Summer Walk on Mt Davidson

June 18, 2013 Leave a comment

A group of 17 neighbors gathered for a summer walk on Mount Davidson …  in typical summer weather: super foggy. The group walked through the beautiful woods, shrouded in mist.

Mt D 6-17-2013

The paused on the road at the turn where 82% of the trees are planned to be clear-cut. It’s one of the loveliest areas of the forest.

Mt D 2 6-17-2013

One observer had never been there and was amazed at the wonder of the forest. No one could understand why 1600 trees should be cut down and the others more made vulnerable to wind-throw.  Instead SF Recreation & Parks Department  has plans for tree-felling, habitat destruction, and a vastly increased use of toxic pesticides under the “Natural Areas Program.”

Mt D 3 6-17-2013

Even the (native) Pacific Reed Grass growing there – that’s a native plant – is a forest species, and thrives in the shade and moisture of the eucalyptus. Nature is opportunistic, and native and exotic species are part of a web of life that’s adapted to the conditions of this site. Non-native plants have added bio-diversity; according to Peter Kareiva, chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy, California now has 25% more plant species than it had before.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Applies Pesticides, Fells Trees Tagged with , ,

Forests Store Carbon and Fight Climate Change

May 19, 2013 3 Comments

HillSideViewClimate change is upon us. Recently, we crossed the threshold of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere – higher than at any time since humans populated our planet.

Aside from reducing carbon emissions, trees are the only way to fight climate change. They pull carbon dioxide from the air and store the carbon in their wood, roots, and the soil around them. But instead of planting trees, Native Plant interests are trying to fell trees to recreate a different ecosystem of shrubs and grasses. Multiple projects now threaten our Bay Area trees, with different rationales but the same underlying objective – native plants.

San Francisco’s Natural Areas program may fell 18,500 trees; the Sutro Forest project – 30,000 trees; the East Bay Hills projects – 500,000 trees. In addition, SFRPD is felling hundreds of trees in Golden Gate Park as ‘urban forestry’ and there’s the ‘normal’ destruction of trees for construction and similar purposes.

For this reason, we think the article below – reprinted with permission from Death of a Million Trees – is extremely important.

CARBON STORAGE IN OUR URBAN FOREST

We believe that addressing climate change should be our highest environmental priority because it is the cause of many environmental problems. For example, a recent study found that changes in climate accounted for over half of the significant changes in vegetation all over the world in the past 30 years: “The climate governs the seasonal activity of vegetation…In humid mid-latitudes temperature is the largest influencing factor in plant growth. In predominantly dry areas, however, it is the availability of water and in the high altitudes incident solar radiation.” (1) Animals are affected by both changes in vegetation and climate, as exemplified by the shrinking home of the polar bear as Arctic ice melts.

The consensus amongst scientists is that increases in greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of climate change and carbon dioxide is the predominant greenhouse gas. Although the burning of fossil fuels is often considered the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, in fact transportation is responsible for only 10% of emissions. In contrast, deforestation is contributing 20% of greenhouse gas emissions because trees store carbon as they grow and release it into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide when the tree is destroyed. For that reason—and many others– we are opposed to the destruction of our urban forest.

Mount Sutro Forest is threatened with destruction because it is noy native. Courtesy Save Sutro Forest.

Mount Sutro Forest is threatened with destruction because it is not native. Courtesy Save Sutro Forest.

Because our urban forest is predominantly non-native, native plant advocates are committed to defending the projects that are destroying the urban forest, which puts them in the awkward position of claiming that its destruction will not contribute to climate change. Here are a few of the arguments used by native plant advocates and the scientific evidence that those arguments are fallacious:

  • Since the native landscape in the Bay Area is grassland and scrub, native plant advocates often claim that these landscapes store more carbon than trees. In fact, trees store far more carbon than the native landscape because carbon storage is largely proportional to biomass. In other words, the bigger the plant, the more carbon it is capable of storing. (Carbon storage in plants and soils is explained in detail here.)
  • In the Draft Environmental Impact Report for San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program, native plant advocates claimed that destroying the forest and restoring grassland would lower ground temperatures based on a scientific study about the arctic north at latitudes above 50°. In fact, the point of that study was that snow reflects more light than trees. The Bay Area is far below 50° latitude and it doesn’t snow here, so that study is irrelevant to the Bay Area. (That study and its misuse by native plant advocates are reported here.)
  • Since most of the urban forest in the Bay Area was planted over 100 years ago, native plant advocates often claim that only young trees store carbon. Since carbon storage is largely proportional to biomass, mature trees store more carbon than small young trees. That is illustrated by this graph from the US Forest Service survey of San Francisco’s urban forest.
Larger trees store more carbon at a faster rate

