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 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
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 forests
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.
This is a revision of an article that was published on May 5, 2013. In our haste to inform our readers of these projects during the public comment period, we published before we had read the entire Environmental Impact Study. We are forced to revise our estimates based on further reading of the document. We apologize for the confusion and thank you for your patience.
On May 29, 2013, we found an error in the number of trees that will be removed at Frowning Ridge. We show our corrections so as not to mislead our readers.Again, our apologies.
*******************************
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been considering grant applications for “fire hazard mitigation” in the East Bay since 2005, when the first of these applications was submitted. After years of debate about whether or not the projects achieve the stated purpose and at what cost to the taxpayers and the environment, FEMA finally agreed to resolve the controversial issues by mandating an environmental impact review, which began in 2010. Although FEMA paid for the environmental review, the grant applicants conducted it and it represents their opinions of their projects.
This eucalyptus forest at the North Oakland Sports Facility will be entirely destroyed.
These are the projects for which the Million Trees blog was created and for which it was named. Our opinion of these projects is unchanged by the environmental impact review. These projects will not achieve their stated objectives. Instead they will damage the environment and endanger the public.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for these projects was published by FEMA on April 25, 2013. It is available here. This is a brief description of the projects, our initial assessment of the DEIS, and information about how you can participate in the decision-making process which will ultimately determine the fate of these projects.
Description of the projects in the East Bay
Three different owners of public land have applied for these grants: University of California at Berkeley (UCB), City of Oakland, and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). The projects of UCB and Oakland are similar and they are different from the projects of EBRPD, so we will describe them separately. These are the locations of the projects of UCB and Oakland, their acreage, and the estimated number of trees that will be removed by these projects:
Project Area
Project Acreage
Estimated Tree Removals*
UCB
Strawberry Canyon
56.3
22,000
Claremont
42.8
Frowning Ridge (in Oakland)
185.2
38,000 32,000
Sub-Total
284.3
60,000 54,000
Oakland
North Hills Skyline
68.3
Caldecott Tunnel
53.6
Sub-Total
121.9
25,735 23,161
TOTAL
406.2
85,735 77,161
*UCB estimated tree removals are provided by the DEIS; Oakland estimated tree removals are extrapolated assuming the same number of trees per acre (60,000 54,000 ÷ 284.3 = 211 190 trees per acre X 121.9 acres = 25,735 23,161 trees removed by the projects of the City of Oakland)
UCB and Oakland plan to remove all non-native trees (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, acacia, etc.) and vegetation from the project area. All non-native trees up to approximately 24 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) will be cut into wood chips and scattered on the ground of the project area. They estimate that 20% of the project area will be covered with wood chips to a depth of 24 inches. The DEIS estimates that the wood chips will take from 5 to 10 years to decompose. Larger trees will be cut up and scattered on the site.
Although UCB and Oakland do not intend to plant the project areas (unless erosion subsequent to tree removals demands seeding of native grasses and herbaceous plants), they predict that the project area will eventually become native grassland, scrub, and forest of coast live oak, California bay laurel, big-leaf maple, California buckeye, and California hazelnut. They predict that this conversion from non-native to native vegetation will be accomplished by “recruitment” from areas where these plants exist, into the areas where non-native plants and trees will be removed.
The stumps of eucalypts and acacia will be sprayed with an herbicide (Garlon with the active ingredient triclopyr) soon after the trees are cut down to prevent resprouting. An estimated 1 – 2 ounces of formulated herbicide will be required for each stump. Based on an experiment conducted by East Bay Regional Park District, an estimated 5% of the trees will require retreatment of subsequent resprouts. They are therefore predicting that between 703 633 and 1,407 1,266 gallons of herbicide will be required to prevent resprouting if only 5% of the stumps require retreatment as they claim. Monterey pines will not require herbicide treatment which reduces this estimate proportionately, although we are not provided with enough information to make this calculation. Herbicide (Roundup with active ingredient glyphosate) will also be sprayed to control non-native vegetation, but no estimates of quantities required for that purpose are provided by the DEIS.
The fire hazard mitigation projects of the East Bay Regional Park District were described in detail in its “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan” of 2009. EBRPD has applied for FEMA funding for about one-third of the “recommended treatment areas” in that plan. The FEMA DEIS considers all recommended treatment areas on EBRPD property, including those for which FEMA funding has not been requested. The recommended treatment areas for which FEMA funding has not been requested are called “Connected Action Acres.” The “Connected Action Acres” have undergone environmental review under California law (CEQA) and are therefore approved for implementation, which has already begun.
Project Area
Project Acres
Connected Action Acres
Total Acres
Estimated Tree Removals*
EBRPD
Sobrante Ridge
4.1
0
Wildcat Canyon
65.6
46.6
Tilden Park
132
194.2
Claremont Canyon
35.3
130.4
Sibley Volcanic
47.5
118.4
Huckleberry
17.8
.3
Redwood Park
58.4
92.8
Leona Canyon
4.6
0
Anthony Chabot
200
478.2
Lake Chabot
4.8
0
Miller-Knox
22.2
0
TOTAL
592.3
1,060.7
1,653
400,602 409,176
*Estimated Tree Removals: Neither the DEIS nor EBRPD’s “Wildfire Plan” provides an estimate of the number of trees they plan to destroy. Furthermore their plans for tree removals are complex and variable. All non-native trees (eucalypts, Monterey pines, acacia) will be removed in some recommended treatment areas, but in most they will be thinned to spacing of 25 to 30 feet. The final Environmental Impact Report for the “Wildfire Plan” provides an estimate of the existing tree density of existing eucalypts on EBRPD property (page 392). Acres of eucalypts in the entire project area are provided by the DEIS (page 4.2-6). Our estimate of tree removals is based on those figures (1).
This eucalyptus forest at Chabot Park will be thinned to about 60 trees per acre.
