SFDOG News

NAP Plans Approved 8/22/2006

Dear Visitors and Neighbors of Bernal Hill,

The Rec & Park Commission voted yesterday to approve the plans for the Natural Areas Program with two small amendments (please don’t consider these amendments official until the minutes are published):

1) MA-3 areas will be maintained by the Parks & Squares and the Urban Forestry Divisions of the Department except that weed and brush control will be done in accordance with the policies of the Natural Areas Program.

It is difficult to know what, if anything, this might mean since the Department’s management made it clear that there is not adequate gardening staff in Parks & Squares and Urban Forestry Divisions to actually perform this responsibility. One Commissioner suggested that if more general gardening staff is available in the future, these acres could theoretically be assigned to them. Meanwhile, it seems to be understood that there will be no maintenance in these areas.

2) Feral cats can’t be removed from the natural areas until and unless the Commission decides that trap, neuter and release has been tried and has not adequately reduced the population in the natural areas.

Both of these amendments were introduced by Jim Lazarus and were supported by Commissioners Harrison, Lee, and Martin. Commissioners Bonilla, Levitan, and Murray voted against the amendments.

The vote to approve the plan with the two amendments was unanimous and the vote to forward the plan for environmental review was also unanimous.

The Planning Division of the Department said that a mitigated negative declaration was the likely outcome of the environmental review and that this process would take approximately 1-1/2 years.

Theoretically, the Commission may revise the plan after the environmental review. However, if the changes are significant, further environmental review might be required.

The Department told the Commission that the approval of the plan did not commit funding of the capital projects required to implement the plans. Funding of the NAP projects will be considered in competition with other capital projects unless they are funded by outside grants or foundations.

I am moving away from San Francisco at the end of the week and my email address will change at that time.

Sally Stephens, President of SFDOG, will maintain this list in the future. If you are aware of any issues in the park that you would like her to announce to the list, you can email her at info@sfdog.org.

Good luck,

Keith McAllister

NAP Hearing Continued to Monday, August 21, 8:30 am

Dear Neighbors and Visitors to Bernal Hill,

The public hearing about the proposed plan for the Natural Areas Program was continued to Monday, August 21, 8:30 am (City Hall, Room 416), because the hearing on July 26th had to be adjourned before all speakers could be heard.

Only two households on Bernal Hill testified at the hearing on July 26th, asking that the legal off-leash area be retained. If you agree with these speakers, your interests were not adequately represented. Since speakers are limited to 1 minute, it takes many speakers to make your point. People who spoke at the first hearing will not be permitted to speak again.

If you can’t attend and speak at the second hearing on August 21st, you can write to the Rec & Park Commission c/o of the Commission Secretary: margaret.mcarthur@sfgov.org However, since the Commission received hundreds of written comments, they are unlikely to read them.

Speaking at the hearing is the most effective way to address the Commission.

Keith McAllister

Treasurer, SFDOG

“JUST SAY NO” TO THE NAP

Download PDF Flyer here.

Families should have priority over native plants.

The NAP (Natural Areas Program) puts the desire of a few to re-create San Francisco’s landscape of 150 years ago ahead of the Recreation and Park Department’s mandate to provide recreational facilities for the families of SF.  NAP claims nearly one-third of all city-managed parkland as “natural areas” although the term “unnatural areas” is really more accurate. NAP intends to destroy healthy non-native plants and trees (and animals) and replace them with native plants which have disappeared from current ecosystems because they have failed to evolve to meet the changes in our environment. NAP intends to defy nature, and so, without intensive management, these “natural areas” will fail. State Urban Forestry experts tell us “Natural Areas” should be created in small areas of undeveloped or underdeveloped SF parklands, NOT large tracts of prime recreational areas with established flora and fauna as currently proposed.

There are countless numbers of environmentalists in San Francisco who believe, for the reasons stated above, the NAP as proposed should be summarily rejected. These environmentalists have been labeled "wildlife villains" by some well-known environmental organizations who are lobbying hard for NAP. We would point out that CBD, and Brent Plater in particular, seem unable to conduct an intelligent dialogue based upon facts rather than name-calling, when a legitimate difference of opinion may exist.

The NAP Management Plan is over 700 pages long and can be referenced at: http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark_index.asp?id=1896

For a condensed version and some “straight talk” about NAP – and to submit comments via email (for those of you who may not be able to attend the meeting but would still like to comment), please visit http://naprap.home.mindspring.com A sample letter that you can cut and paste into an email to City officials is also included on the NAPRAP website.

