The Forest in May

Spring in the Sutro Forest is lovely.

Where the canopy is largely unbroken, the sunlight streams through the trees with the filtered light particular to forests. Last week,  flowers bloomed in the lower reaches of the mountain: the pinkish-purple Robert Geranium, some tiny fairy bells (Disporum smithi) hidden under their leaves; some fringe-cups; some brilliant nasturtiums peeking out; yellow-orange abutilons. The trails were dry then, though a couple of foggy nights since may have damped them down again.

We started our walk in the forest from Stanyan and 17th, the “Kill-Trees Trail.”  It’s a good trail; it provides easier access to the forest from its east side – where street parking is available. And it’s a beautiful part of this woodland.

But while the trail-building elsewhere in the forest required no tree-felling, here 50 large trees have been cut down. (Click on the picture below for a larger version; the white numbers are trees that have been cut down. Several more have been cut since.)

It’s changed the character of the forest. Houses are visible through the trees, and several huge old trees that once guarded the trail entrance are gone, and with them, the sudden magical transition from city to forest. Now it’s more gradual, with a view of houses across in Edgewood and Woodland Avenues, and into the nursery that’s been there for a couple of generations and was resplendent with Pride of Madeira. “They look Jurassic,” someone commented.

The canopy has been opened up, which has encouraged some flowering plants, particularly the Robert geranium, but also fringecups, elk clover – and poison oak.

The undergrowth has recovered from the weed-whacking it endured soon after the trail-building. The blackberry thickets have recovered; for some months, this area had been carpeted only with a shallow layer of Cape Ivy. There’s still ivy,  climbing the columns of the trees and providing crucial habitat for the birds.

The best news is, the birds are back. For about a year, the forest has been uncharacteristically quiet; possibly a combination of the frequent disturbance and the understory destruction discouraged them. But last week, the forest was again bright with bird-sound.

Posted in Mt Sutro Cloud Forest | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

A Bobcat in Sutro Forest?

We saw a bobcat today in Mt. Sutro by the Aldea Center,” commented reader RM on  MntSutro.com on 10 May 2012. We were fascinated.

[Edited to replace the public domain picture with one the reader sent us - taken in low-light conditions.]

[ETA: A naturalist who studied the picture thinks it's probably a very large feral cat, because a bobcat would have a black tip to its tail and ears, and likely have visible ear-tufts.]

(This picture is a public domain photograph, not the actual bobcat the reader mentioned.)

Bobcats aren’t uncommon in wilderness areas around the Bay, and Tom Stienstra, one of our favorite journalists, wrote about them in the SF Chronicle’s blog recently. (Click HERE and HERE for links to his stories and pictures.) Someone told us they’d been sighted in Sharp Park in Pacifica.  But this was the first we’d heard of one in San Francisco.

Sutro Forest is amazing. Great horned owls. Coyotes. Forty kinds of birds. We are so fortunate to have this little piece of naturalized forest in the heart of San Francisco, and the wildlife habitat it provides. UCSF, please preserve this magical place.


Posted in Environment, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, UCSF | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program Ignores Breeding Birds

We’d written earlier about chainsaws in Glen Canyon Park, even though spring is the breeding season for birds and animals, a time when trees and thickets should be left undisturbed.

[Click HERE to read that article, Chainsaws in the Nesting Season.]

We could understand if it were commercial builders on a tight time-line and budget that didn’t care about things like that. But this is the San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program – the NAP.  Despite protests from the San Francisco Forest Alliance (SFFA), they haven’t stopped.

Recently, the SFFA website carried a story with photographic evidence that Bewick’s wrens were nesting in Glen Canyon Park. This is unusual; they are known to nest in very few places inside the city.

(Go HERE to read the story and see more pictures of the bird.)

Did it give the NAP pause? Not to our knowledge. They’re still active there with pesticides and… tree trimming.

A great horned owl has been nesting in Glen Canyon for many years, and has chicks again this year.

Someone described it as “our celebrity owl” because the location of the nest is an open secret, and several wildlife photographers have documented the youngsters. One would think that the NAP would be particularly careful of a known nest, with known chicks in it.  (There’s also a nest of red-tailed hawks nearby.)

But no.  Here’s what another article in the SFForest.net website said:

“Yesterday, April 27th, there were at least five trucks with tree-cutting equipment in that park. There was also a sign: “tree work”.  Visitors to the park at first were deceptively relieved when they heard that trees were simply going to be trimmed — they were not going to actually be cut down. But few had thought the issue through: This is nesting season. Everyone who knows anything about wildlife knows that you don’t interfere with habitat when animals are raising their young.

“We don’t know how many birds were displaced, nor how many nests were destroyed. We do know that lopping off limbs occurred within less than 100 feet of our owl family — there was tremendous noise, and tremendous activity. The owl triplets nesting in the crook of a Eucalyptus tree have not fledged — they cannot fly yet.

“And the Red Tail Hawks, though further away, are still sitting on their eggs. Countless songbirds live in these trees. Nesting season is in full swing.

This activity should be protested to your Supervisors, the Parks Commissioners and to the Recreation and Parks Department.”

Please protest. The SFForest website has a “Political Action” tab with relevant addresses and emails.

[Click HERE to go to relevant address and email addresses for Supervisors, the Parks Commissioners, and the Recreation and Parks Department.]

Posted in Environment, eucalyptus, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Glen Canyon Park: Chainsaws in the Nesting Season

photo credit: 123rf.com

The nesting season for birds is in full swing.

San Francisco’s mild winter and recent rains have provided a window for building and breeding, and they’ve grabbed it. The birding reports are full of lovely stories, from humming-birds to Great Horned Owls to sparrows. It’s the denning season for coyotes, too. Spring’s come for San Francisco’s wildlife.

So we were really dismayed to read about more habitat destruction in Glen Canyon Park, which is wonderful for wildlife. It has trees, dense thickets, and a stream running through it. Except now there are people with chainsaws out in the dense thickets. If there are birds’ nests in there, as there probably are, it will be impossible to avoid disturbing them or even destroying them. Certainly, the activity is going to disrupt all normal wildlife activity beside ripping out the habitat the birds and animals use.

Here’s a note we got yesterday:

This morning the Shelterbelt crew was out there in Glen Canyon clearing way back into the densest part of the forest along the creek — a thicket area no one has ventured in for years. They obviously are not just taking out cape ivy — this is why I haven’t been seeing much wildlife lately.

One would think the Natural Areas Program would respect the cycles of Nature for wildlife in our city.

One would think wrong.

[Edited to Add: We'd like to note that UCSF does not generally approve habitat destruction during the bird-nesting season in Sutro Forest. In fact, their plans specifically take that into account. Thanks, UCSF.]

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

Why Low Dose Pesticides are Still Hazards

When we speak up against the Natural Area Program’s frequent pesticide use, its supporters frequently tell us that – compared with say commercial agriculture – the Natural Areas Program (NAP) uses  small amounts of toxic chemicals. “The dose makes the poison,” they argue.

But it’s not true.

For now, we’ll leave aside the question of whether it’s reasonable to compare NAP to commercial agriculture (where fears of chemicals are driving a growing Organic movement). What we’d like to talk about today is recent research about pesticides, specifically, endocrine disruptors. Here’s a quote from the abstract of a study by a group of scientists:

“For decades, studies of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have challenged traditional concepts in toxicology, in particular the dogma of “the dose makes the poison,” because EDCs can have effects at low doses that are not predicted by effects at higher doses….

“…Whether low doses of EDCs influence certain human disorders is no longer conjecture, because epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures to EDCs are associated with human diseases and disabilities. We conclude that when nonmonotonic dose-response curves occur, the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses.”

[Ref: Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses, Vandeberg et al, in Endocrine Reviews, March 2012]

WHY WE’RE CONCERNED

The NAP uses several pesticides rated as “Hazardous” or  “Most Hazardous” by San Francisco’s Department of the Environment. But the one they’ve favored is glyphosate — better known as Roundup or Aquamaster.

It’s strongly suspected of being an endocrine disruptor.

Here’s a 2009 study: Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.

Another study, also published in 2009, looked at puberty and testosterone: Prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the herbicide glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular morphology.  The abstract of the study ends with this sentence, “These results suggest that commercial formulation of glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor in vivo, causing disturbances in the reproductive development of rats when the exposure was performed during the puberty period.”

