Neighbors Fight Plan they say Sacrifices Trees for Plants

By Carol Dimmick

An ambitious $17 million plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect two endangered wild plants native to San Francisco is stirring up so much controversy that even its author predicts it has little chance of being implemented.

Dr. Peter Baye, a botanist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and author of the "Draft Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants of the Northern San Francisco Peninsula," conceded recently that his plan will probably be shelved because of the current political climate.

"The plan is too hot. It's too controversial for the National Park Service with its lawsuits from dog owners ... but useful elements of this proposal will endure," predicted Baye, who introduced his plan to the public at a series of community forums in April.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior, is required under the Endangered Species Act to develop and implement recovery plans for plants threatened with extinction. Federal recovery plans are advisory and they have no authority over state or local land use plans or zoning.

Baye's plan seeks to protect two plants on the endangered species list which are native to the northern San Francisco Peninsula - the San Francisco lessingia, a small yellow-flowered annual plant, and the Raven's manzanita, a green shrub.

Both plants once flourished in the sand dunes that extended along the coastline and into the Richmond and Sunset districts. Their populations were severely reduced in the 1950s as a result of a construction boom and the subsequent planting of non-native species of trees and plants.

The plan's core strategy is to establish three "recovery units." This would be accomplished by removing all non-native trees and plants in selected areas and recreating habitats with native plants compatible with the lessingia and manzanita.

The objective is to create large sand dunes around a nuclei of smaller existing dune sites. The new sites would eventually blend with the smaller sites, creating a vast area of natural habitat in which the plants would flourish.

The main recovery units are the Presidio Recovery Unit, Southern Recovery Unit, which includes Fort Funston and Hillside Park in Daly City, and a smaller subsidiary satellite unit of remnant sand dunes at Sunset Heights Park and Sutro Heights Park. Baye also suggests introducing the manzanita in bedrock outcrops at Mt. Davidson Park, Twin Peaks, Sunset Heights Park, Mt. Sutro, the U.S. Mint on Duboce Street and at Point Lobos.

Neighbors Angered Over Plan to Cut Down 75 Acres of Trees

Opposition to the plan, which would cut down approximately 75 acres of Monterey pine and cypress trees and remove other non-native plants from the western half of the Presidio, has gathered strong support among neighbors living in the area.

Residents say the 3,800 trees that the plan would cut down to create recovery habitats now provide a beautiful forested "viewshed" that protects their homes from strong winds and blowing sand.

"The green canopy that one sees in the western part of the Presidio would be largely eliminated by this plan. This is not a benign little plan," warns Bill Shepard, president of the Lake Street Residents Association.

But Baye contends that trees along Baker Beach and in many parts of the Presidio do not provide nearby homes with shelter from the natural elements.

"Trees have to be planted very close to homes to be effective windbreaks," Baye said.

He also points to the old sand dunes near the Point Reyes Lighthouse as an example of the aesthetic benefit of his plan.

"Look at the old dunes near the Point Reyes Lighthouse. This is what it could look like, with a low carpet of shrubs and wildflowers," Baye explained.

Andre Tolpegin, president of the Sea Cliff Properties Association, is against the plan because it will fence off land that is now open for recreational use.

"People aren't even going to be able to walk in this area except on trails. It will be like a museum," he said.

But Baye insists that by using large tracts of land the project has a built-in flexibility that would provide opportunities for recreation.

For example, the plan recommends rotating trail closures and promoting seasonally timed tramplings to promote the health of the plants to ensure the public retains access to the land for recreation.

"There are trails now around existing dune restoration sites," he said. "But if I can't convince someone on the other side that once a fence goes up it will come down, I have a problem."

Presidio Trust declined, through its spokesperson Ron Sonenshine, to be interviewed.

Off-Leash Dog Controversy At Fort Funston to Impact Plan

Strong public sentiment against the plan comes at a time when the National Park Service is embroiled in a lawsuit over whether or not people have the right to unleash their pets at Fort Funston.

The controversy started last year when the GGNRA, the administrative arm of the National Park Service, rescinded an off-leash dog policy it adopted in 1979, arguing that it could not override an existing federal regulation requiring pets to be on leashes.

The decision enraged many pet owners but found support among environmentalists, who complained that unfettered dogs are responsible for trampling native vegetation, disturbing wildlife and attacking park visitors.

Sources close to the National Park Service confirm that a decision to move forward with a recovery unit at Fort Funston, under the present hostile climate, is highly unlikely.

Baye's plan would dedicate 65 acres at the north end of Fort Funston to a recovery unit for the lessingia. Another 10 acres of land at the south end of the reserve would be less intensively utilized and could also support recreational uses, according to the plan.

Plan Raises Doubts About Restoring Raven's Manzanita

In 1984 the Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA) began an experimental habitat restoration project in the Presidio which successfully increased the lessingia's numbers from fewer than 100 to several hundred thousand by year 2000. The project was not a success for the Raven's manzanita.

Although GGNRA pulled the manzanita back from brink of extinction by saving the one lone original plant, that plant was never able to successfully replicate on its own.

Baye's plan for the saving the Raven's manzanita relies upon developing seeds from clones of the original plant.

Because survival of the artificially produced seedlings has met with limited success in the past, the plan suggests an alternative option of cross-breeding with close genetic relatives. These hybrids would be introduced in the Franciscan rock outcrops at Corona Heights, Twin Peaks, McLaren Park, Point Lobos and Sunset Heights Park.

Sunset Heights Neighbors Raise Concerns Over Plan

Neighbors in the Sunset Heights area, like those living near the Presidio, are not enthusiastic about removing non-native plants and trees to make room for hybrid manzanitas.

"My biggest concern with removing trees and plants is with erosion," said Jeff Eng, president of the Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association. "We have had problems getting funding from the Recreation and Park Department in the past for this and I would want to see an Environment Impact Report with regard to stability."

Eng also said neighbors do not want to see any trees removed because of their aesthetic value.

$17 Million a Big Price Tag

In the end it may be the $17 million price tag that seals the plan's fate.

The ambitious plan calls for the GGNRA, Presidio Trust and city of San Francisco to dedicate substantial financial resources to the project at a time when dollars are scarce.

The City is facing a $175 million budget deficit for the 2002-2003 fiscal year and the Presidio recently fired dozens of employees as a result of a White House mandate to reduce its operating budget by $6.5 million.

The Presidio Trust, which was created in 1996 by Congress to manage the new national park in the Presidio, is also struggling to stay on track to achieve financial self-sufficiency at the Presidio by 2013.