No Pesticides in Our Parks and Watersheds

Below is the text of a letter San Francisco Forest Alliance sent yesterday to the Environment Commission and the SF Department for the Environment. We stand for no toxic pesticides in our parks and watersheds.

 

To: Director Deborah Raphael, Dr Chris Geiger, and the Commission for the Environment
From: San Francisco Forest Alliance

Dear Dr. Geiger,
Dear Director Raphael,
Dear Members of the Environment Commission

Your Notice of Annual Public Hearing Regarding Pest Management Activities on City Properties incorrectly states that “San Francisco city staff have been national leaders in integrated pest management (IPM) since the City passed its Integrated Pest Management Ordinance in 1996.”

In fact, 1996 Ordinance was gutted in 1997.
While San Francisco has made some progress, we are far from being national leaders. Our current system enshrines the routine use of herbicides.
At present, the city can use whatever pesticide it wishes, wherever it wishes, as much as it wishes – as long as the pesticide is on “Reduced Risk Pesticide List” (Reduced compared to what?). If it wishes to go outside the list, it can seek an exemption. Such exemptions are seldom refused, particularly in “Natural Areas.”

The Marin Municipal Water District has been herbicide free since 2005.
Meanwhile San Francisco continuously uses hazardous herbicides in our watersheds.

In a 2017 pilot project, Marin successfully demonstrated that traffic medians could be maintained without glyphosate (the only synthetic herbicide previously used on medians). Marin County will continue to move forward without herbicides on all medians and roadside landscapes.

The City of Richmond had completely banned use of all herbicides by the city in 2016.
The use of all synthetic pesticides in parks, open space parcels and public rights of way and buildings owned and maintained by the Town of Fairfax is prohibited and a neighbor notification is required prior to the use of pesticides on private property.

In 2000 the Arcata City Council approved by unanimous vote the ordinance which bans the use of pesticides on all properties owned or managed by the city.

In France the pesticides are banned from public forests, parks and gardens since the end of 2016.

The city of San Francisco, on another hand, cannot even commit to use reduction targets for herbicides. In 2017, herbicide usage by the Natural Resources Department rose 57%.

The city claims that the high hazard herbicides are used only as a last resort. In fact, they are used regularly throughout the year, and have been used regularly for many years.

The city claims that the high hazard herbicides are necessary to help “sensitive species,” while in accordance with the court order their use is prohibited in Sharp Park precisely because of the presence there of the endangered California garter snake and threatened red-legged frog. A 2002 paper from UC Davis pointed out that over 40% of Californian butterfly species depend on non-native plants in urban-suburban areas, and notes, “Were certain alien weeds to be eradicated or their abundance greatly reduced, the urban-suburban butterfly fauna would disappear.”

Last week the trial of DeWayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company – the first of over 4,500 such cases – got underway in San Francisco Superior Court.
Meanwhile, glyphosate remains on the SF “Reduced Risk Pesticide List” and is being used by the city – three years after it has been classified as a “probable carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization.

San Francisco Forest Alliance brings to your attention that:

• herbicidal chemicals are more toxic, more dangerous, more persistent, and more mobile than their manufacturers disclose;
• the “danger” from “weeds” is aesthetic or ideological rather than to health and welfare;
• scientific studies associate exposure to herbicides with cancer, developmental and learning disabilities, nerve and immune system damage, liver or kidney damage, reproductive impairment, birth defects, and disruption of the endocrine system;
• there is no safe dose of exposure to those chemicals because they persists in soil, water, and animal tissue for prolonged periods of time, so even low levels of exposure could still be harmful to humans, animals, and the environment;
• infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with compromised immune systems and chemical sensitivities are especially vulnerable to herbicide effects and exposure;
• herbicides are harmful to pets, wildlife including threatened and endangered species, soil microbiology, plants, and natural ecosystems;
• toxic runoff from herbicides pollute streams and groundwater, and therefore the drinking water sources;
• people have a right not to be involuntarily exposed to herbicides in the air, water or soil that inevitably result from chemical drift and contaminated runoff.

Because of above considerations we ask that all synthetic herbicides classified as Tier I and all non-organic herbicides classified as Tier II by the San Francisco Hazard Tier Rating System shall be banned on all City property and the lands managed by the city, with the only exemption for Harding Park Golf Course which is under PGA contract.

