Sutro Forest in February 2012

We were up in Mt Sutro Forest a couple of days ago, the day after Valentine’s Day.

The forest looked appropriately romantic. A number of cherry trees were in bloom with tiny white flowers,  like this one near the entry to the South Ridge Trail on Christopher.

So were the pink-flowering currants in the Native Garden at the summit.

We climbed up the adventurous path to the South Ridge. Just at the top, on the path that bore left, vines formed a gracious green natural archway over the trail.

All the trails in general were a bit muddy, the kind of equal-opportunity mud that occurs after rain.

(The cloud forest mud of summer is different – the paths are wet where the forest canopy is closed, and dry and dusty where it’s opened up. That happens in summer, when the fog comes in.)

If you’re walking in this forest, summer or winter, it’s always good to come prepared for muddy trails. It’s worth it.

A lot of the blackberry has been cut back or removed, and in many places, ivy covered the ground instead. The ubiquitous bird-sound of 2009 and 2010 is a fond memory, replaced by a few calls here and there, and overhead, the call of the crows and ravens. Less habitat, fewer birds.

THE NEW TRAIL

The new non-EIR trail may also be part of the reason. As we noted when we first posted about it, this trail is rather surprising. First, the trails were part of the project as described by UCSF in all the public meetings. So we would have expected that work would start only after approval of the Environmental Impact Report. Second, it goes through the area that was supposed to be untouched as a demonstration of what the forest would look like without intervention (and, hopefully, sound like – since the habitat would have been preserved). This trail, we were told, would not be built until a year after the “demonstration.” Finally, though UCSF generally informed us of other changes to the forest, including tree removals – there was no word of this. We happened upon the trail.

We do not object to trails — within reason. We actually like them. However, too many trails have several negative impacts. They’re like roads. We all need them, but if there are too many, they take away from the ambiance and the habitat. A trail is valuable if it provides access that didn’t exist before. We’re not sure why this one was necessary: It connects two points that were already well connected, merely providing a short-cut.

Many of the trails are too wide. Before, the forest was criss-crossed by narrow trails that provided a sense of adventure and mystery, and the tall bushes and low-hanging branches on each side harbored a lot of bird-life. Now, a lot of that is gone.

We’re glad we got to see the forest as it was before. It’s beautiful now, but the spectacular mysterious isolation that made a visit here like stepping into a different world – not nearly as much.

CHAIN LINK, CONCRETE, AND THE FOREST

Back in 2000, UCSF published clear plans for an old building on the Aldea campus: it would be torn down, and the area would be replanted to merge with the forest. Instead, quite suddenly in May 2010, neighbors were informed that the foundation of the vanished building would be surrounded by a chain-link fence and converted to a native plant nursery. Of course the neighbors were upset, and at a particularly contentious meeting, In June 2010, Vice-Chancellor Barbara French announced she was hitting the “Pause” button. (The whole story is here.)

Well, it’s definitely been Unpaused now. Without any notification to the neighbors, the nursery has been constructed. The Sutro Stewards plan to activate it shortly. UCSF permitted them to continue with their plans without any further discussion, even despite the objections. We received a distraught email from a neighbor who thought she was on the email list for UCSF but had received no information. We hadn’t, either.

THE NATIVE GARDEN

The Native plant garden on the summit of the mountain has greened out. We’re not sure if the grass is native or non-native, but it’s green. There are flowers: pink-flowering currant, and even a few California poppies in the meadow area newly replanted (at a cost of $6,000 granted by the Parks Trust).

Of course, not all of it was pretty. This winter’s rains haven’t been enough to bring some of the plants around. Those looked like this.

ECLECTIC SHRINE

We continued our walk down toward Medical Center Way. On the way, we passed the little cave that started out, two years ago, as Ishi’s shrine. Most recently, it had a wooden elephant and a bright peace sign. The elephant is gone now, replaced by an eclectic collection of symbols – Buddha, Shiva, a Xian warrior replica, a African akua-maa, and several other Polynesian/ native American/ undefined figures. And a mysterious box that we didn’t open. The peace sign is still there.

Posted in Mount Sutro Stewards, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, UCSF | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

The $3.4 mn “Park” at Sutro Dunes

We’ve driven by there a hundred times, and never noticed it… but it’s a Natural Area and a park, opposite Ocean Beach. It’s just below the bluff topped by Sutro Park, across the road from some neat condos.  It’s been called Parcel 4, Balboa Natural Area, and from 2010, Sutro Dunes. Recently, someone suggested we check it out.

So we did.

THE BACK STORY

First, some history. This little patch of land was once part of “Playland at the Beach.” As early as 1906, it had a building on it (see the postcard below). After Playland closed down in 1972, most of the acreage was used to build housing.