And here’s a study published in 2007,  reflecting the research of a group of scientists from Texas A&M: Alteration of estrogen-regulated gene expression in human cells induced by the agricultural and horticultural herbicide glyphosate

THE NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM DEFENDS PESTICIDE USE

Most people weren’t aware that pesticides were being used in so-called “Natural Areas.” The notices were small and well below eye-level. You had to be looking for them, which isn’t likely for most people out hiking or jogging by, or keeping an eye on small kids. In recent months, the labeling has improved, with taller posts and clearer information.

Now that people are beginning to notice, they’re also objecting. The response we hear most often is “Why would they use herbicides in a natural area?”

So the NAP has started posting explanations, justifying its use of toxic herbicides justifiable against “invasive plants.”

These are plants, they say, are “a handful of non-native species” that are “displacing the rich biodiversity of native flora and degrading our natural heritage.”

WHY WE DISAGREE

We have several problems with this statement.

  • If it’s a “handful,” the NAP must have very big hands. From the pesticide application records, we’ve counted nearly twenty-five different plant species under attack by chemicals — including a couple that aren’t actually non-native.
  • There’s no evidence that all these plants are invasive and that they’re “displacing the rich biodiversity.” Native plants and non-native plants thrive together in natural mixed ecosystems. NAP can never eliminate all the non-native plants; the best it can achieve is a different mix, precariously maintained through intensive gardening.
  • There’s also no evidence it’s working. Using chemicals to kills things is cheap and easy, but it leaves a gap where something else will grow. Given that San Francisco’s environment has changed greatly since the 1776 cut-off used to define “native” plants, it’s not going to be those plants. Rather, what will naturally grow back will be the most invasive plant at the site. An excuse for more herbicides.
  • The NAP is destroying habitat in its quest to kill native plants. Many of the plants destroyed are bushes that provide cover and nesting places, or flowering plants that offer nectar to butterflies, bees and other pollinators and the birds and animals that feed on them. The “native flora” don’t necessarily provide much of either, even if they can be successfully gardened.
Posted in Herbicides, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Adolph Sutro Didn’t Know About the Eucalyptus Forest

Mount Sutro Cloud Forest, a century-old forest of eucalyptus, was planted by former mayor and philanthropist Adolph Sutro (1830-1898). Like the larger and better-known Muir Woods, it’s the last remnant of a forest that covered a much larger area – at one time, 1100 acres (and included Mt Davidson, the other significant remnant). What he intended is just what Sutro Forest is now:

“…people… will wander through the majestic groves rising from the trees we are now planting, reverencing the memory of those whose foresight clothed the earth with emerald robes and made nature beautiful to look upon.”

Mt Sutro at sunrise by Lori DAmbrosio

(Click HERE for more about the history of the forest.)

Sutro died before the turn of the twentieth century, and so there was much he could not know about the forest he planted.

1)  The automobile.  How could he have guessed that the automobile, so new in his time, would eventually be ubiquitous? San Francisco got its first horseless carriage in 1896, only two years before he died. By 1902, according the the CA DMV’s website, there were 117 motor vehicles in the city. At the time, gas stations didn’t exist, and motorists bought their fuel at hardware stores. Cars were less for transport than for adventure.

Some of the trees are 200 feet tall...

Today, there are perhaps 500,000 cars registered here. Not knowing about horseless carriages, he probably wouldn’t have known about carbon emissions, or pollution, either. Nor would he have known that trees sequester carbon in proportion to their dry weight; so tall dense fast-growing species like eucalyptus would do so particularly well.

(CLICK HERE for a link to a video by the Nature Conservancy that explains how to calculate carbon sequestration by trees.)

Adolph Sutro had no idea that global warming was going to be a problem, or that his afforestation project was already fighting it.

2)  Population and pollution. In 1900, two years after Sutro’s death, San Francisco had a population of 343 thousand. Here, he might have had a suspicion about its growth; in the ten years from 1890, it had grown by 44,000. Still, he’d probably be surprised by the population of 805 thousand. And he’d have been astounded at the growth in the surrounding cities. Back in 1898, the main pollution issue would have been horse-manure. Horses drop 20-30 lbs of dung per day. If he worried about airborne pollution, it would mainly have been windblown sand.

So he probably didn’t think about the ability of his planted forest to clean the air by trapping particulate pollution on its leaves, where they remain until they are washed to the ground – and out of the air we breathe.

3)  Noise. Maybe Sutro knew about noise. There’s no evidence that San Francisco would have been a quiet place, back then, with the clatter of carriage wheels on the newly cobbled streets, the shouts of people, the sound of street cars. But the rural lands he forested were far from downtown San Francisco in those days, and far from the noise; they were surrounded by farms and ranches. Maybe he anticipated that the city would gradually grow outward. After all, it was he who donated a piece of land on the hill he called Parnassus (and now we call Mount Sutro) to the Affiliated Colleges (now University of California, San Francisco), where his daughter Emma studied to be one of the first women doctors. Did he know that the leafy trees would absorb the sounds of the city, making it more peaceful for everyone?

View from Golden Gate Park, 1880

He surely knew they would be a windbreak; eucalyptus was deliberately being planted all over California for just that reason. In fact, Golden Gate Park reportedly started with the planting of a windbreak of trees on the western edge so that the park could be established.

[For nine benefits of our urban forest - with data - click HERE.]

4)  Anti-eucalyptus propaganda. The final thing he couldn’t have known and would probably have found difficult to understand: that a century after his death, there would be people who despised the non-native tree and want to remove it. That the anti-eucalyptus sentiment would develop into a lot of myths that would be used to justify destroying it.

(Click HERE to go to a page on Eucalyptus Myths.)

Or maybe he would understand. Adolph Sutro was Jewish, and from Germany. Living in the 19th century, it’s very likely he did encounter biases. Perhaps as a transplant who thrived in open-minded California, he expected the trees would do the same.

Posted in deforestation, Environment, eucalyptus, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, nativism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Murdered Tree on Mt Davidson

It’s visible for miles around, the dramatic dead tree high on the brow of Mt Davidson. That’s the Murdered Tree.

Only ten years ago, it was green and flourishing, a soft counterpoint to the splendid view of downtown San Francisco.

“We used to bring a rope swing up here and tie it to that branch,” someone told us, “Our son loved it.”

Well, someone didn’t love it. The tree didn’t die naturally, we learned on a tour with local historian Jacquie Proctor. It was girdled.

WHAT’S GIRDLING?

Though we’d heard of girdling, it’s only in the last two or three years that we’ve understood it’s being used as a deliberate technique to kill trees in San Francisco’s native areas. Before, we heard mostly of deer killing young trees in snowy winters, chewing tender bark when they run out of browse and girdling the trees in the process.

Never had we heard of anyone deliberately doing it to a tree.

So what is girdling, exactly?

If the bark of a tree is removed in a ring around the tree, it starves to death. This is because the living part of the tree is the area just under the bark. That’s what carries nutrients from the roots to the top of the tree. (The heart of the tree isn’t alive, which is why a tree can be hollow but still healthy.)

Supporters of Native Plants were deliberately killing trees in this way. The two beautiful trees above, at Bayview, are clearly girdled.

On Mount Davidson, the girdling was done more discreetly, just above the ground, with the wound hidden by undergrowth unless you actually looked for it.

THE BONEYARD

Also on Mount Davidson is an area called The Boneyard, where tall eucalyptus trees lie dead and their stumps are bleached and gray by the trail. One stump has a nail driven in, possibly used to poison the tree.

The Natural Areas Program plans to fell 1600 trees on Mount Davidson. Of course, more will be lost as the wind pushes down trees that are not wind-hardened. And any tree under 15 feet is considered fair game for tree-killers; those don’t count as trees.

There’s a new organization we’ve written about before, the San Francisco Forest Alliance, that is trying to combat this. Their website is at SFForest.net – or click on the button below to go there. Please sign the petition there if you haven’t already.

Posted in Environment, eucalyptus, nativism, Natural areas Program, Neighborhood impact | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Mt Sutro Forest – Beautiful Evocation of a Lost Tree

We were sent this clip by videographer and artist Lori Ambrosio, who visited the “Kill-trees Trail” (connecting Stanyan x 17th to Medical Center Way).

We thought it was a lovely bitter-sweet evocation of the trees that were there – only months ago.

