On November 3rd vote for a friend of the East Bay parks

If you live in Ward 1 of the East Bay Regional Park District, you will have an opportunity to vote for your representative to the Park District’s Board of Directors on November 3rd.  Many of the most heavily visited parks in the East Bay–such as Tilden Park, Point Isabel, Point Pinole, Eastshore Park–are in Ward 1.  The future of those parks will be in the hands of the Board member who wins this election.

Elizabeth Echols is the incumbent who is running for election.  Echols was appointed to the Board by the Board after the unfortunate death of Whitney Dotson.** Dotson had represented Ward 1 with distinction since 2008, after defeating Norman La Force in the race for that seat on the Board.  Now Echols must be elected to keep her seat on the Board.*

There was intense competition for the temporary appointment to the Board when Echols was appointed by the Board.  Norman La Force asked for the temporary appointment, but was not selected by the Board.  La Force has a long track-record that probably explains why the Board did not appoint him:

  • Norman La Force advocates for the destruction of non-native trees in East Bay Regional Parks and the use of herbicides to eradicate non-native plants and prevent trees from resprouting after they have been destroyed.
  • As a lawyer and the co-founder and CEO of SPRAWLDEF, Norman La Force has sued East Bay Regional Park District many times to impose his personal vision on the parks.  These lawsuits were costly to taxpayers and the Park District and they delayed the implementation of park improvements.
  • Norman La Force is consistently opposed to many types of recreation. He advocates for parks that prohibit public access. 
  • Norman La Force has an antagonistic attitude toward park visitors who do not share his personal vision.

Norman La Force sued FEMA and the Park District to destroy all non-native trees

East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) is thinning non-native trees to mitigate wildfire hazards by reducing fuel loads and FEMA is funding many of these projects.  Norman La Force is not satisfied with merely thinning trees.  He sued EBRPD and FEMA to force the removal of all non-native trees on 3,500 acres of park land.  That lawsuit is available HERE.   La Force appealed after losing the lawsuit, but lost again on appeal.

Norman La Force tried to make Sierra Club endorsement of the renewal of a parcel tax to fund the Park District contingent on a commitment to destroy all non-native trees rather than thin them:

“Hence, the Sierra Club believes it is critical that in any renewal of Measure CC funding for vegetation management should be increased for the removal of non-natives such as eucalyptus and their replacement with restored native habitat. If the Park District wants to continue with a program that merely thins the non-native ecualyputs (sic) and other non-native trees, then it must find other funds for those purposes. Future tax money from a renewal of Measure CC funds should not be used to thin eucalyptus but must be allocated to the restoration of native habitat.”  La Force’s full letter is available HERE.

Norman LaForce sued the Park District to prevent recreational improvements at Albany Beach

In an op-ed published by Berkeleyside, one of La Force’s many lawsuits against the Park District is described.  The lawsuit attempted to prevent the construction of a path with recreational access:  “SPRAWLDEF is an acronym for Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund.  On Jan. 17, [2013] the group, founded by Norman La Force and David Tam, filed a lawsuit against the East Bay Regional Park District, opposing a plan to acquire a small strip of property along the shoreline behind the track to complete a missing link in the Bay Trail between Berkeley and Richmond.  The Park District’s Plan would also add some parking to the Albany Beach area, build some wheelchair access to the water’s edge, and expand and protect the dune area behind the beach.   There’s something in this lawsuit to alienate just about everyone: Bicyclists and hikers who use the Bay Trail; environmentalists with an interest in dune habitat; kayakers and kiteboarders who launch from the Albany shoreline; the ADA constituency who find beach access generally impossible; and, most of all, dogs and their owners who rely on Albany beach for a place to play in the water.  Read the filing. It has all the earmarks of a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because they did not get their way.”  Emphasis added.

According to this article in the East Bay Times, the SPRAWLDEF lawsuit to prevent the Albany Beach project was eventually dismissed after two unsuccessful SPRAWLDEF appeals.  The Park District’s defense of the project required the preparation of a second, Supplemental EIR.  Park District resources were wasted to defend the project against Norman La Force’s frivolous lawsuits.

In response to a public records request, the Park District provided this estimate of the cost of defending the District against La Force’s lawsuits regarding Albany Beach:  “In total, we estimate that the attorney’s fees incurred directly as a result of the litigation filed by SPRAWLDEF relating to Albany Beach were between $321,358 and $346,358.  In addition, the court ordered the Park District to pay Petitioner SPRAWLDEF $60,587.50 in attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party in the 2013 litigation.”  The Park District was forced to waste nearly $400,000 of taxpayers’ money to defend its improvement project at Albany Beach.  The project was needlessly delayed by the lawsuits and money that could have been used to improve parks was wasted.

Norman La Force does not want people in the parks

Norman La Force was instrumental in creating the Berkeley Meadow at the foot of University Ave. in Berkeley.  The Berkeley Meadow was at one time part of the San Francisco Bay, until it was created with landfill and used as a city dump until the 1960s.  Over a period of 5 years at a cost of $6 million “non-native vegetation was scraped away, then the land capped with clean fill and contoured to form naturally filling seasonal ponds.” Then the meadow was planted with native grasses and shrubs to create an “approximation of the historic landscape that might have been present a half mile inland.”  The Berkeley Meadow is surrounded by a fence.  Public access is restricted to two narrow, fenced trails running diagonally through the 72-acre fenced enclosure.  Bicycles and people walking dogs on or off-leash are prohibited on the fenced trails.

The Berkeley Meadow is a 72-acre fenced vacant lot.

Berkeleyside described the Berkeley Meadow and contrasted it with a heavily visited adjacent park, owned by the City of Berkeley:  “What you won’t see [in the Berkeley Meadow] is more than a handful of the 2 million annual state park visitors, though this prime spot is just a short bike ride from West Berkeley. The adjacent, city-owned César Chávez Park on the north waterfront gets most of the visitors along its paved trail. But here, only a few hundred yards away, the Meadow, our state park managed by the East Bay Regional Parks District, is an almost wild place, trisected by two wheel-chair accessible paths.”  Indeed, the Berkeley Meadow does look wild, much like a vacant lot looks wild.

Norman La Force has a confrontational attitude toward park visitors

In his letter to FEMA objecting to the withdrawal of funding for a tree-removal project that was implemented before being authorized by FEMA, Norman La Force says that those with whom he disagrees are “like climate change deniers.”  Ironically, he is defending the unauthorized clear cutting of approximately 150 trees in his letter, actions that contribute to climate change.  La Force is actually the “climate change denier” in his accusatory letter.  The letter is available HERE.

In an earlier letter to FEMA about the same projects, La Force begins by asking FEMA to ignore those with whom he disagrees:  “We urge FEMA to discount the views of any individual or group that uses sophomoric name calling tactics in the press or in their FEMA scoping comments to categorize people or advocacy groups as ‘nativists’ (or other similar pejorative labels)…”  The letter is available HERE:  FEMA-DEIS for East Bay Hills predisaster mitigation – public comments

When La Force ran for the Ward 1 Board seat in 2008, Berkeley Daily Planet published an op-ed by someone who had observed Norman La Force in action.  Here are a few relevant quotes from her op-ed (emphasis added):

  • “La Force is not only ‘a thorn in the side of park officials,’ he is fiercely aggressive and known for vengeful acts.”
  • “If La Force is elected, he will threaten the park access of every person who walks a dog, rides a horse, seeks accessible trails, and bikes on the lands of the East Bay Regional Parks. His scientific background is nothing, as he has demonstrated in public hearings many times. He has worked harder to keep humans out of parks than any other “park proponent” I know. He definitely will try to crush any “opponent,” including the disabled, the young and the elderly. Not because they are right or wrong, but because they oppose him. I urge everyone to watch their back if he’s elected.”
  • “One can have honest debates about how to create urban edge ecosystems that allow both human uses and wild life to thrive together (yes, it can be done beautifully), but Norman’s rigidity will never consider other perspectives or creative solutions.”
Vote for Elizabeth Echols for the Park District Board of Directors

On November 3rd, please vote for the parks in the East Bay, not against them.  Please do not install an enemy of the parks who does not want people or trees in our parks and is willing to spray our parks with herbicide to get the landscape he prefers. When we vote for President of the United States on November 3rd, we must decide who to vote for at the same time we are voting against another candidate.  Both decisions are equally important.

The meetings of the Board of Directors of the Park District are open to the public.  They are collegial events in which the Board works cooperatively with the staff and the public is treated with respect.  The Park District does not deserve to have a “spoiled child throwing a tantrum” imposed on them, especially not someone who has sued them many times to get what he wants.  East Bay Regional parks are open to everyone with a wide range of recreational interests.  Let’s keep them that way by voting for Elizabeth Echols on November 3rd.

*Full Disclosure:  I have not met Elizabeth Echols.  I do not know her.  I have not consulted with her about the preparation of this article.  I have no reason to believe she would agree with my assessment of her opponent in the race for the Board seat in Ward 1.  My recommendation to vote for her is based primarily on the fact that she was selected by the Board for her temporary appointment to the Board, which suggests that she is supported by the Board and Park District staff.  I have read her credentials on her candidacy website and I have watched her participation in Board meetings since she was appointed to the Board.  This limited information about her gives me confidence that she will represent Ward 1 well.