But not this plot, then called Parcel 4.  The neighbors fought to save it for a park, and the city acquired it for $3.05 mn, ($1.5 mn from the Open Space fund of Rec & Park, and $1.55 mn from the Public Utility Commission’s Clean Water Program).

At this point, the plot looked, unsurprisingly, like a vacant lot. A couple of public meetings were held to figure out what people wanted. Here, two articles from a 2003 newsletter of the Coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods diverge in their account. (The newsletter, which carried two opposing articles, provided much of the back story here.) One says the neighbors wanted an actual park, with a wall to stop blowing sand, benches and trashcans, and one would assume, plants. The other account says,  “The restoration of a sand dune ecosystem was agreed to be a logical extension of the surrounding natural environment. Green lawn and trees would not survive here. Only seacoast-hardy plants native to the area could withstand the salty blasts of ocean wind.”

The plot would have been under the first building on the left

In the event, they artificially created an sand dune site. Since it didn’t actually have any sand, they trucked in $47,000 of sand at a transportation cost of $14,055. Backhoes formed this into “dunes.” No benches were put in (because the homeless would sleep on them) and no wall was built (because it would attract graffiti). The sandy patch was planted with “native plants” grown in a nursery. The pro-sand dunes article said, “The total cost for development of Parcel 4 is $222,201 with $100,000 from the General Fund and $100,000 from a State Coastal Conservancy grant.” That would presumably be in addition to the $3.05 m acquisition cost.

A cyclone fence was thrown around it to protect the plants. That was back around 2003. In an article entitled Sand Francisco, CSFN’s president noted:

The neighbors don’t like it, the costs are egregious, important documents have not been made available to the public, and it has no scientific basis. Yet in the absence of an approved environmental review, this plan is proceeding. An estimated three thousand trees have been destroyed and there are plans to destroy another three thousand. Subjective decisions are being made by people we did not elect that will remove our greenery, waste our tax money, destroy wildlife, and label our families and pets as “intruders,” since our very existence threatens these artificially created “natural areas.”

Patience, counseled the advocate in 2003.

For a preview of how Parcel 4 will look in a few years when the dune plants have spread and established themselves, visit the slopes above Baker Beach in the Presidio, or the Crissy Marsh restoration area, to see how successfully this same dune habitat system attracts both people and visitors from the wild duck, bird and insect world.

Perhaps she envisaged something like the picture at the top of this post, with bright flowers and tall grasses beneath the bluff.

While looking for information, we also came upon this glowing description in the 10 Jan 2010 issue of SF Examiner, called Sutro Dunes blooming like new. It quoted Supervisor Eric Mar: “It’s one of the most awesome natural places in the whole city — it’s a hidden gem.” And a September 2010 application for funding called it “A Place of Refuge and Relaxation.” (It’s a PDF file.)

SUTRO DUNES IN 2012

So the other day, we actually visited the place. The good news is that there has been some improvement: it has 2 paths, 4 benches, and a trashcan. (The funding application above estimates the benches cost about $20 thousand.)

The bad news is that it still resembles nothing so much as a vacant lot. The hillside above it is green with non-native plants, and non-native trees and bushes grow lush just back of the triangular Sutro Dunes park. In the park itself – some straggling plants grow in clumps amid the sand, decorated by the occasional food wrapper or crumpled paper. The “dunes” are bumps that are barely noticeable. (If you continue along the Great Highway, there are actual natural dunes between the road and the beach.)

Here’s what the hillside above looks like.

Just behind those trees, there’s a stairway amid greenery.

So we walked through the park, several times, looking for birds or butterflies. There were plenty of  birds calling, but they weren’t in the park. They were in the trees and the bushes and the ice-plant.

In fact, they were even in the landscaping of the housing across the street. They were even on the housing across the street. The only birds that came by the park were a couple of playful crows that chased each other down, then left without even landing. So we looked carefully for any sign of insect life in the park and didn’t find even an ant. We saw no people there either, they were all over on the other side – the beach. (The trash must have blown in.)

We climbed up the stairway to look down at the park. The park starts where the green ends. Volunteers keep the greenery from encroaching; we saw a recent notice saying they were planning to pull out sweet alyssum (which might actually have attracted some insects).

 

For the record, we don’t oppose attempts to plant native gardens where they don’t destroy existing eco-systems. We find this less egregious than the unnecessary tree-felling in the Interior Green Belt (which we’ll get to in another post).

But we do wonder why anyone considers this particular park natural, a hidden gem, any kind of habitat, or a good use of taxpayer funds or borrowings.

And that pretty picture with blooming flowers at the top of this article? Here it is, on the sign.


View Larger Map
Posted in Environment, nativism, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Pine Lake with Pollution and Pesticides

Someone sent us a note, recently. “There was a sign up at Pine Lake today warning people that the water was polluted!” it said. And here is the picture attached:


“All around the lake, walkers were talking about the NAP [Natural Areas Program],” the note continued.  “Probably all those poisons they keep spraying!’  I heard over and over.”