We also ask that:
– no other herbicide exemption shall be granted for any other City Property or the land managed by the city,
– such herbicides would be immediately removed from the Reduced Risk Pesticide List with the special exception for use on Harding Park Golf Course only,
– the City stop purchasing hazardous herbicides, and disposes of any remaining stock immediately, following the city’s hazardous waste disposal protocols; again exempting the herbicides intended for use on Harding Park Golf Course only.

We ask SF Environment to lead San Francisco toward the goal of No Pesticides in our Parks and Watersheds.

Sincerely,

San Francisco Forest Alliance

 

– END –

Advertisements

Restricting Access in McLaren Park

Plans are afoot in McLaren Park to close many of the trails people actually enjoy, and substitute a limited number of broad road-type paths. Most park users don’t realize this is going on – not just in McLaren, but all across the “Natural Areas.” SFFA supporter Tom Borden is trying to get the word out both to park users and to the decision influencers. He’s written to the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Commission, to Supervisors in affected supervisory districts, to the Parks and Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee (PROSAC) and to the neighbors at McLaren Collaborative. We think it deserves wider attention: All across our parks, access restrictions are reducing the park space our families can actually use and enjoy.

McLaren Park’s Flowered Grassland and Forest

Here’s the letter:

to: Recreation & Parks Commission August 31, 2017
cc: Supervisors Ronen, Safai, Cohen, Fewer, Sheehy
Prosac, McLaren Park Collaborative

Subject: McLaren Park Envisioning Points One Way, RPD Goes another

Commissioners,

The Recreation and Parks Department has been hosting an “Envisioning Process” with the public to plan future improvements for McLaren Park and to decide which immediate needs should be addressed with funding from the 2012 Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond. RPD has focused the process on four areas, the amphitheater, the primary group picnic area, sport courts and trails & paths. The first three are moving along pretty well, but the trails & paths plan is headed in a direction that defies all public input.

The Bond Money
The 2012 Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks bond allocated $10M for capital improvements to McLaren Park. Additionally, it provides that:

TRAILS RECONSTRUCTION ($4 million). A portion of the proceeds of the proposed bond shall be used to repair and reconstruct park nature trails, pathways, and connectivity in Golden Gate Park and John McLaren Park. After identification and development of specific projects, environmental review required under CEQA will be completed.

Since the bond passed, RPD has further earmarked the funds to direct $2M of the trails reconstruction money to McLaren. RPD has modified the bond language in their documentation to specify the money must be used, “to enhance existing trails and their surrounding landscape”. The clear intent of the of this unjustified new language is to allow money to be diverted from building and repairing trails to performing native plant habitat work. This is not what the public voted for.

Further, RPD now says that $1.5M of the $10M must be spent “for projects that create or restore: Natural features, such as lakes, meadows, and landscapes & Habitat for the park’s many species of plants and animals.” That may be a choice RPD could make, but it is not a requirement of the bond ordinance.

Trail and Area Closures
If we subtract out the acreage devoted to the Gleneagles golf course, well over half the park is wild land with a web of small trails that has evolved over decades. In the Envisioning Process, the public has been quite emphatic this trail network, combined with the wild landscape, is the most iconic element of the park and must be preserved.

 

However, RPD has a completely different vision, driven by the desires of the Natural Areas Program (NAP). Under the cover of the Envisioning Process and using as much of the $12M as possible, they hope to turn the wild parkland into a nature preserve, accessible only to RPD staff and to supervised volunteer groups. To forward this goal, they plan to gut the interior of the park of 5.5 miles of trails (while adding less than 1.5 miles of new trail). This would roughly halve the length of trails in the park. Their plan focuses on developing primary paths that run around the outside perimeter of the park with the apparent intent of directing people away from the park interior. Some of the remaining interior trails would be substantially widened to carry the traffic displaced from the closed trails. In effect, the public are to be channelized on a few large trails.

If that was not bad enough, RPD have stated their intent to restrict public access in wild areas of the park to on-trail only. We will not be allowed to explore, climb on rocks and experience nature up close. In effect, they want to close over half of the park to public access.