Larger trees store more carbon at a faster rate

  • The claim that young trees store more carbon is often made in connection with the equally bogus claim that “restoration” projects in the Bay Area will replace non-native trees with native trees. None of the plans for these projects propose to plant native trees where non-native trees are destroyed because that wasn’t the native landscape. In any case, native trees don’t tolerate the windy, dry conditions in which non-native trees are growing. For example, a study of historic vegetation in Oakland, California reported that only 2% of pre-settlement Oakland was forested with trees. (2)

A NEW STUDY ABOUT CARBON STORAGE IN FOREST

Now that science has established the reality of climate change, most scientific inquiry has turned to how to stop it and/or mitigate it. For example, a recent study reports that planting forests where they did not exist in the past, quickly stores far more carbon in the soil than the treeless landscape. Scientists “…looked at lands previously used for surface mining and other industrial uses, former agricultural lands, and native grasslands where forests have encroached….[they] found that, in general, growing trees on formerly non-forested land increases soil carbon.” (3)

Here are their specific findings on each type of previously non-forested land:

  • “On a post-mining landscape, the amount of soil carbon generally doubled within 20 years and continued to double after that every decade or so.”
  • “The changes after cultivation of farm fields was abandoned and trees became established are much subtler, but still significant…at the end of a century’s time, the amount of soil carbon averages 15 percent higher than when the land was under cultivation…”
  • “In places where trees and shrubs have encroached into native grassland, soil carbon increased 31 percent after several decades…”

Mainstream environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club claim to be concerned about climate change, yet they are the driving force behind the destruction of the urban forest in the San Francisco Bay Area. When will they wake up to the fact that advocating for the destruction of the urban forest is irresponsible for an environmental organization in the age of climate change?

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

(1) “A Look at the World Explains 90 Percent of Changes in Vegetation,” Science Daily, April 22, 2013.

(2) Nowak, David, “Historical vegetation change in Oakland and its implications for urban forest management,” Journal of Arboriculture, 19(5): September 1993

(3) “Soils in Newly Forested Areas Store Substantial Carbon That Could Help Offset Climate Change,” Science Daily, April 4, 2013.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees Tagged with , ,

Spinning the Bee-Tree Fiasco

March 25, 2013 5 Comments

We received this letter from Scott Mattoon, a bee advocate who is concerned not just by the killing of the bee tree in Glen Canyon Park’s Natural Areas, but by the reaction of San Francisco Recreation and Parks. If, like us,  you were expecting a heartfelt apology – as when the first bee-hive was killed – it didn’t happen. Instead, there’s spin. We publish the letter below with his permission.

———————————————————————-

Rec & Park recently posted an update to their website on the Glen Canyon renovation that I found rather disturbing.

[That link is HERE: Glen Canyon Park Renovation: Progress update – work proceeding…]

In reference to the plan to preserve the colony of honeybees living in the trunk of a ponderosa pine originally designated for removal, Rec & Park claimed that “the bees … have been preserved“.  That’s an interesting spin on what I would describe as a fiasco and careless blunder.  The vast majority of that colony died, and with it the likelihood of propagation this year.  Rec & Park’s contractor, DeKay, mistakenly cut the trunk at a height of 5 feet, despite an agreement  with Rec & Park to cut it at 20 feet.  They cut right into the top combs of the colony’s nest, and split the trunk open in the process, leaving the entire nest of this majestic old honeybee colony exposed.

red arrow on bee tree (Photo - Scott Mattoon)

If not for the perseverance, vigilance, stewardship, and expertise of two local residents, the colony would have certainly been lost completely.  In particular, I commend Karen Peteros for rescuing the queen and a small retinue of nurse bees, and hiving them in another part of the city.  We hope they will pull through.

Before the cutting began, I was impressed with Rec & Park’s willingness to work with myself and Karen to come up with a plan to save these bees.  It felt like we had a true partnership in the making, and that Rec & Park recognized the importance of preserving these bees, especially since their department had recklessly exterminated another colony of honeybees in the vicinity less than two years earlier.

[Webmaster: For a link to a report on that unfortunate event, go HERE: When the First Glen Canyon Beehive Was Killed]

It’s easy to assume that losing a colony of bees from the park will have no significant effect on the health or recreational value of the surrounds – just the flap of a butterfly’s wings.   But the loss of confidence in Rec & Park’s ability to effectively manage contractors, to coordinate with residents, and to accept responsibility for mistakes is significant for me and others who followed this story.  It was an opportunity for collaboration and for preservation of a natural resource squandered.