Alternatively, an easy way to access the NAPRAP website is to Google NAPRAP.

The Recreation and Park Commission will meet in a special session to discuss the final draft Management Plan for the Natural Areas Program (NAP). This may be the last opportunity to rein in an out-of-control program: Wed, July 26 – 8:30 AM–Rm 416, City Hall

Here are just a few concerns about the NAP:

• Operated (and continues to operate) with no oversight. They do what they want without accountability to anyone.

• Tree removal — NAP has already cut down thousands of trees.  NAP proposes to cut down an additional 18,400 “mature” trees (their classification for trees 15' tall or greater). There will be untold
numbers of smaller, non-native trees, saplings and seedlings, destroyed in 1/3 of the public park land of San Francisco: From their website:

"Seedling or Sapling: Young trees that are less than 15 feet tall. Seedlings and saplings are not included in the calculation of the number of trees within the Natural Areas, trees to be removed, or basal area because they are not considered trees.”

• Increased erosion

• Overuse of herbicides

• "Removal" (i.e., killing) of feral cats, and ALL OTHER non-native flora & fauna (turtles, frogs, etc.)

• Restriction of park access (closure to both humans and their pets in approximately 1/3 of the S.F. park acreage)

• Little follow-up and poor maintenance

• Overall cost of the program. Since their operating funds come directly from Rec & Park budget, is it any wonder why our City parks are in such a sorry state of disrepair & neglect?

• Continues to be a HUGE waste of taxpayer’s dollars (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars).

NAP significantly decreases legal off-leash areas in City parks. This, while the number of dogs is increasing, is in direct conflict with the Dog Guardian ordinance the Supervisors passed in 2005. The ordinance requires dog guardians to provide their dogs with adequate exercise appropriate to their breed, which in some cases includes swimming. NAP eliminates all areas where dogs are allowed to swim in SF City parks.

Please, if at all possible, plan to attend the meeting and tell the Commission that you oppose the NAP Management Plan as currently proposed.

Urge them to scale the program back significantly; to produce a realistic program that can succeed in the goal of preserving remnants of native plants; and demand that the commissioners adopt guidelines for real oversight of this program.

Please forward this to individuals or groups who share your love of our parks, and encourage them to attend this very important meeting.

SF RPD's NAP Impact on Recreation in San Francisco's City Parks

Recreation and Park Commission will hold a special meeting regarding the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan: Final Draft on July 26th at 8:30am. The meeting will be held at City Hall Room 416.

We reported in our last Wag newsletter that the plans for the Recreation and Park Department’s (RPD) Natural Areas Program (NAP) were being revised and finalized after a series of public meetings in June 2005. We urged dog owners to attend those meetings because of the impact that the plans would likely have on off-leash areas.  Nearly one-third of all city-managed parkland has been designated as “natural areas.”  About 80% of all legal off-leash acreage is either in or adjacent to these areas.  RPD also invited written public comments for a few weeks after the public meetings.  These public comments revealed that many native plant advocates and their allies would like to ban dogs from parks altogether.  Here are a few of the comments made by supporters of the Natural Areas Program:

• “NO DOGS”
• “Needs to ban dogs…”
• “…wildlife and native plant areas off limits to dogs…”
• “Dogs create havoc with wildlife.”  Golden Gate Audubon Society

The 20-year plan for the development of NAP is in now in final form and will soon be considered for approval by the Recreation and Park Commission.  The Commission will hold a public hearing sometime this summer prior to making its decision.  Since the plan is controversial, we will report on its effect on dog owners by quoting portions of the “Responses to Comments” which is available on RPD’s website at:  http://www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm_recpark/SNRAMP_Final_Draft/RTC/RTCMasterResponses.pdf

“Of the almost 120 acres [reported later in the same document as 118 acres] of designated Dog Play Areas (DPAs) within the jurisdiction of SFRPD, approximately 95 acres or 80 percent [81% reported later in the same document] of the area available are adjacent to or within the Natural Areas.  The Bernal Hill and McLaren Park DPAs alone account for approximately 80 acres or two-thirds of the available off-leash area located on SFRPD land.