Click on the picture to get the video

Clicking on the picture will take you to the video.

Over 50 trees were destroyed along the trail (which is only about 6/10 of a mile). This end of the trail is in the City-owned part of the forest and is part of the Natural Areas Program. Speaking at a meeting last year, Craig Dawson of the Sutro Stewards said that in the UCSF portion of the forest, only one tree was removed while building the trails. This was certainly not the case in the SF RPD land.

We’ll address the details in another post. For now, there’s this.

Posted in Environment, Mount Sutro Stewards, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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 in the landscaping of the housing across the street. They were 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  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 , , , | 5 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 Herbicides, nativism, 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.

[ETA March 2012: There were 86 applications in 2011, vs 71 in 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

Mt. Davidson Park – An Open Space Preserved for Recreation or Native Plants?

It’s not just Sutro Forest.

Native plant interests threaten trees throughout the city, and in particular, in San Francisco’s other significant century-old forest: Mt Davidson. A favorite area for the residents of Miraloma Park, the Significant Natural Areas Management Plan calls for felling over 1600 trees. In the map below, the brown areas would be… well, brown. At least in summer. They are to be turned over to native plants.

The article below by Jacqueline Proctor was published in Miraloma Life in November 2011, and is republished here with permission and added emphasis.

————————————————————————————-

Mt. Davidson Park – An Open Space Preserved for Recreation or Native Plants?
By Jacqueline Proctor

In 1995, the City transferred Mt. Davidson Park to the Natural Areas Program with the result that protection and restoration of native plants—rather than public recreation, aesthetics, or forest maintenance—has become the first priority of the few City staff assigned to maintain the park. A recently completed Draft EIR has determined that the Natural Areas Program Plan will have a significant impact on the environment. Indeed, the Plan envisions the negative consequences to public enjoyment of the Park to be beneficial.

While the City is busy planting 1000s of street and median trees to “clean the air,” it is giving the OK to spend limited Recreation and Park funds to cut down 1000s of the historic trees along the trail and road areas of Mt. Davidson, restrict public access through native plants areas by installing barriers, prohibiting benches in the best view areas, and fostering the growth of poison oak (a native plant now thriving where non-native shrubs and trees have already been removed).

The Miraloma Park Improvement Club Board plans a letter to the City advocating for the Final EIR to recommend preservation of the forest as an historic, natural, recreational, and aesthetic resource, as well as advocating for full access to the native plant area and installation of benches in the view areas.

————————————————————————————-

(The Board did write such a letter in comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the SNRAMP.)

Recently, the Wall Street Journal covered this in its December 15th 2011 issue; and the San Francisco Examiner  had an article about it on the same day. The San Francisco Forest Alliance (SFFA) has links to both articles on its Facebook page. Click here for WSJ, and here for the article in the Examiner.

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

‘Tis the Season… for Poisons on Twin Peaks

And when is it not, actually?

Maybe this could be called the Santa Claus mix? The old formula – Glyphosate and Imazapyr, being used against “Road brush” whatever that is, and erhata grass. It’s scheduled for Dec 19-23, 2011.

Pesticides infest the “natural” areas of the SF Rec & Park… the “Significant Natural Resource Areas.”

(Incidentally, the phone number on the notice seems to be wrong. If you want to call Mr Montana, this may work better: Ralph Montana of IPM (415) 831-6314. [ETA: Correction: The number works; 831-6306 will take you to Ralph Montana.]

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas, everywhere you go. Except Twin Peaks.

Posted in Environment, Herbicides, Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon, nativism, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The San Francisco Forest Alliance

We’ve been critical of the so-called “Natural” areas program (or officially, the Significant Natural Resource Areas Plan) that covers some 1100 acres across 32 separate parks in San Francisco.  While the idea of a Natural Area is appealing (as it was to us, when we first heard it) the actuality has been:

  • Dead and felled trees and habitat destruction;
  • Use of some of the most toxic pesticides the city permits;
  • And reduction of areas actually open to recreation.

All of this, of course, at some considerable expense to the taxpayer.

Others have been critical, too.

The newly-formed San Francisco Forest Alliance is intended to battle these expensive and destructive activities. Its members are “concerned residents from groups throughout the city, such as Save Mt. Sutro Forest, Save Glen Canyon, Miraloma Park Improvement Club, Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association, West of Twin Peaks Council, Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association, and others.”

 

The SFFA website is here.

The material below is from its Facebook page.

————————————————————-

SAN FRANCISCO FOREST ALLIANCE

Our mission:

  • Halt destruction of city park trees and wildlife habitat
  • Reverse plans that deny public access to trails and natural areas
  • Eliminate unwarranted toxic hazards to children and wildlife
  • Stop abuse of tax revenue and funding within city natural areas

Spectacular forests with towering trees and thickets are awe-inspiring for people and serve as critical habitat for wildlife in pockets of San Francisco. While city plans call for many good improvements and safeguards to preserve and protect these wild areas, there is a destructive element in motion.

The Natural Areas Program (NAP), a group within Rec & Park, proposes misguided, expensive objectives that will restrict access to popular walking trails and indiscriminately cut down healthy and beautiful trees and plants.

It’s a plan that supplants existing habitat with native grasses absent for centuries that would serve no real purpose and cannot be sustained naturally–toxic pesticides and 1000s of volunteers hours are required on an ongoing basis for even modest gains.

NAP [i.e the Significant Natural Resource Area Management Plan, or SNRAMP] has severe measures:

  • Chops down almost 20,000 healthy eucalyptus trees (Sharp Park 15,000; Mt. Davidson 1,600; McLaren Park 809; Glen Canyon Park 120; Golden Gate Park Oak Woodland 84; Interior Greenbelt 140; Lake Merced 134)
  • Removes an unlimited number of Willows and other trees; removal of any tree under 15 feet does not need to be documented
  • Closes off 8.3 miles of popular trails for walking, hiking and running (approx 48,514 feet)
  • Renders other park features “inaccessible to the public
  • Applies dangerous and toxic pesticides
  • Destroys crucial habitat for coyotes, birds, raccoons, and other wildlife.

The plan’s scale will adversely affect neighbors and visitors alike, as well as irreparably harm wildlife and plants that thrive and depend on wilderness diversity. And even though an environmental impact review is under way, right now there are healthy trees being cut down and dangerous pesticides being applied in these very areas–actions that subvert the legal process and the best interests of the environment and the community.

In a time when city services and funding have been dramatically reduced, it’s troubling to see priorities and massive spending for so-called wholesale “restoration ecology” that has not been successful in previous efforts at Pine Lake and other places that now host barren patches.

If you are a neighbor, parent, hiker, runner, outdoor enthusiast, dog walker, or environmentalist, please learn about these issues and help keep our parks and open areas in their natural state and accessible for all to enjoy with minimal disturbance to nature. San Francisco Forest Alliance comprises concerned residents from groups throughout the city, such as Save Mt. Sutro Forest, Save Glen Canyon, Miraloma Park Improvement Club, Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association, West of Twin Peaks Council, Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association, and others.

Defend your park:

Contact: San Francisco Planning Dept., environmental review officer Bill Wycko (bill.wycko@sfgov.org; 415-558-6378)

Contact: San Francisco Board of Supervisors: http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=1616

Email:

Join your neighbors to defend our parks: DefendGP@gmail.com

Resources:

————————————————————-

Posted in Environment, eucalyptus, Herbicides, Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon, nativism, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bees, Weeds, and Nativism

Nativists who favor “native pollinators” often believe that these insects – bees, butterflies, moths and similar insects – rely on native plants. The plants and insects co-evolved, goes the argument; and so to protect one, you must plant the other.

We came upon a recent article in the journal Nature that notes such specific interdependent relationships are rare. There’s a good reason: it would make both plant and insect vulnerable to changes in the weather or other environmental factors.

Instead, plants are pollinated by a variety of insects (and even birds); and these same pollinators use a number of different species of plants.

Including non-native ones.

WHAT’S BEST FOR BEES

In the article, “The Pollinator Crisis: What’s Best for Bees” author Sharon Levy starts by describing numerous bees, native and non-native, buzzing around a patch of red flowers.

“All these insects are drawn to a clump of red vetch (Vicia villosa), an invasive weed. Just down the road is a patch of native lupins, laden with purple blossoms. But the lupins bloom in silence: no bees attend them.”

