Urban Forest Master Plan—Where Art Thou? – by Dee Seligman

This article is reprinted with permission from the West Portal Monthly (with minor changes and added emphasis).

We think it’s important that San Francisco save its trees and forests, and expand – not just maintain – its tree canopy cover.  The Urban Forestry Master Plan needs tree canopy goals.

(Nearly all San Francisco’s trees are non-native, which is why native plant enthusiasts want to cut them down.)

mt-davidson-forest 1

IN SEARCH OF AN URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN by Dee Seligman

Non-native trees threatened by revised citywide canopy goals

Only 13.7% of San Francisco is covered by trees–a canopy smaller than most major cities, including those of Detroit, Los Angeles, and San Jose. In the last two years, tree planting in San Francisco decreased by 21.4% while tree removal increased by 107% among city agencies responsible for the city’s trees reporting their data. Wouldn’t it make sense to have a citywide goal to increase our canopy coverage?

The Planning Department’s Urban Forest Master Plan, if its current version gets approved by the Planning Commission, could eliminate a last protection for Mt. Davidson and provide another rationale for converting its forest to native shrubs and grasslands.Instead of a citywide canopy goal, the Planning Department has backed off. It made a strategic change in its Urban Forest Master Plan between its first draft, made public January 2014 and its final draft of May 2014. This Phase 1 of the Planwill guide street tree policies, with Phase 2 and Phase 3 following at an undetermined future time to guide park and private tree policies.

This Urban ForestMaster Plan will soon come before the Planning Commission, the Land Use Committee and the Board of Supervisors for approval, but it’s not yet a done deal. You can halt this elaborate dance going on behind the scenes by contacting the Planning Commission right away.

Why did the Planning Dept. change from its original goal in the January draft of increasing the city’s canopy of all trees by 25% over twenty years to the goal of doubling only the “street tree” canopy by 50% in the next twenty years in the final May version? That sounds innocuous, but it allows for planting more native shrubs to count as “urban forest canopy.”

One influential public comment argued that Planning should “replace the citywide canopy goal with a goal for street trees. Citywide canopy goal is not the most effective strategy. Open spaces and parks have more complicated and competing objectives such as biodiversity that should not be compromised for arbitrary citywide canopy targets.”

But why does the Planning Department believe “biodiversity” is not satisfied by a mixture of native and non-native trees?Furthermore, the Department changed the very definition of an urban forest, carefully adding the phrase “and other vegetation” after the word “trees” throughout the document.

This apparently minor change allows for native plants, not just trees, to be counted as “urban forest.” A few thousand extra native shrubs instead of adding full-sized trees shouldn’t matter, right?

Another public comment made between the first and final version of the Plan asked, “Are the naturally occurring trees and other vegetation included in the definition?” Why should native trees and other vegetation even need to be spelled out unless there is a hidden agenda?Clearly Planning’s process from original to final draft should consider public comment, but are trees not the essence of an “Urban Forest” master plan?

In backing off from establishing a citywide canopy goal, the Planning Department later explained that “community input, ecological analysis and an inventory of allowable planting areas” would be necessary first. However, they did not believe that when they first proposed a citywide canopy goal in the original January draft.

Why is such input and analysis not needed for a street tree canopy goal but is needed for a citywide canopy goal? Perhaps the real answer lies in the Department’s rationale for their change that “trees may not be appropriate in all locations and other forms of vegetation may be more suited to support other policy priorities such as habitat creation, neighborhood character and recreational needs.”

Obviously trees must be planted in appropriate locations, but the issue of habitat creation is a red herring. All trees provide habitat. The concept of creating additional habitat is a not-very-subtle nod to pressures from those in inner circles who insist the only good habitat is native vegetation and native trees.

It’s simple: San Francisco needs more trees. Every tree counts. To protect Mt. Davidson and enlarge our existing tree canopy we need citywide canopy goals.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Please contact the Planning Commissioners immediately, at commissions.secretary@sfgov.org or (415) 558-6309. With the Urban Forest Master Plan being considered  in the next few weeks,  ask that a citywide canopy goal be included before any endorsement of the Urban Forest Master Plan.

