We’ve been wondering why this area around a rock formation in Glen Canyon Park is so brown, when all around it, there’s greenery. Could it be pesticides?
Rock formation in Glen Canyon Park
We know that San Francisco’s so-called “Natural Areas Program” (NAP) — not very “natural,” because of their constant management – regularly uses pesticides to control plants they don’t want. But NAP is supposed to post a warning for several days ahead of time when toxic herbicides or pesticides are to be used. None was posted here.
The dead brown plants around the rocks are wild radish. The wild radish only a few feet away is very green and full of purple and white flowers.
A hill only a few feet away is covered with wild radish which remains green and lush
In February this area was covered with colorful yellow wild mustard. That was soon removed by volunteers, leaving the area not yellow, but green. At least it was green. Wild radish grew there abundantly as it has elsewhere in the park. Unlike the mustard, this radish growth was not pulled out by hand, but was left in place.
February wild mustard
However, now it is dead and brown. Did someone think we were not going to notice?
Did poison only hit parts of this plant, where the holes, black spots and yellow are?
[Note: This post was updated on 30 May 2012 to show pictures more clearly and add the close-up of the dead plant.]
The Natural Areas Program (NAP) uses four herbicides classified as “Most Hazardous” (Tier I) or “More Hazardous” (Tier II) by San Francisco’s Department of the Environment (DoE):
Garlon 4 Ultra (triclopyr)
Roundup or Aquamaster (glyphosate)
Polaris or Habitat (imazapyr)
Milestone (aminopyralid)
All these chemicals have serious problems: they’re associated with birth-defects and pregnancy failures; they’re endocrine disruptors; they poison animals, especially amphibians but also reduce bird-nesting success; and/or they’re persistent – they stick around.
We often get questions about this, especially from people who have heard about NAP from its supporters.
Source: SaveSutro.com (derived from from SF City records)
Q: They hardly ever use pesticides, right? Just once every few years?
A: NAP applied pesticides 86 times in 2011, up from 71 the year before. (We’re relying on City records here. There may be gaps.)
Q: But maybe they used less in each application?
A: The amounts used went up in proportion.
Q: Don’t they use very small amounts? Doesn’t the dose makes the poison?
A: In 2010, NAP used more Tier I herbicides than any comparable park department. (We don’t have compiled data for 2011 for other parks departments.) Anyway, “the dose makes the poison” isn’t always true. Here’s what the American Chemical Society said in its Public Policy Statement, Testing for Endocrine Disruption:
Endocrine disruption is the alteration of the endocrine system that causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations. Endocrine hormones naturally act at ultra-low concentrations and certain chemicals are suspected of altering endocrine function at similarly low concentrations, which sometime occur in the environment. A large and growing body of environmental health literature shows that endocrine disrupting substances have complicated dose-response curves that do not fit the central tenet of regulatory toxicology, namely, that the ‘dose makes the poison.’
Q: But aren’t they herbicides… don’t they act only on plants?
A: They act differently on plants and on animals, but they still can – and do – impact animals (and people). They may use different bio-chemical pathways in animals and in plants, and thus have different effects. None of these effects is good. The city of San Francisco subscribes to the “Precautionary Principle” – if you don’t know the effects, don’t use it. The natural areas are where children explore, people walk, and pets are exercised. This is not a risk they should take.
The other day, we walked on Mount Davidson. The view from the top was lovely, and in the middle of it was a pesticide sign.
It was difficult to read because the moisture had condensed under the plastic. But we pressed it down, and were able to discern that it warned they were using Garlon 4 Ultra (a Tier I pesticide, Most Hazardous) against oxalis. (That’s the little yellow flower also called Bermuda Buttercup, or referred to as clover. Kids like to nibble on it because it’s sour.)
Oxalis grows from little underground tubers, called bulbils. Garlon isn’t very effective against oxalis because it kills the plant on top, but not the bulbils, which then can resprout. Oxalis doesn’t set seed in San Francisco, so there’s no point killing the top of the plant before it flowers, either. It just deprives bees and butterflies of their nectar.
From the website, SaveSutro.com (which based it on a detailed study by the Marin Municipal Water Department)
These are the main issues with Garlon, in brief:
Garlon “causes severe birth defects in rats at relatively low levels of exposure.” Baby rats were born with brains outside their skulls, or no eyelids. Exposed adult females rats also had more failed pregnancies.
Rat and dog studies showed damage to the kidneys, the liver, and the blood.
