The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) held a conference in October for the first time since 2018. There were two main themes of the conference:
Money: The State of California is making a huge investment in the environment with many interrelated goals:
- “30 X 30” is shorthand for the goal of protecting 30% of California’s land and coastal waters by 2030.
- Developing “nature-based solutions” to address the threats of climate change.
- Vegetation and forest management to reduce wildfire hazards.
- Protecting and enhancing California’s biodiversity.
Fire: The frequency and intensity of wildfire is of concern to all Californians, but the California Native Society has a particular interest in fire because it is viewed as a tool to enhance native plant abundance and control the spread of non-native plants that outcompete native plants.
If attendance were the sole measure of success, the conference was a resounding success. The conference was sold out with record-breaking attendance of 1,200 people. That’s a 50% increase in attendance since 2018, when 800 people attended. People came to learn about the many opportunities for public funding of their “restoration” projects and they were not disappointed.
Jennifer Norris, Deputy Secretary for Biodiversity and Habitat for the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) was one of the keynote speakers. She and many other staff of CNRA made presentations at the conference to inform the community of native plant advocates about the many new opportunities to obtain grants for their projects. This slide (below) shown at the conference, itemized by state agencies the $1.631 Billion budget for just the 30 X 30 portion of the CNRA’s environmental grant programs. It does not include Cal-Fire funding for forestry projects to reduce wildfire hazards and address climate change. Nor does it include $10 million of new funding for Weed Management Areas, which funds projects that attempt to eradicate non-native plants and $10 million of new funding for the state council for invasive species. State funding is also supplemented by new federal funding in support of a national goal of achieving 30 X 30.
But money isn’t the only element of this state program that native plant advocates are excited about. They have also been gifted a three-year moratorium on requirements for Environmental Impact Reports for their projects. There will therefore be no requirements for a public process to review plans and comment on them.
An anxious applicant for state grant funding asked a speaker representing the Wildlife Conservation Board about a rumor that projects using herbicides would not be funded. The speaker’s reassuring answer was, “We are not rejecting projects using herbicides.” Applicants are being asked to complete a questionnaire about herbicides they plan to use, but the speaker was quick to add, “We have not rejected any [such applications] so far.” She assured the audience that “You are all careful” in your use of herbicides.
Huge buckets of money are being distributed with no restrictions on the use of herbicides and no vetting process such as an environmental impact review with opportunities for the public to comment. It seems inevitable that some of the projects will unintentionally do more harm than good, and the public will have nothing to say about which projects are funded.
Alexii Sigona was the first keynote speaker for the conference. He is a member of the Amah Mutsun-Ohlone Tribal Band (not a federally recognized tribe) and a Ph.D. candidate at UC Berkeley in the Department of Environmental Science. He explained that there are 600 recognized members of the Amah Mutsun Band in a wide region around Pescadero, Hollister, and San Juan Bautista. They collaborate with organizations such as CNPS because they don’t have the resources to manage their ancestral tribal lands. He described some of the projects they engage in:
- Landscape scale removal of “invasive” plants.
- Plug planting of 120,000 native grass plants.
- Creating “native hedgerows” for food sources.
- Removal of native Douglas Firs “encroaching” on grassland. They have removed 5,000 native Douglas fir trees. He acknowledged that this project caused some concern about erosion and aesthetics. Removal of native Douglas fir was mentioned by several other speakers during the conference. It is an example of the preference of native plant advocates for grassland because it is the pre-settlement vegetation. Native coyote brush is another target of eradication projects that attempt to prevent natural succession of grassland to other vegetation types.
There is great interest among native plant advocates in the land management practices of Native Americans because controlled burns were Native Americans’ most important tool to maintain grassland species needed for food and for their prey. Controlled burns are important to native plant advocates because they believe they are beneficial to native plants and help to control non-native plants. Prescribed burns are also currently popular with many public land managers and they are the current fad among many fire scientists.
Two presentations at the conference suggest that prescribed burns are not compatible with the preservation of native chaparral, nor are they capable of converting non-native grassland to native grassland.
