Conservation Sense and Nonsense

Why poisoning the soil contributes to failed “restorations”

We are members of an international team of people who are concerned about the destructive consequences of ecological “restorations.” Trees, Truffles, and Beasts (1) was recommended to us by one of our collaborators in Australia because the book was written by several academic scientists in Australia and the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The book compares and contrasts the forests of these disparate locations and finds that below the ground, they have much in common.

Much more is known about the important ecological functions performed by forests above ground than below ground. However, there are many equally important things happening below ground that are essential to the health of forests:

The soil is inhabited by millions of microbes that decompose organic matter, making it available to plants as nutrients. These microbes recycle dead plants and wood back into usable material for living plants.
Nitrogen is essential to plant growth. Microbes and fungi in the soil convert nitrogen in the atmosphere into forms needed for plant growth. Specific plant species (e.g., legumes, such as acacia and lupine), called nitrogen “fixers,” are mediators in this process.
Fungi in the soil deliver water and nutrients from the soil to the roots of trees in exchange for carbohydrates provided by the trees. This symbiotic relationship is essential for the health of trees and in the absence of fungi, tree growth and development are severely retarded.
Most carbon is stored in the soil, and soil fungi play a role in converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into carbon that is stored in the soil. “Recent research has shown that mycorrhizal fungi hold 50 to 70 percent of the total carbon stored in leaf litter and soil on forested islands in Sweden.” (2)

Relationships between animals and forests

The animals that live in the forests contribute to forest health and forests also benefit the animals.

Mature Parasol mushrooms - note hand for size comparison — Mature Parasol mushrooms – note hand for size comparison

Fungi in the soil produce “fruiting bodies” that are their means of reproducing. Fruiting bodies above ground are called mushrooms. Fruiting bodies below ground are called truffles. In both cases, they are important sources of food for animals. The animals in Australia are different from those living in the Pacific Northwest, but they have in common that the fruiting bodies of fungi are equally important sources of food for them.

In the case of mushrooms above ground, dispersal of their spores is accomplished primarily by wind. But in the case of truffles, dispersal of their spores is dependent upon the animals that eat them and “deposit” them elsewhere. So, animals are crucial to the reproductive cycle of fungi that fruit below ground.

Long-footed potoroo is an Australian marsupial that eats primarily mushrooms and truffles. — Long-footed potoroo is a rare Australian marsupial that eats primarily mushrooms and truffles.

In their search for truffles, the animals also till the forest floor, which contributes to the decomposition of leaf litter and the dispersal of nutrients into the soil. As the animals defecate in the forest, they are also making contributions to forest health and there are species of microbes and insects that specialize in the use of animal feces.

Golden mantled ground squirrel, Western North America. Prefers to eat mushrooms and truffles. Creative Commons

What happens to the forest ecosystem when it is clear cut?

The forest is a complex and delicate ecosystem. When the forest is destroyed, we should not be surprised to learn that this ecosystem is destroyed. Here are a few of the consequences of clear-cutting a forest:

The Bay Area is often blanketed in fog. Courtesy Save Mount Sutro Forest.

The forest precipitates fog and the shade provided by the canopy retains that moisture on the forest floor. When we destroy the forest, we lose that source of moisture. The ground dries out in the sunshine. The fruiting bodies of fungi—mushrooms and truffles—require moisture to bloom and they die quickly in the absence of moisture.
The herbicide (Garlon) used to prevent the trees from resprouting is known to damage the mycorrhizal fungi that are essential to forest health. The herbicide that is applied to the tree stump immediately after the tree is destroyed, travels though the cambium layer of the tree down through the roots of the tree. The tree is killed by killing its roots. Mycorrhizal fungi are essentially extensions of the root system. When roots are killed, so are the mycorrhizal fungi. In the absence of mycorrhizal fungi, the survival of “replacement” plants is compromised.
The loss of fruiting bodies as food for animals reduces animal populations and the contributions they make to forest health.
Glyphosate is the herbicide most commonly used to foliar spray non-native vegetation that colonizes the unshaded ground after a clear cut. Glyphosate was originally developed as an anti-bacterial agent. Glyphosate kills bacteria in the soil (and in the mammalian gut, 4) that are playing a role in recycling nutrients to plants (and in digesting our food). (3)

Prescribed burning is another land management method used to eradicate “invasive” plants. In addition to polluting the air, releasing carbon into the atmosphere, and increasing the risk of wildfire, prescribed burns also damage the soil: “Prescribed burning in California pine forest decreased the ectomycorrhizal biomass by almost 90 percent in the upper organic layers of the soil as compared to unburned sites. A decrease of that magnitude in the mycorrhizal energy source of the fungi would affect not only fungal fruiting but also fungal populations.” (1)

In the absence of fungi and bacteria, the soil is essentially sterile and is no longer capable of contributing to the health of a new generation of plants and animals to replace the forest.

Eucalyptus forest in California and Australia

Trees, Truffles, and Beasts was written by academic foresters who are primarily concerned about the destructive consequences of destroying native forests and replacing them with timber plantations, often of another, faster growing species. Ironically, in the case of old growth eucalyptus forests in Australia, the choice of replacement species is often Monterey pines. Since some of the species of mycorrhizal fungi are specific to certain species or types of trees, this change of species is not successful without the inoculation of appropriate species of fungi. For example, some of the mycorrhizal fungi that grow on the roots of conifers are not found on eucalyptus species.

Before writing this article, we corresponded with the authors of Trees, Truffles, and Beasts to confirm that fungi are found in the eucalyptus forests of California. Since eucalyptus was brought to California as seeds, rather than potted plants, we needed confirmation that our eucalyptus forests are also enjoying the benefits of mycorrhizal fungi. We are grateful that the authors replied. They report that eucalyptus forests in California are populated with fungi, including some species that are native to Australia, which implies that some eucalyptus were imported from Australia with native soil. Therefore, we can assure our readers that our description of how the forest functions applies to the eucalyptus forest in California, as well as in Australia.

Predicting the consequences of destroying our urban forest

Plans to destroy non-native forests on 2,000 acres of public land in the East Bay will result in a dry, barren landscape populated primarily by non-native annual grasses. Fantasies that the forest will be magically replaced by a landscape of native plants and trees are just that…fantasies. Every reputable source of information about the planned project predicts this outcome, from the US Forest Service to the Audubon Society and the California Native Plant Society. There are many reasons why this outcome is predictable:

UC Berkeley’s “Vegetation Management”

The ground will be covered by as much as 24 inches of wood mulch, which will retard the germination of any plant. The plants most likely to penetrate this physical barrier are those that are most competitive, such as broom and other non-native weeds considered “invasive.”
The moisture available to plants will be reduced by the loss of fog drip and shade provided by the tree canopy. Fog drip in eucalyptus and Monterey pine forests in the East Bay has been measured at 10 inches per year. (5) Young plants and trees require more water than established plants, so the water deficit will retard the growth of a new landscape.
The climate of the San Francisco Bay Area has changed in the 250 years since the arrival of Europeans. Plants that were native at that time are no longer competitive in the warmer, drier climate and an atmosphere higher in nitrates and carbon dioxide. The rapidly changing climate is making the concept of “native” increasingly irrelevant.

And now we know that the damage that will be done to the soil and the forest floor by the destruction of our urban forest will further handicap the successful establishment of a new landscape. Aside from the physical damage done by removing hundreds of thousands of trees with heavy equipment, the herbicides used to kill trees and plants considered undesirable by the perpetrators of this devastating project will sterilize the soil. The resulting weed-dominated moonscape will probably recover in hundreds of years, although the eventual outcome is impossible to predict in our rapidly changing environment. Neither the supporters of this project nor its critics will live to see the recovery.

Chris Maser, Andrew W. Claridge, James M. Trappe, Trees, Truffles, and Beasts, Rutgers University Press, 2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_fungi_and_soil_carbon_storage
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/misgivings-about-how-a-weed-killer-affects-the-soil.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2015/apr/13
Harold Gilliam, Weather of the San Francisco Bay Region, UC Press, 2002

“Beyond Words: What animals think and feel”

Beyond Words, by Carl Safina, was written by an animal lover for other animal lovers. His mission is to convince his readers that animals are capable of the full range of emotions experienced by humans and that their communities are often as complex and varied as human communities. His hope is that humans who understand the feelings and capabilities of animals, will therefore treat them with the respect they deserve. It is a worthy cause and not hard to sell to this animal lover.