Over the course of the Envisioning Process, RPD have refused to publish maps showing the existing trails that will be closed under their plan. The obvious intent of this is to avoid discussion of the trail closures. To help people understand what the RPD plan means, I have taken the RPD trail proposal presented at the last trail workshop and overlaid it with the existing trail alignments. These existing trails are ones shown on the current official park map and those that appear in the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan(SNRAMP). A few other trails missed by these maps are also included. Only well used trails appear on the attached map.

The other side of the coin is the area closures. RPD plans to completely remove trails from certain areas, meaning those areas will be closed to the public. On the second map [below] I’ve blacked out some of them and noted why they are special. Keep in mind, even where there are trails, if it’s a Natural Area, off-trail access is to be prohibited. The green shaded areas on the maps are Natural Areas. Leaving the golf course out of the calculation, well over half the park will be off limits. All we have left of our wild parkland is the shrinking network of trails running through RPD’s closed nature preserve.

Does the Department have a mandate?
RPD will say this is what the people want, that these trails closures and land closures are part of the SNRAMP. The SNRAMP EIR was certified by the Planning Commission, overcame an appeal at the BOS and was adopted by the Recreation and Park Commission. However, the currently proposed trail closures are much more extensive than what is presented in the SNRAMP. The intent to restrict the public to on-trail only in Natural Areas was not disclosed in the SNRAMP and not evaluated by its EIR. In the entire 711 page SNRAMP there is only one sentence that mentions the idea of restricting the public to trails and it is only in reference to MA2 areas. In the 1200+ page EIR there is no discussion of the impact of restricting the public to trails and closing everything else. RPD has not discussed the trail closures in the park. RPD has held no public hearings or had any other public process for the on-trail only restriction. There is no mandate for RPD’s current plans.

What the public wants
In 2004 RPD published its Recreation Assessment Report, “the culmination of a nine month planning effort and process to evaluate the recreation needs of residents and to ensure the future direction of recreation within the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department.” It showed that by a very wide margin the most important recreational facility to the public is walking and biking trails. See the excerpt of the report at the end of this document [below]

The 2012 McLaren Park Needs Assessment revealed exactly the same result, that more hiking and biking trails are the most desired park improvement. Why is RPD closing almost all of the trails to bike riders and dramatically shrinking the trail network? All of the trails in McLaren Park have been in use by pedestrians and cyclists for decades, sharing the trails without incident. RPD has no reports of user conflicts or accidents due to the mix of cyclists and pedestrians.

The existing trails are well evolved to take people to the places they want to go. As a result, off trail excursions are dispersed and not frequent enough to lead to heavy trampling of plants. (Yes, things are different in the off leash dog area, but that does not apply to the park in general.) The surface area of the existing trails comprise less than 5% of the land area. The impact of park visitors on the viability native plants is trivial compared with the impacts of the changing local environment, global warming and the inevitable arrival and spread of plant species from outside the City.

The planned trail closures and access restrictions run completely counter to the needs of the public. On top of this, the Department wants to siphon off money to fund their closure plan that could be spent on sorely needed park improvements, all of this with no demonstrated need to override the public good.

Please consider asking the Department to:

spend the bond money as the bond ordinance states and the voters intended. The trail money is for trails. The rest of the money is on the table for all purposes. The bond ordinance does not require the NAP receive $1.5M. Spend it where it will do the most good.

Repair and improve McLaren’s existing trails. The public wants more and better trails, not fewer, wider, straighter, less engaging trails.

Conduct a transparent public process to work through any trail closures. Individually document the need for each trail closure, gather public input and act to serve the public.

Allow people to ride bikes on all park trails unless a need to restrict cycling is demonstrated.

Continue to allow the public full access to the wild areas of the park. Closing large areas of the park should require a substantial public process which has not taken place. The namesake of the park, John McLaren, famously declared, “There will be no ‘Keep off the Grass’ signs.”

Sincerely,

 

Tom Borden

The San Francisco Forest Alliance opposes access restrictions from closing the trails made by park users and restricting access only to on-trail use of our parks.

 

Dec 15th: Joint Meeting of Planning Commission and Rec&Parks Commission

Edited to Add: Unfortunately, the Environmental Impact Report was certified despite its many flaws; and the Significant Natural Resources Areas Management Plan (SNRAMP – “sin-ramp”) was approved. Our thanks to all the people who came to the meeting and spoke.