This (above) is the concluding slide of Jon E. Keeley’s presentation. Dr. Keeley is a respected fire scientist with US Geological Service with expertise in chaparral species. He explained that 60% of native chaparral species (notably manzanita and ceanothus) are obligate seeders that do not resprout after fire and therefore depend on the existence of their dormant seed bank for regeneration. In recent decades the fire interval in chaparral has decreased due to climate change and associated drought. In many places, the fire interval has become too short to establish the seed bank needed for regeneration. In those places Dr. Keeley has observed vegetation type conversion to non-native annual grasses.
Dr. Keeley Is concerned that vegetation type conversion from forests in some cases and shrublands in others to non-native annual grassland may be the result of shortening fire intervals further “because of the upsurge in state and federal programs to utilize prescription burning to reduce fire hazard.” (1) This concern extends to some conifer species that do not resprout. Some are serotinous conifers whose cones are sealed shut and do not release their seeds in the absence of fire.
This is a familiar theme for much of Dr. Keeley’s research. He asks that land managers balance the conflicting goals of resource management and fire hazard reduction.
This (above) is the concluding slide (sorry for the poor quality of my photo) of a presentation about a 20-year effort at the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve to convert non-native annual grassland to native grassland, using annual (sometimes bi-annual) prescribed burns. Many different methods were used, varying timing, intensity, etc. The abstract for this presentation reports failure of the 20-year effort: “Non-native grass cover significantly decreased after prescribed fire but recovered to pre-fire cover or higher one year after fire. Native grass cover decreased after prescribed fire then recovered to pre-burn levels within five years, but never increased over time. The response of native grass to fire (wild and prescribed) was different across time and within management units, but overall native grass declined.” (1)
The audience was audibly unhappy with this presentation. One person asked if the speaker was aware of other places where non-native grass was successfully converted to native grass. The speaker chuckled and emphatically said, “NO. I am not aware of any place where native grasses were successfully reintroduced.”
Another questioner prefaced her question with the admission that “I’m new here and all this is new to me.” Then she suggested that Native Americans are having some success using prescribed fire and that they should be consulted. The speaker graciously replied that she planned to do so.
Keep in mind that Native Americans weren’t historically using prescribed fire to convert annual grasses to native grasses. Their burns were intended to maintain native grassland in the absence of competing non-native annual grassland. Their objectives were different and they were operating in a very different climate and environment.
Estimates of the pre-settlement population of Native Americans in California range from 138,000 to 750,000. The population of Native Americans is estimated to have been reduced to as few as 25,000 after the arrival of Europeans due to disease and violence. There are now over 39 million Californians and only 630,000 of them were Native Americans in the 2020 census. Land management practices that are suitable for a population of less than 1 million seasonally migrating Californians are not necessarily suitable for a population of over 39 million sedentary Californians.
The futility of trying to eradicate non-native plants
The Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) is another 20-year eradication project that is doomed to failure. The presentation about the ISP was bravely made by Dr. Debra Ayres, one of the creators of the ISP in 1998. With intensive effort and hundreds of gallons of herbicide (imazapyr), non-native spartina marsh grass has been greatly reduced in the San Francisco Bay, but the hybrid of non-native S. alterniflora and native S. foliosa persists. Dr. Ayres explained why:
The spartina hybrid is reproductively stronger in every way than either of its parent species. Dr. Ayres predicts that the hybrid will eventually replace both of its parent species:
If the goal of this project was to eradicate non-native spartina, hybrid spartina will accomplish that goal. You might think that this prediction would end the futile attempt to eradicate the hybrid, but you would be wrong. There is no intention of abandoning this 20-year project. More funding is assured by the California Coastal Conservancy and the project continues to provide well-paid jobs.
Dr. Ayres ended her presentation with this enigmatic statement: “Evolution doesn’t stop just because we think it has to.” She seems to acknowledge that humans cannot stop evolution, yet she seems to recommend that we continue to try doing so. If those positions seem contradictory, that’s because they are. The bottom line is that as long as public funding continues to be available, this project will continue.