About 1-2% of Garlon falling on human skin is absorbed within a day. For rodents, its absorbed twelve times as fast. It’s unclear what happens to predators such as hawks that eat the affected rodents.
Dogs may be particularly vulnerable; their kidneys may not be able to handle Garlon as well as rats or humans. Dow Chemical objected when the Environmental Protection agency noted decreased red-dye excretion as an adverse effect, so now it’s just listed as an “effect.”
It very probably alters soil biology. “Garlon 4 can inhibit growth in the mycorrhizal fungi…” ( soil funguses that help plant nutrition.)
It’s particularly dangerous to aquatic creatures: fish (particularly salmon); invertebrates; and aquatic plants.
Garlon can persist in dead vegetation for up to two years.
The DEIR has said that the SF NAP’s phasing out Garlon.
If they are, it’s not apparent on Mount Davidson. And we also saw another sign, this time warning about the use of Polaris (imazapyr) on cotoneaster.
The West Portal Monthly today published an article by Jacquie Proctor explaining the problem of the NAP specifically at Mt Davidson and generally throughout the city. The plan seeks to destroy at least 1600 trees on Mt Davidson alone. Read on:
One of the organizations that support the Natural Areas Program is called, ironically, “Nature in the City” (NIC). In a recent newsletter, they accused opponents of the NAP “a handful of people” who were “still propagating misinformation.” Before we could respond, we saw this excellent riposte in “Death of a Million Trees.” It’s reprinted below by permission, with minor changes.
Certainly, we’re finding a groundswell of opinion against NAP‘s so-called “ecological restoration”, which has actually meant a loss of trees and habitat, a growing use of the strongest pesticides San Francisco permits on city-owned land, and restrictions on public access and use — at a cost of millions of dollars and thousands of volunteer hours that could have better been used elsewhere. This is the “celebrated” program NIC refers to.
One candidate for supervisor, Joel Engardio, considers this an important enough issue that he’s running on it: See his video here:
If you’re interested in NIC’s allegations and the reality – read on!
Nature in the City (NIC) is one of many organizations that support native plant “restorations” in San Francisco as well as the principle entity which engages in them, the Natural Areas Program (NAP) of the Recreation and Park Department.
NIC is consistently critical of anyone who questions the value of these restorations, but in their most recent newsletter they confront our objections directly. Although we don’t presume to represent the many constituencies which are critical of the Natural Areas Program, we are responding in this post to NIC based on our knowledge of the issues. (The NIC newsletter is in quotes and is italicized. Our response is not italicized.)
“Natural Areas in 2012
Last fall saw the Planning Commission public meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan. Some time later this year, the City will issue a Final Environmental Impact Report, which may be appealed by opponents of the Natural Areas Program.
Unfortunately, a handful of people are still propagating misinformation about the rationale, values, and intention of ecological restoration, management and stewardship, and of the City’s celebrated Natural Areas Program.”
Webmaster: Critics of the Natural Areas Program cannot be described accurately as a “handful of people.” We now have four websites[i] representing our views and there have been tens of thousands of visits to our websites. Comments on our websites are overwhelmingly supportive of our views. Our most recently created website, San Francisco Forest Alliance, lists 12 founding members. That organization alone exceeds a “handful of people.”
Our objections to the Natural Areas Program have also been reported by three major newspapers in the past month or so (San Francisco Examiner, Wall Street Journal, Sacramento Bee).
Many critics of NAP have been engaged in the effort to reduce its destructive and restrictive impacts on our parks for over 10 years. Scores of public meetings and hearings have been held to consider our complaints. We consistently outnumbered public speakers in support of NAP until 2006, when the NAP management plan was finally approved by the Recreation and Park Commission. Although we were outnumbered for the first time, there were over 80 speakers who asked the Recreation and Park Commission to revise NAP’s management plan to reduce its negative impact on our parks.
The public comments on the NAP DEIR are the most recent indicator of the relative size of the groups on opposite sides of this issue. These comments were submitted in September and October 2011. We obtained them with a public records request. The Planning Department reported receiving about 400 comments. In analyzing these comments, we chose to disregard about half of them because they were submitted as form letters, even though they were from dog owners who were protesting the loss of their off-leash privileges in the natural areas. We also leave aside the comments from golfers whose only interest is in retaining the golf course at Sharp Park. In other words, we set aside the majority of the comments critical of the NAP management plan in order to focus on those comments that demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the impact of NAP on the city’s parks. Of the comments remaining, those critical of NAP and its deeply flawed DEIR outnumbered comments in support of the NAP DEIR about 3 to 1. We urge NAP supporters to read these public comments to learn about the wide range of criticisms of NAP, including pesticide use, destruction of trees, recreational access restrictions, loss of wildlife habitat and more.