**Update:  I have been informed that Elizabeth Echols was appointed to the Board after Whitney Dotson retired and that Mr. Dotson died about 2 weeks after Ms. Echols was appointed.  September 30, 2020

Observations of the Blue Ridge Naturalist

I’ve been a nature writer/photographer in Crozet, Virginia, for more than 25 years. My freelance articles have been published in numerous national and state magazines and newspapers, and I’ve written nature columns for many newspapers, as well as Virginia Wildlife, the magazine of our state wildlife department. My yard was featured on Virginia PBS stations in 1994 and again in 2005, and is the basis of my book, The Nature-friendly Garden: Creating a Backyard Haven for Plants, Wildlife, and People (Stackpole Books, 2006).  In all of these venues, I discussed nonnative plants, including some considered “invasive”, without suffering much, if indeed any, blowback.

Home of Marlene Condon in Crozet, Virginia. Photo credit Marlene Condon

However, over the past quarter century, there has been more-and-more of a push by native-plant societies to get government entities and environmental groups to rid the natural world of so-called invasive plants, including even native plants considered “thugs” because their growth is exuberant.  Because I was concerned about the destruction of habitat and the often-extensive use of pesticides to accomplish their mission, I started writing explicitly about this movement, as in the article below.

After the publication of this article last year, nativists mounted a smear campaign against me personally, a sure sign of how weak their invasive-plant arguments are.  The lead writer never even publicly disclosed her affiliation with the Blue Ridge PRISM, a group “targeting common invasive plants in the Blue Ridge”, which would have allowed readers to question whether her comments about me were suspect. My editor certainly was duped, placing a headline of “Blue Ridge Naturalist–NOT!” over their comments. And perhaps not coincidentally, shortly thereafter, he fired me, even though I’d written for–and received high praise from–him for 11 years.

Since then, I’ve found it virtually impossible to write openly about any nonnative plants.  Media and environmental groups are cowed by these people, thanks to their numbers and involvement with various organizations and governments (local, state, and federal). Sadly, this movement is highly detrimental to our natural world that is already in very bad shape and can hardly withstand yet more negative impacts upon it. Folks who understand the senselessness of destroying functioning habitat and poisoning the Earth with pesticides must speak out publicly for the benefit of nature.

Marlene Condon, Blue Ridge Naturalist

FEBRUARY 2019
The Blue Ridge Naturalist
© Marlene A. Condon

Bees and other kinds of insects obtain nourishment from the blooms of Weigela, a spring-blooming shrub native to Asia. Photo credit Marlene Condon

Ecologists Recognizing Value of Alien Plants

Scientists are either waking up to what I’ve been saying for years, or finally becoming brave enough to speak out against the wide-spread invasive-plant movement. In an opinion piece signed by 19 ecologists in the journal Nature, they argue that “policy and management decisions must take into account the positive effects of many invaders.”

Recognizing that “It is impractical to try to restore ecosystems to some ‘rightful’ historical state”, they go on to point out that eradicating or drastically reducing the abundance of invasive plants is “an impossible goal.”

Critical thinking is a must for deciding invasive-plant policy to avoid harming wildlife and wasting millions in tax dollars. A situation in California illustrates the foolishness of blindly pushing an agenda without giving any thought to the real-world consequences of doing so.

In the name of “saving” the environment from so-called invasive plants, a movement has sprung up to remove Eucalypt (Eucalyptus globulus) trees from California. These trees, brought in from Australia, now serve as the most frequented overwintering sites for the western Monarch butterfly population.

Monarchs originally roosted in native conifer stands of Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata), Monterey Cypress (Cupressus maculatum) and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Sadly, extensive development, logging, and poor land-management decisions have reduced the number of these native-tree stands, leaving the butterflies to rely upon non-native Eucalypts.

Ignoring the fact that overwintering Monarchs are very much dependent upon isolated stands of these trees, government plans are mandating removal of them. Does this make environmental sense? Absolutely not; eradication of the Eucalypts means no wintering habitat for Monarchs, which means they will die.

In other words, this deliberate destruction of habitat is taking place because of ideology, an illustration of the danger posed by people who have been led to believe they are part of an environmentally moral crusade. Native-plant folks out west have managed, as they have here in the East, to convince environmental organizations and government entities at every level that it is a moral imperative to remove plants deemed invasive.

But, the whole point of conservation of the environment is conservation of wildlife, without which the environment cannot function properly. Yet, absolutely no thought is given to how much so-called invasive plants support wildlife or serve important environmental functions in degraded areas.

Thus, for example, in the city of Waynesboro, Virginia, the Parks and Rec department decided it had to remove Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica, formerly known as Polygonum cuspidatum) from growing along the South River greenway (Waynesboro News Virginian, March 9, 2018, “War on Weeds”). The main reason given for the removal of these plants was that they are preventing native plants from growing, but this statement is nothing more than invasive-plant folklore that gains credence by the act of repetition.

Read about virtually any “invasive” species and you will find that these plants are typically growing in disturbed areas where man or a weather event destroyed the original soil profile. As a result, the plants that had been growing there previously did not come back because they could not handle the altered physical conditions of the site. It’s why you see so-called invasive plants mainly along roadways, in parks, and along river trails—all areas easily seen by people who then mistakenly believe the exotic plants pushed out native species.

The newspaper stated that knotweed is a “formidable culprit to the river’s health”, but the true threat lies in its removal. This plant has superbly performed erosion control of soil in which native plants struggle to grow; feeds numerous kinds of pollinators when it blooms; and provides wonderful cover and nesting sites for numerous species of birds and the non-herbivorous insects that feed them. One need only to walk the trail with open eyes and an open mind to ascertain the truth of this statement.

Additionally, park employees would use herbicides to kill the knotweed. How can poisoning the Earth be less harmful than allowing alien plants to grow in areas where they are currently the most suited to thrive and thus provide badly needed habitat for wildlife?

You might wonder how the invasive-plant movement became so entrenched in environmental and governmental circles. The answer lies in the treatment of it as a moral cause in which those who agree with removing “bad” plants are virtuous; those who disagree must be bad like the plants themselves. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for folks to take a stand in opposition; no one wants to be considered immoral.

However, this undertaking is deeply flawed. Rather than critically analyzing each situation and dealing with it in the most appropriate manner, plant nativists (people who practice a policy of favoring native plants over nonnative) take the simplistic approach that demands removal of every plant designated as “invasive”, no matter what function it is fulfilling in the local environment or how well it fills what would be an otherwise empty ecological niche.

Earlier this year, for example, someone removed a Leatherleaf Mahonia (Mahonia bealei) that was growing in a swath of red dirt along the road where I exercise. It was one of the few plants that had survived the highway department’s installation of a new guardrail. No native plants had been able to grow in the poor, dry soil exposed a few years earlier by construction, leaving an area several feet wide and long mostly devoid of plants to assist wildlife.

The Mahonia (a native of China) would have provided a very early source of nectar desperately needed by the first pollinators to become active in spring at a time when native plants in bloom are very few. Its fruits would later feed birds, such as Cedar Waxwings and American Robins. Now, not much exists in this area to feed either insects or birds, making the land a wasted resource.

Native or not, plants provide habitat whereas bare ground does not. Nativists disregard the reality that native plants struggle to survive under the adverse conditions of road salt, mowing, drought, and disturbed, compacted, and depleted soil. They would do better by the environment if, instead of pulling and pesticiding, they focused on eliminating the actual causes of alien-plant spread.

Removing the Mahonia near the bridge resulted in no benefit to the environment, whereas it very much negatively impacted ease of survival for many insects and birds. And in California, removing Eucalypts may well doom the wintering Monarch butterfly population.

Doug Tallamy’s Nature’s Best Hope denies the value of hybridization

In Nature’s Best Hope, Doug Tallamy concedes that there is no evidence of extinctions of native plants being caused by the introduction of non-native plants in the Continental US.  However, he accuses non-native plants of something more nefarious:  “There is one biological phenomenon associated with some plant invasions that is so pernicious, even continental scales are not protecting natives from invasive species.  I speak of…introgressive hybridization, where the invasive species hybridizes with a closely related native, and then through repeated backcrosses and directional gene flow, the gene pool moves closer and closer to that of the invader.” 

Jake Sigg calls this phenomenon, genetic pollution.  Both Tallamy and Sigg consider such hybridization a loss of the native species and, indeed, it can be the end of localized variants of a species.  However, hybridization is often instrumental in the creation of a new species, one that is often superior to its ancestors because it is better adapted to present environmental conditions.

In a recently published study of the evolution of oaks, scientists traced the 56 million year evolutionary history of roughly 435 species of oak across 5 continents where they are found today.  Oaks are wind-pollinated, leaving pollen fossil records of their presence where they may no longer live.  Using DNA analysis of fossil pollen, scientists tell us when and where oaks have lived.  Their presence or absence was determined by changes in climate that created or eliminated land bridges between continents enabling movement of plants and animals, as well as providing the climate conditions in which oaks can survive.

Hybridization was instrumental in the formation of oak species and the ability of oaks to survive in different climate conditions.  The article in Scientific American about the genetic study of oak species concludes:  “A firm grasp of when, where and how oaks came to be so diverse is crucial to understanding how oaks will resist and adapt to rapidly changing environments. Oaks migrated rapidly as continental glaciers receded starting around 20,000 years ago, and hybridization between species appears to have been key to their rapid response. The insights we can gain from elucidating the adaptive benefits of gene flow are critical to predicting how resilient oaks may be as climate change exposes them to fungal and insect diseases with which they did not evolve.”  