3227413_orig 26 down through the forest

On December 15th, 2016,  San Francisco’s Planning Commission and SF Recreation and Parks Commission will have a joint meeting that will impact our urban forests for the next 20 years. This is a meeting regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Significant Natural Areas Management Plan (SNRAMP or N-RAMP).

It’s on December 15, 2016 at 1 p.m. in City Hall room 400.  [Note this information is different than our emails, though the date is the same.]

Here’s the PDF we were sent: 121516-special-joint-meeting-with-planning-final

Public comment is allowed, and a lot is expected. We think the public will get only one minute each to speak.  This is your last chance to say anything in support of our treasured urban forests. Let us know if you’re planning to attend (if you haven’t already done so) by Email at sfforestnews@gmail.com

Click Here to see the City’s online link for the final EIR. It was dismissive of all our comments.  Comments for changes to the project did not matter because they were deemed “environmentally insignificant“.  Support of an alternative to the project, such as the maintenance alternative, or criticism of the maximum restoration alternative were deemed “irrelevant” (see the Responses to Comments section).

TWO THINGS IN ONE MEETING

Whenever there’s a major project, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, pronounced seek-wa) requires the project’s sponsor to make an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department wants to implement a plan in the “Natural Areas” which will require cutting down thousands of trees, closing trails, and using toxic herbicides. The EIR is for this Project.

This meeting has two objectives.

1) First, the Planning Commission has to decide to certify the Environmental Impact Report. To do this, they have to determine that it is accurate, adequate, and objective. We think it’s deeply flawed and should not be certified.

Here’s our article on what’s wrong with the EIR: Ten Reasons Why the Environmental Impact Report for Natural Areas is Flawed

2) Second, after the EIR is certified, the Recreation and Parks Commission will vote whether to approve the Plan, and in what form. The EIR describes alternatives to the Project, and we think that if they must approve the Plan, they should implement the Maintenance Alternative. This is a “lite” version of the Project, which allows the Natural Resources Department to continue its current activities but not chop down 18,400 trees, reduce access to the natural areas, and use much more herbicide than at present. We ask the SFRP Commission make a motion to approve the Maintenance Alternative for the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Project

Here’s our article on Ten Reasons to Oppose the Natural Areas “Project”

We will keep asking for your support in the hope that we, the voices for the trees, are heard by those with the power to unleash destruction on our beautiful old stands of trees.

We want to maintain access to the Natural Areas, not lose 95% of the parks which become prohibited areas with a “stay on the designated trail” requirement. And we want herbicide use in Natural Areas to stop.

mt davidson forest - hiker on trail

Better Parks for People Who Need Them, 2: Improving the Equity Metrics

This article expresses further concerns about the Equity Metrics developed by San Francisco Recreation & Parks Department (SFRPD). The first article is here: The  Proposed”Anti-Equity Metrics”.

Proposition B provides SFRPD with set-aside funds for the next 30 years. It also requires them to ensure equity for the parks, by spending more on parks in under-served areas. Let’s call those the “Equity” tracts (they’re based on census tracts showing below-average income).

Now SFRPD proposes a calculation method (“metric”) that indicates it’s actually devoting more resources to those parks already. (You can see that calculation HERE: item-2-equity-metrics-staff-report-final-080416) How? By simply assuming that only the “Equity” tracts use the parks within a quarter-mile of their homes, so that they get ALL the resources spent on those parks. Of course, that’s simply not true. The Equity tract users use those parks, but so does everyone else who lives nearby. (Large parks may even attract people from across the city.) They share the resources, they don’t get all the resources.

Tom Borden provides a more detailed explanation from of what’s wrong with SFRPD’s current Equity Metric (i.e., how it will calculate how it’s doing on sharing resources with under-served areas). We need improved metrics to make sure that under-served populations get more resources.


PROPOSITION B EQUITY METRICS

by Tom Borden

The Equity Metrics currently proposed by SFRPD are misleading and inadequate. The calculation method chosen by SFRPD cheats the people in under-served neighborhoods by dramatically overstating the park resources provided to them. The individual metrics chosen are indirect, subjective, open to manipulation, irrelevant and even backward to what we are trying to measure.