Inadequate scientific inquiry

Safina begins by lamenting the sorry state of scientific inquiry into animal behavior. He speculates that the dominance of humans in the environment fostered a condescending attitude toward animals that prevented scientific inquiry of the animal kingdom until very recently. Animals were perceived by humans as utilitarian objects to be exploited for food and transport or destroyed if perceived as a threat or a competitor. This attitude is still prevalent in human societies.

One of the first studies of animal behavior was Jane Goodall’s long association with a community of chimpanzees. When she wrote papers about her observations, she faced extreme resistance to their publication. One of the most common reactions of the academic scientists to studies of animal behavior has been to dismiss them as anthropomorphic projections of human feelings and motivation.

Observing animals

The lack of respect for animal studies among academic scientists has created opportunities for many volunteer and non-scientist observers to break new ground as reporters of animal behavior. Safina visited several communities of animal observers and shares their experiences with us:

He watches elephants in Africa as they go about their business under the watchful eyes of park rangers trying to protect them from poachers.
He joins teams of volunteer observers of wolves in Yellowstone National Park.
He follows orcas (AKA killer whales) with researchers in Puget Sound in Washington State.

Emotional lives of elephants

Unfortunately, elephant populations in Africa are being decimated by poachers because of the value of ivory. Observers of elephant communities therefore have many opportunities to witness the grief that accompanies every loss of a beloved member of the community. Here are a few observations of the behavior of elephants in response to the loss of a comrade:

“The elephants cautiously extend their trunks, touching the body gently, as if obtaining information. They run their trunk tips along the lower jaw and the tusks and the teeth: the parts that would have been most familiar in life and most touched during greetings…” (1)
“Elephants sometimes cover dead elephants with soil and vegetation, making them, I think, the only other animals who perform simple burials…When sport hunters shot a large male elephant, his companions surrounded his carcass. The hunters returned hours later to find that the others had not only covered their dead comrade with soil and leaves but had plastered his large head wound with mud.” (1)
“…a matriarch named Eleanor, ailing, collapsed. Another matriarch, Grace, rapidly approached her with facial glands streaming from emotion. Grace lifted Eleanor back fully onto her feet. But Eleanor soon collapsed again. Grace appeared very stressed, and continued trying to lift Eleanor. No success. Grace stayed with Eleanor as night fell. During the night, Eleanor died. The next day an elephant named Maui started rocking Eleanor’s body with her foot. During the third day, Eleanor’s body was attended by her own family, by another family, and by Eleanor’s closest friend…A week after her death, Eleanor’s family returned and spent half an hour with her.” (1)
“When a female named Tonie gave birth to a stillborn baby, she stayed with her dead child for four days, alone in the heat, guarding it from the lions who wanted it.” (1)

A full range of human emotions are implicit in these incidents, such as loyalty to one’s friends and family and maternal love.

Social structure of animal communities

There is as much variety in the structure of animal communities as there is in human communities. Elephant communities are matriarchal. The oldest female is the leader of the group and the group is composed only of females and their offspring. When male elephants reach maturity they wander on their own, interacting with matriarchal families only when the females are in heat. Leadership is conferred on the oldest female because she is the most experienced member of the group. She is therefore in the best position to make important decisions about where the group will go for food and how they will respond to threats from their predators. The quality of that leadership can vary based on the personal attributes of the oldest female, but seniority is the only apparent criterion for that role.

Pack of Gray Wolves, Yellowstone National Park

In contrast, the leadership of the wolf pack is the male and female alpha pair. That status is achieved by virtue of physical strength and dominance; in some cases leadership is more magnanimous than it is dominant. The male and female young of the alpha pair are also members of the pack, but personalities or loss of key members can splinter the pack. There is intense competition for hunting territory and mates between packs and sometimes within packs. This competition is often physical, and results in the death of members of the pack. Safina tells us that as many wolves are killed by other wolves, as are killed by humans with guns.

The wolf pack resembles human families and communities. Sibling rivalry is common. Tribal competition between packs resembles human secular and sectarian wars. The volunteer observers of wolves in Yellowstone Park are extremely dedicated to their task. They explain their obsession by pointing out that the lives of wolves are much like watching a soap opera.

Individuality

While it is possible to generalize about the behavior and social structure of animal communities, we must also keep in mind that there is much individual variation. Just as humans have distinctly different personalities, so too do animals. Safina often turns to his dogs to illustrate this variability within species and we can do the same. Our family has lived with nine dogs, usually in pairs. No two dogs were exactly alike. One was as shy as another was gregarious even though they were the same breed. Some were obsessed with catching balls; others were completely uninterested in them. Some were very attached and responsive to their human guardians, while others were independent.

In addition to the variability of personalities in animal communities, their social structures may vary just as human societies vary. Some orca pods stay close within a home range in Puget Sound and eat an exclusively fish diet. Other orca pods travel long distances and eat exclusively other marine mammals such as seals. Human societies vary widely in many ways, such as the range from extreme individualism of American society to a more communal society in places like Iceland. Domestication

Safina tells us that our dog companions evolved from wolves. Less shy members of wolf communities were willing to approach human settlements where they could often find discarded food. In exchange, dogs alerted humans to the presence of predators. This partnership developed over thousands of years. While the dogs were domesticated by that relationship, they changed physically to conform to the requirements of their new, less active life, becoming cuddlier to accommodate the preferences of humans.

Likewise, humans have been domesticated by changes in their lifestyles. Hunters and gatherers had to be much more observant about their surroundings than humans in agricultural communities. Hunters were always wary that they could easily be the hunted. Gatherers were always looking for edible plants; knowing the difference between edible and inedible plants was a matter of life and death. The territorial range of agricultural communities is small compared to that of foraging communities.

Bad news for animals

Animals are often the losers when human populations grow and their communities expand into animal habitats. In the case of elephants, the value of ivory is threatening their future in Africa. In the case of wolves, their appetite for domesticated animals makes them targets of ranchers. When endangered status of wolves is removed, wolves are quickly killed when they stray out of national park boundaries. Wolf packs must travel great distances to find the prey they need and the park boundary is only an abstraction that does not restrain their movements.

The threats to orcas in Puget Sound are many and are associated with many anthropogenic changes in the environment. Agricultural runoff from industrial sized feed lots and pesticide applications pollute the water. Pesticides are also used to kill marsh grasses so that huge clam beds can be installed on the shores of Puget Sound. Human sewage is sometimes inadequately treated before it reaches the sound. All of these sources of pollution are a factor in declining populations of salmon.

Salmon populations have also declined because dams have blocked access to their spawning streams and the streams they used to reach them have been channeled and diverted into culverts. Overfishing is another factor in declining salmon populations. Global warming has increased water temperatures in oceans, which has disrupted the entire ocean food web.

All this results in less food for orcas. Consequently, orca reproduction has declined significantly and infant mortality of orcas has soared. The future of orcas in Puget Sound is very much in doubt.

Food for thought

Carl Safina has written an excellent book that we recommend to our readers without reservation. We guarantee that it will warm your heart to read about animal communities that share both the positive and the negative aspects of human societies. We hope it will make you reflect, as it did us, about the ways in which the activities of humans intrude on the lives of animals. Thank you, Mr. Safina, for giving us this opportunity to learn more about our animal friends.

(1) Carl Safina, Beyond Words: What animals think and feel, Henry Holt & Co., 2015

Bees are harmed by nativism

As our readers know, there are many reasons why we are opposed to the projects that are billed as native plant “restorations” but, in fact, often do a great deal of damage to the environment. Of the many bogus justifications for these harmful projects, one of the most patently false is that the projects benefit wildlife. Today, we are publishing a letter from one of our readers about the many ways in which nativism is harmful to bees.

“I thought of you, and your ongoing fight against short-sighted nativism, yesterday as I was doing research for a project on bees. I was interviewing a second-generation beekeeper, who’s working closely with geneticists and entomologists to develop hardy strains of bees, and he mentioned two things I thought might help to highlight how the actions of groups like the NAP may actually be contributing to colony collapse:

The chemicals they use. Of course, it’s been broadly publicized that glyphosate and neonicotinoids are harmful to bees, and the AG industry folks (and possibly the native plant folks?) counter that they are far less deadly to honey bees than other types of herbicides and pesticides…but the beekeeper I spoke with indicated that saying something is “less deadly” to bees misses the harm these chemicals do to colonies by weakening their ability to fight viruses, mites, etc. Bees foraging in chemical-laden fields bring residues of these compounds back to the hive, to the queen, which he likened to “placing a pregnant woman in a refinery.” The result is a dramatically shortened lifespan for the queen and a colony that’s less strong and healthy, with lower resistance to common diseases. So the chemical may not kill the bees outright, but it still contributes to their death in the end.