-Scott
…{\
((((O8
…{/

exposed hive with bees (Photo- Scott Mattoon)

Filed under Fells Trees, Ruins Habitat Tagged with , , , , ,

Alma Hecht, Certified Arborist: Saving the Trees

March 16, 2013 1 Comment

This is a 5-minute talk from Alma Hecht, Certified Arborist. She gave it at an SF Forest Alliance meeting in Glen Canyon Park before the Elk Street entrance trees were cut down. The trees are gone; the talk still matters. More trees are threatened in every park and wild land across the city.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees Tagged with , , ,

Glen Park Trees – Week 2-4: The tree-felling goes on

January 23, 2013 1 Comment

Almost all the trees around the Recreation Center are gone now. The Elk Street entrance is bare. The felling continues. At least the bee-hive tree has been saved as a stump; let’s hope the bees agree. [Edited to Add: Unfortunately, the bee hive was destroyed.]

Here’s a video for week 2, courtesy Ron Proctor:

Edited to Add:  And here is  Ron’s video for weeks 3 and 4.

Filed under Fells Trees Tagged with ,

Glen Park Tree Demolition – Day 5 Video

January 18, 2013 3 Comments

The line of grand old eucalyptus at the entrance of Glen Canyon Park is gone now. This is the picture on Day 5, courtesy Ron Proctor:

——–

There are more trees being felled, over 40 more in this project alone, but we need a break from observing the tragic destruction. Our next post will be a more hopeful one.

Filed under Fells Trees, Wastes Money Tagged with , ,

Glen Park Trees, Day 4: Only Two Await Their Fate

January 16, 2013 Leave a comment

It’s nearly over. The magnificent tall eucalyptus, over a century old, are nearly gone. This video is entitled “Remembrance” and set to some very appropriate music.

Look elsewhere, birds, bats, bees; look elsewhere, children who played among these trees and bushes; look elsewhere, those whose childhood memories include this lane and these trees.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees, Ruins Habitat Tagged with , , ,

Glen Park Tree-felling: Day 3 Video and Pictures

January 14, 2013 2 Comments

It’s Day 3 of the tree-felling at Glen Canyon Park. This video shows one huge tree, 133 years old, going down.

And here, for those who cannot bear to watch the video (“I just want to cry,” said one observer), are still pictures. Thank you, Ron Proctor, for bearing witness to this destruction.

Tree-Limbs

TennisCourtView

Sign-RecCtrProject

Remaining-to-be-cut1

Remaining-to-be-cut

MajesticAfterFall-1

Limbs-TennisCt-Pre-FALL

HillSideView

CAT-Tractor-3

CAT-Tractor-2

CAT-Tractor-1

AlmsRd-MajesticTree

Walkway-LimbDebris

TreeView1

TreeView

Tree-stump

Filed under Fells Trees Tagged with , , , , ,

Glen Canyon Tree Demolition Videos: Day 1 and Day 2

January 13, 2013 4 Comments

Ron Proctor, a frequent visitor at Glen Canyon Park, has made two short videos about the felling of the trees. The first  shows the start of the tree-demolition on Day 1.

And here’s the additional destruction on Day 2.

Filed under Fells Trees Tagged with , , , ,

Glen Canyon Tree-Felling Started Today

January 10, 2013 6 Comments

area closed for destructionOn Monday January 7th, San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD), Scott Wiener, and the Glen Park Association held a meeting to discuss the tree-felling for the planned projects in Glen Canyon. The Rec Center was filled to capacity, and the questions went on nearly until 9 p.m. Though there was considerable protest, it was obvious that SF RPD was going ahead. The work has started.

We went out there today. It was a beautiful afternoon, with the  winter sun shining through the treetops. All unknowing, little birds flitted and called in the doomed trees. All unknowing, the bats roosted in their no-longer-safe hiding places. All unknowing, the men from the appropriately-named DeKay Demo just did their jobs.

The grand eucalyptus trees at the Elk Rd entrance, over a century old, will end the month as chips and logs. As will hundreds of other trees in the canyon, the ones the children love and climb in, the ones the birds nest in and bats hide in, the ones that feed the and protect the wildlife of this canyon.

We will continue to document the destruction here and at SFGlenCanyon.Net, where the first set of pictures (from this morning) is up.

Farewell, trees.