The Calculation Methodology
Defining census tracts based on the CalEnviroScreen data (as the current metric does) seems to be a good choice. The logic of including parks within 1/4 mile of tract boundaries also seems sound. The logic breaks down when it comes time to assign park resources to Equity census tracts. The per capita measures are based on the resources of all of the parks captured in the “Parks Serving the Equity Zones” divided by the total population of the disadvantaged census tracts. Any census tract that is within 1/4 mile of a park captures 100% of that park’s resources.

Based on this methodology, Golden Gate Park should be included, but it is not in the list of “Parks Serving the Equity Zones”. Why? Because allocating 100% of Golden Gate Park to Outer Richmond census tract 478.01 would expose the fallacy of SFRPD’s calculation method. It systematically allocates far more resources to equity zones than the residents actually enjoy. The same logical problem exists for every other park where there are non-equity tracts sharing the resources with equity tracts. It’s just that the scale of the systematic error is smaller because the parks are smaller.

When there are 20 picnic tables in a park the people from the neighboring equity census tracts do not get all of them. They share them with the other tracts within a 1/4 mile of the park. If half of the people around a park are from regular census tracts and half are from equity tracts, 10 of the picnic tables should be allocated to the equity population. The SFRPD system allocates all 20 to the equity population. All of the per capita metrics need to account for sharing in order to produce results that can be compared to the citywide averages.

[See our earlier article “The Anti-Equity Metric” for a graphic example.]

A Better Measurement

All parks are shared between census tracts. When calculating metrics, it should be done on a park by park basis based the number of people in all census tracts with tract boundaries within 1/4 mile of each park. table-for-eq-metricsSee the spreadsheet here that illustrates the calculation for McLaren Park, Palega Rec. Center and the surrounding census tracts.  (Click on it for a larger version). A spreadsheet like this could be built out to include every park and census tract in the City.

For example, let’s assume McLaren Park received $3M in capital investment in a year. That would be allocated as follows:
Capital per person = $3M / 79,740 total park users = $37.62 per person
Capital per Equity tract resident = $37.62 per person (the same as everyone else)
Capital for the 10 equity tracts adjoining McLaren = $37.62 * 35,461 equity users = $1.33M
or
Capital for the 10 equity tracts adjoining McLaren = $3M * 44.5% = $1.33M

The per capita metrics for Recreational Resources, Park Acres, Maintenance spending, etc. can be similarly calculated. To get a measure of city wide Equity in Capital spending, we would sum up all of the parks:

Capital spent in Park A * % equity users for Park A
+Capital spent in Park B * % equity users for Park B
+Capital spent in Park C * % equity users for Park C
+….
And divide that result by the total population of all equity tracts to get a citywide per capita measure.
It would also be useful to look at this from the perspective of individual Equity tracts. The per capita resources associated with each park within a 1/4 mile of the tract could be added up to see how the particular census tract was being served.

This may sound complicated, but once the assignments are made between individual census tracts and individual parks based on location, the calculation could be easily done in a spreadsheet.

This is a key issue. If it is not fixed the equity metrics are useless and the under-served communities are cheated.

The following points should also be considered in developing an improved metric.

Transparency
All of the metrics calculations should be available to the public from start to finish. Presentation of final results from a black box calculation is not acceptable.

Excluded Parks
The metrics exclude parks that have schools and libraries, Francisco Reservoir, Marina Harbor, Candlestick, the Zoo, 17th & Folsom, 900 Innes, Geneva Car Barn and Noe Valley Town Square. Some of these should be included.

  • Parks at schools and libraries are frequently larger than mini-parks and are used as neighborhood park space. They should be included.
  • The new parks should be included for the capital spending metric. Once they open, the rest of the metrics can be applied. It looks particularly bad to exclude Francisco reservoir.
  • Excluding Candlestick makes sense.
  • The harbor and the zoo do seem like special cases. If the harbor produces a positive cash flow, excluding it is ok.

Recreation – hours of recreational resources
As defined, recreational resources includes those provided by volunteers and “recreation partners”. Those should not be counted since they are not funded by SFRPD and represent efforts by the public to make up for SFRPD’s shortfall of the needed services.