Honeybee on oxalis flower, another non-native plant being eradicated with herbicide.

Honey bees are not native to America; they’re European. And the push to eradicate non-native “weeds” has decimated their forage…essentially starving them out. He cited the case of yellow star thistle, which, he said, may have come over from Europe in the wool of sheep. Highly invasive, it used to be everywhere in CA, and it was an important source of nectar and pollen for honeybees. Then, a few decades ago, the government introduced weevils to control the plant, in the process depriving the bees of a vital food source. Beekeepers have had to range further and further afield to find areas with adequate forage for their bees.

Bumblebee on Cotoneaster, Albany Bulb. Another target for eradication.

Of course, big agriculture (subsidized by the government) has contributed to the problem as well, by plowing up land that used to grow clover and alfalfa in favor of corn (for ethanol) and soybeans. But, for me anyway, this information about non-native bees needing non-native plants was a revelation…. a real ‘a-ha’ moment that I thought could be useful in waking up well-meaning folks who may equate “native plants” with “good for bees.”

Oh, and the beekeeper also told me that one third of the food Americans eat is pollinated by honey bees….are we willing to reduce our food supply by 1/3 for the sake of “restoring” a landscape native to a time when agriculture was not prominent in California?”

The value of yellow star-thistle to bees is but one example of the value of non-native plants to insects and other animals. In the case of bees, the eradication of hundreds of thousands of eucalyptus trees all over California has deprived bees and hummingbirds of one of the few sources of winter nectar in California. Eucalyptus blooms from December to May, at a time when there are few other sources of nectar. HERE is an article about the loss of this important resource to bee keepers in California.

Eucalyptus and bee. Painting by Brian Stewart.

Yellow star-thistle is one of many eradication targets of nativists in California. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) has been trying to eradicate it in their parks for decades. We recently learned that EBRPD was planning an aerial spraying of herbicide from a helicopter on 200 acres of yellow star thistle in Briones Park. This was a particularly controversial herbicide application for several reasons:

Briones Park is adjacent to the watershed surrounding Briones Reservoir, which stores the drinking water of surrounding communities.
The herbicide EBRPD was planning to use was Milestone, which is known to be very mobile and persistent in the soil. For that reason, the State of New York refused to approve the sale of Milestone because they were concerned about contamination of ground water.
Aerial spraying of pesticides by helicopter is the most dangerous application method because it greatly increases the chances of drift into non-target areas, including residential areas.

Our team of collaborators jumped into action to prevent this spraying from being done. We organized a telephone and email campaign directed to responsible staff and Board members at both East Bay Regional Park District and East Bay Municipal Water District, which is responsible for drinking water in the East Bay.

I am pleased to report that EBRPD announced within a few days of our campaign that they were permanently cancelling this aerial application of herbicides at Briones Park. They will continue to try to eradicate yellow star thistle using other methods.

Lessons learned

When pesticides are used in native plant “restorations,” the claim that such projects are beneficial seem utterly dishonest. Beneficial to whom? Certainly not the animals and humans who are exposed to these toxic chemicals.

If the public does not want public land managers to use pesticides on our public lands, we must object when they do. If we don’t object, we get the land management we deserve. You will be alerted to such opportunities to participate in these campaigns to influence land managers by “liking” Facebook pages: “Death of a Million Trees” and “Save the East Bay Hills.”

It is a team effort to learn about what is happening in our public lands and to participate in the decisions that affect our communities. We are therefore grateful to the reader who shared her conversation with a beekeeper. We encourage others to share their knowledge so that we can be as effective as possible. Knowledge is power!

It’s a small world: Meeting 1991 Oakland fire survivors in Seattle

Andrew Cockburn speaking at a conference in Seattle, March 30, 2016

I attended a conference in Seattle last week about the many sources of pollution in our water and what that means for the seafood we eat: “Clean Waters = Healthy Seafood.” I always learn something new at these conferences, but this was also a case of serendipity.

Andrew Cockburn was the keynote speaker at the conference. He is the author of “Weed Whackers: Monsanto, glyphosate, and the war on invasive species,” published by Harper’s Magazine in September 2015 (available here: Cockburn – Weed Whackers ). The 1991 fire in the Oakland hills is used in that article as an example of how native plant advocates use “cover stories” such as flammability to convince the public to eradicate non-native plants and trees. And so, that fire was mentioned in passing at our table of conference attendees.

Tilden Park, Berkeley. Courtesy Save the East Bay Hills

Much to my surprise, a couple at our table volunteered that they are survivors of that fire. They defended eucalyptus trees, based on their experience. I asked them to write up their experiences to share with our readers and here is what they sent for publication:

“I grew up in Virginia and spent some time in Colorado, Florida, Bermuda, the Philippines, and Japan while in the Navy. I was living in South Carolina in 1989 when I made my first trip to the SF Bay Area. It was in late October, just after the earthquake. I had come to the Bay Area to interview for a job with the Environmental Protection Agency. I was hired and moved to San Francisco in January 1990.

Initially, I was living on a sailboat near Brisbane, but by June I had rented a studio apartment in a small Montclair house in the Oakland Hills. From the beginning, I was smitten with my new home. While having lived in a variety of places, I was drawn to the mystical aspects of the area. I was especially drawn to the volcanoes, redwoods, and eucalyptus. Even now, 26 years later, I am taken back to my early days in the Bay Area when I see or smell a eucalyptus tree. I remember the excitement of the new work and meeting my wife who is a Bay Area native.

We were married in June 1991, and lived together in the Montclair studio. It was a truly magical, but short-lived time for us. The fire came in October. We understand that some transient campers started it in a canyon near the Caldecott tunnel on Saturday. The Fire Department thought they had extinguished the fire, but the Santa Ana winds on Sunday whipped new life into the embers, which in turn caused the massive wildfire. Our home was destroyed. As uninsured newlywed renters, it was devastating. Fortunately though, we survived, as did our cats. Some of our friends and neighbors were not so fortunate.

We stayed in our home through most of the day as the fire moved through the area. When the fire got close we knew we had to go and so our neighbors and we evacuated. It was hot and dry before the fire and everything burned. The only things left standing in our neighborhood on Monday were brick chimneys.

That was a long time ago in our lives. We live near Seattle, WA now. It came as a shock to learn last week that there is an effort underway to remove the eucalyptus from the East Bay. We are told that it is because the eucalyptus “exploded” during the 1991, firestorm. Well, I can tell you that they did burn with fervor, but so did everything else including the more native trees and plants. The eucalyptuses, while not being “native”, have established themselves as a solid part of the Bay Area. It would not be the same there without the eucalyptus and to scapegoat them for the 1991, firestorm is short sighted. The same hot and dry conditions and large supply of fuel on the ground will be ripe for a repeat whether or not the eucalyptuses are there.”

Scott West
Special Agent-in-Charge, Retired
Criminal Investigation Division
US Environmental Protection Agency

Scott doesn’t mention in this account that the fire was very hard on marriages and he was pleased to tell me that his very recent marriage was made immediately stronger by the ordeal of finding a new place to live and replacing all of their belongs. So, when his wife, Suzanne, chimed in with the following addition to Scott’s story, it seemed a fitting example of the teamwork that began in 1991 and continues to this day:

“No, I think you covered it quite well. One thing you could add is that after the fire in October, we purchased a home in the Hayward hills (Dec 1991) and it backed up to a fence line which contained a big grove of eucalyptus trees. We had no fear of these trees posing a huge fire threat, and we had just been through the biggest area fire in anyone’s memory. We loved that grove and the wildlife that lived there and were frequent visitors to our yard – deer, fox, raccoons. We also had 3 indoor/outdoor cats and I swear that the grove was the reason we never had any major issue with fleas.”

Thanks,
Suzanne West
Executive Director
Sarvey Wildlife Care Center

And Scott, adds to their shared memory:

“Good point Suzanne.

That grove was illegally cut while we lived there and it was a blow to us. We loved those trees. And don’t forget the opossum.”

Scott

I am very grateful for Scott and Suzanne’s willingness to tell us their story. We know they are not alone in their assessment of the 1991 fire. We have received many similar comments over the many years we have worked on this issue from other survivors of the 1991 fire. We do not think the Wests’ experiences are unique.

View of Seattle from the Space Needle, with Mount Rainier in the distance. It was a beautiful day on March 29, 2016.

Dialogue with native plant advocates

We believe that greater dialogue with native plant advocates would create more opportunities to find a compromise that would resolve the conflict about deforestation and pesticide use on our public lands. Unfortunately, in the many years in which we have been engaged in the effort to prevent the destruction of our urban forest, we have found few such opportunities.