The article (which was reprinted in the Scientific American) is based on the work of a number of researchers, including Alexandra Harmon-Threatt (who just finished her doctorate at UC Berkeley) and Rachel Winfree of Rutgers. (In case you want more information, the article cites published research on plants and pollinators from a number of scientists.)

A BUMBLE BEE’S POINT OF VIEW

Harmon-Threatt looked at it from a bumble-bee’s viewpoint. She studied three species of bumble-bees, and analyzed the pollen they’d collected. Instead of favoring particular plants, she found that they looked for quality and quantity of pollen.

What matters to most bee species is the abundance and quality of pollen — and if an introduced plant, such as the red vetch, offers more protein-rich food than the natives around it, the bees will collect its pollen.

A pollination expert quoted in the article agrees. “Until the past five or ten years, people thought that exclusive pollination relationships were more common,” Rachel Winfree of Rutgers says. Instead, they found that bees collect pollen from plants in proportion to how common the flowering plants are in the landscape.  “I don’t see why bees would know or care whether a plant was native or exotic,” Winfree says, according to the article.

WEEDS, BLOOMING WEEDS!

So what do pollinators want? In a word, weeds.

More specifically, thriving, abundant and diverse collections of flowering plants, ideally blooming over a long period. Weeds work just fine. Birds and insects really don’t care.

We’ve seen this for ourselves in San Francisco. The early-blooming oxalis and ivy and the winter-flowering eucalyptus provide food for pollinators of all sorts and the wildlife that depends on them. As we described in our article Interwoven and Integrated: Native and Non-native Species in Life’s web, the so-called “invasive species” that the Sutro Stewards and the Significant Natural Resource Areas Program are trying to destroy are in fact rich and valuable habitat in our ecosystem.

Posted in Environment, Mount Sutro Stewards, nativism, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Glen Canyon Park: Pesticides and Habitat Removal

It’s that time of the year: Habitat removal time. In Glen Canyon Park, bushes and small trees that provide an impenetrable thicket for birds and animals to take cover are now becoming a lot more penetrable…

… and bright-berried bushes, food source for the same birds and animals, are soon to be gone.

Meanwhile, there will be pesticides. The preferred pesticides this year for Natural Areas is glyphosate (Aquamaster), the pesticide linked to birth defects; and imazapyr (Polaris), the pesticide that sticks around. We’ve written about a recent application on Mt Davidson recently, now here they are in Glen Canyon Park.

We should mention that these photographs were sent to us by Glen Park neighbors, who were not pleased to see this activity.

We will give the SF RPD points for clearly marking what they’re doing, though. It’s good to know when there are poisons around. [ETA: Except, a neighbor who tried to call told us, the phone number is wrong. CORRECTION: Ralph Montana of IPM (415) 831-6314. ETA2: 831-6306 will take you to Ralph Montana. ]
So far, Mt Sutro seems to be the only wilderness in San Francisco where there have been no pesticides used in the last two years. (Thanks, UCSF!) We don’t know how long this will last. The planned projects call for pesticide use on the mountain.

Posted in Environment, Herbicides, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

SNRAMP, Pesticides, and Mt Davidson

It’s not just Twin Peaks and Glen Canyon and McLaren Park and Stern Grove. Here are some recent pictures we received of pesticide use on Mt Davidson.

It’s the old favorites, Aquamaster (glyphosate) and Polaris (Imazapyr). Coming soon to one of the 32 Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan (SNRAMP) “parks” near you (assuming you live in San Francisco, of course).

This notice says Imazapyr is being used on cotoneaster, the bush with the abundant bright red berries birds love. Before the berries there are, of course, flowers for nectar loving butterflies. Another useful habitat plant being condemned as “invasive” and poisoned. (And that doesn’t even consider the cover a bush provides for birds and small animals.)

[ETA: Incidentally, the phone number on the sign is apparently wrong and takes you to some equipment shop in the roads division. Here's one for Ralph Montana of IPM: (415) 831-6314]

IMAZAPYR, THE PESTICIDE THAT STICKS AROUND

When we looked at the pesticides most used by the San Francisco Natural Areas Program (SFNAP) in our article Toxic and Toxic-er, here’s what we noted about Imazapyr:

“This is a very new pesticide, and not much is known about it — except that it’s very persistent. SF’s DoE has recently approved it for use as a Tier II hazard. It not only doesn’t degrade, some plants excrete it through their roots so it travels through the environment. We’ve written about this one, too, when NAP recently started using it on Twin Peaks and Glen Canyon. (Actually, NAP had started using it prior to SF DoE’s approval , in Stern Grove and also at Lake Merced in 2009 and some unspecified NAP area in 2008.)

“About its impact on people, we wrote: “it can cause irreversible damage to the eyes, and irritate the skin and mucosa. As early as 1996, the Journal of Pesticide Reform noted that a major breakdown product  is quinolic acid, which is “irritating to eyes, the respiratory system and skin. It is also a neurotoxin, causing nerve lesions and symptoms similar to Huntington’s disease.”

It’s prohibited in the European Union countries, since 2002; and in Norway since December 2001.”

AND GLYPHOSATE, ASSOCIATED WITH BIRTH DEFECTS

The other notice, which was washed out in the rain (presumably the rain that postponed the application) notes that Glyphosate and Imazapyr are to be applied to a range of plants. We couldn’t quite read the notice, even after blowing it up, but it seems to include Erhata Grass and Cape Ivy and blackberry. The last two are especially valuable habitat plants in a wild “natural” area, as we’ve discussed before. The pesticides were to be applied to “patches throughout area.”

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and Aquamaster, is a very widely used pesticide, but new research suggests that it is much more dangerous than its manufacturer, Monsanto, says. In fact, in view of this new research, we wonder if San Francisco’s first line of defense, the Department of the Environment, would consider revisiting its Tier II classification.

Here’s what we wrote in Toxic and Toxic-er:

“We hope that in view of the new research that has been surfacing, SF’s DoE will revisit that classification and consider if it deserves a Tier I rating.

  • heart breaking

    It’s been associated with birth-defects, especially around the head, brain and neural tube — defects like microcephaly (tiny head); microphthalmia (tiny undeveloped eyes); impairment of hindbrain development; cyclopia (also called cyclocephaly – a single eye in the middle of the forehead).

  • Research indicates it kills beneficial soil fungi while allowing dangerous ones to grow.
  • It binds to the soil, and acts as a “chelating agent” – trapping elements like magnesium that plants need to grow and thus impoverishing the soil.
  • It’s very dangerous to frogs and other amphibians, and quite dangerous to fish.”

FIGHTING WITH  NATURE

What’s been achieved? We’re not sure. The use of pesticides is a continuing process. Nature doesn’t give in easily.

Posted in Herbicides, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Monarch Butterflies in Eucalyptus in San Francisco

Like everyone else, we knew that Monarch butterflies visit California’s coast in winter. What we didn’t know was that they’re right here in San Francisco!

Monarch butterflies in eucalyptus, california. 123rtf.com

(The picture here isn’t from San Francisco, it’s from a commercial stock-photo site.)

MONARCHS AMONG US

For the past few weeks, Liam O’Brien, San Francisco’s own butterfly watcher extraordinaire, has been on the lookout for Monarch butterflies, especially for clusters. He found a trove of them on the huge old eucalyptus trees of  Treasure Island and Yerba Buena, with the help of a couple of other people who’d spotted them there. (His blogpost about seeing over a hundred of these butterflies, Yerba Buena Island Hopping with Monarchs, advised people who wanted to see them there to take the #108 bus from downtown San Francisco, and look in the eucalyptus trees along the road near the old buckeye grove up from Clipper Cove. He also warned that some areas of the island are restricted to the public.)

And then… he found a cluster in the eucalyptus at Fort Mason. He reports about that is on his blogpost, First Monarch Roost I’ve Seen in SF County.  A video of that cluster in the eucalyptus is up on Youtube. (Scroll down to the comments for a link to the video.)

Then, back on Yerba Buena/ Treasure Island,  he recently counted over 600 of these butterflies, including a cluster. Mostly in eucalyptus.

[ETA: Mr O'Brien, incidentally, does not support our interest in Saving Sutro Forest, which he considers "Sutro's hideous legacy." See comments below.]

