Here we are, nearing the end of our 14th year since we started this website. Much has changed in the world since 2009, and much has changed in the forest. We end the year in hopes that the forest will some day come back to the lush beautiful cloud forest that we started with — and with good wishes to all our supporters.
Happy holidays, everyone!
Calfornia is in the process of developing a road map for pesticide use. They have published the draft document for public comment. You have one more day in which to comment on this plan if you wish. The deadline is Monday, March 13, 2023, at 5 pm.
Though UCSF has, thankfully, committed to keeping their section of Mt Sutro Forest pesticide free – we are concerned for those areas of the forest that fall under the SF Recreation & Parks Department, and more broadly, for the use of toxic pesticides in the Natural Resource Areas of San Francisco. These are places where people and their pets go to recreate.
It’s less than 100 pages, and is available here as a PDF: spm_roadmap
Though it appears to be a thoughtful approach to pesticide use, what it does is:
We publish with permission an article that appeared in Conservation Sense and Nonsense, an environmental advocacy blog.
# # #
California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has published a draft of a policy that would replace its Integrated Pest Management policy with a Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) policy that is different in name only. SPM makes a commitment to continue using pesticides in California until 2050, and by implication, beyond. It makes NO commitment to reduce pesticide use or reconsider the current targets of pesticide applications. It claims that the health hazards and damage to the environment will be reduced by identifying “Priority Pesticides” for possible substitution or “eventual elimination.” It doesn’t commit to identifying any specific number of dangerous pesticides nor does it provide specific criteria for selecting these dangerous products. It claims that increased testing and development of new products will result in safer products and puts these judgments into the hands of “stakeholders” with “experiential and observational knowledge” rather than scientists with expertise in soil science, endocrinology, toxicology, epidemiology, biology, botany, horticulture, etc. The “stakeholder” committee that wrote the SPM proposal for urban areas included the manufacturer of pesticides and other users and promoters of pesticides.
That’s not an exhaustive list of the many faults of SPM and the dangers that lurk in it. I hope you will read it yourself and consider writing your own public comment by the deadline on Monday, March 13, 2023, at 5 pm. The document is available HERE. It’s less than 100 pages long and it is a quick read because it is basically a collection of bullet-points.
This is how to comment: “DPR is accepting public comments to inform the prioritization and implementation of the Roadmap’s recommendations through March 13, 2023 at 5 p.m. Comments can be shared in writing to alternatives@cdpr.ca.gov or by mail to the department at 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, CA 95812-4015.” Please note that Department of Pesticide Regulations is not offering revisions, only “prioritization and implementation.”
A summary of my public comment is below. A link to the entire comment is provided at the end of the summary:
Public Comment on “Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap” (AKA “Pathway to poisoning the environment for another 25 years”)
My public comment is focused on pesticide use in urban areas because of my personal experience and knowledge of pesticide use where I live. These are the broad topics I will cover in detail with specific examples later in my comment:
My entire public comment is available here: spm-public-comment-1
SutroForest.com started operations in June 2009, and has been fighting for trees in general and this forest in particular for 13 years. Every year, every tree has been a battle.
We haven’t always been successful, but we have always cared. And here, for this season and the next year, a candle of hope.
To all our followers and tree-lovers, greetings of the Season!
Someone sent us this charming, incisive, bitter-sweet graphic about a eucalyptus tree. This tree, such an important part of the ecosystem – a shelter for birds, a splendid carbon sink, a catcher of fog – ponders its purpose in life. Like the trees on Mt Sutro and Mt Davidson, it’s 125 years old.
The artist, Charlotte Hildebrand, kindly gave us permission to reproduce it here.
As readers of this site will know, a lot of trees are being felled in the portion of the forest closest to the hospital. One forest-lover wrote to us about it. That part is HERE.
A few days later, they wrote “The hillside now looks like an Oregon clearcut. I didn’t have a chance to take a pic today but at this point it’s like morbidly photographing a corpse at a funeral.”
THE FOREST BEFORE
Here’s some photographs of the area from 2013, (from Tony Holiday’s blog, Stairways are Heaven, and used with permission). The dense woods at the top right of the picture is what’s being felled now.
SUTRO FOREST LIKE AN OREGON CLEAR-CUT
And here’s what’s happening now.
This is the staircase, from below – without its forest.
The chosen area for destruction is adjacent to the Parnassus campus and near the hospital that is to be substantially rebuilt and expanded. It’s an ugly thing to watch.
Mt Sutro Forest in 2007
“Can you tell me what’s happening on the north side of the forest? I’ve been watching them cut down a swath from a lunchroom at UCSF the last few days,” said an email to us a day ago.
Yes. It’s a continuation of the “Vegetation Management Plan” that we have been trying to oppose for over a decade, and which will result in an estimated 10,000 trees being cut down. Coincidentally, this recent action is close to the planned new (rebuilt) hospital at Parnassus.
UCSF recently sent out a notice that we reprint here for information to anyone who might not have seen it:
Tree Removal Along Medical Center Way
Starting February 15th through mid-March, there will be active tree work along Medical Center Way near Edgewood Avenue and Farnsworth Lane due to upcoming tree removal as prescribed in the Vegetation Management Plan.
To ensure the safety of tree workers, neighbors, staff, and visitors there will be no access to the Reserve via Farnsworth Lane and Edgewood Avenue. Chain-link fencing will be placed along the property line up to the Surge Parking Lot, and Medical Center Way will be closed.
Potential Impacts:
Intermittent loud noises from tree felling and wood chipping.
A crane will be placed in the Surge Parking Lot to assist with the tree removal.
Work will occur within normal business hours. No weekend work is anticipated at this time.Please obey all instructions from tree workers and signage by not entering the work area.
See below for a map detailing the area. The blue rectangle outlines the approximate area of tree work, and the orange line shows where fencing will be placed as a safety precaution.
We apologize for any inconvenience this work may cause, and we appreciate your patience.
BIRD NESTING SEASON
Meanwhile, aside from the loss of the trees, the “removal” is also taking place just as the nesting season is under way. Wildcare, the not-for-profit that rehabilitates wild birds and animals – including a lot of babies – sent out a message: “RESPECT THE NEST! BABY HUMMINGBIRDS ARE HERE!
They tell us that apparently abandoned hummingbird nests are not actually abandoned, but that human activity close by may discourage feeding. And the also point out:
“Don’t panic, those baby hummingbirds are most likely not orphaned, but their presence DOES mean it is no longer safe to prune or trim trees, bushes or shrubs! Wildlife Baby Season has begun!”
We don’t suppose UCSF is listening, since their plans for tree felling run through mid-March. Even though we know that hummingbirds nest in Sutro Forest.
Hummingbird nests collected in Sutro Forest after the nesting season
This article is republished with permission and minor edits from Conservation Sense and Nonsense, an environmental blog that considers current ecological topics including “native plant restorations.” We are publishing it here because we think the opposition to eucalyptus by nativist activists – and the focus on “native” plants – is misplaced.
Matt Ritter is a professor of biology at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Director of Cal Poly Plant Conservatory. He is the author of several books about California’s unique flora, including A Californian’s Guide to the Trees Among Us. He is considered an expert on the horticulture, ecology and taxonomy of the Eucalyptus genus.
In October 2021, Professor Ritter gave a presentation to the California Urban Forests Council, entitled “Underutilized Species for the Future of Urban Wood and Urban Forestry.” He began by explaining why it is important to identify new tree species for our urban forest.
Ritter then explained why we must diversify tree species in our urban forests.
An inventory of Oakland’s urban forest (street trees, medians, and landscaped parks only) was recently completed. With 535 tree species, the diversity of Oakland’s urban forest is greater than average for California. With 14% native trees, Oakland’s urban forest is more native than average. There are 59 species on Oakland’s list of approved trees, of which only 4 are native to Oakland. The most significant finding of Oakland’s tree inventory is that our urban forest is only 64% “stocked,” meaning that of existing tree wells, only 64% are currently planted with trees. When trees die in Oakland, they aren’t being replaced. I don’t doubt there is a will to plant trees in Oakland. I assume it is a question of means in a city with more pressing needs than resources.