Doomed trees in Glen Canyon Park

Doomed trees in Glen Canyon Park

this avenue is gone

This avenue will be gone

all the trees in this picture will be gone in a few days

Every tree in this picture will be gone in a few days

this scene will be gone

This scene will be gone

this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you

This beautiful tree will be destroyed

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees Tagged with , , , ,

Rainbow Bark on Rain-Washed Eucalyptus

December 3, 2012 4 Comments

If you needed an excuse to walk in Glen Canyon on a rainy day, here’s one – the rainbow bark on a rain-washed eucalyptus tree. These two photographs, courtesy of photographer Janet Kessler,  have not been enhanced.

eucalyptus in the rain -1

And here’s more detail…

eucalyptus in the rain -2

It’s a beautiful time in the Canyon among its wonderful trees. Let’s hope this isn’t one slated for destruction in one of the many projects that will fell trees in the Canyon.

Filed under Fells Trees Tagged with , ,

Glen Canyon Petition Delivered

October 17, 2012 Leave a comment

We’ve delivered the petition to save the trees of Glen Canyon Park. It’s over 2800 signatures, and the number is still increasing.

HERE is the link to what we wrote to the Mayor, Supervisor Wiener, the Rec and Park Commission, and SF Recreation and Parks.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees Tagged with , , ,

Red Shouldered Hawk in a Natural Area

October 16, 2012 1 Comment

Hawks need tall trees for roosting, watching, and nesting. This one is watching from a non-native cypress tree. (Photo credit: Janet Kessler)

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees, Ruins Habitat Tagged with , , , , ,

Jefferson Street Trees: The Decision

October 4, 2012 Leave a comment

We received a copy of the decision on the Jefferson Street trees (at Fishermans Wharf, San Francisco) today.

Though it’s not quite as good as we’d hoped (see our post on that: Jefferson Trees Update), we think it’s a lot more reasonable than the original plan to just wipe out all the trees on two busy city blocks.

We hope the merchants of Jefferson St will also benefit from the retention of the trees; at an Urban Forestry presentation today, the speaker said that streets with trees encourage people to linger and thus spend more.

Key findings from the decision regarding Jefferson trees

(You can read the whole decision here:  Jefferson_St_Decision_180718.)

The City responded to the public support for the trees. We want to thank Kathy Hallinan who led the effort, and the hundreds who supported her; and the project planners and the city for finding another way.

We hope it’s a model for other projects with unnecessary tree removal.

We call on all City departments to consider that people love trees, are passionate about them and will try to defend them. New saplings cannot be considered to “replace” mature trees in size, canopy, grace, or habitat and ecological values. Therefore, projects should be planned to minimize the number of trees impacted, and designed to avoid tree removals as far as possible.

Filed under Fells Trees Tagged with ,

Countdown Starts for Glen Canyon Trees

September 14, 2012 4 Comments

We’ve been writing here about the trees in Glen Canyon scheduled for destruction – a total of over 400 eventually. Well, the countdown has started. A whole bunch of trees have been posted for removal. The comment period is until October 15th, 2012.

[Click HERE to go to a website and blog specifically about Glen Canyon Park and its threatened trees.)

San Francisco Forest Alliance is asking SF Recreations and Parks Department to modify the plans and save the trees.

Here are photographs of some of the threatened trees. Scroll down for a list of people to call and write to.

[Click HERE for more pictures of threatened trees on the Save Glen Park Trees website.]

WHAT YOU CAN DO

1) Write or email the Parks Commission through the Secretary to Park Commissioners, Margaret McArthur.

  • Email: recpark.commission@sfgov.org,
  • Phone: (415) 831-2750

The Commissioners: Mark Buell, President; Tom Harrison, Vice President; Paige Arata; Gloria Bonilla; David E. Lee; Meagan Levitan; Larry Martin.

2) Write to Supervisor Scott Wiener. (Glen Canyon is in his District 8.)

  • (415) 554-6968 – Voice;
  • (415) 554-6909 – Fax;
  • email: Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org

3) Write to Mayor Ed Lee (who incidentally lives near Glen Canyon).

  • Mayor’s Office, City Hall, Room 200; 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place; San Francisco, CA 94102
  • Telephone: (415) 554-6141
  • Fax: (415) 554-6160
  • Email: mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org

4) Write to Dawn Kamalanathan and Karen Mauney-Brodek of the SFRPD’s Capital & Planning Division regarding the trees to be felled for the Capital projects (recreation areas, trails).

  • Dawn.kamalanathan@sfgov.org
  • Karen.mauney-brodek@sfgov.org
  • Telephone: (415) 575-5601.