We will challenge NIC’s accusation that we are “propagating misinformation” within the context of their specific allegations:
“Contrary to the many myths that continue to percolate, the Natural Areas Plan and Program seek to do the following (among other worthwhile endeavors):
1. Protect and conserve our City’s natural heritage for its native wildlife and indigenous plant habitats and for the overall health of our local ecosystem;”
Webmaster: Since the majority of acreage claimed as natural areas by NAP 15 years ago had no native plants in them, there is little truth to the claim that NAP is protecting our “natural heritage.” The so-called “natural area” at Balboa and the Great Highway is typical of the “natural areas.” There is photographic evidence that it was built upon for about 150 years. It was the site of Playland by the Beach before it was designated a “natural area.” Sand had to be trucked onto the property and disked down 18” into the construction rubble, then shaped into dunes by bulldozers before native plants could be planted on it.
Natural Area at Balboa & Great Highway under construction
We don’t make any distinction between “native wildlife” and any other wildlife currently living in our city. We value them all. Most are making use of existing vegetation, whether it is native or non-native. They do not benefit from the loss of the blackberries that are their primary food source or the loss of the thickets or trees that are their homes. We do not believe that wildlife in San Francisco benefits from the destructive projects of the Natural Areas Program. See photos of insects, birds, and other wildlife using non-native plants in the natural areas here.
Damselflies mating on ivy, Glen Canyon Park
We do not think an ecosystem that has been sprayed with herbicides qualifies as a “healthy ecosystem.” NAP sprayed herbicides at least 86 times in 2011. Their use of herbicides has increased over 330% in the last 4 years. NAP uses herbicides that are classified as more toxic than those most used by other city departments. Last spring, 1,000 visitors to Glen Canyon Park signed a petition, asking the Natural Areas Program to stop using pesticides in their park. This petition was given to Scott Wiener, the Supervisor representing the district in which Glen Canyon Park is located.
These are statements of fact that can be easily verified by the public record.
2. “Educate our culturally diverse city about the benefits of local nature and about helping with natural areas stewardship in your neighborhood;”
And we also have had bad experiences with the volunteers who are called “stewards” by NAP, but sometimes act more like vandals. We see them spraying herbicides that they aren’t authorized to use. We see them hacking away at trees that haven’t been designated for removal. NAP is not providing the necessary guidance and supervision to the volunteers many of whom seem to consider themselves the de facto owners of the parks.
3. “Manage the City’s wildlands for public access, safety and the health of the “urban forest.””
“We hear occasional complaints about public access and tree removal. Three simple facts are thus:
1. Every single natural area in the City has at least one trail through it, where one can walk a dog on a leash;”
Webmaster: The loss of recreational access in the natural areas is real, not imagined. The following are verbatim quotes from the NAP management plan:
“Approximately 80 percent of the SFRPD off-leash acreage is located within Natural Areas.” (page 5-8). The NAP DEIR proposes to close or reduce the size of several off-leash areas. The DEIR provides no evidence that these areas have been negatively impacted by dogs. It also states that all off-leash areas in the natural areas are subject to closure in the future if it is considered necessary to protect native plants. Since NAP has offered no evidence that the proposed immediate closures are necessary, one reasonably assumes it will offer no evidence if it chooses to close the remainder of the 80% of all off-leash areas in San Francisco located in natural areas. We know from the DEIR public comments that NAP supporters demand their closure.
“Public use in all Natural Areas, unless otherwise specified, should encourage on-trail use… Additionally, interpretive and park signs should be installed or modified as appropriate to include “Please Stay on Trails” with information about why on-trail use is required.” (page 5-14) In other words, the only form of recreation allowed in the natural areas is walking on a trail. Throwing a ball or frisbee, having a picnic on the grass, flying a kite, climbing the rocks are all prohibited activities in the natural areas. And in some parks, bicycles have been prohibited on the trails by NAP.
“Finally, this plan recommends re-routing or closing 10.3 miles of trail (approximately 26 percent of total existing trails).” (page 5-14) So, the only thing visitors are allowed to do in a natural area is walk on the trails and 26% of all the trails in the natural areas will be closed to the public.
2. “The act of removing (a small subset of) non-native trees, e.g., eucalyptus, that are in natural areas has the following benefits:
a. Restores native habitat for indigenous plants and wildlife;
b. Restores health, light and space to the “urban forest,” since the trees are all crowded together and being choked by ivy;
c. Contributes to the prevention of catastrophic fire in our communities.”
Webmaster: Destroying non-native plants and trees does not restore indigenous plants and wildlife. Native plants do not magically emerge when non-native plants and trees are destroyed. Planting indigenous plants might restore them to a location if they are intensively gardened to sustain them. However, in the past 15 years we have seen little evidence that NAP is able to create and sustain successful native plant gardens. Native plants have been repeatedly planted and they have repeatedly failed.
NAP has not “restored” the health of the urban forest. They remove trees in big groups as they expand their native plant gardens. They are not thinning trees. They are creating large openings for the grassland and dune scrub that they plant in the place of the urban forest. Every tree designated for removal by the NAP management plan is clearly selected for its proximity to native plants. It is disingenuous to suggest that NAP’s tree removal plans are intended to benefit the urban forest.
3. “The overall visual landscape of the natural areas will not change since only a small subset of trees are planned to be removed over a 20-year period.”
“Please feel free to email steward@natureinthecity.org if you would like more clarification about the intention, values and rationale of natural resources management.”
Webmaster: We urge our readers to take NIC up on this offer to provide ”more clarification” of its spirited defense of the Natural Areas Program.
Do you think NIC is deluded about there being only a “handful of people” that are critical of the Natural Areas Program?
Did you notice that NIC does not acknowledge the use of herbicides by NAP? Do you think that a fair representation of criticism of NAP can omit this issue?
If you visit a park that is a natural area, do you think NAP has demonstrated in the past 15 years what NIC claims it is accomplishing?
Do you think NIC has accurately described recreational access restrictions in the natural areas?
Do you think that San Francisco’s urban forest will be improved by the destruction of 18,500 mature trees and countless young trees?
[ii] “The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has no record of any wildfire in San Francisco.” San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008, page 5-18.
Recently, someone sent the San Francisco Forest Alliance this Pesticide Notice. It’s for Mount Davidson, for the end of January/ early February 2012. We found it shocking. Why?
It plans on using three of the most toxic pesticides San Francisco permits on Mount Davidson: Garlon 4 Ultra (Triclopyr); Milestone VM (Aminopyralid) and Aquamaster (Glyphosate). In several years of reviewing pesticide use on Natural Areas, we have not seen anything like this.
Garlon 4 Ultra and Milestone VM are Tier I chemicals, rated as “Most Hazardous” by San Francisco’s Department of the Environment. Their use is “Most Limited: justify use at public hearing.” Aquamaster, which has the same active ingredient as Roundup, is Tier II, More hazardous. (We have never seen the Natural Areas Program – NAP – use Tier III, Least Hazardous chemicals.)
Until now, we have not seen a situation where NAP uses two Tier I and a Tier II chemical in the same location.
WHAT ARE THESE PESTICIDES?
1) Garlon 4 Ultra, according to the guidelines published by San Francisco’s Department of the Environment (SFDoE) can be used as follows: “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. HIGH PRIORITY TO FIND ALTERNATIVE” (The capitals are in the original guidelines.)
Garlon “causes severe birth defects in rats at relatively low levels of exposure.” Baby rats were born with brains outside their skulls, or no eyelids. Exposed adult females rats also had more failed pregnancies.
Rat and dog studies showed damage to the kidneys, the liver, and the blood.
About 1-2% of Garlon falling on human skin is absorbed within a day. For rodents, its absorbed twelve times as fast. It’s unclear what happens to predators such as hawks that eat the affected rodents.
Dogs may be particularly vulnerable; their kidneys may not be able to handle Garlon as well as rats or humans. Dow Chemical objected when the Environmental Protection agency noted decreased red-dye excretion as an adverse effect, so now it’s just listed as an “effect.”
2) Milestone VM, also a Tier I chemical, has this note in the SFDoE guidelines: “For invasive species in natural areas where other alternatives are ineffective, especially for invasive legumes and composites such as yellow star thistle and purple star thistle. Listed as Tier I due to persistence but toxicity & potential exposure are very low.“
It deserves that Tier I ranking. Dow had to withdraw it from the UK because it was poisoning the compost.
It seems that this chemical is so persistent that if it’s sprayed on plants, and animals eat those plants, it still doesn’t break down. They excrete the stuff in their droppings. If those are composted — it still doesn’t break down the chemical. So now the compost’s got weedkiller in it, and it doesn’t nourish the plants fertilized with the compost, it kills them.
The manufacturer sees this as a benefit. “Because of its residual activity, control can last all season long, or into the season after application on certain weed species,” says the Dow AgroSciences FAQ sheet.
What it means on Mt Davidson is that the chemical will be there for years. And, incidentally, none of the targeted plants – oxalis, erhata grass or Cape Ivy – are the “invasive legumes” or the star or purple thistle mentioned in the SFDoE guidelines.
3) Aquamaster is a Tier II chemical. Here the SFDoE has made a recent change to its guidelines allowing terrestial use.
“Terrestrial uses: Spot application of areas inaccessible or too dangerous for hand methods, right of ways, utility access, or fire prevention. Use for cracks in hardscape, decomposed granite and edging only as last resort. OK for rennovations (sic) but must put in place weed prevention measures.” The NAP reached a “last resort” 38 times last year (i.e. 2011).
Glyphosate has been associated with pregnancy problems and birth defects. A 2005 article published in the journal of the National Institutes of Health noted that glyphosate was toxic to placental cells (and Roundup was even more so):
“… glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hrs with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants.”
In addition, it’s an endocrine disruptor. French scientists published an article in the journal Toxicology titled, “Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.”
The petition below, circulated in Glen Canyon Park and online, received over a thousand signatures in just a few days. People really object to toxins in their parks. The Natural Areas Program uses some of the most toxic pesticides that San Francisco permits in many of the area – and in particular, some of the most popular parks.
Keep Our Park Natural: Go Green! No Poisons!
Greetings,
Despite our protests, San Francisco Recreation and Park Department plans to continue using poisons in our parks — and specifically in Glen Canyon Park. We want them to stop.
We want to keep toxic pesticides out of Glen Canyon Park. In this treasured canyon we have dogs, children including preschoolers, wildlife and a creek to consider: poisons are not compatible with these or with the global environmental movement. It’s called a “natural areas park” — let’s make it that.
Recently, the Natural Areas Program (NAP) of the San Francisco Park and Recreation Department (SFRPD) posted notices announcing it would spray Garlon 4 Ultra in Glen Canyon. When concerned neighbors wrote asking them to halt pesticide use, SFRPD merely assured everyone there was no danger — they were following the rules.
But studies have shown the poisons are indeed harmful. Anything toxic to adult humans is likely to be much more toxic to small children. Garlon’s active ingredient is triclopyr. Here’s information on it from the Marin Municipal Water Department’s assessment of this toxic chemical: http://www.marinwater.org/documents/Chap4_Triclopyr_8_27_08.pdf
Especially look at page 9 (labeled “4-9″ in the report) for information about the risks for dogs!
We now hear that NAP “might consider using Roundup instead.” Roundup also is deemed very unsafe, please see the Scientific American article linked here to read about it: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p
Our park is called a “Natural Area”. To artificially maintain it with the use of poisons belies this. Neighbors have often stated that we want our park kept natural and wild. Yet, in addition to the poisons being used, there is a vast amount of “thinning, pruning and culling” so that our “unmanaged wilderness gem” is slowly being turned into the fenced and weeded garden. This destroys the small amount of animal habitat we have left. Animal habitat consists of dense thickets and undergrowth that are impenetrable to people and dogs, not fragile grasslands drenched in chemicals.
This post is republished with some modifications and permission from Save Sutro Forest.
—————————————————————————
Why San Francisco’s Natural Areas are – Unnatural
by Save Sutro Forest
WHEN I first heard about San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program (SF NAP) some years ago, I was charmed. Over 1000 acres of city-owned land would be left to Nature, more wild and free than the orderly, gardened lawns and playgrounds (which I also appreciated, in a different way). Kudos to the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD) — which owns the SF NAP — was my reaction.
These would be spaces, I thought, where plants and animals and people could interact naturally. Birds and animals could safely breed in tangled thickets; so could bees and butterflies and other insects. They’d provide enough cover for birds and animals to hide from dogs, cats, hawks, coyotes, raccoons — and people. These spaces would be free of the toxic chemicals used in managing parks. Dogs could be allowed to romp through areas wild enough to tolerate disturbance. The only intervention, I assumed, would be to maintain some degree of safety on trails that animals and people would blaze through these areas.
If like me, you thought that Natural Areas were going to be, well, natural… then like me, you were mistaken.
NATURAL VS “NATIVE”
San Francisco’s “Natural Areas” program is really about is Native Plants, most of which no longer grow in these places naturally. These plants grew (or may have grown) in these 46.9 square miles some 300 years ago. Some are still there. Others, even though common elsewhere, aren’t found in the city any more. Instead, other plants grow there, adding to the biodiversity of the area. According to Peter Kareiva of the Nature Conservancy, there are 25% more species in California than there were before “non-native” plants got here.
What we’re actually getting, then, is Native Plant Gardens, 32 of them. Trying to push these spaces back in time means they must be managed and maintained, because San Francisco now is a different place and a different ecology from the windblown hills and sand-dunes of its pre-colonial past.
What does this management and maintenance imply?
POURING ON PESTICIDES
Since there’s a lot of area, and a lot of plants, this means a lot of pesticides. According to the records, Natural Areas had 69 applications of pesticides in 2010, most of them Tier I and Tier II pesticides like Garlon and Roundup. (San Francisco groups permissible pesticides into three tiers, with Tier I being the most dangerous and Tier III the least. The SF NAP hasn’t used Tier III pesticides, they’re all Tier I or II.)
Some — including Native Plant doyen Jake Sigg — have argued that one or two applications in a decade are all that’s needed, and are thus justified. That hasn’t been our experience. Two nearby Native Areas — Twin Peaks and Glen Canyon — have been sprayed many times annually for many years. According to their communications with some concerned neighbors, the SF NAP does not expect to stop.
MUSEUM-IFICATION
Some years ago, Save Sutro Forest ran an article on museum-ification. This is the fate of many of these “natural” areas: they come with more, not fewer, restrictions than gardens and parks. Many of the paths animals and people made naturally, called “social trails” are blocked. (They current plan closes or relocates over 9 miles of trails.) There are formal trails, and people must stay on them. They are discouraged from actually interacting with these environments, except as gardening or trail-building volunteers.
Some 86% of the city’s dog-play off-leash areas are in areas controlled by the SF NAP. They plan to close up to 80% of these. (This comes on the heels of a plan to ban all dogs from the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.)
TREES BEING CUT AND HABITAT DESTROYED
Trees are being chopped down. San Francisco had some wonderful eucalyptus forests, many of them over a century old with a complex habitat and dense understory. Most of these are already gone.
The eucalyptus trees — defined as “invasive trees” despite the evidence that they are not invading anything — are non grata. So too the Monterey pine and the Monterey cypress; those are native to distant Monterey, all the way down the peninsula. Many trees have already been felled, and many thousands more are doomed. (That’s only counting those over 15 feet tall; the SFNAP counts smaller trees as “saplings” or “seedlings” and cuts them at will.)
The plan, for “urban forests” is to cut down trees until they’re down to a “basal area” of 200-600 feet per acre. This gives an estimated 60-200 trees per acre. (By comparison, Sutro Forest averages 740 trees per acre.)
In addition, the plan calls for removing blackberry thickets, one of the richest and safest habitats for birds and animals. It calls for removing fennel, another tall and dense habitat plant which, just incidentally, is the nursery plant for the native Anise Swallowtail butterfly. It calls for removing vines from the trees, all of which provide some of the complex habitat small birds need.
In fact, it seems to call for removing anything that grows lush and dense and useful to birds and animals. The result wouldn’t be a forest (urban or otherwise); it would be a garden with some trees in it.
WHAT WE SUPPORT…
We’d like to clarify what SaveSutro supports:
We are for preservation of existing habitats and ecosystems. We think places like the coastal scrub area on the slope above Laguna Honda Reservoir, (which has not been invaded by the contiguous eucalyptus forest!) deserve protection. This area is, incidentally, owned by the SF Water Department, not the SF Recreation and Parks Department. It’s visible from the road, but is not publicly accessible.
We’re fine with planting scrappy semi-industrialized areas like Heron’s Head Park into Native Plant gardens; that area had a recent win when Clapper Rails nested there and successfully produced chicks.
…AND WHAT WE DON’T
We object to converting parks devoted to other uses into such Native Gardens by imposing numerous restrictions.
“I saw this sign posted on the road going up to the top of Mt. Davidson today,” noted the member who sent in this sign. “I guess people and birds won’t have as many berries to eat. This appears to be a second round of chemical use up there as the other signs were for Nov…”
Maybe this could be called the Santa Claus mix? The old formula – Glyphosate and Imazapyr, being used against “Road brush” whatever that is, and erhata grass. It’s scheduled for Dec 19-23, 2011.
(Incidentally, the phone number on the notice seems to be wrong. If you want to call Mr Montana, this may work better: Ralph Montana of IPM (415) 831-63o6)
It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas, everywhere you go. Except Twin Peaks.
