golden gate park: views from the thicket

In the book, The Trees of Golden Gate Park (pp. 17-21), Peter Ehrlich describes the Golden Gate Park Forest Management Plan, a reforestation plan for the park, adopted in 1980 (so now 30 years old).   Mr. Ehrlich was in charge of reforestation in the park for ten years, subsequently served for some years as urban forester for the Recreation and Park Deptartment at large, and is now forest manager for the Presidio Trust,  so his credentials on this subject appear to be solid.  According to him, a tree inventory in 1979 showed many of the trees in the park nearing the end of their life spans.  This inventory served as the basis for the tree management plan, which noted the historic landscape character of the park (for example, the relationship of wooded areas to meadow areas and the predominance of evergreens) and outlined procedures for reforestation.  However, replacing trees is quite a challenge in this park, due to poor soil conditions (underlying sand dunes that contain few nutrients and don’t retain water very well), increasing use of the park (pedestrian as well as vehicular), crowded growing conditions (new trees have to compete for sun and moisture), the spread of a pine pitch canker (to which Monterey Pines are particularly susceptible), etc.   Special tall, slender planting containers have been used to encourage deeper root development and new trees must be watered by hand for three to four years.   There was a plan for “top-dressing [new tree] plantations with compost made from the chipped and shredded branches and leaves of prunings and tree removals in the park.”  By 2000, “fourteen thousand trees had been planted  .  .  .  resulting in 110 acres of reforested parkland.”

This is a fascinating story!  How many of those new trees have survived?  Which planting methods have worked best?  How has the species list evolved?  Were procedures modified through trial and error?   Is there documentation of this 30-year program?

I  like the sound of the 1980 Golden Gate Park Forest Management Plan described by Peter Ehrlich, and would like to know more about it, how it has been implemented, what has been learned, how it is used today, if it is used today?  The 2006 Urban Forest Plan for the City and County of San Francisco covers Golden Gate Park, of course,  but applies a broad brush to the whole city.  I hope the trees in Golden Gate Park are being managed differently from street trees or trees in newer, smaller parks!  Maybe it’s time to revisit that 30-year old Golden Gate Park Forest Management Plan?

The 2006 Urban Forest Plan: http://www.sfenvironment.org/downloads/library/urbanforestplanmay06.pdf

I’m in the Canadian Rockies this week (blogging by iPhone is limiting), but I will be back next week and back up to speed. The Western larches here are magnificent, flaming gold!   I’m unable to check right now, but wondering if there are any larches in Golden Gate Park (the Arboretum, the Tea Garden)? Perhaps Japanese larch (larix kaempferi), sometimes (uncommonly!) planted in California?.  If so, do they turn gold like this? Will investigate when I get back next week. But here’s an idea: how about keeping track on this blog of color spots in the park this fall?! Stay tuned!

Western larches (larix occidentalis) near Banff, Canada

larches reflected in Arnica Lake, Banff, Canada

This young, recently planted tulip tree seems to be thriving in the Panhandle.  Smack in the middle of the undulating, open space that is the core feature of this linear park, it enjoys full sun and suffers little competition from the older trees that line the edges of what was designed to be a classic, nineteenth-century “greensward.”  In perhaps fifty years, if all goes well, this will be a magnificent tree, standing 50-60 feet tall and spreading as much as 40 feet, with tulip-shaped, flowers in early summer and yellow fall foliage.

a young tulip tree in the panhandle

It will also block the grand vista  .  .  . the soul-expanding experience afforded by the long view down the center of the Panhandle.   And there is a premium on sunny, open space in this park.  So I wonder about the decision to plant this particular tree in this particular place, blocking the view and adding more shade.  What were the criteria ?  One important consideration in tree selection is the potential for a tree to thrive in a given location (soil type, amount of sun, competition from nearby trees, appropriate irrigation, etc.).  But so many other considerations must come into play in a park like this;  for example, is there historic precedent for tulip trees in this park?   And when new trees are planted here,  how are historic precedents weighed against potentially conflicting goals, like making the park more sustainable into the future?  Is there a plan to increase the number of native species, to reduce water use and enhance habitat value in the park overall, or are such efforts confined to certain areas, such as the Oak Woodlands?

It seems there is historic precedent for tulip trees in Golden Gate Park, according to The Trees of Golden Gate Park, including a grand, old specimen by McLaren Lodge.  Tulip trees are indigenous to the eastern U.S. and were used extensively in urban parks throughout the country in the nineteenth century.  As specimen trees, allowed to grow to their full glory, they are magnificent and certainly the designers of Golden Gate Park (William Hammond Hall and John McClaren, for example), recognized the value of strategically placed specimen trees, situated for maximum glory.   So I guess, in terms of historical and aesthetic considerations, this tree may be defensible as a specimen tree.  But I’m still bothered by its impact on the Panhandle vista.  And I wonder how it fits in with sustainability guidelines for parks and open space in San Francisco?

So many issues to consider when planting a new tree  .  .  .  I wish this little tree well, but it raises many questions.  Tulip trees have a life expectancy of 200-250 years!