San Francisco in 1877

Treeless San Francisco in 1877

 

People’s Climate Rally, Sunday 21 Sept 2014 in Oakland CA

San Francisco Forest Alliance is proud to partner with other environmental organizations to support the Climate Rally in the Bay Area.

CREDO describes it as “the largest climate mobilization in U.S. history.”  The main one is in New York, on September 21, 2014.

But there’s a rally in the Bay Area too, at the same time,  in sympathy with that rally. It’s in Oakland, California, and you’re invited. The Rally will be from 2 pm to 5 pm at the Lake Merritt Amphitheater.

What: People’s Climate March
When: Sunday 21 Sept 2014  at 2:00 – 5 p.m.
Where: Lake Merritt Amphitheater, 12th Street and Lake Merritt Blvd., Oakland

ClimateRally_Sep21_Email_frontIt will be a family-friendly event, on the shore of Oakland’s Lake Merritt, just a few short blocks from the Lake Merritt BART station. Details in the picture below (click on it to make it larger).

rally postcard partners

If you’re concerned about climate change, please join thousands of others and participate in this historic event.

rally endorsers

[Edited to add reverse of postcard, which also includes SF Forest Alliance listed as a Partner, and list of endorsers as of 17 Sept 2014]

Woodpecker Diversity in San Francisco

watchful acorn woodpecker (c) Janet Kessler

Watchful acorn woodpecker (c) Janet Kessler

Wildlife photographer Janet Kessler shared these photographs of an acorn woodpecker in Glen Canyon in late August, 2014 (and they’re copyright to her). It was a great capture, though she wasn’t thrilled with the quality. “They were taken under bad lighting at a high ISO,” she explained.

2014-08-27 (1) acorn woodpecker

Acorn woodpecker (c) Janet Kessler

We loved their expressiveness.  Acorn woodpeckers have clown faces with a comical red crown. They reminded us of a childhood song,  ” Hear him pickin’ out a melody/ Peck, peck, peckin’ at the same old tree/ he’s as happy as a bumblebee…”

It’s a delight to find so many species of woodpeckers in San Francisco.

The Audubon Society started its Christmas Bird Counts in 1915, and by 1945 they had held 18 counts. In those 18 counts, only three species of woodpecker showed up: Northern flickers; downy woodpeckers; and acorn woodpeckers like these birds here.

downy woodpecker (c) Janet Kessler

Downy woodpecker (c) Janet Kessler

Northern Flicker(c) Richard Drechsler 2012

Northern Flicker(c) Richard Drechsler 2012

MORE DIVERSITY

Woodpeckers need trees, preferably mature trees. All those tree-planting efforts from the turn of the last century have created a wonderful habitat for birds. 

Recent Christmas Bird Counts in San Francisco doubled the number of  woodpecker species. In addition to the earlier three,  they showed Hairy woodpeckers; Nuttall’s woodpeckers; and sapsuckers (both red-naped and yellow-bellied, a division that didn’t exist in 1945).

hairy woodpecker (c) janet kessler

Hairy woodpecker (c) Janet Kessler

Hairy woodpeckers, like the ones in the pictures here, are larger than downy woodpeckers and have bigger beaks.

Hairy Woodpecker (c) Richard Drechsler 2009

Hairy Woodpecker in San Francisco (c) Richard Drechsler 2009

This is a red-breasted sapsucker, photographed in San Francisco.

Sapsucker (c) Janet Kessler

Red breasted sapsucker (c) Janet Kessler

And recently, birders have reported seeing a Lewis’s woodpecker in Buena Vista Park, flying between cypress trees and “a tall eucalyptus.”

Lewis's Woodpecker (c) Richard Drechsler

Lewis’s Woodpecker in San Francisco (c) Richard Drechsler

NEXT GENERATION!

Northern flickers are breeding in the city now. (The photograph here and in the linked article are also by Janet Kessler and copyright to her.) The baby birds in the picture below are nearly grown.

Red-shafted flicker family in eucalyptus tree nest - San Francisco - Janet Kessler

Red-shafted flicker family in eucalyptus tree nest – San Francisco (c) Janet Kessler

Nuttall’s woodpeckers are breeding here too. We’d like to thank Richard Drechsler for these wonderful pictures of a Nuttall’s woodpecker nest, below.