A total of 499 comments were directly attributed to the dog theme…[368 of these comments supported fewer restrictions on off-leash dog recreation.] …Approximately half of all comments related to dogs were associated with Bernal Hill…

The Final Draft recommends an approximately 15 percent reduction in off-leash recreational acreage in Natural Areas (from 95 acres to 81 acres).  At Bernal Hill and McLaren Park, DPA acreage would be reduced (by 29 percent and 14 percent respectively) to protect important native plant habitat, erosion-prone areas, and wildlife habitat areas.  In addition, the Final Draft proposes that additional sensitive habitat areas be monitored for impacts.  These include the oak woodlands at Buena Vista Park and Golden Gate Park, sensitive dune habitat at Lake Merced, and small MA-1 areas at McLaren Park.  Also, access by people and dogs would be restricted in small areas at Pine Lake and McLaren Park and a larger area at Sharp Park…Additionally, at Lake Merced the independent review conducted by scientists recommended relocating the Lake Merced DPA [the plan itself recommends relocation of this DPA to Sunset Circle, which is a parking lot].”

We conclude that the proposed NAP plan will immediately reduce legal off-leash areas in San Francisco, particularly on Bernal Hill and McLaren Park.  In addition, the proposed NAP plan has the long term potential to eliminate off-leash recreation in approximately 80% of all existing legal off-leash recreation if RPD/NAP determines that off-leash recreation has a negative impact on the designated “natural areas.”   

If off-leash recreation is banned in GGNRA properties at Fort Funston and Crissy Field after negotiated rulemaking, off-leash recreation in city owned parks is likely to increase, which could precipitate such impacts, leading to elimination of off-leash recreation in most city parks.  RPD declined the GGNRA’s invitation to participate in negotiated rulemaking.  RPD is therefore not in a position to protect its designated dog play areas from overuse by the thousands of people and dogs who would be forced to use them if negotiated rulemaking is not successful in legalizing off-leash recreation in the GGNRA.   

We report here only the direct impact of NAP on dog owners.  Those who have followed this controversy for the past five years know there are many other issues.  For example, the NAP plan proposes to destroy 18,400 healthy non-native trees as well as countless trees less than 15 feet tall that RPD chooses not to define as trees.  Neighbors of some “natural areas” are concerned about the erosion that results from removing stabilizing non-native vegetation from sand hills.  Few park visitors are aware of the fact that herbicides are used in every “natural area” to remove non-native vegetation, which doesn’t seem very natural to some.  Cats will also be removed from the “natural areas” which is likely to result in the killing of cats.  You can learn more about these issues by reading the “Responses to Comments” at the web address above.  All of the written public comments are also on-line, as well as the plan itself for each of the 31 “natural areas.” 

There was a scientific review of the proposed plan that was entirely supportive of NAP plans.  However, two of the three reviewers are not independent of the program, as promised by the Recreation and Park Department.  One reviewer was one of the paid authors of the plan.  She was acknowledged as a contributor in the June 2002 and June 2005 draft plans.  She was deleted as a contributor from the final revision, although it was not substantially altered from earlier drafts. She was also a professor of some NAP staff members, including the NAP Director.  Another reviewer was an employee of the California Native Plant Society.

We will tell you when the public hearing of the proposed NAP plan by the Recreation and Park Commission is scheduled.  We hope that you will participate in that hearing.  The future of off-leash recreation in San Francisco is at stake.

Recreation and Park Commission special meeting regarding the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan: Final Draft

Recreation and Park Commission will hold a special meeting regarding the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan: Final Draft on July 26th at 8:30am. The meeting will be held at City Hall Room 416.

The Final Draft, the third draft of the Natural Areas Management Plan document, was released in February 2006. The Final Draft Plan is available on line at (http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark_index.asp?id=1896) and in local libraries. Please see the Frequently Asked Questions: Public Review Process for the Natural Areas Management Plan on this website for the list of libraries that contain hard copies of the plan.

FINAL NAP Plans for Bernal Hill

The final version of the management plan for the Natural Areas Program is in the process of being posted on-line.

Below is a description of the final proposal to reconfigure the off-leash area on Bernal Hill. This paragraph is excerpted from the Recreation and Park Department website for the Natural Areas Program (click on “Responses to Comments” at http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark_index.asp?id=1896 ).