A central theme of the nativist agenda is the futile desire to prevent hybridization because it has the potential to replace a species considered “native.” They fail to understand that hybridization is an important evolutionary tool that helps plant and animal species adapt to changes in environmental conditions by favoring traits that are better adapted to new conditions. Humans cannot stop evolution, nor should we try.
I have a special interest in San Francisco because I lived there for nearly 30 years. The native plant movement is very strong in San Francisco and there were several presentations about the success of the movement at the conference.
One of the projects is trying to turn Sunset Blvd on the western side of San Francisco into a native plant garden. I lived in that district and am therefore familiar with Sunset Blvd as the major north-south traffic artery through the district. It is important as the only wind break in the windiest district of the city, which is only 13 short blocks from the ocean. The district is virtually treeless because of wind conditions and the pre-settlement landscape of barren sand. Sunset Blvd is therefore the oasis of the Sunset District. In the past, it was the only place to take a long walk in the shelter of the tall Monterey pines and cypress and tall-shrub understory. The lawn beneath the trees was the only place for children to play close to their homes.
San Francisco’s Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for maintaining the medians in San Francisco. It was therefore DPW’s responsibility to replace the wind break on Sunset Blvd that is dying of old age. That’s not what they chose to do. They are replacing the lawn with native shrubs and the tall trees with small native trees that won’t provide shelter from the wind.
The spokesperson for DPW acknowledged that the project is controversial. Neighbors of Sunset Blvd valued the sheltered recreational space provided by the 2.5 mile-long and wide median. Native plant advocates and their allies want to create a wildlife corridor through the western edge of the city. The spokesperson for DPW said that their plans are a compromise between these different viewpoints. I don’t know if the neighbors agree, but I can say that native plant advocates are thrilled with the new native plant gardens on Sunset Blvd based on their presentation at the CNPS conference.
Native plant advocates prevailed on Sunset Blvd because CNPS bought or raised all the native plants and provided volunteers to plant them and maintain them for 3 years. DPW couldn’t look their gift horse in the mouth. DPW hired 6 new gardeners to support maintenance of Sunset Blvd. This is an example of how the money that is flowing into such projects will transform many places into native plant gardens.
So, let’s look at the result of these projects. Presenters of these projects showed many beautiful pictures of newly planted native gardens on Sunset Blvd (above). The pictures were taken in spring, when native plants briefly flower. But that’s not what these places look like most of the year. They will look better if they are irrigated year-round, but that would defeat the purpose of replacing the lawn to reduce water usage. Unlike native plants, lawn turns brown during the dry season if it isn’t watered, but it is still functional as walkable ground.
Here’s what that garden at Sunset Blvd and Taraval looks like most of the year:
There was also a presentation by a spokesperson from San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) about the creation of rain gardens in San Francisco. San Francisco’s sewer system was built long ago when regulations did not require the separation of street run off from residential sewage. When it rains, the sewage treatment plant is overwhelmed by street run off. The sewage treatment plant releases untreated sewage and run off into the ocean, in violation of federal standards for water treatment.
The PUC is developing rain gardens to redirect street run off away from sewage treatment plants into the ground so that treatment plants are not overwhelmed during heavy rain. The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that 151 rain gardens have been installed so far. It seems a very good idea, but native plant advocates are not happy with the rain gardens because the PUC has not made a commitment to plant exclusively native plants in the rain gardens. The audience pressured the speaker about this issue. He advised them to lobby the PUC to make a commitment to plant only native plants in the rain gardens. I have no doubt that they will take his advice. Given their influence and their access to public funding, I would be surprised if the PUC continues to resist their demands.
I have undoubtedly exhausted your patience, although there is much more I could tell you about, including several projects that look promising because they are exploring the importance of soil health to achieve successful results.