Ritter and his colleagues at Cal Poly have created a website called SelecTree to help Californians choose the right tree for the right site and conditions. There are 1,500 tree species described on SelecTree, using 60 characteristics, such as drought tolerance. SelecTree rates blue gum eucalyptus “medium” for drought tolerance, the same rating as native coast live oak and bay laurel. Ritter clarified that drought tolerance on SelecTree is a measure of how much water the tree species uses. Claims that eucalyptus uses more water than native trees is bogus, like most bad raps about eucalyptus.
Ritter recommended specific tree species, based on their drought and heat tolerance. He said that when diversifying our urban forests “we have to think about Australia” because it is the hottest, driest, flattest, and oldest place on the planet, which is another way of saying that tree species in Australia have survived terrible conditions that are comparable to the challenging conditions in urban environments.
Ritter recommended oak species that are native to Texas; eucalyptus and closely related tree species; and several tree species in the legume family, especially acacia. In each case he mentioned the suitability of tree species based partly on the quality of its wood. Apparently, I’m not the only person in California who is disturbed by huge piles of wood chips wherever trees have been destroyed. Ritter also thinks we should be thinking about how we can use wood when trees are destroyed, rather than building potential bonfires.
When Professor Ritter took questions from the audience, we learned that the main obstacle to a diverse urban forest in California, adapted to our climate conditions, is the myopic focus of native plant advocates:
Question: “Are we introducing new pathogens to our natives by importing new species?”
Answer: There are many laws and rules that restrict the importation of plants to prevent that from happening. We also import only the seeds of plants, not grown plants. The seeds are sterilized and they don’t carry the pathogens that may exist on grown plants in their native ranges.
Question: “Do we know how quickly birds and insects adapt to new species?”
Answer: “No we don’t, but who cares? We are facing a climate emergency. We have 50 years before life in our cities becomes hell. We have a responsibility to protect the quality of life in our cities. We should stop developing the wild, but cities are different.”
Ritter anticipated a question that is often a concern of native plant advocates by saying we should not be concerned about “weediness,” AKA “invasiveness.” He said, “That should be far down on our list of priorities of what to worry about. We need to be primarily concerned about what tree species will grow in our changed climate.”
Rhetorical Question: “But insects need native plants!”
Answer: Ritter instantly recognized the mantra of Doug Tallamy. He replied that it is not well established that there are more insects living on native plants than on introduced plants. He mentioned a single study that inventoried plant and animal species in eucalyptus compared to oak forests, presumably Dov Sax’s study which concluded: “Species richness was nearly identical for understory plants, leaf-litter invertebrates, amphibians and birds; only rodents had significantly fewer species in eucalypt sites. Species diversity patterns…were qualitatively identical to those for species richness, except for leaf-litter invertebrates, which were significantly more diverse in eucalypt sites during the spring.”
Rhetorical Question: “We are still dealing with a legacy of blue gum eucalyptus in the Bay Area. Why should we repeat that mistake?”
Answer: Ritter agreed that blue gum eucalyptus is “inappropriate” in many places where it was planted in the Bay Area, but we’re not planting blue gums. There are 800 eucalyptus species and many are ideal for our conditions. He said, “Why not plant eucalyptus? It would be dumb not to plant suitable eucalyptus species just because it shares a name.”
Ritter added that, “Planting only natives just doesn’t work in San Francisco. There would be no trees in Southern California because we don’t have very many native trees in California.” The pre-settlement coast of California was virtually treeless in most places and that’s a fact. For example, a study of historic vegetation in Oakland, California reported that only 2% of pre-settlement Oakland was forested with trees. “Vegetation before urbanization in Oakland was dominated by grass, shrub, and marshlands that occupied approximately 98% of the area.” (1)
The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an article about a guerilla tree-planter in Oakland who is planting native oak trees on public land, wherever he wants. Oakland’s Director of Tree Services, David Moore, gently suggests that many of these tree plantings are ill-advised: “‘There is a part of all of us that loves with our hearts the coast live oak tree because of its heritage, the symbolism of our city, and just the legacy that they have,’ Moore said. ‘But we have to diversify, and we are diversifying to other ones that are recommended to be more adaptable to climate change…The reality is that we have created a world that is not the native conditions of these plants,’ Moore said. ‘If we want trees to survive in these non-native conditions, we have to pick trees from around the world that can survive these conditions.’…Moore said oaks, while beautiful, are not the ideal tree for today’s hot, dry and cramped urban landscape. Without careful and costly maintenance, he said, oaks could destroy sidewalks, block light from streetlamps and grow their branches into streets and walkways, creating hazards for motorists and pedestrians. The city still plants oaks, but mainly in parks rather than streets because that’s where they do better, Moore said…”
So, here we are. We have a pressing need for a more diverse urban forest that is adapted to present and anticipated conditions, but we are paralyzed by the ideological commitment of native plant advocates who are demanding that we destroy our urban forest because it is predominantly non-native. In a recent edition of Nature News, Jake Sigg [considered a doyen of Nativism in San Francisco, who runs a long-lived newsletter] said, “Hysterical tree planting is worse than a waste of time and resources…”
I am grateful to Professor Ritter for being bluntly frank with members of the arborist community who should know better. Dare we hope they learned something from that presentation?
It’s been a difficult year for the world and for Sutro Forest.
We hope things will be better in 2022. Here’s our candle for the New Year!
To all our readers and supporters, Season’s Greetings! And may the resilience of nature bring us all hope and joy.
Coyotes are sometimes seen in Sutro Forest and surrounding areas, and occasionally there have been reports of dens in the area. However interesting and cute they are, please don’t be tempted to feed them!
Here is a public service message from Janet Kessler, who has been watching and documenting San Francisco’s coyotes for many years. Her observations may be found at the website CoyoteYipps.com
Copyright Janet Kessler 2021
Recently, Wildcare – a wild animal rehab organization – published a warning. It’s nesting season and they ask everyone to RESPECT the NEST. It’s republished here with permission.
Respect the Nest by Michael Schwab
With the help of nationally-acclaimed artist Michael Schwab, WildCare asks you to Respect the Nest this spring and summer! Learn more!
It’s almost springtime in the Bay Area, and even as you read this [post] email, birds, squirrels and other animals are nesting and preparing for their newborn and newly-hatched babies in your trees, shrubs and hedges.
First baby squirrels of 2021 Copyight Wildcare
WildCare has already admitted our first tiny, pink baby squirrels of the year!
Our Wildlife Hospital admits hundreds of injured and orphaned baby animals every spring and summer, many of them victims of tree-trimming and pruning accidents.
Michael Schwab created the Respect the Nest graphic to help us remind everyone to delay non-emergency tree-trimming and pruning until winter to avoid orphaning baby animals!
How can YOU Respect the Nest? Click to learn how to spot nesting activity and protect the wildlife in your yard.
Then join us for a free, informative Respect the Nest webinar presentation on Tuesday, March 9 [2021] at 6pm!
Attendees will learn:
– What animals may be using your trees and shrubs as a nursery… even as you read this!
– How to tell if there are active nests in your yard.
– What to do if you inadvertently cut down a nest or if you find an
injured animal.
– When it’s safe (and better for your trees) to prune and trim.
– How WildCare cares for baby animals orphaned by tree trimming.
Many people don’t know that timing our tree and shrub pruning is just one simple way we can minimize harm to wildlife.
Please Respect the Nest this spring and summer and help prevent baby animals from becoming orphaned.
We are sad to inform our supporters of the passing of Dr Morley Singer.
He was a major force in our battle to save this forest, and Joint President of the SaveSutro organization. His incisive intelligence and strong leadership helped protect the forest for nearly 20 years.
Dr Morley Singer, with Sutro Forest in the distance
Dr Singer, a Professor Emeritus of UCSF had the greatest respect for it as a medical institution – but not for its unfortunate treatment of Sutro Forest.
The picture above was taken in 2012, and he permitted us to use it on this website. It shows him on the Golden Gate Bridge, with Sutro Forest in the distance near the Sutro Tower.