This estimate does not include the Monterey pines and acacia that will be removed by EBRPD, for which inadequate information is available to provide an estimate.
EBPRD plans to cut the trees into wood chips which will be scattered to cover 20% of the project to maximum depth of 4-6 inches. The remainder of the wood will be burned in piles. Other non-native vegetation will be destroyed with herbicides and/or prescribed burns. These prescribed burns will not be funded by FEMA.
EBRPD’s plans to convert the project area to native vegetation are similar to the plans of both UCB and Oakland. EBRPD also does not plan to plant project areas with native vegetation. EBRPD also plans to use herbicides on the stumps of eucalypts and acacia which we estimate will require a mind-boggling 3,286 3,356 to 6,572 6,713 gallons of herbicide.
Million Trees’ assessment of these projects
We have surely exhausted your patience with the mind-numbing detail needed to describe these projects accurately. Therefore, we will provide only a brief outline of our assessment of these projects:
* These projects are more likely to increase the risk of wildfires than to reduce that risk.
By distributing tons of dead wood onto bare ground
By eliminating shade and fog drip which moistens the forest floor, making ignition more likely
By destroying the windbreak that is a barrier to wind driven fires typical of wildfires in California
By expanding the oak-bay woodland being killed by Sudden Oak Death, thereby adding more dead wood
* These projects will damage the environment by releasing hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the destroyed trees, thereby contributing to climate change.
* These projects will endanger the public by dousing our public lands with thousands of gallons of toxic herbicides.
* Erosion is likely on steep slopes when the trees are destroyed and their roots are killed with herbicides.
* Non-native vegetation such as broom, thistle, and hemlock are more likely occupants of the unshaded, bared ground than native vegetation which will not be planted by these projects.
* Prescribed burns will pollute the air and contribute to the risk of wildfire, endangering lives and property.
* These projects are an inappropriate use of the limited resources of the Federal Emergency Management Agency which are for the expressed purpose of restoring communities destroyed by disasters such as floods and other catastrophic events and preparing communities for anticipated catastrophic events. Most of the proposed projects in the East Bay are miles away from any residences.
Update: Please visit THIS post for the current status of these projects. In summary: East Bay Regional Park District is implementing its original plans. City of Oakland is developing a new “Vegetation Management Plan.” UC Berkeley is suing to re-instate its FEMA grant funding so that it can implement its original plans.
How to participate in this decision-making process
The Hills Conservation Network has created a petition to oppose these projects. It is available HERE.
You can also participate in this decision. FEMA will host three public meetings in May 2013:
Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m., Richard C. Trudeau Center, 11500 Skyline Boulevard Oakland, CA 94619
Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m., Richard C. Trudeau Center, 11500 Skyline Boulevard Oakland, CA 94619
Saturday, May 18, 2013, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Claremont Middle School, 5750 College Avenue Oakland, CA 94618
Comments on this document must be submitted by June 17, 2013. You may submit written comments in several ways:
These public lands belong to you and the money that will be used to implement these projects is your tax dollars. So, please tell the people who work for you what you think of these projects.
*********************************
(1) Calculation of estimated tree removals by East Bay Regional Park District, Update: We understand the weakness of this estimate. Unfortunately, the DEIS does not provide sufficient information to improve its accuracy. Again, our apologies.
Girdling a tree by cutting through the outer layer of bark into the woody trunk eventually kills the tree by interrupting the channel through which the tree receives moisture and nutrients from its roots. The bigger the tree, the longer it takes to die, but the death of a girdled tree is inevitable.
Girdled trees, Bayview Hill, San Francisco
Between about 1998 and 2003, approximately 1,200 non-native trees in San Francisco were girdled by native plant advocates, including a few who were employees of the Recreation and Park Department’s so-called Natural Areas Program. This vandalism was finally stopped after one of the native plant advocates was caught and prosecuted and the Recreation and Park Department was embarrassed by the media coverage.
In addition to killing trees by girdling them, an entomologist has published a study which reports that Australian pests of eucalypts were intentionally and illegally introduced to California for the purpose of killing non-native eucalypts. These stories are told here.
More recently, we have learned that native plant advocates are also spraying non-native vegetation in public parks in San Francisco with herbicides, in violation of San Francisco’s policy regarding pesticide use. The people who are spraying these herbicides are not authorized to do so. They are not posting notices of the application of herbicides as required by law. They are also using herbicides that are not approved for use in San Francisco’s public properties. That story is told here.
Guerilla Gardening in the East Bay
These guerilla tactics have recently spread to the East Bay. Shortly before Christmas in December 2010, the neighbors of Garber Park (Evergreen Lane) in the Oakland hills were shocked when an enormous crane pulled up to their park and began to take down several huge eucalyptus trees. The neighbors had been told nothing about their destruction and they had no idea why they were being destroyed. A little frantic investigation revealed that one of their neighbors had requested that the trees be removed and, because she was willing to pay for their removal, the City of Oakland obliged her without any further consultation with her neighbors. Needless to say, many neighbors were not pleased with this undemocratic method of altering their neighborhood landscape. That story was reported in the Hills Conservation Network newsletter which is available here.
Eucalypts destroyed in Garber Park, December 2010. Photo by Michael Wallman
The removal of those trees was the first step in an ambitious project to eradicate non-native plants and trees in Garber Park and replace them with native plants. That project is described on the website of the “Garber Park Stewards.”
Garber Park native plant “restoration”
On a recent visit to this wild 13-acre park, we saw little evidence of this effort. A rough, barely passable trail meanders through the park. Most of the trees are native oaks, bays, big leaf maples, and buckeyes. The tangled understory is a mix of natives (cow parsnip, horsetail, poison oak, etc) and non-natives (annual grasses, forget-me-knots, etc). The only evidence of the work of the stewards was typical of these projects: a small patch of bare ground with colored flags.