The redline version of the entire plan for Bernal Hill is available at: http://www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm_recpark/SNRAMP_Final_Draft/Redline/621BernalHill_COMPARE.pdf

When the entire revised plan has been posted on-line (at the end of February, approximately), a public hearing by the Recreation and Park Commission will be scheduled approximately 4 weeks after the entire plan has been posted (the end of March, approximately). This will be your opportunity to express your opinion about the plan. The entire approval process for the plan is also described on the Department’s website (first address listed above). I am sending you this as information only; I am not a neighbor or regular visitor to Bernal Hill and am not in a position to evaluate this proposal.

Keith McAllister, Treasurer, SFDOG

"Bernal Hill. The estimate of acreage to be converted from off-leash to on-leash at Bernal Hill has been revised in the Final Draft. Currently this DPA is 21 acres and includes all the land above and including Bernal Heights Boulevard. The Public Draft recommended conversion of approximately 8 acres above the road to on-leash recreation. Some comments supported this idea. A segment of the population does not enjoy interacting with off-leash pets, regardless of how well controlled or behaved they are. There were many more comments in opposition to this proposal. Commentors noted that people and their pets use Bernal Hill daily, sometimes making two or three visits. This group of people does not want to alter their use patterns of this Natural Area. A significant number of people were in favor of 100 percent of Bernal Hill being off-leash. The Final Draft retains the reduction in off-leash area at Bernal Hill, but the estimate to be converted to on-leash has been refined. The revised Bernal Hill plan (see Section 6.21) proposes a 6-acre on-leash and on-trail area that generally conforms to the areas delineated as MA-1a and MA-1b on the north side of Bernal Hill. The boundary of the proposed on-leash area has been adjusted to conform to existing trails and allow park users with dogs to have off-leash access through some areas designated as MA-1. The on-leash trail area was modified so that a complete circuit of the hill could be made without having to put one’s dog on a leash. The Final Draft proposes a reduction in off-leash acreage by 6 acres. Of these 6 acres, approximately 2.5 acres are largely inaccessible with slopes between 45 and 90 degrees. There are 4.5 acres below Bernal Heights Boulevard that could be converted to an off-leash area to help offset this reduction. Although portions of this area below the road are also steep, some areas could be developed with trails to accommodate public use and access. To facilitate compliance with this recommendation and other DPA boundaries throughout the City, SFRPD will post signs at Bernal Hill and maps of the official DPAs will be available on the SFRPD website. Even with the reduction, the Bernal Hill DPA will remain one of the largest off-leash DPAs in the entire San Francisco Bay Area (see MR-2). The northern section of Bernal Hill that supports the most sensitive species and habitats and has significant erosion-prone areas has been proposed to be converted to an on-leash area. Sensitive wildlife and plant habitats and high erosion risk areas are identified in the Dog Policy as Response to Comments."

New NAPRAP Website

If you love what the GGNRA has done to us over the years, wait until you get a load of what the SF Rec & Park has been up to regarding parks, open space, off and on leash recreation, etc!!!

Please take the earliest opportunity to visit the site:  http://naprap.home.mindspring.com
to get the lowdown on the NAP and what is happening to your hard earned taxpayer dollars. The web site is not totally complete at this time, so check back if a particular park you are interested in is not
specifically addressed.

Please take the time to comment on NAP (see the Comment section on the web site). Also, please get the word out to all of your friends and acquaintances about the web site, comments, etc. We have included a link to this web site on the links page of our site. We encourage any of you who have recreation or dog related web sites to also link to the NAP site.

Dogs are as American as Mom and Acorn Mush

The Ohlone, indigenous people of San Francisco, kept domesticated dogs. Dogs were “a piece of the puzzle,” a part of the 1700’s landscape, along with native plants such as the oaks which provided the Ohlone their primary food. Although large mammals like elk, antelope, and bears no longer roam, the dogs are still here and dogwilling, will continue to be here for future generations to enjoy.

This summer, the SF Rec and Park Natural Areas Program (NAP) will be soliciting public input about their plans for the parks in your neighborhood.

What is NAP? NAP began in 1995 as a program “to protect and enhance” natural areas, focused on native plants (species that existed prior to European contact). Dog owners/guardians support the protection and enhancement of the parks. Biophilia, our innate love and connection to other living things (native and non-native), draws us to the parks to lift our physical, emotional and spiritual health.

Why should dog owners/guardians be concerned about NAP? Because NAP can dictate whether we can continue enjoying nature with our dogs. NAP can dictate which areas will permit offleash recreation, which will permit leashed recreation, or whether there is an outright ban on dogs in that area.