MONARCHS LOVE EUCALYPTUS

What’s special about eucalyptus, a tree that was introduced to California only in the last 150 years? The Monarch butterflies, which have been around and migrating a good deal longer than that, couldn’t have co-evolved with eucalyptus. It’s not just familiarity.

Eucalyptus is actually an excellent habitat-tree for monarchs. It’s tall, which keeps them out of the way of ground-dwelling predators such as mice. And it flowers in winter, providing nectar. In fact, eucalyptus is an excellent winter food source for a large number of insects — and for the birds that want either the nectar or the insects supported by these flowers.

Liam O’ Brien, writing in Jake Sigg’s newsletter, notes that one possible reason the eucalyptus is a preferred overwintering site is that they bloom in winter. “ Makes sense,” he says.

Given the huge habitat value of blue-gum eucalyptus, what doesn’t make sense is chopping them down.

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

Mt Sutro Forest: New Trail, No EIR

UCSF has a detailed plan for Mount Sutro’s forest.

It involves  adding three new trails: The Christopher/ South Ridge Trail; the Clarendon/ South Ridge Trail; and the Campus/Historiic Trail. (It also involves  felling thousands of trees, first in four areas of the forest comprising 8.5 acres, then eventually everywhere they can reach).

An Environmental Impact Report is in preparation, and will be opened for comments after it’s drafted. Only after the comments have been received, considered, and responded to would the planned actions proceed.

Or so one would think.

SUTRO TRAIL SURPRISE

So we were surprised, on a recent visit to the forest, to find a huge new trail hacked into the forest. It’s one of the trails proposed in the Plan, the top half of the “Christopher-South Ridge” trail.  It joins the Nike Road, just above the Gash left by the SF Water Department, to the South Ridge. (These points are already joined by the Nike Rd and the South Ridge Trail.)

It punches right through the top of the area that was supposed to be left “untouched” in the Project.

We saw a recent call for trail-work volunteers from the Sutro Stewards, the organization headed by Craig Dawson, which provides the volunteers working Mount Sutro. We wondered what they meant, since the major recent effort, the Kill-trees trail, is done.

Now we know.

There were no meetings, no intimation from UCSF that such a trail was being built before completion of the Environmental Impact Report. They’re aware it’s a sensitive issue, because the meetings have been quite vociferous.

We’re disappointed. And surprised, but not very surprised.

Posted in Mount Sutro Stewards, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, UCSF | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Glen Canyon Park: Birds, Habitat, and the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Program (SNRAMP)

photo credit: Janet Kessler

Recently, we attended a meeting where we were given a beautiful pamphlet regarding the Feathered Friends of Glen Canyon Park. It pictured 45 species of birds that have been sighted in the park (including flyovers). And it said:

Willows that line the creek host nesting chickadees, warblers, woodpeckers and sparrows; they also offer food and shelter for other animals. Native trees like hillside oaks support many species passing through in spring and fall. Non-native eucalyptus trees have hosted nesting Great Horned Owls and Red-tailed Hawks for may years, while migrant tanagers, orioles, and warblers sing from their highest reaches every spring.”

It was doubly ironic, then, that habitat destruction seems to be the plan for Glen Canyon Park. Only a few days earlier,  The SNRAMP’s contractors were using chainsaws and work-crews to hack through the habitat that has been so useful to birds and coyotes and other creatures that live in Glen Canyon Park.

Said an observer who sent us the pictures below:

“Yesterday volunteers were “building and expanding a butterfly habitat” — more of the willows are down. They told me: “there are other willows the coyotes can use.” What they don’t seem to understand is that the coyotes and raccoons and birds need not just some willows, but entire thickets where they can hide.”

“… NAP people are in the thicket in the very back part of the park which no one uses — it has been a dense and impenetrable thicket for decades. Six of them with big gas-run chain saws are sawing through that growth “creating a buffer so that they can take out the ‘invasive’ ivy so that “native plants can grow.” Again, this is our wildlife habitat. There goes another section of our wilderness.”

The plan seems to be to destroy habitat that wildlife is already using, in an attempt to create a different habitat for wildlife that isn’t there.

In this case, the NAP had contracted Shelterbelt Builders (which also does a lot of the pesticide application for SF Rec and Park) to chainsaw out the habitat.

Our tax dollars at work.


Posted in Environment, nativism, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

The Summer Tanager and San Francisco’s Non-Native Plants

One of the more interesting groups to watch, if you like birds, is the Yahoo group SF Birds. (Anyone can read it, but you must join to post in it. [ETA: It's apparently been changed to a members-only group; only members can read it. This is also true of the links to individual posts, so we've taken them out.])  It has over 1,000 members at this writing, but a smaller dedicated group of local birders use it to communicate the whereabouts of rare-in-San Francisco species. Often, someone follows up with links to beautiful photographs. That’s where we found the story of the Summer Tanager.

THE SUMMER TANAGER VISITS SAN FRANCISCO

Summer Tanager, San Francisco. Copyright Mark Rauzon

This is a small songbird that’s a rare winter visitor to San Francisco. The males are a bright red color, the females and immature males are yellow. They feed on insects (bees, wasps and so on) and berries. Recently, birder Alan Hopkins reported seeing a female Summer Tanager [ETA: this link is now accessible only to members] in Golden Gate Park: “… you will find English Ivy growing up some trees. The tanager was catching bees that are feeding on the ivy.

Of course, other birders followed up. Steven Tucker wrote: “…the Summer Tanager was where Alan described it. There are 2 huge columns of ivy adjacent to one another; the
tanager was often in the right-hand clump or in the Eucalyptus trees around it.

Then birder Mark Rauzon posted some wonderful pictures of this little bird in his Zenfolio portfolio. “I found it by it’s ‘churrip’ call at 1:30pm, Monday in the ivy covered Eucalyptus … It was bee-eating and occasionally dropping down to eat blackberries, where I had this face to face encounter.” (The pictures here are reproduced with his permission. They’re copyright. Anyone who wants to use them should check with him at mjrauz@aol.com )

Summer Tanager and Blackberries, San Francisco. Copyright Mark Rauzon

NON-NATIVE PLANTS AS HABITAT

It’ll come as no surprise to birders that non-native plants provide habitat. After all, many of the posts in the SF Bird group describe birds in flowering eucalyptus trees, either for the nectar or the insects attracted to the nectar. (We hope that any birders who still believe eucalyptus trees suffocate birds will check this article, Another Eucalyptus Myth: Bird Death) They mention birds in the blackberry bushes, which provide not only food by way of berries and insects, but excellent cover.  Like the notes above, they mention birds hiding in ivy.

In our article Interwoven and Integrated: Non-native and Native Species in Life’s Web,  we described how native species and non-native species are part of the same functional habitat. This is another example.

  • The eucalyptus (non-native) provides support for the ivy (non-native)
  • which attracts insects (both native and non-native),
  • which become food for the Summer Tanager and other birds (mostly native).

The blackberry bushes work in much the same way; they attract insects, they provide berries, and they provide hiding places. So does eucalyptus – it flowers through the year, and particularly in winter, provides sustenance to birds and insects. (ETA: See the comments below for Monarch butterflies clustering in eucalyptus at Fort Mason in San Francisco.) It also provides nesting spots and cover.

Pointing this up was the most recent post  on the Summer Tanager, from Richard Bradus: “…an immature Red-tailed Hawk alighted, drawing an even dozen Ravens in pursuit. As they rose and flew off the bushes came alive, and out popped the female Summer Tanager. It made a few sorties from the ivy then, after devouring a particularly fat insect (bee?), it retreated to cover.

Summer Tanager eating bee, San Francisco. Copyright Mark Rauzon

Posted in Environment | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

SF Natural Areas Program: Imazapyr, Glyphosate Pesticides at McLaren Park

It looks like the SF NAP is using a lot of Imazapyr since San Francisco’s Department of the Environment approved it earlier this year.

We’ve seen signs on Twin Peaks, in Glen Canyon, at Stern Grove. Now someone has sent us photos of notices in McLaren Park.

This is despite these facts about Imazapyr:

  • It doesn’t bio-degrade easily;
  • It is pushed out by the roots of some plants it’s used on, thus spreading it further than intended;
  • Its breakdown product is neurotoxic;
  • It’s banned in the European Union.

In other words, this product, once applied, will spread further than it was applied, will hang around, and when it does break down will become a chemical that is neurotoxic. (Our initial article on Imazapyr is here.) It’s too poisonous for the EU, but it’s okay for San Francisco.