Girdled tree, Garber Park
Now more eucalypts are being destroyed in Garber Park by girdling them. A chain saw was apparently used to cut into the cambium of the tree, which is the channel that carries nutrients from the roots of the trees to its canopy. Something was painted or sprayed into the cuts which we speculate is an herbicide that will accelerate the death of the trees.
We speculate that the girdling of these trees was not authorized by the City of Oakland. The neighbors of the park say they were not informed that the trees were going to be destroyed. Therefore, we assume that this is a case of vandalism which we hope will be reported to the police as such.
Eucalyptus stump and dead litter, Garber Park. If you were concerned about fire hazard, would you leave dead litter in the park for over 2 years?
We have no idea who girdled the trees in Garber Park. We therefore make no accusations. However, based on our experience in San Francisco, we speculate that whoever killed these trees believes their destruction will enhance the native plant restoration project. There are few eucalypts in this park. We saw only one that was not either girdled or a stump. We wonder what harm these few trees could do in this wild place. They are clearly not spreading
We repeat the Million Trees mantra
We say at every opportunity that we like native plants and trees and we encourage native plant advocates to plant them. We ask only that they stop destroying the plants and trees that have lived peacefully in the San Francisco Bay Area for over 100 years and are performing valuable ecological functions. We remind native plant advocates that we live in a democracy and that our public lands belong to all of us. If the landscape is to be permanently altered, a democratic process should be used to reach that conclusion.
I am still recovering from a bad bout of pneumonia. I spent a month in bed with little energy to do anything but look out the window. Fortunately, that means that I was looking through the branches of my Coast Live Oak all day. As the sun moved in the sky from the East to the West, the illumination on the tree branches changed the perspective. In the late afternoon, when the light comes from the West, the deeply creviced bark of the tree was high-lighted.
The view from my bed: Coast Live OakRobin and chicks
The birds are busy this time of the year, finding their nesting partners, staking out the territory for their nest and building it, then hunting for the insects that their nestlings require when they are young. Even birds that will be primarily fruit and seed eaters as adults are fed insects as babies because they need the high quality protein. Their activity in the tree contributed to my peaceful view.
I don’t know how much of a role this scene played in my recovery. What I know is that it was the only source of pleasure in what was otherwise an unpleasant episode in my life.
“A Year in Trees”
I hadn’t planned to tell this personal story until reading an op-ed in the New York Times on Sunday, April 6, 2013, entitled “A Year in Trees.” The author, Bill Hayes, tells us about the important role that the trees surrounding his apartment in New York City played in his recovery from his grief from the loss of his long-time partner in life.
Tree of Heaven is a handsome tree.
The species of the trees that were visible in the windows of his apartment was Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), a non-native tree that is despised by native plant fans who consider it an invasive weed. This judgment did not influence Mr. Hayes’ appreciation for the trees, though he acknowledges that opinion.
Mr. Hayes watched those trees through their seasonal changes for the year he spent in that apartment, just as I watched my tree during the month I spent in bed. He called it “Tree TV.”
One particular episode in that year of those trees illustrated the role they played in the healing of his profound grief:
“…during a ferocious thunderstorm, I’d just managed to escape, I found the boughs being tossed about like rag dolls. The branches thrashed violently—whipping back and forth, slamming against the windows with a thud, sliding down slowly before being lifted aloft again. I was riveted. The trees, clearly overmatched by the combination of winds, rain and lightning were not fighting this storm but yielding to it.”
The trees were a metaphor for the final stage of grief, acceptance or a yielding to the sorrow that incorporates it into your life. They were also a reminder of our resilience.
Scientific verification of the healing power of trees
These anecdotal stories are probably only meaningful to those who have had the experience. However, there is much scientific evidence that these experiences of the healing power of trees are in fact universal. We have reported several such studies in an earlier post.
Now there is a new study which used a different technique to test the affect that trees have on people:
“New research out of Edinburgh [Scotland] supports the idea that spending time in green spaces with trees reduces stress and brain fatigue. What makes this study different from earlier research is that it looks at real-time data from the brains of people while they were actually outside, moving through the city and the parks. The study makes use of a recently developed lightweight, portable version of the electroencephalogram, a technology that studies brain wave patterns.” *
The loss of our urban forest will be the loss of our peace
Our urban forest shields us from the noise and visual chaos of the densely populated city. It also protects us from the wind. Destroying our urban forest will expose us to more noise and wind. The landscape that native plant advocates wish to substitute for the urban forest is native grassland and dune scrub. These landscapes will not provide a shield from the noise and chaos of the city. In losing our urban forest, we will lose some of our peace.
The public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for UCSF’s plans to destroy 90% of the forest and its understory on 46 acres of the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve ended on March 19, 2013. We studied that document carefully to evaluate its accuracy and form our own opinion of the impact this project will have on the environment. Because Mount Sutro is a very windy environment, we paid particular attention to the influence of the wind for the consequences of UCSF’s proposed plans to destroy most of the forest. In the process, we learned something about the interaction between wind and trees that we would like to share with our readers.
The wind on Mount Sutro
Mount Sutro is a 900+ foot hill that is directly exposed to the wind from the west, coming off the ocean. Steep slopes accelerate the wind as it moves uphill. On the leeward side of a steep hill the wind breaks into turbulent gusts. This is an oversimplification of the movement of wind over a hill because in a complex topography such as Mount Sutro, the movement of the wind is as complex as the topography. For example, Mount Sutro is penetrated by a number of steep canyons that funnel the wind as it moves uphill.
Anyone who has visited the UCSF campus on the top of the hill knows that it is a cold, miserable, windy place much of time. But if you walk in the dense forest on Mount Sutro, you are often unaware of the wind because the trees are shielding you from the wind.