Nuttall's woodpecker in nest (c) Richard Drechsler 2011

Nuttall’s woodpecker in nest (c) Richard Drechsler 2011

It was taken in the Potrero Hill area – where, incidentally, Caltrans is cutting down a lot of trees and neighbors are trying  to save them.

nuttall's woodpecker at nest (c) Richard Drechsler 2011

Nuttalls woodpecker at nest (c) Richard Drechsler 2011

We would like to thank Janet Kessler and Richard Drechsler for giving permission to use their photographs in this article.

FEMA Rule Change Could Make Tree-felling Easier

Very often, land managers seeking funding for a project look to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for funds. FEMA provides money for fire hazard reduction, and if the project can be presented in those terms, the land managers can apply for a grant.

Until now, if a project seeking FEMA funding was large enough, FEMA asked the project sponsors for an Environmental Impact Report. This made a lot of sense: Fire hazard reduction projects have massive impacts on the landscape and habitat, much of it negative.

BUT THERE’S A NEW PLAN

Now,  FEMA plans a “programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) to evaluate the potential beneficial and adverse impacts from eligible wildfire mitigation activities funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program.” What this amounts to is that fire hazard reduction projects would be “pre-cleared” from an environmental standpoint. FEMA is planning to make this a nationwide measure.

It would apply to  three types of wildfire mitigation projects to protect buildings and structures on the Wildland-Urban Interface (i.e. where structures are within 2 miles of a wildland):

  • “Defensible space—The creation of perimeters around residential and non-residential buildings and structures through the removal or reduction of flammable vegetation;
  • “Structural Protection through Ignition-Resistant Construction—The application of non-combustible building envelope assemblies, the use of ignition-resistant materials, and the use of proper retrofit techniques in new and existing structures; and
  • “Hazardous Fuels Reduction—Vegetation management to decrease the amount of hazardous fuels; vegetation thinning; and reduction of flammable materials to protect life and property beyond defensible space perimeters but proximate to at-risk structures.”

The first two measures are not controversial, and can reduce hazard with a relatively minor environmental impact. However, the third one – Hazardous Fuels Reduction – is much more problematic for the environment.

WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM?

Tree removal – for whatever reason – is one of the costliest activities for a land manager. This makes any potential source of outside funding attractive.  FEMA is one such source. So if any tree-felling project can be presented as hazard reduction, it has a chance of obtaining such funds. Not having to do an environmental impact report would make the money more easily accessible.

However, removing  trees also has a significant environmental impact, which can be greater or lesser depending on the size of the project, the topography of the site, and the ecological system that would be affected. Some of the impacts:

  • Hydrology: Removing trees affects water flow and can lead to problems with erosion
  • Slope stabilization issues: The root systems of trees – especially older, mature trees that may have intergrafted roots – stabilize slopes. Removing trees can contribute to slope failures years – even decades – later.
  • Carbon sequestration: Trees capture and store carbon, fighting global warming. Felling trees stops them from collecting the carbon, and  returns it to the atmosphere.
  • Toxic herbicides: In many of these projects, managers plan to use large amounts of herbicides to prevent tree regrowth. This can end up in the soil and water, and also affect people, pets and wildlife using the lands.
  • Pollution: Trees and vegetation help fight pollution, particularly particulate pollution, by trapping particles on their leaves until they’re washed to the ground by rain.

And of course, removing trees affects the beauty and recreational value of these areas. It’s only by evaluating the environmental impact of individual projects that FEMA can determine if the negative environmental impact would be worth the hazard reduction – if any. Ironically, many of these projects would actually increase fire hazard, because removing the trees encourages growth of scrub and grass that ignite more easily and support fast-moving fires.

We’ve been concerned because we think that Native Plant “restoration” projects are often presented as hazard reduction projects. In 2008, FEMA received such an application for tree-felling in Sutro Forest. More recently, FEMA was asked to fund the removal of hundreds of thousands of trees in the East Bay.

HOW AND WHERE TO COMMENT

FEMA is accepting comments until August 18th, 2014 – this coming Monday. The comments have to be submitted at their website (not by email). Here’s how:

  1. Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov
  2.  In the Search space that comes up, input FEMA-2014-0021
  3.  Then click on Open Docket folder at the right.
 (Or try this link: HERE )

They’re not interested in comments that look like a mass mail campaign, so to have an impact, you would have to write a the comment individually.