Source: Wikimedia commons

This time, it’s being used against fennel (the nursery plant of the native Anise Swallowtail butterfly) and bindweed.

It’s being used, apparently, along with glyphosate. We hope they’re not being used together. In most cases, very little or no research exists about two pesticides being used together. They may have synergistic effects that either one used along doesn’t have.

Again, there’s some confusion about the completion date. This sign had one filled in, but it’s been scribbled out. The dates of application also appear to have been overwritten. This raises questions: Did they just recycle an old notice? And, did they spray or didn’t they?

IMAZAPYR IN THE BAY

Of course, the Bay Area has a lot of (unexamined) experience with Imazapyr. We’ve been spraying it in the Bay for years, as part of a vegetation control project that has harmed Clapper Rail habitat.

This project attempts to battle spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass), a marsh plant native to the East Coast but not, apparently, to the West Coast. It is grows denser than the West Coast species, and it also grows year-round, unlike the local variety. Thus, it provides great cover and nesting sites for the Clapper Rail, a marsh bird whose numbers have been falling. Nativists have blamed red foxes, also native to other parts of the US.

But as this article, Nativism is Shooting us in the Foot on the website Death of a Million Trees points out, red foxes are native to the East Coast, and there both they and the Clapper Rail (and the spartina!) thrive.

Pouring on the Imazapyr and destroying the spartina alterniflora have demonstrably destroyed habitat. It’s also left a legacy chemical to join all the others in the Bay. Is this really something we want to replicate in San Francisco’s “Natural Areas”?

Posted in Herbicides, Natural areas Program | 2 Comments

The Bees of Glen Canyon Park

This was going to be a post about the San Francisco Natural Areas Program (SF NAP) destroying a hive of feral honeybees in Glen Canyon Park. It still is, but with less anger.

In a tree behind the rec center, about 9 or 10 feet off the ground, a nest of feral honey bees had made their home. It was one of three in Glen Canyon Park, and it was thriving. Here’s what it looked like in April 2011:

Here’s what it looked like after it was destroyed on 15 October 2011. Said the person who sent in the picture, “Note the sad hapless bee trying to get into her hive…”

This nest had been there for a long time, and bee-lovers had been watching it. It was registered with the Feral Bee project.

People were furious. ”I have a ladder and drill, who would like to climb it tonight to drill out the foam?” someone posted. (Of course it wasn’t going to work that easily; the colony had likely been poisoned first. The pesticides SF NAP usually uses in these cases is a mix of phenothrin and D-trans Allethrin.)

What happened? everyone wanted to know.

Someone spoke to a Rec and Parks employee about it. He said they were hornets or wasps. He expected the stragglers like the bee up there would find a home elsewhere. He gave no assurances about saving other hives.

The San Francisco Bee-keepers Association wrote to SF NAP.

SF NAP’s RESPONSE

There was an immediate positive response. Lisa Wayne, Manager of the SF NAP, wrote back to say,

“I am dismayed to hear that a bee hive may have been destroyed in Glen Canyon.  For several years, there have been at least two bee hives in eucalyptus trees in the Canyon.  Many years ago, RPD installed a fence around the one near Silvertree as a way to keep the children and other park patrons away from it and to protect the colony.  I am a beekeeper myself as well as allergic to yellow jackets and wasps and fully understand the difference between these species and docile nature of honey bees.  We do control yellow jackets and wasps in areas near trails and other public facilities.  I am not in favor of, and I don’t believe our Department is in favor of, eradicating honey bee hives.”

That was a good start. Even better, she followed up by actually investigating the incident with the concerned people in her department.

The person who sealed the nest explained what happened. He’d received information that a park visitor had been stung. He contacted her, and she said she had been stung while helping someone else who’d been stung several times. When the Parks employee checked it out, he found the insects flying angrily around the nest.

The nest appeared to be aggressive and moving like hornets at the time of this inspection.  After speaking with the park gardener, the distraught park patron, and performing a site inspection, with the information at hand I made a decision to take action to treat and seal the nest.

At dawn the next morning, he poisoned the nest with an “Eco-exempt product” (from their previous records, wasps and hornet nests are treated with 499, an insect killer – the mixture referred to above), “and sealed the opening with foam sealant and cement.” Since the nest was quiet so early in the morning, he didn’t realize they were honeybees.

He was unpleasantly surprised when he was informed that they were.

“It is not my practice to exterminate or discourage honeybees or other pollinators including wasp and hornets unless they pose a threat to public health and safety.  In this case the persons who where stung felt their safety was in jeopardy.  I did an inspection of the area, getting as close as I could without putting my safety in danger.  It seems that regretfully these were feral bees.  In hindsight and with better information I would have slowed the process down.  In the future if it is not a cut-and-dry wasp nest treatment, I will take more time in the evaluation process.”

He concluded,  “I am disappointed by the results of the incident and will review how I may handle this type of situation in the future…

In her note on the subject, Lisa Wayne said,

As the Manager that oversees the IPM [Integrated Pest Management] Division, I am taking corrective action to reduce the potential of future incidents such as this.  Please be assured that it is not the policy of SFRPD to eradicate honey bee hives; by contrast it is our policy to protect feral hives in situ as much as possible.  If a hive is located in a place where it is perceived to be a health and safety hazard, we will take measures such as signage and fencing first before trying to move the hive.  Our IPM  unit has in the past coordinated with local bee keepers to move hives where access to the queen is possible.  We will continue to take this approach.

A SAD REMINDER

For those who watched this nest regularly, its loss is keenly felt, and they regret that SF NAP didn’t spot it sooner and fence it off as they have done with other feral bee colonies in the Park. As the person who sent us this noted, “walking by that tree is always a sad reminder of the hive.”

Still, it’s reassuring to know that the destruction was accidental and that SF NAP is taking steps to prevent a recurrence. This may help to preserve the other nests we know are in Glen Canyon.

We hope SF NAP will be as considerate of other birds and animals whose habitat is being destroyed in Natural Areas with the cutting down and poisoning of thickets and trees.

Another nest of feral bees

Posted in Environment, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

USCF, Sutro Stewards, and the fund-raising “Fire Hazard”

Here we go again.

We’d thought, after FEMA’s  letter that suggested that UCSF’s application had exaggerated the fire hazard in Mount Sutro Forest, that UCSF would back off an assessment clearly based on misunderstood and misinterpreted information. After all, Cal Fire has declared the fire hazard “moderate” – its lowest rating.

(For those new to the background: UCSF attempted to get a FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency – grant on the same basis in 2008/ 2009.  FEMA had many questions about the veracity of the claim and UCSF withdrew that application. That story, and an excerpt from the FEMA letter obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, are here: “The Fire Hazard that Wasn’t.”)

We were wrong. A few months ago, UCSF applied — with support from the Sutro Stewards — for a grant of $75,000 from the California Fire Safe Council.

And it’s again raising the spectre of acute fire danger in what may be the wettest place in San Francisco that’s not actually under water.

A CLOUD FOREST ISN’T DRY

The application starts with a reference to the East Bay:


It doesn’t note that the East Bay has a completely different climate from San Francisco’s fog belt. The East Bay climate is more extreme and much drier – it’s hotter in summer and colder in winter, even going to below freezing. It also doesn’t note that any tree would have fueled the East Bay fire, which were driven by hot dry winds that don’t occur in San Francisco. (In fact, eucalyptus is not an especial risk factor even in the East Bay.)

This forest lies completely within San Francisco’s fog belt, which makes this century-old dense forest functionally a cloud forest. In addition to the rainfall, it gets 33% more moisture from harvesting fog all through the summer.  As a result, it is damp or wet year round.  When we kept a “fog log” in 2009, a dry year, we found the longest “dry spell” for the forest (i.e., no fog, no rain) was seven days. At no time did the forest dry out at all.

The planned actions — thinning the forest  and removing undergrowth — will actually *increase* the fire hazard by opening up the cloud forest and causing it to dry out. At present, the forest is always damp and often wet, even when there has been no rain.

NOT AN UNHEALTHY FOREST

The application insists that the forest is unhealthy, and infested with dangerous pests, including the “newly detected eucalyptus snout beetle.”

(We presume that should be 45,000 trees, not 4500.)