UCSF plans to destroy its windbreak by reducing the density of the forest from 740 per trees acre to only about 15-50 trees per acre. The campus and the neighborhoods on the leeward side of Mount Sutro are going to be subjected to a great deal more wind. They will also experience more fog which is now being “caught” by the tall trees and condensed as moisture to the forest floor. That fog is now going to flow freely from the ocean to the neighborhoods on the leeward side of Mount Sutro.
The consequences for the few trees that remain
UCSF would like the public to believe that it doesn’t intend to destroy the entire forest. However, that is the likely consequence of destroying 90% of the trees on 46 acres because trees develop their defenses against the wind in a specific environment with a specific amount of wind and they often fail when they are exposed to more wind than they are adapted to.
Wndthrow caused by adjacent clearcut, Britain. Creative Commons
UCSF’s own written plans for this project acknowledge that thinning the forest will increase the likelihood of the remaining trees failing: “Individual trees that suddenly become more exposed to high winds are also more likely to fall. For this reason, any thinning of the forest that is considered must not be so extensive that it will subject remaining trees to increased windfall.” (1, page 15) Ignoring its own advice, UCSF proposes to destroy over 90% of the trees on 46 acres of the reserve.
The DEIR also acknowledges that the trees remaining after the forest is thinned will be vulnerable to windthrow for some unknown period of time during which they adjust to the changed environment. The DEIR suggests that it is possible to mitigate for this potential for windthrow by monitoring the remaining trees to identify potential hazards. In other words, the DEIR claims that it is possible to accurately identify trees that might fall before they fall.
This is a fiction. If it were indeed possible to accurately predict that a tree will fall, we wouldn’t read reports of thousands of trees falling all over the country every year. Over 5,400 tree failures were reported to the University of California’s “California Tree Failure Report Program” in 2012. Since reporting is voluntary, we assume that is an underestimate of all tree failures in California in 2012. (Oaks (Quercus) were the most frequently reported genus to have failed in 2012: 22.7% of 5,415 reported tree failures were oaks. Failures of eucalyptus were nearly half that (11.90%).)
Any reputable arborist will tell you that evaluation of trees for potential hazards is an art, not a science. That is, it is a subjective judgment and this is reflected in the wide numerical range used to rate trees for potential hazards. When an arborist agrees to a contract to conduct such an evaluation, he/she usually does so with a liability caveat, making it clear that he/she cannot accept legal responsibility for trees that fail which haven’t been identified as hazardous by their evaluation.
For these reasons, the mitigation offered by the DEIR looks like a trap. If the evaluation is applied conservatively, the ultimate destruction of the entire forest seems likely. In other words, the few trees that remain will be declared hazardous and destroyed. Since those who demand this project have made it perfectly clear that they want the entire forest destroyed, that seems the likely scenario. If, on the other hand, the evaluation is not applied conservatively, unpredicted tree failures are likely. In either case, the ultimate outcome is a forest with fewer trees than projected by the DEIR.
In a consultation with Professor Joseph McBride of UC Berkeley, we were provided with two specific examples to illustrate this trap. Professor McBride evaluated two extreme windthrow events in the San Francisco Presidio and Sea Ranch. This study is cited by the Sutro DEIR. (2) Professor McBride told us that of the 6,000 trees that failed in the Presidio in an extreme weather event in 1993, most would not have been identified in advance as being vulnerable to windthrow. Healthy, structurally sound trees fail in extreme weather events. Conversely Professor McBride told us of an evaluation of all trees on the Berkeley campus in 1976 that judged about 3% of the trees as hazardous for which removal was recommended. Shortly after the evaluation was conducted, UC went through a period of budgetary constraints (much like the one UC is having presently) which prevented the removal of the trees judged to be hazardous. Over 35 years later, about 80% of those trees are still standing. In other words, trees judged healthy by professional arborists sometimes fail and trees judged hazardous often do not fail.
On April 7, 2013, the Bay Area experienced high winds that demonstrated both our windy environment and the consequences for our trees. Winds of 75 miles per hour were recorded in San Francisco. At the San Francisco airport, on the eastern (leeward) side of the City, winds of 35 miles per hour or more were recorded for 21 consecutive hours, an unusually sustained high wind. Both the strength of the wind and its duration caused many trees to fail. In San Francisco, 75 fallen trees were reported to the Department of Public Works. Here’s a brief article in the San Francisco Chronicle about this destructive wind, including photos of some of the many trees that fell.
How wind affects the health of trees
The DEIR would like the public to believe that the thinned forest will be capable of growing sufficiently to compensate for the loss of the existing capability to sequester carbon and recoup the loss of much of the existing stored carbon because the remaining trees will be released from competition. One of the reasons why this is wishful thinking is that the trees that remain will be subjected to a great deal more wind and that wind is going to reduce the trees’ ability to grow:
“As the magnitude of the stress (windspeed) increases, so do the resulting strains, resulting in a cascade of physiological strain responses. The physiological responses range from rapid changes in transpiration and photosynthesis at the foliar level, to reduced translocation, callose formation and ethylene production in the phloem and cambial zone. Long-term developmental and structural changes occur in canopy architecture and biomechnical properties of the xylem. “(3)
This same article explains that the canopy of a tree that is subjected to a great deal of wind tends to be narrower than one subjected to less wind and its leaves are smaller, which is one of the reasons why photosynthesis and transpiration are suppressed in a windy environment.
We turn to Joe McBride’s wind study of the Presidio (4) for a specific, local example that illustrates these general principles. This is what Professor McBride observed at the Presidio:
“Wind at the Presidio affects tree growth, form, and mortality. Exposure to winds in excess of 5 mph usually results in the closure of the stomata to prevent the desiccation of the foliage (Kozlowski and Palhardy, 1997) Photosynthesis is thereby stopped during periods of moderate to high wind exposure resulting in a reduction in tree growth…Eucalyptus showed the greatest reduction in growth with trees at the windward edge being only 46 percent as tall as trees on the leeward side.” (4, page 6)
The plans to destroy 90% of the trees on 46 acres of Mount Sutro will subject the few trees that remain to a great deal more wind. The growth of the few trees that remain will be significantly retarded by the wind. The claim of the DEIR that those trees will grow significantly larger when released from competition from their neighbors is fallacious because it does not take into account that the trees will be subjected to significantly more wind.