In fact, a recent study suggests that assisted species migration and intentional hybridization are necessary to prevent the extinction of plants in Arctic regions, where the climate is warming the fastest.  Intentionally planting species from warmer regions into colder regions in anticipation of climate warming is called assisted migration.  It is not a new concept.  The study acknowledges that intentional hybridization is a radical suggestion that contradicts conventional wisdom:  “Traditionally, hybridization is viewed as negative and leading to a loss of biodiversity, even though hybridization has increased biodiversity over geological times.  This study acknowledges the role that hybridization plays in increasing biodiversity.

In the Bay Area, we are surrounded by examples of hybridization, some intentional and tolerated and some natural, but not tolerated:

Sycamore. Selectree.
  • Sycamores are the most common street tree in the United States and we have many here in the Bay Area. They are a hybrid of London Plane Trees and our native Sycamore.  The California native was intentionally bred with the London Plane Tree to increase its drought tolerance.   Sycamore street trees are one of the most popular because they are extremely hardy and tolerant of challenging conditions in urban settings.  They are also the host trees of one of our native butterflies, Western Tiger Swallowtail.  The Tiger Swallowtail probably used our native Sycamore in the past, but made a seamless transition to the hybrid.

Update:  I learned about the hybrid origins of our local Sycamore street tree in an urban forestry class at UC Berkeley.  Peter Del Tredici has sent me this correction: “The london plane tree, Platanus x acerifolia is generally considered to be a hybrid between the european species, P. orientalis and the eastern species, P. occidentalis. the west coast species, P. racemosa is not part of the mix.”   

Western tiger swallowtail. Wikimedia
  • Spartina alterniflora is a marsh grass that is native on the East Coast. It grows taller and denser than our native marsh grass, Spartina foliosa that also dies back in winter, unlike the East Coast native that does not.  In other words, non-native spartina is superior protection from winter storm surges compared to native spartina.  Yet, non-native spartina is being eradicated using herbicides along the entire West Coast of the country because it hybridizes with the native spartina species.  The herbicide used for that purpose has been sprayed for about 15 years, which is probably why attempts to plant native spartina as a replacement have been unsuccessful.  The result of the eradication project has been bare mud that provides no protection from erosion caused by rising sea levels and more intense winter storms.  In other words, if non-native spartina were permitted to hybridize with native spartina on the West Coast, the result would be a new species that is better adapted to face the threats of rising sea levels and intense storm surges.
Doug Tallamy’s closing photo of his keynote speech to the California Native Plant Society Conference, 2018

Fear of hybridization is akin to fear of mongrelization–the mixing of races–by racists and xenophobes.  It is closely related to the fear of non-native plant and animal species, a short-step away from the fear of human immigrants.  Concern about racial purity is not far from fear of “genetic pollution.”  State laws in the US prohibiting interracial marriage were not repealed until 1967, when the US Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional in the 16 states in which these laws still remained.  These are cultural fears, not grounded in biological science. 

In conclusion

Doug Tallamy’s intended audience is home gardeners.  Although he urges his readers to remove invasive species, he does not endorse the use of herbicides.  Unfortunately, his work is used by public land managers to justify their eradication projects that usually use herbicides.  If Tallamy’s work stayed in its home gardening lane, it would do less damage to the environment.

Eradication of marsh grass on East and West Coasts doesn’t make sense

New York State agencies have been trying to destroy the Piermont Marsh since 2013, because most of the marsh grass is not native. Piermont Marsh is adjacent to the small village of Piermont on the west side of the Hudson River, less than 30 miles north of New York City.

The community of Piermont organized to prevent the destruction of their marsh for two reasons:

  • They believed that the marsh had protected them from the devastating storm surge caused by Hurricane Sandy in 2011. The village sustained damages of $11.8 million in that storm, but villagers believed it would have been much worse without the protection of the marsh.
  • The initial plan to eradicate 200 acres of non-native phragmites proposed the use of herbicides to kill the marsh grass. The villagers were concerned about large quantities of herbicides being sprayed into their waterways.
The Piermont Marsh is also very beautiful.

I have followed the attempt to save the Piermont Marsh because it is nearly identical to our West Coast version of the same issue.  Non-native spartina grass has been nearly eradicated on the entire West Coast using herbicides over the past 15 years.  After witnessing the unintended consequences of the eradication of spartina, I was sympathetic to the community of Piermont and hopeful that their organized resistance might be successful.

Opposition to the proposed project to destroy the Piermont Marsh has accomplished a great deal.  The first round of public comment and negotiation resulted in a reduction in the size of the project from 200 acres to 40 acres.  The Piermont community was also given a commitment to conduct an analysis of the damage done to the village by the destructive storm surge in the 2011 hurricane Sandy to determine the role the marsh played in protecting the village from even greater damage.

The scientist who conducted that study reported the results of the study in July 2020.  He concluded that “the presence of the Marsh is estimated to have avoided $902,000 worth of property damage and loss.” (1) He made other significant observations:

  • The native marsh grass that the project wishes to restore does not provide as much storm protection in the spring: “Typha [the native species of marsh grass] shows far more seasonal variation than phragmites.  Unlike phragmites, which maintains its height and density year-round, Typha is shorter and sparser in the spring.” (1)
  • The scientist predicted that by 2100 the Piermont Marsh will likely be overwhelmed by sea level rise. Whatever vegetation is at the Piermont Marsh, it will be gone within 80 years.

For the moment, the Piermont Marsh project is on hold:  “[The plan] will be redrafted and the new draft should be presented to the public in 2021.” (1) Meanwhile, herbicides will not be used in the marsh and experiments will be conducted to kill marsh grass by covering it with a geotextile that deprives the vegetation of light.  However, project managers have not made a commitment to avoid herbicides in the future.

Based on my experience with opposition to such destructive projects,  delays are often ultimately victories.  Funding priorities often change and more scientific information becomes available to inform a better decision.  For example, the current draft plan contains outdated information about glyphosate.  It claims that “Glyphosate is a non-selective, systemic herbicide that controls weeds by inhibiting a specific pathway for amino acid synthesis that is unique to plants and not present in animals.”

We now know that the claim about a “unique pathway” for glyphosate existing only in plants is not true.  In 2020, plaintiffs in a class-action suit against Monsanto alleging that it falsely advertised that the active ingredient in Roundup only affects plants were awarded $39.5 million.  The settlement also requires that the inaccurate claim be removed from the labels of all glyphosate products: “…[plaintiff] says Monsanto falsely claimed through its labeling that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, targets an enzyme that is only found in plants and would therefore not affect people or pets. According to the suit, that enzyme is in fact found in people and pets and is critical to maintaining the immune system, digestion and brain function.”

In defense of phragmites

According to a study conducted in 2017, phragmites is playing the same ecological roles as their native predecessors:

“An invasive species of marsh grass that spreads, kudzu-like, throughout North American wetlands, may provide similar benefits to protected wetlands as native marsh grasses. According to new research from North Carolina State University, the invasive marsh grass’s effects on carbon storage, erosion prevention and plant diversity in protected wetlands are neutral… studies have shown that Phragmites may help reduce shoreline erosion in marshlands and store carbon at faster rates than native grasses…The team found no significant differences between ecosystem services of the marshes they studied, indicating that Phragmites’ effect was largely neutral.” 

Land managers and contractors have been trying to eradicate phragmites in the Delaware River and its estuary for nearly 40 years.  Although the contractors are still committed to that project, critics are getting louder and scientists are finding more evidence of the benefits of phragmites.  It is no longer clear that eradicating phragmites is possible, nor is it clear that it would be beneficial.

Rising sea levels as ice melts in warmer temperatures are bringing the benefits of phragmites into focus:  “Some scientists have been arguing that phragmites…could be a key line of defense against rising sea level, particularly in areas like the Mid-Atlantic where land is sinking while water continues to rise… Research from 20 years ago found that phragmites help marshes elevate faster than some other plants…”

The herbicides used to kill phragmites are aerial sprayed from helicopters, killing both native and non-native plants, resulting in barren mudflats that are more vulnerable to erosion:  “The herbicide treatment of phragmites can also mean other native plants become casualties in the process, leaving an unvegetated landscape behind. With no plants to hold sediment in place, an open mudflat can be extremely vulnerable to flooding in the face of storms or unsuccessful regrowth… ‘You know, the Phrag marsh is certainly a whole lot better than no marsh,’ [a Rutgers scientist] said.”

Trying to eradicate phragmites no longer makes sense.  So why is it continuing to happen?  A Rutgers marine biologist explains:   “Well, might I say…there’s a whole army of environmental consultants that get paid to remove phragmites and don’t get paid to leave it alone.”  That is really the heart of the matter.  The projects are designed to create jobs and apply for government funds, not to protect the environment.

The West Coast version of marsh grass eradication

If the word “spartina” is substituted for the word “phragmites” the Piermont Marsh project and the questions it raises apply to similar projects on the West Coast.  For over 15 years, non-native spartina marsh grass has been eradicated using herbicides along the entire West Coast.  The result of spartina eradication projects on the West Coast is also barren mud shoreline that is poisoned with herbicide and miles of coastline that is vulnerable to rising sea levels and erosion.