Filed under Fells Trees Tagged with , , , , ,

Franciscan manzanita is now an endangered species

September 13, 2012 1 Comment

Last week US Fish & Wildlife announced that Franciscan manzanita is now an endangered species. In 2009 the single plant known to exist in the wild was discovered during the reconstruction of Doyle Drive. It was transplanted to an undisclosed location in the Presidio in San Francisco at a cost of $175,000, (or, according to some accounts, $205,000) including an additional annual cost for maintenance. Is this a preview of potential cost of reintroducing this plant throughout San Francisco?

Franciscan manzanita

Although that plant is thought to be the only one of its species existing in the wild—if the Presidio can be said to be wild—it has always been for sale in nurseries.  Yes, the plant given endangered status is considered the same species as those for sale in nurseries, but it is presumed to be genetically unique.  Because genetic diversity is considered important to the survival of a species, the recently discovered plant has been given endangered status.  This makes for an interesting and puzzling lesson on the Endangered Species Act.

CRITICAL HABITATS FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES

In addition to the conferral of endangered status, US Fish & Wildlife has designated 318 acres of public land in San Francisco as critical habitat for the Franciscan manzanita.    Critical habitats are places where the endangered plant is either known to have existed in the past or they are places that provide what the plant needs to survive.

Five of the eleven places in San Francisco designated as critical habitat are on federal land in the Presidio.  (Details about all the critical habitats are available here.)  Forty of the 318 acres are on private land.  Six of the critical habitats are in 196 acres of San Francisco’s city parks:

  • Corona Heights
  • Twin Peaks
  • Mount Davidson
  • Glen Canyon Park (erroneously called Diamond Heights by US Fish & Wildlife)
  • Bernal Hill Park (erroneously called Bernal Heights by US Fish & Wildlife)
  • Bayview Hill Park

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SAN FRANCISCO’S PUBLIC LANDS

The San Francisco Forest Alliance is studying the impact that planting this endangered species might have.  If the proposed critical habitat in these parks is in forested areas, we will undoubtedly object in our public comment because Franciscan manzanita requires full sun which implies that the trees would be destroyed to accommodate the plant.

Sharp Park, Pacifica, CA. Photo by Erica Reder, SF Public Press

We are also concerned about the potential for restrictions on recreational access such as more trail closures and fences needed to protect a fragile, legally protected plant.  The public has had a preview of such loss of recreational assets to protect endangered species at Sharp Park where native plant advocates and their allies have sued to close the golf course, using the Endangered Species Act.

If you are a visitor to or a neighbor of any of these parks, you might want to inform yourself of the potential impact of planting an endangered species with specific horticultural needs.  For example, this is a plant that requires full sun.  Since all of Bayview Hill has been designated as critical habitat and Bayview Hill is heavily forested, you might wonder if this particular park is a good fit for this plant.  Furthermore, this seems to be the only one of the proposed critical habitats in which this plant is not known to have existed historically.

US Fish & Wildlife tells us that the designation of critical habitat for plants does not commit non-federal land owners to reintroduce this endangered plant unless they receive federal funding.  Federal land owners and recipients of federal funding are obligated to consult with US Fish & Wildlife before making any commitments to changes in land use which would not be consistent with the successful reintroduction of the endangered plant.  We assume that the city of San Francisco receives federal funds, so it seems likely that these restrictions would apply to the critical habitats in city parks.  Legal requirements for critical habitat of endangered animals are more rigorous.

MORE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY

More information is available from the Sacramento Office of US Fish & Wildlife:

Robert Moler, robert_moler@fws.gov, (916) 414-6606
Sarah Swenty, sarah_swenty@fws.gov, (916) 414-6571

Comments on the proposed critical habitats will be accepted until November 5, 2012. Comments may be submitted online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FWS–R8–ES–2012–0067) or by U.S. mail to:

Public Comments Processing
Attn:  FWS–R8–ES–2012–0067
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM
Arlington, VA 22203.

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Blocks Access, Fells Trees Tagged with , , , , , ,

Jefferson Street Trees: Update

September 3, 2012 5 Comments

A few days ago, we posted about the Jefferson Street trees, and how 21 of the 25 trees would be saved. We now have the actual revised plan for the tree-felling there, and it’s not as good as we thought: 10 trees are actually going to be chopped down.

LONDON PLANE TREES TO GO

Seven of the trees on Jefferson are London Plane Trees (sycamores, platanus acerifolia). They’re the ones in front of the mellow brick structure of the Hotel Argonaut and give this part of the street much of its grace and beauty.