Why, oh why?
We cannot imagine why UCSF wants to destroy most of its forest. These are a few of the most mysterious questions that we cannot answer:
Why does UCSF want to subject its students, its patients, and its staff to more wind? Why does it want to subject its neighbors to more wind and fog?
Does UCSF really believe that destroying 90% of the forest on 46 acres of the Sutro Reserve will not result in the destruction of the entire forest?
Does UCSF really believe that the few trees that remain will grow so large and so fast as to compensate for the loss of the ability of the forest to sequester carbon?
We are speaking of a world-class scientific institution. Could it really be so ignorant? Or is there some ulterior motive that is not visible to us? Conspiracy theories abound in the public comments that have been submitted. We cannot verify any of those theories, so we won’t repeat them. We actually prefer to believe the latter explanation, because the thought of such an important scientific institution being so ignorant of scientific facts is too painful to contemplate.
***********************
(1) “Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve Management Plan,” EDAW (consultant to UCSF), 2001
(2) McBride and Leffingwell, “Assessing windthrow potential in urban forests of coastal California,” Society for American Forests Newsletter, 2006
(3) F. W. Telewski, “Wind induced physiological and development responses in trees,” in Wind and Trees, edited by MP Coutts and J Grace, Cambridge University Press, 1995
(4) Joe R. McBride, “Presidio of San Francisco, Wind Study, First Phase,” circa 2002
Although they can provide no scientific evidence, native plant advocates claim that the eucalyptus forest is a “biological desert” in which nothing grows and nothing lives. We can see with our own eyes in the Sutro forest that a diverse understory thrives in the eucalyptus forest, but it is more difficult to quantify the biodiversity of wildlife in the forest. For that we turn to scientists.
Professor Sax also reported similar studies all over the world that reached the same conclusions, i.e., the introduced eucalyptus forest is just as biodiverse as the native forest all over the world. According to the Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions there are about 40 million acres of eucalypts planted in tropical, sub-tropical, and temperate countries. We have had the opportunity to observe them in several counties.
Much of Argentina is a treeless grassland prairie, called pampas. They imported eucalyptus to provide their economy with pulp. We observed many acres of densely growing eucalyptus forest throughout Argentina during our visit there. They also seemed to be used on the perimeter of agricultural lands, presumably as windbreaks.
Eucalypts used as agricultural windbreak, Argentina, 2010
We also saw many eucalypts growing in Sicily. We were told by our guides that they were planted by Mussolini in the 1930s as the means of draining swampland to reduce the population of malaria-carrying mosquitoes.
We found more eucalypts in Morocco where they also were being widely used as landscape trees. There seemed to be more diversity of eucalyptus species and they were obviously considered valuable for horticultural purposes. We also saw eucalypts sheltering agricultural crops from the wind.
Eucalypts are obviously considered valuable trees in many countries all over the world. We marvel at the hatred they have generated in California.
More evidence of the biodiversity of the eucalyptus forest
Professor Robert Stebbins (Professor of Zoology and Emeritus Curator in Herpetology, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley) was hired to study the eucalyptus forest in Berkeley, California for the Nature Conservancy’s California Field Office. This is an excerpt from his report which was published in 1983. (It is available at wiki.bugwood.org)
Garter snake in eucalyptus leaf litter. Courtesy urbanwildness.com
“Contrary to popular belief, many animals, both vertebrates and invertebrates, have adapted to life in the Eucalyptus groves. Moisture from the air condenses on the leaves and the drippage keeps the groves moist and cool even during the dry season. This is a suitable ground habitat for a wide variety of animal life. Amphibians such as arboreal salamander, California slender salamander, ENSATINA, California newt, rough skinned newt, and Pacific tree frog live in the forest, primarily under fallen logs and duff. Amphibians feed on such invertebrates as millipedes, centipedes, sow bugs, COLLENBOLA, spiders and earthworms.
“Several snakes such as the ring-necked snake, rubber boa and sharp tailed snake have adapted to Eucalyptus groves. The ring-necked snake feeds on the California slender salamander, the rubber boa feeds on meadow mice, and the sharp tailed snake feeds strictly on slugs. Other common reptiles include the northern and southern alligator lizards, which live under fallen logs, and the western fence lizard and western skink, which live in the less densely forested groves.
“Over 100 species of birds use the trees either briefly or as a permanent habitat. The heavy-use birds feed on seeds by pecking the mature pods on trees or fallen pods; so they must wait for the pods to disintegrate or be crushed by cars. Among the birds that feed on seeds in the trees are: the chestnutback chickadee and the Oregon junco. Examples of birds that feed on ground seeds are the song sparrow, the fox sparrow, the brown towhee, and the mourning dove. Birds that take advantage of the nectar from blossoms either by drinking the nectar or by feeding on the insects that are attracted to the nectar include Allen’s hummingbird, Bullock’s oriole, redwinged blackbird, and blackheaded grosbeak. Birds that use the trees as nest sites include the brown creeper, which makes its nest under peeling shags of bark and feeds on trunk insects and spiders, the robin, the chickadee, the downy woodpecker, and the red shafted flicker. The downy woodpecker and the red shafted flicker peck into the trunk of dead or dying trees to form their nests. When these nests are abandoned, chickadees, Bewick wrens, house wrens and starlings move in. Downy woodpeckers use dead stubs to hammer out a rhythmic pattern to declare their territories.
Owl nesting in eucalyptus, courtesy urbanwildness.com
“The red-tailed hawk prefers tall trees for a nesting site. It therefore favors eucalypts over trees such as oak or bay. Great horned owls use nests that have been abandoned by red-tail hawks or they nest on platforms formed between branches from fallen bark. The brown towhee and the golden crowned sparrow are birds that use piles of debris on the ground for shelter during rains.