The Sierra Club is an extreme example of an organization that has isolated itself from all dissenting views on this issue. Therefore, we were very excited that a member of the Sierra Club was able to send a letter to members, which we hoped would create new opportunities for dialogue with the Club and its allies on this issue. (That letter is available HERE: Letter to Sierra Club members )

We are publishing today one of the responses that the author of the letter to Sierra Club received from a Sierra Club member. We will also publish the reply to that letter. We believe this dialogue is an example of the danger of isolating ourselves from those with whom we disagree. When we refuse to discuss the issues, we deprive ourselves of opportunities to learn and we exacerbate conflict.

This is the letter sent by a native plant advocate to the author of the letter sent by a fellow Sierra Club member (we have removed his name because we do not have permission to publish):

And this is the reply to that letter. We have removed the author’s name because the letter was sent on behalf of hundreds of people who share her views. Using her name more than necessary, inappropriately personalizes the issue. This should be a public policy debate, not a personal vendetta.

Thank you for your letter of March 15, 2016, regarding my letter to Sierra Club members in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I am writing to provide you with the documentation about which you have questions:

Attachment A: David Nowak’s “Historical Vegetation Change in Oakland…” states that, “Trees in riparian woodlands covered approximately 1.1% of Oakland’s preurbanized lands — redwood stand 0.7%, and coast live oak stand 0.5%. Original forest cover is estimated at 2.3%…” David Nowak has been employed by the US Forest Service since earning his Ph.D. degree from UC Berkeley.

I also recommend another visit to the Oakland Museum where you will find a touch screen map of historic vegetation of Oakland and surrounding communities in the East Bay. It will confirm that the East Bay hills were not forested prior to settlement.

Attachment B: The Environmental Assessment for the Strentzel-Muir Gravesite Plan at the John Muir National Historic Site in Martinez, California confirms that John Muir planted eucalyptus on his property. The document also confirms the intentions of the National Park Service to retain eucalyptus on the property. The entire document is available here:

Click to access Strentzel-Muir-Gravesite-Plan.pdf

Attachment C: This is a holiday greeting card sent by John Muir to a personal friend in 1911, in which he depicts eucalyptus and describes it in poetic verse.

Christmas Card from John Muir

There are many reasons why eucalyptus was planted in California. I recommend the history of the trees of California by Jared Farmer, Trees in Paradise: A California History, for a more complete understanding of why eucalyptus was planted in California. Mr. Farmer also describes John Muir’s fondness for eucalyptus.

We all have a right to our opinions, Mr. [redacted]. However, it is not in anyone’s interests to be misinformed of the facts regarding our urban forest.

Please let me know if there are any other statements in my letter for which you require documentation.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

Cc: Michael Brune and Aaron Mair

No, this is NOT an April Fool’s joke. These are actual letters sent by actual people. We will publish a more comprehensive report of feedback from Sierra Club members to the letter from a fellow member in late April.

“The Next Major Fire in the East Bay Hills”

We are re-publishing an excerpt of Dave Maloney’s report, “The Next Major Fire in the East Bay Hills” that was written and published by Save the East Bay Hills. Thanks to Save the East Bay Hills for making this important report available to the readers of Million Trees. If you haven’t visited the website of Save the East Bay Hills, we recommend that you do. Its strong suit is the “Take Action” page, where you will find many specific suggestions for what you can do to help us prevent the destruction of our urban forest.

Dave Maloney is the former Chief of Fire Prevention for the U.S. Army at the Oakland Army Base. He is a retired firefighter from the Oakland Fire Department. He holds lifetime certification from the California State Fire Marshal’s Office as a Fire Investigator, and lifetime certification from the U.S. Dept. of Defense as a Fire Inspector. He was a member of the 1991-92 Emergency Preparedness and Community Restoration Task Force (the Oakland-Berkeley Mayors’ Firestorm Task Force) which investigated the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire. He is currently a wildland fire prevention consultant.

The plan to deforest thousands of acres of East Bay public lands:

“ignores the U.S. Forest Service analysis dated September 27, 2013, which recommends against removing Eucalyptus trees;”
“violates the recommendations made by the 1991/1992 Task Force on Emergency Preparedness and Community Restoration, commonly known as the Oakland/Berkeley Mayors’ Fire Storm Task Force;”
“has no basis in fire science;”
“violates fundamental principles of Wildland Fire Prevention;”
“is ideologically motivated;” and,
“creates the conditions for a perfect firestorm.”

Specifically, Maloney states that, “The EBRPD, UC Berkeley (UCB), and the City of Oakland (Oakland) deforestation plan will create an enormous belt of grass and chaparral that will stretch from Richmond to Castro Valley to the eastern edge of Contra Costa County. This grassland belt will be many times more flammable than wooded terrain.” In fact, “the speed of grass fires can be at least twice that of fires involving trees, especially if there are only a few trees, or none, to act as windbreaks.”

Why? “All trees perform three vital functions in preventing or slowing the spread of grass and chaparral fires: they collect, with their leaves, moisture from the night air and drip it on the natural vegetation beneath them; the tops (canopies) of the trees create shade so this moisture is not evaporated by the sun by mid day; [and] they act as windbreaks which slow the velocity of the wind that pushes grass and chaparral fires.” As a result, “Removing trees of any species and wanting grasses and chaparral to replace them greatly increases the chance of a catastrophic, unstoppable fire.”

Chief Maloney further notes, “that any claims by proponents of deforestation that this will reduce the risk of fire “typified opinionated misinformation being spread by those with quotable positions.” In fact, Maloney argues that proponents know they are not being truthful, but are intentionally “exploiting the public’s fear of wildfire and misrepresenting fire hazard mitigation as a strategy to achieve their goals” which has nothing to do with fire and everything to do with wanting to return the hills to the largely treeless appearance they had during the pre-Colombian period.

For example, he states that their “claim that Eucalyptus trees are more flammable than other trees — and more flammable than grasses — is untrue and now dangerously misleading.” “One example of their true intentions is revealed by their refusal to tell the public that the California Bay Laurel tree, which they consider ‘native’ to the Bay Area has more volatile oil than any Eucalyptus tree. For years we’ve been hearing that the volatile oils of the Eucalyptus trees make them a supreme fire hazard. Yet the Bay Laurel contains 7.6% volatile oils of the samples tested, according to the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (1974). The amount of volatile oils in Eucalyptus trees range from 1 to 7% of the samples tested. But no Bay Laurel trees are to be cut down — nor ever mentioned.”

Even if this were not true, he notes that “essential/volatile oils of any tree [are] irrelevant to the flammability of a tree…” for two primary reasons. First, “Every species of tree in the East Bay hills is at least 30% water. This moisture is far greater than the amount of essential/volatile oil in any tree. It overwhelms by far any chance the essential/volatile oil has to set the tree on fire.” Second, “the volatile/essential oil in any tree cannot sustain heat long enough to ignite the highly dense wood of the tree.”

That is why “only 1% of all wildland fires start in trees. The other 99% start in grasses, bushes and shrubs. (The Oakland Hills fire of 1991 started in grass.) And only 8% of all wildland fires catch trees on fire. This means that 91% of all wildland fires do not involve trees at all but are restricted to grasses, bushes and shrubs. If we decrease the amount of trees in the hills and replace them with grasses we will have dramatically increased the chances of a wildland fire occurring.”

Instead of clear cutting trees, what should be done to reduce fire risk?

Maloney notes that the “Task Force on Emergency Preparedness and Community Restoration, commonly known as the 1991 Oakland/Berkeley Mayors’ Fire Storm Task Force,” of which he was a member, investigated “the causes of the ’91 fire and mak[d]e recommendations to prevent its recurrence. The committee spent hundreds of hours analyzing data and examining the burned areas.” Its February, 1992 report noted that “the most important factor in reducing fire danger from vegetation is not removing specific species but regular ongoing maintenance” such as “regular brush removal.” Not surprisingly, the “recommendations have been ignored by U.C. Berkeley, the City of Oakland and the East Bay Regional Park District.”

“Ignorance and influence are the parents of disaster,” he writes. “The Sierra club, the California Native Plant Society, Claremont Canyon Conservancy and others are very influential organizations. They are misusing their influence by attempting to lead the public into supporting the destruction of our East Bay forests and the creation of grassy, fire prone East Bay hills. And they are being very disrespectful to the entity of fire and the laws of physics which tell us how that entity behaves.” Instead, they are exploiting the 1991 tragedy in a manner that “imperils the public” and “endangers the firefighters who will be called to fight the fires” that will be caused by “improper wildfire hazard management” that puts “ideology ahead of fire science.”