They’re also the trees that are the host tree for the  Western Tiger Swallowtail butterfly. According to lepidopterist Liam O’Brien who testified at the hearing on August 27, these will likely be full of overwintering pupae ready to hatch into pretty butterflies in the spring.

Four of the seven trees are slated to be chopped down, pupae and all.  Only one is to be replaced. In the picture below, all the trees sprayed yellow will be felled.

A pittosporum tree in the same line  – between the two buildings in the picture above – would be felled without replacement.  Out of the first ten trees you encounter when you walk from Hyde Street onto Jefferson, only five would be left. In addition, a ficus tree at the end of the block would be cut down, but replaced with a sapling.

We grabbed a map from Google maps and marked the trees to be felled. The red splotches show trees that won’t be replaced. The yellow splotches show the ones that will be replaced. The green trees are the ones preserved in the revised plan.

On the second block (along Jefferson from Leavenworth to Jones), the trees are all tristanias (tristania conferta). Four trees would be felled and new saplings would be planted in their place.

Filed under Fells Trees Tagged with , , ,

Saving the Trees on Jefferson Street

August 28, 2012 4 Comments

A few days ago, we were contacted by Kathy Hallinan, who was determined to save 25 trees on Jefferson Street in Fishermans Wharf. They had been posted for destruction.

No one had any idea these trees had been targeted as part of $5 million in planned improvements in the Fisherman’s Wharf area. Only when the notices were posted did the public realize that the plan was to remove all the trees for two blocks. These were healthy mature London Planes (sycamores) and pittosporum trees, and they would be replaced with… lamp posts. With hanging flower baskets.

BROAD-BASED SUPPORT

San Francisco Forest Alliance as an organization, and many of the members individually, supported the effort to save the trees. A petition was started at Change.org, and we helped spread the word. We helped build a website for easy access to information.  (Those who follow us on Facebook would have seen both the pleas and the petition.) We attended a hearing on August 27th to voice our support for the trees and the activists seeking to save them

San Francisco Forest Alliance sent in a formal letter to the SD Department of Public Works (SF DPW), opposing the felling. (Though the trees are on Ports land, they do not have a tree-felling process, and defer it to SF DPW.) The Sierra Club had a resolution in opposition [to the tree-cutting]. Liam O’Brien, lepidopterist, pointed out that London Plane trees were the favored habitat of the native butterfly, the Western Tiger Swallowtail, and noted that the trees would be full of pupae now, ready for over-wintering.

The petition gained almost 200 signatures in under a week, and the rate at which the signatures were coming in was snowballing.

TWENTY-ONE TREES SAVED

We attended the SF DPW hearing on August 27th expecting to face considerable opposition. We were thrilled, therefore, with the presentation from the project manager, who said they had modified their project with a compromise.

Only 4 trees would be felled, 3 because they needed to make a passenger drop-off place in front of Hotel Argonaut, and one because it was in the way of planned construction. Three others in relatively poor condition would be monitored. Four new trees would be planted, but probably not on Jefferson.

We’d like to thank the project managers for reconsidering the tree-destruction.

And kudos to Kathy Hallinan, whose determination and inspiration brought this potential destruction into the public eye, and saved the trees.

Filed under Fells Trees Tagged with , , ,

More on Glen Canyon’s Tree Loss: ACTION ALERT

August 14, 2012 3 Comments

A couple of days ago, we’d posted some estimates of how many trees Glen Canyon might lose over the next couple of years.  It’s a large number  and a vague one. We think the number is upwards of 400 trees.

How many majestic trees are going to be removed from Glen Canyon Park, and Why?

The San Francisco Forest Alliance is attending the August 16, 2012 Park Commissioners meeting about the Glen Canyon Park capital projects – we are concerned they are moving forward with the unnecessary removal of healthy trees.

RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2012, 10:00 A.M.
CITY HALL, ROOM 416

Rec & Park is set to hire a contractor to begin the relocation of tennis courts and renovation of the playground, ball park and rec center. We have repeatedly asked, what trees are being removed and why? Since Rec & Park inventories every single tree, we want to know specifically how many trees are being destroyed for other reasons than they are hazardous, dead or dying,  specifically interfering with the Recreation Center Capital Construction Project scope.

We encourage those who can join us at the meeting to advocate your support against unnecessary, unjustified and costly tree removals.

[Edited to Add: Thank you to those who came to speak or just support. We requested the tree-felling portion of the contract to be separated for further review. We didn't get it. The Commission approved the contract as is.]