“Several mammals have adapted to Eucalyptus. Deer find concealment in dense groves where there are suckers, coyote brush, and poison oak; moles live in the surface layer of the soil; meadow mice, gophers, and fox squirrels are found in the forest.
“A Eucalyptus grove is not a sterile environment. The population density of the animals mentioned can be partially attributed to the presence of eucalypts. With a program of cutting trees and burning debris, some animal residents will disappear because they have restricted home ranges or are sedentary. If an animal’s living area (leaf litter, logs, bark) and food supply are destroyed, the animal will either die or attempt to move to another area which is already fully occupied. ‘The wildlife section draws heavily upon conversations with Professor Robert Stebbins. No errors which may exist should be attributed to the professor.’”
Refusing to see the evidence
We stumbled upon this new information in the on-line comments on SFGATE (the San Francisco Chronicle’s website) on an article about the “tree wars of San Francisco.” (Available here) A defender of the forest was responding to the usual claims about the eucalyptus forest being a sterile environment. The defender of the forest was quickly attacked by a native plant advocate who called the commenter a “creepy imbecile.” The native plant advocate also attempted to discredit the source of information on the grounds that Professor Stebbins is apparently now dead. Obviously he was alive when he wrote his report, but the native plant advocate apparently believes that anything he wrote before he died is not credible. Or at least I think that was his/her “reasoning.” Oddly, another native plant advocate then chimed in, complaining that native plant advocates are being “demonized.” Wait! Who called whom a “creepy imbecile?”
Update: When we published this article we assumed that the native plant advocate who claimed that Professor Stebbins was dead at the time was correct about that. Since then we have learned that that was inaccurate information. Professor Stebbins died on September 23, 2013, according this obituary in the New York Times. So, the name-calling native plant advocate was fabricating “information” as well as engaging in ad hominem attacks. We are embarrassed that we assumed the native plant advocate was at least factually correct.
Unfortunately the name-calling comment has been removed from SFGATE which I suppose is consistent with their policy. However, it is a loss because it illustrated the low standards for civility and quality of information being used by native plant advocates to defend their destructive projects. (We are quoting from that comment only the portion for which evidence remains in replies to it.)
We saw these same low standards used by native plant advocates at the February 25, 2013 public hearing at UCSF about their plans to destroy the Sutro forest. There were only about 15 speakers in defense of the project, but their comments were devoid of information. One fellow walked to the microphone and said simply, “I hate eucalyptus” and walked away. Another claimed that the Angel Island fire of 2008 was evidence of the flammability of eucalyptus although 80 acres of eucalypts were destroyed over 12 years before that fire. Only 6 acres of eucalypts remain. The grass fire stopped at the edge of that small remaining stand of eucalypts.
One wonders where people find the energy to hate anything, let alone a tree. We struggle to understand the motivation of these crusaders against the forest. We believe that the most highly motivated amongst them are earning their living on these projects and are simply defending their economic interests. Nothing else makes sense to us.
Professor Shapiro has written a review of Emma Marris’ Rambunctious Garden and given us permission to reprint it here. We share his high opinion of Ms. Marris’ book and we urge you to give it the careful read it deserves.
*************************
Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World by Emma Marris
Review by: Arthur M. Shapiro
The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 88, No. 1 (March 2013), p. 45
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669328
“Several years ago, I attended a seminar on the psychology of the animal-liberation movement. The speaker observed that although very few animal-lib activists were actually religious, most such people scored very highly on the “religiosity” scale in personality inventories. He suggested that animal liberation served the same functions for such people as religion did for many more: it gave life meaning and conferred a group identity centered on shared moral superiority over others. After years of interacting with “weed warriors”—people who spend their free time trying to eradicate “invasive species” from parks and public lands—I would advance the same hypothesis about most of them. They tend to be absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their cause and highly resistant to any suggestion that naturalized exotics might not be all bad. They also tend to be oblivious to the disconcerting degree to which their rhetoric converges to that of racists and xenophobes, and highly defensive if you point that out to them. After all, they are on the “green” side, right?
In the face of such popular enthusiasm for the alarmist viewpoint on exotics, Emma Marris, a professional science writer, has produced an eminently reasonable, well-researched, and engagingly written defense of the notion that human beings have changed the world and the most sensible way to deal with that is to manage it for the greatest good. She demonstrates very convincingly that communities and ecosystems have always been in flux as the physical world changes around them. The idea of freezing them at some arbitrary moment in time is as wrongheaded as it is impractical. Some naturalized exotics present serious threats to human beings or their support systems: we call them pests, pathogens, and vectors, and they are not what is at issue. Some are such radical ecological gamechangers that they need to be assessed with an eye to the full scope of their impacts (think cheatgrass in the desert and its impact on fire ecology). Most, however, are trivial, and in a world of limiting resources where we must assign priorities to our actions, they do not merit serious attention. But it is not merely a matter of using our management resources effectively. Much of our “invasive species” discourse simply ignores the evolutionary creativity consequent on community reorganization.
Yet we know both in theory and from the fossil record that precisely such creativity is essential for long-term survival in a changing physical context. Ecotypes or ecological races arise in response to novel challenges, both biotic and abiotic. The future of endangered species is likely to depend on such processes. Failure to appreciate this is the single biggest flaw in the “climatic envelope” or “niche modeling” approach to conservation biology. Much of California’s lowland butterfly fauna is now dependent on nonnative larval host plants. When I tell garden clubs—or public land managers—that successful eradication of invasive “weeds” would drive their beloved backyard butterflies to extinction, they stare at me in disbelief. But it is true and emblematic of the larger problem explored very well in this volume.