The Ridgway Rail was collateral damage of the spartina eradication project. The population of this endangered bird plummeted because its nesting habitat was destroyed.

There is another similarity between the East Coast and West Coast versions of eradicating marsh grass.  Like the native typho (cattail) that is the goal of the East Coast project, native spartina that was the goal of the West Coast project is inferior protection of the coastline against storm surges.  The native species of spartina on the West Coast that was the theoretical goal of the eradication project is shorter and less dense than the non-native species.  It also dies back in the winter, unlike the non-native species that persists throughout the year.  In other words, the native species does not provide the same protection for the shoreline that is provided by the non-native species.  In any case, plantings of the native species failed in the poisoned ground, so its benefits claimed by the project are entirely irrelevant.

These eradication projects don’t make any more sense on the West Coast than their mirror image on the East Coast. 

  1. The Piermont Marsh Alliance Report on July 16 Webinar regarding Piermont Marsh

Baseless generalizations in Doug Tallamy’s Nature’s Best Hope

Doug Tallamy’s latest book, Nature’s Best Hope, continues his crusade against non-native plants.  He now calls invasive plants “ecological tumors.”  You might be tempted to respond that invasive plants are a small subset of non-native plants until you realize that Tallamy calls 3,300 plant species in North America “invasive.”  There are approximately 6,500 species of native plants in California, which reminds us that introduced plants are often a significant portion of our urban landscapes.  The title of Tallamy’s book is a misnomer.  Nature is not confined to native plants, as Tallamy wishes it to be.

Tallamy makes no meaningful distinction between “invasive” and “non-native.”  The classification of berry-producing non-native plants as “invasive” is a case in point.  Although Himalayan blackberries are invasive, most other berry-producing non-natives in California are not.  Cotoneaster, pyracantha, and holly are a few examples of berry-producing plants being eradicated in the Bay Area that are not inherently “invasive.”  They spread because birds eat the berries and deposit the seeds elsewhere.

Cedar Waxwings in crab apple tree. Wikimedia Commons

Eradicating berry-producing plants deprives birds of an important source of food.  If herbicides are used to kill the plant, the birds are also exposed to harmful chemicals, known to reduce reproductive success and cause other sub-lethal health issues in wildlife. In the case of Himalayan blackberries, they are frequently eaten by children and adults, who are then exposed to the herbicides used to kill the shrubs that are often widespread in our parks and open spaces.  San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department sprayed blackberries in San Francisco’s parks and open spaces 23 times in 2019.

Tallamy and his nativist allies claim that native plants are beneficial to wildlife, especially birds.  How can they claim that eradicating berry-producing plants benefits birds?  They do so by claiming that native berries are more nutritious than non-native berries.  In particular, they claim that native berries contain more fat than sugar and that migrating birds require berries with high fat content.   Tallamy cites one study in support of that claim, a study that compared fat and sugar levels in the berries of 9 species of plants in the Northeast, 5 native species and 4 introduced species.  They found that the native species they analyzed had more fat content than the introduced species they analyzed. (1)

Generalizations unsupported by evidence

From that single study of nine plant species, Tallamy generalizes that berries of plants that are considered native in Asia are less nutritious for migrating birds than the berries of native plants in North America are. (None of the nine plant species studied occurs in California.)  Does that generalization make sense?

  • Tallamy does not provide any evidence that there are fewer migratory birds in Asia, or that the nutritional needs of migratory birds in Asia are different than those in North America. In fact, looking at the migratory patterns of birds confirms that migratory routes of birds span several continents.  The intercontinental flights of birds sometimes span both Asia and North America.  There is no logical or evidentiary explanation for berries of native plants in Asia being uniformly less nutritious than native plants in North America.
  • However, Tallamy offers evidence of the similarity between plants in Asia and closely related plants in North America. Wooly adelgids quickly made a transition to native hemlocks when they arrived in North America from Asia because its native host in Asia is closely related to the American native.  The adelgid has “all but eliminated hemlocks” in America, according to Tallamy.  The emerald ash borer has killed millions of ash trees in America when it arrived from Asia, where its native host was closely related.  On one hand, Tallamy claims that native plants in America are unique, completely different from plants in Asia, yet he recognizes that insects from Asia rapidly adapt to closely related host plants in America.
  • Asian species are not so foreign to America as Tallamy wishes us to believe. There are relicts of vegetation that extended completely around the Northern Hemisphere about 50 million years ago that were broken up by a combination of mountain-building and climate change. Tree of Heaven, Gingko, and Dawn Redwood, now considered introduced trees from Asia, occurred here naturally during that geologic period.  Tallamy says we must confine our choices to plants that “share an evolutionary history.”  In fact, many plants now considered non-native shared an evolutionary history with plants now considered native. Trees are time travelers, marching to the beat of the Earth’s geologic and climate drum.  Now they must be on the move to survive our changing climate.  We should not stand in their way.

Such generalizations unsupported by evidence are typical of Tallamy’s work.  In “Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird,” Tallamy and his collaborators conclude, “We demonstrate that residential yards dominated by nonnative plants have lower arthropod abundance…that function as population sinks for insectivorous birds.”  The data provided do not support such a broad generalization.  They studied one species of bird, in one geographic location, in a short period of time.  They inventoried arthropods for two years in a single month time-frame.  They quantify only one variable (plant foliage biomass) in addition to the nativity of plants, the abundance of insects, and the breeding success of one bird species.  They have not taken into consideration intervening variables such as variations in temperature, rainfall, pesticide use, etc.  The bird species studied is abundant within its range.  Its conservation status is “Least Concern.”  The abundance of this bird species does not justify the dire predictions of Tallamy’s study.

In conclusion

I have focused on just one of the many controversies discussed in Doug Tallamy’s new book.  I haven’t touched on the two most fundamental errors in Tallamy’s work:

  • Tallamy underestimates the speed of adaptation and evolution. There is ample evidence of rapid adaptation to non-native vegetation, including Tallamy’s examples of wooly adelgid and emerald ash borer making a quick transition to North American native trees after arriving from Asia.
  • He exaggerates the degree of specialization among insects. For example, he claims that 30% of native bees are “host-plant specialists,” yet Bees of the World (Michener, Johns Hopkins University) estimates a global average of 9% of bee species use plants within the same genus and it is “exceedingly rare” for bee species to be confined to only one plant species.

We have explored those issues in Tallamy’s work in previous articles:

  • Doug Tallamy claims that insects eat only native plants, yet his own study proves otherwise: HERE
  • Doug Tallamy claims that non-native plants are “ecological traps for birds.”  HERE is an article that disputes that theory.
  • Doug Tallamy claims that native and non-native plants in the same genus are not equally useful to wildlife, but he is wrong about that.  Story is HERE.
  • Doug Tallamy advocates for the eradication of butterfly bush (Buddleia) because it is not native.  He claims it is not useful to butterflies, but he is wrong about that.  Story is HERE.
  • Doug Tallamy publishes a laboratory study that he believes contradicts field studies, but he is wrong about that.  Story is HERE.
  • Doug Tallamy speaks to Smithsonian Magazine, Art Shapiro responds, Million Trees fills in the gaps:  HERE

(1) B. Smith, et. al., “The value of native and invasive fruit-bearing shrubs for migrating birds,” Northeastern Naturalist, 2013, 20(1): 171-84.

Open letter to Sierra Club about its racist roots and elitist policies



The Executive Director of the Sierra Club, Michael Brune, has published a mea culpa about the club’s racist roots. John Muir was the founder of the Sierra Club. He considered the Indigenous people of California despoilers of nature and was responsible for evicting them from Yosemite when it was established as a National Park. Indigenous people had lived in peace in Yosemite Valley for thousands of years and their eviction was a tragedy.

More recently, the club’s policies promoted population control in the 1960s.  In the 1990s and again in the 2000s many club members tried to force the club to adopt an anti-immigration policy. The membership organized to prevent the club from adopting an anti-immigration policy and it’s time for the membership to express itself again, in support of Brune’s commitment to reverse course.

Mr. Brune apologizes for these racist policies and makes a commitment to reversing the club’s tradition of promoting the interests of wealthy, white people by investing in staff and leadership who are people of color.  I have written to Michael Brune to express my support for his commitment and make suggestions for addressing several closely related issues.  If you are a Sierra Club member, I urge you to write to Mr. Brune.  Perhaps you can make other suggestions for improving the club’s democratic functioning, as well as increasing the diversity of its membership and leadership.

Here is my letter to Michael Brune.  You can send your own letter to him at michael.brune@sierraclub.org

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

Michael Brune
Executive Director
Sierra Club

Dear Mr. Brune,

Thank you for making a commitment to confront the racist roots of the Sierra Club and take actions needed to broaden the club’s membership and leadership.  As a member, I am writing to ask that the club take this opportunity to address closely related issues that have turned it into the exclusive club that it is today.  The club’s policies are as much misanthropic as they are racist.