NO STRAIGHT ANSWERS

Over the past year, Rec & Park and their consultant have given numerous public presentations about the “hazardous” tree assessment funded by the 2008 Parks Bond (which we support).

But the numbers keep shifting, the excuses keep proliferating and the reports keep multiplying with inconsistent assessments. This makes it very frustrating trying to get a holistic view of all tree removals, whether they are for the Natural Areas Programs that wants to replace trees with native grasses and shrubs or whether they are for actual safety problems.

In reality, almost none of the trees slated for removal in Glen Canyon has been evaluated as hazardous.  In fact, money is being wasted on healthy trees that pose no threat and most people enjoy their sheer size and beauty.
For example, we recently discovered that the Rec Center Capital Project bid packet includes specifications to remove almost all trees around and behind the Rec Center, even though most have nothing to do with relocating the tennis courts.  In this picture, all the trees visible behind the tennis courts up the hillside toward Elk Street will be cut down.

WHAT THEY TOLD US BEFORE

Now, Rec & Park has added new criteria for removing trees associated with the improvement plan:  “poor suitability.”

Is “poor suitability” a new standard that appeared from thin air?

This was never defined or discussed in the Glen Canyon Recreation community meetings or other public meetings.   In addition, the area for tree cutting included in the contractor bid is  much larger than discussed in the community meetings.

In fact, the final presentation on the Rec Center capital project clearly does not show such extensive tree removal (see above).
Source:  Final Glen Canyon Community Meeting Presentation — Dec. 10, 2011
http://sfrecpark.org/documents/GlenCanyonCommunityMeetingPresentation-Dec.10.2011.pdf
TENNIS COURT TREE REMOVAL MAPS

Also, the Tennis Court Relocation Diagram that was produced to specifically to address community concerns regarding trees doesn’t indicate any plans to remove trees because of “poor suitability” or to remove trees from the hillside slope or meadow. The only trees identified for removal are the cluster behind the tennis court – outlined in white on the picture below.

(Source: http://sfrecpark.org/documents/GlenCanyon_TennisCourtRelocation.pdf)

To complicate matters even more, we had to use a Sunshine Act public records request to get the Rec & Park hired arborist’s recommendations for tree removal. It’s a long, cryptic report with dense maps that recommends removing between 200-400 trees:

  • 227 (36%) of 627 trees evaluated in the Capital Projects/Forestry assessment project.
  • “Poor Suitability” was the arborist’s only justification for removing 176 (77%) of these trees.
  • “Invasive” (aka non-native tree) is likely a significant factor in the criteria that the arborist used to determine the “poor suitability” designation.
  • Rec & Park continues to present the tree removals as “hazardous” in meetings when in fact it’s the “non-native species” criteria driving tree removals for this project.

A CONTRACT OUT ON THESE TREES

This Rec Center project illustration  is our attempt to consolidate the various documents to show how many trees are actually being removed and the reasons why, which have very little to do with safety.

There is a disturbing pattern wherein the historic Glen Canyon forest, like other city park forests, are being continually laid bare, bit by bit, in one project after another. For Glen Canyon, this is what we’ve seen and expect in the future:

  • Rec Center Capital Project – 2008 Bond (Fall 2012):  68 trees
  • Forestry Capital Project – 2008 Bond (Fall 2012):  160 trees
  • Trail Restoration Capital Project – 2008 Bond (Fall 2012):   32 trees
  • SNRAMP Large, Healthy Tree Removal Proposal  (2013):   120  trees
  • SNRAMP Young Tree Thinning Proposal (already occurring):  unknown number
  • Willows (native) for daylighting creek  (already occurring):  unknown number
  • Documented Past NAP Creek Projects (2008):    24 trees

That’s a total of 404++ trees!

In addition, there are reports of  trees cut before 2012 (including evidence such as stumps) of around a 100 trees.

NATURAL BEE HIVE TREE TO GET THE AX

Quite sadly, a pine tree that will be cut down is home to one of the two natural bee hives in Glen Canyon. (This would be in addition to one inadvertently destroyed last year.) Much of the wildlife in the canyon uses or benefits from the tall, majestic trees.  Glen Canyon does not have a significant number of conifers for kinds of birds and insects and other wildlife that need conifers.  Even the lovely, gnarly acacia’s that provide a screen beneath the towering Eucalyptus along the Rec Center will be gone. Acacia is also an extremely valuable habitat tree.

SF native plant gardens certainly have value but Rec & Park has not proven that they can create and sustain native plant gardens outside of wetland areas.  It is time to stop ripping out healthy and self-sustaining landscaping and instead start spending time caring for and maintaining what we are fortunate to have with majestic, healthy trees in our urban open space areas.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

1)  Join us at the Parks Commission meeting mentioned above.