The conference themes in 2022 were consistent with the previous two conferences I have attended since 2015. This is my summary of the fundamental errors of the nativist agenda in the natural world. They are as apparent in 2022 as they were in 2015:
- The futility of trying to eradicate non-native plants that are better adapted to current environmental conditions.
- The futile and harmful attempts to prevent natural succession and hybridization.
- The contradictory goals of fuels management and resource management.
- The lack of understanding that vegetation changes when the climate changes. The ranges of native plants have changed and will continue to change. The pre-settlement landscape of the 18th century cannot be recreated.
- The lack of understanding of the importance of soil health to ecological restoration and associated ignorance (or denial) of the damage that pesticides do to the soil.
(1) Abstracts for all presentations are available on the CNPS website.
15 thoughts on “Money and Fire: 2022 Conference of California Native Plant Society”
Thank you so much for your brilliant response to the horror being unleashed on our environment for profit, as the Native Plant Society and others applaud this destruction, which will destroy forests and habitat, and therefore food and homes for California’s animals as well as precious migrating birds. Sharing now….
You previously replied to me that you don’t see any benefit to monetizing conservation. But… clearly it’s already being monetized, very much so. Our taxes are being used to subsidize native plants. Personally I really hate this particular use of my taxes. Just like pacifists really hate having their taxes spent on war. And just like pro-lifers really hate having their taxes spent on abortion.
Jefferson said “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Around a hundred years later, one of the best economists, Knut Wicksell, said virtually the same thing… “it would seem to be a blatant injustice if someone should be forced to contribute towards the cost of some activity which does not further his interests or may even be diametrically opposed to them.”
I agree with them, of course, but not so much with the use of their words “sinful”, “tyrannical” and “injustice”. A far better word is “counter-productive”. We all lose considerably when we override each other’s spending decisions. Sadly it’s hard to articulate exactly why this is.
YES, but how do we arrange ourselves in the human community where opinions differ … even after sincere discussion? Should everyone have to support parks and open space, even those who don’t use it? Should childless adults have to support schools? How do we come to agreement on what should be taught as kids are mastering literacy? Tolerance, or importance of standing for one’s own values?
I would like to see a significant portion of our tax dollars required, but designated to be spent according to taxpayer’s wishes. I believe in charter schools because parents and their children have choice about educational priorities beyond basic essentials pretty clearly needed to function in a democracy … like ability to respond to and use written language, and to develop skills for thinking so as not to be fooled by rhetoric and numbers without no understanding of what they may conceal or how they play on our emotions without our being aware.
Humanity’s need to learn how to organize ourselves for best possible outcome has a long way to go.
Discussions like those presented on this blog are part of the answer
Let’s take this blog for example. Did you know that it’s been around for more than a decade? I only just stumbled upon it recently. Needless to say I haven’t read all the older entries, but I’m guessing that some of them are quite valuable.
Imagine a list of all the blog entries. It would be a long list. Of course it would be really helpful if the entries were sorted by value. One easy way to sort the entries would be to do so by “likes”. Evidently 3 bloggers “like” this entry. Which entry has received the most “likes”?
The thing is, I highly doubt that the most popular entry would necessarily be the most valuable one. This is the inherent problem with democracy, it can never reveal value. Value can only be revealed by personal sacrifice.
“If a woman told us that she loved flowers, and we saw that she forgot to water them, we would not believe in her “love” for flowers. Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love. Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love. ”— Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving
So rather than rank the entries by voting, we could do so by donating. The entry that received the most donations would be at the top of the list.
Right now we don’t know which entry is the most valuable. For some reason we accept this ignorance. As if the blogger, and all the readers, are somehow better off not knowing and having access to so much substantial feedback.
If we can learn to appreciate the benefit of knowing and seeing each other’s substantial feedback when it comes to small public goods, such as these blog entries, then tax choice will naturally happen.
As I have said before, I think this is an extremely bad idea. It is another way to disenfranchise poor people and give wealthy people the power to do stupid things like buy Twitter and turn off the few controls that exist on misinformation and hate. Money does not confer wisdom. I won’t post another version of this suggestion that you have now made many times. This suggestion does not deserve more oxygen. Take it to Twitter where it may have more traction.