  • The club’s support for eradicating non-native plants and trees by using herbicides is a short-step away from its history of opposition to legal immigration. The connection between hatred of non-native plants and human immigrants is not lost on people of color.  High Country News recently published this thoughtful article by a young woman of Chinese descent who has suddenly realized that the demonization of non-native plants and animals is indistinguishable from similar attitudes toward human immigrants:  “Until this spring, I would have supported a concerted public effort to eradicate a threatening invasive species. But I’m no longer able to separate this environmental management strategy from the harm that the Trump administration’s insistent characterization of COVID-19 as an Asian disease has caused to Asian Americans, targeted anew for their race. I have yet to reconcile my training as an ecologist with my growing sense that what I learned reifies violent white norms far beyond the realm of natural resources.”
  • The club’s opposition to virtually every new housing project in the Bay Area serves the interests of wealthy home owners who object to greater housing density. At a time when thousands of people are living on the streets and thousands more are about to be evicted, the elected leadership of the Bay Area Chapter has become the “I’ve Got Mine Club.”  The club is as guilty of classism as it is of racism.
  • The club’s opposition to recreational use of public parks and open space is also a reflection of its elitism. The Bay Area Chapter was opposed to the proposed revision of the Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) of San Francisco’s General Plan because “The draft ROSE talks about the benefits of open space for physical fitness through exercise and recreation, but these one can do on city streets and in gyms.”  In the same Yodeler article, the club redefines recreation:  “…the draft [ROSE] neglects the values of respite, quiet contemplation, and undisturbed wildlife viewing…”  The club consistently demands that people be fenced out of parks because people “damage” nature and the club frequently sues to enforce its demands.  Wealthy people don’t need parks.  They can go to the gym.  The public is welcome to walk around their fenced enclosures to observe nature, to look but not touch nature.  Please visit the Berkeley Meadow to see an example of one of the many fenced pens that the club advocated for in the East Bay.

I close with specific suggestions for how the club can welcome everyone into its tent.  Complaints are most effective when accompanied by suggestions for addressing those complaints.

  • The club needs term limits for its elected leadership positions. I have closely followed the club’s policies for 30 years.  Many of the elected leaders have been in their positions for decades.  The longer they are in those positions, the more entrenched their attitudes have become.  They arrived with an agenda to which they continue to adhere.  Younger people with different perspectives are needed to inject life into the club, people who engage in active recreation and don’t own their homes, for example.
  • The club needs to improve its democratic functioning. The Chapter leadership refuses to put issues on its meeting agenda with which it does not agree.  There must be some mechanism for members to influence club policies.  When the club takes a position on a specific local policy issue, it has an obligation is hear from both sides first.  The club does not do its due diligence before making such policy decisions.
  • The club needs more scientists and fewer lawyers. When the club takes a position on a complex environmental issue, it has an obligation to be accurate about the information it uses in its public comments and publications.  For example, fundamental and elementary errors are made by the club when advocating for the use of pesticides.

I wish you the best of luck in addressing the weaknesses of the club that have taken decades to develop and will undoubtedly take decades to turn around.  The club has an important role to play.  It is in everyone’s interests that the club survive and be as strong as possible.  At the moment, the club wields more political power than it deserves because it is not using that power responsibly.

Sincerely,

Sierra Club Member

cc: Ramón Cruz
Sierra Club President
c/o board.liaison@sierraclub.org

 

Contradictions of the native plant movement

In a recent article in Bay Nature, the author tells the story of two California native trees and proposes to answer the question, “Now the question is, where do [these trees] belong?”  It’s a thorny question and one that illustrates one of the contradictions of the native plant movement.

The definition of “native” in California is based on the arrival of Europeans near the end of the 18th century, specifically 1769 in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Wherever plants or animals lived in 1769, they are considered native in the Bay Area.  If they were introduced or arrived after 1769, they are considered non-native, and in many cases designated as “invasive.”  Status as “invasive” makes them targets for eradication.

Monterey pine is a case in point. It has a small native range around Monterey, California, just 115 miles south of the East Bay. It was widely planted in the Bay Area by early settlers because the climate is similar to Monterey and much of the Bay Area was treeless. It is well adapted to conditions and thrives here.  Yet, it is being eradicated by most public land managers in the Bay Area because it is, strictly speaking, non-native according to the official classification of non-natives.

Bird’s eye view of San Francisco in 1868. US Library of Congress.  About half of San Francisco was treeless sand dunes before early settlers planted the non-native trees that now live there.

There is fossil evidence that Monterey pine has lived along the coast of California many times in the past, far outside its small present “native” range.  The evidence of its prehistoric past in the Bay Area has not saved it.  It wasn’t here in 1769, so it’s gotta go to suit the purist agenda of our public land managers.

But, wait!  Maybe our public land managers don’t have such a purist agenda. The same public land managers who are eradicating Monterey pine in the Bay Area are also planting Torrey pines and Catalina ironwood, which are native to the Channel Islands, off the coast of Southern California. These tree species weren’t here in 1769, nor were they here in the distant past.  In Monterey, where Monterey pines are native, Torrey pines are considered “invasive,” according to the interview with a tree advocate in Monterey who is quoted by the Bay Nature article.

Torrey pine, San Diego. Wikimedia commons

Catalina ironwood – Catalina Island. Wikimedia Commons

Where I have observed Torrey pines and Catalina ironwood being planted by East Bay Regional Park District and other public land managers, they seem to be doing well. Therefore, I have no objection to their being planted here, although they are not “native” as defined by local native plant advocates. I have one straight-forward criterion for “where trees belong:” they belong where they will survive.

The author of the Bay Nature article demurs, “Should we view Monterey pine as unwanted and possibly damaging invaders or welcome them as neo-natives? I couldn’t decide.” That seems to me an easy question to answer:  It makes no sense to destroy healthy Monterey pines that have lived in the Bay Area many times in the past, while simultaneously planting trees that have never lived here. If trees are adapted to present environmental conditions, they should be welcome here.

Nativist Dilemmas

The native plant movement is fraught with conundrums such as the vexing question of where Monterey pine and its close relative, Torrey pine, belong.

  • There are many unresolved debates about exactly where native ranges are. The rusty crayfish is “probably the most reviled crayfish species in North America,” yet there are as many opinions about its native range as there are publications about the species.  Pike is eradicated in Ireland, yet a recent genetic study revealed that there are actually two pike species, one of which is likely native and unique to Ireland.  (1)
  • There is little agreement among invasion biologists about the difference between non-native and “invasive.” Some consider all non-native species potentially invasive, some do not. (1) The California Invasive Plant Council recently designated nearly 100 plant species as invasive (in addition to 200 plants already on the list), despite the admission that they are not invasive in California.  Given that the behavior of plants depends to a great extent on local climate conditions, we cannot assume they will be invasive in California. When a plant is designated as “invasive” it becomes a target for eradication.  It is therefore a designation that should be used sparingly.
  • Public land managers in the Bay Area kill as many native plants as non-native plants because of their goal of recreating the landscape that existed here prior to the arrival of Europeans. That goal requires that early-succession native shrubs be killed when they naturally encroach on grassland if it is not burned periodically or grazed by animals.  Native coyote brush is eradicated as often as non-native broom when it “invades” grassland.  Are we trying to preserve native species or historical landscapes?  Those are different goals and they are often contradictory.

Invasion biology is an ideology, not a science

These—and many other—contradictions are symptoms of a pseudoscience, struggling to make sense, but failing to do so.  Invasion biology made the initial mistake of picking a specific point in time to define the “ideal” landscape.  Because nature is dynamic, in response to a constantly changing environment, the arbitrary selection of a static landscape will always be a source of contradictions.  The environment has changed radically since 1769 and even more radically since the 400-year baseline used on the East Coast.  We cannot expect to recreate that historical landscape because we cannot recreate the environment in which it existed. 

  1. C. Guiasu, C.W. Tindale, “Logical fallacies and invasion biology,” Biological Philosophy, Sept 2018, 33(5)

 

 

“Restoration” projects in the Bay Area are more destructive than constructive

I began studying the native plant movement and the “restoration” projects it spawned over 20 years ago when I learned about a proposal to change my neighborhood park in San Francisco in ways that were unacceptable to me.  Virtually all the trees in the park were non-native and the original proposal would have destroyed most of them.  The trees provide protection from the wind as well as a visual and sound screen from the dense residential neighborhood.  A treeless park in a windy location is not a comfortable place to visit.

The original plans would have made the park inhospitable to visitors for several other reasons, particularly by reducing recreational access to the park.  The prospect of losing my neighborhood park turned me into an activist.  I eventually learned there were similar plans for most major parks in San Francisco.  My neighborhood organized to prevent the destruction of our park and to some extent we succeeded.  However, we were unable to prevent the city-wide plan from being approved in 2006, after fighting against it for nearly 10 years.

When I  moved to the East Bay, I learned that similar projects are even more destructive than those in San Francisco,  I have spent the last 20 years informing myself and others of these plans, visiting those places, and using whatever public process that was available to oppose the plans.  The following paragraphs are brief descriptions of the projects I have studied for over 20 years.

Tree Destruction Projects in the East Bay

East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) is the public utility that supplies our water in the East Bay.  To accomplish that task, EBMUD manages 28,000 acres of watershed land.  Like most open space in the Bay Area, the vegetation on EBMUD’s land is a mix of native and non-native species.  EBMUD destroys non-native trees which it believes to be a fire hazard.  EBMUD uses herbicides to “control” non-native vegetation, but it does not use herbicides on tree stumps to prevent resprouting.  EBMUD reports using 409 gallons of herbicide and 6 gallons of insecticide in 2019.  Of the total amount of herbicide, 338 gallons were glyphosate-based projects.  EBMUD says “minor amounts of rodenticide were applied by contractors.”