In fact, when we asked a certified arborist to examine the forest, they found it healthy. We published the relevant excerpt here. The number of dead and dying trees are normal for a naturalized forest. This is a forest, not a garden. The “snags” or standing dead trees are also critical as habitat elements for birds, especially woodpeckers and flickers, and the insects on which they feed. Because the forest is damp year-round, they do not become a fire hazard.

A certain level of insect activity is also normal in a naturalized forest. They’re part of the food chain. And as for the particularly-mentioned Snout Beetle?

The Snout Beetle is largely found in southern California, and has been effectively controlled with a parasitic wasp deliberately released. According to the University of California’s website, California Agriculture Online,

“Consequently, where pesticide use has not disrupted the actions of the parasitoid, there have not been further reports of damage, and the biological control program has provided an effective and permanent solution to the problem, requiring no further input.”

Mount Sutro Forest has been free of pesticide use for several years.

ARE THE TRAILS A FIRE HAZARD?

We thought this issue had been addressed at the hearings about the new trail that opened last year. Neighbors were very concerned that the trails would increase the fire hazard by increasing ignition risk. Ray Moritz, a forester, described the fire hazard as “mild” and described his experiments to demonstrate that ignition risk was low. (We published a report of that meeting, based on contemporaneous notes. Craig Dawson, Executive Director of the Sutro Stewards who has signed a letter of support for this UCSF application, was present at that meeting.)

So we were surprised to find this statement in the application:

It’s exactly what neighbors were assured was not the case. Mr Moritz also pointed out that the “window” — periods of “low humidity and high temperature” were small in San Francisco. And in fact, given the cloud forest conditions with summer fog, it’s even smaller in this forest.

CALLING FIRE IN A CROWDED NEIGHBORHOOD

Here’s why we’re dismayed by this effort to raise funds with a purported fire danger:

1. The proposed actions can actually increase the fire hazard by opening the forest and drying it out. Plans to amputate vines to ten feet above the ground will leave trees full of drying and flammable leaves and twining stems. And plans to leave the chipped and fallen trees and logs in the forest will only increase the fuel.

2. The forest is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Aside from unnecessarily frightening the residents, the purported fire hazard can become an issue both for insurance and for disclosure at the time of sale of homes in these neighborhoods — even if it’s not true.

3. If the fund-raising succeeds, it diverts funds from other areas where they would actually reduce fire risk, not increase it.

Posted in Mount Sutro Stewards, Sutro Forest "Fire Risk", UCSF | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Native Restorations Don’t “Restore” Anything – Professor Arthur Shapiro

We are reprinting, with permission, Professor Shapiro’s comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Significant Natural Areas Program. It was first published on Death of a Million Trees.

————————————————————————-

Mission blue butterfly Wikimedia Commons

With permission and in its entirety we are publishing the comment of Arthur M. Shapiro. He is Distinguished Professor of Evolution and Ecology at UC Davis and a renowned expert on the butterflies of California. We hope that you will take his credentials into consideration as you read his opinion of native plant restorations in general and the Natural Areas Program in San Francisco in particular. We hope that Professor Shapiro’s comment will inspire you to write your own comment by the deadline, which has been extended to October 31, 2011. Details about how to submit your comment are available here.

*************************

October 6, 2011

Mr. Bill Wycko

San Francisco Planning Department

Re: DRAFT EIR, NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM

Dear Mr. Wycko:

Consistent with the policy of the University of California, I wish to state at the outset that the opinions stated in this letter are my own and should not be construed as being those of the Regents, the University of California, or any administrative entity thereof. My affiliation is presented for purposes of identification only. However, my academic qualifications are relevant to what I am about to say. I am a professional ecologist (B.A. University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Cornell University) and have been on the faculty of U.C. Davis since 1971, where I have taught General Ecology, Evolutionary Ecology, Community Ecology, Philosophy of Biology, Biogeography, Tropical Ecology, Paleoecology, Global Change, Chemical Ecology, and Principles of Systematics. I have trained some 15 Ph.D.s, many of whom are now tenured faculty at institutions including the University of Massachusetts, University of Tennessee, University of Nevada-Reno, Texas State University, and Long Beach State University, and some of whom are now in government agencies or in private consulting or industry. I am an or the author of some 350 scientific publications and reviews. The point is that I do have the bona fides to say what I am about to say.

At a time when public funds are exceedingly scarce and strict prioritization is mandatory, I am frankly appalled that San Francisco is considering major expenditures directed toward so-called “restoration ecology.” “Restoration ecology” is a euphemism for a kind of gardening informed by an almost cultish veneration of the “native” and abhorrence of the naturalized, which is commonly characterized as “invasive.” Let me make this clear: neither “restoration” nor conservation can be mandated by science—only informed by it. The decision of what actions to take may be motivated by many things, including politics, esthetics, economics and even religion, but it cannot be science-driven.

In the case of “restoration ecology,” the goal is the creation of a simulacrum of what is believed to have been present at some (essentially arbitrary) point in the past. I say a simulacrum, because almost always there are no studies of what was actually there from a functional standpoint; usually there are no studies at all beyond the merely (and superficially) descriptive. Whatever the reason for desiring to create such a simulacrum, it must be recognized that it is just as much a garden as any home rock garden and will almost never be capable of being self-sustaining without constant maintenance; it is not going to be a “natural,” self-regulating ecosystem. The reason for that is that the ground rules today are not those that obtained when the prototype is thought to have existed. The context has changed; the climate has changed; the pool of potential colonizing species has changed, often drastically. Attempts to “restore” prairie in the upper Midwest in the face of European Blackthorn invasion have proven Sisyphean. And they are the norm, not the exception.

The creation of small, easily managed, and educational simulacra of presumed pre-European vegetation on San Francisco public lands is a thoroughly worthwhile and, to me, desirable project. Wholesale habitat conversion is not.

A significant reaction against the excesses of the “native plant movement” is setting up within the profession of ecology, and there has been a recent spate of articles arguing that hostility to “invasives” has gone too far—that many exotic species are providing valuable ecological services and that, as in cases I have studied and published on, in the altered context of our so-called “Anthropocene Epoch” such services are not merely valuable but essential. This is a letter, not a monograph, but I would be glad to expand on this point if asked to do so.

I am an evolutionary ecologist, housed in a Department of Evolution and Ecology. The two should be joined at the proverbial hip. Existing ecological communities are freeze-frames from a very long movie. They have not existed for eternity, and many have existed only a few thousand years. There is nothing intrinsically sacred about interspecific associations. Ecological change is the norm, not the exception. Species and communities come and go. The ideology (or is it faith?) that informs “restoration ecology” basically seeks to deny evolution and prohibit change. But change will happen in any case, and it is foolish to squander scarce resources in pursuit of what are ideological, not scientific, goals with no practical benefit to anyone and only psychological “benefits” to their adherents.

If that were the only argument, perhaps it could be rebutted effectively. But the proposed wholesale habitat conversion advocated here does serious harm, both locally (in terms of community enjoyment of public resources) and globally (in terms of carbon balance-urban forests sequester lots of carbon; artificial grasslands do not). At both levels, wholesale tree removal, except for reasons of public safety, is sheer folly. Aging, decrepit, unstable Monterey Pines and Monterey Cypresses are unquestionably a potential hazard. Removing them for that reason is a very different matter from removing them to actualize someone’s dream of a pristine San Francisco (that probably never existed).

Sociologists and social psychologists talk about the “idealization of the underclass,” the “noble savage” concept, and other terms referring to the guilt-driven self-hatred that infects many members of society. Feeling the moral onus of consumption and luxury, people idolize that which they conceive as pure and untainted. That may be a helpful personal catharsis. It is not a basis for public policy.

Many years ago I co-hosted John Harper, a distinguished British plant ecologist, on his visit to Davis. We took him on a field trip up I-80. On the way up several students began apologizing for the extent to which the Valley and foothill landscapes were dominated by naturalized exotic weeds, mainly Mediterranean annual grasses. Finally Harper couldn’t take it any more. “Why do you insist on treating this as a calamity, rather than a vast evolutionary opportunity?” he asked. Those of us who know the detailed history of vegetation for the past few million years—particularly since the end of Pleistocene glaciation—understand this. “Restoration ecology” is plowing the sea.

Get real.