Indeed, similar deforestation occurred in Australia, leading to predictable and catastrophic fires, exactly what proponents of deforestation threaten here.

The full report is available by clicking here.

For his alternative proposal, click here.

Another opportunity to influence the Sierra Club to STOP advocating for deforestation and pesticide use

On February 8, 2016, letters were sent to members of the Sierra Club in San Francisco from another Club member. That letter is available HERE: Letter to Sierra Club members. The letter contained a postcard petition on which members were invited to express their opinion of the Club’s support for deforestation and pesticide use in the San Francisco Bay Area. That petition is available HERE: Letter to Sierra Club members – postcard petition.

The author of the letter reports that she has received 380 postcard petitions from Club members in San Francisco, indicating their opposition to the Club’s policy on these issues. Only ONE postcard expressed support for the Club’s policy. The letter was sent to 6,252 members, but undeliverable letters resulted in a net of 6,216 letters received. This suggests that at least 6% of Club members in San Francisco are opposed to the Club’s policy. Here are some (not all) of the comments that members wrote on their postcard petitions to the Sierra Club:

“SF native is windy sandy hills with poison oak!”

“Should the Sierra Club continue with its current position, I will cancel my membership” [several similar comments]

“If this native plant bullshit continues I’ll donate my dues to save the eucalyptus grove”

“I am strongly opposed!! (and have been for months)”

“Sierra Club member since 1975. The idea to destroy our trees is absurd. What would Golden Gate Park be without trees? Sand Dunes!”

“These people would cut down every tree on SF streets & Golden Gate Park”

“Fanatical purists! Should we plant more poison oak?!”

“If you want to go back to the habitats before get rid of people, buildings & cars. Chop down & poison those instead of plants that were here before you were born.”

“I read your arguments for supporting this senseless destruction, and found them anachronistic and short-sighted…a 19th Century approach to conservation.”

“This same kind of “restoration” has been tried on a pilot basis in Glen Canyon, near my home, and has failed miserably.”

This antique postcard of the Claremont Hotel shows the treeless landscape of the East Bay Hills that the Sierra Club demands be recreated by destroying all non-native trees.

The author of the letter intended to send her letter to all members of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club. The Bay Chapter includes Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin Counties, in addition to San Francisco City/County. Unfortunately, the staff of Sierra Club did not understand the composition of the Bay Chapter and therefore her letter was initially only sent to members in San Francisco. It took one month to correct that error.

The letter was sent to over 20,000 Club members in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin Counties on March 8, 2016. We will report the response to the letter in April.

What you can do to influence the Sierra Club

Meanwhile, there is something Sierra Club members can do to influence the Club’s policies. The national Sierra Club is conducting its annual election of Board Members now. Ballots have been sent to all Club members with the roster of candidates. The roster of candidates and an electronic ballot are also available HERE. You must vote by April 27, 2016. If you are a Sierra Club member, we suggest that you look carefully at the qualifications and opinions of the candidates before making your choice.

To help you make the best choice, a member of our team has asked all candidates the following questions:

What is your opinion of destroying non-native trees?
What is your opinion of pesticide use in public parks and open spaces?

Here are the replies that were received from the candidates:

Susana Reyes

What is your opinion of destroying non-native trees? “Just the mere thought of cutting a tree upsets me greatly. I can’t offer a position about destroying non-native trees without considering the different factors that may come into play – like climate conditions, types of landscape, threats to biodiversity, invasive or not, fire threats – just to name a few. It also depends on the land management practices in the areas where non-native trees exist. There ought to be other options to destroying non-native trees. I would think very carefully about destroying non-native trees especially if only a fraction display traits that harm or displace native species and disrupts the ecological landscape”

What is your opinion of pesticide use in public parks and open spaces? “I strongly oppose pesticide use in our parks and open spaces. I am all too familiar with herbicide “Roundup” for example and its use to stop unwanted plants. Another one is rodenticide which is used to kill rats in parks/open spaces. In Los Angeles, our beloved mountain lion, P22, who calls Griffith Park home, was sickened last year with mange as this poison worked its way up the food chain. Many of the chem Research has shown links to certain types of cancer, developmental disorders, and physical disabilities. Pesticides end up in our drinking water, watersheds, and rivers/lakes. The use of toxic pesticides to manage pest problems has become a common practice around the world. Pesticides are used almost everywhere and therefore, can be found in our food, air, and water.”

Robin Mann

“Let me just note that I am running for reelection to the Board because I believe I can contribute to the Club’s progress towards its major goals for the environment and for ensuring a strong and effective organization into the future.

Being a strong and effective organization, in the case of the Sierra Club, requires among other things ensuring a broad and engaged grassroots presence everywhere. And we know that strong grassroots engagement necessarily means people coming together to resolve local issues that often have competing considerations. Our policies and our approach generally allow some latitude to ensure the local context is being taken into account. I wouldn’t want to try to dictate the solution for all situations.

My understanding from my work with the Club’s efforts to strengthen resiliency in the face of mounting climate change impacts is that restoring native vegetation is desirable, and can contribute to restoring greater ecological balance. And my understanding from my work on the ground with organizations doing habitat restoration is that sometimes HERBICIDES are needed as a last resort to enable newly planted natives to become established.

If you are speaking of herbicides being used in public parks and open spaces, my view is they generally should not be used for maintenance purposes as non-toxic alternatives are available. For habitat and vegetation reestablishment I would defer to those designing the project with the expectation that herbicides would be minimized, used responsibly, and any exposure to park users avoided.

If you are speaking of pesticide use for insects or other “nuisance” species, I expect that in most instances a non-toxic management alternative is available, and so the burden should be on the public entity to justify use of a pesticide for maintenance purposes.”

Luther Dale:

“I have to say I do not know the context of these issues nor knowledge sufficient to give you a good answer. There are so many environmental issues and I accept that I can’t be knowledgable about them all. I do know a lot about some issues and know how to listen and learn about issues new to me. Thanks for your passion about these and other environmental problems and for your work to care for the earth.”

Mike O’Brien:

What is your opinion of destroying non-native trees? “I have strong concerns about invasive species crowding out and changing native ecosystems in detrimental ways. That said, we have already made significant and irreversible impacts to many ecosystems. I don’t believe a policy of eliminating all non-native trees simply because they are non-native makes sense at this point. Rather, it should be taken on a case by case basis where we consider what the impacts are of the non-native species and any work should typically be done in conjunction with a plan to restore native trees and habitat.”

What is your opinion of pesticide use in public parks and open spaces? “Strong preference to zero use of pesticides. There have been occasions where serious threats from invasive species have proved practically impossible to overcome without targeted use of pesticides, but this should be a rare exception as opposed normal operating” procedure.

Judy Hatcher:

“As you probably noticed from my candidate profile, I’m the ED of Pesticide Action Network, so I’m not in favor of pesticides–especially highly hazardous ones–in public spaces or anywhere else. I think the issue of non-native trees is specific to particular contexts and environments. But it’s unfortunate that the damage non-native plants and animals cause lead communities to demand increased use of pesticides and herbicides, which have negative consequences for human health as well as for the natural environment.

PAN focuses on industrial agriculture, so we don’t do a lot around non-native plants except for how they impact farming (hello, RoundUp!).”

If there are other environmental issues of concern to you, you can also ask the candidates questions:

Susana Reyes, susanareyes1218@gmail.com

Robin Mann, robinlmann@gmail.com

Joseph Manning, josephmanning92@gmail.com

David Scott, david.scott@sierraclub.org

Luther Dale, lutherdale@hotmail.com

Mike O’Brien, mjosierraclub@gmail.com

Judy Hatcher Judyh08@gmail.com

PARTICIPATE in democracy!

As the presidential primary election rages on around us, we are reminded of how important it is to participate in our democracy. When we don’t participate, we are handing our power to those who do. Our country and our environment are in peril. Please step up and exercise your rights by voting in the election of the national Board of the Sierra Club if you are a member.

UC Berkeley tries to dodge environmental impact review of its FEMA projects

On March 1, 2016, UC Berkeley published an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its Long Range Development Plan. They claim the Addendum is a substitute for an EIR for its portion of the FEMA Grant projects in Strawberry and Claremont Canyons. The Addendum is available HERE.

Public comments on the Addendum are accepted prior to 5:00 pm on Tuesday March 22, 2016. Send public comments to planning@berkeley.edu. The announcement of the Addendum says, “The University will consider whether to approve the proposed project, as described and analyzed in the addendum, as well as all comments received, in the spring of 2016.”