Great horned owlets in eucalyptus. San Francisco. Janet Kessler

Don’t Cut Trees in the Nesting Season!

This year, the issue of tree-trimming or cutting during the nesting season was highlighted by the sad destruction of black-crowned night herons’ nests when the Oakland Post Office decided to get its trees trimmed. Five young herons were injured, others may have died. The tree trimmer potentially faced criminal charges, but was so remorseful – and so willing to pay for the care of the baby herons – that everyone was relieved when he didn’t.

Most people just don’t know that it’s a bad idea to trim trees (or worse, remove them) during the nesting season. Even aggressively trimming undergrowth could damage or destroy birds’ nests.  In San Francisco, the season extends approximately from February to September, depending on many factors including the weather.

Each year, Wildcare, a wonderful organization that rehabilitates hurt or orphaned wildlife,  gets a deluge of baby birds during the summer. Most of  them are displaced by tree-trimming or removal.

2012-04-11 bewick's wren nesting

Birds nests are difficult to spot, even for experts. Herons’ nests are large and noisy, and the Oakland Post Office staff surely knew the birds were there. But most birds hide their nests. Unless they are huge ones like nests of hawks or owls, the parent birds need to conceal their young from predators. Humans, who typically aren’t really looking out for them, would usually miss seeing them altogether. It may take even experienced birders hours of observation to be sure. Nests of hummingbirds, for instance, are around the size of a quarter. They’re common in San Francisco but very difficult to spot.

BROCHURES AND INFORMATION

Here’s Wildcare’s page  “Stop! Don’t Prune Those Trees!”  It explains the problem in a user-friendly way, and also gives references of two bird-friendly arborists who can do emergency work if needed.

 “Spring (and summer!) are busy baby season— procrastinate now!

When is wildlife nesting? There is some variation, but most wild animals have their babies in the spring, between March and June. However, many species will also have a second brood in July or August if food supplies are sufficient. If you can plan to trim your trees in the winter months, you can completely avoid the possibility of damaging a nest. It’s also a healthier time for the trees, when the sap has gone down and trees will be in their dormant phase. Call WildCare at 415-456-7283 if you’re unsure when it is a safe time to trim or remove a tree. “

The Golden Gate Audubon Society has published an excellent brochure:  Healthy Trees, Healthy Birds that is available as a PDF on their website. Here are pictures of the brochure (the download will be clearer and can be printed).

GGAS Healthy Trees Healthy Birds brochure 1

GGAS Healthy Trees Healthy Birds brochure 2

IT’S ILLEGAL TO DISTURB BIRDS’ NESTS

Disturbing – or worse, destroying – a birds nest is illegal. It’s a strict liability offense punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine per offense.  There are laws at the Federal, State and City level. Here’s what they say:

  • Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This applies to over 1,000 bird species, including many that are found in San Francisco. It makes it ” …illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird…” (“Taking” means to harass, harm, or pursue a bird.)
  •  California State Code 3503, 3503.5: ” It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.”  California State Code 3503.5 relates to birds of prey: ” It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.”
  • San Francisco County Municipal Code 5.08: It’s unlawful “to hunt, chase, shoot, trap, discharge or throw missiles at, harass, disturb, taunt, endanger, capture, injure, or destroy any animal in any park...” (with exceptions for small rodents like gophers).

The general rule is to stay 50 feet away from song-bird nests, and 500 feet from raptor nests.

TREES IN “POOR CONDITION” ARE GREAT FOR BIRDS

Sometimes, trees are removed because they’re in poor condition – dead or dying. Those are often the very trees that birds love, especially those that nest in cavities. Like this flicker (a kind of woodpecker) nesting in a half-dead eucalyptus tree. If you weren’t watching very patiently, you would have no idea that a family of young birds (three in this case) were being raised here.

The eucalyptus-tree nest hole of the red-shafted flicker - San Francisco. Janet KesslerPLAYING SAFE

The only safe way is to NEVER cut trees or thin dense bushes during the nesting season – and even when working in the off-season, typically September to February, to be very observant and watchful before starting work.