Condolences may be sent to his sister Gail at zingerfilm@sympatico.ca
His obituary is posted in the San Francisco Chronicle at this link: Dr Morley Singer, 1931-2019
Dr. Morley Singer
Dr. Morley Singer, Dec.16, 1936-Feb 9, 2021, a resident of San Francisco and Sausalito for over 50 years, passed away at age 84.
Morley Singer is survived by his loving sister Gail Singer of Toronto, and his step-family; Pam Bonnell, her granddaughters Jen (Scott) and Melissa (Mark) and their children Maya and Will and Sam and Kayleigh of Canada, and his ever present sweet canine companion, Shaina.
Pre-deceased by beloved wife Betty (died May 9, 2019),Morley was born in Winnipeg, Canada to Louis and Bertha Singer. He graduated medical school at University Of Manitoba and was a recipient of an Isbister Scholarship.
Of his many accomplishments Morley was most proud of designing one of the first intensive care units in the country at The University Of California San Francisco Medical Center and serving as its first medical director. Many of his former UCSF students and colleagues were able to visit and reminisce with Morley prior to his death.
Additionally, he inspired and implemented the Anesthesia Department at Hadassah Medical Center in Israel. Both endeavors occurred in the 1970s. He went on to a successful decades long practice in anesthesiology in San Francisco..
A passionate lifelong athlete, Morley was an accomplished sailor, cross-country and downhill skier. He helped establish, build and manage a permanent tennis court site in Bear Valley, which held a particularly important place in Morley’s heart.
Morley and Betty spent summers and many winters in Bear Valley where they developed deep friendships with a fascinating cross section of people. Morley enjoyed skiing, cycling, swimming, entertaining friends at Betty’s exquisite dinner parties. And, was always on call to his friends and neighbors for medical emergencies.
The richness of life in Bear Valley and San Francisco was supplemented by Morley’s and Betty’s yearly vacations in Santa Barbara with his sister Gail and friends. They also travelled to Gail’s homes in Toronto and Kinmount for Canadian Thanksgiving celebrations with extended family and a host of dear freinds.
In recent years Morley was an outspoken advocate for the maintaining of San Francisco’s unique Sutro Forest against the unprincipled development projects of the University of California, (UCSF). Still, his admiration and appreciation for the university’s academic integrity never wavered and he was a proud recipient of the honors bestowed upon him by the university as an Emeritus Professor.
In the recent past Morley fulfilled a dream. His houseboat in Sausalito gave him enormous joy and an opportunity to share it with family and friends from nearby and far away, most recently the Balazar family from France .
Morley examined the richness of his life and relationships and like many of his decisions he made his own final choice. During his last days Morley was moved by the many friends and colleagues who expressed their admiration and love for him, and the deep impact his encouragement, humor and inspiration had on their lives.
Morley had a gift for deep and lasting friendship; including many dating back to his childhood in Winnipeg.
When we can gather again, Gail will invite everyone to celebrate Morley’s life with food, drink and many stories.
A very special thank you to Dr. Lester Jacobson and George and Maura Cruz and family for their devotion and generosity.
You may send messages to zingerfilm@sympatico.ca
With the new revised plan for UCSF’s Parnassus Campus having been approved by the UCSF Regents – despite San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors asking for a delay so the Plan could be studied further – we expect the destruction of the forest to accelerate.
According to a UCSF report, “On Jan. 21, the Regents certified the Environmental Impact Report for Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan (CPHP), which amends UCSF’s 2014 Long Range Development Plan to adjust the space ceiling limit, projected campus population, and the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve boundary.” (You can find the new Plan here (as a PDF):
UCSF-Comprehensive-Parnassus-Heights-Plan)
THE SPACE CEILING
The Space Ceiling was established in 1976 in response to neighbors’ anger at the impact of UCSF’s unrestrained growth on surrounding neighborhoods. There is more about that here. It has been expanded from 3.55 million square feet – which had been exceeded several times, with existing square footage in as of 2014 in the range of 3.84 million square feet. This Plan will raise the ceiling to 5.05 million square feet.
An article in SF Weekly in October 2019 discussed this new Plan, noting that neighbors had concerns and those were not really taken into account. Anyway, the Plan is going ahead despite any objections, since UCSF is in practice only answerable to the Regents.
The SaveSutro neighbors’ group battled for over twenty years to save the forest, which UCSF has sought to destroy for an ever-changing list of reasons since around 2001. Eventually, we were outwaited. (The picture below is the forest in 2006.)
If ever there was a year that needed a candle of hope, it’s 2020.
While the pandemic rages, “tree work” – which mostly means cutting down trees – has continued in Sutro Forest. A lot of its trees are gone now. This forest has come back from a lot of tree destruction – in fact, actual logging – before, and we hold onto hope that this can happen again.
SEASON’S GREETINGS,
AND WISHING ALL OUR READERS A HAPPIER NEW YEAR IN 2021!
In December 2020, UCSF had a public virtual meeting about its further plans, which modify the earlier ones for which it produced an extensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Dr Ariane Eroy attended, and sent us these notes. They are published here with permission.
———–
Although the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has yet to be finalized, UCSF revealed tonight that it will be exponentially expanding its plans to develop housing units on its Parnassus Campus, from an additional 500+ units, as delineated in UCSF’s 4000+page EIR, to an additional 1263 units by 2050.
Within the next 10 years, UCSF will build another 623 units; in the next 20 years, there will be another 316 units. Within thirty years, there will be 2520 units in all. UCSF has claimed that 40% of these housing units would be slated as “affordable”, although this was repeatedly challenged by members of the audience. (Please read below to learn more.)
In addition, UCSF insisted that it would “preserve present acreage of Mount Sutro,” and that it would begin financially supporting the Sutro Stewards.
These were the public comments:
Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, 2006 (Copyright: Tony Holiday)
I was the second speaker. My comments were approximately these, in response to their opening remarks:
“I am a community mental health psychologist. UCSF states that it prides itself about its behavioral health expertise, yet it ignores the function that Mount Sutro plays in the psychological health of San Franciscans, who use the forest as a healing space, a spiritually uplifting space.
“I am shocked that UCSF has doubled its building plans for housing, as this will dangerously encroach on the Forest. This is occurring even while the Board of Regents recently relinquished 10 acres at Laurel Village for building largely luxury housing, retail stores and offices. Your buildings will not provide us with oxygen.
“UCSF states that it will be “preserving the acreage of the Reserve”– but evidently not the Forest itself. UCSF plans to thin the forest by 60% with will desiccate the forest floor, inviting in pests and, potentially, fire.
“Humanity is living on the lip of extinction and all you can think about is expansion and reckless development. UCSF talks of building a hospital while ignoring the findings of the UN’s International Panel of Climate Change–and the urgency of the times.
“The forest sequesters carbon dioxide and provides us with oxygen. The trees work for us every day of our lives, providing us with the very oxygen we breathe.
“UCSF ignores that Mount Sutro belongs to all of us, not merely the Board of Regents. For shame.”
———————-
Thank you, Dr Eroy.
The battle to save this forest goes back 20 years or more.
Mt Sutro in 2006. Copyright Tony Holiday
The main destruction of Sutro Forest – from the so-called “Vegetation Management Plan” of 2018 – is already underway. But a recent Draft Environmental Impact Report (Read it here: UCSF-CPHP-Draft-EIR (1) ) developed because UCSF is making significant changes to its 2014 Long Range Development Plan, presages even further damage.
ALDEA STUDENT HOUSING – MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION
The Aldea Student Housing, which is adjacent to Sutro Forest, was formerly subject to a “space ceiling” that limited construction there. Now it has been removed from the space ceiling, and UCSF plans to build dormitories up to 96 feet high in a 40-foot zone. This will involve demolishing the old buildings and putting the new ones on the same footprint – or possibly changing it all to a “completely reconfigured and redesigned site.” Either way, this is likely to destroy even more trees than the already painful Plan.
The pictures UCSF is using to mock-up the changes are already obsolete.
Almost all the trees along Clarendon Avenue and the corner of Christopher and Clarendon are gone. Trees along Christopher are likely to be felled as well. Essentially, the picture above can be visualized as bare of trees.