And then, a follow-up note with another photograph: “There it is – big as life – just a few hundred feet from all the other signs about how unsafe the water is!  It boggles the mind!”

It’s disturbing. Pine Lake, which is at one end of Stern Grove, is popular with children (in fact, there’s a camp close by) and dog-walkers (marked “Laguna Puerca” in the map below).  It’s a well-loved, well-used space. This isn’t the first time someone has sent us a pesticide picture; the last time, it was for pesticides inside the actual lake.


View Larger Map

This time, it’s Aquamaster (glyphosate) and Milestone VM (aminopyralid).  We’ve written about Aquamaster before, and it’s bad enough. But we’re particularly disturbed by the use of Milestone. San Francisco’s Department of the Environment classifies it as a Tier I chemical because it sticks around. It’s so persistent that if an animal or bird eats the poisoned plant, its droppings become poisonous. In fact, Dow stopped selling Milestone in the UK because people found it poisoned their compost. So the places that have been sprayed in Pine Lake? They’re going to be Milestoned for a long time.

The so-called “Natural Areas Program” seems to have decided its mandate is to create Native Plant gardens by any means necessary: Chainsaws, poisons, and pollution.

Posted in nativism, Herbicides, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sutro Forest at Sunrise

Mt Sutro at sunrise by Lori DAmbrosio

Lori D’Ambrosio sent us this lovely picture of Mount Sutro at sunrise. It’s taken from Mt Davidson, another eucalyptus forest under threat – from the Natural Areas Program.

This is what we’re fighting to save. Beauty. Habitat. Not to mention preventing landslides on a steep mountain with all the homes on it.

Posted in Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, Mt Sutro landslide risk, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

San Francisco Natural Areas and Escalating Pesticide Use

We spent a couple of hours, the other day, in the beautiful McLaren Lodge, leafing through a thick binder of pesticide reports for the San Francisco Rec and Park Department. It was so thick in part because it contained a lot of nil reports… supervisors of various sections writing in to say things like “No Roundup used in this complex.

The monthly reports from the Natural Areas weren’t nil. Far from it.

Some months ago, we wrote that the pesticide use in the Natural Areas seemed to have increased sharply in 2010 compared with 2009. Oh, said a critic, don’t focus on an individual year. It might  go back down next year, it might just be a blip.

If so, we’re not blip-free yet. According to our preliminary figures (which we will update if we get better information) pesticide applications in 2011 were up 20% from 2010.

The NAP continues to use glyphosate regularly (38 39 times in 2011). It’s mostly switched from Roundup to a different formulation, Aquamaster. This alternative  provides better control over the adjuvant, the stuff that the pesticide is mixed with. It still contains glyphosate, with its attendant risks.

GLYPHOSATE IS STILL TOXIC

Part of the reason for switching to Aquamaster is that POEA, the adjuvant in Roundup, is actually toxic instead of being  inert. But it’s not just the POEA. Glyphosate itself has problems, particularly in terms of pregnancy problems and birth defects. A 2005 article published in the journal of the National Institutes of Health noted that glyphosate was toxic to placental cells (and Roundup was even more so):

“… glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants.”

In addition, it’s an endocrine disruptor.  French scientists published an article in the journal Toxicology titled, “Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.”

According the the guidelines from San Francisco’s Department of the Environment, Aquamaster is to be used “Only as a last resort when other management practices are ineffective.” Since this last resort occurs some 40 times in a year, we suggest the DoE consider reclassifying Aquamaster as Tier I to reflect the latest research on glyphosate.

FROM THE FIRE INTO THE FRYING PAN

The big change this year was the move from Garlon (triclopyr) to Polaris or Habitat (imazapyr). According to the record, Garlon was only used thrice in 2011, while imazapyr was used 40 times.

This is somewhat of an improvement in that Garlon is a very toxic chemical, classified as Tier I; imazapyr is less toxic and classified as Tier II.

Unfortunately, it’s possible that the best thing about imazapyr is that it isn’t as bad as Garlon. It is very persistent, and doesn’t degrade easily. It moves around, being exuded by the roots of the plants it’s meant to poison. And its break-down product is a neurotoxin – it poisons the nervous system. It’s banned in the European Union.

The NAP also used Milestone four times. (That does sound like a last resort.) Fortunately. Milestone is an extraordinarily persistent chemical that has been withdrawn from sale in the UK, and is rightly classified as Tier I, Most Hazardous.

MORE VIOLATIONS OF POLICY

The NAP also continued to violate pesticide guidelines. In August 2011, they used Aquamaster against ludwigia (water primrose) in Lake Merced — a lake that is considered red-legged frog habitat. The guidelines ask for a 60-foot buffer zone. Since the water primrose is in the water (and so, we presume is the frog), this buffer zone’s not happening.