Investment – Hours of Volunteer Service
We volunteer to improve our parks beyond what SFRPD is doing. Including volunteer service in this metric means that the harder we work on our park, the less SFRPD would be required to spend. The whole intent of these metrics is to insure equitable spending of the Prop B money. Volunteer hours are more likely a measure of SFRPD’s failure to spend money in a park, the opposite of what we are trying to measure.

It does, of course, make sense to account for SFRPD’s expenditures on volunteer recruitment, scheduling, and on-site management and assistance by SFRPD staff. These expenditures should be under the Maintenance heading, not Investment. Clearing brush, pulling non-native plants, repairing trails, tending native plantings and picking up trash are all maintenance, not capital improvements.

Volunteer service hours is not a valid metric.

Recreation – scholarships granted
By definition, these program discounts are granted to low income families. Of course, more will be granted per capita in disadvantaged neighborhoods. There is no point in comparing this metric between average and disadvantaged neighborhoods. A meaningful measure would be number of people participating in SFRPD programs per capita from disadvantaged tracts versus the City at large.

Access – acres per capita
This should be acres of usable parkland. It should not include parkland that is off-limits to the public such as Natural Areas under the Natural Areas Program (NAP). According to SFRPD’s Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan (SNRAMP) less than 5% of NAP controlled parkland will be open to the public.

This is a critical issue since the City’s southeast Equity region contains a disproportionate share of Natural Areas acreage. See the map below. Half of McLaren Park, almost all of Bayview Hill and most of India Basin are Natural Areas.

park-map

Investment – Capital
Capital spending on the Natural Areas Program should not be counted since it does not benefit local park users. Trail closures, land closures, access control fences and proscriptive signage do not benefit the local public. Spending money on the NAP in Equity Zone parks is a form of environmental racism. Wealthier neighborhoods get usable landscaped parks while the disadvantaged neighborhoods have their parkland closed off for native plant preserves. These equity metrics should not promote that outcome.

Maintenance – Park Scores
The Park Scores are a useful metric. They are a good attempt at creating an objective assessment of our parks. However, it’s hard to imagine that bias does not creep into these assessments.

This should be used as a metric, but with other robust measures beside it.

Maintenance – repair requests completed
This refers to maintenance requests logged into SFRPD’s internal TMA system. Entries are made by SFRPD staff and checked off as completed. The metric is proposed as the percentage of the requests opened during a particular year that are closed in the same year. This is not a reliable metric.

If a different level of care continues to be applied to parks in disadvantaged neighborhoods, staff would not lodge repair requests for things in those parks that they would in others. A high closure percentage for the fewer requests would not mean the disadvantaged parks were being as well maintained. There is no dollar value tied to the TMA entries. A request in a nice park might be, “the rec center windows look old, replace with new windows. “ In the Equity park it might be, “the bathroom window hinges are rusting out, nail window shut.” The TMA system is subject to manipulation and is opaque to the public.

A better metric would be number of TMA requests closed per year per capita of Equity population. However, this is still of very limited meaning since the value of the requests cannot be determined.

This metric should not be used.

Maintenance – money spent per capita
This is one of the most direct and meaningful measures. Why isn’t it in here? The previous two metrics are indirect and much less reliable. RPD says this metric is not proposed because they do not know how much they spend for maintenance in any given park. Can they be serious? They do not know how many gardeners, janitors and managers are allocated to each park? Their TMA system does not track time and materials associated with a job? If they do not have this information, they need to figure it out now. How can they do a good job of managing our parks without it?

As with capital spending, maintenance spending should not include the Natural Areas Program. The activities of the NAP do not benefit park users at large. Of particular concern is the reliance of the NAP on toxic herbicides. The NAP enjoys a special exemption from Department of Environment rules that allows it to use the most toxic herbicides freely in Natural Areas. (See the new guidelines HERE: 032216_restrictions_on_herbicides )

These metrics should not promote spraying toxic chemicals in Equity Zone parks.