TAKING ANOTHER PIECE OF THE FOREST
In addition, UCSF is removing an area at the bottom of Medical Center Way from the forest, and removing the trees from the area. (This is near Edgewood – the purple triangle with the diagonal black bars.) In “compensation” it will add back to the Open Space Reserve an area that is already part of the Reserve. (The green space with the diagonal bars, lying between the Woods parking lot and the Surge parking lot.)
In fact, in UCSF’s prior maps of Mount Sutro Reserve, that area is shown as part of the Reserve. (Something like this has happened before. An acre was taken for the Regenerative Medicine Building – and the offered compensation didn’t happen.)
Here’s a UCSF map from 2013 that shows the area as a green part of the Open Space Reserve.
UCSF will also be felling more trees as it replaces storage tanks within the foot print of the forest.
Finally, as icing on the cake – a grove of redwood trees on Parnassus are to be felled.
UCSF HELPING CLIMATE CHANGE ALONG
As the world – and California – faces climate change, carbon-sequestering trees are one of the few “easy” ways to help fight this. Not cutting down mature trees that store – and sequester – the most carbon is the first step. In addition, the Vegetation Plan for removing thousands of trees has a potential for disaster, as what was one a damp self-sustaining forest for over 130 years dries out and weakens.
San Francisco has a 13.7% tree canopy cover, the lowest of any major city in the US. That number is from 2013, and is probably smaller by now, as a lot of tree-felling is under way.
Sutro Forest extended along Christopher to Clarendon Avenue.
The section at Christopher and Clarendon was decimated for the rebuilding of the pump station in 2009, possibly poisoned in 2013… and in 2019, it’s been clear-cut. It’s gone.
THE FOREST BEFORE
In 2009, the forest area on the corner of Christopher and Clarendon was a lush dense grove before the pumphouse was built in 2009 (as shown in the poster visualizing the pump station):
Pump Station on poster
In 2013, here’s what it looked like. At the time, there was concern that someone was poisoning some of these trees. After that, the poisoned trees and a couple of others were removed.
In 2019, the entire grove was clear-cut. There’s no grove between Clarendon and the pumphouse, just a couple of trees left.
All that is left of these beautiful 125-year-old trees are stumps.
Meanwhile, the planned trailhead from Clarendon is being built. It’s going to look *very* different from the charming visualization presented by UCSF.
CLARENDON LOSES ITS CENTURY-OLD TREES
Also gone – the tall trees that lined Clarendon Avenue in front of the Aldea San Miguel UCSF student housing.
I remember a time when you couldn’t even see the fence from the street. When UCSF thinned the vegetation there many years ago, they promised plantings that would conceal the chain link fence. Well, they planted some vines, but the concealment didn’t happen.
The chain-link fence is more prominent than ever.
And across the road, a swath of trees adjacent to the homes on Clarendon have been felled too, probably by SF Rec and Parks (or possibly Sutro Tower, not sure).
The destruction of Sutro Forest – and indeed, many of the ancient trees of San Francisco – continues. It’s probably not a coincidence that nearly all the trees felled are eucalyptus.
Note: This article is based (with permission) on a version published on ForestKnolls.info
When we started this website back in 2009, we had no idea that we would still be running it in 2020! But so it seems, and the battle continues though it is an uphill one.
The forest has already been considerably thinned, and some areas effectively clear cut (notably the East Ridge Trail, above the Aldea Student Housing). The picture below shows what was formerly a dense forest, which was then felled. The eucalyptus is resprouting, but we expect the sprouts will be destroyed too.
Nevertheless, there are still beautiful areas in the forest, and still a lot to enjoy – especially if you do not compare it with what used to be.
The forest is resilient. We hope that the forest managers will eventually leave it alone, and as it has done for the last century, it will rebound into its own.
Meanwhile, we light a candle to the future. A green one, because trees are our last best hope for stemming the climate crisis.
SEASON’S GREETINGS, AND BEST WISHES FOR 2020
At the end of March, we went into Mount Sutro Forest. We found a lot of trees had been cut down, and it’s practically a clear-cut on the East side – contiguous with the Aldea Student Housing, where housing density is planned to be increased.
There are a huge number of felled trees, and what was once a dense forest from which you could hardly see any buildings looks like a logging site. It’s evident from the photographs how this is drying out the forest – despite the very wet winter.
Other parts of the forest are not as bad, but it may be a matter of time. A lot of trees have been felled along the new trail from Clarendon Avenue, and there are bare patches with no canopy at all.
MAGICAL SENSE OF SECLUSION BEING DESTROYED
The sense of seclusion – the sense of stepping out of the city into a different, magical, world – is gone in much of the forest because of tree-felling and the removal of the understory. You can see cars and houses where before there was just forest.
Tree stumps are everywhere.
SOME PARTS OF THE FOREST ARE STILL LOVELY…
There are some areas that have avoided or recovered from the destruction of the trees and understory.
Still given the plans for Sutro Forest, we have no way of knowing for how long. Certainly, in less than a year, it already is very different. Within five years, we expect the footprint of the forest to be significantly smaller, the understory to be destroyed, thousands of trees to be gone. Here’s our assessment of the expected impact of the Plan: What will Sutro Forest Look Like after the Plan?
For those who have loved this forest, we have hundreds of photographs from nine and ten years ago, memorializing the beauty and habitat that was here. A few of them are in our Photos section, many more are in the articles describing our rambles through the forest. The Contents 2009-2017 page links these articles by year and month.
Perhaps, in a way, it’s a metaphor for our planet.
UCSF is undertaking an assault on Sutro Forest, starting with trees it classifies as “dead or dying.” We question whether the so-called “dying” trees are actually dying, or merely in a defensive mode against four dry years, from which they would have recovered after this wet winter had they been given the chance. And importantly, the dead trees have enormous value in the forest.
We republish this article by Jack Gescheidt, first published at TreeSpiritProject.com with permission and minor changes. (The article and all the images are copyright to Jack Gescheidt.)
DEAD, DYING AND DECAYING TREES PLAY AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN INCREASING FOREST LIFE
Even tree lovers may not know the myriad ways trees some label “dying” or “sick” or “infected” or “infested” (with beetles or other insects) are in fact beneficial to a forest. Perhaps you’ve figured this out already, or know it intuitively, but forests do just fine without us humans interfering. Especially when our “helping” is driven by financial gain.
But fans of forest beware: timber companies hellbent on extracting more wood from U.S. and world forests have concocted yet another way of saying down is up, wrong is right, and denuding forests does a forest good. Their newest sell-off-the-forest pitch is to “remove” only “dead” or “dying” trees, to “clean up” or “manage” forests more “responsibly” implying this does no harm. Don’t believe it. All the quotations are used to indicate these terms are euphemisms which don’t convey the reality of how damage is done in “responsibly” “managing” a forest. This would actually entail leaving it alone, and certainly not bringing in heavy machinery.
Extracting “dead” or “down” or “dying” trees is only the latest insidious way of doing additional harm while ignoring the reality of our current situation: global warming is threatening humanity, which is caused in large part by decades of massive, and ongoing deforestation, nationally and globally. What we humans should instead be doing is leaving existing forests be, especially old-growth forests, not inflicting more damage or extractions of any kind. And planting more trees than we cut down — I mean, “harvest.” Important note: planting a sapling is NOT an equivalent replacement for cutting down a mature tree. Leave mature trees stand AND plant more trees. This would benefit us humans — as well as animals and plants and planet, because we’re actually all in this together. Deforestation for short term profit equals environmental and societal catastrophe in the long term.
The timber industry’s latest assaults begin ideologically. If they win over your mind, and public opinion, they will destroy our forests, and harm all of us in the end. In the public relations assault you’ll hear and read this lie: that forests benefit from industrial removal of “dead” or “dying” trees; that doing so has little or no impact on a forest’s health. Nothing could be further from the truth. Standing dead trees, and trees that have fallen over, and trees in any and every state of decay, are essential to the life cycles of decay and regeneration of a forest. And thus our health depends upon these, since we depend upon forests for carbon sequestration, oxygen production, soil creation, water filtration, wildlife habitat, and so much more.