The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) approved the “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan” and its Environmental Impact Report in 2009.  This plan is removing most eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia from several thousand acres of parkland.  Forests are being thinned from an average density of 600 trees per acre to approximately 60 trees per acre.  These plans are being implemented and funding for completion of the project has been secured.  Herbicides are used to prevent the trees from resprouting and to destroy vegetation deemed “invasive.”

UC Berkeley clear-cut over 18,000 non-native trees from 150 acres in the Berkeley hills in the early 2000s.  UCB applied for a FEMA grant to complete their clear-cutting plans.  The FEMA grant would have clear cut over 50,000 non-native trees from about 300 acres of open space in the Berkeley hills.

Frowning Ridge, UC Berkeley, 2010

In 2016, FEMA cancelled grant funding as a result of a lawsuit and subsequent appeals from UCB were defeated several years later.  In 2019, UCB revised its original plans.  With the exception of clear-cutting ridgelines, the revised plan will thin non-native forests.  Herbicides will be used to prevent the trees from resprouting.

The City of Oakland applied for a FEMA grant in collaboration with UC Berkeley to clear cut non-native trees on over 120 acres in the Oakland hills.  That FEMA grant was cancelled at the same time UC Berkeley lost its grant funding.  Oakland has also revised its plans for “vegetation management” since the FEMA grant was cancelled.  The revised plan will thin non-native forests on over 2,000 acres of parks and open space.  The plan is undergoing environmental review prior to implementation.  Herbicide use to implement the plan is being contested.

Tree Destruction Projects in San Francisco

The Natural Areas Program (now called Natural Resources Division) of the City of San Francisco has destroyed thousands of trees in 32 designated areas of the city’s parks since the program began in 1995.  The management plan for the Natural Areas Program was approved in 2006, after 10 years of opposition.  The plan proposes to destroy an additional 18,500 trees over 15 feet tall and untold numbers of smaller trees that the plan chooses not to define as trees.   Herbicides are used to “control” non-native vegetation and prevent trees from resprouting after they are cut down.

Sutro Forest 2010

University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) began its effort over 20 years ago to destroy most non-native trees on 66 acres of Mount Sutro.  UCSF applied for a FEMA grant to implement those plans based on their claim that the Sutro Forest is a fire hazard.  UCSF withdrew the grant application after FEMA asked for evidence that the forest is a fire hazard.  San Francisco is cool and foggy in the summer, making fires rare and unlikely.

Sutro Forest with resprouts of destroyed trees. November 2019

UCSF’s plans to destroy most trees on Mount Sutro were approved in April 2018.  Many trees on Mount Sutro have been destroyed since the project was approved and more will be destroyed before the project is complete.  UCSF made a commitment to not use pesticides in the Sutro Forest.  Many of the trees that have been destroyed have therefore resprouted.  Unless the resprouts are cut back repeatedly, the forest is likely to regenerate over time.

  Tree Destruction Projects on Federal Lands

The federal government is one of the largest landowners in the Bay Area.  Golden Gate National Recreation Area (75,500 acres), Point Reyes National Seashore (28,800 acres), and Muir Woods National Monument are operated by the National Park Service.  The Presidio in San Francisco is a National Park that is presently controlled by a non-profit trust.  These parks have engaged in extensive tree-removal on the public lands they control.  Information available on their websites does not enable us to quantify the acres or number of trees that have been removed or are planned for removal in the future.  Therefore, we will describe those projects in the broad terms available to us.

There are two main categories of tree-destruction projects on these federal lands.  There are many large-scale “restoration” efforts that have required the removal of all non-native vegetation, including trees.  These attempts to eradicate non-native plants are based on a misguided belief native plants will magically return.  Herbicides are used by National Park Service to destroy non-native vegetation, although specific information is difficult to obtain because NPS is not responsive to inquiries and the federal public records law can take years to respond.

Eradication efforts fail regardless of method used

In “Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments:  a systematic review and meta-analysis,” scientists analyzed 355 studies of attempts to eradicate non-native plants from 1960 to 2009.  The scientists determined the methods used and the efficacy of those methods.  More than 55% of the projects used herbicides, 34% used mechanical methods (such as mowing, digging, hand-pulling), 24% burned the vegetation, and 19% used all three methods.  The study found that herbicides most effectively reduced “invasive” plant cover, but this did not result in a substantial increase in native species because impacts to native species are greatest when projects involve herbicide application.  Burning projects reduced native coverage and increased non-native coverage. In other words, it doesn’t matter what method is used, eradicating non-native plants does not result in the return of native plants.   We didn’t need a study to tell us this.  We can see the results with our own eyes.

Flammability of plants is unrelated to nativity

The other, larger category of tree-removal projects on these federal lands are the so-called “fuel management projects.”  The flammability of non-native plants and trees is exaggerated in order to justify their destruction.   Native plants are not inherently less flammable than non-native plants.

In fact, native vegetation in California is fire adapted and fire dependent for germination and survival.  The California Native Plant Society recently revised its “Fire Recovery Guide. The Guide now says, “California native plants are not inherently more likely to burn than plants from other areas.”  This statement is the mirror image of what defenders of our urban forest have been saying for 25 years:  “Non-native trees are not inherently more flammable than native trees.”  Both statements are true and they send the same message: flammability is unrelated to the nativity of plants.  “Think instead about characteristics of plants,” according to the CNPS “Fire Recovery Guide.”

There are undoubtedly many other similar projects of which we are unaware.  I report only on projects that I have direct knowledge about and that I have visited.

Why I opposed these projects

The San Francisco Bay Area was nearly treeless before early settlers planted non-native trees.  Non-native trees were planted because they are better adapted to the harsh coastal winds than native trees.  The treeless grassland was grazed by deer and elk and burned by Native Americans to promote the growth of plants they ate and fed the animals they hunted.  Grazing and burning maintained the grassland, preventing natural succession to shrubs and trees.

Native Americans setting grass fire, painting by Frederic Remington, 1908

Modern land use and management policies have suppressed fire and reduced grazing in the Bay Area.  Consequently grasslands are naturally converting to chaparral and scrub.  Although managers of public lands often describe these changes in the landscape as “invasions,” Jon Keeley (Ph.D. biologist, USGS) considers them a natural succession“These changes are commonly referred to as shrub invasion or brush encroachment of grasslands.  Alternatively, this is perhaps best viewed as a natural recolonization of grasslands that have been maintained by millennia of human disturbance.” 

Early settlers planted trees to protect their residential communities and their crops from wind.  The urban forest also provides sound and visual screens around parks that are surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods.  Urban forests are storing carbon that is released as greenhouse gas when they are destroyed. They also reduce air pollution by filtering particulates from the air.

When trees are destroyed, the unshaded ground is quickly colonized by weeds that are then sprayed with herbicide.  Even environmental organizations that support the destruction of non-native trees agree about the results of these projects:

  • The California Native Plant Society predicted the post-project landscape in its written public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the FEMA project in the East Bay hills with this rhetorical question: “What mechanism is being instituted by FEMA in this DEIS to guarantee a commitment of money and personnel for management of greatly increased acreages of newly created annual weedy grassland?”
  • The Audubon Society predicted the post-project landscape in its written public comment on the DEIS: “There is no support for the conclusion that native vegetation will return on its own.  This plan may not result in an increase in native trees and plants…Heavy mulching will delay or prevent the growth of native species.”

To summarize:  I am opposed to destroying our urban forests because they perform many important ecological functions, including providing habitat for wildlife.  Furthermore, the herbicides used to destroy the forest and control weeds that thrive in the absence of shade, damage the soil and create unnecessary health hazards to humans and other animals.

Deforestation and Climate Change

Climate change is the environmental issue of our time.  The fact that the climate is warming is indisputable and the consequences of the changes are becoming more evident.  Much of California has warmed over 3⁰ F since 1980.

Source: NASA

Consequences of Climate Change

The impact of climate change on biotic and abiotic realms has been far-reaching:

  • Sea Level Rise:  Temperatures in Polar Regions have increased the most because the ice is melting and sunlight that was reflected by the ice is now absorbed by the darker surface.  Melting ice has raised sea levels between 1993 and 2017 on average 3.1 mm (1/8th inch) per year at an accelerating rate.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that sea levels will rise .8 meter (2.6 feet) by the end of the century.  Coastal cities are flooding during high tides and storm surges.  Islands are disappearing.
  • Warming Ocean:  Marine life is dying in warming waters and coral reefs are dying because the water becomes more acidic as it absorbs more carbon dioxide (CO₂).
  • Extreme Weather Events:  The increase in the frequency and severity of droughts, hurricanes, tornados, heat waves, etc. is attributed to climate change.  These events kill plants and animals.  Extreme temperatures will eventually make some places in the world uninhabitable for most life.
  • WildfiresIncreased frequency and intensity of wildfires all over the world are caused by global warming and associated drought.

Given the life-threatening conditions created by the warming planet, it seems a small quibble to argue about whether or not the landscape must be transformed into some semblance of what it was in the 14th century, prior to global explorations and colonization by Europeans.  We are doing next to nothing to address the causes of climate change, yet we are spending approximately $25 billion per year on such “restorations” of historical landscapes.  When these projects kill trees, they make climate change worse.  California is considered a leader in addressing climate change in the US.  Yet, when calculating carbon loss to meet stated targets for reduction, California does not include carbon loss in the trees that are destroyed.

