May 1, 2012
San Francisco’s 31 Natural Resource Areas And Plans To Protect
Thirty-one (31) Significant Natural Resource Areas have been identified within San Francisco, Natural Areas of unique plant and animal habitats within the parks that are managed by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department.
With Areas ranging in size from a 0.3 acre patch of native oak trees and habitat for resident and migratory bird species by the 15th Avenue Steps, to the 395 acres of Lake Merced, the mission of the Natural Areas Management Program is to preserve, restore, and enhance the Areas armed with a proposed plan for the next 20 years.
∙ Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan Project EIR [sfplanning.org]
First Published: May 1, 2012 3:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Interesting how little of GG Park is in a natural state.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 1, 2012 3:15 PM
I live near Billy Goat Hill in Upper Noe and it is such an amazing piece of raw, open space in the heart of The City.
Posted by: futurist at May 1, 2012 3:34 PM
Mountain Lake is a natural body of water and is not on that list.
Posted by: sf at May 1, 2012 3:39 PM
My guess is Mountain Lake isn't on the list because it's in the Presidio and isn't managed by the city's Park & Rec dept.
Posted by: Fishchum at May 1, 2012 3:42 PM
I did not know that- I thought I have seen the typical rec & parks informational signs in the park as well as those circuit training courses.
Posted by: sf at May 1, 2012 4:00 PM
Amazing to me that there's less outcry about the destruction of the forest on Mt. Davidson in order to encourage growth of "native" species that may or may not survive.
Posted by: 4h clubber at May 1, 2012 4:31 PM
All of GG Park is excluded because dirty hands of humans have touched it?
The Planning Department is run by deranged knuckleheads with nothing left to do (in their addled view) but navel gaze and micro-mismanage.
The time will come when they run out of actual square footage and start declaring concepts to be historic.
We will then call it the conceptual planning department.
Posted by: Stucco_Sux at May 1, 2012 10:12 PM
GG Park is entirely man made: "...carved out of unpromising sand and shore dunes..."
Posted by: the bill at May 2, 2012 9:52 AM
The EIR seems like a thoughtful document. At 562 pages its not a quick read, though there seems to be some sensible boiler plate language dealing with the preservation of our urban open spaces.
I can't see why Stucco brings up the Planning Department as this is from Park & Rec, and it seems like a reasonable statement of what they want to do to care for these important communal resources.
I am sure there is a good reason why GGP is excluded, I just do not know what it is. But less famous but equally important areas like the McLaren Park or the 15th Avenue Steps deserve a thoughtful plan for their long term management, and this sees to be a good attempt at that.
Posted by: Helmut at May 2, 2012 10:01 AM
My bad, though these area's are managed by SF P&R, the document was written by planning.
Seems like planning did a good job.
Posted by: Helmut at May 2, 2012 10:05 AM
GG Park is not excluded. Check the map above and you will see some small fragments of GGP included. Strawberry Hill and Lily Pond for example.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 2, 2012 12:46 PM
while I am happy to jump all over SF departments for this or that, it seems fair to note that GG Park (really all of the GGNRA) is ran by the National Park Service.
Posted by: wrath at May 2, 2012 1:12 PM
actually it's "run" but the principle is the same.....
Posted by: wrath at May 2, 2012 1:14 PM
Restoring areas to their "natural" state is a waste of taxpayer money. Some areas will become off-limits because they'll be declared "sensitive". This proposal was panned in a dog owners' blog.
Posted by: formerly%whatever at May 2, 2012 6:10 PM
Oddly narrow choices. What about Mission and Islais Creeks?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at May 2, 2012 9:19 PM
Ah: checked http://www.parkscan.org/parks and found many of the parks on the eastern waterfront around the creeks are owned by Redevelopment or the Port Authority. Could that be it?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at May 2, 2012 9:25 PM
Dunno... I need to read more of the EIR, but in the meantime, to clarify: seems to be a lot in there about wildlife in the prettiest part of Islais Creek up around Glen Park, but I'm not sure if the choice of sites reflects the amount of bird life around southeastern waterfront parks such as the outlet of Islais Creek by Third Street. Seems to be attention to pollution in Islais Creek but not to wildlife around its outlet.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at May 2, 2012 9:42 PM