Chad Hanson, Director of the John Muir Project, UC Davis researcher, and Sierra Club board member, says this about dead trees and forests:
We are trapped by an outdated cultural idea that a healthy forest is one with nothing but green trees. An ecologically healthy forest has dead trees, broken tops, and down logs. Such forests may not look tidy from the perception of a forester, but it (a forest with lots of dead trees) is the most biologically diverse and healthy, from a forest ecosystem perspective….Pound for pound, ton for ton, there is probably no more important habitat element in western conifer forests than large snags and large down logs.
The old practice of killing trees — what modern industry euphemistically calls “harvesting” — to make too many products that are either unnecessary or readily replaced with non-tree sources, has now become a suicidal practice. By killing trees and destroying forests everywhere, we are also killing ourselves, slowly, surely, and increasingly not so slowly.
Beware, too, other misleading, non-scientific labels like “invasive” and “non-native” which are also now commonly used to justify killing trees, plants, and animals, sometimes even by well-intentioned but tragically misled environmentalists. All have drunk the industrial agricultural public relations Kool-Aid. Meaning they kill wild plants and animals, imagining they are doing good, even justifying toxic herbicide use to do so.
READ MORE: http://www.TreeSpiritProject.com/Invasion Biology
Beware, too, other misleading, non-scientific labels like “invasive” and “non-native” which are also now commonly used to justify killing trees, plants, and animals, sometimes even by well-intentioned but tragically misled environmentalists. All have drunk the industrial agricultural public relations Kool-Aid. Meaning they kill wild plants and animals, imagining they are doing good, even justifying toxic herbicide use to do so. READ MORE: http://www.TreeSpiritProject.com/Invasion Biology
Dead and decaying trees are precious to a forest. Here’s a short list of services they perform:
• DEAD TREES are wildlife habitat — homes! — for many species of insects, birds and mammals including beetles, bees, wasps, ants, mice, squirrels, salamanders, shrews, bats, rats, and wildcats (lynx, bobcat), raccoons, martens, and even cover for larger mammals including mountain lions and bears.
Forest cafeteria…
• DEAD TREES feed numerous fungi like mushrooms which in turn feed myriad animals, including rodents like voles.
• DEAD TREES provide crucial habitat (nesting, roosting and food storage) for many species of woodpeckers that rely solely upon them. Woodpeckers require dead wood that’s easier to penetrate than living wood. So woodpecker habitat is destroyed when timber companies extract dead trees, and forest health suffers as woodpecker services are diminished.
• DEAD TREES are food for insects which in turn feed larger animals including birds and mammals, all essential to forest health.
• DEAD TREES create new soil, a critical component from which all life springs
• DEAD TREES retain critical moisture in a forest as decomposing woody material
We must protect all remaining un-logged, or old-growth (over 200 years old) forests and leave intact any and all forests for their critical ecological service in our era of anthropogenic global warming. These include carbon sequestration (CO2 storage) as double duty; keeping the carbon in a living tree in its wood and out of the atmosphere, as well as allowing living trees to continue extracting additional CO2 from the atmosphere every day it is alive.
In addition to these obvious, rational-minded functions, now is also an ideal time for us planetary citizens to become more aware of the equally valuable emotional and spiritual tonic trees provide us. Notice and appreciate each individual tree growing near you, regardless of its species or its country of origin.
There are no “invasive” trees! You may have your favorites kinds of trees, but all provide critical ecological service. Maintain trees, care for them, plant more of them, and feel how they can reconnect us to the natural world we have for too long abandoned. If more of us do this more often, we just might be able to save our own species from dying too.
– Jack Gescheidt
*
*
*
*
*
THE END
A short time ago, UCSF sent out a circular saying it was going to start the tree-felling in Sutro Forest. We were surprised, because they’re supposed to avoid doing this in the winter when the ground is unstable with rain, and in the spring and summer when it’s the bird-nesting season. Tree-felling season was supposed to be in the Fall. But no, it’s happening now and they intend to finish by March. Thousands of trees will be gone, and the forest as we know it will be severely depleted.
Well, it’s started. Recently, a forest-supporter sent us these pictures:
The email that accompanied the pictures was unhappy. “Not much of a canopy anymore. This sucks.”
“In that location there were also trees marked with red paint, presumably for future removal?” they said in a follow-up email regarding tree-cutting near Clarendon Avenue. “Feel free to use my photos on your site. It wasn’t very long ago when running or walking these trails transported you into a different almost magical world. Increasingly as more and more trees are cut down, the surrounding city intrudes. Thank you very much for your advocacy.”
WHAT TO EXPECT
Tree cutting has started in the East Ridge area (above the UCSF student housing at Aldea), Clarendon area (parallel to Christopher Drive), the Woodland Canyon Area (below Medical Center Way), the Farnsworth area (between Edgewood Avenue and the UCSF campus).
These are, coincidentally, the areas of the forest that as long ago as 2009, UCSF had targeted for tree destruction. (This was back when they were seeking a FEMA grant to pay for it – which they withdrew when FEMA wanted evidence.) The language of the memo presents this as removal of dead and dying trees, though we have concerns both about the definition of ‘dead and dying’ and about the habitat impact of so much tree removal. (And dead trees, are, in fact, a habitat treasure for wildlife.)
The memo says they plan to bring in goats to eat the understory in February 2019, but a subsequent memo says it’s happening earlier.
Anyway, what we can expect in Sutro Forest this year is a lot less forest – thousands of trees removed, missing canopy, and bare open patches where the understory is also gone.
We hope you have made memories of the beautiful forest as it used to be. This site has been fighting the battle since 2009; others started in 1999. Sadly, the Sutro Stewards, who partner with UCSF in working in this forest, support this felling of trees and destruction of the understory.
This 130-year-old forest is no longer going to be a forest.
Photo credit: Paul Hudson
We’d like to bring you one of our favorite photographs of Sutro Forest, together with our best wishes to all our readers. Season’s Greetings to our forest lovers!
From time to time, over the years, we have written about the value of blackberry as habitat, and as part of this wonderful forest. (See: Sutro Forest Ecosystem and Wildlife Habitat.)
Recently, wildlife photographer and observer Janet Kessler published this article on Coyote Yipps, documenting coyotes feeding on blackberry. It’s republished here with permission.
EATING HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRIES IN SAN FRANCISCO
by Janet Kessler
[Click on the picture above for a 5-minute video of coyotes feeding on blackberry.]
Notice how gingerly the coyotes move around. That’s because thorns hurt them as much as they hurt us humans. Both coyotes carefully rummage through the patch of berries, picking just those that are perfectly ripe and delicious. They spent over half an hour doing so.
I’ve been noticing a lot of fruit seeds in coyote droppings everywhere lately, so coyotes all over are enjoying summer fruit. What I don’t know is if they are being drawn to the fruit simply because it is delicious and they like it, or if it is because their usual rodent pickings are scarcer at this time.
Please note that Himalayan Blackberries are an important food source, not just for coyotes, but for all sorts of wildlife, including birds, AND even we humans love to pick and eat them. They are a Horn-of-Plenty for so many species, not only as a food source, but also as an impenetrable, thorny thicket, which serves as a protective habitat barrier for wildlife from dogs and humans. It tends to be invasive, so it may need to be controlled in places, but let’s think twice about altogether exterminating such a useful plant.
From the time we established this website in 2009, we have battled a series of myths used to attack eucalyptus trees. One of the most pernicious is that the trees are short-lived, and so are dying of old age. We discovered that was not true, and dealt with it in our article, Eucalyptus Myths.
We are pleased to republish this very thorough article, which includes local examples of healthy eucalyptus trees over 150 years old. It is republished with permission and minor changes from Death of a Million Trees, a website that fights unnecessary tree killing in the San Francisco Bay Area.
PUTTING ANOTHER MYTH TO REST: LIFESPAN OF BLUE GUM EUCALYPTUS
When the native plant movement began in earnest, about 25 years ago, its proponents weren’t expecting blowback from those who value the existing landscape. As far as they were concerned, the trees had to be destroyed solely because they “don’t belong here.”
When they started destroying our predominantly non-native urban forest, they learned that it wasn’t going to be as easy as they thought. They began to defend their destructive projects with cover stories to convince the public who didn’t share their devotion to native plants that it is necessary to destroy non-native trees because they are a threat to public safety and to wildlife.
