Recently, the City reopened comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Significant Resource Areas Management Plan (SNRAMP, pronounced Sin-ramp.) You can submit comments until 11 June, 2012.

SFFA is providing its comments. They are detailed; specific; well- researched and referenced; and 64 pages long…

So we’ll be publishing them here as a series of articles. The comments are in seven sections.  Please note we’ll be uploading ‘attachments’ later on.

This is from the cover letter, addressed to Mr Bill Wycko of the Planning Department.

Our comment is organized into the following topics:

Part 1:  Environmental impact of destroying trees
Part 2:  Environmental impact of herbicide use
Part 3:  Impact of SNRAMP on wildlife
Part 4:  Impact of SNRAMP on recreational access
Part 5:  Support for the Maintenance Alternative which is the environmentally superior alternative
Part 6:  Flaws in the public comment process
Part 7:  Debunking the myth of flammability of non-native plants and trees

Our comment is written within the context of the legal requirements of CEQA with regard to Environmental Impact Reports.  However, for the record we wish to state our long-term goals for the Natural Areas Program:

• Mature park trees must not be destroyed in attempts to create native plant gardens.  Non-native forests are a vital resource and must be protected, maintained and, restored.
• Herbicide use in our public parks for the sole purpose of eradicating non-native species of plants is not justified.  The public’s health and safety should be San Francisco’s highest priority.
• The wholesale destruction of existing habitat is harmful to wildlife.  There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that native plants provide superior habitat to that which exists in San Francisco.
• Restrictions on recreational access in urban parks cannot be justified by the creation of native plant gardens, which have not been sustainable on a small scale since the inception of the Natural Areas Program.
• The use of taxpayers’ money for the sole purpose of eradicating non-native plants and trees is not justified at a time of extreme budgetary limitations.