Causes of Climate Change

There is nearly universal agreement in the scientific community that climate change is caused by greenhouse gasses emitted by the activities of humans.

Note that “forestry” (more accurately described as “deforestation”) contributes more greenhouse gas emissions than transportation.  In both cases, carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the specific greenhouse gas that is emitted by these sectors of the economy.  In the case of transportation cars, airplanes, ships, etc. are using fossil fuels that emit CO₂ when burned.  In the case of deforestation, the CO₂ that is stored by trees during their lifetime is released into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas when the tree is destroyed and its wood decays.  And the loss of the trees means there will be less carbon storage in the future. Even if new trees were planted, less carbon would be stored because carbon storage is largely a function of biomass; that is, bigger trees store more carbon:

Carbon Storage and Sequestration in San Francisco’s Urban Forest

d.b.h. = diameter at breast height, is the standard measure of tree size.  The bigger the tree, the more carbon it stores.  Source:  US Forest Service inventory of San Francisco’s urban forest, 2007.

Forests cover 31% of the land area on Earth and annually 75,700 square kilometers (18.7 million acres) of the forest is lost as a result of wildfire, clearing for agriculture and grazing, and logging for timber.  For the past 25 years, we have also been destroying trees just because they aren’t native.  In California we destroy eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress outside their small native range, and a few other non-native species.  In the Southwest we destroy tamarisk trees that were planted to control erosion.  On the East Coast we destroy ailanthus (tree of heaven).  In Florida we destroy malaleuca trees.  Native plant advocates call these trees “invasive,” but a more accurate description is that they are successful trees, well adapted to current climate conditions.  There are probably many other non-native trees on the long hit list of native plant advocates.

Other benefits of trees

Trees are valuable members of our communities for many reasons in addition to storing carbon.

  • Trees provide the windbreak that makes our parks and open spaces comfortable in windy coastal locations.
  • Trees are a visual and sound screen around our urban parks and residential properties.
  • Trees remove particulates from the air, reducing the air pollution that makes urban environments unhealthy.
  • The San Francisco Bay Area is very foggy during summer months.  Tall trees condense the fog, which falls to the ground as rain, adding 10 inches of annual precipitation in East Bay eucalyptus forests and 16 inches of annual precipitation in San Francisco’s eucalyptus forests.
  • Forests transpire water from their leaves that falls back to earth as rainfall.  Where forests are destroyed, rainfall decreases significantly.
Transpiration is the process by which moisture is carried from tree and plant roots to the leaves, where it changes to vapor and is released to the atmosphere. Interestingly, a large oak tree can draw 40,000 gallons of water a year up through the roots and evaporate that moisture through the leaves.  Source:  USGS
  • Trees stabilize the soil with their roots, preventing erosion on steep hillsides that become unstable when trees are destroyed.
  • The roots of trees absorb rainfall that would otherwise run off the land without being absorbed into the soil.  The run off washes the top soil away, clogging rivers and streams and reducing the fertility of the soil.

Case Studies

We don’t need to speculate about the consequences of destroying trees because there are many specific examples of the negative impact of destroying large numbers of trees.  Here are two examples, one modern and one historical.

The island nation of Comoros, off East Africa, once had an extensive cloud forest, a forest in which trees are often surrounded by low-level cloud cover. Cloud forests, such as the eucalyptus trees shrouded in fog on Mount Sutro in San Francisco, condense large amounts of moisture out of the clouds that then falls onto the ground. Fog drip in San Francisco’s eucalyptus forests adds sixteen inches of rainfall each year in those forests.

Eucalyptus canopy on east side of Glen Canyon Park, taken from Turquoise Way December 2012, before tree destruction began. Courtesy San Francisco Forest Alliance

The delicate ecosystem on Comoros was disrupted when the cloud forests were cleared to make way for farmland. Between 1995 and 2014 about 80% of the remaining forest was cut down. The loss of trees disrupted the rainfall cycle on the islands. The moisture that the cloud forest was condensing from the fog was lost to the ground when the trees were destroyed. That ground moisture was then no longer transpired back into the air by the trees that had been destroyed, resulting in less rainfall. The disruption caused waterways to dry out, and left once-fertile soil exposed to erosion, with the loss of nutrients in the soil that remains. Comoros has lost 40 permanent rivers in the last 50 years. There is no longer enough water for agriculture or the daily household needs of the population.

Restoring forests is a challenge, and cloud forest can be particularly difficult. “It’s impossible to replace it,” said a cloud forest specialist at the University of York in England. “You need to save them before they’re gone.” Comoros could be a lesson for those who want to cut down the cloud forest on Mount Sutro and elsewhere in the Bay Area. Disrupting the rainfall cycle could make our drought even more extreme.

Sutro forest on a typical summer day. Courtesy Save Sutro Forest.

Icelanders appreciate their trees because they have few of them.  Iceland was heavily forested, mostly with birch trees, when the Vikings arrived in the 9th century.  Within 100 years, settlers cut down 97% of original forests to build housing and make way for grazing pastures.  Now only 0.5% of the Iceland’s surface is forested, despite extensive reforestation efforts since the 1950s.  Lack of trees means there isn’t vegetation to protect the soil from erosion and to store water, leading to extensive desertification.

Reforestation efforts in Iceland did not attempt to restore native birch forests because they store little carbon and they are not useful for timber.  Seeds of pine and poplar from Alaska were introduced, but growth has been slow because the soil is nitrogen poor and the climate is very cold.  The growth rate is estimated to be only one-tenth of the growth rate of tropical forests in the Amazon.

Both of these examples illustrate that when forests are destroyed, they are not easily replaced.  Much like the historical landscape, we can’t go back.  Nature is dynamic.  It moves forward, not back.

Consequences of deforestation in San Francisco Bay Area

San Francisco has one of the smallest tree canopies—only 14%–of any major city in the Country:

Source:  Data from Urban Forestry Plan, SF Planning Department, 2016. Graphic by San Francisco Forest Alliance

The small urban forest in San Francisco is storing carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere as greenhouse gas, contributing to climate change.  “Carbon sequestration is the process by which atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken up by trees, grasses, and other plants through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in biomass (trunks, branches, foliage, and roots) and soils. The sink of carbon sequestration in forests and wood products helps to offset sources of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, such as deforestation, forest fires, and fossil fuel emissions.”  (US Forest Service)

Carbon capture by above ground vegetation is proportional to biomass. Because Blue Gum eucalyptus is the largest and most common tree in San Francisco, most carbon storage in San Francisco’s urban forest is in eucalyptus trees, according to an inventory done by the US Forest Service, as illustrated by this graph of the inventory.

Carbon storage by tree species in San Francisco

Source: US Forest Service

All other trees in San Francisco inventoried by US Forest Service are also non-native because there are few native trees in San Francisco.  There are few native trees in San Francisco because they are not well adapted to challenging conditions.  The wind is strong and constant.  The soil is sand, rock, or clay.  It doesn’t rain for 7 months of the year.  The trees that were planted in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 19th century by European settlers were non-native because they were the species that could survive these harsh conditions. 

The non-native trees that are being destroyed by public land managers in the San Francisco Bay Area will not be replaced because the goal of the land managers is to restore grassland that existed prior to the arrival of Europeans at the end of the 18th Century.  All the benefits of trees and forests, including carbon storage will not be replaced.

Forests store more carbon than grassland

Native plant advocates defend the destruction of our urban forest by making the inaccurate claim that grassland stores more carbon than trees.  While it is true that more carbon is stored in the soil than in above-ground vegetation, it does not follow that the soil in grassland contains more carbon than the soil in forests.  The US Department of Agriculture report, “Considering Forest and Grassland Carbon in Land Management” (2017) graphically illustrates that forests in the US store far more carbon per hectare than any other land type and grasslands store the least amount of carbon per hectare of undeveloped land in the Western United States:

The differences in carbon storage per hectare in Western and Eastern United States are caused by differences in climate, soil, and specific vegetation types.  The USDA report also makes these statements about the value of forests for carbon storage:

  • The conversion of forest to non-forest should be avoided to preserve carbon storage, “Because mature forest stands are more likely to be carbon rich from the high volume of tree biomass and recovery takes a long time through afforestation…Further, soil carbon generally declines after deforestation from accelerated decomposition of organic matter such as litter and tree roots.”
  • “Across forest systems, the ‘no harvest’ option commonly produces the highest forest carbon stocks.  Managed stands have lower levels of forest biomass than unmanaged stands…”  In other words, from the standpoint of maximizing carbon storage, leave the forest alone!
  • “Fuel-reduction treatments lower the density of the forest stand, and, therefore, reduce forest carbon.”  Again, the message is leave the forest alone!
  • “…carbon emissions from prescribed fire, the machinery used to conduct treatments, or the production of wood for bioenergy may reduce or negate the carbon benefit associated with fuel treatments…”

Misplaced priorities

I am mystified by the obsession with native plants.  Still, I respect everyone’s horticulture preferences.  If you prefer native plants, by all means, plant them.  We make just one request:  quit destroying everything else because the loss of our urban forest is contributing to climate change and depriving our communities of the many benefits of trees and forests.