The project is unchanged

Our reading of this document is that it makes no changes in the project as described by the Environmental Impact Statement for the FEMA Grants (available HERE). Therefore, whatever comments you submitted on the EIS for the FEMA Grants are equally relevant to UC’s Addendum.

Frowning Ridge after 1,900 trees were removed from 11 acres in 2004

Additional justification for the project

We read only the “guts” of the Addendum, Sections I to V. We did not read sections regarding “Mitigating Monitoring Program” or “Biological Opinion Post Treatment Monitoring Plan.” Therefore, our comments here should not be considered comprehensive. However, we noted new justifications for the project that seem legally bogus in some cases and scientifically unsound in others.

UC Berkeley destroyed about 600 trees on Frowning Ridge in August 2014, before the Environmental Impact Statement was complete. FEMA has therefore refused to fund that portion of the grant.

Justification for carbon loss

The Addendum cites Cal-FIRE policy regarding quantifying carbon loss. Cal-FIRE states that although “There is not an approved forest carbon protocol for fuel reduction projects,” it suggests: “On an acre treated for fuels the carbon balance emitted from the treatment subtracted from the carbon retained multiplied by its reduced probability of loss [by fire] over the time of treatment is effective.” (Addendum page 18)

In other words, Cal-FIRE suggests that if the probability of fire is lowered by the project, carbon loss associated with such a theoretical fire can be subtracted from the carbon loss resulting from the destruction of trees by the project.

There are several problems with this justification for the carbon loss associated with the destruction of trees by the project:

The claim that the probability of fire will be lowered by the proposed project is entirely theoretical. Many highly qualified analysts of this project believe that the project will increase the probability of fire, not decrease it. For example, the US Forest Service said, “Removal of the eucalyptus overstory would reduce the amount of shading on surface fuels, increase the wind speeds to the forest floor, reduce the relative humidity at the forest floor, increase the fuel temperature, and reduce fuel moisture. These factors may increase the probability of ignition over current conditions.”
The law that defines and regulates environmental impact reviews is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), not Cal-FIRE policy. CEQA requires that environmental impact is defined by a comparison of existing conditions with post-project conditions. In other words, environmental impact is not measured by comparing some theoretical landscape in which a theoretical fire occurred with the post-treatment landscape. Therefore, the methods used by the Addendum to quantify carbon loss do not conform to the law (CEQA) that regulates environmental impact reviews.
The Cal-FIRE policy defines its fuels reduction program as follows: “vegetation treatment…will focus on selectively removing understory trees and brush to reduce fire hazards, improve tree growth, and increase forest health and resilience.” Therefore, the Cal-FIRE policy is not relevant to the project of UC Berkeley, which intends to destroy ALL non-native canopy trees and does not intend to remove understory brush and trees. Consequently, carbon loss will be significantly greater than the projects proposed by Cal-FIRE because carbon storage is greater in the large, mature trees that will be destroyed than carbon stored in the understory.

The science of carbon storage

We have heard many absurd statements about carbon storage in the many years we have defended our urban forest, such as “grass stores more carbon than trees.” But the explanations provided by UC’s Addendum that their project will not cause carbon loss enter the realm of science fiction:

UC claims, “The report concluded that the HCFRR project area currently stores an estimated 61,565 CO2e tons, the majority of which will remain stored in the project area in the form of post-treatment chips.” (Addendum, page 19)

When questioned by the consultant (URS Corporation) that was hired to complete the Environmental Impact Statement for the FEMA projects about the flammability of 2 feet of wood chip mulch in the project area, UCB responded that the chips would decay within 3 to 5 years (available HERE). Now UCB wishes us to believe that the wood chips will not decay, but will continue to store carbon forever. UCB contradicts itself or it is ignorant of the role of decomposition in the release of carbon stored during the life of the tree. As the wood decomposes, the carbon stored in the wood is released into the atmosphere:

“Two common tree disposal/utilization scenarios were modeled: 1) mulching and 2) landfill. Although no mulch decomposition studies could be found, studies on decomposition of tree roots and twigs reveal that 50% of the carbon is lost within the first 3 years. The remaining carbon is estimated to be lost within 20 years of mulching. Belowground biomass was modeled to decompose at the same rate as mulch regardless of how the aboveground biomass was disposed” (1)

UC claims, “Remaining native trees will continue to grow and sequester carbon at a rate of ~ 530 ton equivalents per decade therefore…this will increase to 10,560 in year l00.” (Addendum, page 19) In other words, UC assumes, without factual support and in defiance of reality that native trees will not burn for 100 years. UC also ignores the much larger amounts of carbon that the eucalypts would sequester if left in place because larger trees store more carbon than smaller, younger trees.
UC claims that a project area currently storing 61,565 CO₂ₑ tons will release 50,000 tons of CO₂ₑ if it burns. That is a gross over-estimate of the degree of carbon loss from trees in a fire. According to the National Park Service, 2/3^rd of the fuel load in a eucalyptus forest is in the trunks and only 1/3^rd in fine fuels (branches, twigs, leaves, etc). (2) The trunks of the trees do not burn in a fire, which is why they are left lying on the ground after they are destroyed. Therefore only 1/3^rd of the wood burns in the fire and only 1/3^rd of the carbon stored in the tree – approximately 20,000 tons – would be lost in the fire.

We are profoundly disappointed that a world-class scientific institution, such as UC, would make such scientifically unsound claims in defense of its destructive project in the East Bay Hills.

If you read UC’s Addendum and you see other issues that we don’t mention here, we hope you will post a comment to inform others of what you have found. This is a collaborative effort that we invite everyone to participate in. The Hills Conservation Network believes the strongest criticism of UC’s Addendum to the EIR for their Long Range Development Plan is that it is not a legally acceptable substitute for a complete EIR. You can read their arguments on their website. There is also a petition to UCB on their website.

Status of lawsuit of Hills Conservation Network

Meanwhile, the lawsuit of the Hills Conservation Network (HCN) against the UC Berkeley and City of Oakland portions of the FEMA grants projects in the East Bay Hills is moving forward. HCN Informed its supporters of the current status of its lawsuit on March 2, 2016:

“Hills Conservation Network took a momentous step yesterday with the filing of our opening brief for the lawsuit against FEMA, the City of Oakland, UC, EBRPD and Cal OES. Despite extensive efforts to find another solution we decided this was the only reasonable course of action open to us.

While this is a complex matter and we are told that one never knows how a NEPA suit will turn out, we believe we have a very strong case and hope that we will prevail and these forests will be saved. If you are interested you can read the brief at http://www.hillsconservationnetwork.org

Needless to say, this has been expensive. We have spent well over $10,000 on legal fees in the past 3 months and expect that it will take at least that much more to see this through the process, which is expected to result in a ruling in the summer.

Yesterday we were notified by UC that they intend to obtain CEQA clearance for their projects (which we hope will not be funded by FEMA) by issuing an addendum to their 2020 Long Range Development Plan. We are consulting with our lawyers on how best to respond to this and expect to propose a strategy to the public by Monday.

Again, your contributions are what makes all this possible. Were it not for your support these forests would have been long gone, but with your support we are able to prevent this environmental disaster from unfolding.

Please do what you can to support this important cause.” [You can make a donation to the lawsuit at http://www.hillsconservationnetwork.org]

Nowak, David, et.al., “Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Journal of Arboriculture 28(3) May 2002
http://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/management/upload/firemanagement_fireeducation_newsletter_eucalyptus.pdf

Mopping up the last load of Sierra Club propaganda

This is the last in a series of rebuttals to the Sierra Club’s “pre-buttal” to a letter from a Sierra Club member to members of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club about the Club’s support for deforestation and pesticide use on our public lands.

The truth about how much herbicide will be used

Sierra Club misrepresents volume of herbicide use: “If used, herbicide would be applied in minute quantities under strict environmental controls.” (1)

East Bay Regional Park District (EBPRD) informs us in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the FEMA project in the East Bay Hills that it intends to use 2,250 gallons of herbicide on its project acres to destroy non-native vegetation and prevent the trees they destroy from resprouting. You can see the detailed table of their intended herbicide use for yourself by looking at the DEIS. (2) On what planet would 2,250 gallons be called “minute quantities?”

EBRPD intentions were to “thin” non-native trees, not destroy them all. The Sierra Club has sued EBRPD to force them to destroy ALL non-native trees on their project acres. If the Sierra Club lawsuit is successful, EBRPD will be forced to destroy MORE trees than it wanted to destroy. That means it will be forced to use EVEN MORE herbicide than it intended to use, i.e., MORE than 2,250 gallons.