Shortly after Marris’s book appeared there was a flurry of articles in the professional literature advancing precisely the same ideas. Among the best are by Carroll (2011. Evolutionary Applications 4:184–199) and Thomas (2011. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26:216 –221). But Marris got there first, and with luck her wise words will be read and acted upon far and wide.”
Arthur M. Shapiro, Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis, California
One of our readers sent us a link to an article about a “restoration” project gone awry in his neighborhood. Mount Baldhead is a city-owned park in Saugatuck, Michigan. US Fish & Wildlife funded a $700,000 federal grant to eradicate non-native plants on Mount Baldhead and several other municipal parks in the area. The grant was used to hire “certified applicators” to spray the non-native plants with imazapyr. Mount Baldhead was sprayed in summer 2010 and again in fall 2011. In spring 2012, the native oaks and maples, under which the non-native plants had grown and were sprayed, began to show signs of damage. Now a significant portion of the native forest is leafless and barren.
Mount Baldhead, Saugatuck, Michigan. A clearer view of the damage is available in the article to which we provide a link above. We were denied permission to publish that picture.
The soil on Mount Baldhead is being studied to determine how far the pesticide has seeped into areas where it was not sprayed. This information may predict the extent of the eventual damage to the native forest. The ultimate fate of the trees that have been damaged is not known. There is no antidote to the pesticide. Will the trees survive? We don’t know yet.
What does it mean to be a “certified applicator” of pesticides?
This story is of interest to us because imazapyr is being widely used in the San Francisco Bay Area and its use has increased substantially in the past year.
Because imazapyr is being used heavily, we have read the manufacturer’s label for the formulated products (Habitat and Polaris) and the federally mandated Material Safety Data Sheet.
Therefore, we know that imazapyr should not be sprayed under trees you do not want to kill. This is a product that is mobile in the soil. It is capable of traveling from the roots of the plant on which it is sprayed into the roots of adjacent plants on which it has not been sprayed, killing or damaging plants that were not the intended targets of the spraying.
These incidents make us ask what, if anything, it means to be a “certified applicator” of pesticides. Does the certification require the applicator to read the manufacturer’s label? If so, does the certification require the applicator to actually follow the directions on the manufacturer’s label? Clearly, this isn’t happening and there don’t seem to be any consequences for the “certified applicator” who kills plants and trees that he/she wasn’t hired to destroy. So, we conclude that such certification is meaningless.
The Million Trees mantra
Native plant advocates believe their projects benefit the environment. We do not see the benefit they claim. This is what we see:
• Increasing use of toxic pesticides is required to kill non-native vegetation. These pesticides are inherently hazardous and their incompetent use makes them even more hazardous.
• The wildlife that lives in our open spaces is being poisoned by these pesticides and they are losing their homes and their sources of food.
• The results of these projects do not justify these dangerous practices. The projects often look more dead than alive.
Here is a letter to the editor of the New York Review of Books, February 7, 2013:
“Dear Editor,
Tim Flannery in his review of the Biography of Rachel Carson makes one mistake and that concerns pesticide use reductions in Canada [“A Heroine in Defense of Nature,” NYR, November 22, 2012]. The first Canadian province to ban the ‘cosmetic’ use of specified pesticides and herbicides—i.e., for gardens and flowers, and not for commercial crops—was not Ontario (2009) but Quebec (2006).
This was the result of grassroots activity at the local, municipal level and it was backed by a national organization, the Campaign for Pesticide Reductions (CPR!), of which a leading sponsor (surprisingly perhaps) was the Canadian Labour Congress. The ban was backed by the Canadian Cancer Society, the first of many moves in the direction of cancer prevention, versus cancer treatment and research. Quebec’s move to ban the sale as well as the use of these products was a violation of the federal authority over commerce and it resulted in a challenge under the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA, Chapter 13).
Some of Rachel Carson’s aims over pesticide use reduction could be achieved by a statute requiring the practice of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which properly interpreted results in the avoidance, or use reduction, of synthetic organic chemical pesticides wherever possible. Canada, like most countries has not done this: pesticide registration or licensing is easy to get and once a pesticide is on the market, it is very difficult to prevent its proliferation or remove it from the environment. But unlike many Canadian environmental measures, the bans so far on the cosmetic use of pesticides are truly progressive.”
David Bennett
Former Director
Health, Safety and Environment
Canadian Labour Congress
Ottawa, Canada
The North American Trade Agreement is a free trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. If you want to do business with the United States, you apparently are not allowed to ban the sale and use of pesticides.
San Francisco’s misnamed Integrated Pest Management policy
This seems a timely reminder of the difficulty of changing public policy regarding pesticide use. For the third year in a row, San Franciscans recently attended the annual hearing at which the city’s pesticide policy is renewed by the Environment Commission. Citizens reported the escalating use of toxic pesticides in San Francisco’s public parks by the so-called Natural Areas Program. They also repeated their annual request that pesticides considered “Most Hazardous” (Tier I) and “More Hazardous” (Tier II), not be sprayed in public parks.
Volume of pesticide use by San Francisco’s “Natural Areas Program.” Courtesy San Francisco Forest Alliance
Once again, the public’s request fell on deaf ears. In fact, the only changes to the city’s pesticide policy liberalized the use of pesticides by the Natural Areas Program. Milestone which had been rated “Most Hazardous” in the past has now been downgraded to Tier II. This is the pesticide that is mobile in the soil and persists in the soil for a long time. It is banned by the state of New York for sale or use because of concerns about the potential of poisoning ground water. Yet it is used in San Francisco in the watershed to Islais Creek.
Also, Garlon (Tier I) can now be sprayed without the applicator wearing a respirator, which will make it easier and more likely to be used in the future.
However, these two revisions of the city’s pesticide policy pale in comparison to the recent decision of the Recreation and Park Department with respect to promoting the use of pesticides in the city’s parks. The Recreation and Park Department recently announced that the person in charge of the Natural Areas Program is now also in charge of the Department’s pesticide use. This inappropriate decision effectively removes all pretenses that the Natural Areas Program’s use of pesticides is being monitored or supervised. The Natural Areas Program is now free to use pesticides wherever and whenever they wish.
