Natural Areas Plan moves forward in San Francisco

On Aug. 22, San Francisco's Recreation and Park Commission finally voted to approve the Significant Natural Areas Management Plant (SNAMP). It had postponed the vote from its previous meeting due to the huge number of speakers at its public hearing. The plan is now forwarded to the Planning Department for environmental review.

Unfortunately the commission added two weakening amendments. One calls for management of the so-called "MA-3 areas" to be transferred from the Natural Areas Program to the Urban Forestry Division. These areas consist of heavily forested sections within the designated significant natural areas and comprise 43% of the total acreage.

It is difficult to see what is gained by further confusing the responsibilities and "chain of command" among the various divisions of the Recreation and Park Department, particularly since its general manager has already stated that gardening staff is not adequate to perform any management of these areas. According to the amendment, weed and brush control within these areas are to follow the policies of the Natural Areas Program, but it leaves unspecified what policies would govern other aspects of management of these lands (including management of the urban forest).

The second amendment states that feral cats will not be removed from natural areas for three years, during which time the current trap, neuter, and release program is to be assessed. There is already a large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature, however, that concludes that such programs are ineffective. In high-priority natural areas (MA-1 and MA-2), and in natural areas with documented conflicts between cats and wildlife (such as nesting birds), a policy of humane relocation would be more appropriate. As these studies continue, all parties - including feral-cat advocates - should be forthcoming in sharing available data. After the study period, the decision whether the current program is effective should be based on firm facts, sound science, and best planning practices.

As usual for important planning documents, especially since the commission has introduced new alternatives, the Sierra Club believes that the management plan should go to full environmental review with an Environmental Impact Report (rather than a less rigorous Negative Declaration). Whichever route the Planning Department chooses, there will be analysis of environmental impacts, proposed mitigations, and further opportunity for public comment.

Steven Chapman