Some readers will remember this post about the dateless sign threatening pretty much all the vegetation near the Twin Peaks reservoir with Garlon and Aquamaster. We never got to the bottom of that. The pesticide records don’t mention it.

[Edited to Add (22 Jan 2012): One of our readers asked about this Glen Canyon notice, too, listing the use of Glyphosate and Imazapyr against ivy and acacia.

Again, we don't know what happened but it's not in the pesticide records.]

MORE MONEY FOR SHELTERBELT

Shelterbelt Builders, the contractor the Natural Areas uses for pesticide application,  earned more fees from Rec & Park as pesticide applications increased:

  • In fiscal 2009-10 (year ending June 30), it earned $51 thousand;
  • In fiscal 2010-11, it was paid $78 thousand;
  • In fiscal 2011-12, it’s been paid (or is owed) a total of $84 thousand, and the fiscal year is only half-finished.

[Edited to Add: This is public information from the SF Controller's website. You can see it here. ETA2: The report on the SF Controller's website has been changed. Here is the new link. Also, the picture here can be enlarged by clicking on it until it's readable.]

On Mount Sutro, though the Sutro Stewards’ volunteers have been gutting the understory and destroying habitat, we are glad to say there is still no use of herbicides. Again, our thanks to UCSF for preserving possibly the last pesticide-free wildland in San Francisco. Even if only temporarily.

DOES SAN FRANCISCO HATE ITS TREES?

It’s not a good time to be a plant or a tree in San Francisco. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the city is handing off 23,000 street trees to homeowners to care for. It estimates it will save $300 thousand. The kind of comments people made on the article don’t bode well for the future of those trees. Meanwhile, it seems to be able to find funding to destroy trees in Natural areas across the city, trash habitat needed by the city’s wildlife, and take out quirky old trees that give some of these wild areas their character.

Posted in Herbicides, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Happy New Year, with Pyrotechnics and Pesticides

Last night, we went to watch the fireworks from Twin Peaks as the year turned over. It was a clear night, despite a little fog earlier on. The hill was crowded with cars and buzzing with anticipation. People jogged or walked up, including one group with something that looked like Minnie Mouse light-up bows on their heads. (We wish all walkers and joggers would make themselves so visible; there were others dressed in dark clothes in the darkness, like ninja pedestrians.)

We drove carefully through the throng of cars and people, to a place lower down and off the main Twin Peaks Boulevard where we could park out of the way…

Then it was midnight, and the city shone below us, and the Bay Bridge with its swag of lights formed was topped by brilliant bursts of fireworks.

And that notice we’d parked next to, in the first picture? It was a pesticide notice of course, the third we’ve seen on Twin Peaks this month. It was for the Twin Peaks twins: Glyphosate and Imazapyr, both of which we’ve written about before. (Glyphosate is the one linked to birth defects, and imazapyr the one that persists and which has a neurotoxic break down product.) Hurrah. The notice didn’t indicate any spray date or postponement date, though it was supposed to happen in a window of 12-4 to 12-9.

As more people realize how frequent and widespread pesticide use on “natural” areas is, perhaps we’ll find a reduction both in toxic pesticide use and in habitat destruction. We’re hopeful for 2012.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!

Posted in Herbicides, nativism, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Miranda’s Daily Blog: Day 13

Miranda’s trying to save a forest in Tasmania, on Mt Mueller. We’re trying to save a forest in San Francisco, on Mount Sutro. But here’s what really got me:

“It seems almost crazy, doesn’t it? For someone who loves trees to willingly sit and watch an area of spectacular ancient forest be clear-felled? But if I don’t watch it, then who will? This amazing area of irreplaceable forest would be lost forever and nobody would know. It would be done out of sight, hidden behind locked gates. Just a few kilometers away tourists would drive past on Styx Road, on their way to see the few trees protected in the Big Tree Reserve, none the wiser that right that minute an ancient ecosystem is being wiped off the earth as the bulldozers move in. That to me seems the greater loss, for it to just disappear without any body even knowing it was here. The only ones to see it, the people with chainsaws in their hands. And so, even though I know it will be hard to watch, I want to be here, so that I can bring this out of the secrecy of hidden broken promises, into your lounge rooms and offices. And maybe when the world sees this, they will step in and stop this devastation from continuing.”

Anyone who loves trees will know this. They will look at Mount Sutro Forest, and know this. They will look at the 200 missing trees, felled a few days ago on Hawk Hill in Marin, and know this.

So today, I’d just like to pass this on to everyone who cares about and speaks for the trees, where ever they are on this small planet.

Read her whole post here:   Miranda’s Daily Blog: Day 13.

Posted in deforestation, Environment, eucalyptus, nativism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment