This photograph was submitted to us by Peter. This healthy, majestic eucalyptus has been tagged for removal.
Photo credit: Peter Fairfield
When it’s gone, it will be missed by the neighbors, and also the insects that rely on its flowers, the birds that live there, and the animals that shelter there. The eucalyptus in this park are home to honeybees, bats, Great Horned owls, Red Tail Hawks, Nuthatches, Brown Creepers, hummingbirds, Monarch butterflies, squirrels, to name some species that come to mind.
Urban trees are hugely important, not just for their beauty, but for environmental reasons. The NAP’s SNRAMP plans to cut down 18,500 trees (and a whole lot more under 15 feet in height, plus whatever is lost to wind-throw when the wind-break of the other trees is gone).
Source: USDA Report, Assessing Urban Forests Effects and Values, 2007
What are these 18,500++ trees doing for us? Here are nine ways in which urban forests help us.
The Nature Conservancy's Carbon equivalence graphic
Storing Carbon. Trees store carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere. The bigger the tree, the more it stores. CLICK HERE for a 3-minute video from the Nature Conservancy about the carbon stored by a red oak tree that’s 18 inches in diameter. Eucalyptus may store even more, because it grows taller than a red oak and is more dense (Eucalyptus, around 50 lbs/cu ft; red oak, about 41).
Providing Oxygen. Trees produce more oxygen than they use. When they’re felled, they decay and use oxygen instead of making it.
Trapping and removing air pollution. Tree leaves capture air pollution, and help clean our air. The trapped pollution stays on the leaves or falls to the ground – where we don’t have to breathe it.
Golden Gate Park - in the beginning (abt 1880)
A windbreak. In its pre-European state, San Francisco was a place of windblown sand that got into everything from railway tracks to people’s lungs. With a city and a major park atop the former dunes, we don’t have to worry about sand so much, but the wind still sweeps across our city. The eucalyptus forests and other trees act as a windbreak, and improve the micro-climates not only of the forest, but of surrounding areas.
Buffering noise. Trees absorb sound, in much the way that fabrics and soft materials do. Once they’re felled, everything becomes noisier. Thinning a forest lets in the sounds of the city and its traffic. When Laguna Honda Hospital felled some 200 trees in conjunction with its new building, neighbors in Forest Knolls and Midtown Terrace noticed increased noise.
Slowing runoff. When it rains, the roots of the trees, and the duff made by their shed leaves and the understory beneath them, soaks it up like a sponge. Then it slowly lets it out again, allowing plants and vegetation to use it over time, replenishing ground water, and fighting erosion. (If you want to see the difference – drive by Christopher, below Mount Sutro, during heavy rain – and then drive up Twin Peaks Boulevard. The latter’s like a river when it’s pouring.) [See "Rainfall Interception" data from USDA]
Preventing erosion. Many of these trees grow on very steep slopes, and below them are our neighborhoods. Their roots function now like a geo-textile, holding the slopes in place – particularly in forest areas, where the roots are intermeshed and intergrafted. On Twin Peaks, where the vegetation is thinner, landslips occur every season of heavy rain. In Forest Knolls, clearing of slopes below the houses has resulted in landslides requiring months of tarping to stabilize them. This is a particularly insidious problem; it may take 6-8 years for the root system to die and decay, and by then the homeowner may not even know or recall that trees once held the slope together.
Provide habitat. Trees provide cover, places to perch and hide, and food by way of nectar and leaves and the insects attracted to the trees. Eucalyptus, in particular, flowers in winter providing nectar for bees, butterflies, and birds – and attracting birds that prey on these insects. It’s a nesting site for owls and hawks and feral bees, and a hunting ground for birds small and large. Our city would have far fewer birds, animals, and bees without these trees.
Boost property values. People like trees. Homes near forested areas are valued by owners and potential buyers. Realtors often mention these settings in their listings. Some studies show mature trees nearby can add up to 30% to property values.
One would think the Natural Areas Program would be about preserving trees in our city. It’s not. San Francisco in its pre-European state had very very few trees if any, and almost all our trees are non-native. Despite the huge benefits of urban trees, NAP’s “Significant Natural Resource Area Management Plan” (SNRAMP) wants to fell 3,500 in the city, and an additional 15,000 in Sharp Park. Here are the main areas besides Sharp Park:
1600 trees on Mount Davidson (this would be in addition to trees already killed by girdling and other means).
809 trees in McLaren Park.
511 trees in Bayview Park (also in addition to trees killed by girdling).
140 trees in the Interior Green belt on Mount Sutro (unclear whether this would be in addition to the 50 trees cut down along the Kill-trees Trail).
134 trees in Lake Merced (presumably in addition to an unknown number that were already felled there in 2010).
As we noted above, there’s been deforestation under various guises, by the NAP or its supporters – or others - even while the SNRAMP goes through the approval process. A lot of trees have been killed by girdling, particularly in Bayview and on Mount Davidson. (Girdling involves cutting bark around a tree so it starves to death, sometimes over years.)
Some may have been killed by other means.
Some have been felled as “urban forest” work – for instance in the Interior Greenbelt and at Lake Merced. Trees in Natural Areas are not evaluated for whether they are a hazard, but for their condition, including “poor form.”
BUT ISN’T EUCALYPTUS A FIRE HAZARD?
No, despite the widespread belief to the contrary.
First, San Francisco is foggy or rainy round the year. Calfire considers the entire area a “moderate” fire risk – which is its lowest rating. (The other ratings are “High” and “Very High.)
A CLOUD FOREST
Areas of dense trees, like Sutro Cloud Forest, or Mt Davidson, act like a Cloud Forest. The tall trees harvest moisture from the fog, and the forest holds this moisture in.
It has been argued that in the fall, San Francisco has sunny dry weather and this is when there’s a fire hazard. In fact, SaveSutro maintained a daily Fog Log in the Fall of 2009. Even during sunny weather – there was night fog or rain many evenings. The longest “dry” period in the forest was 7 days.
At no time did the forest dry out.
Second, even in drier climates, eucalyptus is not more flammable than other trees; and the native grasses and shrubs that are actually planned as a replacement are much more flammable than the trees.
In a firestorm caused by dry conditions and hot dry winds (which do not occur in the city) everything burns – oaks and fir, eucalyptus and pine. In fact, eucalyptus may even help fight wind-driven fires by trapping flying embers and disrupting wind flows because of its flexible crown. There’s more information about this and other myths at Eucalyptus Myths on SaveSutro.com.
Finally: Here’s the picture worth a thousand words. In a ruinous fire in Scripps Ranch in San Diego, a number of houses burned to the ground. The eucalyptus surrounding them failed to ignite. Not incidentally, the home-owners of Scripps Ranch fought to save the eucalyptus trees when the City tried to cut them down – after the fire – as a hazard reduction.
Most people have no idea that the Natural Areas Program calls for cutting down 1600 trees on Mt Davidson.
Jacquie Proctor, the historian of Mt Davidson (who quite literally wrote the book on it), led a tour there last Saturday, to show people what was planned and where. About 40-50 people attended. The most frequent comments we heard were “Can they do that?” and “Why would they?” and “I live here and I had no idea!“
She started with the history of the mountain – and then the map of NAP’s plan. It plans to clear-cut a huge swath through the forest, right down to the road. (Click here to link to an article with a video with the details, and here for an article from the West Portal Monthly.)
This would expose the remaining trees to the strong winds we get in this area, and more trees would be lost to wind-throw. Trees under 15 feet tall wouldn’t count as trees and would be removed at will. The number 1600 is large enough; the actual losses will be higher.
In fact, the native plant people have already been at work here. A number of trees have been killed by being “girdled” — bark is cut away all around the tree so it starves to death. The most visible one is the Murdered Tree of Dead Tree Point.
We walked up to the Cross, which Jacquie fought to save when there was a legal challenge against it. (The Atheists said it was mixing church and state. The City compromised by selling 1/3 acre under the cross to the Council of Armenian-American Associations.) All the trees to the right of the cross in this picture would be felled.
As the group went down to the little plateau behind the cross, she explained that most of the trees they were looking at would be killed.
We continued on through a lush forest… and Jacquie pointed that many of the trees were slated for destruction. This was part of the planned clear-cut.
Further on, there was a broad gash through the forest. It’s nicknamed “the ski jump.” The PUC built a new pipeline there. Native plant interests prevailed on the PUC to move its pipeline away from the existing route (which ran through a patch of scrub) and instead run it through the forest. It reportedly doubled the cost of the pipeline from $300,000 to $600,000. It also cut down a whole lot of trees, which the Native Plant interests consider a bonus.
Further on, we encountered more girdled trees. The one at the center of this picture is dead, still reaching for the sky. This other one has been girdled near its base, and still clings to life. But it’s dying.
We emerged into an area called The Boneyard. It’s lined with dead trees.
In addition to felling trees (or girdling them so they die, or driving in nails of poisonous metals to kill them), they also want to block many of the trails. And pesticides are being used, to kill non-native plants.
It’s not to kill poison oak as some had hoped – poison oak is native, so they’re fine with that. The only compromise is they’ll remove it from beside the trails… and too bad if you explore off-trail. You’re not allowed to do that.
And this tree was near the exit as we left… it had a pink ribbon tied to it. Will it be gone by the next time we visit? Maybe.
Most of the people who attended the walk signed the petition.Very few of them had any idea this was happening. Some had wondered about the forest growing thinner and sparser over time, but didn’t know why.
Jacquie knew. “Everything dead you see? Very little of that is natural. It’s the NAP or their volunteers killing things.”
If you’d like to stop this desecration of the mountain – please help spread the word.
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.
Sometimes, you need to walk it to really understand it. In this short video, Jacquie Proctor does just that on Mount Davidson… she’ll show you some of the actual trees that are going to be cut unless we stop them.
If you’ve never been to Mount Davidson – it’s one of the most beautiful remaining forests in San Francisco. We just happened on this lovely video clip of a young woman dancing around in the forest. We thought it really captured what it’s like there on a misty summer day.
Deep in Glen Canyon, there’s a wonderful mysterious trail that winds along the creek, intercepted by unusual twisted trees. This is the Outback Trail. These trees are doomed and we’re trying to save them. We need your help. We hope that if SF RPD recognizes how the community values them, they will leave them be.
Here’s a map of the trail. The trees are unique and full of character, and they deserve names. A couple already have them. Perhaps you (or your child) have your own names for these trees. Send them to us!
(You can use the link below or email us at SFForestNews at gmail.com)
If you click on the map below, you can get a larger version for printing.
You can go to this input form (click here) — or just email us at SFForestNew at gmail.com — or send them to the PO Box mentioned above.
One of the things everyone loves the most about our Glen Canyon is that it’s a wilderness park with rough and tumble Huck Finn paths in the back area. It’s about to be ruined. We need your help to try to stop this. (Scroll down for what you can do.)
This is the wonderful path that is going to be changed into just another trail.
Here, you can return to a wildness for a while, escaping from all that is civilized, modern and managed. The path winds through dense growth and has lots of “down” trees that you need to step over, or tunnel under – these bent and twisted trees are particularly beloved by those of us who walk it daily.
There is a “log” over the creek, and there is a rope swing if you go back far enough. Hardly touched at all, this has been our haven for so long – it has been my haven for 35 years.
Recently NAP has been thinning the thickets, cutting into the willows, removing the the ground cover. And now, they want to raze the fabulous trees which give the park its character. Trees have been ribboned in pink — though walkers have pulled most of these off as a way to protest, but the trees still retain the condemning splash of green paint which marks them for removal.
We need to protest loudly, and to everyone who even might listen.
Appendix J of the NAP DEIR page 3 says, “The SFRPD’s Tree Removal Procedures require that all trees designated for removal be posted at 30 days before removal. The public is invited to comment about the proposed removal, and the SFRPD may or may not modify its plan based on public input.”
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP
We should call/email:
Ana Alvarez, the NAP Supervisor,
Supervisor Scott Wiener (Glen Canyon is in District 8),
Mayor Ed Lee.
These trees in Glen Canyon should reference this procedure, request a copy of it, and the name and address of who the public is invited to comment to about this tree removal. We expect they are not following their own procedure and we need to point that out. The designated trees don’t have any information on them about who to contact or no 30-day notices. And they probably will cut them down before 30 days are up.
Let your friends and neighbors know that they, too, can help by calling and writing letters — our power will come from the number of people who do something about this.
We want to retain our park — the wilderness we cherish — as it is. Please do not cut down any trees, including those that are “down”, forming tunnels over the paths and little bridges to step over. The entire community is extremely upset at all the clearing that has gone on, and now at the prospect of losing our trees. The trees give this particular park it’s character — a wild feeling where one can truly feel and play Huck Finn.
We all stated during the community meetings last Spring that we wanted the park kept wild — we have not been listened to. We are also concerned that no 30-day notices have been posted on the trees, telling us where we may meet to comment — isn’t this required? Please do not cut our trees. Please tell us what we can do to stop this destruction.
STAY INVOLVED
Send an email to SFForestNews@gmail.com letting us know if you would like to help, and signing up for our newsletter.
Preventing erosion. Many of these trees grow on very steep slopes, and below them are our neighborhoods. Their roots function now like a geo-textile, holding the slopes in place – particularly in forest areas, where the roots are 