Save San Francisco’s Historic Forests: What You Can Do

Mt Davidson 12 - lush greenery on both sides of trail

The San Francisco Examiner had a column on August 28th, 2016 about the Natural Areas Program’s (NAP) plans to cut down thousands of trees, especially on Mt. Davidson:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/shady-story-san-francisco/

Here’s the beginning:

Did you know San Francisco originally didn’t have hardly any trees? The first Spanish explorers described the area as “nothing but sand, brambles, and raging winds.” Even in the 1860s, renowned landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted described San Francisco as “perfectly bare of trees or shrubs — and almost awfully bleak …”

As a wave of tree-planting swept the country in the years after the Civil War, Adolph Sutro planted trees on land he owned on Mount Sutro and Mount Davidson. He planted eucalyptus and Monterey cypress, trees that could best withstand The City’s harsh climate — foggy summers with little rain and strong, cold winds roaring in from the ocean.

People loved the “new” forests then, as they do today. Windbreaks, provided by the trees, make walking and playing in the parks more pleasant. Trees muffle the sounds of the surrounding city, provide wildlife habitat, help clean pollution out of the air, increase property values and take huge amounts of carbon out of the environment.

But in recent years, San Francisco has been “invaded” by people who claim that native plants are somehow “better” than non-natives. These extreme nativists want to rip out existing habitat if it contains plants that weren’t here before the Spanish arrived — a completely arbitrary date that they chose — and replace them with plants that were here then. That means getting rid of San Francisco’s trees.

The Recreation and Park Department’s Natural Areas Program pushes a native plant agenda and has claimed control of one-third of all Rec and Park-managed parkland, including Mount Davidson and Sharp Park in Pacifica. NAP’s management plan calls for the removal of more than 18,000 trees, not because they’re diseased or dying, but simply because they were not here before the Spanish arrived.

Mount Davidson, one of the few forested areas in The City, will lose 1,600 trees. The middle third of its forest will be substantially cleared of trees — even healthy ones — so the area can be converted to grass and scrub.

With fewer trees to block it, the wind blowing through Mount Davidson’s forest will increase significantly after the removals, making it more likely that limbs — or entire trees — could be blown down. This significant safety issue should concern Rec and Park. … CONTINUE HERE

CALL TO ACTION:

1) Please leave positive comments about the article on the Examiner’s website, and share the column with your friends and family.

2) Please email the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors (or at least your own Supervisor), the Planning Commissioners  and the secretary of the Recreation and Park Commission (email addresses listed below) and let them know you want forests — especially those on Mt. Davidson and in McLaren Park — removed from NAP’s control. NAP cannot manage forests well if they don’t think the forests belong in SF because trees weren’t here when the Spanish arrived.

NAP has one more hurdle to pass before the Recreation and Park Department can begin to officially implement their plans to cut down thousands of trees, close miles of trails, restrict access to large sections of our parks, and increase the use of herbicides in our parks.

On September 29, the Planning Commission and the Recreation and Park Commission will consider whether to certify the Environmental Impact Report for NAP’s Management Plan. SAVE THAT DATE! It will be our last chance to stop NAP.

EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR MAYOR, SUPERVISORS, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND REC AND PARK COMMISSION 

SF Mayor
mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org

SF Board of Supervisors
john.avalos@sfgov.org
David.Campos@sfgov.org
Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org
Jane.Kim@sfgov.org
Katy.Tang@sfgov.org
Norman.Yee@sfgov.org
London.Breed@sfgov.org
Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org
Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org
Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org

Planning Commissioners individual email addresses:
planning@rodneyfong.com
dennis.richards@sfgov.org
wordweaver21@aol.com
richhillissf@yahoo.com
christine.d.johnson@sfgov.org
mooreurban@aol.com
cwu.planning@gmail.com

Recreation and Park Commissioners
via the secretary’s email:

recpark.commission@sfgov.org

We will need people to attend and speak against NAP at the Sept 29th hearing. We will provide suggested comments and an analysis of the EIR closer to the date.

Stay tuned!

Public opinion does make a difference!

More Roundup for Glen Canyon

A couple of days ago, someone emailed us that they had seen Pesticide Warning notices in Glen Canyon. This park is one where neighbors have been sharply opposed to pesticide use, particularly to glyphosate, the active ingredient of Roundup. The World Health Organization has classified it as a probable human carcinogen. The areas being sprayed were on a slope, so it’s possible for the herbicide to move downhill.

petition picture against roundup

A petition they started against glyphosate use has now more than 12,000 signatures (and you can still sign it if you have not already done so).