One by one, we have debunked the myths that were used to justify the destruction of our urban forest:
Great horned owl in eucalyptus. Courtesy urbanwildness.org
It was not surprising that the nativists, having run out of bogus justifications, created a new narrative. In parks that the East Bay Regional Parks District had been planning to thin, we began to see clear cuts. When we inquired about why it was necessary to destroy ALL of the trees, we were told they were hazardous. Then, in the minutes of a meeting of East Bay Regional Park District Park Advisory Committee , we saw the claim that eucalyptus lives only 50-60 years. Simultaneously, this claim was made in San Francisco by proponents of destroying all eucalyptus trees there.
We eventually tracked down the source of that lifespan estimate to a website called SelecTree, which originally said that the longevity of blue gums is only 50-150 years. We knew that isn’t an accurate estimate because of how long blue gums live in Australia and how long they have already lived in California. We provided that information to the authors of SelecTree and were able to get the estimate corrected to “greater than 150 years.” That’s not nearly long enough, but it is the longest lifespan estimate available on that website and it corresponds with many other trees, including native Coast Live Oak.
In the process of researching the lifespan of eucalyptus, we learned several interesting stories about blue gums that have lived in California for 150 years and are still going strong. We would like to share some of this information with our readers today.
BLUE GUM EUCALYPTUS IN AUSTRALIA LIVES 200-400 YEARS
Blue gum eucalyptus and all other species of eucalyptus are native to Australia. They were brought to California shortly after the Gold Rush of 1849. Since they haven’t been in California 200 years, we don’t know how long they will live here. But how long they live in Australia is obviously relevant to answer that question because longevity is specific to tree species. We can expect some variation by climate, but not much, and the climate of Australia is similar to the climate in California with wet, mild winters and hot, dry summers.
We know that blue gums live in Australia about 200-400 years because Australian scientists tell us that:
Growth Habits of the Eucalypts by M.R. Jacobs, (Institute of Foresters of Australia, 1955, 1986): “Blue Gum eucalyptus lives in Australia from 200-400 years, depending upon the climate.” In milder climates, such as San Francisco, the Blue Gum lives toward the longer end of this range.
That reference was corroborated by John Helms, Professor Emeritus of Forestry at UC Berkeley and an Australian who said in response to our question about blue gums in California, “Blue gums would commonly live for 200 – 400 years, although I presume that some might live longer.”
We also asked the Australian National Botanic Gardens. They said, “It’s possible that the average lifespan of a native species growing in the wild in Australia would differ to the average lifespan of the same species introduced in northern California, since introduced plants can often “escape” their natural predators when such introductions occur.”
In other words, since eucalyptus trees have more predators in Australia than they do in California, we should expect them to live longer here. This is called the “predator release” hypothesis. Ironically, that hypothesis is used by nativists to support their claim that eucalyptus is invasive in California. (California Invasive Plant Council rates the “invasiveness” of blue gum as “limited.) It’s only logical to apply that hypothesis to the question of how long blue gums will live in California.
MANY HEALTHY BLUE GUMS IN CALIFORNIA ARE 150 YEARS OLD
However, using actual experience in Australia to predict the future of blue gums in California requires some speculation. Therefore, we turned to the question of how long they have lived in California for guidance. We found several interesting local stories about blue gums that were planted in California 150 years ago and remain healthy and vigorous today.
There are many examples of blue gums being planted as street trees in California about 150 years ago. One of the most well-known examples is the city of Burlingame on the San Francisco peninsula. When the City was founded in the 1870s, John McLaren was hired to plant trees to provide a much needed windbreak because the City was nearly treeless, as was the entire San Francisco peninsula. McLaren planted over 500 eucalyptus (blue gum and manna) along the main highway through Burlingame, along with a row of English elms. John McLaren was subsequently hired by the city of San Francisco, where he planted many more eucalypts while serving as superintendent of the parks department for 53 years.
The eucalypts in Burlingame are still thriving, but the elms have been dead for about 60 years. SelecTree says the longevity of English elms is “greater than 150 years,” the longest category of longevity published by SelecTree and completely open-ended.
El Camino Real bordered by Eucalyptus trees. Burlingame, SF Bay area, California, USA
The people of Burlingame greatly value their eucalypts and designated them as “heritage trees” in 1975 under a local ordinance. That local legal status did not protect them from several attempts by Caltrans to destroy the trees. The people of Burlingame came to the defense of the trees and were eventually successful in getting permanent legal status to protect 2.2 miles of the trees. That section of El Camino Real in Burlingame lined with eucalyptus was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2012.
Caltrans is now working cooperatively with the people of Burlingame to address safety concerns while “also keeping an eye to the prized grove of eucalyptus trees along the street.” A task force was formed in 2018 to discuss these issues. The City of Burlingame remains committed to the preservation of these trees, which suggests that they have a future there. (1)
The life span of street trees is generally much shorter than trees planted as forests because they are subjected to more wind and polluted air of heavily traveled roads, such as El Camino Real. Although blue gums have passed the test of those challenging conditions with flying colors, they have not been planted as street trees for decades. Their out-sized scale makes them unsuitable for that purpose. If blue gums can survive as street trees on heavily traveled roads, they can surely survive longer in the protection of their neighbors in forests.
BLUE GUMS AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY
The blue gums on the campus of Stanford University are another example of 150 year-old blue gums that are very much alive. Although blue gums were included in the campus landscape design of Frederick Law Olmsted in the 1880s, many of the blue gums actually predate his design: “Several hundred mighty giants on the campus date back prior to 1870 when Leland Stanford acquired several farm properties, one of which already had avenues of gum trees. They are mostly Tasmanian blue gums and red gums with a sprinkling of manna trees.”
Eucalyptus on Stanford campus
That description of the old blue gums was written in 1971. The trees are still alive and well. I worked on the Stanford campus for 10 years and walked among those trees at every opportunity.
AN EVEN OLDER OLMSTED DESIGN IN OAKLAND
Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland, California was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted in the 1860s. Like most of the East Bay, the site was treeless. Olmsted’s design was an eclectic collection of mostly non-native trees, including blue gums. The cemetery is on steep, windward facing hills, where the windbreak provided by blue gums is particularly valued.
Eucalyptus in Mountain View Cemetery, planted on an unirrigated windward facing hill. 2017
Olmsted designed a straight avenue through the cemetery lined with magnolia trees. Many of the magnolia trees have died and those that remain are in poor condition. SelecTree claims that the life span of Southern magnolia is “greater than 150 years,” which is contradicted by our local experience.
The current owner of the cemetery destroyed many of the blue gums about 5 years ago, in the middle of the extreme drought. He replaced many of the blue gums with redwoods. The redwoods are irrigated and are still surviving. I did not object to the removal of the blue gums because they are on private property. I confine my advocacy to healthy trees on public land.
LONG LIVE THE BLUE GUMS!
SelecTree has revised its listing of blue gum longevity based on the information we provided. The myth that our blue gums are dying of old age will not die as easily. We will have to repeat this information many times and in many different venues, just as we did for every other myth. If and when that particular myth dies, we can be sure there will be another waiting in the wings. Ideologies stubbornly persist, despite contradictory evidence. And yet, we just as stubbornly persist in defense of our urban forest.
(1) Here is the public record, on which my report about the trees in Burlingame is based:
https://burlingameproperties.com/articles/1607-burlingame-s-heritage-trees
http://www.burlingamevoice.com/2012/03/nationally-historic-100-years-of-protection-rewarded.html
https://tclf.org/landscapes/howard-ralston-eucalyptus-rows
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/10/local/me-sbriefs10.1
THE END
UCSF has issued its proposed Final Environmental Impact Report. (You can read it here as a PDF. It’s more than 2000 pages. Mount Sutro Vegetation Management Plan 2018 Final EIR_Full Document
They expect to have it certified by the Board of Regents soon. [Edited to add on May 5 2018: UCSF has announced the plan is approved. “Earlier this week, UCSF’s Chancellor approved the final plan following the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Now that the plan is approved and finalized, UCSF can begin implementation in September, after the end of bird-nesting season.”]