2) Write or email the Parks Commission through the Secretary to Park Commissioners, Margaret McArthur.

  • Email:  recpark.commission@sfgov.org,
  • Phone:  (415) 831-2750

The Commissioners: Mark Buell, President; Tom Harrison, Vice President; Paige Arata; Gloria Bonilla; David E. Lee; Meagan Levitan; Larry Martin.

3)  Write to Supervisor Scott Wiener. (Glen Canyon is in his District 8.)

  • (415) 554-6968 – Voice;
  • (415) 554-6909 – Fax;
  • email: Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org

Filed under "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees Tagged with , , ,

How Many Trees will Glen Canyon Lose?

August 10, 2012 4 Comments

Glen Canyon is just about to undergo a major change, as the projects funded by the 2008 Parks Bond get underway. They plan to make a new entrance area,  move the tennis courts, move the playground and change the equipment, and add a restroom. The total project has a budget of $5.8 million, and the work is expected to take ten months.

During the community meetings about the project, neighbors expressed concerns about losing trees. In fact, in the SF Recreation and Parks Department’s (SF RPD) note for the Recreation and Parks Commission hearing, scheduled for August 16th, it described the Opposition: “Some individuals have expressed concern about tree removals.”

Most neighbors came away from the community meetings believing that only a few trees would be removed – maybe about a dozen or less, mainly owing to the tennis court relocation. This an excerpt from an SF RPD document about the Glen Canyon plan:

On June 28, 2012, Dennis Kern, Director of Rec & Park Operations, gave a presentation to the Glen Park Association, where  he said that a total of 101 trees would be removed in Glen Park.  Some were considered hazardous and others were in the way of the capital project.  He made no mention of 120 trees that have been identified for removal by the management plan for the Natural Areas Program (SNRAMP).  These trees are not hazardous, but will be removed in order to expand native plant gardens.

He also said that all the trees removed would be replaced one-for-one, and 94 additional trees planted. However, as we’ve seen before, the “one-for-one” does not mean replacing the trees at the same location, or with the same species: “Trees” by the SF RPD definition includes shrubs.

By this reckoning, Glen Canyon stands to lose some 220 majestic trees in the next year or two.

COULD BE MORE

We recently obtained the plans (by making a public records request)  for tree removals in Glen Canyon Park recommended by Hort Science, SF Rec and Park Department’s hired consultant.  (The 30-page report is available here as a PDF document: [Glen Canyon Hort Science Report for SF RPD.])  The report recommended 247 removals  – including two-thirds of the trees near the Recreation Center and playing fields. They looked at 250 trees around the Recreation Center, and recommended removing 190 of them. In addition, they looked at 327 trees elsewhere in the park, and recommended removing another 57 – including 20 which were to be removed because they grow on a steep slope.  The report provided a hazard assessment only for 48 trees, of which 37 were recommended for removal. According to the spreadsheet in the report, only 12 of the trees were impacted by the project – a number that approximates what the neighbors understood.

The majority of the trees were defined as having “Poor Suitability” – a broad grab-bag of reasons, including being old, (because though old trees have a greater emotional and aesthetic appeal, they don’t adjust as easily as young trees); and being of the wrong species.

As best as we can figure from the bid documents, these “poor suitability” trees are not being removed, but are  at risk from the changed environment of the capital project. [Edited to Add: This may not be right. It looks like a number of trees are being removed for "poor suitability." See our later post for a map of the trees being removed.] We can only hope that they are carefully protected through the 10 months of demolition and construction activity that’s coming to Glen Canyon. Otherwise, many of them will be Collateral Damage.

This tally doesn’t count the trees already gone. The Natural Areas Program has already destroyed trees in its efforts to re-landscape the canyon. About two dozen are documented, but according to a resident of the area, some 100 eucalyptus trees may have been removed before they started counting.

WHERE IT’S AT

The project has been put out to bid, and a $3.7 million contract is about to be awarded, subject to confirmation from the SF Recreation and Parks Commission. That hearing is scheduled for the Commission’s meeting on 16th August 2012, at 10 a.m., in Room 416, at 10 a.m.

[The tree removals scheduled immediately are shown on the maps on pages 7-10 in the bid documents. CLICK HERE for the PDF document.]

We plan to invite a second opinion from a qualified arborist. If you would like to help SF Forest Alliance with these costs, please consider a donation. (Look for the yellow Paypal button on the right.)

Filed under Fells Trees Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 89 other followers