Young Great Horned Owls being raised in Eucalyptus tree

Mount Sutro Forest Isn’t Diseased or Dying – It’s Natural

This post is reproduced, with permission and minor changes, from SutroForest.com

sutro forest canopy June 2014 sm

CRYING WOLF WITH BEETLES

In the Sutro Stewards blog last month, Craig Dawson (who is its Executive Director) wrote a post claiming that the forest was in dire straits, infected with funguses and beetles: specifically, Anthracnose, armillaria, phytopthora, wood decay fungi, the snout beetle and the tortoise beetle. It concluded: “The bottom line is that we cannot expect much of the declining forest to recover from the condition it is currently found in, rather we can expect further widespread die-off. The dying trees will quickly pose a significant hazard within a year or two as we have already witnessed.”

It sounded alarming.

We sent the link to the article to a number of experts. None of them thought it was particularly serious. (One academic ecologist called it “…pure twaddle…” ) Nor did they agree with its conclusion that the forest would therefore decline.

  • “The diseases and insects mentioned in the Sutro report could be found in any forest…” (from a certified arborist and plant pathologist)
  • “The description of common conditions of eucalypt trees on the part of Mr Dawson’s piece seems to me solid as such—a description—but unconvincing as an argument that pretends to show some state of pathological emergency in Sutro…” (from an environmental science professor)
  • “This is amateur plant pathology at its best….” (from an urban forester)
  • “…faith-based botany…” (from an urban forester)
  • “This is certainly not the first time I have seen someone want to use a disease threat as a roundabout way to get some politically inconvenient trees removed.” (from an academic plant pathologist)

THE SPECIFICS

Some commented specifically on the individual fungi/ beetles. We also investigated ourselves, using the UC Davis website.

  • Anthracnose: “anthracnose is found on the leaves of many plants…” [In San Francisco] “sycamore leaves are filled with anthracnose…” (We would also note the UC Davis website says, “In California, anthracnose rarely causes permanent damage to plants except for elm trees.”)
  • Armillaria: “…definitely all over the place in the coast ranges and is even rampant in Golden Gate Park.” (This does not indicate a dire disease requiring intervention, especially tree-felling.)
  • Phytopthora: We could find no references to phytophthora in eucalyptus in California.
  • Wood decay fungi: “..these are mostly associated with older trees. The pictures represent Trametes versicolor – mostly found on dead wood, very rarely on living trees; Laetiporus gilbertsolnii – common on living Eucalyptus and oaks…” (Again, there’s no indication that these are reason for alarm.)
  • Eucalyptus snout beetle: These beetles feed on eucalyptus leaves. According to UC Davis’s website, “Eucalyptus snout beetle is controlled biologically by Anaphes nitens, an introduced parasitic wasp. No further control is necessary.”
  • Eucalyptus tortoise beetle: Also a leaf feeder, these beetles don’t usually kill trees. From the UC Davis website: “Unsightly, tattered leaves are usually just an annoyance that does not appear to threaten eucalyptus survival or health.” Since some tattered leaves in a forest setting are quite natural, we don’t think this is a problem.

Following a recent walk through Sutro Forest, Dr McBride (Professor Emeritus, UC Berkeley) noted that the forest looked healthy and thriving, with no evidence of the feared decline. He pointed out that in a naturalized setting like this one, we should expect some number of trees to do poorly or even die, as the forest “self-thins.” Furthermore, he said, without fungi and other creatures as part of the forest ecosystem, we’d be up to our eyeballs in dead logs.

fungus on a stump - sutro forest - june 2014

We have to say that in our years of frequent walks in the forest, in all weather and at all times of the year, most of these fungi and beetles are rare. Rare enough, in fact, that when we see fungi or mushrooms (the fruiting body of some fungi) we take pictures. We found a few leaves with evidence of tortoise beetles (semi-circular “bites” from the leaves), but they were few and far between. So far, we have not been able to find leaves showing the elongated perforations made by snout beetles.

few leaves have beetle holes

We asked about hollow trees. Dr McBride said that unless the remaining wood is less than 30% of the diameter, hollows in trees did not weaken them. “A tube is structurally one of the strongest forms,” he said. The life of a tree is in its outer layers. The center of a tree essentially provides structure. (And – hollow trees are great wildlife habitat.)

WHAT ABOUT THAT CANOPY?