Sincerely,

Arthur M. Shapiro

Distinguished Professor of Evolution and Ecology

Posted in Environment, nativism, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Killing Healthy Trees in SF’s “Natural Areas”

We referred to this article in our summary of the mistakes in the Draft Environmental Impact Report on SF’s Natural Areas. We are now reprinting it with permission (and minor edits) from the website, Death of a Million Trees. It points out a  flaw in the logic of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan for San Francisco. The DEIR refers frequently to removing “dead and dying trees” — yet when you actually look at the details, that’s not what they intend at all. Thousands of healthy trees are at risk.

————————————————————————

THE HEALTHY TREES OF SAN FRANCISCO

The San Francisco Natural Areas Program (NAP) plans to destroy thousands of healthy trees in San Francisco’s parks.  The Draft Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for NAP’s destructive plan reaches the bizarre conclusion that removing thousands of trees will have no significant impact on the environment.   This conclusion is based on several fictional premises.  In a previous post we examined the fictional claim that all the trees that will be removed will be replaced within the natural areas by an equal number of trees that are native to San Francisco.  In this post we will examine another of the fictional premises:  that only dead, dying, hazardous, or unhealthy trees will be removed.

We have many reasons to challenge the truth of the claim that only dead, dying, hazardous or unhealthy trees will be removed:

  • The management plan for the Natural Areas Program tells us that young non-native trees under 15 feet tall will be removed from the natural areas.  By definition these young trees are not dead or unhealthy because they are young and actively growing.
  • The management plan has not selected only dead, dying, hazardous trees for removal.  Trees have been selected for removal only in so far as they support the goal of expanding and enhancing areas of native plants, especially grasslands and scrub.
  • The predominant non-native tree in San Francisco, Blue Gum eucalyptus lives in Australia from 200-400 years, depending upon the climate.[i]  In milder climates, such as San Francisco, the Blue Gum lives toward the longer end of this range.
  • However, there are many natural predators in Australia that were not imported to California. It is possible that the eucalypts will live longer here:  “Once established elsewhere, some species of eucalypts are capable of adjusting to a broader range of soil, water, and slope conditions than in Australia…once released from inter-specific competitions and from native insect fauna…”[ii]
  • The San Francisco Presidio’s Vegetation Management Plan reports that eucalypts in the Presidio are about 100 years old and they are expected to live much longer: “blue gum eucalyptus can continue to live much longer…”[iii]
  • The Natural Areas Program has already destroyed hundreds of non-native trees in the past 15 years.  We can see with our own eyes, that these trees were not unhealthy when they were destroyed.

How have mature trees been selected for removal?

The EIR wants us to believe that only dead, dying, hazardous trees will be removed from the natural areas.  This claim is contradicted by the management plan that the EIR is claiming to evaluate.  Not a single explanation in the management plan for why specific trees over 15 feet tall have been selected for removal is based on the health of the trees.  (Trees less than 15 feet tall will also be removed, but are not counted by the management plan.)

  •  Lake Merced:  The explanation for removing 134 trees is “To maintain and enhance native habitats, it is necessary to selectively remove some trees.”
  • Mt. Davidson:  The explanation for removing 1,600 trees is: “In order to enhance the sensitive species habitat that persists in the urban forest understory and at the forest-grassland ecotone, invasive blue gum eucalyptus trees will be removed in select areas. Coastal scrub and reed grass communities require additional light to reach the forest floor in order to persist “
  • Glen Canyon:  The explanations for removing 120 trees are:  “to help protect and preserve the native grassland” and “to increase light penetration to the forest floor”
  • Bayview Hill:  The explanation for removing 505 trees is:  “In order to enhance the sensitive species habitat that persists in the urban forest understory and at the forest-grassland ecotone, invasive blue gum eucalyptus trees will be removed in select areas.”
  • McLaren:  The explanation for removing 805 trees is:  “In order to enhance the sensitive species habitat that persists in the urban forest understory and at the forest-scrub-grassland ecotone, invasive trees will be removed in select areas. Coastal scrub and grassland communities require additional light to reach the forest floor in order to persist.”
  • Interior Greenbelt:  The explanation for removing 140 trees is:  “In order to enhance the seasonal creek and sensitive species habitat that persists in the urban forest understory, invasive blue gum eucalyptus trees will be removed in select areas.” [Note from Webmaster: This is in Mount Sutro Forest, on the Cole Valley side.]
  • Dorothy Erskine:  The explanation for removing 14 trees is:  “In order to enhance the grassland and wildflower community, removal of some eucalyptus trees is necessary.”

In not a single case does the management plan for the Natural Areas Program corroborate the claim made in the EIR that only dead, dying, diseased, or hazardous trees will be removed.  In every case, the explanation for the removal of eucalypts is that their removal will benefit native plants, specifically grassland and scrub.  The author of the EIR has apparently not read the management plan or has willfully misrepresented it.

WHAT’S THE TREE REMOVAL TRACK RECORD?

Although it’s interesting and instructive to turn to the written word in the management plan for the Natural Areas Program to prove that the  Draft EIR is based on fictional premises, the strongest evidence is the track record of tree removals in the past 15 years.  As always and in every situation, actions speak louder than words.

Hundreds of trees have been removed in the natural areas since the Natural Areas Program began 15 years ago.  We’ll visit a few of those areas with photographs of those tree removals to prove that healthy, young non-native trees have been destroyed.  This track record predicts the future:  more healthy young trees will be destroyed in the future for the same reason that healthy young trees were destroyed in the past, i.e., because their mere existence is perceived as being a barrier to the restoration of native grassland and scrub.

girdled eucalyptus trees on bayview hill san francisco

The first tree destruction by the Natural Areas Program and its supporters took the form of girdling about 1,000 healthy trees in the natural areas about 10 to 15 years ago.  Girdling a tree prevents water and nutrients from traveling from the roots of the tree to its canopy.  The tree dies slowly over time.  The larger the tree, the longer it takes to die.  None of these trees were dead when they were girdled.  There is no point in girdling a dead tree.

One of about 50 Girdled Trees on Mount Davidson, 2003

Many smaller trees that were more easily cut down without heavy equipment were simply destroyed, sometimes leaving ugly stumps several feet off the ground.

Small eucalyptus stumps Bayview Hill 2002

About 25 young trees were destroyed on Tank Hill about 10 years ago.  The neighbors report that they were healthy trees with trunks between 6″ to 24″ in diameter and therefore fairly young trees.

The trees that remain don’t look particularly healthy in the picture because they were severely limbed up to bring more light to the native plant garden for which the neighboring trees were destroyed.  The neighbors objected to the removal of the trees that remain.  The Recreation and Park Department agreed to leave them until they were replaced by native trees.  Only 4 of the more than two dozen live oaks that were planted as replacements have survived.  They are now about 36 inches tall and their trunks are about 1 inch in diameter.

About 25 young trees were destroyed in 2004 at the west end of Pine Lake to create a native plant garden that is now a barren, weedy mess surrounded by the stumps of the young trees that were destroyed.

Pine Lake "Natural Areas", 2011

  • About 25 trees of medium size were destroyed at the southern end of Islais Creek in Glen Canyon Park about 6 years ago in order to create a native plant garden.
  • Many young trees were recently destroyed in the natural area called the Interior Greenbelt. [Note: This is the city-owned portion of Mount Sutro Cloud Forest.] These trees were destroyed in connection with the development of a trail, which has recently become the means by which the Natural Areas Program has funded tree removals with capital funding.

There was nothing wrong with these trees before they were destroyed.  Their only crime was that they were not native to San Francisco.  There are probably many other trees that were destroyed in the natural areas in the past 15 years.  We are reporting only those removals of which we have personal knowledge.

If you care about the trees of San Francisco, please keep in mind that the public will have an opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact of  removing thousands of trees in the city’s parks.  The deadline for submitting a written comment is 5:00 p.m. on October 31.

Written comments should be addressed to Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103. Comments received at the public hearing and in writing will be responded to in a Summary of Comments and Responses document.”

“If you have any questions about the environmental review of the proposed project, please call Jessica Range at 415‐575‐9018.”

________________________________________
FOOTNOTES

[i] Jacobs, Growth Habits of the Eucalyptus, 1955, page 67
[ii]Doughty,  The Eucalyptus, 2000, page 6
[iii] San Francisco Presidio’s Vegetation Management Plan, page 28

Posted in Environment, eucalyptus, Natural areas Program | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments