It’s Spring! It’s Twin Peaks! It’s toxic Garlon herbicide!

Posted on February 6, 2011 by webmaster

It’s spring again, it’s Garlon time! We recently published a picture taken near the reservoir. Now someone’s sent me these.

This is a worker  spraying Garlon 4 Ultra on Twin Peaks… wearing a protective suit — but without the required respirator. We’re not sure if it’s a Rec Parks person, or a Shelterbelt Builders employee or subcontractor (we understand that Shelterbelt has the contract).  But whoever it it, please take care. The respirator is required for a reason, and it’s not to reduce the soil toxicity. As we’ve said before, Garlon is one the most toxic pesticides San Francisco permits.

[San Francisco’s Department of the Environment (DOE) classifies it as Tier I: Most Hazardous. It’s listed as HIGH PRIORITY TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE (their caps).  The use restrictions say: “Use only for targeted treatments of high profile or highly invasive exotics via dabbing or injection. May use for targeted spraying only when dabbing or injection are not feasible, and only with use of a respirator.”]

The target plant is yellow oxalis, which flowers all over Twin Peaks in the spring, providing nectar for bees and butterflies. Unfortunately, it’s considered an invasive non-native plant, so there it goes. We imagine a goodly amount of Garlon 4 Ultra will need to be used over a pretty broad area, since the oxalis is not exactly confined to a few odd patches.

THE FUTURE OF SUTRO FOREST?

Quite apart from our dismay at such toxic herbicides being used in “Natural Areas” at high points in the city (or at all), and without the prescribed precautions, we’re concerned that this is the future of Mount Sutro when the plans go through.  Currently no herbicides are used in the UCSF portion of the forest.  It may be the only pesticide-free wildland in the city. We’re also concerned that the project will extend into the city-owned Interior Greenbelt, especially with the opening of the new Kill-trees Trail, and herbicide use there will also rise.

Posted in Environment, Herbicides, Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

It wasn’t a faun…

Posted on February 4, 2011 by webmaster

If you saw a naked youth running through the magical Sutro Forest, it probably wasn’t a faun (though maybe he looked like one).

From the SF Police Department Parks Station Newsletter:

“700 block of Panorama Dr.  7 PM  Aided Case.  A resident called because a naked man was ringing his doorbell. Officer Racine investigated and found a 17 year old Richmond, CA, teen who admitted to smoking marijuana and running through Mount Sutro’s woods without clothing. The young man was reunited with his father at the UCSF Medical Center.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on It wasn’t a faun…

A Warning Letter from Lawyers about the Sutro Stewards

Posted on January 28, 2011 by webmaster

I (as in I, the webmaster)  recently got a legal letter by email from a major law firm representing the San Francisco Parks Trust “and its partner, Sutro Stewards.”  (I can’t publish the letter here as the law firm denied permission.)

ALLEGATIONS

It said this website implied the Sutro Stewards were felling trees and applying Roundup. “In fact,” the letter noted, “Sutro Stewards is precluded by the Management Plan from using chainsaws and power brush-clearing equipment.” [ETA2:  No chainsaw use, as far as we know. But a power hedge trimmer appears to have been used for “brush-clearing.” ETA2a: The link no longer works; it went to a Sutro Stewards blog post that has apparently been taken down.  It was an account by Craig Dawson of how he used a power hedge trimmer to destroy blackberry brush.] Later it says, “volunteer groups such as the Sutro Stewards may not apply herbicides for safety reasons.”

It quoted from UCSF’s 2001 Management Plan, page 69, which talks about volunteers:

The yellow sections were quoted in the legal letter.

CLARIFICATIONS

So I’d like to clarify: We do not believe (and I do not believe we stated) that the Stewards actually felled trees [themselves]. In the referenced post, we were attempting to contrast the “one tree” that Craig Dawson said was removed during trail-work in the UCSF portion of the forest with the large number felled in the City-owned portion. We hope that the re-wording clarifies that point.

Nor do we believe they are actually applying herbicides. The UCSF portion of the forest is, as far as we know, currently herbicide-free. In the referenced post, that is what we were indicating. (We have added a note of explanation on the post.) Herbicides used in the City-owned portion would be applied by Rec & Parks personnel or their contractors.

However, members of the Sutro Stewards have (as is their right), advocated for the use of herbicides and for tree removal as part of the Plan for the forest in community meetings. We assume the herbicides, if used, would be applied by people licensed to do so.

“CONTROL” OF THE FOREST

The third point was that we implied that the Stewards controlled the forest. “One of your most recent posts falsely states that the Reserve is controlled by Sutro Stewards,” it said, and added a quote from our website:

Those who own and control it —  UCSF and the Mount Sutro Stewards — do not perceive it as a unique environmental treasure, an urban Cloud Forest with tourist and visitor potential…

But it’s a matter of perception: As the forests of East Africa are locally valued mainly as a source of wood, bush-meat and farmland, it may be that the Mount Sutro Stewards value this glorious forest mainly as acreage where they can implement a native plant introduction.

Here’s an excerpt from their letter, posted only for purposes of discussion:

So again, some clarification is in order.

We do not believe that the Sutro Stewards own the Reserve.  In fact, the forest is owned by UCSF (61 acres) and the City (19 acres), and it is these two entities that make the decisions. We would like to clarify that we do not think that the Stewards have any legal control of either the UCSF-owned or the City-owned part of the forest, and that any “control” they have is delegated by the owners.

In our opinion, the Stewards appear to have a close relationship exceeding that of other community groups with these organizations. This appears to empower the Stewards to influence decisions much more than other individuals or groups, and they do not seem to be “just like other members of the community.” Here are some of the observations that influenced our opinion:

  • In a meeting in May 2009 called by UCSF to discuss its plans for obtaining FEMA funds to fell trees on the mountain, Craig Dawson made a presentation along with UCSF representatives.
  • Subsequently, members of our group asked UCSF for an opportunity to make a presentation at one of their community meetings, and were denied.
  • Both UCSF and Rec & Parks have used and published intellectual properties that the Sutro Stewards claim they own, without attribution or protection of copyright  — which appears to have the knowledge and consent of Craig Dawson, Executive Director of Sutro Stewards. (See the next section, Copyright, for further discussion.)
  • The Sutro Stewards conducted joint public meetings with UCSF and with the Recreation and Parks Department regarding a trail on Mount Sutro (July, 2009).
  • Craig Dawson is leading member of a small Parnassus Community Action Group of UCSF, and in that role co-facilitated a UCSF-sponsored meeting (together with another member, Kevin Hart) about the Open Space Reserve. We did not get the impression that “just other members of the community” like ourselves would be given the same opportunity to present to the group at any UCSF- sponsored event.
  • The trail map published by Pease Press links the logos of the Sutro Stewards and UCSF, as does the trail map published by the UC Regents. This gives the impression of a relationship closer than “just like other members of the community.”
  • UCSF’s website recognizes the volunteer contribution of the Sutro Stewards and specifically mentions Craig Dawson. We think it laudable that UCSF should recognize the Stewards’ work in maintaining trails, and note their awards on its website. However, that also gives us an impression of a closer relationship than other members of the community enjoy.

This, together with the quite broad range of physical activities they are empowered to perform — which in themselves can impact the ecology of the forest — makes them in our opinion an important influence on the fate of Sutro Forest. It is this regard we’ve alluded to “control.”

The legal letter says that, “contrary to your published information, UCSF PCAT meetings are sponsored only by UCSF, not  Sutro Stewards…” and told us to correct it. We did not anywhere state that the Sutro Stewards sponsored the meeting in our post, Report on UCSF Parnassus Meeting (Nov 2010). Nevertheless, we have inserted the clarification from the legal letter. In the earlier announcement post, the headline was in fact reporting a notification that we received. I have formatted it to clarify that what we published was quoting a notice from a neighborhood organization.

COPYRIGHTS

We respect copyrights. We will not knowingly violate copyrights. As a matter of policy and practice, we seek permission to use materials from others, unless we believe they are in the public domain or under Creative Commons, or in fair use for education or critique. The legal letter claimed we had violated copyrights with some maps.

1)  The first alleged that we had “cropped a Sutro Stewards map so as to remove a 2008 copyright notice (Map copyright July 2008, Ben Pease/ Pease Press) and Sutro Stewards trademark” and used it in various places on this and other websites.

We didn’t.

This map was distributed at a public community meeting of the Rec & Parks Department in its discussion of the trail to be opened from Stanyan, with no attribution to the Sutro Stewards, or copyright information. It was actually circulated in this cropped form as “Exhibit B” to a memo by a Rec & Parks Department employee, dated 23rd February 2010. Though other maps — Exhibits A and C in that attachment —  incorporated copyright data and source data, this map did not carry either a source or a copyright notice.  Presumably Craig Dawson, Executive Director of the Sutro Stewards was aware of this; he is listed in the same memo as ‘People to Contact’.

As such, I considered it (and believe it to be)  non-copyright, and used modified versions of that map to show the effects of the planned actions on the mountain.

[ETA: The minutes of the Commission hearing show that Ben Pease was also present. The map copyright that the law firm accuses me of violating was in his name. So this becomes even more puzzling. It seems the Stewards claimed copyright in a map that originally belonged to Ben Pease and did not seem to have been assigned to the Stewards. But the map used without attribution and copyright information was made part of the public record at a public hearing, presumably with Ben Pease’s consent as well as with Craig Dawson’s consent. This looks to me like placing it in the public domain. If that’s so, then once it’s been placed in the public domain, it can’t be withdrawn.]

As demanded by the letter, I will take down those maps.

For actual use on trails, we refer you the reader to the Sutro Map at the excellent Pease Press Cartography. (We note that the map we downloaded on 26 Jan 2011 carries no copyright notice.  It also carries the logo of the Sutro Stewards and UCSF together at the top.)

2)  The second map they objected to was the one showing the Demonstration areas and the planned new trails. This was modified from two separate maps to present both the Demonstration Areas and the trails in one map.

The source of these maps was a UCSF report published in November 2010 (UCSF Open Space Reserve Community Planning Process Summary Report). That report did not attribute the maps to the Stewards nor carry any copyright information.  Since the Sutro Stewards [ETA: according to the legal letter] provided these maps to UCSF, we presume they were aware of this. We had and have no way of knowing that the Stewards own these maps.

(In fact, the maps appear to be based on a very similar trail map of the forest, with some text by Sutro Steward Dan Schneider and photography by Sutro Stewards Executive Director Craig Dawson, was published as “Map & Guide to the UCSF Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve.” That was copyright to The Regents of the University of California. There was no separate copyright or attribution for the actual map as distinct from text and photographs.)

As the UCSF report had apparently been prepared as a basis for public information and discussion, and that is the purpose for which we are using it, we consider this fair use. UCSF — which is aware of our website and of me personally as the webmaster — has never objected to our use of their images for the purpose of discussion and critique even though we disagree about the forest.

As demanded by the letter from the law firm representing the San Francisco Parks Trust and the Sutro Stewards, I will take down that map.

OUR PHILOSOPHY IN RUNNING THIS WEBSITE

This website seeks transparency, publishes both information and opinion, and encourages spirited discussion. We’re a grass-roots, community-based effort. We do not solicit or accept monetary donations.

To all our readers, we’d like to take a moment to explain our philosophy for this website.

  • We try to avoid inaccuracies. We do our research. When reporting on meetings, we do so from contemporaneous notes taken at the meetings, and try to post soon afterward while our memories are fresh, often the same night. When reporting from the field, as far as possible we include photographs.
  • We correct mistakes. We are open to comments from anyone (though all comments are moderated because of spam), and we try to respond. If you find mistakes, you are welcome to contact us in comments or by email. If our data are wrong, we’ll do an ‘Edited to Add’ to correct it.
  • We do express our opinions, cogently and we hope convincingly.We avoid ad hominem arguments. We are willing to engage with those expressing other points of view. We believe in opponents, not enemies.
  • We keep our comments open to other opinions, even opposing ones. Only once so far have we closed off a discussion for reasons of length and repetition. We have not, so far, banned anyone from commenting here. We use the New Scientist magazine’s house rules as a general guide. (We are not affiliated in any way with that magazine, except as readers.) We explained our policy on editing comments here.
  • As we said above, we respect copyrights and will not knowingly violate copyright. We will use material we believe to be non-copyright, public domain, Creative Commons, or fair use unless someone convinces us we’re wrong. If we are indeed mistaken, we will take down the relevant material. [ETA: In this case, we do not believe we are actually mistaken, but we have taken down the maps anyway.]

###

We have to wonder, given that we are open to correction of errors (and have done so in the past at the request of UCSF and others)  why did the Sutro Stewards, Craig Dawson, and the San Francisco Parks Trust think it was necessary to send a strongly-worded legal letter?

Posted in Mount Sutro Stewards, Neighborhood impact, UCSF | 13 Comments

Garlon in our Reservoir?

Posted on January 27, 2011 by webmaster

Someone sent us this picture, taken on 20th Jan 2011 at Twin Peaks. We were surprised, even though we’ve grown accustomed to seeing notices of toxic pesticides being used all over “Natural Areas.”

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Garlon [ETA: i.e., triclopyr] is a very toxic herbicide. San Francisco’s Department of the Environment (DOE) classifies it as Tier I: Most Hazardous. It’s listed as HIGH PRIORITY TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE (their caps).  The use restrictions say: “Use only for targeted treatments of high profile or highly invasive exotics via dabbing or injection. May use for targeted spraying only when dabbing or injection are not feasible, and only with use of a respirator.”

So what was so surprising about this one? Well, several things.

1.  Its location.

Here’s a picture of the sign in context. It’s just across a trail from the Twin Peaks reservoir — used for fire-fighting, but also as back-up city water supply in case of an emergency.

Garlon and Aquamaster near Twin Peaks Reservoir

2. Mistake in the notice.

The date is missing from the notice. There’s no way to tell when the spraying was or will be done.  It’ll be some morning before 1 p.m.  Unless you see them up there spraying (and we recommend not) how would you know when to avoid the place?

3.  The broad range of plants targeted.

Cotoneaster. Eucalyptus. French Broom. Pampas. That’s the most we’ve spotted so far. In other notices, Garlon’s been used on erhata grass.  Picris and Poison Oak. “Invasive weeds.” Pittosporum. “Woody weeds and stump treatments” (in an area where we saw nothing woody) and oxalis. This appears to cover any non-native plant on “Natural Areas.”

Some of those earlier notices were actually for Garlon 4 Ultra, which was not supposed to be sprayed. (The January 2011 pesticides list asks for an exception for “targeted micro spraying” of that chemical.) We’re not sure how they were dabbing it on oxalis…

4.  Early in the Year

We’d assumed spraying would start in late February or March. Late January took us by surprise. Is there any month in which there’s no pesticides on Twin Peaks?

OTHER CONCERNS

Aquamaster (which has the same active ingredient as Roundup, glyphosate)  is a Tier II pesticide in San Francisco.  Its use is subject to limitations slightly less stringent than those on Garlon. What the 2011 Reduced Risk Pesticide Use list says about Aquamaster is: “May damage non-target plants. Use for emergent plants in ponds, lakes, drainage canals, and areas around water or within watershed areas. Only as a last resort when other management practices are ineffective….Note prohibition on use within buffer zone (generally 60 feet) around water bodies in red-legged frog habitat.”

The research on the effects of each of these chemicals is incomplete, and more concerning data continue to emerge — such as the effect of glyphosate on birth defects.

In combination, synergies could exist, making them more toxic or more persistent than either pesticide alone. We haven’t been able to find any research on these effects; Chris Geiger of the Department of the Environment said it would be difficult because the chemicals companies don’t reveal their “inert” ingredients.

OUR SUGGESTIONS

SF’s DOE regulates pesticide use on City property. We attended a recent meeting to discuss changes to the list for the coming year ahead. Here are the citizen suggestions we sent to Dept of Environment and Rec & Parks:

1. No combination use of pesticides, except for emergency or public health reasons.

In discussion, Chris Geiger of the DOE pointed out, not only are synergistic effects unknown, they may at this point be unknowable because companies do not reveal “inert” components — which might not actually be so inert. Garlon and glyphosate are used in combination in a number of Natural Area Program areas. Many of these are watersheds.

[Edited to Add:  In March 2011, Lisa Wayne, Natural Areas Manager, confirmed they won’t be doing it any more. “The Natural Areas Program will not be combining Garlon and Roundup in simultaneous spraying in the future.”]

2. No use of any Tier I or II herbicide in Natural Areas.

I understand the desire to control weeds and restore Native Plants, but the trade-off here seems excessive. In particular, areas that are watershed, high ground above neighborhoods, and waterbodies should not be contaminated with high-risk or high-persistence herbicides. It’s ironic that Sharp Park Golf Course uses *no* herbicides, according to a report from Rec & Parks’ Ralph Montana [ETA: Since Aug 2010, when Roundup was used there once], while the “Natural” areas regularly use Garlon.

3. In reclassifying Roundup, the latest studies — and evidence of attempts to suppress them — should be taken into account.

It’s not just the surfactant. It’s the glyphosate. We’ve posted about it here.

4. Better record-keeping, and more attention to conforming to rules and guidelines, particularly in Natural Areas.

This Program seems to have had multiple violations in the last couple of years. We understand the effect of tight staffing, but without accurate record-keeping and rules actually being followed, DOE oversight becomes moot. The record should show which area is being sprayed and specifically what pest is being targeted.

Lisa Wayne of SF’s Natural Areas Program responded to these suggestions:

“The Natural Areas Program is committed to implementing least toxic methods of weed control that are feasible and allow us to fulfill our mandate of preserving and enhancing biodiversity in the City.  This is not always an easy balance to achieve and our approaches are constantly evolving.   The Natural Areas Program works with thousands of volunteers each year (10,000 to 15,000 volunteer hours) performing hand removal of invasive plants; however, some species cannot be feasibly removed by hand and require herbicide treatment.

“In addition, we are constantly investigating least toxic herbicide alternatives.  For example, we are in the process of phasing out Garlon; however, we have yet to find a product that can be used for broadleaf plants like oxalis in grasslands that do not impact monocots (bulbs and grasses) that we are trying to protect.  We will continue to work with the Department of the Environment and the RPD Integrated Pest Management toward this effort.   I will speak to Chris Geiger further about your concerns related to mixing of chemical; however, I know this to be a common practice in park management.”

PLEASE DON’T CHANGE, UCSF!

At present, UCSF uses no herbicides at all in Sutro Forest. This could change as early as September 2011, when it will  start felling trees and mowing down the undergrowth and using toxic chemicals to prevent their regrowth.

Posted in Herbicides, Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon, nativism | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Mount Sutro Forest Ecosystem and Wildlife Habitat

Posted on January 24, 2011 by webmaster

We’ve talked earlier about how Sutro Forest works as a Cloud Forest, and why it’s always damp. Today, it’s Sutro Forest as an ecosystem and a habitat.  UCSF recently had a scoping meeting for its Environmental Impact Review for their plan to convert the dense, naturalized forest into an “urban forest” with only 7% of the existing trees, no understory, and no dead trees. Over 90% of the trees will be destroyed.

This is the forest that will be lost in the process.

A LESSON FROM MUIR WOODS

On the website of Muir Woods, there’s a discussion about forests. Here’s part of what it says:

An old-growth forest commonly has three distinct layers: Herbaceous; Understory; Canopy.

To better understand this, think of an old-growth forest as a human home: the herbaceous layer is similar to the carpet, the understory like the furniture, and the leafy canopy similar to the roof. Each of these three layers support a different community of plants and each one is well adapted to its position in the forest.

In Sutro Forest, the herbaceous layer consists of a multitude of small plants (including forget-me-nots and grass and fern) and vines; the understory is primarily blackberry and acacia, and the canopy is eucalyptus.

The Muir Woods article also stresses the importance of dead trees:

It was not long ago that the National Park Service used to remove all dead material from this forest to keep it clean and reduce fire threat. However, dead trees are vital for the forest and take many different forms. They can fall and become part of the forest floor and aquatic community or can remain standing, becoming what is known as a snag.

The plan includes removing dead and dying trees, converting a wild naturalized forest into a tree-park.

THE WILD CLOUD FOREST AT MOUNT SUTRO

The forest, though it includes around 100 species of plants, is dominated by a few trees and bushes that form its habitat. The trees are eucalyptus in the canopy, with acacia in the sub-canopy in many places. The understory is blackberry bramble (both California and Himalayan) with a mixture of smaller plants. (Many natural forests are based on one or two dominant species. Redwood forests. Oak-bay forests. Pine forests. ) Vines – primarily ivies – climb the tree trunks, but seldom reach the canopy of the trees.

Over forty species of birds use the forest; thirty species of birds were seen in one birding session last year. The forest provided an attractive dense forest habitat to birds ranging from the tiny winter wren to the huge great horned owl. No one’s made an inventory of the insect life or the reptiles that live here, but pumpkin spiders, and several butterflies have been seen in the forest; so have ensatina salamanders that like the cool damp world that exists here.

EUCALYPTUS

These beautiful 125-year-old trees, between 100-200 feet in height, form the canopy of the forest — the forest cover you see when you look at the satellite pictures.

  • They provide birds with cover and perches — both the host of songbirds that prefer forest environments and tall trees, as well as for the Great Horned Owls, Red-Tailed Hawks,  and other raptors.
  • The mosses, fungi and lichens on the trees are hiding places for various insects — the base of the food chain. [ETA3: Also, intriguingly,  it’s a habitat for nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria that help fertilize the soil. See our new post here.]
  • Eucalyptus flower in winter, providing food for bees, and for nectar-feeding birds. The nectar attracts other insects, too, and the birds that feed on them.
  • Eucalyptus fruit are hard-shelled “gum-nuts” that hide nutritious seeds. The gum-nuts, both on the tree and on the ground, are also food for birds and animals – including snacks for coyotes, as Janet Kessler notes in her observational blog.
  • The roots of the trees intergraft, creating a networked interdependent forest that stabilizes the soil. This forms the matrix on which the whole forest grows.
  • The tall eucalyptus also harvests moisture from the fog, watering all  the plants below it.
    Photo credit: Janet Kessler
  • The fallen leaves become part of the duff, the layer of organic litter that holds moisture and encourages plant growth. It’s also an insect haven, and birds from wrens to sapsuckers hunt there.
  • [Edited to Add: Hollows and cavities in older trees provide homes for animals, nesting spaces for birds — and, occasionally, a hive for wild bees like this one in the picture.]

BLACKWOOD ACACIA

This tree occurs naturally as an understorey tree in the wet eucalyptus forests of Australia, and so it does here, too, in Sutro Forest, where it forms the sub-canopy in some areas.  It tolerates a wide range of conditions, including fog and wind.

  • This is a leguminous tree, and fixes nitrogen — thus providing food to surrounding plants and making the thin mountain soil more fertile. In an experiment in Hawaii, researchers found eucalyptus planted with acacia grew 25-28% larger than plantings that were only eucalyptus. (The link is to a PDF describing the experiments.)
  • Blackwood acacia blooms with pale yellow flowers in the spring, attracting insects of all kinds and the birds that feed on them. (It’s relatively non-allergenic because of its heavy pollen though of course some people do react to it.) Bees like acacia flowers, and acacia honey is valued.
  • Its dense foliage provides cover to nesting and foraging birds, which eat insects that live in its leaves and densely-scored bark.
  • The seeds, which form in pods like twisted peas, have a reddish “eril” or stalk, which contains energy-rich lipids that attract and feed both insects — especially ants — and birds.
  • Unlike the eucalyptus, the acacia is relatively short-lived (though some specimens have lived hundreds of years). Dead and dying trees provide important habitat for insects that feed on decaying wood, and birds and animals that prey on those insects: woodpeckers; sapsuckers; raccoons; skunks. The logs provide shelter for insects and reptiles including skinks.

BLACKBERRY

Thriving in the damp shade under the eucalyptus, the dense thorny thickets of blackberry are bird and animal heaven.

photo credit: 123rf.com

It’s difficult for predators to follow them in there. These thickets are full of insects that provide food, as do the flowers in spring, and the occasional berries. (The blackberries in the forest do not fruit profusely for lack of sunlight, but where they still exist along the road and wider paths, they do carry berries in season.) They’re great for birds nests, hidden from predators.

A single blackberry thicket can provide a great deal of habitat. Consider one that’s say 8 feet by 10 feet and 6-7 feet tall  (about as high as a person — the normal height for blackberry to grow unless it’s mown down). That’s around 500 cubic feet of habitat for insects and birds. The same thicket, mown down to 1 foot high, will only provide 80 cubic feet of habitat. And it’s much inferior habitat because it offers a lot less protection — it’s flatter and more visible.

VINES

The vines (mainly English and Algerian ivy) growing up the trunks of the trees are another rich habitat for insects and birds. They not only provide cover, nesting and foraging areas, some of them bear fruit that is attractive to wildlife such as nuthatches and wrens. The vines also trap moisture, creating miniature ecosystems on the trunks of the trees. Other plants can gain a foothold, adding to the typical cloud forest layering of vegetation. This is turn provides a place for insects and birds

There is some question as to whether they are killing the trees. If they are, it’s taking them many years. We have seen hardly any instances where the vines actually reach the canopies of the trees, and vine-covered trees don’t appear to fall more easily than clean-trunked ones. In fact, most of last year’s fallen trees had no vines.

We’ve been wondering: Why don’t the vines reach the canopies and kill the trees? It appears there may be two reasons:

  • These trees are too tall. They’re between 100-200 feet high. Most ivy can only climb 50-90 feet (Michael Dirr, 1998). This allows the vines to get near the tops of these trees, but not into the canopy where they could kill the trees.
  • The eucalyptus is flexible at the top. We’ve all seen how the tops of eucalyptus wave in the wind like great green fans. University of Florida’s Francis Putz notes that in a study he did in Panama, “Trees of predominantly liana-free species were more flexible and had longer leaves…”  Is a similar effect at work here, with the  movement making it more difficult for the vines to grab hold?

Anyway, the vines reach the tops only of smaller trees that are below the canopy. When these remain standing, they provide a leafy green column that is splendid habitat for insects and for birds such as nuthatches, woodpeckers, and sapsuckers.

[ETA 2: We’ve heard said that eucalyptus woods in California provide a “simplified” eco-system compared with the native oak-bay woodlands established over thousands of years. Not so, apparently. A recent article on the Death of a Million Trees website looks at the findings of a scientific comparison. The eucalyptus forest had as much biodiversity as the oak-bay woodland. The only significant difference was that the eucalyptus forest had fewer rodents.]

Posted in Environment, eucalyptus, Mount Sutro Stewards, UCSF | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

Thirty Years in Mount Sutro Forest – Alicia Snow

Posted on January 13, 2011 by webmaster

Alicia Snow sent us this lyrical piece about walking the forest’s trails for over 30 years. Though she doesn’t walk alone there any more, she still fights to preserve Sutro Forest and against the use of toxic herbicides in the area.

—————————————————-
Walking the Mount Sutro Trails
by Alicia Snow

I grew up in San Francisco, having flown here on an old troop transport propeller plane in December of 1945.  I was six weeks old and my mother and I had just been “cleared for takeoff” so we could come home from the Army Hospital where I had been born.  But it wasn’t until 1977 that I discovered Sutro Forest.  My husband and I had been house hunting.  We had come to this neighborhood for the first time.   We liked what we saw, and bought the house that was advertised.

The day after we moved in, I decided to explore the forest.  I walked up Shrader Street to Belgrave, and went into the forest at the top of Stanyan Street, for the first of about 11,300 walks I was to enjoy in this craggy mountain top.  I loved it up there from the very first.  I used to say that it was my church.  I walked those trails in the rain, and in the sunshine, and, of course, mostly in the drippy, misty fog.  I loved it unconditionally.  I never felt afraid there among the trees.  The forest was my friend.  There was a sense of aloneness, but not of isolation.  Sometimes, in the heavy fog, the forest was silent, and I felt a thrill of primitive communion with all the things that grew around me.  In the spring, it was alive with birdsong.  There were butterflies everywhere.  In the winter I could hear the little creek gurgling at the bottom of the canyon that ran east of Edgewood Avenue.  I got lost a few times, and found overgrown little trails that were probably not used by humans, but I always managed to find my way back to civilization before too long.

For the first twenty of those years, I seldom encountered anyone.  And when I did, it was a friendly surprise, both of us having thought the forest was our own special secret.  Sometimes, I just went from Belgrave to Edgewood via the long rocky trail that led past the chancellor’s house.  Sometimes, I headed up to the summit.  I circled around, went off trail, climbed down to the creek and back up.  I got to know every corner of the forest in all those thirty-one years.

One day, as I followed the trail, I came upon a very old lady, dressed in black, and holding a cane.  She was sprightly and chatty.  She told me that she had lived in the neighborhood for eighty years.  Her name was Eileen Coffee.  She could recall when the trail  had been used as a bridle trail.  Now, she felt it was good exercise for her to walk from her home near Clarendon to the UCSF campus where she took an exercise class and went swimming, three times a week.  I saw her several times over the next year or two – and then not again.  I used to think, “Some day I will be like her, still walking in the foggy forest.  Still loving it.

The forest gave me many memories.  Once I was walking with my old German Shepherd on the trail that ran just behind the chancellor’s house, and in those days the trail was broken in one spot.  It was necessary to be a bit nimble to jump from one rock to another.  I was on the wrong side of that rocky break when my big dog suddenly collapsed.  I thought he was dying.  I stood there anxiously thinking, “Oh, Lord, I can’t leave him, and I can’t carry  him, and I never see anybody here.” I didn’t know what to do. But suddenly two  young men were standing before me.  I don’t know where they came from.  They appeared like a couple of angels out of the blue.  I couldn’t believe it.  They were young medical students.

“Wow, your dog is in trouble, Ma’am”, said one.   “Do you think he would let us carry him?”

I said I thought sure he would.  And the two of them lifted my 90 pound dog in their arms and carried him over that treacherous break in the trail to the little clearing near the bus stop where they stayed with him while I ran all the way  home and brought my car to take him to the vet.  My dog survived.  I never saw those men again, and I had never seen them before.  But I will never forget them.

Another time I will always remember was a day when I was running up to the summit very early one morning.  It was sunny, and as I came to the top of the  hill, my breath was taken away by the way the sun was refracted through all the trees that used to be at the summit.  The light came in a starburst through the trees and onto the ground.  If I had been a primitive being, I would have taken this as a sign from heaven.  It was simply beautiful.

I used to run very early in the morning, and during the winter one could hear the owls in the trees going up to the summit. For months I used to see one great horned owl who would hoot a greeting when I came up the hill with the golden retriever I had then.  I always looked for him.  And then I found him dead on the road one day.  He looked perfect.  There was no blood.  No animal had attacked him.  His eyes were wide open in death.  He must have been poisoned.  Probably he had eaten a rodent that was poisoned by the housing area people.

The forest is a whole different place at night.  I have been there in the dark with a flash light helping people find their dog.  It was very quiet except for our voices calling.

For many years, I used to meet a UC gardener  called Tim Lipinsky out there maintaining the trails.  He loved gardening.  When he went home from his job, he cared for his own huge garden, and he worked in other people’s gardens for extra money. He often came and helped me with things that were too heavy for me.  He single-handedly cut in a flatter trail that led down to Edgewood because he felt the old one was too steep and slippery.  He always had something to teach me about what was growing out there, or what had come into bloom.  He retired and moved away.  I miss him.  He really loved the forest like I did.

I don’t go there any more.

I began to run into strange people there from time to time, and I became concerned.  Guys playing with themselves.  Little altars of stones and skulls. The occasional squatter who left girlie magazines in the mud.  And then on Mothers’ Day of 2009, I was confronted by a psychopathic man who yelled and screamed obscenities at me and threatened to kill my dachshund puppies because he “hated little dogs”.  My dogs were on leash because they were so  young, but he was full of malice anyway.  I stood there trembling while he abused me with his towering rage.  He made it impossible for me to get past him on the trail until he decided to go.  I have never felt so vulnerable.  I said to myself, this is a warning.  I had thirty-one good years here. I’ll leave well enough alone.

The times they are a-changin’.

Posted in Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, Neighborhood impact | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Report: UCSF’s EIR Scoping Meeting, Jan 2011

Posted on January 11, 2011 by webmaster

Last evening, UCSF held its scoping meeting for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). They plan to finish the Draft EIR in spring, in time to start felling trees on the South Ridge (above Forest Knolls neighborhood) by September 2011. This was essentially a presentation of the “Initial Study” (links to a PDF file) that we discussed here and here.

WHAT THIS MEETING WASN’T

Assistant Vice Chancellor Lori Yamauchi opened the presentation by saying what the meeting wasn’t: A discussion of the proposed projects. Instead, it was to present the EIR process and take input on the topics for the EIR to analyze. The comment period ends January 18th. (Comments can be sent in writing to PHEIR@planning.ucsf.edu or to Diane Wong, UCSF Campus Planning, Box 0286, San Francisco, CA 94143-0288)

The proposed projects include 4 demonstration areas and 3 new trails for a start, followed by extending tree thinning and understory removal to almost all of the forest. The Initial Study for which comments are requested is linked here.

CEQA, The California Environmental Quality Act

She then talked about CEQA, including the fact that CEQA is informational. It provides decision-makers and the public with information about potential impacts, and identify ways of avoiding or mitigating the impacts. It doesn’t block a project in itself.

Judy  deReus presented the demonstration projects. (They are described in the Initial Study, but essentially consist of four “demonstration areas” totalling 7.5 acres on which trees will be felled, the understory gutted, and vines chopped off at ten feet.)

Diane Wong of Campus Planning spoke about “continued implementation” — i.e. continuing to fell trees and thin undergrowth through the rest of the reserve, potentially with the use of herbicides.

She did qualify it; it would be subject to more community review, environmental review, and “adaptive management.” We have to say none of this gives us confidence. The “community review” process thus far has been strenuous and courteous, but has only accepted substantive community input that agrees with the Mount Sutro Stewards.   UCSF sought to avoid environmental review where possible, and when it wasn’t, it decided to be its own lead agency. And “adaptive management” is a process of going slowly and seeing how the forest reacts — but instead, the demonstration areas have been tripled in acreage from even the 2001 Plan’s 2.5 acre plot.

THE EIR AND NEXT STEPS

The Initial Study, which has already been published, is open for comments until January 18, 2011.

In spring 2011,  the Draft EIR would be prepared, focusing on topics that the Initial Study identified as significant. After it’s published, the public have 45 days to comment, and there’s a public hearing. The Draft is revised as needed, and written responses are prepared to all the comments. Then the decision-maker must certify the EIR and approve the project. (The decision-maker is the Chancellor of UCSF.)

So how is UCSF determining “significant” ?

It isn’t clear. The slide said CEQA Guidelines, the UC CEQA handbook, regulations, and “standard practice.”

This gives rise to some strange anomalies. One commenter pointed out that one of the objectives for the forest is to “improve its aesthetics.” Yet, “Views from private residences and non‐public access are not considered to be scenic views because they are not available to the general public.” This is an odd determination given that the forest is surrounded by private residences and residential areas, whose value is in part determined by the aesthetics of this century-old forest.

COMMENTERS

A few people commented afterward. The first spoke about the aesthetics of the forest, particularly the impact of Demonstration plot #4 from Cole Valley. Another spoke of using landscape software packages to simulate the effect of thinning these trees.

Dr Morley Singer (who separately wrote a letter about the project) spoke about finances. In 2008, UCSF had sought some $350 thousand in FEMA money, and planned to put in some $150 thousand, so the project would have cost about half a million dollars. Extending the project to the rest of the forest would cost millions of dollars. Why was the University doing this? As an institution devoted to healing and research, why did it plan to spend millions of dollars in destroying a forest and substituting native plants?

Furthermore, he pointed out, if he was living in Edgewood, he would be most concerned because the trees and understory provided a barrier against noise from the power station, glare, and wind. If the barrier was removed or thinned and then the neighbors hated the result, what would be the remedy? The trees could not be reinstated. (“Native plants!” exclaimed someone who supported the project. But no native plants grow tall that quickly. It would take most people’s life-times to restore the screen of trees.)

Dave Parrish and Dan Schneider of the Mount Sutro Stewards spoke to support the project.

Alicia Snow addressed the problem of herbicide use; the forested mountain is the high point on the landscape, and herbicides used will inevitably flow into the neighborhoods. These chemicals are a cause for concern, with effects on wildlife and bees as well as people; San Francisco has had cases of Colony Collapse Disorder.One speaker pointed out that UCSF had applied for Federal funds to mitigate fire hazard, brought in fire-fighters to speak about fire-risk — but done nothing. (This doesn’t surprise us, since we think the fire hazard was substantially exaggerated in order to win FEMA funds — and that the proposed project, thinning and drying the forest, will actually raise the risk.) Another from the Edgewood area mentioned piles of brush and cut wood behind her home. Lori Yamauchi said she would tell her colleagues about the concern, but she could make no commitments or promises.  Separately, she said they weren’t here to respond to comments.

Please note that comments can be submitted in writing before January 18, 2011, about what should be covered by the Environmental Impact Report.

Posted in Meetings, Mount Sutro Stewards, UCSF, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Report: UCSF’s EIR Scoping Meeting, Jan 2011

A rebuttal to UCSF November Report – Morley Singer

Posted on January 11, 2011 by webmaster

Some months ago, Friends and Neighbors of the Mount Sutro Cloud Forest met with Senior Vice Chancellor John Plotts and followed up with a counter-proposal for the management of the forest, focusing on preserving its unique Cloud Forest ecosystem and its almost mystical sense of isolation — while making it safer by addressing the issue most important to neighbors: hazardous trees near peoples’ homes. It also recommended maintaining and grooming the trails to keep them accessible, while leaving the forest otherwise undamaged.

In November, UCSF sent a three-page response, which made three points:

(1) UCSF remained committed to the deeply flawed 2001 study, and would use it as a road map, maintaining the objective of gutting most of the forest and planting native plants (though in fact the present plan goes beyond the 2001 plan in tree and habitat destruction, with 47.5 acres targeted instead of 32 acres);

(2) It was impressed with its efforts at outreach, and would publish a report about the process;

(3) As a sop, a 2-acre plot would be used as a “hands-off” demonstration area for one year (which is of course meaningless since preserving 2 acres does not preserve a forest ecosystem).

The letter below, from Dr Morley Singer, was sent to the university and to others with interest in the matter.

Subject: A rebuttal to UCSF November Report

This letter is in rebuttal to the November 8th communication from Senior Vice Chancellor John Plotts and the subsequent Nov 2010 Mt Sutro Open Space Report from UCSF.

These expertly executed communications might impress the casual reader as reasoned and thoughtful. This is a result of a remarkable amount of staff time expended by the UCSF Department of Public Relations.

LET ME ASSURE YOU, there is an overwhelming amount of irrational planning, bending of truth, misleading information and self-serving propaganda in these reports. I urge all readers to interpret further reports from UCSF with a skeptical attitude.

A Shakespeare quote is appropriate — “methinks she doth protest too much”.  The multiple community meetings reported were controlled and managed by UCSF to inform and promote the UC agenda.  The report stated  a ‘majority’ was in support and dismisses multiple verbal, written and personal protests to a “small minority”. This is simply not true.

The November report is too lengthy to respond to in detail here and more than a casual reader wants to digest. However, the time will come for an appropriately detailed critique, very likely in Court.

One small example, however, is mention of the withdrawal of the FEMA grant application. This resulted from FEMA officials challenging the overstated risk of fire. (We are in possession of the FEMA documents.)  The overstated fire risks were also countered by the objective assessments of responsible State agencies and the SF Fire Dept. (At one of their community meetings UC had a fireman state that our firefighters would be helpless at a forest fire and would just watch it burn!)

[Note: We address this in our post One More Time: Fire Hazard? (FEMA notes UCSF’s inaccuracy) which quotes excerpts from the FEMA letter.]

The interested reader would wonder WHY is UCSF so adamant here?  When 200 countries convene to discuss the environment and advocate preservation of forests, When our Green city requires a permit for a homeowner to cut down ONE tree, When UC is raising student fees, pleading with the State for additional funding, seeking funds for a new hospital, Why would UCSF undertake with such determination a destructive and expensive project like this?

Unfortunately, a number of UCSF staff, unrelated to the primary functions of the Institution, have been misled, persuaded, seduced, infiltrated by the native plant ideologues who refer to Eucalyptus trees as “foreign weeds”.  Their interests do not serve the interests of UC. Senator Leland Yee and Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould have commented on the irrationality of this ideology and the underlying (hopefully subliminal) connection to racist attitudes.  In addition, a difference of opinion is one thing, but using the promotion methods of drug companies and soap sellers by a prestigious institution of science is most disappointing.

The November report ignores an alternative simple and inexpensive plan submitted by concerned neighbors and supported by certified arborists.

I am embarrassed for this fine institution, where I trained and taught, to be engaged in such  projects. Its perhaps a ‘low blow’ but the [failed] UCSF-Stanford merger comes to mind. An attempt by good people which flushed millions of dollars down the drain. Our civilized hopeful search for a responsible rational individual with authority to stop this senseless project has not been successful to date.

We will, however, persist.

We request the Regents appoint an independent auditor to discover how much money UCSF has expended on this project since the year 2000. This should include internal staff time and expenses as well as outside Consultants. We respectfully request this subject be put on the agenda of the next appropriate Regents meeting.

This project has great potential for adverse publicity for the University. We request the Regents to put a moratorium on this project pending further investigation.

Morley M. Singer, M.D.
Professor Emeritus

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

Bees and Blue Gum Eucalyptus and Herbicides

Posted on January 9, 2011 by webmaster

We saw this interesting letter to the Editor in the Pulitzer Prize winning Pt Reyes Light newspaper. It’s reproduced here with permission from the edition of 6 Jan 2011. It makes reference to the two-part article Myth of the Eucalyptus Blight, linked here and here, which were discussed in our recent post.

Painting by Brian Stewart; click to go to artist's website

Think before you cut

Dear Editor,

The recent articles in the Light regarding the Park’s and other’s plans to eradicate eucalyptus from California fail to take into consideration one critical aspect of the need for eucalyptus in the continuation of agriculture in the state.

The common honeybee was introduced to California in the mid-19th century, around the same time as Blue Gum Eucalyptus. Each spring and summer, honeybees gather huge amounts of nectar from flowers and store it in the form of honey so they will have enough food to make it through the winter, when the weather is too cold and rainy and flowers are too few to provide food for the bees.

In autumn, each hive greatly reduces its number of bees in order to survive the winter on the honey they stored. This is done by the queen laying fewer eggs and thus not replacing the bees that naturally die. Hives of 40,000 to 50,000 bees in summer drop to 10,000 bees in winter. During December and early January, bees hover in a tight cluster, keeping each other warm and living off the stored honey. In early January the Queen again lays eggs in ever-increasing numbers each day; larvae and then newly-hatched bees must be fed huge amounts of honey to support rapid growth. The demand for honey increases exponentially and if honey stores are not enough, the hive can starve to death just before warmer, drier weather and its tons of flowering plants arrives.

But in California we have periods of sunny, warm days, in January and especially February. These allow bees to forage for nectar to supplement depleted stores in their hives and insure their continuation. But what is blooming in January and February, when bees are in desperate need of nectar plants? Acacia, almond, ceanothus, manzanita, mustard, rosemary and some fruit trees bloom for short periods of time, but their small number and smaller sizes do not always guarantee enough blossoms. And any hard rain or wind can destroy whatever blossoms there are.

Eucalyptus with foraging bees (Photo: Susan Walter)

Eucalyptus, on average 100-feet high and 30 to 50-feet wide, has tens of thousands of nectar-filled blossoms per tree. It blooms throughout California from late January through mid-May, ensuring an abundant supply of nectar for hives at the time of their most critical need. Prior to the arrival of the honeybee in California, the state population was 1 million people and agriculture consisted of wheat, barley, cattle and sheep, all of which could easily survive without honeybees.

Today, with California growing much of the fruits, nuts and vegetables for the U.S., the honeybee is an intricate part of the continuation of agriculture. With the current problem of Colony Collapse Disorder, the fate of the honeybee is already precarious. Cut down all these Eucalyptus trees and the fate of thousands of hives of bees, and thus the continued pollination of our food crops, may be in serious jeopardy.
Think before you cut them down.

Cathleen Dorinson
Point Reyes Station

———————

Meanwhile, Robert MacKimmie of City Bees, an outfit that promotes urban bee-keeping, and harvests San Francisco honey, commented on our post Twin Peaks: Fall Weather, Roundup and Garlon. In it, he linked to  an article in EcoSalon, (for which he was interviewed), that describes a number of sudden bee-colony collapses in San Francisco.

glyphosate and triclopyr

Could the herbicides being used in “Natural Areas” in the Fall have a role? Garlon 4 Ultra is supposed to be very mildly toxic to adult bees — but we couldn’t find any research on bee larvae. The herbicide is very poisonous to aquatic creatures, including invertebrates. Also,  Triclopyr (its technical name) falls into the class of pyridines — which also include “insect growth regulators” or insecticides that work by interfering with larval growth.

Could the Garlon and the Roundup (glyphosate) be working together to have an impact that neither has individually? We found no research on that, either. San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department frequently uses the two pesticides together at the same site. [Edited to Add: RPD have decided not to use combinations of Roundup and Garlon going forward.]

We’re concerned. If the planned UCSF project goes through, we expect the same mix of Roundup and Garlon to be used in the Mount Sutro Forest for the same reasons — preventing regrowth of undesired plants.

In addition to felling thousands of the eucalyptus trees that flower through the winter.

Posted in eucalyptus, Herbicides, Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

What UCSF’s EIR will Evaluate – and What it Won’t

Posted on January 8, 2011 by webmaster

Edited to Add: If you want to comment, the deadline is January 18 2011. Here’s the address to contact:The comment period ends January 18th. (Comments can be sent in writing to PHEIR@planning.ucsf.edu or to Diane Wong, UCSF Campus Planning, Box 0286, San Francisco, CA 94143-0288)

The Environmental Impact Report is supposed to evaluate potential impacts of the actions planned for Mount Sutro Forest. According to the Initial Study (this links to a PDF version on the UCSF website),

The project primarily involves thinning of the Reserve, removal of understory vegetation, conversion planting, native plant enhancement, and creation of new trails.

They will be considering the impact of the project on a number of things, including the aesthetics as seen from around the forest, carbon sequestration and air quality, impact on animals and plants, on cultural resources, landslides, hazards from herbicides and naturally-released asbestos. And wildland fires (where it notes: “The express purpose of the project is to improve the health of the forest and to reduce the exposure of persons and property to a forest fire. The impacts of proposed management activities with regard to the potential for a forest fire will be analyzed in the EIR.” Since we expect this project to increase the fire-hazard, we’re glad they’re raising it — though give the history of the project, we’d be surprised if they reach that conclusion.)

But the assessment also avoids some topics, deciding that they’re insignificant.

WIND

Those of us living by the forest recognize that the trees form a flexible living windbreak that adds some 10-20% to the height of the mountain. The assessment argues that trees with a 30-foot spacing will have the same effect, or a better one:

Winds in San Francisco predominantly come from the west and northwest. In general, increases in wind speeds may occur when winds are intercepted by a large plane, such as a dense stand of trees, and are redirected. Thus, a permeable stand of trees may be more effective in functioning as a wind break than a dense stand of trees. With a proposed average spacing of about 30 feet between trees for much of the Reserve, proposed management activities would not be sufficient to greatly affect the pedestrian‐level wind environment. Over time, as tree canopies expand, wind speeds would tend to be reduced. Thus, the proposed project would not expose persons or adjacent properties to substantially increased wind speeds. Thinning a narrow stand of trees may result in increased exposure to existing winds that may be noticeable to some people, but such effects would not be considered significant. For the reasons noted, wind impacts would be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the EIR.

We are skeptical. UCSF should recognize that wind is an important factor in this area, and may impact different neighborhoods differently. The effects may not be apparent until the second part of the project is well under way. Wind studies are definitely called for.

LIGHT AND GLARE

Though the assessment notes the value of the tree-screen in the Edgewood area in protecting those homes from the light and glare of the UCSF campus, it concludes the impact will be insignificant and therefore not needing evaluation:

A portion of the project site, the Edgewood area, is located between a row of residences to the east fronting Edgewood Avenue and campus buildings to the west, including Moffitt/Long hospitals and the central utility plant. Currently, vegetation and trees within the Edgewood area provide some visual screening of campus buildings from the rear yards of these residences, including possibly screening of light sources from the campus at night. Proposed vegetation management activities have the potential to reduce this visual screen. However, such impacts on adjacent private residences would not constitute a significant impact on day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, light and glare impacts resulting from the proposed project will not be analyzed in the EIR.

RUNOFF AND WATER QUALITY, OR AQUIFERS

The assessment is going to avoid the issue of runoff and of water-quality, even though this forest is clearly processing huge amounts of water. It precipitates water from the fog, catches it in the spongy duff (the layer of decaying plant matter beneath the undergrowth) and allows it to trickle out and into the soil. There’s a seasonal creek on the eastern side of the forest. Thinning trees and undergrowth is going to massively interfere with this — and it’s something that may not be visible with the demonstration projects. Anyone visiting Twin Peaks during or after a rainstorm can see run-off like gushing rivers, while the flows around Mount Sutro are relatively low; this clearly demonstrates the difference in water-drainage patterns.

This is what the initial study says:

Proposed management activities would not alter hydrology or water quality at the site. There are no surface waterbodies or public water supplies in close proximity to Parnassus Heights, and no aquifers or groundwater recharge areas have been specifically identified at this campus site. No known soil or groundwater contamination issues are present. Sewage and stormwater runoff from Parnassus Heights are treated at the Southeast and Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plants.

During wet weather, storage capacity at the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant is sometimes exceeded, resulting in combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Although minor grading would occur for proposed trails, and some ground disturbance would occur in some locations from heavy equipment, trees to be removed would be cut above ground surface and root systems would be left in place. The project does not propose to modify the topography of the site or pave or modify the imperviousness of surface soils. Thus drainage patterns of the site and the amount or speed of surface runoff would not change with the proposed project. No alteration to the course of a stream or river would occur due to the project. These checklist topics will not be analyzed further in the EIR.

NOISE

Construction (or presumably, destruction) noise is a factor, and will be mitigated by not starting work until 7 a.m. on weekdays. We hope everyone in the vicinity is an early riser and no one’s doing shift work at the hospital or someplace else.

Mitigation Measure #2: Construction Noise: Use of heavy equipment for management activities would, on a temporary basis, elevate noise levels in and around the project site, and particularly at nearby sensitive receptors. UCSF shall require contractors to minimize unavoidable construction noise impacts by use of proper equipment and work scheduling. Construction hours shall be limited to the following schedule:
• Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. for not noisy work (80 decibels or less at 100 feet)
• Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for noisy work (more than 80 decibels at 100 feet)
• Extended hours only with advanced notice from the UCSF project manager (Monday through Friday, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.; Saturday 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and Sunday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
• No noisy work on Saturdays and Sundays.

That’s it for now. We’ll follow with more comments if needed.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

UCSF, Mt Sutro Stewards, and the Fate of Sutro Forest

Posted on January 7, 2011 by webmaster

In an article about East Africa, conservationists WA Rodgers and ND Burgess spell out some of the difficulties faced in preserving coastal forests: the attitudes of the people. “At best the local inhabitants see their forest as a resource to be utilized. At worst, they see the forests as a stock of unclaimed farm land, or a wild area harboring animals that damage crops.”

There’s a parallel with Sutro Forest. Those who own and control it —  UCSF and the Mount Sutro Stewards — do not perceive it as a unique environmental treasure, an urban Cloud Forest with tourist and visitor potential. At best, they seem to consider it a resource to be utilized by converting the wild naturalized forest to a park-like setting.  At worst, it may be considered idle land awaiting a change in policies or guidelines, and meanwhile a liability filled with invasive non-native weeds. [ETA2: We are striking out the phrase because it may be misinterpreted to mean that the Sutro Stewards have legal control of the forest. They don’t.]

UCSF has announced a January 10th scoping meeting for the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for their plans for Mount Sutro Forest — or, as they call it, the Sutro Open Space Reserve. These plans would convert this unique wild urban cloud forest into a “park-like” environment, with widely-spaced trees, more trails, a thin or nonexistent understory, and the introduction of “native plants.” UCSF has issued an Initial Study in which it lays out what it plans to do, and what environmental impacts it intends to study. (UCSF is doing its own  EIR. The link opens to a PDF file of the Initial Study.)

THE PLANS:

(ETA3: The map that was here showed the demonstration areas, the “hands-off” area, and the planned new trails. It was modified from two maps sourced from a UCSF report. We received an objection to its use in  a letter from lawyers for The San Francisco Parks Trust and Sutro Stewards. According to the letter, it was “prepared by the Sutro Stewards for UCSF.”  The report did not mention this, nor did it have copyright information, and we considered it fair use for readers to see the map as a basis for this discussion. It was also similar to a trail map published earlier that was copyright to the UC Regents. Nevertheless, we have removed it. We hope to replace it later with a different map providing the same information.)

Initially, four demonstration areas, totaling 7.5 acres, will have thousands of trees felled so the remaining trees are spaced an average of 30 feet apart. (For reference, that is the kind of spacing you find with street trees.)  In these areas, the understory will be mowed down, and vines removed from the trees to a height of 10 feet, leaving the dying vines above that attached to the trees. Herbicides will be used on one acre; on the others, they will use other techniques such as tying black tarpaulin over the stumps to prevent regrowth. This work would start in September 2011.

(The newly added 2-acre “hands off area”, supposedly a concession to neighbors’ objections to destruction of the forest, is essentially meaningless.  It was never part of the demonstration area, and so would have been left alone anyway… except that it lies in the way of one of the planned new trails, shown in orange on the map above, and so wouldn’t be hands-off anyhow. ETA: At the meeting, UCSF clarified that the new trails would not be built here until after the demonstration period of one year.)

Afterwards, according to the plan,

Large‐scale tree thinning and understory control would be phased, likely over the course of many years as funding becomes available. It is anticipated that no more than about one‐quarter of the Reserve would receive large‐scale tree‐thinning and understory control treatment at any given time, likely separated by several years before another section of the Reserve is to receive such treatment. Steep slopes of the Reserve that are inaccessible by heavy equipment (about 15 acres of the 61‐acre forest) would not receive tree thinning treatment, though some understory control may be implemented if accessible by foot and if use of hand‐tools would be effective.

WHY?

Our question remains, why? The report claims that the objective is to improve the safety, health, usability and aesthetics of the forest. In fact, it is converting it from a natural cloud forest, a unique ecosystem, into what will be essentially an urban park. What are some of the downsides?

1. Destruction of a unique forest. Owing to San Francisco’s particular climate and the location of this forest, we have something very special: a Cloud Forest inside a big city, at only a few hundred feet above sea level. Cloud forests are characterized by dense vegetation, year-round dampness, and rich wildlife. Thinned out and dried out, this forest will no longer be a functional cloud forest.

2.  Habitat destruction. By removing brushes and small trees, dead trees (which are valuable habitat for many bird species), and thinning the trees down to 30 feet apart, these actions will be detrimental to almost every kind of wildlife. We will look at this in more detail another time. [ETA: We did.]

3. Conversion to a high-maintenance park. The forest currently requires almost no maintenance aside from trail-grooming and the removal of occasional hazardous trees near the forest edges. All these actions will commit UCSF to continuing maintenance at a much higher level than before, making it ever more reliant on the volunteers from the Mount Sutro Stewards, who in our opinion appear to have de facto control of the mountain.

4. Herbicide use. Though the project purports to use limited amounts of herbicide, in fact a fairly large quantity will be required to prevent regrowth of all the felled trees and mown-down bushes. Twin Peaks is sprayed with Garlon and glyphosate (Roundup or Aquamaster) many times a year. Mount Sutro is at a high point in the city, and the chemicals will inevitably flow into the watershed.

5. Aesthetics. Though the project purports to improve the aesthetics of this forest, it will destroy the mystical beauty and sense of isolation it provides. On a foggy day, this may be the most beautiful place in all of San Francisco. Once the trees are thinned, making the city visible from the forest and the trails of the forest visible from surrounding streets, it will lose this unique character. At best, it will be just another pretty park.

But it’s a matter of perception: As the forests of East Africa are locally valued mainly as a source of wood, bush-meat and farmland, it may be that the Mount Sutro Stewards value this glorious forest mainly as acreage where they can implement a native plant introduction [ETA: while we value it as a unique Cloud Forest.]

Posted in Environment, Mount Sutro Stewards, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, Neighborhood impact, UCSF | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Pt Reyes Light, an Informed Arborist, and Eucalyptus Globulus

Posted on January 6, 2011 by webmaster

We saw this interesting article (reproduced here with permission) on the website/ blog Death of A Million Trees, whose tagline is Saving trees from needless destruction in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Pt Reyes Light is a Pulitzer Prize winning local newspaper.

This bolsters some of the information found on our own Eucalyptus Myths page.

————————————————

The Pt Reyes Light is one of the last bastions of investigative reporting in the Bay Area.  Following its tradition of digging deep into the actions of its biggest neighbor, the Pt Reyes National Seashore (PRNS), it has recently published two hard hitting articles about the massive destruction of eucalyptus on the properties of the National Park Service in Marin County.  This two-part article, “Myth of the eucalyptus blight,” is available here and here.

The Light reports that the Pt Reyes National Seashore is destroying between 400 and 600 eucalypts per year.  Its neighbor, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, is engaged in the same eradication effort.  The Light repeats the PRNS justification for this destruction and reports the evidence that the justification is fabricated.  This justification is based on myths propagated by native plant advocates to frighten the public into supporting the destruction.  The myths and their negative impact on our environment are reported and refuted elsewhere on the Million Trees blog:

There is also much new information in the Light articles, particularly in the quotes of a certified arborist from Berkeley, California, Mark Bowman.  Mr. Bowman adds context and clarification to the Light article for the readers of Million Trees. (Quotes from Mr. Bowman were made directly to Million Trees.  Not all these quotes appear in the Light articles.  Quotes of PRNS staff are from the Light.)

In response to the claims that the “shreddy” bark of the Blue Gum eucalyptus provides a fire ladder to its canopy and casts embers long distances from its great height, Mr. Bowman says,

“There are many mitigating factors such as the age and the amount of wind the trees receive which would determine how much bark litter would remain on the tree or be scattered on the ground.  In general, the bark that sheds doesn’t reach all the way to the top. It usually tapers off before it reaches the first branches.  As a rule of thumb it tends to be most noticeable on the lower 20 feet or so of the trunk and collects around the tree base, which makes it rather easy to pick up if you are worried about fire safety.  This may be news to some folks, but there is no such thing as a maintenance free tree unless it is made out of plastic.  If you are going to purchase a home in or next to the forest, then you shouldn’t assume you have the right to cut it down; after all you do have a choice to live elsewhere if you consider that environment too extreme for one reason or another.”

Eucalyptus, shreddy bark low on the trunk, smooth bark higher on the trunk, Mosswood Park, Oakland, CA

As an arborist working in that neighborhood, Mr. Bowman is familiar with the area of the 1991 fire in the Oakland-Berkeley hills.  He says that the eucalypts were a casualty of that fire, not the cause of it:

“I took care of a property next door to where the fire started and, as I recall, that neighborhood on Charing Cross and Buckingham was comprised predominantly of pine and native oaks, not eucalyptus.  If my memory is accurate, then it appears the fire department could not halt the burning of native oaks, dry grass and pines located in that steep terrain in the beginning, before the fire became that inferno, so I don’t understand why eucalyptus is getting this bad rap as a fire starter.  There was plenty of blame for that tragedy to go around:  the homeowners who failed to maintain their properties; the city, county and state who failed to maintain theirs; and the fire department who failed to put out the blaze the day before.

When a fire ignites due to low humidity, hot dry Santa Ana winds, massive amounts of dry grass, shrubs and trees coupled with the steep terrain, there is nothing that is going to stop it but luck.  The fuel for that inferno had been obviously accumulating for years on both public and private lands.  I saw the smoke that day when I was driving along Grizzly Peak Blvd., and the first thing that came to mind was that ‘it finally happened.’  Anyone who worked in that area in the aboriculture and landscaping fields knew it was inevitable, and never once did I think that the eucalyptus trees were the issue; 20 years later I still don’t.

I want to state that I have no expertise in fighting fires; however  when a fire gets to the point that even homes being saturated with water burn, then obviously the trees burn too.  The fire could care less what species of tree is in its path or whether it was here before 1750 or not. The simplest and cheapest solution to this problem is for:  (1) owners of both public and private lands to maintain and clean their properties of dry grass, shrubs and leaf litter and; (2) insist that public agencies in charge of fire prevention use the laws and enforcement codes already on the books for those who fail to comply.  Let’s use a little common sense, that way the trees won’t burn.   This “native plant is superior” mentality is going to end up being a big taxpayer and/or rate payer fraud with no significant benefits and (more to the point) many guaranteed unintended consequences if this movement is allowed to come to fruition.  Grab a hold of your wallet folks.”

Mr. Bowman says that eucalyptus is no more likely to uproot or shed its branches than any other tree of comparable size:

“From a structural standpoint, Blue Gum eucalyptus has no inherent weakness on any below ground or above ground parts endemic to the species which would make it more prone to failure than any other large tree.  I have seen no scientific proof, nor do I have any hands on evidence that would lead me to believe that the cellular structure of this species is any more prone to failure from tension, torsion or compression forces than any other species.  Just because a large tree may look intimidating in the eyes of some people doesn’t mean it is dangerous, yet there are plenty of tree industry people all too happy to take advantage of that fear.

Every tree has its own individual and unique characteristics.  It is imperative when you are looking for advice to not take the word of the “Free Estimate” people you talk to without getting a second opinion.  Obtain a consultation from someone who has no conflict of interest in that they are not there to try and sell you on their service.  Removing eucalyptus or any other tree can be very expensive and sometimes completely unnecessary.  I’ve been in business for over 30 years and that experience has proved to me repeatedly that there is an awful lot of hopefully well intentioned but all too often misinformed people giving advice.  The best advice would be to consult with an arborist who does not have a vested interest in performing tree work.”

In fact, thinning the eucalypts can in some instances make those that remain more dangerous than they would otherwise be:

“Here again, there are many mitigating factors and situations which have to be taken into account but sometimes leaving them alone can be the best option.  There is no doubt that selective thinning of any tree species will reduce the fuel load in case of fire, but at the same time there is a myriad of potential unintended consequences when you undertake this approach:  (1) exposing the trees left behind to wind forces their root systems haven’t developed a resistance to, thus making them more prone to blow down; (2) introduction of wood decay organisms and parasitic fungi; (3) invasion of grasses and small understory plants that are more easily ignited, and (4) erosion of steep slopes previously stabilized by the roots of the trees.   Since I have mentioned unintended consequences a number of times, perhaps we should learn something from that old adage, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’”

Ironically, the PRNS staff interviewed by the Light actually agrees with Mr. Bowman that destroying the eucalyptus may not accomplish anything.  He observes that areas cleared of eucalypts are populated with shrubs that can be equally flammable: “Just getting rid of them doesn’t necessarily solve anything.  It’s like swapping one problem for another…Even if it’s a native component, it might be less desirable.”

So, why are we destroying these trees?  Clearly we are doing more harm than good.  The results are not less flammable.  The trees that remain are more dangerous than they were before their neighbors were removed.  And the landscape is doused with toxic herbicides.

Perhaps the answer to that question is in the answer to this question:  Who benefits from the eradication of non-native trees?  The chemical companies that manufacture the pesticides used to kill the trees.  The people who make their living destroying trees.  The people making their living “restoring” native plants.  The employees of the California Invasive Plant Council.  etc., etc.

It’s a growth industry, funded by your tax dollars.  In the past two years tree destruction on federal lands (GGNRA and PRNS) has been funded by the federal economic stimulus program.  How does destroying trees stimulate the economy?  Might this money have made a more lasting contribution to our economy if it had been spent  repairing or improving our infrastructure?

Posted in Environment, eucalyptus | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Ravens vs Great Horned Owls by Patricia Greene

Posted on December 28, 2010 by webmaster

Dusk, mist, Great Horned Owl

We’re always interested in our forest’s most spectacular residents: The Great Horned Owls. Today we saw this fascinating account from Patricia Greene on a birding group, and are re-printing it below with permission.

I and others have been hearing Great Horned Owls in the UCSF Mt Sutro forest–usually at night or the wee hours of the morning. This afternoon ~2:30 I was walking up the North Ridge trail and was surprised to hear an owl.

Then I noticed that the band of Ravens that is a fixture on the Mt. Sutro/Twin Peaks ridge was thrashing around excitedly in the woods not too far from the trail. The object of their excitement turned out to be a Great Horned Owl. I got my binocs on it briefly, but clearly, before it took off. Around the next switchback, the Ravens were still having a riot, and now I found two Great Horned Owls perched together enduring intense Raven harassment.

Soon one of the owls took off drawing most of the Ravens with it, but the other one remained and was still there when I returned from the summit.

This was on the North Ridge trail a short distance below the junction with the Mystery Trail.

Note: We’ve added the map below for reference.

Posted in Mt Sutro Cloud Forest | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Stumbling in Sutro Forest

Posted on December 26, 2010 by webmaster

This gallery contains 4 photos.

Someone who’d been walking on the South Ridge Trail loop recently sent us these photographs of stumps in the middle of the pathway. “If UCSF and the Mt Sutro Stewards insist on cutting down trees, at least they could do … Continue reading →

More Galleries | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Twin Peaks – Still Appalling – Mount Sutro’s Future?

Posted on December 11, 2010 by webmaster

Over a year ago, we drove up to Twin Peaks, an example of a mountain very like Mount Sutro — but without the trees. Everyone goes to Twin Peaks, but they’re usually there for the views (which are doubtless absolutely magnificent and never get old).

That day, we were there to look at Twin Peaks, not from Twin Peaks. What we saw was appalling. Rock slides. Trash. Graffiti. Roundup and Garlon toxic herbicides.

We’ve been back a lot since then. Nothing much has changed. There’s still trash.

Must have been some party!

And graffiti (different graffiti, with the same white-washed walls as canvases).

Graffiti opportunities

Of course there’s Garlon (which we see in spring and fall quite regularly) and instead of Roundup, Aquamaster (also a glyphosate herbicide). Both these pesticides are known to be toxic, with birth defects as one of the effects. They’re used all over Twin Peaks, including in the ‘Natural Resource Area’ which is the Native Plant area.

"natural areas" and pesticides

 

Glyphosate and Triclopyr are associated with birth defects

And, with the first heavy rain of the season, a rock slide. Where it occurred, it was relatively innocuous. On Mount Sutro, there could have been  houses or cars in the way.

Coming soon to a mountain near you?

Is this what we have to look forward to as UCSF and the Mount Sutro Stewards fell the trees first on 7.5 acres and then 40 more acres, and use the same toxic herbicides to prevent the brambles and trees from resprouting?

Posted in Environment, Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon, Mount Sutro Stewards, Mt Sutro landslide risk, Neighborhood impact, UCSF | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Quirky Oaks: Parody of an anti-Eucalyptus Pamphlet

Posted on December 5, 2010 by webmaster

We’d never expected to come upon a well-researched tree article that made us laugh. This one from the HCN Newsletter cracked us up: It was riff on a widely-circulated but biased pamphlet on eucalyptus, and it was spot on.  [Edited to Add from the Comments below: “To truly appreciate this parody, you might want to read the NPS publication upon which the parody is based.”  It’s entitled “Eucalyptus: A Complex Challenge.” The link here goes to a PDF of that pamphlet.]

As the introduction to the article says (some emphasis added):

We dedicate the following article to those who may be unaware of the history, problems and hazards of oak trees. The style and tone parodies a widely distributed brochure about eucalyptus trees, but the information in this article is based on facts.

We republish the article with permission. [We’d also like to clarify that we don’t actually dislike oaks – not does the author. We love oaks as we love eucalyptus as we love trees.]

——–

OAKS: A COMPLEX CHALLENGE  by Lynn Hovland

Oak trees could take over the world and threaten the health of ecosystems. There are 500-600 oak species. Approximately 20 of them are said to be native Californians—but they were not always native. Evolutionary studies suggest that the oak genus Quercus first appeared in southeast Asia about 60 million years ago. Several oak species later immigrated to Europe, North Africa, North America and Central America. According to Colin Tudge in The Tree, no other forest tree is as widespread throughout the world as oaks.

One reason why these aliens have become so pervasive (dare we say “invasive”?) is that they display an uncanny ability to survive. They resprout aggressively from their base, trunk, and even from their roots. Once established, they spread rapidly, displacing species (like redwoods) that had arrived before them, forever changing prehistoric landscapes.

Many oak species bear both male and female flowers on the same tree, so they are easily wind-pollinated. (How fair to other tree species is that?) The fruit of all oak trees is the acorn, which is edible for some animal species, toxic to others. Birds and small rodents, with their habit of digging holes to hide acorns, deserve perhaps the most blame for the incredible birth rate of oaks.

Oaks reborn after the ’91 fire

But oaks also resprout massively from trees either cut down or ravaged by fire. Immediately after a fire such as the 1991 Oakland-Berkeley Tunnel fire, an area may look completely free of oaks, but, in a few years, clones or descendants of those fire-destroyed oaks will be back, as big as ever, looking as if they had had nothing to do with what happened here.

Oaks have an astonishing growth rate, averaging 2 feet each year. When fully grown they may be 60-100 feet tall.

EAST BAY OAKS

The most common oak species in the East Bay is the coast live oak. Live oaks are no more alive than other oaks. They are called “live” because they are evergreen. Live oaks keep most of their leaves in the winter although they carelessly drop some leaves all year round, causing some unsightly and flammable buildup of litter no matter what the season. Coast live oak can look either shrubby and somewhat scruffy, or it can be a tall tree with a thick trunk and many branches reaching like tentacles up and sideways. It tends to grow in shady canyons and places where its roots can find some water even in the summer.

Another often-seen evergreen live oak in the East Bay is the canyon oak. It has gray bark and tiny yellow hairs on its leaves and acorns. Evergreen oaks, like all evergreen trees, tend to be more flammable than their deciduous relatives. But the thick, gnarly trunk of the coast live oak, like all thick tree trunks, is difficult to ignite.

Deciduous oaks look more like eastern oaks. They all have lobed leaves. Common deciduous oaks in this area are blue oaks and Oregon white oaks. Although deciduous oaks are not “live” oaks, they are not dead oaks. They just look dead because they lose their leaves in the winter.

Oak woodland, sometimes called oak-bay or oak-laurel woodland or oak-bay laurel woodland, is made up of a community of trees dominated by oaks, with subordinate, usually smaller native trees―bay laurels, buckeyes and redbuds―that grow so close together that their crowns may form a canopy. Some of the subordinate tree species in an oak woodland may have existed in this area before oaks invaded the Americas.

Oak savanna is considered a specific type of oak woodland, but it is not a forest at all. It is a fire-dangerous community of tall grass and shrubs (chaparral brush) with lone oak trees scattered in shaded places or along creeks, monopolizing whatever water their roots can reach.

In 2006 the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, in its “General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space,” stated that “Oak woodlands, the combination of oak trees and other hardwood species with continuous grass groundcover, are found on more than 10 million acres in California. Wildfire in this setting is very common, with fire behavior dominated by rapid spread through burning grass.”

A lowly relative of coast live oak, scrub oak is a Quercus chaparral shrub that forms dense, impenetrable thickets with other chaparral species (such as baccharis, aka coyote bush) on sunny slopes. Unlike other oaks, scrub oak has several stems at ground level. Scrub oaks are evergreen, but are more flammable than coast live oaks because their leaves and branches overhang close to or even touch the ground.

Scrub oaks typically contain layers of fire-dangerous dry dead wood surreptitiously hidden below branches with evergreen leaves. Research has shown that, in wildland fire, the sharply pointed leaves of scrub oak ignite at those sharp points and eject brands causing spotting ahead of the fire front. (See Steven Smith and others, with David Wiese, “Ignition Behavior of Live California Chaparral Leaves.”)

PROBLEMS FOR OAKS, HAZARDS FOR HUMANS

If and when UC and EBRPD are successful in taking down most non-native trees in the East Bay, there is no evidence that either oak woodland or oak savanna will replace them in the areas where the non-natives now grow. (See Neil G. Sugihara, Fire in California’s Ecosystems.) However, since the odds seem to favor a continued explosion of the oak population, it is important to know about some problems and diseases that afflict oaks. (See James Downer, “Diagnosing Your Oak Tree,” Landscape Notes; another source is here.)

If you have ornamental oaks in your garden, and you suspect that any of these problems and diseases afflict them, you should seek advice from a licensed arborist. Some of these diseases/ problems will also be found in oak-bay woodlands and oak savannas.

  1. Sudden Oak Death. The greatest problem for oaks these days and far into the future. [Note: We will publish more about this another time.]
  2. Summer watering. May cause problems where disease is already present. Oaks are adapted to rainy winters and dry summers. They should not be planted on lawns or in gardens that require regular watering or sprinklers. Too much watering may cause oak root rot or oak fungus. Signs of both problems: thinning foliage and defoliation. When oak fungus strikes, all the leaves may die on the tree. With root rot, dark cracks may appear on the trunk, with associated “bleeding” and cankers.
  3. Mistletoe. Often parasitic on oaks, especially on trees weakened by overwatering or other stresses. Signs: dying branches or stunted growth.
  4. Oak worms. These tiny caterpillar critters are always present in oak trees; in most years they cannot be seen. But cyclical occurrences of oak worms can be bad enough to cause some folks to forego a walk in the woods. Signs of this problem: Hundreds of wriggling worms dropping from trees on one’s head, in one’s hair, and down one’s neck. To prevent rampant oak worms from ruining a hike, carry an umbrella.
  5. Powdery mildew. Can kill an oak. Signs of that problem: white or yellow leaves.
  6. Wood decay. Starts at the base of the trunk. Signs of that problem: large mushrooms on infected roots and trunk.
  7. Raw acorns. Can be toxic for people and some animals. (It’s not a problem for the tree, of course.) Humans should not eat raw acorns. The Native Americans who depended on acorns as a staple food first leached out the tannic acid by soaking the acorns in water. Dogs have been poisoned by drinking water that has had acorns soaking in it.
  8. Contorted trunks. Early loggers found the contorted trunk of the coast live oak difficult to shape into useful timbers. Cutting down such large trees required special skill and equipment. Some speculate that difficulties in logging twisted oaks could have been responsible for the rapid disappearance of redwoods that had grown up straight and narrow in the East Bay. Redwoods were easier to log, so they were cut first. Not as resilient and tough as oaks, redwoods thrive only under cool, foggy conditions. Sadly, they never returned in sufficient number to be able to compete successfully against the oaken aliens.
  9. Oaks planted in the wrong place. Oaks do not make good windbreaks. They should not be planted close to homes because they may set them afire if the fire-dangerous crown of the tree looms above the roofline. If an oak is overwatered, the roots and wood in the trunk and branches may decay quite rapidly. Any tall tree, including oaks, may drop limbs or topple over without warning especially if the tree has been stressed by overwatering or by freezing temperatures. Oaks have been called “orphan-makers.
  10. Allergies to oaks. Oak trees release vast amounts of pollen in the spring. The pollen can be carried miles away to trigger allergies in people that are sensitive to it. The pollen affects the nose and sinuses, causing sneezing, runny eyes, a sore throat and even mental dullness.

MANAGING OAKS

Without active management, oak woodlands can become overgrown with dense, highly flammable undergrowth. Oaks tend to grow in close proximity to California bay laurels. This intimacy among tree species now considered “native” (but who knows when they immigrated) can be detrimental because bays carry Sudden Oak Death, and may be contagious without any signs of ill health. Poison oak (not a relative of Quercus) is often part of the vegetation that thrives under oaks. Hikers have reported seeing poison oak unashamedly hugging oak trunks.

Oak management can entail removing the undergrowth (which may be dry in the fire season), and removing lower branches up to 8 feet from the ground. This is especially important in situations where oaks are surrounded by tall dry grassland, brush or shrubs such as coastal scrub, broom, and coyote brush. Coyote brush is especially flammable; its growth close to oaks should not be encouraged.

Native Americans who lived in the East Bay before the arrival of the Europeans managed oak woodlands by burning them regularly. Oak leaves and fallen bark are easy to ignite. “Indians regularly burned oak groves to make acorn gathering easier, increase green fodder for game animals such as deer, and encourage the growth of new straight shoots of hazelnut, sourberry, redbud and buckbrush for basketry.” (Laura Cunningham,  A State of Change: Forgotten Landscapes of California.)

SOME PRACTICAL USES FOR OAKS

  • Oaks make great firewood; the wood splits easily; oak fires last a long, long time.
  • Oak wood makes good furniture, wine barrels, floors and buckets.
  • Oak wood is often used in house construction and shipbuilding.

REFERENCES

  • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, “General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space,”2006.
  • Carle, David, Introduction to Fire in California, UC Press, 2008.
  • Cunningham, Laura, A State of Change: Forgotten Landscapes of California, Heyday Books, 2010.
  • J. Douglas Doran and others, “Fire in the Wildland-Urban Interface: Selecting and Maintaining Fire-Wise Plants for Landscaping,” IFAS Extension.
  • Downer, James, “Diagnosing Your Oak Tree,” Landscape Notes, Vol. 19, No. 4. [PDF]
  • Keator, Glenn, Plants of the East Bay Parks, Mount Diablo Interpretive Association, 1994.
  • “Quercus Agrifolia,” US Forest Service Database,
  • Smith, Steven and others, with David R. Wiese, Forest Fire Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Riverside, CA, “Ignition Behavior of Live California Chaparral Leaves,” Google document, 2003.
  • Sugihara, Neil, ed. with others, Fire in California’s Ecosystems, UC Press, 2006.
  • Tudge, Colin, The Tree, Crown Publishers, 2006.
Posted in Environment | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Sutro Forest EIR Scoping Meeting – 10th Jan 2011

Posted on November 28, 2010 by webmaster

Here’s an extract from a message from UCSF:

“Next Steps:  EIR Scoping Meeting and Initial Study

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping meeting for the UCSF Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve Management Project will be held:

Monday, January 10, 2011,  7:00 pm
UCSF Millberry Union*
500 Parnassus Avenue

*UCSF Parnassus Campus is on MUNI lines 6, 43, 66, N-Judah.  $1.50 validated parking in UCSF public parking garage.

The EIR scoping meeting provides an opportunity for the community to discuss the scope and content of the environmental information they expect to see included in the Draft EIR. This allows UCSF to learn about potential concerns early, as well as further define the issues, feasible alternatives, and potential mitigation measures that  may warrant in-depth analysis in the environmental  review process. This meeting is not required by law.”

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

Sutro Forest Photo by Vickie McNamee

Posted on November 28, 2010 by webmaster

We were delighted to receive this lovely picture from hiker Vickie McNamee, together with a nice note:

We had the most beautiful hike today (Saturday, Nov 27).  Thank you!  Here’s a picture you are welcome to post.

Vickie

Thanks, Vickie!

Coincidentally, we were up there today as well — and it was indeed truly lovely.

Posted in eucalyptus, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Sutro Forest Photo by Vickie McNamee

Mt Sutro Stewards and the Kill-Trees Trail

Posted on November 20, 2010 by webmaster

The Mount Sutro Stewards are building a trail from Stanyan into the Forest, in the city-owned Interior Green Belt. Work has started; in fact, they’d planned on getting volunteers in there earlier this month. We thought we’d take a look.

We were astounded by the number of felled trees.

When speaking of the trails they built on the UCSF-owned portion of the forest, Mount Sutro Stewards’ Craig Dawson recently said they’d only cut down only one tree that only one tree had been cut down.

That’s clearly not the case here in this city-owned section.

[For clarification: UCSF owns 61 acres of the Sutro Forest, which it calls the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve; the City owns 19 acres, which it calls the Interior Green Belt. ETA: As owners, they are responsible for tree-felling on their property.]

This had the look and feel of a logging trail. We lost count of the number of trees that had been cut down. [ETA: A neighbor reported counting over 40 stumps. ETA2 Jan 2012: Over 50 trees were felled.]

We attended a neighborhood meeting on this some months ago. At the time, the neighbors opposed to it were concerned about hazardous trees abutting their property; the forest here comes right up to the fence line. So when the tree-felling was mentioned  at a recent UCSF meeting (in passing, because this trail is not UCSF land) we assumed that this was what was being referenced.

The Rec & Park budget presented had some $15,000 for assessment and removal of hazardous trees. We assumed that this would be for  removing them to remove trees close to neighboring properties.

We were wrong.

The trees have been felled all along the trail, in many places opening up the canopy completely. Some parts barely resemble a forest. And the trail is lined with huge stumps and logs of felled trees.

.

The Mount Sutro Stewards are calling this the “Stanyan Historic Trail.” We think a better name would be “The Kill-Trees Trail.”

It’s shown appropriately as a line of black dots in the map below.

[ETA: This map was distributed as Exhibit B of a 23 Feb 2010 Recs & Parks memo for an agenda item for a 4th March 2010 Commission hearing on allocating funds for the trail. We believe that it’s non-copyright. Anyone may obtain a copy of this memo by asking for it under the Sunshine Act.]

[ETA 2: Ben Pease claims copyright of the map for Pease Press, so we’re taking it down. Here’s the link to the whole trail map (as a PDF) on their website. The trail in question is in the area in the center marked “Interior Greenbelt” and the trail itself indicated as under construction.]

Posted in Mount Sutro Stewards, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, Neighborhood impact | Tagged , , , , , | 22 Comments

Native Plants and Pesticides: Glyphosate at Lake Merced

Posted on November 14, 2010 by webmaster

It was inevitable: a walk into a Native Plant area (aka Natural Areas Program areas) yielded yet another new pesticide notice. Last time, Imazapyr at Stern Grove. This time, Aquamaster at Lake Merced, targeting ludwigia (water-primrose).

Aquamaster is a pesticide based on glyphosate, and has been advertised as one of the safest toxins out there. New research suggests this safety may have been overstated; we posted recently about glyphosate and birth defects. Since these defects also appear in the chicken embryos that were used in the experiments, we’re not confident that herbicides will boost the breeding success of Lake Merced’s water-birds. [Edited to add: And the red-legged frog — see the comment below from MillionTrees.] (Then again, it is next to a golf course, where more herbicides are used.)

There’s a spiffy new format for pesticide reports, shown above. And it’s true Integrated Pest Management is an improvement – if it’s actually implemented.

When someone sent us a copy of the pesticide use reports for San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program, we learned:

  • They were incomplete (some areas where we’d seen notices weren’t reported);
  • Some of the pesticides which were reported had been used in unpermitted ways (e.g. sprayed instead of applied directly);
  • Pesticides had been used without prior approval (e.g. Imazapyr at Stern Grove).

With the record-keeping being a bit iffy, we will take it on faith that pesticide use has been drastically reduced, but the actual numbers may be speculative.

Posted in Herbicides, Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon, nativism | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Report on the UCSF Parnassus Meeting (Nov 2010)

Posted on November 9, 2010 by webmaster

We were not aware of the existence of the “Parnassus CAG Action Team” – a sub-committee of the UCSF Community Advisory Group (CAG) – until now. This meeting was run by Craig Dawson (Mt Sutro Stewards) and Kevin Hart, a CAG member living on 5th Avenue.

[ETA3: The legal letter informs us that UCSF sponsored this meeting:

So, we would like to clarify: though the agenda for the Parnassus CAG Action Team Community Meeting said that Craig Dawson and Kevin Hart were co-facilitators, it was only sponsored by UCSF.]

The Agenda items that were directly of interest to Forest Knolls/ Sutro Forest:

[ETA4: We had a map here showing the planned trail, modified from what we believe is a non-copyright map circulated by Rec & Parks as part of a public memo.

As demanded by the letter from lawyers for Sutro Stewards and SF Parks Trust, I have taken down the map. I hope to replace it later with another providing the same information. Edited to Add, Feb 2013: Here, below.]

hand-drawn map not to scale

1. Clarendon Connector Trail. There is still a plan to punch a trail to Clarendon through the screen of trees that lies between Christopher and the Aldea campus. (The blue line above Christopher Drive in the map below.) [Edited to add, Feb 2013: The brown line just above Christopher in the map above.] We protested that the screen had already been thinned by the actions of SFWD: The Gash had been cut through to the water tank; and all the trees removed behind the new Pump Station. Putting a trail through it would be meaningless and counterproductive.

The justifications used were confusing.

  • The first was to route trails away from the UCSF campus. But the alternative is for hikers to just walk along Christopher Drive for a few yards, it doesn’t go into the campus. Second, two trails already originate on the campus: The Fairy Gates trail starts right outside the Chancellor’s House; and the East Ridge trail opposite the new Community Center. There’s no plan to close off those.
  • The second justification is that it brings hikers closer to the highest point of Clarendon Avenue, where it’s safest to cross the street to the trails on the other side (marked “Safe” in red on the map [ETA Correction: The “safe” point is not the crest of the hill; it’s where the road narrows and there’s good visibility.]). But it doesn’t do that either. It only brings hikers to the same place they’d get to from Christopher. And if the comparison is with Johnstone (marked “Clarendon Access” in the map above) — that’s actually closer to the Safe point.

Craig Dawson claimed they would plant the sides of the trail to conceal it from the houses along the road. We are unsure about this; the “screen plantings” meant to screen the Aldea campus from Clarendon have not been very successful, and the chain link fence remains visible there. Craig also said the perception of  thinning — apart from the area around the pump station, and the pipeline Gash — was because ivy had been removed from all the eucalyptus trees.  (He noted that his mother lives on Christopher Drive.)

2. The Community Center (to be called The Aldea Center) apparently is going to be used by Aldea tenants, the University Community, and to a lesser extent by Neighborhood groups in addition to the Mount Sutro Stewards. A few parking spaces will be associated with it; but the main access is expected to be by Shuttle bus or hiking in. It is expected to be ready by this summer.

3. The Native Plant Nursery (now called the Aldea Seed Propagation area) is planned to go ahead; the idea is to grow plants for the Native Plant Garden at the summit, and maybe for other locations.  This is the pad surrounded by chainlink on the Aldea campus. Apparently the legal department has given the opinion that since no permanent structure is planned, it can be made part of the Open Space Reserve. We’re a bit puzzled by this. Are car parks also open space by this reckoning?

On the matter of “planted to blend in with the forest” as promised in an agreement with the community in January 2000 and reiterated in August 2009 — Maric Munn said there are no plans at present to do that, but the present use doesn’t prevent it in the future. They also repeated the point about slope stability if the retaining wall was removed. (We had asked for the report on this; I repeated that request.) [Edited to Add, Feb 2013: We never received this report.]

4. Bulletin Boards. Two bulletin boards, with maps and rules, are to be posted somewhere in the forest (not on the campus as originally discussed at the Agenda Planning meeting). One may be at the summit; another possibly on the historic trail.

5. Bike cage. A new bike cage is to be built outside Milberry Union, to provide bike commuters with safe storage. Three trees in the area will be preserved. UCSF has a $50K grant for this from SFMTA, and will match it with $50K of its own; vines will be grown over the front to improve its appearance.

6. The 68,500 square foot Regenerative Medicine Building (Stem Cell Research building) at the bottom of Medical Center Way is nearly ready; move-in could be in a week. It has a green roof, currently grass, but may be landscaped with other plants later. This building will have 250 people working there.

It got a Mitigated Negative Declaration on its environmental impact report on the basis that an old building, University Hall, would be demolished – but that hasn’t happened. So the mitigation didn’t occur.  UCSF has a 3.65 million square foot space ceiling for Parnassus; it was already 4% over this, with a plan to reduce that excess to 2%. Instead, 6% over. This will have to be resolved in the new Long Range Development Plan, which will run to 2030.

Someone asked if it wouldn’t have been cheaper to build it at Mission Bay. Apparently, owing to all the other facilities concentrated at Parnassus (which would then need duplicating at Mission Bay), the cost is approximately the same.

———

Though many present were associated with the Mount Sutro Stewards, some neighbors from the other sides (Inner Sunset, Woodside Road) were also present. Concerns:

Traffic and congestion on Parnassus. Despite meetings and discussions and decisions, nothing had been implemented. Someone pointed out that unresolved issues remained from all the previous discussions and should not just be rolled over into the new Long Range Development Plan (to run to 2030).

Tree felling on Stanyan in connection with the Historic Trail opening. A number of trees have been cut down. Craig Dawson pointed out this was Rec and Park responsibility, and thought it might be in response to neighbors’ concerns about hazardous trees, expressed at meetings about the Historic Trail. [Edited to Add: We went to take a look. That report is here.] [Edited to Add 2: He also mentioned that in the course of trail building in the UCSF portion of the forest only one tree, which overhung the trail, had been removed.]

UCSF, plans, and the Long Range Development Plan. This is about to start now; the next meeting of the Community Advisory Group is on November 29th at 6.30 p.m. at Milberry Union.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN UCSF CHANGES ITS MIND?

One thing confused us: What happens when UCSF changes its mind or just doesn’t do what was agreed?

There were at least two clear instances, possibly three. The largest was in the matter of the Regenerative Medicine Building, and the space ceiling (with the number of people and the extra traffic implied). Then there was the Plant nursery, set up where the agreement was planting to “blend in with the forest.” Traffic management on Parnassus may have been a third.

It seems at present the answer is, Nothing happens. It just goes ahead.

Posted in Meetings, Mount Sutro Stewards, UCSF | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

Parnassus Meeting Nov 8th 2010

Posted on November 7, 2010 by webmaster

We received this message from one of the neighbor organizations under the heading:

————————————————————————————————————————–

Announcing: mt. sutro stewards / UCSF update meeting

MEETING: UCSF PCAT Meeting
MONDAY, November 8, 7:00 pm
UCSF Parnassus Library, 530 Parnassus Avenue
Lange Room, 5th floor

UCSF is convening a meeting of the Parnassus CAG Action Team (A subcommittee of the UCSF Community Advisory Group) to discuss several proposed projects on the Parnassus campus. We invite you to join us for these presentations and welcome your input. Items to be discussed on the agenda include:

  • Parnassus Bicycle Cage Project
  • Aldea Seed Propagation Area
  • Mount Sutro Bulletin Boards and Trail Update
  • Regenerative Medicine Building Update

————————————————————————————————————————–

[ETA2: We received a legal letter on behalf of the San Francisco Parks Trust and the Sutro Stewards saying “contrary to your published information, UCSF PCAT meetings are sponsored only by UCSF, not  Sutro Stewards…” and telling us to correct the information. So we’re clarifying that we did not originate the notice above, and we accept that PCAT meetings are sponsored only by UCSF. The meeting was facilitated by Craig Dawson, who is Executive Director of the Sutro Stewards, and Kevin Hart, an Inner Sunset Resident.]

Integrated into the Forest Yet?

The Aldea seed propagation area is presumably the concrete pad surrounded by chainlink fencing we had written about here.

The Bulletin Boards would be the ones discussed here, and the new trails here .

The Regenerative Medicine Building (the “Stem Cell Research Building”) is a new structure snaking along the bottom of the newly reopened Medical Center Way.

I presume they will also discuss the new “Community Center” that is nearing completion on Johnstone in the Aldea Student Housing area.

According to the Sutro Stewards website, this “community center” (to be completed in Spring)  “will be the home to our stewardship program, a youth Natural History Program, a gathering place for guided tours and events.”

If the Stewards have the arm’s-length relationship they have claimed in prior meetings, we’re not entirely sure why UCSF is building them a clubhouse, especially at a time when it is working to raise funds for its Children’s Hospital in Mission Bay. What other uses are planned for this “Community Center” ? We hope this will be clarified at the meeting.

[ETA: It was actually clarified, and it appears that this will genuinely be a community center. The Stewards will use it approximately 45 times per year. Our report on the meeting is here.]

Posted in Meetings, Mount Sutro Stewards, UCSF | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Eucalyptus in San Francisco’s Urban Forest

Posted on November 5, 2010 by webmaster

One of the arborists who looked at Sutro Forest sent us this article, reprinted with the permission of its author. Written about San Francisco’s Glen Canyon, it was first published in 2009. Alma Hecht was formerly a volunteer with Friends of Glen Canyon.

——————

In the Canyon By Alma Hecht

October’s rain awakened promise for the canyon’s native plants slumbering through droughty summer. Soon coyote brushes’ creamy sprays and flowering currants’ pink pendants cheer winter mornings. Along the paths and up the hills, blue-gum eucalyptus, Monterey pines and cypresses, buckeyes, coast live oaks, willows, holly-leaf and Catalina cherries hold evening dew, drip from downpours, steam and shimmer when the sun pops out.

Dotting the canyon and punctuating the hillsides, the canyon’s overstory (tallest) trees play an essential role. Originally, San Francisco’s trees grew only in sheltered canyons and along waterways. Probably along Islais Creek in the canyon, the Ramaytush tribe of the Ohlone Indians who lived here transformed the willows’ branches into baskets, harvested the coast live oaks’ acorns, and used the hundreds of understory (lower) plants for food, medicine, cosmetics, and shelter. When the Europeans came, the land was cleared for cattle grazing and later, in the 1850s, Adolf Sutro had blue-gum eucalyptus planted.

Today, blue-gum eucalyptus trees still grow in the canyon where every spring our “celebrity” owl nests and fledges. Throughout the year raptors swoop onto their branches between riding thermals or searching for prey. In places the thick carpet from eucalyptus leaf duff allows only the heartiest exotic invasives, such as Himalayan blackberry and cape ivy, to grow, while in other sites outside our canyon natives, such as toyons and elderberries, flourish.

Blue-gums are controversial trees. San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program has a citywide plan calling for both the removal of healthy — and no replanting of dying — blue-gum eucalyptus. Historically, urban forest modifications have been introduced by controlled measures with new trees planted to replace those removed. However, as it stands today, there is no San Francisco plan for a different species of tall trees to replace the blue-gums. Eucalyptus together with Monterey cypress and pines comprise the backbone trees of the greater San Francisco urban forest. A widely used definition of urban forest developed by Robert W. Miller (1997) is “an integrated, city-wide approach to the planting, care and management of trees in the city to secure multiple environmental and social benefits for urban dwellers.”

Urban forestry was initially developed in North America and now is established worldwide. As open spaces are being developed, urban forests are becoming the major arboricultural component of our landscape. Sadly, in a city that prides itself on beauty, the lack of concern in San Francisco for our urban forest is startling. Despite the efforts of city Urban Forester Carla Short, the Urban Forestry Council, and such other San Francisco nonprofits as Friends of the Urban Forest, complicated politics come into play and contribute to the demise of our necessary and healthy urban forest and ecosystem.

The urban forest is a major capital asset that offers invaluable benefits. Its trees provide us with air to breathe, absorb storm-water runoff, create windbreaks, provide nesting and landing for large birds, offer colors, flowers, forms and textures, screen out harsh scenery, focus the eye, and define spaces. Trees impact our moods and emotions. A healthy urban forest is an integral element of our mental and physical health and contributes to a sense of community pride and ownership that balances the concrete and steel of urban life with the leafy and soft sensibility of nature.

——————

Alma Hecht is a Certified Arborist and landscape designer. “I design sustainable landscapes that although mostly native are not xenophobic.” She can be contacted at Second Nature Design.

Posted in Environment, eucalyptus | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

SF Natural Areas Program, Roundup and Birth Defects

Posted on October 25, 2010 by webmaster

Someone sent us a paper published May 2010 in the journal, Chemical Research in Toxicology. It linked glyphosate to birth defects in vertebrates. We’d like people who have assumed that Roundup’s problems come mainly from its surfactant POEA to take a look. (This is not to say POEA is harmless. That has been implicated in embryonic cell death also, in a 2008 French study published in the same journal.)

In Argentina, glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup) is widely used on soybean. In soybean-growing areas, there were reports of increased birth defects of a particular type: malformed heads, eyes, and brains. A groups of researchers therefore decided to investigate whether glyphosate could indeed cause that type of birth defect.

From the paper "Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling" by Alejandra Paganelli, Victoria Gnazzo, Helena Acosta, Silvia L. Lopez, and Andres E. Carrasco

The abstract of the article indicates that Roundup increased retinoic acid activity in vertebrate embryos, causing “neural defects and craniofacial malformations.”

Women of child-bearing age should be especially careful. The most vulnerable period, according to the paper, is in the first 2-8 weeks of pregnancy. Many people don’t even know they’re pregnant that early on. Furthermore, even the mature placenta is permeable to glyphosate. After 2.5 hours of perfusion, 15% of it crosses over.

Heartbreaking

The actual article, which we read elsewhere describes some of the birth defects: microcephaly (tiny head); microphthalmia (tiny undeveloped eyes); impairment of hindbrain development; cyclopia (also called cyclocephaly – a single eye in the middle of the forehead); and neural tube defects. These are quite devastating. Many fetuses do not come to term, and many babies with these conditions die within hours or days.

It’s particularly important now that this herbicide is being used on Twin Peaks in the “natural areas” (which are above a lot of residential areas) and also in the city-owned part of Sutro Forest, the Interior Green Belt.  Mount Sutro Stewards are working there now to build the “Stanyan Historic Trail.”

Roundup is also one of the herbicides the Mount Sutro Stewards and UCSF plan to use in the forest, in the high ground above residential areas, to prevent regrowth of felled eucalyptus trees, also blackberry and vines.

For the record, UCSF is not currently using Roundup on Mount Sutro, neither in the forest (since 2008), nor  in the Aldea student housing (since September 2009). We’re particularly glad of this decision since Aldea houses young people, including possibly pregnant women.

[ETA3: We would like to clarify that this not to imply that the Sutro Stewards rather than UCSF are using Roundup on Mount Sutro. They are not. No herbicides are currently being used in the Open Space Reserve. However, at public meetings, members of the Stewards have advocated for herbicide use in connection with UCSF’s Plan for Mount Sutro. We would expect that if herbicides are indeed used, they will be applied by staff or contractors.]

# # #

Edited to add: In response to this post, someone sent us a copy of an interview with one of the authors, Andres E. Carrasco, in which he describes efforts to intimidate and physically threaten him when he first publicized this research.

“It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction”, he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached. One has to remember, too, that the study originated in contacts with communities that have suffered the impact of agro-chemicals. They are the undeniable proof of the impact.”

ETA 2: There’s an article at a site called Truthout that details the Roundup story in Argentina … and also notes that studies show “that Roundup and glyphosate is more toxic than the regulators will admit.” It says that scientists across the globe have been intimidated, lost their jobs, or faced smear campaigns when they published results indicating toxicity:  “Carrasco is not the first scientist to face intimidation after challenging the biotech industry, although he is the first to be threatened with violence.“

Posted in Herbicides, Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon, Mount Sutro Stewards, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, UCSF | Tagged , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Twin Peaks: Fall Weather, Roundup and Garlon

Posted on October 19, 2010 by webmaster

Twin Peaks in the Fall. The blaze of wildflowers in the spring is a distant memory. The fog blows in, but unlike the verdant Sutro Forest, where the trees harvest its water and the understory and duff hold in the moisture, this place doesn’t capture enough even for the grasses to stay green. It’s dry and brown. Gopher holes dot the bare earth.

Another distant memory: The spring pesticides for the Native Areas… Garlon and Roundup.

Except, what’s that white sheet pinned next to the sign telling us we’re in a Significant Natural Area? Uh, we were wrong about that last part. It’s Garlon Time again, this time with added Roundup. (Or the other way around.)

Here’s the sign next to which it’s pinned. It would be an irony, except we find Native “natural” areas and pesticide use seem to be connected. We saw the same thing in Spring, and with Imazapyr at Stern Grove. [Edited to Add: And glyphosate at Lake Merced.]

Roundup Max Pro (glyphosate) and Garlon Pro Ultra (triclopyr), will be sprayed on unspecified “invasive weeds”  (probably from a backpack sprayer).  We have serious concerns about both these herbicides, especially at high points where they can enter our watershed. (We also hope none of those applying the chemicals are women of reproductive age. Among its other problems, Garlon’s not good for fetuses. Edited to Add: Neither is Roundup.)

(Thank you for preserving this “natural” place.)

[Edited to Add: The signs have changed to show that Aquamaster is being used instead of Roundup Max Pro. It’s also a glyphosate herbicide, but is supposed to be inactivated by water, and so safer as a watershed pesticide. This is good. But Garlon is still in the mix.]


Posted in Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon, nativism | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Found a Cat in Sutro Forest

Posted on October 14, 2010 by webmaster

We’ve been sent a report on a new cat that has shown up in the forest in the Belgrave/  Stanyan area. It’s probably someone’s pet. We don’t have photos, hence the public domain drawing; but here is the description:

“It’s clearly some sort of purebred Siamese, maybe a lynx point? Big tawny body, very Siamese face and large ears. I was wondering if you’ve heard about any lost cats? This cat must have belonged to somebody. If you hear of anything, please let me know. I’ve just spotted it once, but the construction workers have spotted it a few times. The cat seemed quite fearful, sort of slinking along atop a fence, then down into the woods.”

(There’s construction work going on at Belgrave; a home-owner on the forest edge is doing a major re-model.)

If it’s your cat, contact us at fk94131 at yahoo.com and we’ll try to put you in touch with the people who’ve seen it.

Posted in Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, Neighborhood impact | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Found a Cat in Sutro Forest

Sutro Forest Visit: Hawk and Butterflies

Posted on October 14, 2010 by webmaster

It was a beautiful day up in the forest, bright and breezy.  We took the trail from Christopher to the South Ridge trail, then up the South Ridge Trail to the Native Garden.

Mowed down wide

The connector trail had been aggressively groomed, with the blackberry cut back in a wide swathe. It looks like preparation for the new trail they are planning to build. At least the vegetation along the actual South Ridge trail — which had been mowed down a few months ago — is growing back. Only a few wild trails exist now, and the habitat is being shorn of dense cover. [ETA: Read here for Six Reasons Not to Destroy Sutro Forest’s Understory.]

Wild Trail

The Native Garden is almost completely dry, except for some bushes and the patches fog-watered by the few remaining eucalyptus trees.

 

Red shouldered hawk in Sutro Forest

A hawk flew across and landed in a tree on the edge of the garden, then perched low enough to allow us to take some (blurry) pictures.

Red Admiral on a bush

West Coast Painted Lady

Butterflies chased each other, including trio of West Coast Painted Lady Butterflies and a couple of Red Admiral butterflies. Deeper in the forest, Red Admirals alighted on the path and the bushes allowing for better photographs.
All the paths are dry now, especially where they’ve been opened up and the bushes on either side mowed down. But there are still damp areas – on the West Ridge trail, and the Mystery Trail, anywhere where the understory is dense and the canopy hasn’t been opened.
.
STOP PRESS:
That evening, the weather forecast was for fine weather overnight, and a Red Flag Fire Warning. Not in the Fog Belt, though. By sunset, the fog had started to drift in, and by midnight, covered Sutro Forest and Twin Peaks.

 

Posted in eucalyptus, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Sutro Forest Visit: Hawk and Butterflies

Sutro Forest: Blue Angels and Forest Sounds

Posted on October 11, 2010 by webmaster

This time last year, they’d appeared through the trees, as huge and unexpected as jet-powered flying dinosaurs. The Blue Angels were tough to photograph as they blasted by, but this was another year and another opportunity.

Blue Angel

A bike-rider passing by stopped to talk. “Too much already,” he said of the roar the jets made. “It’s giving me a migraine.”

These were the sounds of the forest: breeze-rustled leaves and the screaming of a hawk and the caw of ravens and what sounded like a woodpecker tapping. A few songbirds calling. A persistent emergency-vehicle siren.

And the thunder of the Blue Angels jets, which underlined how quiet it usually was in the sound-absorbing forest, where sirens are the only outside noise that gets through the trees.

Blue Angel,upside down

Yesterday, Tank Hill offered a different perspective of jets over the forest.

Sutro Forest, with low-flying Blue Angels and high-flying Hawk

From Tank Hill, Sutro Forest with Blue Angels

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

Something Like Avatar: Mt Sutro’s Networked Forest

Posted on October 8, 2010 by webmaster

What does the mysterious cloud forest on Mount Sutro have in common with the strange and wondrous forests of the movie Avatar?

In that film, Pandora’s world encompasses huge old trees, vegetation that glows in the dark, and interconnected plants. Sutro Forest doesn’t have bioluminescent vegetation. It does have hundred-year-old trees, though, up to 200 feet tall. And it has — interconnections.

Interconnections? That’s science fiction, right?

Not quite. Many kinds of trees, when planted close to others of the same species, will intergraft their roots. The roots of individual trees join up to form an underground network.  Redwoods do it, so do lodgepole pines. So does eucalyptus. This helps all the trees in the group to survive. It’s one reason why even in a mixed forest, you tend to find trees in clusters by species, rather than evenly spread through the area.

In 120 years, in a densely-planted 80%-eucalyptus forest like this one, the root system is likely to be a massively intergrafted net. What this means for the forest is that, rather than being 50-60 thousand individual trees, it’s an entity that functions as an interconnected forest.

1. Trees support each other. Aside from merely providing a windbreak, the interwoven, interconnected mat of roots help provide stability to the trees. In the high wind conditions of Mount Sutro, wind throw is a major factor in tree death. Yet the number of downed trees is actually quite small considering the thousands of trees on the mountain.

[It has been suggested that another beneficial effect of intergrafting of the root systems of a pair or cluster of trees is the resulting stabilization of individual trees against wind throw (Loehle and Jones 1990). Basnet et al (1993) found that intergrafted trees of tabonuco (Dacryodes excelsa) underwent significantly less hurricane damage than isolated trees. — Horticultural Review 35, Article by K. Mudge, J Janick, S Scofield and E.E. Goldschmidt.]

2.  The intergrafted root network helps stabilize slopes. Even more than just the spreading roots of a few trees, such a network functions like a living geo-textile worked into the fabric of the mountain.

3. Trees share food. Research shows that carbohydrates – which are food for the trees – are transferred between trees. This may explain the density of the forest; the trees are co-operating, not competing.

[…large root grafts transferred proportionately more carbohydrates to the shaded trees than small root grafts. Carbohydrates transferred through root grafts could allow grafted trees to persist under conditions where non-grafted trees would be removed by competition. —  Carbohydrate transfer through root grafts to support shaded trees: Fraser, Lieffers and Landhausser.]

4.  Trees may share chemical signals. Research has shown that trees emit chemical signals in response to insect attacks or other changes in growing conditions.

Concludes one Australian arborist writing about root-grafting in eucalyptus, “Selective tree removal is not necessarily removing a competitor but a partner.”

But while the root grafting benefits the trees by sharing resources and providing support, it’s also a risk. Some types of infection can travel through intergrafted root systems. And when trees in the system are cut, and herbicides applied to prevent resprouting, the herbicides can travel back through the network and weaken other trees. Both Roundup (glyphosate) and Garlon (triclopyr) — the herbicides they plan to use in the forest — act this way.

[Root grafting occurs primarily within the same species, but may occur between plants within the same genus. This phenomenon can be of great importance. A herbicide can move (translocate) from a treated tree to an untreated desirable tree, killing or injuring it. Damage to desirable trees as a result of root grafting will occur from use of the following herbicides: amitrole, 2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate, imazapyr, metsulfuron, picloram, and triclopyr. — Chemical Control for Woody Plants, Stumps and Trees By Stott W. Howard and Robert Parker (Washington State University)]

BREAKING THE CONNECTIONS

So what happens when you thin the trees from around 740 trees per acre to about 40 trees per acre, and add pesticides to prevent resprouting?

Parts of the root network start to die. It takes some years. But both because the remaining trees will not be enough to sustain the entire root network, and because of the toxins added to it, the network will thin out and decay. It will be not hold the soil as well; it will not support the remaining trees as well. Already more vulnerable to wind throw once the trees surrounding them are gone and wind velocities rise, they will lose the support of the intertwined root network as well.

The kind of cuts planned for Mount Sutro threaten to destabilize both the forest and the mountain.

[Edited to Add (Sept 2013): In addition to the intergrafted roots, there is also the mycorhizzal connection, where fungi connect trees to each other. Great article and video here from University of British Columbia: http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/07/07/at-the-root-of-the-problem/%5D

Posted in Environment, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest | Tagged , , , , | 11 Comments

Excerpts from the Arborists’ Report

Posted on October 6, 2010 by webmaster

As we said in an earlier post, we asked two arborists to look at the Mount Sutro Forest and give us a report. Jocelyn Cohen, a Certified Arborist, holds a seat on the Urban Forest Council for the City of San Francisco. Alma Hecht is an arborist with  a Masters of Arts in Landscape Design. [ETA: She is also a Certified Arborist, having recertified recently.]

Their observations certainly suggested no cause for alarm about the forest’s current health and stability (though they were unimpressed by some of the management efforts).

“OBSERVATIONS

  1. Trees were well rooted along hillsides and flat areas.
  2. Visual evidence of a naturalized forest is obvious in trees’ calibers that offer insight into age and health. Tree girths range from wide in oldest trees to narrow where the trees are younger, more closely spaced and/or receiving less sunlight.
  3. Poor management of the trees as evidenced by hanging branches and fallen/cut limb piles. Some lower branches were pruned; many cuts were improper leaving stubs or flush cuts into the parent stem.
  4. Snags (i.e. standing dead trees) were left in place—perhaps by happenstance — providing habitat for wildlife.
  5. Swaths of acacias establishing in areas of recent woodland removal for path expansions or other purposes.
  6. When thick carpet of forest duff pushed aside, the soil is very moist to several inches down. Yet, in places where paths have been expanded, the ecotope is becoming drier and dustier.
  7. Thriving mosses and lichens on rocks and tree-trunks.
  8. Epiphytes colonized in branch crotches.
  9. In many areas, climbing vines have been cut, generally at five-ten feet, left dry and dangling from branches in thick nets.”

They also noted that the forest in Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve “has the characteristics of a fog or cloud forest.”

“As is typical in [such] forests, trees are crowded. Branching is high. Understory is deep. Leaves drip.  Some trees are mature and mighty with crowns beyond view. Others are rangy, young and low enough to meet eye-levels.

“‘In forest stands or in other mixed plantings, all trees do not grow at the same rate. Over time certain individuals dominate over others.’ Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Trees Shrubs and Vines, Richard Harris, Greg Steinke, James Clark and Nelda Matheny, Prentice Hall 2003.”

They also observed the drying out of the forest in areas where it’s been opened up.

“In some areas with indiscriminate thinning and removal of trees, the ground is dry (compared with wet conditions through most of the forest and even on the same trail). Those areas also seem to have higher wind velocities. Dry conditions are particularly noticeable at the Rotary Meadow where an existing clearing was replanted into a landscape of native plants.  Significant differences in moisture conditions are visible.”

We told them that someone had called the forest on the South/ West Ridge a “dog-hair forest.” They didn’t agree.

“Reference to certain areas of the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve with the slang forestry term “dog-hair forest” are inaccurate. It does not have more than 5,000 – 7,800 trees per acre—it average around 740 trees per acre—nor is it the result of clear-cuts or burning slash and burn practices. (“Dog-hair forests” occur naturally in regenerating lodge-pole pine forests, typically after a burn or clear-cut.)”

They noted that the forest appeared healthy, and saw signs of regeneration in forest trees including eucalyptus.

UCSF and the Mount Sutro Stewards have suggested that the forest is dying and infested with beetles. Since it’s a living eco-system, a normal amount of insect life can be expected. But there’s no evidence of a unhealthy levels of infestation, or of a moribund woodland.

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