Pesticides are the primary tool of the “restoration” industry

Over 20 years ago, my initial reaction to native plant “restorations” was horror at the destruction of healthy trees.  It took some years to understand that pesticides are used by most projects to prevent the trees from resprouting and to control the weeds that thrive in the sun when the trees are destroyed.  Herbicides are a specific type of pesticide, just as insecticides and rodenticides are also pesticides.

Because pesticide application notices are not required by California State law for most of the herbicides used by “restoration” projects, the public is unaware of how much herbicide is needed to eradicate non-native vegetation, the first step in every attempt to establish a native plant garden.  California State law does not require pesticide application notices if the manufacturer of the herbicide claims that their product will dry within 24 hours.

Herbicides used to eradicate non-native plants

In 2014, the California Invasive Plant Council conducted a survey of 100 land managers to determine what methods they use to kill the plants they consider “invasive.”  The result of that survey was a wakeup call to those who visit our parks and open spaces.  62% of land managers reported that they frequently use herbicides to control “invasive” plants.  10% said they always used herbicides.  Only 6% said they never use herbicide.  Round Up (glyphosate) is used by virtually all (99%) of the land managers who use herbicides.  Garlon (triclopyr) is used by 74% of those who use herbicide.

Pesticide use by land managers in California. Source California Invasive Plant Council

Land managers in the Bay Area use several other herbicides in addition to Garlon and Round Up.  Products with the active ingredient imazapyr (such as Polaris) are often used, most notably to kill non-native spartina marsh grass.  Locally, the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) “defines a need for a zero tolerance threshold on invasive Spartina in the San Francisco Bay.” 2,000 acres have been repeatedly sprayed with herbicides on East and West sides of the San Francisco Bay since the project began.  The result of this project has been bare mud where the imazapyr was aerial sprayed from helicopters the first few years of the project with annual spot spraying continuing 15 years later.  Imazapyr is very mobile and persistent in the soil.  That is the probable reason why attempts to replace the non-native species with the native species were unsuccessful. The loss of both native and non-native marsh grass has eliminated the nesting habitat of the endangered Ridgway rail, decimating the small population of this endangered bird in the Bay Area.

Pesticide Application Notice, Heron’s Head, 2012

Aminopyralid (brand name Milestone) is also used.  Although it is considered less toxic than other herbicides, it is the most mobile and persistent in the soil.  New York State banned the sale of Milestone because of concern about contaminating ground water.

With this knowledge of widespread use of herbicides by land managers, we followed up with specific land managers in the Bay Area to determine the scale of local herbicide use.  East Bay Regional Park District significantly reduced their use of Round Up for facilities maintenance in 2018, in response to the public’s concerns after multi-million dollar product liability settlements of lawsuits from users who were deathly ill after using glyphosate products.  In 2019, the Park District announced that it would phase out the use of Round Up in picnic areas, camp grounds, parking lots, and paved trails.

Source: East Bay Regional Park District

At the same time, the Park District restated its commitment to using herbicide to control plants they consider “invasive.”  Unfortunately, the Park District’s use of herbicide for “resource management projects” has skyrocketed and is by far its greatest use of herbicides.  “Resource management project” is the euphemism the Park District uses for its native plant “restorations” that begin by eradicating non-native vegetation such as spartina marsh grass and 65 other plant species.

These trends in pesticides used by East Bay Regional Park District continued in 2019.  Glyphosate use continued to decline by 82% since reduction strategies began in 2016.  Use of Garlon (active ingredient triclopyr) to control resprouts of non-native trees and shrubs increased 23% since 2017.  Use of Polaris (active ingredient imazapyr) to eradicate non-native spartina marsh grass increased 71% since 2017.  “Resource management projects” have been renamed “ecological function.”

San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD) reduced use of herbicide briefly in 2016, after glyphosate was classified as a probable carcinogen.  However, herbicide use has since increased, particularly in the 32 designated “natural areas” where SFRPD is attempting to “restore” native plants by eradicating non-native plants. In 2019, SFRPD applied herbicides 243 times, the most since 2013.  Of these, 144 applications were in the so-called “natural areas” (this includes properties of the Public Utility Commission, San Francisco’s water supplier, managed in the same way; i.e., eradicating plants they don’t like).  Though the “natural areas” are only a quarter of total city park acres in San Francisco, nearly half the herbicides measured by volume of active ingredient were used in those areas.

Data source: San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Graphic by San Francisco Forest Alliance

San Francisco’s Parks Department has been using herbicides in these areas for over 20 years.  Plants that are repeatedly sprayed with herbicides eventually develop resistance to the herbicide, just as over use of antibiotics has resulted in many bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

Spraying Garlon on Twin Peaks in San Francisco, February 2011

UC Berkeley recently announced a temporary ban on the use of glyphosate on playing fields and similar landscaped areas.  The use of glyphosate to kill non-native plants considered “invasive” was specifically exempted from UC’s temporary ban.

The more pressure the public puts on land managers to restrict the use of herbicides, the more vociferous native plant advocates have become in defense of herbicides.  In October 2017, California Invasive Plant Council published a position statement regarding glyphosate that justified the continued use of glyphosate, despite its classification as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

Mounting public pressure to ban the use of glyphosate has also pushed land managers to try newer herbicides as substitutes (e.g., Axxe, Lifeline, Clearcast).  Less is known about these products because less testing has been done on them and we have less experience with them.  It took nearly 40 years to learn how dangerous glyphosate is!

Why are we concerned about herbicides?

The World Health Organization classified glyphosate (the active ingredient in Round Up) as a probable human carcinogen in 2015.  That decision suddenly and radically altered the playing field for the use of glyphosate, which is the most heavily used of all herbicides.

Since that decision was made, many countries have issued outright bans on glyphosate, imposed restrictions on its use or have issued statements of intention to ban or restrict glyphosate-based herbicides. Countless US states and cities have also adopted such restrictions. Locally, the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) made a commitment to not using pesticides—including glyphosate—in 2015.  MMWD had stopped using pesticides in 2005 in response to the public’s objections, but engaged in a long process of evaluating the risk of continuing use that resulted in a permanent ban in 2015.

Several jury trials have awarded plaintiffs millions of dollars as compensation for their terminal medical conditions that were successfully attributed to their use of glyphosate products by product liability lawsuits. There are an estimated 125,000 product liability lawsuits in the US against glyphosate awaiting trial. 

In 2020, plaintiffs in a class-action suit against Monsanto alleging that it falsely advertised that the active ingredient in Roundup only affects plants were awarded $39.5 million.  The settlement also requires that the inaccurate claim be removed from the labels of all glyphosate products: “…[plaintiff] says Monsanto falsely claimed through its labeling that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, targets an enzyme that is only found in plants and would therefore not affect people or pets. According to the suit, that enzyme is in fact found in people and pets and is critical to maintaining the immune system, digestion and brain function.”

It took lawsuits to establish the toxicity of glyphosate because the “studies” that are used to approve the use of pesticides in the US are done by the manufacturers of pesticides.  The studies are manipulated, often with the active participation of government employees who are responsible for regulating dangerous chemicals.  The lawsuits succeeded by revealing the fraudulent studies used to exonerate glyphosate.

What little research is done on the effect of pesticides on wildlife indicates that pesticides are equally toxic to animals.  New research finds that western monarch milkweed habitat contains a “ubiquity of pesticides” that are likely contributing to the decline of the iconic species:  “’We expected to find some pesticides in these plants, but we were rather surprised by the depth and extent of the contamination,’ said Matt Forister, PhD, a butterfly expert, biology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno and co-author of the paper…’From roadsides, from yards, from wildlife refuges, even from plants bought at stores—doesn’t matter from where—it’s all loaded with chemicals. We have previously suggested that pesticides are involved in the decline of low elevation butterflies in California, but the ubiquity and diversity of pesticides we found in these milkweeds was a surprise,’ Dr. Forister said.”

Damage to the environment

In addition to harming humans and other animals, herbicides used by native plant “restorations” are damaging the soil, undoubtedly contributing to the failure to successfully establish native plants. (1)

  • Both glyphosate (Round Up) and triclopyr (Garlon) are known to kill mycorrhizal fungi that live on the roots of plants and trees, facilitating the transfer of moisture and nutrients from the soil to the plants.  The absence of mycorrhizal fungi makes plants more vulnerable to drought because they are less able to obtain the water they need to survive.
  • Glyphosate is known to bind minerals in the soil, making the soil impenetrable to water and plants more vulnerable to drought.
  • Both glyphosate and triclopyr also kill microbes in the soil that contribute to the health of soil by breaking down leaf litter into nutrients that feed plants.
  • Because herbicides are mobile in the soil and the roots of plants and trees are often intertwined, non-target plants are often harmed or killed. 
Pesticides kill the soil food web.

Despite knowing that glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans and that many herbicides cause significant environmental damage, native plant advocates continue to push land managers to use toxic chemicals to kill non-native plants and trees.  They do so because herbicides are the cheapest method of eradicating vegetation.  They do not have the person-power to eradicate all the vegetation that is being killed by herbicides.  Using herbicides enables native plant advocates to claim larger areas of parkland and open space than they would be able to without using herbicides.

(1) Montellano, et.al., “Mind the microbes: below-ground effects of herbicides used for managing invasive plants,” Dispatch, newsletter of California Invasive Plant Council, Winter-Spring 2019-2020.