The Sutro Stewards article also includes a picture of a stand of trees with a defoliated canopy, implying that is typical of the forest. It is not. This picture at the start of this article, taken in June 2014, is actually much more representative of the conditions in Sutro Forest. (Here’s a picture of the forest taken from Twin Peaks.)

sutro forest from twin peaks - June 2014

The stand portrayed in the article does exist. It is on the lower part of the East Ridge – right above an area where UCSF has removed a lot of trees and understory as part of their “fire hazard” action in August 2013. This has made the forest there much drier and less able to retain moisture – particularly since this is on a steep slope near the edge of the forest. Dr McBride considers that the trees’ intergrafted root system may also have been damaged during the work, making the stand much more vulnerable. However, the trees do seem to be recovering, currently with epicormic growth.

gradually recovering defoliated eucalyptus on east ridge of sutro forest

CAUTION: DON’T MESS WITH THE FOREST

But rather than indicating that the forest is diseased and trees should be removed, it suggests much more caution. The removal of smaller trees and understory and damage to root systems can stress trees, reducing the moisture available and increasing wind damage. Instead of making the remaining trees more healthy by “releasing” them, it can make them less healthy – as we see on the lower part of the East Ridge. Similar impacts are visible in Glen Canyon, where a lot of clearing has been going on – exacerbated by pesticide use.

Furthermore, with the normal fungi present, and with the usual damp conditions in this cloud forest environment, chopping down trees doesn’t help reduce fungi, it only spreads it around.

Bees in Glen Canyon – Update

 We’ve reported here before about the bee tree that was cut down as part of the “improvements” to Glen Canyon Park – and the one that was killed by mistake when someone thought it was a nest of yellow-jackets, not bees. This meant that only one of the three wild bee trees was still a living hive. We recently had both good news and bad news. There’s still only one bee tree, but the bees have proved resilient.

Karen Peteros wrote this note, which is published with permission. [This was originally published at Save the Trees of Glen Canyon Park.]

BEE TREES IN GLEN CANYON by Karen Peteros

Scott Mattoon and I have been working with RPD [San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department] Capital Improvements since 2011 to minimize adverse impacts Glen Canyon Park improvements could have on our feral honey bee colonies.

exposed hive with bees (Photo- Scott Mattoon)

Exposed hive with bees (Photo – Scott Mattoon)

One bee tree was lost on the hill above the Rec Center. Despite many many meetings with RPD, and a negotiated agreement to cut that bee tree at 25′ and otherwise leave it alone, the subcontractor failed to get that instruction and cut the tree at 5′. The trunk split and the colony exposed, but I was able to save the remaining bees and queen and install them in a Langstroth hive.

The bee tree that Scott discovered to have had its hive opening spray-foamed shut a few years back (above where Islais Creek goes underground) due to mistaken identification as a culprit of a nearby sting incident, seems to have reopened and a swarm moved in last year. That colony has done well, and recently swarmed (I understand Philip Gerrie retrieved the swarm).

revived hive

Revived hive – Photo (c) Janet Kessler

the bee tree that was killed has bees again

The bee tree that was killed has bees again. Photo (c) Janet Kessler

After many discussions, emails and meetings with RPD, Scott and I have convinced RPD to leave that tree alone for now. It has a substantial lean but, if it were to fall, it would not cross the path especially if RPD would cut off the top limbs right above the crotch where the limbs grow out of the main trunk. That’s been our recommendation but it has not yet been done to reduce the risks if it were to fall.

As usual RPD does what it wants — under-doing things by not cutting the limbs to reduce the risks if the tree were to fall which has been their stated concern but also over-doing things by placing the orange fence around the tree unreasonably suggesting the bees are a safety hazard when they are not. Nonetheless, the orange fence has served to be educational to bring park goers’ attention to honey bees in a natural habitat.

Finally, the very large mother bee tree, fenced down near Silvertree, with the opening in the base is undisturbed but the colony died out after many years of perpetuating itself.

I have not seen any bee activity there since late last year. 

the remaining bee tree

The old bee tree. Photo (c) Janet Kessler

Give the wax moths another year or more and, hopefully, the cavity will be cleaned out sufficiently to be deemed suitable by a future swarm looking to set up residence.

Karen Peteros,
Glen Park neighborhood resident & beekeeper
San Francisco Bee-Cause

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 421 other followers