Thank you for attending the conference and providing a summary, particularly in context of ongoing effects of the foundational nativist assumptions. The case of the contemporary practice of blood letting that we now know was likely cause of George Washington’s death comes to mind. It was the practice prescribed by the body of experts (doctors), and the public had come to believe it was the thing to do. I am astonished at the widespread assumption that “native” plants are superior in all the important ways, held also by a number of female friends who are professional gardeners. People are not discussing, but speaking, uprooting, and planting as if according to common knowledge.
Thanks for attending and reporting on these sessions.
Are they still allowing organizations to exhibit / distribute free anti-immigration / “overpopulation” literature, as they did in 2015 and 2018?
I can’t say for sure. I walked around the Exhibit Hall just once, quickly. I didn’t notice such a display, if it was there. I don’t see a list of exhibitors in the program or the conference website. Sorry.
Thanks. I saw they posted a photo to Twitter of someone who is listed as a member of a nativist group, so I was wondering if they were being allowed to exhibit again.
It’s a legitimate question, I just can’t answer it. Some native plant advocates are rabidly anti-immigration and zero-population growth fanatics.
Agreed. I heard they got rid of some of the worst, but I scanned the speaker list and saw several people who I would guess don’t have a problem with those ideas.
Jake Sigg is the acknowledged leader of the native plant movement in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is opposed to all forms of immigration and he advocates for zero population growth, as described here: https://wp.me/pT04m-mw. Despite his advanced age, he is still very active as an opinion leader. His name was mentioned, in reverential tones, several times during the CNPS conference. It’s not sentiment that has disappeared among native plant advocates.
With respect to the rain gardens, I think it would be more productive if proponents focused their energy on their maintenance than what is planted in them.
I know they are making an effort to find volunteer “guardians” for these “gardens,” but whenever I see them they are weedy (actual weeds, not just “native” plants that look weedy) and wells for garbage, as noted in the article in the Chronicle. I think native plant advocates focusing on whether the plants are native or not misses other concerns that will make these gardens accepted and successful. I hope they will use their energy to join the volunteer program to keep them free of garbage and not just lobby the PUC.
Dear Million Trees,
Just scanning through the article here, it struck me that there is a deep concern that some forests may not return and convert to shrub lands. However, in a previous paragraph it was stated that some NATIVE Douglas firs are expanding their range into territories where they did not previously thrive, so THEY ARE REMOVING THEM? HUH? Say what?
As far as trying to use forestry to find climate change this makes no sense to me. It’s bad enough to remove non-native eucalyptus trees but now their hit list has evidently been expanded to include Doug firs as well.
They have been destroying Douglas Firs throughout California for at least 5 years. I learned about it in 2017 from an academic forester at UC Berkeley who made a presentation about his studies of Sudden Oak Death in the Bay Area. Die off of oaks is worst in Marin County where millions were killed by SOD. The forester said that Doug Firs were trying to move into the areas vacated by oaks, but are being killed by people who prefer grassland. He was a mild-mannered fellow who said, “The forest is trying to recover! Give it a chance to recover by letting the trees that are adapted to current conditions move into area previously occupied by oaks.” A dedicated nativist explained that they prefer grassland, which just aggravated the forester further.
I’m attending the conference of the California Invasive Plant Council at the moment. The manager of the Pepperwood Nature Preserve owned by University of California spoke about his intensive management efforts. Much of it made some sense to me. Then, he admitted to his worst mistake. He destroyed young Douglas Fir moving into a forest and cut the wood into logs that he piled up, thinking they would decompose in the long run. They were soon consumed by a wildfire that was far worse than it would have been if he had left the firs alone or removed the dead wood. The fire burned much hotter than it would have without the dry logs and killed trees that probably would have survived a less intense fire. It was very refreshing to hear a land manager admit to a serious mistake.
I have no idea why people don’t like Douglas Fir. It’s one of the most valuable sources of good timber we have.