This will mean they will start cutting down thousands of trees this Fall, probably in mid-August September 2018. If you love this forest, visit it now. It’s going to look very different by this time next year.
A lot of trees are already gone, cut down in the name of “safety.” This is true not only of the UCSF section of the forest, but also in the Interior Green Belt (the city-owned portion.)
It’s also going to be bad for carbon sequestration; a rough calculation made by the Nature Conservancy estimated that 1 acre of trees was equivalent to preventing a year’s emission by 30 cars. Cutting down trees here will release a lot of Green House gases.
We also expect poorer air quality. These trees fight particulate pollution, at least while they’re standing.
In both the short and long term, there may well be issues of slope stability. The trees, and their intergrafted roots, stabilize the slopes like a deep living geotextile. The trees also precipitate fog, keeping the surface soil damp, but use the moisture at the lower levels and thus prevent the soil from getting deeply saturated. As to roots of the felled trees die, the geotextile starts to decay. Meanwhile, the trees are no longer drying the deeper soil. The landslide risk could remain for years after the trees are felled, waiting for the right circumstances.
All the wiggly black lines in the map below indicate soil creep direction, and the straight double arrows show the direction of potential landslides.
We re-publish with permission (and added emphasis) an article from MillionTrees.me, a website that fights the unnecessary felling of trees in the Bay Area. The article, a report from someone who attended the February 2018 meeting of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), is important for two reasons:
- It has some notes from the presentation made by Dr Yost on the myth of eucalyptus allelopathy. (There is more information in this article on SFForest.org, the website of the San Francisco Forest Alliance: The Myth That Nothing Grows Under Eucalyptus.)
- It highlights one of the important myths of nativism: Mutually exclusive co-evolution.
One reason nativists believe it is important to “restore” native plants is that they believe that wildlife depends on these specific plants. If this was actually true, then destroying those plants would endanger wildlife higher up in the food chain, and potentially collapse the ecosystem. Doug Tallamy popularized this theory to non-scientists.
Do mutually exclusive relationships exist? Yes – but they’re rare. And they’re rare for a reason: They can’t handle change, and change is the norm for ecosystems. What’s much more normal in nature is adaptability – wildlife adapts to its environment, whether new food sources or new threats. The result of change is often more diversity, not less.
The risk now is that a large number of people are invested in nativist theories – and practice, most of which involves chainsaws, pesticides, and digging up plants in a strange effort to garden the wilderness.
The abstracts from the CNPS conference are available here: CNPS 2018 technical-presentation-abstracts-by-session
—
HIGHS AND LOWS OF CNPS CONFERENCE
I am pleased to publish the following report of one of our readers who attended the conference of the California Native Plant Society in Los Angeles at the beginning of February 2018.
Million Trees
I attended the last conference of the California Native Plant Society in San Jose in January 2015. It was interesting to note a few significant new themes in the recent conference in 2018. Both fire and climate change were much more prominent themes in the recent conference. While both are relevant to the future of native plants, neither seemed to have any effect on the “restoration” goals of the native plant movement. For example, there were several presentations about massive die offs of native oak trees, resulting from higher temperatures, drought, and disease. These presentations ended with urgent pleas to plant more oaks. That seemed a fundamental contradiction and a denial of the reality of climate change. When the climate changes, the landscape changes, but native plant advocates are not willing to acknowledge that. In fact, the greater the threats to native plants, the greater the commitment to their preservation and “restoration.”
BEAUTIFUL PICTURES SUPPORT NATIVE IDEOLOGY
The conference began on a low point for me, but a high point for most attendees of the conference. The keynote speaker was Doug Tallamy. He was introduced as a “rock star” of the native plant movement, and indeed he is. His presentation was very effective in delivering his message, which is that most insects are “specialists” with mutually exclusive relationships with native plants that evolved over “tens of thousands of years.” If you believe that claim, you also believe that the absence of native plants will result in the absence of insects and ultimately the collapse of the entire food web.
Doug Tallamy’s closing photo, CNPS Conference 2018
Most native plant advocates believe that gloomy scenario, but few scientists still do, which creates a tension within this community of native plant advocates composed predominantly of amateur “botanists” and a smattering of academic ecologists.
For example, one of the first presentations after Tallamy’s keynote was an academic ecologist from UC Berkeley who advocated for accommodating the movement of plants outside of historical native ranges to accommodate climate change. (1) He said that restoring only with local natives is “maladaptive” and that a bioregional perspective is needed to create sustainable landscapes. Allowing Monterey pines to grow in the San Francisco Bay Area, where they have grown in the past and are presently deemed “native” just 150 miles away, seems a good example of such a broader definition of “native.” An amateur nativist, parroting Tallamy, asked this hostile question: “But if we move the plants how will wildlife survive?” The academic delivered this tart dose of reality: “There are few mutually exclusive relationships in nature. Wildlife will also move and will adapt to changes in vegetation.”
Science debunks a myth about eucalyptus
The high point of the conference for me was a presentation by Jennifer Yost, Assistant Professor at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. She and her graduate student studied the claim that nothing grows under blue gum eucalyptus trees because of allelopathic chemicals emitted by eucalyptus that suppress the germination of other species of plants. Two studies of this hypothesis were done in the 1960s, but the analytical methods used by those studies were misleading.
CNPS Conference 2018
Rigorous methods used by Yost’s team included planting seeds of 5 native plant species in the soil of eucalyptus forests and comparing germination rates of seeds planted in the soil of oak woodlands. They also tested the effect of blue gum volatile leaf extracts, and water-soluble leaf extracts on germination and early seedling growth.
They concluded, “In these experiments, we found that germination and seedling growth of the species tested were not inhibited by chemical extracts of blue gum foliage, either at naturally-occurring or artificially concentrated levels.” (2)
CNPS Conference 2018
Yost observed that the lack of allelopathic effects of blue gum on the soil implies that blue gum forests theoretically can be successfully planted with native plants after removal of the trees. However, she cautioned that those who destroy the blue gums should carefully consider what will replace them. Will an aggressive non-native weed quickly colonize the bare ground? If so, what is the benefit of destroying the blue gums?
I had a conversation with one of the most influential nativists in the San Francisco Bay Area after Yost’s presentation. This new scientific information does not alter his commitment to destroying blue gum eucalyptus in the Bay Area. After all, there are many more negative claims that remain unchallenged by scientific studies. For example, there are no studies that prove that blue gums use more water than native trees, as nativists claim. Nor are there any studies that prove that eucalyptus leaves contain less moisture than the leaves of native oak or bay laurel trees, which theoretically makes eucalyptus more flammable, as nativists claim. The lack of scientific evidence enables the persistence of speculation justifying irrational fear of blue gum eucalyptus.
Nativism dies hard because of lack of scientific studies
There appeared to be three distinct groups of people in the crowd of about 900 conferees. There was a large contingent of grey-haired volunteers who are the backbone of every native plant “restoration.” They are the dedicated weed pullers. There is an equally large contingent of young people who are making their living writing the “restoration” plans and directing the activities of the volunteers. The smallest contingent is a few academic scientists who study the underlying issues in their ivory tower. The goals and conclusions of these three groups are increasingly divergent as scientific studies disprove the assumptions of the citizen “scientists.”
The tension between science and the citizenry is as evident within the native plant movement as it is in American politics at the present time. The general public rejects scientific evidence at its peril. The rejection of science will not end well. In the case of uninformed nativism in the natural world, the result will be a barren, poisoned landscape.
A forest lover alerted us to some serious tree destruction on the Cole Valley side of Sutro Forest – the Interior Green Belt. This is the city-owned side of the forest.
We knew that some tree-cutting was planned. Some months ago, a storm blew a tree down onto a house at night, causing damage and putting the occupants at risk. (Fortunately, they were not harmed.) After that, we heard that 11 trees were removed along the forest edge.
What’s happening now is much more – some 40-90 trees. They are pushing the forest back along its Eastern edge. A lot of trees are already down, and some beautiful old ones have notices and orange dots showing they’re slated for destruction. This will happen within the next week. [We understand from later correspondence that the number is 55 trees. That’s a lot of beautiful, mature trees.]
Again, “safety” is being used as an excuse for tree destruction well beyond the need to remove hazardous trees that threaten homes and buildings.