EBRPD is only ONE of the three public land owners that are participating in the FEMA project. The other two public land owners (UC Berkeley and City of Oakland) intend to destroy ALL non-native trees on their project acres. That means they will have to use EVEN MORE herbicide than EBRPD intended to use per acre of project area.

Sierra Club fabricates an argument we have not made: “Comparing this use of herbicide to the regular broadcast spraying of farmland elsewhere is a misrepresentation of fact.” (1)

This is a red herring, intended to confuse you with an argument that no one has made in opposition to this project. We have not likened pesticides used for these projects with agricultural use of pesticides. We aren’t being given a choice between agricultural pesticides and pesticides in our parks. The Sierra Club is asking us to accept additional pesticides in our parks on top of the agricultural pesticides we are already exposed to and over which we have no control. Since many pesticides accumulate in our bodies over our lifetimes, additional pesticide exposure results in greater toxicity and potential for damage to our health.

Horticultural fiction

Sierra Club fantasizes about the post-project landscape: “Concerns about not planting trees to replace those being removed miss the mark. Replanting is not necessary. (1)

Knowledgeable organizations do not share the Sierra Club’s fantasy that native trees will magically emerge from 2 feet of eucalyptus wood chip mulch to colonize the bare ground. Here is a partial list of the environmental consultants, governmental agencies, and environmental organizations that have refuted this fiction:

URS Corporation is the environmental consultant initially hired to complete the environment impact review of the FEMA projects. Their report said: “However, we question the assumption that the types of vegetation recolonizing the area would be native. Based on conditions observed during site visits in April 2009, current understory species such as English ivy, acacia, vinca sp., French broom, and Himalayan blackberry would likely be the first to recover and recolonize newly disturbed areas once the eucalyptus removal is complete.”
The US Forest Service evaluated the FEMA projects. This is their prediction of the post-project landscape: “a combination of native and non-native herbaceous and chaparral communities.”
The California Native Plant Society predicted the post-project landscape in its written public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 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.”

Trees were destroyed here by UC Berkeley over 10 years ago. The landscape is now non-native annual grasses. This is the typical outcome of tree removals on sunny hills without a water source.

Sierra Club and Claremont Canyon Conservancy (CCC) repeatedly refer to Site 29 on Claremont Blvd as a model for the FEMA projects. They fail to acknowledge that Site 29 is not representative of most FEMA project areas because CCC planted native trees (primarily redwoods) on Site 29 and the microclimate of Site 29 is not typical of other project areas. Site 29 is a riparian corridor—there is a creek running through it—so there is more available water than in most project areas. It is also protected from wind and sun by hills on north and south sides of the site. CCC has not made a commitment to plant native trees on 2,000 acres of the FEMA project areas and even if it did, it could not expect the same results in radically different microclimates such as sunny, windy ridge lines with no available water source.

Fundamentals of carbon storage

Sierra Club does not understand the fundamentals of carbon storage: “Carbon sequestering and erosion control will not be reduced by removing eucalyptus trees… Indeed, reducing the fire danger by removing the eucalyptus will do much to prevent the release of tons of carbon that occurs during a wildfire. [x]” (1)

Sierra Club continues with the fiction that non-native trees will burn while native trees will not. There is no evidence behind that story, and much evidence to the contrary. The numerous wildfires throughout California each summer demonstrate that native trees and shrubs are extremely flammable—easily ignited and burning vigorously once ignited. Native trees, shrubs, and grasses also release their stored carbon when they burn. The NSF article cited by the Sierra Club in support of its bogus statement does not suggest that prospectively destroying forests is a means of preventing carbon loss.

Destroying eucalyptus trees will release hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon stored in those trees. That’s a simple, inarguable fact. There are no plans to replace the eucalyptus with “native trees.” A small portion of the carbon released by eucalyptus destruction may be recaptured by the grasses and shrubs that will grow in place of the eucalyptus, but the net loss of stored carbon to the atmosphere from the eucalyptus is huge and permanent. Further, the eucalyptus would have continued to store even more carbon if left in place. That future carbon sequestration is also lost.

The DEIS for the FEMA-funded projects tries to minimize the loss of stored carbon from destruction of eucalyptus by quantifying only carbon loss from the destruction of tree trunks, ignoring leaves, branches, roots, understory, forest floor litter, and soil. But even they acknowledge, “…the planned growth of oak and bay woodlands and successional grassland containing shrub islands would not sequester as much carbon as the larger eucalyptus and pines and the denser coastal scrub that would be removed.” (DEIS 5.6-11)

Killing habitat needed by wildlife

Sierra Club does not know who lives in our urban landscapes: “Native landscapes provide habitat for much more diverse ecosystems.” (1)

There are many studies that find that our non-native landscape provides valuable habitat and no studies that say otherwise:

“Most California natives in cultivation are of no more butterfly interest than nonnatives, and most of the best butterfly flowers in our area are exotic.” (3)
“[T]he science does not support the supposition that native plantings are required for biodiversity…it is clear that an automatic preference for native trees when planning in urban areas is not a science-based policy.” (4)
“Three types of trees were used most frequently by roosting monarchs [in California]: eucalyptus (75% of the habitats primarily Eucalyptus globulus), pine (20% of the habitats primarily Pinus radiata), and cypress (16% of the habitats primarily Cupressus macrocarpa)” (5)
“In the first half of the 20^th century, the Anna’s Hummingbird bred only in northern Baja California and southern California. The planting of exotic flowering trees provided nectar and nesting sites, and allowed the hummingbird to greatly expand its breeding range…Anna’s Hummingbird populations increased by almost 2% per year between 1966 and 2010, according to the North American Breeding Bird Survey…Thanks to widespread backyard feeders and introduced trees such as eucalyptus, it now occurs in healthy numbers all the way to Vancouver, Canada.” (6)
Red-tailed hawk nesting in eucalyptus. Courtesy urbanwildness.org

“Fourteen of 27 nests in 1994 and 38 of 58 nests in 1995 were in exotic trees, predominantly eucalyptus. Nesting and fledging success were higher in exotic trees than in native trees in both years, owing in part to greater stability and protective cover. Most nest trees in upland areas were exotics, and even in riparian habitats, where tall native cottonwoods and sycamores were available, Red-shouldered Hawks selected eucalyptus more often than expected based on availability.” (7)
A study that compared species diversity and abundance of plants, invertebrates, amphibians, birds, and rodents in eucalyptus forest with oak-bay woodland in Berkeley, California reported this finding: “Species richness was nearly identical for understory plants, leaf-litter invertebrates, amphibians and birds; only rodents had significantly fewer species in eucalypt sites. Species diversity patterns…were qualitatively identical to those for species richness, except for leaf-litter invertebrates, which were significantly more diverse in eucalypt sites during the spring.” (8)

We could provide many more citations from studies that consistently find that our existing non-native landscape is essential to wildlife and that destroying it will be harmful to wildlife, particularly considering the enormous amount of herbicide that will be used. We ask this common-sense, rhetorical question, “How could destroying most of our landscape provide a more diverse ecosystem?” It defies logic.

Environmentalism gone awry

If the Sierra Club would replace a few of its lawyers with a few scientists, perhaps we would not be having this debate. Environmentalism has gone astray because it is not knowledgable about some basic scientific issues, such as carbon storage, the toxicity of herbicides, and the habitat needed by our wildlife. Climate change is the environmental issue of our time. If an environmental organization does not understand the fundamentals of carbon storage it is not capable of doing its job. The Sierra Club must improve its knowledge of the Bay Area environment or it will fade into irrelevance in the struggle to protect that environment.

(1) http://sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/hillsfacts

(2) See Table 2.1 in Appendix F: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1416861356241-0d76d1d9da1fa83521e82acf903ec866/Final%20EIS%20Appendices%20A-F_508.pdf

(3) Arthur Shapiro, Field Guide to Butterflies of the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento Valley Regions, University of California Press, 2007

(4) Linda Chalker-Scott, “Nonnative, Noninvasive Woody Species Can Enhance Urban Landscape Biodiversity,” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 2015, 41(4): 173-186

(5) Dennis Frey and Andrew Schaffner, “Spatial and Temporal Pattern of Monarch Overwintering Abundance in Western North America,” in The Monarch Butterfly Biology and Conservation, Cornell University Press, 2004.

(6) Cornell Ornithology Laboratory https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/annas_hummingbird/id

(7) Stephen Rottenborn, “Nest-Site selection and reproductive success of urban red-shouldered hawks in Central California,” J. Raptor Research, 34(1):18-25

(8) Dov Sax, “Equal diversity in disparate species assemblages: a comparison of native and exotic woodlands in California,” Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11, 49-52, 2002.