The email said, “I saw this sign on the paved path next to O’Shaughnessy on the west side of Glen Canyon.   This was down the hill a short way from the Miraloma clubhouse.  It says they will be spraying roundup from 6/28 to 7/5 in the grasslands just east of the path.”

Sure enough, when observers followed up, they found a team of four applicators out there, spraying coyote brush (and possibly poison oak) for a couple of hours. Coyote brush is a native plant, and ironically the reason to spray it is to stop the natural succession to grassland – which consists for the most part of non-native grasses.

Said one observer: ‘I saw the workers going back and forth, spraying over areas where the other one just sprayed. It appears to me to be a “make work” effort to show that activity is being done.  It was frustrating for me to watch them going back and forth … just to kill time.’

Here’s the link to the 1:38 minute video, which shows the applicators and the location:

glen canyon glyphosate June 2016 - Shrubs encroaching on grassland video

Restricting Access to San Francisco’s Parks

snramp sign STAY ON THE TRAILAccess to our parks and especially our Natural Areas is one of our key concerns with the Natural Areas Program – and the values that underlie it, now being spread to all open lands. (Click here for our article on Natural Areas Program restricts access.)

Sadly, despite a deluge of phone-calls and emails from all of you, the Supervisors did pass the ROSE Policy 4.2 which will extend the same thinking to all open areas. The Biodiversity Plan is intended to document all the areas in the city where native vegetation could grow – and hopes to extend the Plan to all those areas.

MORE RESTRICTIONS

Recently, it seems that San Francisco Recreation and Parks found money to pay for a whole host of new restrictive signs. They’re even worse than the old ones.

We’ve heard the most complaints from McLaren Park, where besides restricting people to trails, they have prohibited bicycles and tree climbing.

mclaren park 2 sign 2015

mclaren park sign 3a 2015

THOU SHALT NOT…

SFRPD logo1The sign starts with “San Francisco Recreation and Parks welcomes you” and then goes on to tell you just how unwelcome you are. What you can’t do:

  • Go off the trails. If your kids want to explore or run around, or you want to picnic on the ground –  better not go to a park.
  • Ride your bicycle. There’s a flat prohibition: “No Bicycles.” If you were one of the bike-rider volunteers who thought you were building trails that you and your family could use – nope.
  • Off leash dogs. Doesn’t matter if they’re well-behaved or that dogs need a place to run around. Not here.
  • Climb trees. If your kid wants to clamber up a tree that looks made for climbing – well, we have climbing structures for that.
  • Tie a swing on a tree.Affixing items to trees is prohibited.” The only tree-swing SFRPD is okay with is on their logo.
  • Pick flowers or mushrooms or interesting leaves. “Gathering vegetation is prohibited.”
park with non-native tree and off-trail recreation

Prohibited activity – picnic

ALIENATING OUR KIDS FROM NATURE

muddy kid

Not permitted

We’re sympathetic with the bike-riders who put in all those volunteer hours and now have been evicted from the trails. But we’re even more concerned about the kids (who may also be bike-riders).

Most kids don’t like hiking along a trail and just looking at stuff. If we want them to enjoy the outdoors and care about the parks, they need to explore. How many of us got hooked on nature climbing trees, chasing butterflies, wading in ponds or streams or puddles, picking flowers, throwing rocks into streams, feeding ducks and other birds, building forts, tying swings to trees?

All these activities are prohibited.

Those little screens everyone complains kids are hooked on these days? They have one major advantage over our parks – you can interact with them.

If you have a car and can drive out to actual wild lands – or if you’re lucky enough to have a backyard with a tree the kids can climb, and can put out a bird-feeder at home – you can provide your kids with some of these experiences. If you live in an apartment, these parks are your backyard. And you can’t do any of these things.

Tree 22 with kids

They’re not allowed. And this tree has been cut down.

You can’t say, “Let’s go to Stow Lake and feed the ducks” – that’s prohibited. You can say, “Let’s go to Stow Lake and look at the ducks” but first, that’s a lot less appealing to a child, and second, once feeding stops, all you see are not-very-many birds swimming along at a distance. In some cultures, feeding ducks and fish and turtles has a significance beyond just bonding with animals… but too bad.

There are thousands of kids in our city who are learning that parks are mostly about not being allowed to do anything interesting.

notice satire

Satire that’s dangerously close to the truth