This forest, nestled in the heart of the city and surrounded by neighborhoods, is headed for destruction. First, the whole area will be shrunk for the purpose of creating a “defensible space” – even though that is probably the worst thing that could be done in terms of safety of a forest that garners moisture from the fog. Then tree cutting in the forest’s interior will increasingly dry it out. And more trees will be cut down as wind-hardened trees from the forest edge are removed.
BACK IN 1958
This strip, the Interior Green Belt, was saved when the then-expansive forest was felled for development. It’s ironic that the trees preserved 60 years ago with so much difficulty are casually being cut down now. Here’s what the newscopy was back then:
Newscopy: “Once a quiet wilderness area, now Sutro Forest is becoming thoroughly developed.”
Newscopy: “This is the story of Sutro forest – and how the city has laid it waste. It is a story of trees versus concrete. Of green glades gobbled up for houses, eave-to-eave, row on row. Maybe it is the story of our way of life, inevitable in the push of population. But in many ways it is a tragedy. For Sutro Forest was once an 1100-acre spread of foliage within the vast Adolph Sutro-owned San Miguel ranch, and its trees were man-grown, hand-planted in a painstaking effort to provide beauty for San Francisco. But the march of the city is trampling the forest down, plucking it out by roots. Sutro was near as our sandy hills came to having ‘the forest primeval.’ But it’s now ‘the vanishing pine and hemlocks…’ Only a few people care. Some Twin Peaks home-owners have protested. Only one city agency – the Planning Commission – has sought to preserve at least leafy fragments, snatching an acre here, two acres there almost from the bulldozers. Now it is trying to salvage one parcel of 12.5 acres…”.
People saved it then; perhaps people can still save it from the forces nibbling away at its borders and heart.
It’s the holiday season again, and we’d like to wish all our readers and supporters all the best, for this season and for the year ahead.
Painting by Brian Stewart
We’d like to celebrate with this quiet painting by artist Brian Stewart, showing bees on eucalyptus flowers.
As the world’s tallest flowering plant, and one that blooms year-round, eucalyptus gives sustenance to a host of creatures: Bees and other insects, birds that feed on the nectar or the insects, or nest in and on the tree. To us, this tree symbolizes the giving spirit of the season.
SEASON’S GREETINGS, AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
This website was set up only in 2009, and except for a few pictures of San Francisco in the old days, most of our photographs come from June 2009 or later. Hiker Tony Holiday (who blogs at Stairways are Heaven) shared with us some pictures from before that. These are from 2007; in an earlier post, we published pictures from 2004, 2005, and 2006 to recall the beauty and density of the forest before most of the “work” started and before most of the tree-felling started. We publish them here with permission.
A HIKE IN JANUARY 2007
These pictures, taken on a hike in 2007, show the lush green forest in the early days of the “work” when the main objective was opening the trails. This was something everyone could get behind.
The forest, green and lush in January as it was in May. The forest gets rain in winter, and cloud forest precipitation in summer. It’s green year-round.
“The tank picture below shows the original trailhead for the upper Historic Trail. Later, they opened the trail right off the road as it is now.” – Tony Holiday
The forest is always green except where it’s opened up and dries out. The picture below shows the summit, which is the driest part of the mountain. Even in winter, the grasses quickly dry.
While Sutro Stewards and UCSF were mainly building trails, they got a lot of public support. But later, when they supported destroying trees and the forest’s ecology, forest-lovers realized the need to work to save this beautiful ecosystem.
This website was set up only in 2009, and except for a few pictures of San Francisco in the old days, most of our photographs come from June 2009 or later. Hiker Tony Holiday (who blogs at Stairways are Heaven) shared with us some pictures from before that – between 2004 and 2006. We publish them here with his permission, to recall the beauty and density of the forest before most of the “work” started and before most of the tree-felling started. (Later on, we’ll publish some 2007 pictures of the forest as well.)
[Edited to add: We did. Lest We Forget (2): Sutro Forest 2007]
THE FOREST IN 2004
This is Medical Center Way, a paved road that runs north-south through the forest and connects the Aldea Student Housing with the UCSF campus. The beautiful eucalyptus trees festooned with ivy come right up to its edge.
Here’s the summit garden in 2004, with flowers in bloom.
Here are more wildflowers, also from May 2004.
“What a change from now – same place !” commented Tony. He’s right. The summit seldom manages to look like this any more. In the early days of the garden, an extensive irrigation system was installed. (You can see the pipe in the picture above.) They stopped irrigating it after 4 years, we’ve heard. This must have been while it was still being watered. For contrast, here’s a picture taken in May 2010.
And here’s yet another from 2004 – a lovely nasturtium understory under the eaves of the forest. (The nasturtiums need no watering.)
SOME 2005 PICTURES
This is the trailhead from Crestmont, in the Forest Knolls neighborhood, in 2005.
Another view of the trailhead, showing the wooden steps and flowers planted beside them. A graceful entrance to the forest with trees standing sentinel on either side.
And here are two from Medical Center Way again, still looking like a woodland road under a tree canopy.
MORE PICTURES FROM YEARS AGO
Here are some lovely Sutro Cloud Forest pictures from 2006.
The hiker half-hidden behind the tree gives a sense of scale and mystery. The picture below, taken in July 2006 shows how lush the forest used to be before the “thinning” started.
These rocks are the Fairy Gates that give the Fairy Gates Trail its name. (One of the originators of this trail, long before it was tidied up and reopened, objected to the name. He called it the Topo Trail.)
Here’s a view of the UCSF Chancellor’s Residence through the trees. With the forest at its back and a view over the city at the front, it must be one of the best houses in San Francisco.
Another pretty trail picture from 2006:
A view of the trailhead off Medical Center Way
And the steps leading down to the UCSF campus
A HIKE IN THE FOREST, 2006
“Back when I went on these group hikes they were just opening the upper Historic and Mystery Trails to the public. The lower Historic had not been opened yet.” – Tony Holiday
Tony also sent us these pictures from a group hike:
“Back then I took group hikes and was totally innocent re efforts planned to thin out the forest !!” – Tony Holiday
Thank you, Tony, for this time machine. It reminds us of what the forest could be again if they stop fighting resurgent nature.
We received this letter from a long-time hiker in Sutro Forest, who is aghast at the destruction there. We publish it unedited.
——————————
“Dear fellow environmentalists and friends of Mount Sutro Forest …
I am lately shocked and horrified even more than usual by the great harm being done to Mount Sutro.
The despicable monsters who are responsible for this ongoing destruction should be jailed/fined for crimes against the environment.
First of all, the trees at the Belgrave trailhead have been felled and huge logs lie across the ivy.
Sutro Cloud Forest – Belgrave Trailhead with felled trees – 2017
As you climb higher up, it fortunately (so far) looks as gorgeous as ever — but this was such a shock…
How could these misguided tree killers be allowed to continue to destroy Sutro Forest and other parks and green spaces?
Irreparable harm is being done to the upper Historic Trail also, as well as the other trails. Logs and branches were all over and huge trunks along the trails, some where sawdust was still on the trail next to the doomed tree. Of course it was unnaturally dry where these crazies have done their damage.
It would improve my mood greatly to see the demise of these destructive, antienvironment tree-haters.
What was supposed to be a peaceful nature appreciation hike turned out to also be a bummer as not only did I note with horror the destruction of beautiful, big, healthy trees, but all along the trails as well were the big green dots on other trees that were marked for murder by this bunch of environmental criminals.
It appears they would like nothing more than to make Mount Sutro as bare as Twin Peaks and Bernal Heights Park.
——————————
We’re saddened that two entrances to the forest that were absolutely magical are now … ordinary. The entrance at Belgrave was a couple of posts leading to a narrow winding trail amid tall trees. Once you stepped inside, it was another world.
Sutro Cloud Forest – Belgrave Trailhead 2006
The entrance to the Stanyan trail was similar – a sudden, miraculous transition from an pleasant residential area into a fairy-tale forest in the heart of the city. Those entrance trees are also gone, victims of “tree-work” after the Stanyan trail was opened up.
Nature Conservancy short video about carbon sequestration
Mount Sutro Forest That Was 