Although dogs and native plants can co-exist, we know from experience that ANY excuse can be used to kick dogs out of the park. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a major supporter of NAP wrote, “… off-leash dog use is not appropriate in our few remaining Natural Areas.” The 2002 draft plan for NAP recommended, “Dogs shall not be allowed off-leash” in the Lake Merced Dog Play Area. The Plan further suggested that dogs should instead play in the parking lot!

Currently, there are 31 Natural Areas, not just a “few remaining Natural Areas.” These encompass over 25% of SF park acres, including several RPD Dog Play Areas (DPA).

For example, the Bernal Hill DPA is a Natural Area. If the Natural Area has a sensitive species, offleash recreation could be restricted. A sensitive species can be a pre-existing species, or a planted species (invasive native plants!). A sensitive species can be the rare bird sighted at your park. A sensitive species is whatever the CNPS or Audubon Society defines as “sensitive,” even though it isn’t considered rare by a federal or state agency. Additionally, the site for the sensitive species could be expanded, or an adjacent area could be closed to create a buffer zone (closure creep). Do you want the CNPS, the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club Conservation Committee (and others jumping on the environmental bandwagon) to decide where you can walk your dog?

NAP will solicit input about their proposed plans in three community meetings. Each meeting covers a subset of parks. Listed below are the parks with Dog Play Areas (DPA) or areas frequented by dog owners/guardians. A preliminary plan (prior to a scientific review and CEQA environmental impact statement) will be presented.

1) Glen Park Recreation Center, Bosworth and O’Shaughnessy

Wednesday June 22, 2005, 6-9PM
􀂃 Buena Vista (DPA)
􀂃 Corona Heights (DPA)
􀂃 Glen Canyon
􀂃 Mt. Davidson
􀂃 Golden Gate Park: Oak Woodlands (DPA), Whisky Hill (DPA)

2) Trocadero Clubhouse, Stern Grove

Tuesday, June 28, 2005, 6-9PM
􀂃 Golden Gate Heights
􀂃 Lake Merced (DPA)
􀂃 Pine Lake (DPA)

3) South East Community Center, 1800 Oakdale

Thursday, June 30, 2005, 6-9 PM
􀂃 Bernal Heights (DPA)
􀂃 McLaren Park (DPA)
􀂃 Sharp Park

Success for the Natural Areas Program requires wide support, not just the support of conservation organizations. NAP is a long-term project requiring hundreds of staff hours, constant recruitment of volunteers, a healthy budget, and the goodwill of the entire community. Dog owners/guardians were previously excluded from the process. The earlier draft of the plan treated dog owners like non-native dirt. In 2002 we protested. We attended Board of Supervisor hearings, caucused with our neighborhood associations and park groups, wrote letters. In 2003 we attended 17 meetings of the NAP Citizens Advisory Committee, met with our district supervisors, etc. All these political efforts failed.

In 2004, after Mayor Newsom fired the RPD General Manager, Elizabeth Goldstein, we re-engaged in the fight. For the past year, we negotiated directly with RPD/NAP in meetings moderated by Dan
McKenna With our allies, we reached agreement with key members of the CNPS, Audubon and the Sierra Club. We have been told the management plans for NAP are now being revised according to
the agreements we reached. We have achieved some protections for non-native trees as well as NAP’s commitment to give the public an accurate report of both the benefits and costs of
implementing the plan. In addition to the effects on dog recreation, information about trail closures, tree removal, and other changes in the use and look of the parks will be discussed. The future of NAP depends on what the public says in these meetings, i.e. the future depends on you.

Please take advantage of this opportunity that we all fought hard to achieve. We can’t let our guard down now.

Mark your calendars and, “Speak up now or forever hold your leash!”

Please contact us if you have any questions about NAP. Flyers to post and distribute in your park are available to download at our website: http://www.sfdog.org/NAP.pdf

Karin Hu, brainz_ca@yahoo.com -- OR -- Mary McAllister, marymcallister@sprintmail.com

Commentary: The Truth Behind The Natural Areas Program

Sally Stephens of SFDOG gave a wonderful commentary on the truth behind the Natural Areas Program on KQED's Perspectives radio program today.

To listen online, go here:
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R405050737

"Sally Stephens argues that the problem with San Francisco's Natural Areas Program isn't opposition from dog owners but failure to heed neighborhood concerns."