Who supports the Sierra Club agenda?

John Muir is the founder of the Sierra Club. He would disgusted by the Club's advocacy for deforestation. He planted eucalyptus trees on his property in Martinez. He was as fond of eucalyptus as those who fight for their preservation. — John Muir is the founder of the Sierra Club. He would be disgusted by the Club’s advocacy for deforestation. He planted eucalyptus trees on his property in Martinez. He was as fond of eucalyptus as those who fight for their preservation today.

In this post we continue to deconstruct the Sierra Club’s “pre-buttal” to the letter from a Sierra Club member to fellow members. We will examine the following claim that other environmental organizations support the Sierra Club’s agenda to destroy all non-native trees on 2,000 acres of public land in the East Bay Hills, and to use pesticides to do it:

“Members should know that this strategy also has the support of many fire experts and other environmental organizations, including the Golden Gate Audubon Society, the California Native Plant Society, and the Claremont Canyon Conservancy.” (1)

In 2009, Sierra Club, Golden Gate Audubon Society, and the California Native Plant Society co-signed an “Environmental Green Paper” entitled “Managing the East Bay Hills Wildland/Urban Interface to Preserve Native Habitat and Reduce the Risk of Catastrophic Fire.” This suggests that at that point in time, these three organizations were in agreement about those issues.

However, by the time the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the FEMA projects that will implement that policy was published in 2013, their public comments on the DEIS suggest that their opinions diverged significantly. Here are some of the comments they made that suggest substantial disagreement with the planned project.

California Native Plant Society predicts the result of FEMA projects

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) public comment on the DEIS (excerpt):

“The FEMA grants require monitoring and weed maintenance for years to come. Yet the FEMA grants do not supply funding for any of the follow up weed abatement. The East Bay Regional Park District, City of Oakland, and UC Berkeley have great trouble keeping up with acres of weedy species now in their stewardship purview. There just isn’t money available for comprehensive management of weedy invasives. This is demonstrated by the many acres of weedy ‘fuels managed’ areas, including fire roads. 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?” (2)

The rhetorical question asked by CNPS suggests that they share our skepticism about the outcome of the FEMA projects. The project is not providing any funding for planting native plants or maintaining them in the long run. CNPS seems to agree with us that the likely outcome of this project will be non-native annual grasses.

The CNPS comment also seems to share our opinion that the annual grasses that are the likely colonizers of the bare ground will be a fire hazard: “…exotic annual grassland, known for drying out the top layer of soil, and extending the fire season with dried out flashy surface fuel that can act like a fuse to ignite other areas.” (2)

The CNPS prediction of the landscape resulting from the FEMA grants is in stark contrast to the rosy prediction of the Sierra Club. The Club claims that native plants will magically emerge from the bare ground after non-native plants and trees are destroyed, without being planted.

Audubon Society “does not support” the FEMA project

Audubon Society’s public comment on the FEMA DEIS identifies many of the same issues that have been raised by critics of the project:

“The proposed tree removals may lead to colonization by broom or other invasive plants with little value to native birds and wildlife, unless native plants are reintroduced. Although the amount of herbicide to be used on each tree is rather small, the total amount to be used by the project is very large. We believe that alternative methods to prevent resprouting should be used near water and perhaps in other specific circumstances…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.” (3)

In fact, the Audubon Society states explicitly that it does not support the plan as proposed by the DEIS (emphasis added):

“In spite of our approval of the general concept of the plan, the Golden Gate Audubon Society does not support this plan as drafted for the following reasons:

1) The plan calls for the removal of both non-native and native trees and brush with no plans to replant cleared areas with native vegetation;

2) The plan would use herbicides indiscriminately, rather than relying on more benign control of re-sprouting where herbicides are contra-indicated.” (3)

Clearly, the Audubon Society does not agree with the Sierra Club about the FEMA projects. The Audubon Society agrees with the critics of this project that dangerous amounts of herbicide will be used and the outcome of the project will not be a landscape of native plants. While the Sierra Club keeps telling us that “minimal amounts of herbicide will be used,” the Audubon Society has done its homework and can see that huge amounts of herbicide will be used.

Who supports the Sierra Club’s position on the FEMA grants?

The California Native Plant Society and the Audubon Society do not agree with the Sierra Club about the FEMA projects. The fact that they did not join the Sierra Club’s lawsuit demanding 100% eradication of non-native trees in the project acres is another indication that they do not share the Club’s opinion of the projects.

Update: Although CNPS did not join the Sierra Club lawsuit against FEMA, it has indicated its support for the suit on its website: “The East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society strongly supports the litigation action by SPRAWLDEF and the Sierra Club, against FEMA’s surprising Record of Decision regarding fuels management in the East Bay Hills.”

Despite the fact that CNPS understands that the resulting landscape will be predominantly highly flammable non-native annual grasses, it apparently wants all non-native trees to be destroyed. We don’t understand why CNPS was surprised by the final version of the Environmental Impact Statement, since it was virtually unchanged from the draft on which they submitted a written public comment.

We learned of CNPS’s support for the Sierra Club lawsuit from a member of the Club’s leadership. Although this information doesn’t literally contradict what we have reported, we post it here in the interests of full disclosure.

Although the Claremont Canyon Conservancy agrees with the Sierra Club about the FEMA projects, we note that they did not join the Club’s lawsuit either. The only organization that joined the Sierra Club lawsuit is SPRAWLDEF (Sustainability, Parks, Recycling, and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund). (4) SPRAWLDEF (5) is a non-profit organization created and run by Norman LaForce, the Sierra Club officer who claims to be one of the primary authors of the FEMA projects (6). SPAWLDEF has sued other public agencies, including the East Bay Regional Park District.

Update: SPRAWLDEF’s tax return for 2011 reports $250,000 of income for legal settlements from environmental lawsuits. The tax return is signed by Norman LaForce.

The role of lawsuits in the funding of environmental organizations

Lawsuits against the various governmental agencies have become an important source of revenue for environmental organizations. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has mastered this strategy. The New York Times reports (7) that CBD had filed 700 lawsuits when the article was published in March 2010, and they were successful in those suits 93% of the time, according to CBD. Those suits forced the government to list 350 endangered species and designate 120 million acres of critical habitat for their recovery. Revenue generated for CBD by these suits was $1.4 million in 2008, compared with $7.6 million from contributions and grants.

Sharp Park, Pacifica, CA. Photo by Erica Reder, SF Public Press

Brent Plater is a former CBD lawyer who created a non-profit in San Francisco, Wild Equity Institute. He has sued San Francisco several times about Sharp Park, where he believes that closing the golf course would benefit the endangered red-legged frog. He has not succeeded in making that case to our judiciary, losing every case. Despite losing, he and his collaborators were awarded $385,809 for “legal expenses” by the court, according to the San Francisco Chronicle: “It turns out that Plater and his organization can win by losing. Take the ruling in U.S. District Court on July 1, 2013, which, by any measure, rates as a legal smackdown of the institute. As Judge Susan Illston said in her ruling, ‘plaintiffs did not prevail on a single substantive motion before the Court.’” (8) So, even when they lose, they can walk away with a sizeable chunk of change. To be clear, it is the taxpayers of San Francisco who paid Wild Equity for suing the City of San Francisco.

So, ponder for a minute the interesting relationship between SPRAWLDEF and the Sierra Club. The person who connects them is Norman LaForce, who is both a lawyer and an officer in the Sierra Club. If these organizations prevail in their lawsuit against FEMA, will Norman LaForce share in the spoils? One wonders.

(1) http://sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/hillsfacts

(2) https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/100411. FEMA DEIS, Appendix R, Part 1, page 681

(3) https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/100411. FEMA DEIS, Appendix R, Part 5, page 3834

(4) Sierra Club and SPRAWLDEF lawsuit against FEMA available HERE: Sierra Club lawsuit against FEMA projects

(5) http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Sustainability,-Park,-Recycling,-and-Wildlife-Legal-Defense-Fund-(sprawldef)-510-526-4362

(6) https://milliontrees.me/2015/11/27/public-opposition-to-pesticide-use-in-our-public-parks/

(7) http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/30/30greenwire-brazen-environmental-upstart-brings-legal-musc-82242.html?pagewanted=all

(8) http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Nevius-6378333.php

The court’s award of legal expenses is available here: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv00958/239217/189. The award seems to have been made in recognition of the fact that the lawsuit forced the Recreation and Park Department to apply for a permit for park maintenance that results in an “incidental take” of red-legged frog eggs.