
  • Published a notice in the papers – two small notices, once. They published a notice  in the papers – but only in the SF Examiner, and the Pacifica Tribune. They looked like these pictures. Most people don’t read papers thoroughly enough to discover these notices. They didn’t place notices in other papers.
  • Mailed out notices – but only to their list. If you had gotten on their mailing list before, then they mailed you a copy of the notice. If you just happened to live near a place they were planning to cut down trees and restrict access, it’s unlikely you would find out until the plan was being executed.

So that’s why our outreach is important. We’re trying to preserve public parks for the public, but most of all, we want the public to be aware of what is actually planned. (The information above was obtained from SF RPD under the Sunshine Act.)

NOW, THAT PETITION…

If you haven’t signed the petition, but would like to, you could go to the online version under the green button on the right of the screen, labeled SIGN.

Or if you prefer not to sign online (your signature would be visible to everyone, together with any comments you choose to make), there’s a paper version available. (It’s a PDF file that you can print out, and there’s space for more than one signature in case you’re getting others to sign as well.)

Download that, sign it, and mail it to us, by April 27th, to: SFFA, P.O.Box 460668, SF, CA 94146

Even more importantly, spread the word. Let people know what’s planned. Whichever side you’re on, the “Sin-ramp” shouldn’t be a secret.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program Tagged with , , , , ,

← Older posts