Mr. Bennett makes a mistake in his letter to the editor. He assumes that an Integrated Pest Management policy would avoid or at least reduce pesticide use. San Francisco calls its pesticide policy an Integrated Pest Management program. That policy has obviously not reduced pesticide use in San Francisco’s parks. In fact, it seems to facilitate the use of pesticides. Pesticide use by any name is still pesticide use.
The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an op-ed by Joe Mascaro about the Sutro Forest (available here). He is a professional ecologist at the Carnegie Institution for Science who studies the ecological functions of forests (his research is described here). He is also a San Franciscan and a fan of the Sutro Forest. He tells us in his op-ed that the Sutro Forest is a unique, “novel” forest that is thriving and that destroying it will increase the risk of wildfire, contrary to the claims of UCSF.
As we approach the March 19, 2013 deadline for submitting public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for UCSF’s proposed plan to destroy 90% of the forest and its understory on 75% of the 61 acres of the Mount Sutro Reserve, we appeal to our readers to take a few minutes in their busy day to write your own comment (see below for details of where to send comments).
About 200 people came to the community meeting at UCSF last night. Nearly 60 people spoke; the overwhelming majority spoke in opposition to UCSF’s proposed plans to destroy most of the forest. Everyone spoke respectfully but with passion about what this forest means to the community. Many spoke about the loss of trees and habitat where similar projects already have been implemented by the Natural Areas Program and the GGNRA.
Over 1,700 people have signed the petition to save the Sutro Forest. If you haven’t signed yet, please do so here. We’re going to quote a few of the astute and well-informed comments that people have written on the petition in the hope that it will inspire you to write your own comment. (Grammatical edits only.)
Comment #1575:
“Among many other reasons not to hurt this forest- it is healing to people in need of healing at the UCSF hospital. The sight of it sustained me through a difficult labor during which I gazed on it for 13 hours. It is a vibrant, healthy, and sacred forest, and the people who love it will not stand by idly and quietly if it is in harms way”
Scientific studies corroborate this patient’s personal experience. Here is a report of these studies.
Comment #1528:
“Please nooooo!!! do not destroy the habitat for hundreds of creatures. WHY the destruction FOR NOTHING!!! I live in the neighborhood and I am sick and tired to see the city and UCSF cutting down trees and not replacing them.. but only with shrubs and small plants”
This is another San Franciscan who has noticed that the UCSF project is one of many in San Francisco which is destroying trees in order to return the landscape to native grassland and scrub.
Comment #1519:
“The reasons for tree removal are inaccurate. The effort is a waste of resources. The forest is healthy and most importantly serves the needs of the population of the city. UC has indicated its willingness to destroy trees for its own gain, but what the people of SF need is the unique ecosystem that provides wind relief, beauty, and comfort. Native plant restoration is a myopic, militant effort that does not take into consideration the needs of the people who live in SF. This is another effort to waste and destroy for misconceived ideals.”
This San Franciscan understands that the Sutro forest is performing important ecological functions.
Comment #1518:
“The trees in Sutro forest provide immense value to the neighborhood and the city in which we live. It is a wind break, it is a visual stimulus, it is a wonderful place to walk, it is home to a large number of hummingbirds, it isolates a busy hospital from the neighborhood and it provides a tremendous source of ground water to neighboring houses. Save the forest.”
This Sutro neighbor understands that the loss of this forest will harm both the neighborhood and the animals that live in the forest.
Comment #1471:
“Destroying 90% of the trees will destroy the forest – its beauty, its Cloud Forest aspect, and its habitat value. The trees, which sequester tons of carbon, will no longer do so, and instead the dead chipped trees will release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THESE TREES!”
This commenter understands that the forest is storing carbon which will be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide when the trees are destroyed. Carbon dioxide is the predominant greenhouse gas which is causing climate change.
Comment #1277:
“For environmental reasons please do not cut the forest of Mount Sutro. Risk of landslides (the old forest has intertwined and intergrafted roots that function like a living geo-textile and hold up the mountain, while the exposed rock on Twin Peaks has a rock-slide every year or two); Pesticide drift into our neighborhood, affecting us and our pets (right now, Sutro Forest may be the only pesticide-free wildland in the city; the Natural Areas Program, which controls most of it, uses pesticides regularly) Increased noise (the vegetation – the leaves of the trees and the shrubs in the understory are like soft fabrics absorbing sound) Changes in air quality (trees reduce pollution by trapping particle on their leaves until they’re washed down) Environmental impact – (eucalyptus is the best tree species for sequestering carbon because it grows fast, large, is long-lived, and has dense wood; but felled and mulched trees release this carbon right back into the atmosphere).”
This San Franciscan is aware of the pesticides being used by the Recreation and Park Department’s so-called “Natural Areas Program.” UCSF’s proposed project will use pesticides to prevent the resprouting of the trees that they destroy. Pesticides used by native plant “restorations” are described here. She also understands that trees stabilize steep slopes and reduce air pollution.
Here’s what you can do to help save the Sutro Forest:
• Sign the petition to save the forest. Available here.
• Submit a written public comment by 5 PM, March 19, 2013 to UCSF Environmental Coordinator Diane Wong at EIR@planning.ucsf.edu or mail to UCSF Campus Planning, Box 0286, San Francisco, CA 94143-0286. Include your full name and address.
• Write to the Board of Regents to ask why a public medical institution is engaging in such a controversial, expensive, and environmentally destructive act. Address: Office of the Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents, 1111 Franklin St., 12th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607 Fax: (510) 987-9224
• Subscribe to the website SaveSutro.com for ongoing information and analysis.
Conservation Sense and Nonsense 